evolution of qualitative research

7/30/2019 Evolution of Qualitative Research

1/11

Conversations: Evolution of Qualitative Research Methodology: Looking beyond Defense toPossibilitiesAuthor(s): LeAnn G. Putney, Judith L. Green, Carol N. Dixon, Gregory J. KellySource: Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul. - Aug. - Sep., 1999), pp. 368-377Published by: International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/748068

Accessed: 07/12/2009 17:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Reading Research Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/748068?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=irahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/748068?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/11

I

LeAnn G. PutneyUniversityof Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

JudithL. GreenCarolN. DixonGregoryJ. KellyUniversityof California, Santa Barbara, USA

Reading Research QuarterlyVol. 34, No. 3July/August/September 1999

?1999 InternationalReading Association(pp. 368-377

Evolution o f qualitativeesearchmethodology:ooking beyond defenset o possibilities

Conversations column, the Editors asked us toprovide a dialogue about the evolution of quali-tative research methodology. When we initiatedthe dialogue, we considered putting together a historicaloverview, then moving on to what we envisioned quali-tative educational research becoming in the future. Aswe continued, we found that the political realm sur-

rounding our dialogue was changing the direction,scope, and content of our discussion, leading to a reflex-ive revisioning not unlike the realities of the research weundertake.

We still intend to examine where qualitativere-search may be headed in light of where it has been, butwith the understanding thatwe are facing some criticalpolitical decisions that may very well change how quali-tative research is viewed by the public. We will also cau-tion the reader that our view of qualitativeresearch isone situated historicallyand theoretically.Therefore, wewill not presume to speak for all of qualitativeresearchbut will speak from our disciplinaryand theoretical posi-tions about methodological issues facing qualitativere-searchers in education.

Constructing a ConversationIn this Conversation,we bring together four educa-tional researcherswith differentexpertise and back-

groundswho havedevelopeda commonframeworkorapproaching ualitativeesearch.Thefirstmemberofthis Conversations LeAnnPutney romthe University fNevada,LasVegas,USA,a research ducator oncernedwithteaching-learningrocesses,who bringsa sociocul-turaland sociohistorical erspectiveo herresearch ndthisdialogue.The otherthree membersareJudithGreenCarolDixon,andGregKelly rom he University fCalifornia,antaBarbara,USA. udithand Carolare liter-acy educatorsand cofoundersof the SantaBarbaraClassroomDiscourseGroupandbringan ethnographicandsociolinguistic erspectiveo thisConversation.Greg,a scienceeducator,bringsa philosophyof science(epistemological) erspectiveo the dialogue.Allhaveengagedin qualitativeesearch,ndividuallynd collec-tively.The collaborativeffortof thisConversations justone exampleof the networking nd extensionof a re-searchcommunityhat eadsto jointpublications s wellas new ways of thinkingabout nterestshatwe have incommon.The commonframeworkwe havedevelopedisone that s concernedwithunderstandingwhatourepis-temological tancepermitsus to examineas well as howit informs nd limitsourpointof view. This concernhasalso led us to explorehow all researchprogramshapethe questions hatcan be asked,the methods hatareused,the theoreticalrameworkshatguidethe researchandexplanatory hasesof suchprojects whatwe call

368


3/11

Evolution of qualitative research methodology 369

orienting and explanatory theories), and the knowledgethat can be constructed using these approaches. In thisConversationwe share with you some of the issues thatwe have struggled with as we have sought ways of en-gaging in qualitativeresearch, teaching qualitativere-search approaches, and publishing the findings from ourindividual and collective work.This particularConversationbegan as a result of akeynote talk, "FromRoots to Renaissance: The PathTraveled by QualitativeResearchers," hatJudith, Carol,and Greg prepared for the 1998 Conference onQualitativeResearch in Education in Athens, Georgia. Intheir keynote, they highlighted a historical look at quali-tative research, in terms of methodology and theoreticalperspective, as well as future expectations for qualitativeresearchers. LeAnninitiated a continuation of this dia-logue by outlining a possible direction for our collectivevoice.Our original intent was to send this outline backand forth over e-mail, each adding to it and sending itaround for the others to review and edit. However, wefound that the distance between us and the round-robinapproach was too disjointed and did not allow the syn-ergy of ideas that could be achieved through face-to-face, in-the-moment dialogue.We decided to convene in Santa Barbaraby gather-ing together some notes, a laptop computer, a taperecorder,some good cookies, and freshlybrewed coffeeto get this Conversationrolling. Soon we were moving to-gether in person where the e-mail dialogue justcould nottake us. The document began to take shape as we movedback and forth from the philosophy of science to the his-toricalunderpinnings thatwe wanted to make visible.This meeting gave us the framework for what wasto occur next and served as a springboard for subse-quent sessions that could now take place using phoneand e-mail to continue the Conversation.We continuedsending the edited pieces back and forth to all involved.In this way, the dialogue became a blending of voices,with the different perspectives still an integral part of acollective voice as represented in the range of citationsprovided.Through this and previous dialogues we havestretched our understandings of what it means to do re-search, what theoretical perspectives contribute to andguide our work, and how the research perspectives weselect shape what we can do, say, and know-or in oth-er words, what philosopher Kenneth Strike(1974, p.103) called "theexpressive potential"of our research.Strikeintroduced this argument more than 2 decadesago in an important yet often overlooked article, "OntheExpressive Potential of Behaviorist Language."His ab-stractcaptured his perspective, treatingperipheralism

and associationism as the two central doctrines. He ar-gues that these doctrines

place semanticandsyntactical onstraints n acceptablelanguage or the discussionof humanbeings,and assessthe consequencesof these doctrines orthe description feducational oals and methods.It is shown thatperipheralismand associationism rephilosophicaldoctrines n-herited romBritishEmpiricism,nd thatthey aremoreappropriatelyreatedas partof the philosophyof psy-chology,rather hanas testableempirical laims.It is ar-gued thatthe constraintshat hisphilosophyplaceson alanguagerender t incapableof expressing ome mean-ingfuleducational oals,ruleout some meaningful mpiricalhypotheses,and undermine ome important thicaldistinctions.p. 103)We build on the construct of expressive potentialof research programsto explore the history of qualitative

research in education in order to consider where wehave been, where we are currently,and to suggestwhere the future might take us. We intend to show thatqualitative researchers(a) have achieved a degree ofsuccess in the past 2 to 3 decades; (b) are, like other ed-ucational researchers,facing a crisis of confidence at thepublic and policy levels; and (c) have a solid foundationto address this crisis and thus expand and enhance theexpressive potential of the language(s) to guide researchprograms from various qualitativetraditions.

The historical journeyOne way to understand the history of qualitativeresearch, and how a multivocal community of practicehas developed, is through the work of a philosopher ofscience, Helen Longino (1993). She argued that

Scientificknowledge...isan outcome of the criticaldia-logue in whichindividuals ndgroups holdingdifferentpointsof view engagewitheach other.It is constructednot by individuals utby an interactive ialogiccommu-nity.A community's racticeof inquirys productiveofknowledgeto the extent that t facilitates ransformativecriticism.p. 112)To guide this criticaldialogue in the development

of disciplinary knowledge (including methodologicalperspectives within a discipline), Longino proposed fourcriteria as necessary to achieve the "transformative i-mension of criticaldiscourse"(p. 112). The communityof practice must be characterizedby:1. Publicly ecognized orums or the critiqueof evidenceof methods,andof assumptions ndreasoning.2. A toleranceof dissent,and a changeof beliefs and the-oriesover time in responseto the criticaldiscourse ak-ing placewithin t.


4/11

370 READINGRESEARCHQUARTERLYJuly/August/September 1999 34/3

3. Publicly ecognized tandards y reference o whichtheories, ypotheses,ndobservationalracticesreevaluatedandby appealto whichcriticism s made rel-evant othegoalsof theinquiringommunity.4. Equality f intellectual uthority, y developingcon-sensus,not astheresult f theexercise fpoliticalreconomic oweror oftheexclusion fdissenting er-spectives;tmustbe theresult fcriticalialoguenwhichall relevanterspectivesrerepresented.

We view the currentperspectives onstituting ual-itativeresearchas an outcome of the criticaldialoguesthathaveoccurredoverthe past3 decades,both withinthe community f practiceassociatedwithqualitativee-search raditions ndwithscholars romotherresearchtraditions.Theproductive ndtransformativeatureofthe criticaldialogueswillbecomeevidentas we examinethe directionof qualitativeesearch neducation.The struggle for recognition: Phase 1Theearliestphaseof the development f qualitativetraditionswithineducation an be characterizeds astruggle orrecognitionorthevalue of qualitativee-search.Thisphasesaw two setsof concerns.Thefirstwas raisedby educationalesearchersroundedn coredisciplinese.g., anthropology,ociology,and socialpsy-chology)thatservedas the foundation orethnographicdirections n qualitativeesearch n education.Thesec-ondwas initiated y thosedrawingdistinctions etweenqualitativemethodsanddominantparadigms f thattime.Inthe earliestpartof thisphase,educational e-searchers ften tookup the labels of qualitativeradi-tionswithoutunderstandinghe historical roundingasnotedby Rist.Forexample, n an article n theEducationalResearcher, ist 1980)argued hatthosewho hadpreviously ngagedin observationalesearchoftentook up the termethnographys the label fortheirworkwithout akingup the theoreticalrameworkssso-ciatedwithethnography r understandinghe purposeof ethnographyi.e., the studyof culture).

This issue was raised across the next 2 decades byothers grounded in anthropology and other social sci-ence traditions(e.g., Green &Wallat, 1981; Heath, 1982;Jacob, 1987, 1988;Wolcott, 1992). The criticaldiscoursein this period was one of critiquethat served to makevisible the challenges facing educational researcherswhowere adopting and adapting methodologies that hadoriginated in other disciplines and fields of study.The second concern was addressed through thepurposeful use of dichotomies as a tool to initiate a criti-cal discourse about the distinctions between qualitativemethods and other paradigms. Dichotomies posed in-cluded qualitative-quantitative,naturalist-positivist, ndinterpretive-positivistic-criticalpproaches (see, e.g.,Guba, 1990; Lancy, 1993; LeCompte& Preissle, 1993;Lincoln& Guba, 1985). We present two examples drawnfrom work in the United States (Lincoln& Guba, 1985)and in Great Britain(Halfpenny, 1979, also cited inBurgess, 1984) to illustratethe contrastive and con-tentious nature of these dichotomies. The first is the nat-uralist-positivistdichotomy found in the initialwork ofLincoln and Guba (1985) as presented in Figure 1.The second example comes from the work ofHalfpenny (1979, also cited in Burgess, 1984) and is rep-resented in the comparison of sociological terms ofFigure 2.

By drawing attention to these epistemological dif-ferences, early qualitativeresearcherssought to openspace for new languages, approaches, and perspectives,thus challenging the dominant paradigms.Through thesechallenges, researchers identified a range of questionsand issues that could, and could not be addressed byprevious paradigms;voices that could, and could not beheard; and educational processes and practices thatcould, and could not be described, interpreted,and artic-ulated. In this way, they made visible the expressive po-tential of the different research methods and traditionsand how the selective nature of those traditionslimited

Figure 1 The naturalist-positivistdichotomyAxioms about Positivistparadigm NaturalistparadigmThe nature of reality Realityis single, tangible, and fragmentable Realities are multiple, constructed, and holisticThe relationshipof knower to the known Knower and known are independent, a dualism Knower and known are interactive,inseparableThe possibility of generalization Time- and context-free generalizations(nomo- Only time- and context-bound workingthetic statements) are possible hypotheses (idiographicstatements)are possibleThe possibility of causal linkages There are real causes, temporallyprecedent to or All entities are in a state of mutual simultaneoussimultaneous with their effects shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguishcauses from effectsThe role of values Inquiryis value free Inquiryis value bound


5/11


the basis for knowledge construction within the educa-tional research community (Strike, 1974; 1989).One inadvertentconsequence of this early phaseand its dichotomies was a focus on methodology, withless attention to theory-method relationships.Birdwhistell(1977) captured the problematic nature of this separation:I have come to the conclusion hat the past twenty-fiveyearshave seen a separation f theory rommethodsofresearchprocedure.Thistendencybecomesmanifest nthe choice and analysisof importof problem, n the loca-tionof observationalite, in the preliminarysolationofdata, n the developmentof relevant, onsistentand ex-plicittechniquesof observation,n the recordingandstor-age of data, n the orientation f rulesof evidence, and,finally, n the methodsof data and evidence assessmentandpresentationhatpermitand assist n ordering eex-amination, ndresearch. pp. 104-105)

This recognition of the separation of theory-method relationships and the need to examine the ex-pressive potential of each research tradition with itsmethodology marked the onset of the second phase ofthe criticaldialogues. The transformationof the criticaldialogues can be seen in the publication of researchhandbooks and books and journal issues on comparativemethods across disciplines within education.Critical dialogues on theory-method relationships:Phase 2

We begin the discussion of the directions in thisphase by examining the role of handbooks. These hand-books are of two types. One explores issues of educa-tional research by focusing on general issues ofcurriculum(Jackson, 1992) or teaching (Gage, 1963;Travers, 1973; Wittrock, 1986). The other type examinesmethodological issues of teaching and learning in partic-ular disciplines--e.g., reading (Pearson, Kamil,Barr,&Mosenthal, 1991), language arts (Flood, Heath, & Lapp,1997; Flood, Jensen, Lapp, & Squire, 1991), and science(Gabel, 1994). These handbooks generally include sec-tions on methodology and paradigms for research aswell as syntheses of research (e.g., mathematics, science,arts, and reading), thus providing a basis for potentiallyexploring theory-method relationships.For example, in the Handbook of Research onTeaching (3rd ed., Wittrock,1986), there was a series ofmethodological and comparative chapters:Linn(1986) on"QuantitativeMethods in Research on Teaching,"Erickson(1986) on "QualitativeMethods in Research onTeaching,"and Evertson and Green (1986) on"Observationas Inquiryand Method."These chaptersshow how methodological decisions are framedby par-ticular theoretical orientationsthat, in turn, have particu-

Figure 2 The quantitative-qualitativedichotomy ofHalfpenny (1979)Quantitative Qualitativehard softdry wetfixed flexible/fluidabstract groundedexplanatory descriptive/exploratoryscientific pre-scientificobjective subjectivedeductive inductivehypothesis testing speculative/illustrativevalue free politicalrigorous non-rigorousnomothetic idiographicatomistic holisticpositivist interpretivistimposes sociological theory exposes actors'meaningsempiricist/behaviorist phenomenologicaluniversalistic relativisticsurvey case studybad goodgood bad

lar implicationsfor how the phenomena can be ob-served, recorded, described, interpreted,and explained.Similarly, he newest handbook for literacy educa-tors (Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997) includes a broad rangeof theories and approaches. As a comparative reading ofthe handbooks makes visible, the choice to engage in re-search from one perspective precludes asking particularquestions, masks particulardimensions of the complexworld of educational processes and practices, and consti-tutes a situated look at the phenomena of interest, re-gardless of whether qualitativeor quantitativemethodsare used.In contrast, other handbooks focused on researchmethods, both within and outside the field of educa-tion-for example, TheHandbook of QualitativeResearch in Education (LeCompte,Millroy,& Preissle,1992), and TheHandbook of Qualitative Research(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). These handbooks sought tointroduce new paradigms and to make visible a range ofperspectives and theory-method relationships.One way that we view these handbooks is thatthey provide a potential public forum for seeing differ-ences among perspectives and approaches. While thisforum makes available the diversity of perspectives, itdoes not necessarily lead to the criticaldiscourse calledfor by Longino (1993). One notable exception is thechapter by Erickson (1986) in which he explicitly con-structs a comparative argument to show why a new lan-guage and its associated approach are needed.


6/11

372 READING RESEARCHQUARTERLYJuly/August/September 1999 34/3

Among the changes suggested by Ericksonandothers (e.g., Bogden & Biklen, 1992; Eisner, 1991;Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; LeCompte& Preissle,1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was a focus on the emic, orinsider, point of view. This call intersectswith concernsin teacher education for exploring reflective practice andtheory in use (Clandinin& Connelly, 1988; Schon, 1984).The effect of these calls and volumes was to open toquestion who counts as researcherand what counts asresearch when researcherscount (or not).Erickson's(1986) argument pointed to howchanges in intellectual lineage, theoretical commitments,and conceptualization of phenomena led to what Rorty(1989) called new vocabularies or language games. Rortycaptured the value of new languages, as well as theproblematic nature of trying to talk across languages,when he argued for a philosophy that "does not workpiece by piece, analyzing concept afterconcept, or test-ing thesis afterthesis" (p. 9). Rather,he argues that itworks holistically and pragmaticallyby asking the readerto try thinking in a new and differentway, or morespecifically, to "'try o ignore the apparently futile tradi-tional questions by substitutingthe following new andpossibly interesting questions.' It does not pretend tohave better candidates for doing the same old thing,which we did when we spoke in the old way. Rather tsuggests that we might want to stop doing those thingsand do something else. But it does not argue for thissuggestion on the basis of antecedent criteriacommon tothe old and the new language games. For just insofar asthe new language really is new, there will be no suchcriteria" p. 9).Rorty'sargument suggested that considerations ofnew and possibly interesting questions, in lieu of futiletraditionalquestions, leads researchersto consider thepragmaticvalue of various vocabularies and the waysthese describe and explain phenomena. Erickson's cri-tique of positivist research approaches and his argumentfor a new perspective, one grounded in interpretivetra-ditions, illustratewhy the new cannot be written in thelanguage of the old. If we now bring these argumentstogether with the concept of expressive potential, we es-tablish a basis for engaging in the critical discoursecalled for by Longino (1993). Such a discourse will needto examine what each approach offers, what questionseach addresses, and what purpose(s) each seeks toachieve.Critiques of what counts as qualitative research:Phase 3

We have come to understand that at this phase ofthe historicaljourney, a criticaldiscourse related to quali-tative methodology has emerged, raising questions of

what counts as qualitativeresearch and who counts asqualitativeresearchers. In this section, we present twosources from this emerging critical discourse that led usto pose these questions. Two articles,each presenting aparticularpoint of view on how to define qualitativere-search and who counts as qualitativeresearchers, formthe center of this discussion-Jacob (1987; 1988) andWolcott (1992).

Jacob, in articlespublished in the ReviewofEducational Research(1987) and the EducationalResearcher(1988), defined qualitative in terms of thecore traditions hat gave rise to differentapproaches andtheoretical perspectives: human ethnology, ecologicalpsychology, holistic ethnography, cognitive anthropolo-gy, ethnography of communication, and symbolic interac-tionism. These articles,when they were published, gaverise to a range of criticaldiscourses and point-counter-point discussions across national boundaries (Atkinson,Delamont, & Hammersley, 1988;Buchmann & Floden,1989;Jacob, 1989;Lincoln,1989). These dialogues chal-lenged her taxonomy, arguing that it was not inclusive ofthe full range of qualitativeperspectives, particularlyonesused by researchers n the U.K. While we find her articleshelpful, in that they frame one way of viewing a complexand diffuse field, we view any characterizationor taxono-my as excluding particularperspectives and as being lo-cated in a particularhistoricalperiod.Wolcott (1992) in TheHandbook of QualitativeResearch in Education attempted to avoid such charac-terization of perspectives by exploring the interrelated-ness among qualitativeapproaches by examiningstrategies across disciplines and perspectives. Throughthe analogy of a many-branched tree, Wolcott provideda visual means to conceptualize the common rootsamong the many diverse qualitativestrategies.In his representation,Wolcott (1992) proposed fourdifferent sets of qualitativestrategies (i.e., archival,inter-view, nonparticipantobservation, and participantobser-vation), each forming a branch of a tree that he calledqualitativeinquiry. In this way, Wolcott was able tomove the criticaldialogue beyond categorical divisionsto an exploration of commonalities and differencesamong a broad range of qualitativeapproaches.

These critiques, as well as comparative reviews(e.g., Miles & Huberman, 1994;Tesch, 1990), made visi-ble the complexity contained in the label qualitativere-search. This complexity does not appear to be wellunderstood outside the communities constituting qualita-tive research, thus contributingin part to the currentcri-sis of confidence facing those engaged in this enterprise.However, for those within the communityof qualita-tive researchers, hese critiqueshave been highly produc-tive in the spiritof Longino's arguments(1993). They are


7/11


productive in thatthey provide a way for such researchersto locate themselves and others in a complex nexus of in-terconnected, yet diffuse, set of communities engaged ineducational research.They are also productive in thatthey make visible the expressive potential of differentap-proaches and strategies,the languages entailed by the var-ious traditions,and the ranges of questions that can andcannot be posed and addressed by each.Toward an alternative critical discourse: Phase 4

During the period of critique described above, asecond body of work exploring multiple perspectives oncommon data, or on comparing different perspectives toa common problem, also developed. This body of workprovided a way of seeing what the differences in per-spective or approach make to our understanding of edu-cational phenomena. We identified a range of books andjournal articles in which authors explicitly explored theexpressive potential of different perspectives, both with-in qualitativetraditions and across multiple theoreticalperspectives.We were able to identify a range of illustrativevol-umes and articles dedicated to examining differingpoints of view or theoretical orientations. These volumesexamined different perspectives and theoretical traditionsgrounding literacy research (Beach, Green, Kamil,&Shanahan, 1992), framing discourse analysis of commonclassroom data sets (e.g., Green & Harker,1988;Koschmann, in press; van Dijk, 1985), exploring differenttraditions for the study of narrative(e.g., Casey, 1995;Cortazzi, 1993; Godmundsdottir, 1997; Hatch &Wisniewski, 1995; Kryatzis& Green, 1997), examiningways different theoretical traditionsshape the analysis ofconceptual change in science teaching contexts (e.g.,Guzzetti & Hynd, 1998), exploring current and emergingtheoretical frameworks for research on classroom learn-ing (Marshall, 1992; 1996), and comparing theories ofchild development (Thomas, 1979).These volumes provide illustrations of how the ex-pressive potential of differing traditions can be explored,and the value of comparative work in making this visi-ble. In this section, we present two approaches to com-parativework on methodology to illustrate how acomparative approach brings clarityto this complex is-sue by making visible the expressive potential of each.These articles show how comparative approaches pro-vide ways of understanding how choices among per-spectives lead to particularclaims and thus to particularknowledge construction.The articles in Green and Harker(1988) describedapproaches to discourse analysis used to analyze com-mon data sets. Each section of the book forms a set ofplanned contrasts. In the firstsection, three different dis-

course traditions were contrasted with the use of a singledata set: sociolinguistic (Green, Weade, & Graham,1988), semantic/propositional analysis (Harker, 1988),and literary/storygrammaranalysis (Golden, 1988). Inthe second section, differing sociolinguistic approachesto questioning were explored from a single data set(Morine-Dershimer,1988a, 1988b; Ramirez,1988; Shuy,1988; Tenenberg, 1988).In the final section, individual authors or teams ofauthors used multiple perspectives to examine the sameevent (Bloome & Theodorou, 1988; Marshall&Weinstein, 1988; Rentel, 1988;Wallat& Piazza, 1988).This volume showed how expressive potential is influ-enced by the particular heoretical framework selected,even within a tradition(e.g., sociolinguistics), as well asacross traditions(e.g., sociolinguistic, literary,and se-mantic analyses). These chapters show how different dis-ciplines shape particularquestions, approaches,literature,and claims that, in turn, limitwhat knowledgeabout educational processes and practices (e.g., storyreading, questioning, writing, spelling, and discussingcontent across disciplines) can be constructed througheach discipline and related approaches.In his monograph on NarrativeAnalysis, Cortazzi(1993) reviewed different theoretical and methodologicalperspectives on narrative,exploring what each potential-ly contributes to the study of teacher narratives.He ex-amined narrativeas it has been used in the study ofteaching as well as models of narrative across disciplinesoutside of education: anthropology, literarytheory, psy-chology, sociology, and sociolinguistics. He concludedthe monograph with a description of how he analyzedthe narrativesof primaryteachers in a school lunchroom. Each chapter on models and approaches de-scribed the questions that can be addressed, the prob-lems of interest, the theoretical literature,and theconstructs used and provided examples of the differenttypes of analyses and the models of narrativeunderlyingor constituted by each. He also drew implications andapplications of each tradition or approach for the use ofthe methods and theories within education, thus makingvisible the expressive potential of these traditionsandtheir related approaches.

These volumes are illustrativeof two growing areasof qualitativeresearch, not all-inclusive. The citationsprovided at the beginning of this section point to otherswho contribute to our understanding of the expressivepotential of differences within qualitative traditions,or inWolcott's sense, strategies. Further,we see these vol-umes as providing a model that goes beyond mere cri-tique of categories.Building on the arguments about the nature of aresearch language by Rorty(1989) and Strike(1974), this


8/11

374 READING RESEARCHQUARTERLY July/August/September 1999 34/3

model can move us to and frame the ongoing criticaldiscourse for which Longino (1993) called. By examiningwhat each traditionmakes visible and what it contributesto our understanding of educational phenomena, we laya foundation for assessing its appropriateness for thequestion of concern and its contribution to knowledgeconstruction;that is to say, for addressing the criteriaforqualitativeresearch and other forms of educational re-search as proposed by Howe & Eisenhart(1990). One ofthe key dimensions of the criteriathey proposed wasthat an articlemust be assessed within the tradition usedby the authors.The review-within-disciplines approachthey proposed had been adopted by journals in recentyears across disciplines (e.g., counseling and clinical psy-chology and literacy) as well as in selection of reviewersfor national programs (e.g., American EducationalResearchAssociation, National Research Council, andInternationalReading Association).

On what qualitative research con-tributes: Some key pointsWhile these debates have been ongoing, qualitativeresearch has made contributions to knowledge about ed-ucational processes, particularly n the area of literacy.A

description of the full range of the contributions of quali-tative research is beyond the scope of this Conversation.However, to illustratethe kinds of contributions thatqualitativeresearch has made to our understanding of lit-eracy, we present several findings that have influencedour own work on the relationships of discourse, knowl-edge construction, and literatepractices within andacross disciplines.Qualitativeresearch approaches have enabled us toexplore and understand systematicallyand theoreticallythe local and situated nature of classroom life and howthat life is consequential for particularmembers orgroups. Specifically, qualitativeapproaches have provid-ed ways of transcribingand analyzing the discursiveconstruction of everyday events, of examining the conse-quential nature of learning within and across events, andof exploring the historicalnature of life within a socialgroup or local setting.Qualitativeresearch has also provided insights intothe emic, or insider, knowledge needed by members ofa group to participatein socially and academically ap-propriateways. For example, outsiders coming into theclassroom or a social situation cannot understand, asmembers do, what is required;what counts as knowl-edge; and who has access to what, when, where, andunder what conditions. This work has also provided in-formation about why and how miscommunication

among actors occurs, particularlywhen such actors aremembers of differentgroups (e.g., administrators-teach-ers, ethnic groups, genders).Qualitativeapproaches and the theories guidingthem have also made us aware of differentvoices andthe need to consider whose voice will be represented,how, in what ways, and for what purposes. These ap-proaches suggest the need to consider and make visiblethe voices of particular ndividuals, participants,groups,and communities that have traditionallynot been heard.

Finally, given the need to examine what peopleknow, understand, and produce within and across localsettings, at particularpoints in time, or through particularmodes of communication, qualitativeresearch hasdemonstrated the need to develop grounded under-standings of phenomena constructed in and through theeveryday actions and activityof people within particularsettings (e.g., students' constructs,what counts as know-ing, how teacher actions support or constrainthe oppor-tunities students have for learning, and what counts asknowing and doing science). For us, then, qualitativere-search has provided ways for understanding the localand situated nature of everyday life; how this life is con-sequential for those who are members, as well as thoseseeking membership; and for exploring how equity ofaccess to academic knowledge and societal resources arelocally constructed in and through the actions of peoplein local settings.

Future directions: A closing andan openingIn this dialogue, we described differentphases inthe development of qualitativeresearch and briefly con-sidered how qualitativeresearch contributes to our un-derstanding of educational phenomena and processes.We presented this evolution as sets of criticaldialoguesthat have made visible the complex and substantive con-tributions of the various traditions and perspectives of

qualitativeresearchers.As we argued, the roots for newdirections in this dialogue are in place, and a critical dis-course as framed by Longino (1993) is crucial for futuredevelopment. In this concluding section, we suggestwhy such discourses are needed and who needs to par-ticipate in them.One of the groups that needs to engage in such di-alogues is the educational research community. As ourdiscussion of the history of qualitativeresearch suggests,just how this discourse will be undertaken, who is partof this community, and what perspectives count are notso evident. As new traditions are created or those fromother disciplines are adapted, we need to explore their


9/11


expressive potentials and determine how they contributeto the questions we have within education.For example, as we seek understandings of the po-tential of recent directions in poststructuralism,postmod-ernism, deconstruction, feminist theories, and otherresearch perspectives, we will need to understand howthey contribute to the study of educational phenomenaas well as how they can be applied to educational issuesand questions. As part of these dialogues, we will alsoneed to examine how, and in what ways, the differenttraditions and perspectives might be combined or informeach other. These issues are critical ones within the edu-cational research community if we are to assess the con-tribution of these different perspectives and researchapproaches.However, as we argued at the onset of thisConversation, there are other participantswho need tobe part of the new directions. Past dialogues, while valu-able in building the substantive foundation that currentlyexists, have not included those outside of education,leading to the current crisis of confidence facing educa-tional research in general, not merely for qualitative re-searchers. As Stroufe (1997, p. 26) argued in an articleon the reputation of educational research, there currentlyexists a "dissing [disrespecting]of education researchers"by policy makers and governmental agencies.We believe that while some of the dissing is due topolitical issues, another factor contributingto the dis-missal of educational research comes from the lack of in-clusion of those outside educational research in thecurrentand past dialogues. In the past, the dialogueshave occurred within the educational research communi-ty, ignoring other communities that are interested in thevalue and outcomes of educational research (e.g., policymakers, teachers, administrators,parents, students, legis-lators).

Many of these dialogues appear to those outsidethe educational research community as unnecessary oras creating a Tower of Babel. By not including suchpublics in our dialogues, we have missed an importantopportunity to help them develop understandings of thecontributions of the new perspectives, to explore howthese differences among perspectives influence what canbe known, and, perhaps most important,to acquire theknowledge and language associated with the differentperspectives. In other words, we have not helped themto understand the expressive potential of these new andemerging perspectives, and what they contribute that isimportantto consider.The currentdialogues in various public arenasshow that these publics do not understand the value ofmultiple perspectives; often, according to Stroufe, thisleads them to dismiss such research as anecdotal. The

response to the lack of inclusion of some members ofthese publics has been clear. Some policy makers andgovernment agency representativeshave promoted aparticularview of what counts as scientific research ineducation.For example, in a recent U.S. congressional ses-sion, a particularview of educational research found itsway into proposed legislation in the Reading ExcellenceBill (HR 2614). In that bill, research that would count for

funding educational programswas defined as "replicableand reliable scientific research."This public inscriptionignores much of the scholarship on replicabilityand reli-ability in science that raises questions about the uses ofreplication and the extent to which replication existsseparate from specific studies under consideration withinparticularcommunities of practice in each of the sci-ences (e.g., Barnes & Edge, 1982; Collins, 1985;Jasanoff,Markle,Petersen, & Pinch, 1995; Kelly, Carlsen,&Cunningham, 1993; Tuana, 1989).This definition ignores the work that shows that in-dividual students do not live large-scale, replicable lives.They live local and situated ones. Large-scaleresearchstudies mask differences that shape student lives. Further,these actions suggest that the differentpublics that re-searchers seek to address are drawing on perspectivesand languages that are comfortable to them. Their actionssuggest that they may be unaware of or explicitly ignor-ing the limitations of such work for local communities.This state of affairssuggests that while progress hasbeen made in the acceptance and development of quali-tative research, the currentcontext for educational re-search, and qualitativeresearch in particular, s onceagain a contested terrain.The contested terrainsuggestsanother reason for continuing the criticaldialogues sothat we might transformthem from ones of contention toones in which evidence of the value of each approachor perspective might be examined.This form of criticaldiscourse has the potential ofmoving beyond arguments about mere methodologicaldifference to arguments that explore the contribution ofdifferent perspectives to the complex and dynamic issuesfacing educators and learners in our culturallyand so-cially diverse world. Such dialogues have the potentialfor helping those participating n the discourse to ex-plore how these perspectives shape particularviews ofchildren, teachers, parents, settings, schools, social insti-tutions, culture, class, ethnicity, race, gender, economicconditions, and educational goals and outcomes.Without this information,we will not be able to assessthe adequacy and appropriateness of different frame-works for addressing particulareducational issues.Answers to these questions must be consideredacross all approaches and by all stakeholders, not just by


10/11

376 READINGRESEARCHQUARTERLYJuly/August/September 1999 34/3

qualitativeresearchers, if we are to get beyond the di-vide that currently separates educational researchersfrom their publics and understand how and which ofthese perspectives contribute to the goal of equity of ac-cess to education. In the area of literacy, such conversa-tions will allow us to explore what counts as literacyandwho counts as literate,when literacycounts (c.f. Heap,1980; Soares, 1992).REFERENCES

ATKINSON,P., DELAMONT, ., & HAMMERSLEY,. (1988).Qualitativeresearch traditions:A Britishresponse to Jacob. ReviewofEducational Research,58, 231-250.

BARNES,B., & EDGE,D. (Eds.). (1982). Science in context:Readings in the sociology of science. Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.

BEACH,R., GREEN, ., KAMIL,M., & SHANAHAN,T. (1992).Multipleperspectiveson research in literacy. Urbana, IL:NationalConference for Researchin English.

BIRDWHISTELL,. (1977). Some discussion of ethnography, theo-ry, and method. In J. Brockman (Ed.), About Bateson: Essays onGregoryBateson (pp. 103-144). New York:E.P. Dutton.BLOOME,D., & THEODOROU,E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-stu-dent and student-student discourse. In J. Green &J. Harker(Eds.),Multipleperspectiveanalyses of classroom discourse (pp. 217-248).Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

BOGDEN, R.C.,& BIKLEN, .K. (1992). Qualitative research or ed-ucation: An introduction to theoryand methods (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.BUCHMANN,M., & FLODEN,R.E.(1989). Research traditions,di-versity, and progress. Reviewof Educational Research,58, 241-248.BURGESS,R.G. (1984), Theresearchprocess in educational setting:Tencase studies. London: FalmerPress.

CASEY,K. (1995). The new narrativeresearch in education. In M.Apple (Ed.), Reviewof research in education: Volume 21 (pp.211-253). Washington, DC: American EducationalResearchAssociation.

CLANDININ,D.J., & CONNELLY, .M.(1988). Studying teachers'knowledge of classrooms: Collaborativeresearch.Journal ofEducational Thought,22(2A), 269-282.

COLLINS,H.M. (1985). Changing order:Replication and inductionin scientific practice. London: Sage.CORTAZZI,M. (1993). Narrativeanalysis. London: Falmer Press.DENZIN, N.K., & LINCOLN,Y.L. (1994). Thehandbook of qualita-tive research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.EISNER,E.W. (1991). Theenlightened eye.:Qualitative inquiry andthe enhancement of educational practice. New York:Macmillan.ERICKSON, . (1986). Qualitativemethods in research on teaching.In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.119-161). New York: Macmillan.EVERTSON,C., & GREEN, . (1986). Observation as inquiry andmethod. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (3rd

ed., pp. 162-213). New York:Macmillan.FLOOD,J., HEATH,S.B., & LAPP,D. (Eds.). (1997). Handbookforliteracy educators:Research in the communicative and visual arts.New York:Macmillan.

FLOOD,J., JENSEN, ., LAPP,D., & SQUIRE, . (Eds). (1991).Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. NewYork:Macmillan.GABEL,D. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and

learning. New York: Macmillan.GAGE,N.L.(Ed.). (1963). Thehandbook of research in teaching.

Chicago: RandMcNally.GODMUNDSDOTTIR, . (Ed.). (1997). InternationalJournal ofTeaching and TeacherEducation, 13(1).GOLDEN,J. (1988). The construction of a literarytext in a storyreading lesson. InJ. Green &J. Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspectiveanalysis of classroom discourse (pp. 71-106). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

GREEN, ., & HARKER,. (Eds.). (1988). Multipleperspectiveanaly-ses of classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.GREEN, .L.,& WALLAT,C. (1981). Mapping instructionalconver-sations: A sociolinguistic ethnography. InJ. Green & C. Wallat(Eds.),Ethnographyand languages in educational settings (pp. 161-195).Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

GREEN, .L.,WEADE,R., & GRAHAM,K. (1988). Lesson construc-tion and student participation:A sociolinguistic analysis. InJ. Green &J. Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspectiveanalyses of classroom discourse(pp. 11-48). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.GUBA,E. (1990). Theparadigm dialog: Options or social scienceinquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.GUZZETTI,B., & HYND, C. (Eds.). (1998). Perspectiveson concep-tual change: Multipleways to understand knowing and learning in acomplex world. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

HALFPENNY, . (1979). The analysis of qualitativedata.SociologicalReview, 4, 799-825.HAMMERSLEY,., & ATKINSON,P. (1995). Ethnography:Principles in practice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.HARKER,.O. (1988). Contrastingthe content of two story-readinglessons: A propositional analysis. InJ. Green &J. Harker(Eds.),Multipleperspectiveanalyses of classroom discourse (pp. 49-78).Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

HATCH, .A., & WISNIEWSKI, . (1995). Lifehistoryand narrative.London:The FalmerPress.HEAP,J. (1980). What counts as reading?Limits to certaintyin as-sessment. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 265-292.HEATH,S.B. (1982). Ethnographyin education: Defining the es-sentials. In P. Gillmore & A.A. Glatthorn(Eds.), Children in and out ofschool: Ethnographyand education (pp. 33-55). Washington, DC:

Center for Applied Linguistics.HOWE,K., & EISENHART,M. (1990). Standardsfor qualitative(and quantitative)research:A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher,19(4), 2-9.JACKSON,P.W. (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. NewYork: Macmillan.

JACOB,E. (1987). Qualitativeresearch traditions:A review. Reviewof Educational Research,57, 1-50.

JACOB,E. (1988). Clarifyingqualitativeresearch:A focus on tradi-tions. Educational Researcher,17 1), 16-24.JACOB,E. (1989). Qualitativeresearch:A defense of traditions.Review of Educational Research,59, 229-235.JASANOFF,G.E., MARKLE,.C., PETERSEN,., & PINCH,T. (Eds.).(1995). Handbook of science and technologystudies. Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.KELLY,G.J.,CARLSEN,W.S., & CUNNINGHAM,C.M.(1993).Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the soci-

ology of science. Science Education, 77, 207-220.KOSCHMANN, . (Ed.). (in press). Discourseprocesses.KYRATZIS, ., & GREEN, .L.(1997). Jointly constructed narrativesin classrooms: Co-constructionof friendship and community through

language. InternationalJournal of Teaching and TeacherEducation,13(1), 17-37.LANCY,D.F. (1993). Qualitative research in education: An intro-duction to the major traditions. White Plains, NY: Longman.LECOMPTE,M.D., MILLROY,W.L.,& PREISSLE,. (Eds.). (1992).

Thehandbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego, CA:


11/11


Academic Press.LECOMPTE,M.D., & PREISSLE,. (1993). Ethnographyand quali-tative design in educational research(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.LINCOLN,Y. (1989). Qualitativeresearch:A response to Atkinson,Delamont, and Hammersley. Review of Educational Research, 59,237-239.LINCOLN,Y., & GUBA,E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. NewburyPark,CA:Sage.LINN,R.L. 1986). Quantitativemethods in research on teaching. InM. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.92-118). New York: Macmillan.LONGINO,H.E. (1993). Subjects, power, and knowledge:

Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L.Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 101-120). NewYork: Routledge.MARSHALL, . (Ed.). (1992). Redefining student learning: Rootsofeducational change. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.MARSHALL, . (Ed.). (1996). Educational Psychologist,31(3/4).MARSHALL, .H., & WEINSTEIN,R.S., (1988). Beyond quantitativeanalysis: Recontextualization of classroom factors contributing to thecommunication of teacher expectations. In J. Green &J. Harker(Eds.),Multipleperspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 249-280).Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

MILES,M.B., & HUBERMAN,A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analy-sis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.MORINE-DERSHIMER,. (1988a). Comparing systems: How dowe know? InJ. Green &J. Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspectiveanalysesof classroom discourse (pp. 195-214). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.MORINE-DERSHIMER,., (1988b). Three approaches to sociolin-guistic analysis: Introduction. InJ. Green &J. Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 107-112). Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

PEARSON,P.D., KAMIL,M., BARR,R., & MOSENTHAL, . (Eds.).(1991). Handbook of research on reading. New York: Longman.RAMIREZ, . (1988). Analyzing speech acts. InJ. Green &J.Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspectiveanalyses of classroom discourse (pp.135-164). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

RENTEL,V. (1988). Cohesive harmony in children's written narra-tives: A secondary analysis. In J. Green &J. Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspective analyses qf classroom discourse (pp. 281-308). Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

RIST,R.C.(1980). Blitzkrieg ethnography: On the transformation of

a method into a movement. Educational Researcher, 9(2), 8-10.RORTY,R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. New York:

CambridgeUniversity Press.SCHON,D.A. (1984). Thereflectivepractitioner: Howprofessionalsthink in action. New York: Basic Books.SHUY, R. (1988). Identifying dimensions of classroom language. InJ. Green &J. Harker(Ed.), Multipleperspectiveanalyses of classroomdiscourse (pp. 113-134). Norwood, NJ:AblexSOARES,M.B. (1992). Literacyassessment and its implications forstatistical measurement. Currentsurveysand research in statistics(Publication No. SCR-E-62).Paris: UNESCO.STRIKE,K.A. (1974). On the expressive potential of behaviorist

language. American Educational ResearchJournal, 11, 103-120.STRIKE,K.A. (1989). Liberal ustice and the Marxist critique of edu-cation. New York: Routledge.STROUFE,G.E. (1997). Improving the "awfulreputation"of educa-tional research. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 26-29.TENENBERG,M. (1988). Diagrammingquestion cycle sequences.In J. Green &J. Harker(Ed.), Multipleperspective analyses of class-room discourse (pp. 165-194). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.TESCH,R. (1990). Qualitative research:Analysis typesand softwaretools. New York: FalmerPress.THOMAS,R.M.(1979). Comparing theoriesof child development.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.TRAVERS,R. (1973). Thehandbookfor research on teaching (2nded.). New York: Macmillan.TUANA,N. (1989). Feminism and science. Bloomington, IN:Indiana UniversityPress.VAN DIJK,T. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis: Vol. 1.

Disciplines of discourse. New York:Academic Press.WALLAT,C., & PIAZZA,C. (1988). The classroom and beyond:Issues in the analysis of multiple studies of communicative compe-tence. In J. Green &J. Harker(Eds.), Multipleperspective analyses ofclassroom discourse (pp. 309-343). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.WITTROCK,M. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.WOLCOTT,H.F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M.D.

LeCompte,W.L.Millroy,&J. Preissle (Eds.), Thehandbook of qualita-tive research in education (pp. 3-52). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.Received June 1, 1998Final revision received September 30, 1998

Accepted October 5, 1998

evolution of qualitative research

Documents