Denzin and Lincoln 2000 Introdução

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.
qxd
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 1
1
INTRODUCTION
The Discipline and
Practice of Qualitative Research
Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln
riting about scientific research, including qualitative research, from the

vantage point of the colonized, a position that she chooses to privilege,
Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) states that the term research is inextricably
linked to European imperialism and colonialism. She continues, The word itself is
probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous worlds vocabulary. . . . It is
implicated in the worst excesses of colonialism, with the ways in which knowledge
about indigenous peoples was collected, classified, and then represented back to the
West (p. 1). This dirty word stirs up anger, silence, distrust. It is so powerful that
indigenous people even write poetry about research (p. 1). It is one of colonialisms
most sordid legacies.
Sadly, qualitative research, in many if not all of its forms (observation, participation, interviewing, ethnography), serves as a metaphor for colonial knowledge, for
power, and for truth. The metaphor works this way. Research, quantitative and qualitative, is scientific. Research provides the foundation for reports about and representations of the Other. In the colonial context, research becomes an objective way of
representing the dark-skinned Other to the white world.
Colonizing nations relied on the human disciplines, especially sociology and
anthropology, to produce knowledge about strange and foreign worlds. This close
Authors Note. We are grateful to many who have helped with this chapter, including Egon Guba, Mitch
Allen, David Monje, and Katherine E. Ryan.
21
01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 2
2 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1
involvement with the colonial project contributed, in significant ways, to qualitative

researchs long and anguished history and to its becoming a dirty word (for reviews,
see Foley & Valenzuela, Chapter 9, this volume; Tedlock, Volume 2, Chapter 5). In
sociology, the work of the Chicago school in the 1920s and 1930s established the
importance of qualitative inquiry for the study of human group life. In anthropology
during the same period, the discipline-defining studies of Boas, Mead, Benedict,
Bateson, Evans-Pritchard, Radcliffe-Brown, and Malinowski charted the outlines of
the fieldwork method (see Gupta & Ferguson, 1997; Stocking, 1986, 1989).
The agenda was clear-cut: The observer went to a foreign setting to study the culture, customs, and habits of another human group. Often this was a group that stood
in the way of white settlers. Ethnographic reports of these groups where incorporated
into colonizing strategies, ways of controlling the foreign, deviant, or troublesome
Other. Soon qualitative research would be employed in other social and behavioral
science disciplines, including education (especially the work of Dewey), history, political science, business, medicine, nursing, social work, and communications (for criticisms of this tradition, see Smith, 1999; Vidich & Lyman, 2000; see also Rosaldo,
1989, pp. 2545; Tedlock, Volume 2, Chapter 5).
By the 1960s, battle lines were drawn within the quantitative and qualitative
camps. Quantitative scholars relegated qualitative research to a subordinate status
in the scientific arena. In response, qualitative researchers extolled the humanistic
virtues of their subjective, interpretive approach to the study of human group
life. In the meantime, indigenous peoples found themselves subjected to the indignities of both approaches, as each methodology was used in the name of colonizing
powers (see Battiste, 2000; Semali & Kincheloe, 1999).
Vidich and Lyman (1994, 2000) have charted many key features of this painful
history. In their now-classic analysis they note, with some irony, that qualitative
research in sociology and anthropology was born out of concern to understand
the other (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p. 38). Furthermore, this other was the exotic
Other, a primitive, nonwhite person from a foreign culture judged to be less civilized
than ours. Of course, there were colonialists long before there were anthropologists
and ethnographers. Nonetheless, there would be no colonial, and now no neocolonial,
history were it not for this investigative mentality that turned the dark-skinned Other
into the object of the ethnographers gaze. From the very beginning, qualitative research
was implicated in a racist project.1
In this introductory chapter, we define the field of qualitative research, then navigate, chart, and review the history of qualitative research in the human disciplines.
This will allow us to locate this volume and its contents within their historical
moments. (These historical moments are somewhat artificial; they are socially constructed, quasi-historical, and overlapping conventions. Nevertheless, they permit a
performance of developing ideas. They also facilitate an increasing sensitivity to
and sophistication about the pitfalls and promises of ethnography and qualitative
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 3
Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 23
research.) We also present a conceptual framework for reading the qualitative research
act as a multicultural, gendered process and then provide a brief introduction to the
chapters that follow. Returning to the observations of Vidich and Lyman as well as
those of hooks, we conclude with a brief discussion of qualitative research and critical race theory (see also Ladson-Billings & Donnor, Chapter 11, this volume). We also
discuss the threats to qualitative, human subject research from the methodological
conservatism movement mentioned briefly in our preface. As we note in the preface,
we use the metaphor of the bridge to structure what follows. This volume is intended
to serve as a bridge connecting historical moments, politics, the decolonization project, research methods, paradigms, and communities of interpretive scholars.
DEFINITIONAL ISSUES
Qualitative research is a field of inquiry in its own right. It crosscuts disciplines, fields,
and subject matters.2 A complex, interconnected family of terms, concepts, and
assumptions surround the term qualitative research. These include the traditions
associated with foundationalism, positivism, postfoundationalism, postpositivism,
poststructuralism, and the many qualitative research perspectives, and/or methods
connected to cultural and interpretive studies (the chapters in Part II, this volume,
take up these paradigms).3 There are separate and detailed literatures on the many
methods and approaches that fall under the category of qualitative research, such as
case study, politics and ethics, participatory inquiry, interviewing, participant observation, visual methods, and interpretive analysis.
In North America, qualitative research operates in a complex historical field that
crosscuts at least eight historical moments. (We discuss these moments in detail
below.) These moments overlap and simultaneously operate in the present.4 We define
them as the traditional (19001950); the modernist, or golden age (19501970);
blurred genres (19701986); the crisis of representation (19861990); the postmodern,
a period of experimental and new ethnographies (19901995); postexperimental
inquiry (19952000); the methodologically contested present (20002004); and the
fractured future, which is now (2005 ). The future, the eighth moment, confronts the
methodological backlash associated with the evidence-based social movement. It is
concerned with moral discourse, with the development of sacred textualities. The
eighth moment asks that the social sciences and the humanities become sites for critical conversations about democracy, race, gender, class, nation-states, globalization,
freedom, and community.5
The postmodern and postexperimental moments were defined in part by a concern for literary and rhetorical tropes and the narrative turn, a concern for storytelling, for composing ethnographies in new ways (Bochner & Ellis, 2002; Ellis, 2004;
Goodall, 2000; Pelias, 2004; Richardson & Lockridge, 2004; Trujillo, 2004). Laurel
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 4
Richardson (1997) observes that this moment was shaped by a new sensibility, by
doubt, by a refusal to privilege any method or theory (p. 173). But now at the dawn of
this new century we struggle to connect qualitative research to the hopes, needs, goals,
and promises of a free democratic society.
Successive waves of epistemological theorizing move across these eight moments.
The traditional period is associated with the positivist, foundational paradigm. The
modernist or golden age and blurred genres moments are connected to the appearance of postpositivist arguments. At the same time, a variety of new interpretive,
qualitative perspectives were taken up, including hermeneutics, structuralism, semiotics, phenomenology, cultural studies, and feminism.6 In the blurred genres phase,
the humanities became central resources for critical, interpretive theory, and the qualitative research project broadly conceived. The researcher became a bricoleur (see
below), learning how to borrow from many different disciplines.
The blurred genres phase produced the next stage, the crisis of representation.Here
researchers struggled with how to locate themselves and their subjects in reflexive
texts. A kind of methodological diaspora took place, a two-way exodus. Humanists
migrated to the social sciences, searching for new social theory, new ways to study
popular culture and its local, ethnographic contexts. Social scientists turned to the
humanities, hoping to learn how to do complex structural and poststructural readings
of social texts. From the humanities, social scientists also learned how to produce
texts that refused to be read in simplistic, linear, incontrovertible terms. The line
between text and context blurred. In the postmodern, experimental moment,
researchers continued to move away from foundational and quasi-foundational criteria (see Smith & Hodkinson,Volume 3, Chapter 13; Richardson & St. Pierre,Volume 3,
Chapter 15). Alternative evaluative criteria were sought, criteria that might prove
evocative, moral, critical, and rooted in local understandings.
Any definition of qualitative research must work within this complex historical
field. Qualitative research means different things in each of these moments.
Nonetheless, an initial, generic definition can be offered: Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive,
material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world.
They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews,
conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means
that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make
sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.7
Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materialscase study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interview;
artifacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, interactional, and
visual textsthat describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individualslives. Accordingly,qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 5
interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject

matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible
in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one
interpretive practice in any study.
The Qualitative Researcher as Bricoleur and Quilt Maker

The qualitative researcher may be described using multiple and gendered images:
scientist, naturalist, field-worker, journalist, social critic, artist, performer, jazz musician, filmmaker, quilt maker, essayist. The many methodological practices of qualitative research may be viewed as soft science, journalism, ethnography, bricolage, quilt
making, or montage. The researcher, in turn, may be seen as a bricoleur, as a maker of
quilts, or, as in filmmaking, a person who assembles images into montages. (On montage, see Cook, 1981, pp. 171177; Monaco, 1981, pp. 322328; and the discussion
below. On quilting, see hooks, 1990, pp. 115122; Wolcott, 1995, pp. 3133.)
Harper (1987, pp. 9, 7475, 92), de Certeau (1984, p. xv), Nelson, Treichler, and
Grossberg (1992, p. 2), Lvi-Strauss (1966, p. 17), Weinstein and Weinstein (1991,
p. 161), and Kincheloe (2001) clarify the meanings of bricolage and bricoleur.8 A
bricoleur makes do by adapting the bricoles of the world. Bricolage is the poetic making do (de Certeau, 1984, p. xv) with such bricolesthe odds and ends, the bits left
over (Harper, 1987, p. 74). The bricoleur is a Jack of all trades, a kind of professional
do-it-yourself (Lvi-Strauss, 1966, p. 17). In their work, bricoleurs define and extend
themselves (Harper, 1987, p. 75). Indeed, the bricoleurs life story, or biography, may
be thought of as bricolage (Harper, 1987, p. 92).
There are many kinds of bricoleursinterpretive, narrative, theoretical, political,
methodological (see below). The interpretive bricoleur produces a bricolagethat is, a
pieced-together set of representations that is fitted to the specifics of a complex situation.
The solution (bricolage) which is the result of the bricoleurs method is an [emergent]
construction(Weinstein & Weinstein, 1991, p. 161) that changes and takes new forms as
the bricoleur adds different tools, methods, and techniques of representation and interpretation to the puzzle. Nelson et al. (1992) describe the methodology of cultural studies
as a bricolage. Its choice of practice, that is, is pragmatic, strategic and self-reflexive
(p. 2). This understanding can be applied, with qualifications, to qualitative research.
The qualitative researcher as bricoleur, or maker of quilts, uses the aesthetic and
material tools of his or her craft, deploying whatever strategies, methods, and empirical materials are at hand (Becker, 1998, p. 2). If the researcher needs to invent, or piece
together, new tools or techniques, he or she will do so. Choices regarding which interpretive practices to employ are not necessarily made in advance. As Nelson et al.
(1992) note, the choice of research practices depends upon the questions that are
asked, and the questions depend on their context (p. 2), what is available in the context, and what the researcher can do in that setting.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 6
These interpretive practices involve aesthetic issues, an aesthetics of representation that goes beyond the pragmatic or the practical. Here the concept of montage is
useful (see Cook, 1981, p. 323; Monaco, 1981, pp. 171172). Montage is a method of
editing cinematic images. In the history of cinematography, montage is most closely
associated with the work of Sergei Eisenstein, especially his film The Battleship
Potemkin (1925). In montage, several different images are juxtaposed to or superimposed on one another to create a picture. In a sense, montage is like pentimento,
in which something that has been painted out of a picture (an image the painter
repented, or denied) becomes visible again, creating something new. What is new is
what had been obscured by a previous image.
Montage and pentimento, like jazz, which is improvisation, create the sense that
images, sounds, and understandings are blending together, overlapping, forming a
composite, a new creation. The images seem to shape and define one another, and an
emotional, gestalt effect is produced. In film montage, images are often combined in
a swiftly run sequence that produces a dizzily revolving collection of several images
around a central or focused picture or sequence; directors often use such effects to
signify the passage of time.
Perhaps the most famous instance of montage in film is the Odessa Steps sequence
in The Battleship Potemkin. In the climax of the film, the citizens of Odessa are being
massacred by czarist troops on the stone steps leading down to the harbor. Eisenstein
cuts to a young mother as she pushes her baby in a carriage across the landing in front
of the firing troops.9 Citizens rush past her, jolting the carriage, which she is afraid to
push down to the next flight of stairs. The troops are above her, firing at the citizens.
She is trapped between the troops and the steps. She screams.A line of rifles points to
the sky, the rifle barrels erupting in smoke. The mothers head sways back. The wheels
of the carriage teeter on the edge of the steps. The mothers hand clutches the silver
buckle of her belt. Below her, people are being beaten by soldiers. Blood drips over the
mothers white gloves. The babys hand reaches out of the carriage. The mother sways
back and forth. The troops advance. The mother falls back against the carriage. A
woman watches in horror as the rear wheels of the carriage roll off the edge of the
landing. With accelerating speed, the carriage bounces down the steps, past dead citizens. The baby is jostled from side to side inside the carriage. The soldiers fire their
rifles into a group of wounded citizens.A student screams as the carriage leaps across
the steps, tilts, and overturns (Cook, 1981, p. 167).10
Montage uses brief images to create a clearly defined sense of urgency and complexity. It invites viewers to construct interpretations that build on one another as a
scene unfolds. These interpretations are based on associations among the contrasting
images that blend into one another. The underlying assumption of montage is that
viewers perceive and interpret the shots in a montage sequence not sequentially, or
one at a time, but rather simultaneously (Cook, 1981, p. 172). The viewer puts the
sequences together into a meaningful emotional whole, as if at a glance, all at once.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 7
The qualitative researcher who uses montage is like a quilt maker or a jazz improviser. The quilter stitches, edits, and puts slices of reality together. This process creates
and brings psychological and emotional unitya patternto an interpretive experience. There are many examples of montage in current qualitative research (see
Diversi, 1998; Holman Jones, 1999; Lather & Smithies, 1997; Ronai, 1998; see also
Holman Jones, Volume 3, Chapter 7). Using multiple voices, different textual formats,
and various typefaces, Lather and Smithies (1997) weave a complex text about AIDS
and women who are HIV-positive. Holman Jones (1999) creates a performance text
using lyrics from the blues songs sung by Billie Holiday.
In texts based on the metaphors of montage, quilt making, and jazz improvisation,
many different things are going on at the same timedifferent voices, different perspectives, points of views, angles of vision. Like autoethnographic performance texts,
works that use montage simultaneously create and enact moral meaning. They move
from the personal to the political, from the local to the historical and the cultural.
These are dialogical texts. They presume an active audience. They create spaces for
give-and-take between reader and writer. They do more than turn the Other into the
object of the social science gaze (see Alexander, Volume 2, Chapter 3; Holman Jones,
Volume 3, Chapter 7).
Qualitative research is inherently multimethod in focus (Flick, 2002, pp. 226227).
However, the use of multiple methods, or triangulation, reflects an attempt to secure an
in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question. Objective reality can never be
captured.We know a thing only through its representations. Triangulation is not a tool
or a strategy of validation, but an alternative to validation (Flick, 2002, p. 227). The
combination of multiple methodological practices, empirical materials, perspectives,
and observers in a single study is best understood, then, as a strategy that adds rigor,
breadth, complexity, richness, and depth to any inquiry (see Flick, 2002, p. 229).
In Chapter 15 of Volume 3, Richardson and St. Pierre dispute the usefulness of the
concept of triangulation, asserting that the central image for qualitative inquiry
should be the crystal, not the triangle. Mixed-genre texts in the postexperimental
moment have more than three sides. Like crystals, Eisensteins montage, the
jazz solo,or the pieces in a quilt,the mixed-genre text combines symmetry and substance
with an infinite variety of shapes, substances, transmutations. . . . Crystals grow,
change, alter. . . . Crystals are prisms that reflect externalities and refract within themselves, creating different colors, patterns, arrays, casting off in different directions
(Richardson, 2000, p. 934).
In the crystallization process, the writer tells the same tale from different points of
view. For example, in A Thrice-Told Tale (1992), Margery Wolf uses fiction, field notes,
and a scientific article to give three different accounts of the same set of experiences in
a native village. Similarly, in her play Fires in the Mirror (1993), Anna Deavere Smith
presents a series of performance pieces based on interviews with people who were
involved in a racial conflict in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, on August 19, 1991. The play
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 8
has multiple speaking parts,including conversations with gang members,police officers,

and anonymous young girls and boys. There is no one correct telling of this event.
Each telling, like light hitting a crystal, reflects a different perspective on this incident.
Viewed as a crystalline form, as a montage, or as a creative performance around
a central theme, triangulation as a form of, or alternative to, validity thus can be
extended. Triangulation is the simultaneous display of multiple, refracted realities.
Each of the metaphors worksto create simultaneity rather than the sequential or linear. Readers and audiences are then invited to explore competing visions of the context, to become immersed in and merge with new realities to comprehend.
The methodological bricoleur is adept at performing a large number of diverse
tasks, ranging from interviewing to intensive self-reflection and introspection. The
theoretical bricoleur reads widely and is knowledgeable about the many interpretive
paradigms (feminism, Marxism, cultural studies, constructivism, queer theory) that
can be brought to any particular problem. He or she may not, however, feel that paradigms can be mingled or synthesized. That is, one cannot easily move between
paradigms as overarching philosophical systems denoting particular ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies. They represent belief systems that attach users to
particular worldviews. Perspectives, in contrast, are less well-developed systems, and
one can move between them more easily. The researcher as bricoleur-theorist works
between and within competing and overlapping perspectives and paradigms.
The interpretive bricoleur understands that research is an interactive process
shaped by his or her own personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and
ethnicity, and by those of the people in the setting. The critical bricoleur stresses
the dialectical and hermeneutic nature of interdisciplinary inquiry, knowing that
the boundaries that previously separated traditional disciplines no longer hold
(Kincheloe, 2001, p. 683). The political bricoleur knows that science is power, for all
research findings have political implications. There is no value-free science. This
researcher seeks a civic social science based on a politics of hope (Lincoln, 1999).
The gendered, narrative bricoleur also knows that researchers all tell stories about
the worlds they have studied.Thus the narratives, or stories, scientists tell are accounts
couched and framed within specific storytelling traditions, often defined as paradigms (e.g., positivism, postpositivism, constructivism).
The product of the interpretive bricoleurs labor is a complex, quiltlike bricolage, a
reflexive collage or montagea set of fluid, interconnected images and representations. This interpretive structure is like a quilt, a performance text, a sequence of representations connecting the parts to the whole.
Qualitative Research as a Site of Multiple Interpretive Practices
Qualitative research, as a set of interpretive activities, privileges no single methodological practice over another. As a site of discussion, or discourse, qualitative research
is difficult to define clearly. It has no theory or paradigm that is distinctly its own.As the
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 9
contributions to Part II of this volume reveal, multiple theoretical paradigms claim use
of qualitative research methods and strategies, from constructivist to cultural studies,
feminism, Marxism, and ethnic models of study. Qualitative research is used in many
separate disciplines, as we will discuss below. It does not belong to a single discipline.
Nor does qualitative research have a distinct set of methods or practices that are
entirely its own. Qualitative researchers use semiotics, narrative, content, discourse,
archival and phonemic analysis, even statistics, tables, graphs, and numbers. They
also draw on and utilize the approaches, methods, and techniques of ethnomethodology, phenomenology, hermeneutics, feminism, rhizomatics, deconstructionism,
ethnography, interviewing, psychoanalysis, cultural studies, survey research, and
participant observation, among others.11 All of these research practices can provide
important insights and knowledge (Nelson et al., 1992, p. 2). No specific method or
practice can be privileged over any other.
Many of these methods, or research practices, are used in other contexts in the
human disciplines. Each bears the traces of its own disciplinary history. Thus there
is an extensive history of the uses and meanings of ethnography and ethnology in
education (see in this volume Ladson-Billings & Donnor, Chapter 11; Kincheloe &
McLaren, Chapter 12); of participant observation and ethnography in anthropology
(see Foley & Valenzuela, Chaper 9, this volume; Tedlock, Volume 2, Chapter 5; Brady,
Volume 3,Chapter 16),sociology (see Holstein & Gubrium,Volume 2,Chapter 6; Fontana
& Frey, Volume 3, Chapter 4; Harper, Volume 3, Chapter 6), communications (see
Alexander, Volume 2, Chapter 3; Holman Jones, Volume 3, Chapter 7), and cultural
studies (see Saukko,Volume 3, Chapter 13); of textual, hermeneutic, feminist, psychoanalytic, arts-based, semiotic, and narrative analysis in cinema and literary studies
(see Olesen, Chapter 10, this volume 1; Finley, Volume 3, Chapter 3; Brady, Volume 3,
Chapter 16); and of narrative, discourse, and conversational analysis in sociology,
medicine,communications,and education (see Miller & Crabtree,Volume 2,Chapter 11;
Chase, Volume 3, Chapter 2; Perkyl, Volume 3, Chapter 11).
The many histories that surround each method or research strategy reveal how
multiple uses and meanings are brought to each practice. Textual analyses in literary
studies, for example, often treat texts as self-contained systems. On the other hand, a
researcher working from a cultural studies or feminist perspective reads a text in
terms of its location within a historical moment marked by a particular gender, race,
or class ideology. A cultural studies use of ethnography would bring a set of understandings from feminism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism to the project.
These understandings would not be shared by mainstream postpositivist sociologists.
Similarly, postpositivist and poststructural historians bring different understandings
and uses to the methods and findings of historical research (see Tierney, 2000).
These tensions and contradictions are all evident in the chapters in this volume.
These separate and multiple uses and meanings of the methods of qualitative
research make it difficult for scholars to agree on any essential definition of the field,
for it is never just one thing.12 Still, we must establish a definition for purposes of this
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 10
discussion. We borrow from, and paraphrase, Nelson et al.s (1992, p. 4) attempt to

define cultural studies:
Qualitative research is an interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary field. It crosscuts the humanities and the social and physical sciences. Qualitative
research is many things at the same time. It is multiparadigmatic in focus. Its practitioners
are sensitive to the value of the multimethod approach. They are committed to the naturalistic perspective and to the interpretive understanding of human experience. At the same
time, the field is inherently political and shaped by multiple ethical and political positions.
Qualitative research embraces two tensions at the same time. On the one hand, it is
drawn to a broad, interpretive, postexperimental, postmodern, feminist, and critical sensibility. On the other hand, it is drawn to more narrowly defined positivist, postpositivist,
humanistic, and naturalistic conceptions of human experience and its analysis. Further,
these tensions can be combined in the same project, bringing both postmodern and naturalistic, or both critical and humanistic, perspectives to bear.
This rather awkward statement means that qualitative research, as a set of practices, embraces within its own multiple disciplinary histories constant tensions and
contradictions over the project itself, including its methods and the forms its findings
and interpretations take. The field sprawls between and cuts across all of the human
disciplines, even including, in some cases, the physical sciences. Its practitioners are
variously committed to modern, postmodern, and postexperimental sensibilities and
the approaches to social research that these sensibilities imply.
Resistances to Qualitative Studies

The academic and disciplinary resistances to qualitative research illustrate the politics embedded in this field of discourse. The challenges to qualitative research are
many. As Seale, Gobo, Gubrium, and Silverman (2004) observe, we can best understand these criticisms by distinguish[ing] analytically the political (or external) role
of [qualitative] methodology from the procedural (or internal) one (p. 7). Politics situate methodology within and outside the academy. Procedural issues define how
qualitative methodology is used to produce knowledge about the world.
Often, the political and the procedural intersect. Politicians and hard scientists
sometimes call qualitative researchers journalists or soft scientists. The work of qualitative scholars is termed unscientific,or only exploratory,or subjective.It is called criticism
rather than theory or science, or it is interpreted politically, as a disguised version of
Marxism or secular humanism (see Huber, 1995; see also Denzin, 1997, pp. 258261).
These political and procedural resistances reflect an uneasy awareness that the
interpretive traditions of qualitative research commit the researcher to a critique of
the positivist or postpositivist project. But the positivist resistance to qualitative
research goes beyond the ever-present desire to maintain a distinction between
hard science and soft scholarship (Carey, 1989, p. 99; see also Smith & Hodkinson,
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 11
Volume 3, Chapter 13). The experimental (positivist) sciences (physics, chemistry,

economics, and psychology, for example) are often seen as the crowning achievements
of Western civilization, and in their practices it is assumed that truth can transcend
opinion and personal bias (Carey, 1989, p. 99; Schwandt, 1997b, p. 309). Qualitative
research is seen as an assault on this tradition, whose adherents often retreat into a
value-free objectivist science (Carey, 1989, p. 104) model to defend their position.
They seldom attempt to make explicit, or to critique, the moral and political commitments in their own contingent work (Carey, 1989, p. 104; see also Guba & Lincoln,
Chapter 8, this volume).
Positivists further allege that the so-called new experimental qualitative researchers
write fiction,not science,and that these researchers have no way of verifying their truth
statements. Ethnographic poetry and fiction signal the death of empirical science, and
there is little to be gained by attempting to engage in moral criticism. These critics presume a stable, unchanging reality that can be studied using the empirical methods of
objective social science (see Huber, 1995). The province of qualitative research, accordingly, is the world of lived experience, for this is where individual belief and action
intersect with culture. Under this model there is no preoccupation with discourse and
method as material interpretive practices that constitute representation and description. Thus is the textual, narrative turn rejected by the positivists.
The opposition to positive science by the poststructuralists is seen, then, as an
attack on reason and truth. At the same time, the positivist science attack on qualitative research is regarded as an attempt to legislate one version of truth over another.
Politics and Reemergent Scientism
The scientifically based research (SBR) movement initiated in recent years by the
National Research Council (NRC) has created a hostile political environment for
qualitative research. Connected to the federal legislation known as the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, SBR embodies a reemergent scientism (Maxwell, 2004), a positivist, evidence-based epistemology. The movement encourages researchers to employ
rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p. 80). The preferred methodology employs well-defined
causal models and independent and dependent variables. Researchers examine causal
models in the context of randomized controlled experiments, which allow for replication and generalization of their results (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p. 81).
Under such a framework, qualitative research becomes suspect. Qualitative research
does not require well-defined variables or causal models.The observations and measurements of qualitative scholars are not based on subjects random assignment to experimental groups. Qualitative researchers do not generate hard evidence using such
methods. At best, through case study, interview, and ethnographic methods, researchers
can gather descriptive materials that can be tested with experimental methods.The epistemologies of critical race, queer, postcolonial, feminist, and postmodern theories are
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 12
rendered useless by the SBR perspective, relegated at best to the category of scholarship,
not science (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p. 81; St. Pierre, 2004, p. 132).
Critics of the SBR movement are united on the following points. Bush science
(Lather, 2004, p. 19) and its experimental, evidence-based methodologies represent a
racialized, masculinist backlash to the proliferation of qualitative inquiry methods
over the past two decades. The movement endorses a narrow view of science
(Maxwell, 2004) that celebrates a neoclassical experimentalism that is a throwback to
the Campbell-Stanley era and its dogmatic adherence to an exclusive reliance on
quantitative methods (Howe, 2004, p. 42). The movement represents nostalgia for a
simple and ordered universe of science that never was (Popkewitz, 2004, p. 62). With
its emphasis on only one form of scientific rigor, the NRC ignores the value of using
complex historical, contextual, and political criteria to evaluate inquiry (Bloch, 2004).
As Howe (2004) observes, neoclassical experimentalists extol evidence-based
medical research as the model for educational research, particularly the random
clinical trial (p. 48). But dispensing a pill in a random clinical trial is quite unlike
dispensing a curriculum, and the effects of an educational experiment cannot be
easily measured, unlike a 10-point reduction in diastolic blood pressure (p. 48; see
also Miller & Crabtree, Volume 2, Chapter 11).
Qualitative researchers must learn to think outside the box as they critique the
NRC and its methodological guidelines (Atkinson, 2004). They must apply their
imaginations and find new ways to define such terms as randomized design, causal
model, policy studies, and public science (Cannella & Lincoln, 2004a, 2004b; Lincoln &
Cannella, 2004a, 2004b; Lincoln & Tierney, 2004; Weinstein, 2004). More deeply, qualitative researchers must resist conservative attempts to discredit qualitative inquiry
by placing it back inside the box of positivism.
Mixed-Methods Experimentalism
As Howe (2004) notes, the SBR movement finds a place for qualitative methods in
mixed-methods experimental designs. In such designs, qualitative methods may be
employed either singly or in combination with quantitative methods, including the
use of randomized experimental designs (p. 49). Mixed-methods designs are direct
descendants of classical experimentalism. They presume a methodological hierarchy
in which quantitative methods are at the top and qualitative methods are relegated to
a largely auxiliary role in pursuit of the technocratic aim of accumulating knowledge
of what works (pp. 5354).
The mixed-methods movement takes qualitative methods out of their natural
home, which is within the critical, interpretive framework (Howe, 2004, p. 54; but see
Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, p. 15). It divides inquiry into dichotomous categories:
exploration versus confirmation. Qualitative work is assigned to the first category,
quantitative research to the second (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, p. 15). Like the classic
experimental model, it excludes stakeholders from dialogue and active participation in
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 13
the research process. This weakens its democratic and dialogical dimensions and
decreases the likelihood that previously silenced voices will be heard (Howe, 2004,
pp. 5657). As Howe (2004) cautions, it is not just the methodological fundamentalists who have bought into [this] approach. A sizable number of rather influential . . .
educational researchers . . . have also signed on. This might be a compromise to
the current political climate; it might be a backlash against the perceived excesses
of postmodernism; it might be both. It is an ominous development, whatever the
explanation (p. 57).
Pragmatic Criticisms of Antifoundationalism
Seale et al. (2004) contest what they regard as the excesses of an antimethodological, anything goes, romantic postmodernism that is associated with our project.
They assert that too often the approach we value produces low quality qualitative
research and research results that are quite stereotypical and close to common sense
(p. 2). In contrast, they propose a practice-based, pragmatic approach that places
research practice at the center. They note that research involves an engagement with
a variety of things and people: research materials . . . social theories, philosophical
debates, values, methods, tests . . . research participants (p. 2). (Actually, this
approach is quite close to our own, especially our view of the bricoleur and bricolage.)
Seale et al.s situated methodology rejects the antifoundational claim that there are
only partial truths, that the dividing line between fact and fiction has broken down
(p. 3). These scholars believe that this dividing line has not collapsed, and that
qualitative researchers should not accept stories if they do not accord with the best
available facts (p. 6).
Oddly, these pragmatic procedural arguments reproduce a variant of the evidencebased model and its criticisms of poststructural, performative sensibilities. They can
be used to provide political support for the methodological marginalization of the
positions advanced by many of the contributors to this volume.
2 2 2
The complex political terrain described above defines the many traditions and
strands of qualitative research: the British tradition and its presence in other national
contexts; the American pragmatic, naturalistic, and interpretive traditions in sociology,
anthropology, communications, and education; the German and French phenomenological, hermeneutic, semiotic, Marxist, structural, and poststructural perspectives;
feminist studies, African American studies, Latino studies, queer studies, studies
of indigenous and aboriginal cultures. The politics of qualitative research creates a
tension that informs each of these traditions. This tension itself is constantly being
reexamined and interrogated as qualitative research confronts a changing historical
world, new intellectual positions, and its own institutional and academic conditions.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 14
To summarize: Qualitative research is many things to many people. Its essence is

twofold: a commitment to some version of the naturalistic, interpretive approach to its
subject matter and an ongoing critique of the politics and methods of postpositivism.
We turn now to a brief discussion of the major differences between qualitative and
quantitative approaches to research.We then discuss ongoing differences and tensions
within qualitative inquiry.
QUALITATIVE VERSUS QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
The word qualitative implies an emphasis on the qualities of entities and on processes
and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured (if measured at all)
in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the
socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher
and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such
researchers emphasize the value-laden nature of inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning. In contrast,
quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationships
between variables, not processes. Proponents of such studies claim that their work is
done from within a value-free framework.
Research Styles: Doing the Same Things Differently?

Of course, both qualitative and quantitative researchers think they know something about society worth telling to others, and they use a variety of forms, media and
means to communicate their ideas and findings (Becker, 1986, p. 122). Qualitative
research differs from quantitative research in five significant ways (Becker, 1996).
These points of difference, discussed in turn below, all involve different ways of
addressing the same set of issues. They return always to the politics of research and to
who has the power to legislate correct solutions to social problems.
Uses of positivism and postpositivism. First, both perspectives are shaped by the positivist and postpositivist traditions in the physical and social sciences (see the discussion below). These two positivist science traditions hold to nave and critical realist
positions concerning reality and its perception. In the positivist version it is contended that there is a reality out there to be studied, captured, and understood,
whereas the postpositivists argue that reality can never be fully apprehended, only
approximated (Guba, 1990, p. 22). Postpositivism relies on multiple methods as a way
of capturing as much of reality as possible. At the same time, it emphasizes the discovery and verification of theories. Traditional evaluation criteria, such as internal
and external validity, are stressed, as is the use of qualitative procedures that lend
themselves to structured (sometimes statistical) analysis. Computer-assisted
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 15
methods of analysis that permit frequency counts, tabulations, and low-level statistical
analyses may also be employed.
The positivist and postpositivist traditions linger like long shadows over the qualitative research project. Historically, qualitative research was defined within the positivist paradigm, where qualitative researchers attempted to do good positivist research
with less rigorous methods and procedures. Some mid-20th-century qualitative
researchers reported participant observation findings in terms of quasi-statistics
(e.g., Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961). As recently as 1998, Strauss and Corbin,
two leading proponents of the grounded theory approach to qualitative research,
attempted to modify the usual canons of good (positivist) science to fit their own
postpositivist conception of rigorous research (but see Charmaz,Volume 2, Chapter 7;
see also Glaser, 1992). Some applied researchers, while claiming to be atheoretical,
often fit within the positivist or postpositivist framework by default.
Flick (2002) usefully summarizes the differences between these two approaches to
inquiry, noting that the quantitative approach has been used for purposes of isolating
causes and effects . . . operationalizing theoretical relations . . . [and] measuring
and . . . quantifying phenomena . . . allowing the generalization of findings (p. 3).
But today doubt is cast on such projects:Rapid social change and the resulting diversification of life worlds are increasingly confronting social researchers with new social
contexts and perspectives. . . . traditional deductive methodologies . . . are failing. . . . thus research is increasingly forced to make use of inductive strategies
instead of starting from theories and testing them. . . . knowledge and practice are
studied as local knowledge and practice (p. 2).
Spindler and Spindler (1992) summarize their qualitative approach to quantitative
materials: Instrumentation and quantification are simply procedures employed to
extend and reinforce certain kinds of data, interpretations and test hypotheses across
samples. Both must be kept in their place. One must avoid their premature or overly
extensive use as a security mechanism (p. 69).
Although many qualitative researchers in the postpositivist tradition use statistical measures, methods, and documents as a way of locating a group of subjects within
a larger population, they seldom report their findings in terms of the kinds of complex statistical measures or methods to which quantitative researchers are drawn
(e.g., path, regression, and log-linear analyses).
Acceptance of postmodern sensibilities. The use of quantitative, positivist methods and
assumptions has been rejected by a new generation of qualitative researchers who are
attached to poststructural and/or postmodern sensibilities. These researchers argue
that positivist methods are but one way of telling stories about societies or social
worlds. These methods may be no better or no worse than any other methods; they
just tell different kinds of stories.
This tolerant view is not shared by all qualitative researchers (Huber, 1995). Many
members of the critical theory, constructivist, poststructural, and postmodern
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 16
schools of thought reject positivist and postpositivist criteria when evaluating their
own work. They see these criteria as irrelevant to their work and contend that such
criteria reproduce only a certain kind of science, a science that silences too many
voices. These researchers seek alternative methods for evaluating their work, including verisimilitude, emotionality, personal responsibility, an ethic of caring, political
praxis, multivoiced texts, and dialogues with subjects. In response, positivists and
postpositivists argue that what they do is good science, free of individual bias and
subjectivity. As noted above, they see postmodernism and poststructuralism as
attacks on reason and truth.
Capturing the individuals point of view. Both qualitative and quantitative researchers
are concerned with the individuals point of view. However, qualitative investigators
think they can get closer to the actors perspective through detailed interviewing and
observation. They argue that quantitative researchers are seldom able to capture their
subjects perspectives because they have to rely on more remote, inferential empirical
methods and materials. Many quantitative researchers regard the empirical materials
produced by interpretive methods as unreliable, impressionistic, and not objective.
Examining the constraints of everyday life. Qualitative researchers are more likely to
confront and come up against the constraints of the everyday social world. They see
this world in action and embed their findings in it. Quantitative researchers abstract
from this world and seldom study it directly. They seek a nomothetic or etic science
based on probabilities derived from the study of large numbers of randomly selected
cases. These kinds of statements stand above and outside the constraints of everyday
life. Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, are committed to an emic, idiographic,
case-based position that directs attention to the specifics of particular cases.
Securing rich descriptions. Qualitative researchers believe that rich descriptions of the
social world are valuable, whereas quantitative researchers, with their etic, nomothetic
commitments, are less concerned with such detail. Quantitative researchers are deliberately unconcerned with rich descriptions because such detail interrupts the process
of developing generalizations.
2 2 2
The five points of difference described above reflect qualitative and quantitative
scholars commitments to different styles of research, different epistemologies, and
different forms of representation. Each work tradition is governed by a different set of
genres; each has its own classics, its own preferred forms of representation, interpretation, trustworthiness, and textual evaluation (see Becker, 1986, pp. 134135).
Qualitative researchers use ethnographic prose, historical narratives, first-person
accounts, still photographs, life histories, fictionalized facts, and biographical and
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 17
autobiographical materials, among others. Quantitative researchers use mathematical

models, statistical tables, and graphs, and they usually write about their research in
impersonal, third-person prose.
TENSIONS WITHIN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
It is erroneous to presume that all qualitative researchers share the same assumptions about the five points of difference described above.As the following discussion
reveals, positivist, postpositivist, and poststructural differences define and shape
the discourses of qualitative research. Realists and postpositivists within the interpretive, qualitative research tradition criticize poststructuralists for taking the textual, narrative turn. These critics contend that such work is navel gazing. It produces
the conditions for a dialogue of the deaf between itself and the community
(Silverman, 1997, p. 240). Critics accuse those who attempt to capture the point of
view of the interacting subject in the world of nave humanism, of reproducing a
Romantic impulse which elevates the experiential to the level of the authentic
(Silverman, 1997, p. 248).
Still others assert that those who take the textual, performance turn ignore lived
experience. Snow and Morrill (1995) argue that this performance turn, like the preoccupation with discourse and storytelling, will take us further from the field of social
action and the real dramas of everyday life and thus signal the death knell of ethnography as an empirically grounded enterprise (p. 361). Of course, we disagree.
Critical Realism
For some, there is a third stream, between nave positivism and poststructuralism.
Critical realism is an antipositivist movement in the social sciences closely associated
with the works of Roy Bhaskar and Rom Harr (Danermark, Ekstrm, Jakobsen, &
Karlsson, 2002). Critical realists use the word critical in a particular way. This is not
Frankfurt school critical theory, although there are traces of social criticism here
and there (see Danermark et al., 2002, p. 201). Instead, critical in this context refers to
a transcendental realism that rejects methodological individualism and universal
claims to truth. Critical realists oppose logical positivist, relativist, and antifoundational epistemologies. Critical realists agree with the positivists that there is a world of
events out there that is observable and independent of human consciousness. They
hold that knowledge about this world is socially constructed. Society is made up of
feeling, thinking human beings, and their interpretations of the world must be studied (Danermark et al., 2002, p. 200). Critical realists reject a correspondence theory of
truth. They believe that reality is arranged in levels and that scientific work must
go beyond statements of regularity to analysis of the mechanisms, processes, and
structures that account for the patterns that are observed.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 18
Still, as postempiricist, antifoundational, critical theorists, we reject much of what

the critical realists advocate. Throughout the past century, social science and philosophy have been continually tangled up with one another.Various ismsand philosophical movements have crisscrossed sociological and educational discourses, from
positivism to postpositivism, to analytic and linguistic philosophy, to hermeneutics,
structuralism, poststructuralism, Marxism, feminism, and current post-post versions
of all of the above. Some have said that the logical positivists steered the social sciences on a rigorous course of self-destruction.
We do not think that critical realism will keep the social science ship afloat. The
social sciences are normative disciplines, always already embedded in issues of value,
ideology, power, desire, sexism, racism, domination, repression, and control. We want
a social science that is committed up front to issues of social justice, equity, nonviolence, peace, and universal human rights. We do not want a social science that says it
can address these issues if it wants to. For us, that is no longer an option.
With these differences within and between interpretive traditions in hand, we must
now briefly discuss the history of qualitative research. We break this history into eight
historical moments, mindful that any history is always somewhat arbitrary and always
at least partially a social construction.
THE HISTORY OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
The history of qualitative research reveals that the modern social science disciplines
have taken as their mission the analysis and understanding of the patterned conduct
and social processes of society (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p. 37). The notion that social
scientists could carry out this task presupposed that they had the ability to observe
this world objectively. Qualitative methods were a major tool of such observations.13
Throughout the history of qualitative research, qualitative investigators have defined
their work in terms of hopes and values,religious faiths, occupational and professional
ideologies (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p. 39). Qualitative research (like all research) has
always been judged on the standard of whether the work communicates or says something to us(Vidich & Lyman,2000,p.39),based on how we conceptualize our reality and
our images of the world.Epistemology is the word that has historically defined these standards of evaluation.In the contemporary period,as we have argued above,many received
discourses on epistemology are now being reevaluated.
Vidich and Lymans (2000) work on the history of qualitative research covers the
following (somewhat) overlapping stages: early ethnography (to the 17th century),
colonial ethnography (17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century explorers), the ethnography of
the American Indian as Other (late-19th- and early 20th-century anthropology),
community studies and ethnographies of American immigrants (early 20th century
through the 1960s), studies of ethnicity and assimilation (midcentury through the
1980s), and the present, which we call the eighth moment.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 19
In each of these eras, researchers were and have been influenced by their political
hopes and ideologies, discovering findings in their research that confirmed their prior
theories or beliefs. Early ethnographers confirmed the racial and cultural diversity of
peoples throughout the globe and attempted to fit this diversity into a theory about
the origins of history, the races, and civilizations. Colonial ethnographers, before the
professionalization of ethnography in the 20th century, fostered a colonial pluralism
that left natives on their own as long as their leaders could be co-opted by the colonial
administration.
European ethnographers studied Africans,Asians, and other Third World peoples of
color. Early American ethnographers studied the American Indian from the perspective of the conqueror, who saw the lifeworld of the primitive as a window to the prehistoric past. The Calvinist mission to save the Indian was soon transferred to the mission
of saving the hordes of immigrants who entered the United States with the beginnings of industrialization. Qualitative community studies of the ethnic Other proliferated from the early 1900s to the 1960s and included the work of E. Franklin Frazier,
Robert Park, and Robert Redfield and their students, as well as William Foote Whyte,
the Lynds, August Hollingshead, Herbert Gans, Stanford Lyman, Arthur Vidich, and
Joseph Bensman. The post-1960 ethnicity studies challenged the melting pot
hypotheses of Park and his followers and corresponded to the emergence of ethnic
studies programs that saw Native Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and African
Americans attempting to take control over the study of their own peoples.
The postmodern and poststructural challenge emerged in the mid-1980s. It questioned the assumptions that had organized this earlier history in each of its colonizing moments. Qualitative research that crosses the postmodern divide requires the
scholar,Vidich and Lyman (2000) argue, to abandon all established and preconceived
values, theories, perspectives . . . and prejudices as resources for ethnographic study
(p. 60). In this new era the qualitative researcher does more than observe history; he
or she plays a part in it. New tales from the field will now be written, and they will
reflect the researchers direct and personal engagement with this historical period.
Vidich and Lymans analysis covers the full sweep of ethnographic history. Ours is
confined to the 20th and 21st centuries and complements many of their divisions. We
begin with the early foundational work of the British and French as well as the Chicago,
Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, and British schools of sociology and anthropology. This
early foundational period established the norms of classical qualitative and ethnographic research (see Gupta & Ferguson, 1997; Rosaldo, 1989; Stocking, 1989).
THE EIGHT MOMENTS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
As we have noted above, we divide our history of qualitative research in North

America in the 20th century and beyond into eight phases, which we describe in
turn below.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 20
The Traditional Period

We call the first moment the traditional period (this covers the second and third
phases discussed by Vidich & Lyman, 2000). It begins in the early 1900s and continues until World War II. In this period, qualitative researchers wrote objective, colonizing accounts of field experiences that were reflective of the positivist scientist
paradigm. They were concerned with offering valid, reliable, and objective interpretations in their writings. The Otherwhom they studied was alien, foreign, and strange.
Here is Malinowski (1967) discussing his field experiences in New Guinea and the
Trobriand Islands in the years 19141915 and 19171918. He is bartering his way into
field data:
Nothing whatever draws me to ethnographic studies. . . . On the whole the village struck
me rather unfavorably. There is a certain disorganization . . . the rowdiness and persistence
of the people who laugh and stare and lie discouraged me somewhat. . . . Went to the
village hoping to photograph a few stages of the bara dance. I handed out half-sticks of
tobacco, then watched a few dances; then took picturesbut results were poor. . . . they
would not pose long enough for time exposures.At moments I was furious at them, particularly because after I gave them their portions of tobacco they all went away. (quoted in
Geertz, 1988, pp. 7374)
In another work, this lonely, frustrated, isolated field-worker describes his methods in
the following words:
In the field one has to face a chaos of facts. . . . in this crude form they are not scientific
facts at all; they are absolutely elusive, and can only be fixed by interpretation. . . . Only laws
and generalizations are scientific facts, and field work consists only and exclusively in the
interpretation of the chaotic social reality, in subordinating it to general rules. (Malinowski,
1916/1948, p. 328; quoted in Geertz, 1988, p. 81)
Malinowskis remarks are provocative. On the one hand they disparage fieldwork, but
on the other they speak of it within the glorified language of science, with laws and
generalizations fashioned out of this selfsame experience.
During this period the field-worker was lionized, made into a larger-than-life
figure who went into the field and returned with stories about strange peoples.
Rosaldo (1989) describes this as the period of the Lone Ethnographer, the story of the
man-scientist who went off in search of his native in a distant land. There this figure
encountered the object of his quest . . . [and] underwent his rite of passage by enduring the ultimate ordeal of fieldwork (p. 30). Returning home with his data, the Lone
Ethnographer wrote up an objective account of the culture studied. This account
was structured by the norms of classical ethnography. This sacred bundle of terms
(Rosaldo, 1989, p. 31) organized ethnographic texts around four beliefs and commitments: a commitment to objectivism, a complicity with imperialism, a belief in
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 21
monumentalism (the ethnography would create a museumlike picture of the culture

studied), and a belief in timelessness (what was studied would never change). The
Other was an object to be archived. This model of the researcher, who could also
write complex, dense theories about what was studied, holds to the present day.
The myth of the Lone Ethnographer depicts the birth of classic ethnography. The
texts of Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Margaret Mead, and Gregory Bateson are still
carefully studied for what they can tell the novice about fieldwork, taking field notes,
and writing theory. But today the image of the Lone Ethnographer has been shattered.
Many scholars see the works of the classic ethnographers as relics from the colonial
past (Rosaldo, 1989, p. 44). Whereas some feel nostalgia for this past, others celebrate
its passing. Rosaldo (1989) quotes Cora Du Bois, a retired Harvard anthropology professor, who lamented this passing at a conference in 1980, reflecting on the crisis in
anthropology: [I feel a distance] from the complexity and disarray of what I once
found a justifiable and challenging discipline. . . . It has been like moving from a distinguished art museum into a garage sale (p. 44).
Du Bois regards the classic ethnographies as pieces of timeless artwork contained
in a museum. She feels uncomfortable in the chaos of the garage sale. In contrast,
Rosaldo (1989) is drawn to this metaphor because it provides a precise image of the
postcolonial situation where cultural artifacts flow between unlikely places, and nothing is sacred, permanent, or sealed off. The image of anthropology as a garage sale
depicts our present global situation (p. 44). Indeed, many valuable treasures may be
found in unexpected places, if one is willing to look long and hard. Old standards no
longer hold. Ethnographies do not produce timeless truths. The commitment to objectivism is now in doubt. The complicity with imperialism is openly challenged today,
and the belief in monumentalism is a thing of the past.
The legacies of this first period begin at the end of the 19th century, when the novel
and the social sciences had become distinguished as separate systems of discourse
(Clough, 1998, pp. 2122). However, the Chicago school, with its emphasis on the life
story and the slice-of-life approach to ethnographic materials, sought to develop an
interpretive methodology that maintained the centrality of the narrated-life-history
approach. This led to the production of texts that gave the researcher-as-author the
power to represent the subjects story. Written under the mantle of straightforward,
sentiment-free social realism, these texts used the language of ordinary people. They
articulated a social science version of literary naturalism, which often produced the
sympathetic illusion that a solution to a social problem had been found. Like the
Depression-era juvenile delinquent and other social problems films (Roffman &
Purdy, 1981), these accounts romanticized the subject. They turned the deviant into a
sociological version of a screen hero. These sociological stories, like their film
counterparts, usually had happy endings, as they followed individuals through the
three stages of the classic morality tale: being in a state of grace, being seduced by evil
and falling, and finally achieving redemption through suffering.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 22
Modernist Phase
The modernist phase, or second moment, builds on the canonical works from the
traditional period. Social realism, naturalism, and slice-of-life ethnographies are still
valued. This phase extended through the postwar years to the 1970s and is still present
in the work of many (for reviews, see Wolcott, 1990, 1992, 1995; see also Tedlock,
Volume 2, Chapter 5). In this period many texts sought to formalize qualitative methods (see, e.g., Bogdan & Taylor, 1975; Cicourel, 1964; Filstead, 1970; Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Lofland, 1971, 1995; Lofland & Lofland, 1984, 1995; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998).14
The modernist ethnographer and sociological participant observer attempted rigorous
qualitative studies of important social processes, including deviance and social control
in the classroom and society. This was a moment of creative ferment.
A new generation of graduate students across the human disciplines encountered
new interpretive theories (ethnomethodology, phenomenology, critical theory, feminism). They were drawn to qualitative research practices that would let them give a
voice to societys underclass. Postpositivism functioned as a powerful epistemological
paradigm. Researchers attempted to fit Campbell and Stanleys (1963) model of internal and external validity to constructionist and interactionist conceptions of the
research act. They returned to the texts of the Chicago school as sources of inspiration
(see Denzin, 1970, 1978).
A canonical text from this moment remains Boys in White (Becker et al., 1961; see
also Becker, 1998). Firmly entrenched in mid-20th-century methodological discourse,
this work attempted to make qualitative research as rigorous as its quantitative counterpart. Causal narratives were central to this project. This multimethod work combined open-ended and quasi-structured interviewing with participant observation
and the careful analysis of such materials in standardized, statistical form. In his classic article Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation, Howard S.
Becker (1958/1970) describes the use of quasi-statistics:
Participant observations have occasionally been gathered in standardized form capable of
being transformed into legitimate statistical data. But the exigencies of the field usually
prevent the collection of data in such a form to meet the assumptions of statistical tests, so
that the observer deals in what have been called quasi-statistics. His conclusions, while
implicitly numerical, do not require precise quantification. (p. 31)
In the analysis of data, Becker notes, the qualitative researcher takes a cue from
more quantitatively oriented colleagues. The researcher looks for probabilities or support for arguments concerning the likelihood that, or frequency with which, a conclusion in fact applies in a specific situation (see also Becker, 1998, pp. 166170). Thus
did work in the modernist period clothe itself in the language and rhetoric of positivist and postpositivist discourse.
This was the golden age of rigorous qualitative analysis, bracketed in sociology by
Boys in White (Becker et al., 1961) at one end and The Discovery of Grounded Theory
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 23
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967) at the other. In education, qualitative research in

this period was defined by George and Louise Spindler, Jules Henry, Harry Wolcott,
and John Singleton. This form of qualitative research is still present in the work of
scholars such as Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Ryan and Bernard (2000).
The golden age reinforced the picture of qualitative researchers as cultural
romantics. Imbued with Promethean human powers, they valorized villains and outsiders as heroes to mainstream society. They embodied a belief in the contingency of
self and society, and held to emancipatory ideals for which one lives and dies. They
put in place a tragic and often ironic view of society and self, and joined a long line of
leftist cultural romantics that included Emerson, Marx, James, Dewey, Gramsci, and
Martin Luther King, Jr. (West, 1989, chap. 6).
As this moment came to an end, the Vietnam War was everywhere present in
American society. In 1969, alongside these political currents, Herbert Blumer and
Everett Hughes met with a group of young sociologists called the Chicago Irregulars
at the American Sociological Association meetings held in San Francisco and shared
their memories of the Chicago years. Lyn Lofland (1980) describes this time as a
moment of creative fermentscholarly and political. The San Francisco meetings witnessed not simply the Blumer-Hughes event but a counter-revolution. . . . a group first
came to . . . talk about the problems of being a sociologist and a female. . . . the discipline
seemed literally to be bursting with new . . . ideas: labelling theory, ethnomethodology,
conflict theory, phenomenology, dramaturgical analysis. (p. 253)
Thus did the modernist phase come to an end.
Blurred Genres
By the beginning of the third phase (19701986), which we call the moment of
blurred genres, qualitative researchers had a full complement of paradigms, methods, and strategies to employ in their research. Theories ranged from symbolic
interactionism to constructivism, naturalistic inquiry, positivism and postpositivism, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, critical theory, neo-Marxist theory,
semiotics, structuralism, feminism, and various racial/ethnic paradigms. Applied
qualitative research was gaining in stature, and the politics and ethics of qualitative researchimplicated as they were in various applications of this workwere
topics of considerable concern. Research strategies and formats for reporting
research ranged from grounded theory to the case study, to methods of historical,
biographical, ethnographic, action, and clinical research. Diverse ways of collecting
and analyzing empirical materials were also available, including qualitative interviewing (open-ended and quasi-structured) and observational, visual, personal
experience, and documentary methods. Computers were entering the situation, to
be fully developed as aids in the analysis of qualitative data in the next decade,
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 24
along with narrative, content, and semiotic methods of reading interviews and
cultural texts.
Two books by Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) and Local
Knowledge (1983), defined the beginning and the end of this moment. In these
two works, Geertz argued that the old functional, positivist, behavioral, totalizing
approaches to the human disciplines were giving way to a more pluralistic,interpretive,
open-ended perspective. This new perspective took cultural representations and their
meanings as its points of departure. Calling for thick descriptionof particular events,
rituals, and customs, Geertz suggested that all anthropological writings are interpretations of interpretations.15 The observer has no privileged voice in the interpretations
that are written. The central task of theory is to make sense out of a local situation.
Geertz went on to propose that the boundaries between the social sciences and the
humanities had become blurred. Social scientists were now turning to the humanities
for models, theories, and methods of analysis (semiotics, hermeneutics). A form of
genre diaspora was occurring: documentaries that read like fiction (Mailer), parables
posing as ethnographies (Castaeda), theoretical treatises that look like travelogues
(Lvi-Strauss). At the same time, other new approaches were emerging: poststructuralism (Barthes), neopositivism (Philips), neo-Marxism (Althusser), micro-macro
descriptivism (Geertz), ritual theories of drama and culture (V. Turner), deconstructionism (Derrida), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel). The golden age of the social sciences was over, and a new age of blurred, interpretive genres was upon us. The essay
as an art form was replacing the scientific article. At issue now was the authors presence in the interpretive text (Geertz, 1988). How can the researcher speak with authority in an age when there are no longer any firm rules concerning the text, including the
authors place in it, its standards of evaluation, and its subject matter?
The naturalistic, postpositivist, and constructionist paradigms gained power in
this period, especially in education, in the works of Harry Wolcott, Frederick Erickson,
Egon Guba, Yvonna Lincoln, Robert Stake, and Elliot Eisner. By the end of the 1970s,
several qualitative journals were in place, including Urban Life and Culture (now
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography), Cultural Anthropology, Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, Qualitative Sociology, and Symbolic Interaction, as well as the
book series Studies in Symbolic Interaction.
Crisis of Representation
A profound rupture occurred in the mid-1980s.What we call the fourth moment, or
the crisis of representation, appeared with Anthropology as Cultural Critique (Marcus
& Fischer, 1986), The Anthropology of Experience (Turner & Bruner, 1986), Writing
Culture (Clifford & Marcus,1986),Works and Lives (Geertz,1988),and The Predicament
of Culture (Clifford, 1988). These works made research and writing more reflexive and
called into question the issues of gender, class, and race. They articulated the consequences of Geertzs blurred genres interpretation of the field in the early 1980s.16
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 25
Qualitative researchers sought new models of truth, method, and representation

(Rosaldo, 1989). The erosion of classic norms in anthropology (objectivism, complicity with colonialism, social life structured by fixed rituals and customs, ethnographies
as monuments to a culture) was complete (Rosaldo, 1989, pp. 4445; see also Jackson,
1998, pp. 78). Critical theory, feminist theory, and epistemologies of color now competed for attention in this arena. Issues such as validity, reliability, and objectivity,
previously believed settled, were once more problematic. Pattern and interpretive
theories, as opposed to causal, linear theories, were now more common, as writers
continued to challenge older models of truth and meaning (Rosaldo, 1989).
Stoller and Olkes (1987, pp. 227229) describe how they felt the crisis of representation in their fieldwork among the Songhay of Niger. Stoller observes:When I began
to write anthropological texts, I followed the conventions of my training. I gathered
data, and once the data were arranged in neat piles, I wrote them up. In one case
I reduced Songhay insults to a series of neat logical formulas (p. 227). Stoller became
dissatisfied with this form of writing, in part because he learned everyone had lied to
me and . . . the data I has so painstakingly collected were worthless. I learned a lesson: Informants routinely lie to their anthropologists (Stoller & Olkes, 1987, p. 9).
This discovery led to a secondthat he had, in following the conventions of ethnographic realism, edited himself out of his text. This led Stoller to produce a different
type of text, a memoir, in which he became a central character in the story he told.
This story, an account of his experiences in the Songhay world, became an analysis of
the clash between his world and the world of Songhay sorcery. Thus Stollers journey
represents an attempt to confront the crisis of representation in the fourth moment.
Clough (1998) elaborates this crisis and criticizes those who would argue that new
forms of writing represent a way out of the crisis. She argues:
While many sociologists now commenting on the criticism of ethnography view writing as
downright central to the ethnographic enterprise [Van Maanen, 1988, p. xi], the problems
of writing are still viewed as different from the problems of method or fieldwork itself. Thus
the solution usually offered is experiments in writing, that is a self-consciousness about
writing. (p. 136)
It is this insistence on the difference between writing and fieldwork that must be
analyzed. (Richardson & St. Pierre are quite articulate about this issue in Volume 3,
Chapter 15).
In writing, the field-worker makes a claim to moral and scientific authority. This
claim allows the realist and experimental ethnographic texts to function as sources of
validation for an empirical science. They show that the world of real lived experience
can still be captured, if only in the writers memoirs, or fictional experimentations, or
dramatic readings. But these works have the danger of directing attention away from
the ways in which the text constructs sexually situated individuals in a field of social
difference. They also perpetuate empirical sciences hegemony (Clough, 1998, p. 8),
for these new writing technologies of the subject become the site for the production
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 26
of knowledge/power . . . [aligned] with . . . the capital/state axis (Aronowitz, 1988,

p. 300; quoted in Clough, 1998, p. 8). Such experiments come up against, and then back
away from, the difference between empirical science and social criticism. Too often
they fail to engage fully a new politics of textuality that would refuse the identity of
empirical science (Clough, 1998, p. 135). This new social criticism would intervene
in the relationship of information economics, nation-state politics, and technologies
of mass communication, especially in terms of the empirical sciences (Clough, 1998,
p. 16). This, of course, is the terrain occupied by cultural studies.
In Chapter 15 of Volume 3, Richardson and St. Pierre develop the above arguments,
viewing writing as a method of inquiry that moves through successive stages of selfreflection.As a series of written representations, the field-workers texts flow from the
field experience, through intermediate works, to later work, and finally to the research
text, which is the public presentation of the ethnographic and narrative experience.
Thus fieldwork and writing blur into one another. There is, in the final analysis, no difference between writing and fieldwork. These two perspectives inform one another
throughout every chapter in this volume. In these ways the crisis of representation
moves qualitative research in new and critical directions.
A Triple Crisis
The ethnographers authority remains under assault today (Behar, 1995, p. 3;
Gupta & Ferguson, 1997, p. 16; Jackson, 1998; Ortner, 1997, p. 2).A triple crisis of representation, legitimation, and praxis confronts qualitative researchers in the human
disciplines. Embedded in the discourses of poststructuralism and postmodernism
(Vidich & Lyman, 2000; see also Richardson & St. Pierre,Volume 3, Chapter 15), these
three crises are coded in multiple terms, variously called and associated with the critical, interpretive, linguistic, feminist, and rhetorical turns in social theory. These new
turns make problematic two key assumptions of qualitative research. The first is that
qualitative researchers can no longer directly capture lived experience. Such experience, it is argued, is created in the social text written by the researcher. This is the
representational crisis. It confronts the inescapable problem of representation, but
does so within a framework that makes the direct link between experience and text
problematic.
The second assumption makes problematic the traditional criteria for evaluating
and interpreting qualitative research. This is the legitimation crisis. It involves a serious rethinking of such terms as validity, generalizability, and reliability, terms already
retheorized in postpositivist (Hammersley, 1992), constructionist-naturalistic (Guba
& Lincoln, 1989, pp. 163183), feminist (Olesen, Chapter 10, this volume), interpretive
and performative (Denzin, 1997, 2003), poststructural (Lather, 1993; Lather &
Smithies, 1997), and critical discourses (Kincheloe & McLaren, Chapter 12, this volume). This crisis asks, How are qualitative studies to be evaluated in the contemporary, poststructural moment? The first two crises shape the third, which asks,
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 27
Is it possible to effect change in the world if society is only and always a text? Clearly
these crises intersect and blur, as do the answers to the questions they generate (see
Ladson-Billings, 2000; Schwandt, 2000; Smith & Deemer, 2000).
The fifth moment, the postmodern period of experimental ethnographic writing,
struggled to make sense of these crises. New ways of composing ethnography were
explored (Ellis & Bochner, 1996). Theories were read as tales from the field. Writers
struggled with different ways to represent the Other, although they were now joined
by new representational concerns (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000; see also Fine &
Weis, Chapter 3, this volume). Epistemologies from previously silenced groups
emerged to offer solutions to these problems. The concept of the aloof observer was
abandoned.More action, participatory, and activist-oriented research was on the horizon. The search for grand narratives was being replaced by more local, small-scale
theories fitted to specific problems and specific situations.
The sixth moment, postexperimental inquiry (19952000), was a period of great
excitement, with AltaMira Press, under the direction of Mitch Allen, taking the lead.
AltaMiras book series titled Ethnographic Alternatives, for which Carolyn Ellis and
Arthur Bochner served as series editors, captured this new excitement and brought a
host of new authors into the interpretive community. The following description of the
series from the publisher reflects its experimental tone:Ethnographic Alternatives publishes experimental forms of qualitative writing that blur the boundaries between social
sciences and humanities. Some volumes in the series . . . experiment with novel forms
of expressing lived experience, including literary, poetic, autobiographical, multivoiced,
conversational, critical, visual, performative and co-constructed representations.
During this same period, two major new qualitative journals began publication:
Qualitative Inquiry and Qualitative Research. The editors of these journals were committed to publishing the very best new work. The success of these ventures framed the
seventh moment, what we are calling the methodologically contested present
(20002004). As discussed above, this is a period of conflict, great tension, and, in
some quarters, retrenchment.
The eighth moment is now, the future (2005 ). In this moment scholars, as
reviewed above, are confronting the methodological backlash associated with Bush
science and the evidence-based social movement.
Reading History
We draw several conclusions from this brief history, noting that it is, like all histories, somewhat arbitrary. First, each of the earlier historical moments is still operating
in the present, either as legacy or as a set of practices that researchers continue to follow
or argue against. The multiple and fractured histories of qualitative research now make
it possible for any given researcher to attach a project to a canonical text from any of
the above-described historical moments. Multiple criteria of evaluation compete for
attention in this field. Second, an embarrassment of choices now characterizes the field
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 28
of qualitative research. Researchers have never before had so many paradigms, strategies of inquiry, and methods of analysis to draw upon and utilize. Third, we are in a
moment of discovery and rediscovery, as new ways of looking, interpreting, arguing,
and writing are debated and discussed. Fourth, the qualitative research act can no
longer be viewed from within a neutral or objective positivist perspective. Class, race,
gender, and ethnicity shape inquiry, making research a multicultural process. Fifth, we
are clearly not implying a progress narrative with our history. We are not saying that
the cutting edge is located in the present.We are saying that the present is a politically
charged space. Complex pressures both within and outside of the qualitative community are working to erase the positive developments of the past 30 years.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AS PROCESS
Three interconnected, generic activities define the qualitative research process. They
go by a variety of different labels, including theory, analysis, ontology, epistemology,
and methodology. Behind these terms stands the personal biography of the researcher,
who speaks from a particular class, gender, racial, cultural, and ethnic community
perspective. The gendered, multiculturally situated researcher approaches the world
with a set of ideas, a framework (theory, ontology) that specifies a set of questions
(epistemology) that he or she then examines in specific ways (methodology, analysis).
That is, the researcher collects empirical materials bearing on the question and then
analyzes and writes about those materials. Every researcher speaks from within a distinct interpretive community that configures, in its special way, the multicultural, gendered components of the research act.
In this volume we treat these generic activities under five headings, or phases: the
researcher and the researched as multicultural subjects, major paradigms and interpretive perspectives, research strategies, methods of collecting and analyzing empirical materials, and the art of interpretation. Behind and within each of these phases
stands the biographically situated researcher. This individual enters the research
process from inside an interpretive community. This community has its own historical research traditions, which constitute a distinct point of view. This perspective
leads the researcher to adopt particular views of the Other who is studied. At the
same time, the politics and the ethics of research must also be considered, for these
concerns permeate every phase of the research process.
THE OTHER AS RESEARCH SUBJECT
Since its early 20th-century birth in modern, interpretive form, qualitative research
has been haunted by a double-faced ghost. On the one hand, qualitative researchers
have assumed that qualified, competent observers can, with objectivity, clarity, and
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 29
precision, report on their own observations of the social world, including the experiences of others. Second, researchers have held to the belief in a real subject, or real
individual, who is present in the world and able, in some form, to report on his or her
experiences. So armed, researchers could blend their own observations with the selfreports provided by subjects through interviews and life story, personal experience,
and case study documents.
These two beliefs have led qualitative researchers across disciplines to seek a
method that will allow them to record accurately their own observations while also
uncovering the meanings their subjects bring to their life experiences. Such a method
would rely on the subjective verbal and written expressions of meaning given by the
individuals studied as windows into the inner lives of these persons. Since Dilthey
(1900/1976), this search for a method has led to a perennial focus in the human disciplines on qualitative, interpretive methods.
Recently, as noted above, this position and its beliefs have come under assault.
Poststructuralists and postmodernists have contributed to the understanding that
there is no clear window into the inner life of an individual.Any gaze is always filtered
through the lenses of language, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity. There are no
objective observations, only observations socially situated in the worlds ofand
betweenthe observer and the observed. Subjects, or individuals, are seldom able to
give full explanations of their actions or intentions; all they can offer are accounts, or
stories, about what they have done and why. No single method can grasp all the subtle variations in ongoing human experience. Consequently, qualitative researchers
deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive methods, always seeking better
ways to make more understandable the worlds of experience they have studied.
Table 1.1 depicts the relationships we see among the five phases that define the
research process. Behind all but one of these phases stands the biographically situated
researcher. These five levels of activity, or practice, work their way through the biography of the researcher. We take them up briefly in order here; we discuss these
phases more fully in our introductions to the individual parts of this volume.
Phase 1: The Researcher

Our remarks above indicate the depth and complexity of the traditional and
applied qualitative research perspectives into which a socially situated researcher
enters. These traditions locate the researcher in history, simultaneously guiding and
constraining the work that is done in any specific study. This field has always been
characterized by diversity and conflict, and these are its most enduring traditions (see
Greenwood & Levin, Chapter 2, this volume). As a carrier of this complex and contradictory history, the researcher must also confront the ethics and politics of research
(see in this volume Fine & Weis, Chapter 3; Smith, Chapter 4; Bishop, Chapter 5;
Christians, Chapter 6). Researching the native, the indigenous Other, while claiming to
engage in value-free inquiry for the human disciplines is over. Today researchers
11/1/2007
4:39 PM

Table 1.1.
The Research Process
Phase 1: The Researcher as a Multicultural Subject

History and research traditions
Conceptions of self and the Other
The ethics and politics of research
Phase 2: Theoretical Paradigms and Perspectives
Positivism, postpositivism
Interpretivism, constructivism, hermeneutics
Feminism(s)
Racialized discourses
Critical theory and Marxist models
Cultural studies models
Queer theory
Phase 3: Research Strategies
Design
Case study
Ethnography, participant observation, performance ethnography
Phenomenology, ethnomethodology
Grounded theory
Life history, testimonio
Historical method
Action and applied research
Clinical research
Phase 4: Methods of Collection and Analysis
Interviewing
Observing
Artifacts, documents, and records
Visual methods
Autoethnography
Data management methods
Computer-assisted analysis
Textual analysis
Focus groups
Applied ethnography
Phase 5: The Art, Practices, and Politics of Interpretation and Evaluation
Criteria for judging adequacy
Practices and politics of interpretation
Writing as interpretation
Policy analysis
Evaluation traditions
Applied research
Page 30
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 31
struggle to develop situational and trans-situational ethics that apply to all forms of
the research act and its human-to-human relationships.We no longer have the option
of deferring the decolonization project.
Phase 2: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers are philosophers in that universal sense in which all
human beings . . . are guided by highly abstract principles (Bateson, 1972, p. 320).
These principles combine beliefs about ontology (What kind of being is the human
being? What is the nature of reality?), epistemology (What is the relationship between
the inquirer and the known?), and methodology (How do we know the world, or gain
knowledge of it?) (see Guba, 1990, p. 18; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 1415; see also
Guba & Lincoln, Chapter 8, this volume). These beliefs shape how the qualitative
researcher sees the world and acts in it. The researcher is bound within a net of epistemological and ontological premises whichregardless of ultimate truth or
falsitybecome partially self-validating (Bateson, 1972, p. 314).
The net that contains the researchers epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises may be termed a paradigm, or an interpretive framework, a basic
set of beliefs that guides action (Guba, 1990, p. 17). All research is interpretive; it is
guided by the researchers set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should
be understood and studied. Some beliefs may be taken for granted, invisible, only
assumed, whereas others are highly problematic and controversial. Each interpretive
paradigm makes particular demands on the researcher, including the questions the
researcher asks and the interpretations he or she brings to them.
At the most general level, four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative
research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist-interpretive, critical (Marxist,
emancipatory), and feminist-poststructural. These four abstract paradigms become
more complicated at the level of concrete specific interpretive communities.
At this level it is possible to identify not only the constructivist, but also multiple
versions of feminism (Afrocentric and poststructural),17 as well as specific ethnic,
Marxist, and cultural studies paradigms. These perspectives, or paradigms, are examined in Part II of this volume.
The paradigms examined in Part II work against and alongside (and some within)
the positivist and postpositivist models. They all work within relativist ontologies
(multiple constructed realities), interpretive epistemologies (the knower and known
interact and shape one another), and interpretive, naturalistic methods.
Table 1.2 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria
for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm.18 These paradigms are explored in considerable
detail in the chapters in Part II by Guba and Lincoln (Chapter 8), Olesen (Chapter 10),
Ladson-Billings and Donnor (Chapter 11), Kincheloe and McLaren (Chapter 12),
Saukko (Chapter 13), and Plummer (Chapter 14).We have discussed the positivist and
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 32

Table 1.2.
Interpretive Paradigms
Paradigm/Theory
Criteria
Form of Theory
Type of Narration
Positivist/
postpositivist
Internal, external validity
Logicaldeductive,
grounded
Scientific report
Constructivist
Trustworthiness, credibility,
transferability,
confirmability
Substantiveformal
Interpretive
case studies,
ethnographic
fiction
Feminist
Afrocentric, lived
experience, dialogue, caring,
accountability, race, class,
gender, reflexivity, praxis,
emotion, concrete
grounding
Critical,
standpoint
Essays, stories,
experimental
writing
Ethnic
Afrocentric, lived experience,

dialogue, caring,
accountability, race, class,
gender
Standpoint,
critical,
historical
Essays, fables,
dramas
Marxist
Emancipatory theory,
falsifiability dialogical, race,
class, gender
Critical,
historical,
economic
Historical,
economic,
sociocultural
analyses
Cultural studies
Cultural practices, praxis,

social texts, subjectivities
Social criticism
Cultural theory
as criticism
Queer theory
Reflexivity, deconstruction
Social
criticism,
historical
analysis
Theory as
criticism,
autobiography
postpositivist paradigms above. They work from within a realist and critical realist
ontology and objective epistemologies, and they rely on experimental, quasiexperimental, survey, and rigorously defined qualitative methodologies. Ryan and
Bernard (2000) have developed elements of this paradigm.
The constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower and respondent cocreate understandings),
and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures. Findings
are usually presented in terms of the criteria of grounded theory or pattern theories
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 33
(see Guba & Lincoln, Chapter 8, this volume; Charmaz, Volume 2, Chapter 7; see also
Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Terms such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability replace the usual positivist criteria of internal and external validity,
reliability, and objectivity.
Feminist, ethnic, Marxist, cultural studies, and queer theory models privilege a
materialist-realist ontology; that is, the real world makes a material difference in
terms of race, class, and gender. Subjectivist epistemologies and naturalistic methodologies (usually ethnographies) are also employed. Empirical materials and theoretical arguments are evaluated in terms of their emancipatory implications. Criteria
from gender and racial communities (e.g., African American) may be applied (emotionality and feeling, caring, personal accountability, dialogue).
Poststructural feminist theories emphasize problems with the social text, its logic,
and its inability ever to represent the world of lived experience fully. Positivist and
postpositivist criteria of evaluation are replaced by other criteria, including the reflexive, multivoiced text that is grounded in the experiences of oppressed peoples.
The cultural studies and queer theory paradigms are multifocused, with many different strands drawing from Marxism, feminism, and the postmodern sensibility (see
in this volume Saukko, Chapter 13; Plummer, Chapter 14; Richardson & St. Pierre,
Volume 3, Chapter 15). There is a tension between a humanistic cultural studies, which
stresses lived experiences (meaning), and a more structural cultural studies project,
which stresses the structural and material determinants (race, class, gender) and
effects of experience. Of course, there are two sides to every coin, and both sides are
neededindeed, both are critical. The cultural studies and queer theory paradigms
use methods strategicallythat is, as resources for understanding and for producing
resistances to local structures of domination. Scholars may do close textual readings
and discourse analyses of cultural texts (see Olesen, Chapter 10, this volume; Saukko,
Chapter 13; Chase, Volume 3, Chapter 2) as well as local, online, reflexive, and critical
ethnographies, open-ended interviewing, and participant observation. The focus is on
how race, class, and gender are produced and enacted in historically specific situations.
Paradigm and personal history in hand, focused on a concrete empirical problem to
examine, the researcher now moves to the next stage of the research processnamely,
working with a specific strategy of inquiry.
Phase 3: Strategies of Inquiry and Interpretive Paradigms

Table 1.1 presents some of the major strategies of inquiry a researcher may use.
Phase 3 begins with research design, which, broadly conceived, involves a clear focus
on the research question,the purposes of the study,and what information most appropriately will answer specific research questions, and which strategies are most effective
for obtaining it (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, p. 30; see also Cheek,Volume 2, Chapter 2).
A research design describes a flexible set of guidelines that connect theoretical paradigms first to strategies of inquiry and second to methods for collecting empirical
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 34
materials. A research design situates the researcher in the empirical world and
connects him or her to specific sites, persons, groups, institutions, and bodies of relevant interpretive material, including documents and archives. A research design also
specifies how the investigator will address the two critical issues of representation and
legitimation.
A strategy of inquiry comprises a bundle of skills,assumptions,and practices that the
researcher employs as he or she moves from paradigm to the empirical world. Strategies
of inquiry put paradigms of interpretation into motion. At the same time, strategies of
inquiry also connect the researcher to specific methods of collecting and analyzing
empirical materials. For example, the case study strategy relies on interviewing, observing, and document analysis. Research strategies implement and anchor paradigms in
specific empirical sites or in specific methodological practices, such as making a case an
object of study. These strategies include the case study, phenomenological and ethnomethodological techniques, and the use of grounded theory, as well as biographical,
autoethnographic,historical,action,and clinical methods.Each of these strategies is connected to a complex literature,and each has a separate history,exemplary works,and preferred ways of putting the strategy into motion.
Phase 4: Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Empirical Materials

Qualitative researchers employ several methods for collecting empirical materials.19
These methods,which are taken up in Volume 3,Part I (Part IV in the Handbook),include
interviewing; direct observation; the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural
records; the use of visual materials; and the use of personal experience. The researcher
may also read and analyze interviews or cultural texts in a variety of different ways,including content, narrative, and semiotic strategies. Faced with large amounts of qualitative
materials,the investigator seeks ways of managing and interpreting these documents,and
here data management methods and computer-assisted models of analysis may be of use.
Phase 5: The Art and Politics of Interpretation and Evaluation

Qualitative research is endlessly creative and interpretive. The researcher does not
just leave the field with mountains of empirical materials and then easily write up his
or her findings. Qualitative interpretations are constructed. The researcher first creates
a field text consisting of field notes and documents from the field, what Roger Sanjek
(1990, p. 386) calls indexing and David Plath (1990, p. 374) calls filework. The
writer-as-interpreter moves from this text to a research text: notes and interpretations
based on the field text. This text is then re-created as a working interpretive document
that contains the writers initial attempts to make sense of what he or she has learned.
Finally, the writer produces the public text that comes to the reader. This final tale from
the field may assume several forms: confessional, realist, impressionistic, critical, formal, literary, analytic, grounded theory, and so on (see Van Maanen, 1988).
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 35
The interpretive practice of making sense of ones findings is both artistic and political. Multiple criteria for evaluating qualitative research now exist, and those that we
emphasize stress the situated, relational, and textual structures of the ethnographic
experience. There is no single interpretive truth. As we argued earlier, there are multiple interpretive communities, each with its own criteria for evaluating interpretations.
Program evaluation is a major site of qualitative research, and qualitative
researchers can influence social policy in important ways. The chapters in this volume
by Greenwood and Levin (Chapter 2), Kemmis and McTaggart (Volume 2, Chapter 10),
Miller and Crabtree (Volume 2, Chapter 11), Tedlock (Volume 2, Chapter 5), Smith and
Hodkinson (Volume 3, Chapter 13), and House (Volume 3, Chapter 19) trace and discuss the rich history of applied qualitative research in the social sciences. This is the
critical site where theory, method, praxis, action, and policy all come together.
Qualitative researchers can isolate target populations, show the immediate effects of
certain programs on such groups, and isolate the constraints that operate against policy changes in such settings. Action-oriented and clinically oriented qualitative
researchers can also create spaces where those who are studied (the Other) can speak.
The evaluator becomes the conduit for making such voices heard.
BRIDGING THE HISTORICAL MOMENTS: WHAT COMES NEXT?
In Chapter 15 of Volume 3, Richardson and St. Pierre argue that we are already
in the post-post periodpost-poststructuralism, post-postmodernism, postpostexperimentalism. What this means for interpretive ethnographic practices is still
not clear, but it is certain that things will never again be the same.We are in a new age
where messy, uncertain, multivoiced texts, cultural criticism, and new experimental
works will become more common, as will more reflexive forms of fieldwork, analysis,
and intertextual representation. The subject of our final essays in Volume 3 is these
sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth moments. It is true that, as the poet said, the center
no longer holds. We can reflect on what should be at the new center.
Thus we come full circle. Returning to our bridge metaphor, the chapters that follow take the researcher back and forth through every phase of the research act. Like a
good bridge, the chapters provide for two-way traffic, coming and going between
moments, formations, and interpretive communities. Each chapter examines the relevant histories, controversies, and current practices that are associated with each paradigm, strategy, and method. Each chapter also offers projections for the future, where
a specific paradigm, strategy, or method will be 10 years from now, deep into the formative years of the 21st century.
In reading the chapters that follow, it is important to remember that the field of qualitative research is defined by a series of tensions, contradictions, and hesitations. These
tensions work back and forth between and among the broad, doubting postmodern
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 36
sensibility; the more certain, more traditional positivist, postpositivist, and naturalistic
conceptions of this project; and an increasingly conservative, neoliberal global environment.All of the chapters that follow are caught in and articulate these tensions.
NOTES
1. Recall bell hookss (1990, p. 127) reading of the famous photo of Stephen Tyler doing
fieldwork in India that appears on the cover of Writing Culture (Clifford & Marcus, 1986). In
the picture, Tyler is seated at some distance from three dark-skinned persons. One, a child, is
poking his or her head out of a basket. A woman is hidden in the shadows of the hut. A man, a
checkered white-and-black shawl across his shoulder, elbow propped on his knee, hand resting along the side of his face, is staring at Tyler. Tyler is writing in a field journal. A piece of
white cloth is attached to his glasses, perhaps shielding him from the sun. This patch of whiteness marks Tyler as the white male writer studying these passive brown and black persons.
Indeed, the brown males gaze signals some desire, or some attachment to Tyler. In contrast, the
females gaze is completely hidden by the shadows and by the words of the books title, which
are printed across her face.
2. Qualitative research has separate and distinguished histories in education, social work,
communications, psychology, history, organizational studies, medical science, anthropology,
and sociology.
3. Some definitions are in order here. Positivism asserts that objective accounts of the real
world can be given. Postpositivism holds that only partially objective accounts of the world can
be produced, for all methods for examining such accounts are flawed. According to foundationalism, we can have an ultimate grounding for our knowledge claims about the world, and this
involves the use of empiricist and positivist epistemologies (Schwandt, 1997a, p. 103).
Nonfoundationalism holds that we can make statements about the world without recourse to
ultimate proof or foundations for that knowing(Schwandt,1997a,p.102).Quasi-foundationalism
holds that we can make certain knowledge claims about the world based on neorealist criteria,
including the correspondence concept of truth; there is an independent reality that can be
mapped (see Smith & Hodkinson, Volume 3, Chapter 13).
4. Jameson (1991, pp. 34) reminds us that any periodization hypothesis is always suspect, even one that rejects linear, stagelike models. It is never clear to what reality a stage refers,
and what divides one stage from another is always debatable. Our eight moments are meant to
mark discernible shifts in style, genre, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.
5. Several scholars have termed this model a progress narrative (Alasuutari, 2004,
pp. 599600; Seale, Gobo, Gubrium, & Silverman, 2004, p. 2). Critics assert that we believe that
the most recent moment is the most up-to-date, the avant-garde, the cutting edge (Alasuutari,
2004, p. 601). Naturally, we dispute this reading. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003, pp. 58) have
modified our historical periods to fit their historical analysis of the major moments in the
emergence of the use of mixed methods in social science research in the past century.
6. Some additional definitions are needed here. Structuralism holds that any system is
made up of a set of oppositional categories embedded in language. Semiotics is the science of
signs or sign systemsa structuralist project. According to poststructuralism, language is an
unstable system of referents, thus it is impossible ever to capture completely the meaning of an
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 37

action, text, or intention. Postmodernism is a contemporary sensibility, developing since World
War II, that privileges no single authority, method, or paradigm. Hermeneutics is an approach
to the analysis of texts that stresses how prior understandings and prejudices shape the interpretive process. Phenomenology is a complex system of ideas associated with the works of
Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and Alfred Schutz. Cultural studies is a complex,
interdisciplinary field that merges critical theory, feminism, and poststructuralism.
7. Of course,all settings are naturalthat is,places where everyday experiences take place.
Qualitative researchers study people doing things together in the places where these things are
done (Becker,1986).There is no field site or natural place where one goes to do this kind of work
(see also Gupta & Ferguson, 1997, p. 8). The site is constituted through the researchers interpretive practices. Historically, analysts have distinguished between experimental (laboratory) and
field (natural) research settings, hence the argument that qualitative research is naturalistic.
Activity theory erases this distinction (Keller & Keller, 1996, p. 20; Vygotsky, 1978).
8. According to Weinstein and Weinstein (1991), The meaning of bricoleur in French
popular speech is someone who works with his (or her) hands and uses devious means
compared to those of the craftsman. . . . the bricoleur is practical and gets the job done
(p. 161). These authors provide a history of the term, connecting it to the works of the
German sociologist and social theorist Georg Simmel and, by implication, Baudelaire.
Hammersley (1999) disputes our use of this term. Following Lvi-Strauss, he reads the
bricoleur as a mythmaker. He suggests that the term be replaced with the notion of the boatbuilder. Hammersley also quarrels with our moments model of the history of qualitative
research, contending that it implies some sense of progress.
9. Brian De Palma reproduced this baby carriage scene in his 1987 film The
Untouchables.
10. In the harbor, the muzzles of the Potemkins two huge guns swing slowly toward the
camera.Words on the screen inform us,The brutal military power answered by guns of the battleship. A final famous three-shot montage sequence shows first a sculpture of a sleeping lion,
then a lion rising from his sleep,and finally the lion roaring,symbolizing the rage of the Russian
people (Cook, 1981, p. 167). In this sequence Eisenstein uses montage to expand time, creating
a psychological duration for this horrible event. By drawing out this sequence, by showing the
baby in the carriage, the soldiers firing on the citizens, the blood on the mothers glove, the
descending carriage on the steps, he suggests a level of destruction of great magnitude.
11. Here it is relevant to make a distinction between techniques that are used across disciplines and methods that are used within disciplines. Ethnomethodologists, for example,
employ their approach as a method, whereas others selectively borrow that method as a technique for their own applications. Harry Wolcott (personal communication, 1993) suggests this
distinction. It is also relevant to make distinctions among topic, method, and resource.
Methods can be studied as topics of inquiry; that is how a case study gets done. In this ironic,
ethnomethodological sense, method is both a resource and a topic of inquiry.
12. Indeed, any attempt to give an essential definition of qualitative research requires a
qualitative analysis of the circumstances that produce such a definition.
13. In this sense all research is qualitative, because the observer is at the center of the
research process (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p. 39).
14. See Lincoln and Guba (1985) for an extension and elaboration of this tradition in the
mid-1980s, and for more recent extensions see Taylor and Bogdan (1998) and Creswell (1998).
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 38

15. Greenblatt (1997, pp. 1518) offers a useful deconstructive reading of the many meanings and practices Geertz brings to the term thick description.
16. These works marginalized and minimized the contributions of standpoint feminist
theory and research to this discourse (see Behar, 1995, p. 3; Gordon, 1995, p. 432).
17. Olesen (Chapter 10, this volume) identifies three strands of feminist research: mainstream empirical, standpoint and cultural studies, and poststructural, postmodern. She places
Afrocentric and other models of color under the cultural studies and postmodern categories.
18. These, of course, are our interpretations of these paradigms and interpretive styles.
19. Empirical materials is the preferred term for what traditionally have been described as
data.
REFERENCES
Alasuutari,P.(2004).The globalization of qualitative research.In C.Seale,G.Gobo,J.F.Gubrium,

& D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 595608). London: Sage.
Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Atkinson, E. (2004). Thinking outside the box: An exercise in heresy. Qualitative Inquiry, 10,
111129.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Battiste, M. (2000). Introduction: Unfolding lessons of colonization. In M. Battiste (Ed.),
Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. xvixxx). Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press.
Becker, H. S. (1970). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. In H. S. Becker,
Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago: Aldine. (Reprinted from American
Sociological Review, 1958, 23, 652660)
Becker, H. S. (1986). Doing things together. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, &
R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in
social inquiry (pp. 5371). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while youre doing it.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in
medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Behar, R. (1995). Introduction: Out of exile. In R. Behar & D. A. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing
culture (pp. 129). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloch, M. (2004). A discourse that disciplines, governs, and regulates: The National Research
Councils report on scientific research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 96110.
Bochner,A. P., & Ellis, C. (Eds.). (2002). Ethnographically speaking: Autoethnography, literature,
and aesthetics. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York: John Wiley.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 39

Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln,Y. S. (2004a). Dangerous discourses II: Comprehending and countering the redeployment of discourses (and resources) in the generation of liberatory
inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 165174.
Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004b). Epilogue: Claiming a critical public social science
reconceptualizing and redeploying research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 298309.
Carey,J.W.(1989).Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Cicourel, A.V. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York: Free Press.
Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and
art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clough, P. T. (1998). The end(s) of ethnography: From realism to social criticism (2nd ed.). New
York: Peter Lang.
Cook, D. A. (1981). A history of narrative film. New York: W. W. Norton.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danermark, B., Ekstrm, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical
realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography: Ethnographic practices for the 21st century.
Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture.
Dilthey,W. L. (1976). Selected writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work
published 1900)
Diversi, M. (1998). Glimpses of street life: Representing lived experience through short stories.
Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 131137.
Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (Eds.). (1996). Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Filstead, W. J. (Ed.). (1970). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Markham.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities.In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 107131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic
Books.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 40

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goodall, H. L., Jr. (2000). Writing the new ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Gordon, D. A. (1995). Culture writing women: Inscribing feminist anthropology. In R. Behar &
D. A. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 429441). Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Greenblatt, S. (1997). The touch of the real. In S. B. Ortner (Ed.), The fate of culture: Geertz
and beyond [Special issue]. Representations, 59, 1429.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog
(pp. 1730). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gupta,A., & Ferguson, J. (Eds.). (1997). Discipline and practice:The fieldas site, method, and
location in anthropology. In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological locations:
Boundaries and grounds of a field science (pp. 146). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Hammersley, M. (1992). Whats wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London:
Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (1999). Not bricolage but boatbuilding: Exploring two metaphors for thinking
about ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 574585.
Harper, D. (1987). Working knowledge: Skill and community in a small shop. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Holman Jones, S. (1999). Torch. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 235250.
hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End.
Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 4261.
Huber, J. (1995). Centennial essay: Institutional perspectives on sociology. American Journal of
Sociology, 101, 194216.
Jackson, M. (1998). Minima ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the anthropological project.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism; or, The cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Keller, C. M., & Keller, J. D. (1996). Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 679692.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Socialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 257277). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 35,
673694.
Lather, P. (2004). This is your fathers paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 1534.
Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (with Tesch, R.). (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 41

Lvi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1999, June). Courage, vulnerability and truth. Keynote address delivered at the
conference Reclaiming Voice II: Ethnographic Inquiry and Qualitative Research in a
Postmodern Age, University of California, Irvine.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004a). Dangerous discourses: Methodological conservatism
and governmental regimes of truth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 514.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004b). Qualitative research, power, and the radical Right.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards.
Lofland, J. (1971). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lofland, J. (1995). Analytic ethnography: Features, failings, and futures. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 24, 3067.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation
and analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation
and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lofland, L. H. (1980). The 1969 Blumer-Hughes Talk. Urban Life and Culture, 8, 248260.
Malinowski, B. (1948). Magic, science and religion, and other essays. New York: Natural History
Press. (Original work published 1916)
Malinowski, B. (1967). A diary in the strict sense of the term (N. Guterman, Trans.). New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental
moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maxwell, J.A. (2004). Reemergent scientism, postmodernism, and dialogue across differences.
Monaco, J. (1981). How to read a film: The art, technology, language, history and theory of film
(Rev. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, C., Treichler, P. A., & Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural studies: An introduction. In
L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 116). New York:
Routledge.
Ortner, S. B. (1997). Introduction. In S. B. Ortner (Ed.), The fate of culture: Geertz and beyond
[Special issue]. Representations, 59, 113.
Pelias, R. J. (2004). A methodology of the heart: Evoking academic and daily life. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira.
Plath, D. W. (1990). Fieldnotes, filed notes, and the conferring of note. In R. Sanjek (Ed.),
Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology (pp. 371384). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Popkewitz, T. S. (2004). Is the National Research Council committees report on scientific
research in education scientific? On trusting the manifesto. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 6278.
Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 42

Richardson, L., & Lockridge, E. (2004). Travels with Ernest: Crossing the literary/sociological
divide. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Roffman, P., & Purdy, J. (1981). The Hollywood social problem film. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Ronai, C. R. (1998). Sketching with Derrida: An ethnography of a researcher/erotic dancer.
Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769802). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryan, K. E., & Hood, L. K. (2004). Guarding the castle and opening the gates. Qualitative
Inquiry, 10, 7995.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2004). Refusing alternatives: A science of contestation. Qualitative Inquiry, 10,
130139.
Sanjek, R. (1990). On ethnographic validity. In R. Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of
anthropology (pp. 385418). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997a). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997b). Textual gymnastics, ethics and angst. In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice (pp. 305311). Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism,
hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (2004). Introduction: Inside qualitative
research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research
practice (pp. 111). London: Sage.
Semali, L. M., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). Introduction: What is indigenous knowledge and why
should we study it? In L. M. Semali & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), What is indigenous knowledge?
Voices from the academy (pp. 357). New York: Falmer.
Silverman, D. (1997). Towards an aesthetics of research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative
research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 239253). London: Sage.
Smith,A. D. (1993). Fires in the mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and other identities. New York:
Anchor.
Smith, J. K., & Deemer, D. K. (2000). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 877896). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin,
New Zealand: University of Otago Press.
Snow, D., & Morrill, C. (1995). Ironies, puzzles, and contradictions in Denzin and Lincolns
vision of qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 358362.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1992). Cultural process and ethnography: An anthropological perspective. In M. D. LeCompte,W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative
research in education (pp. 5392). New York: Academic Press.
Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1986). Anthropology and the science of the irrational: Malinowskis
encounter with Freudian psychoanalysis. In G. W. Stocking, Jr. (Ed.), Malinowski, Rivers,
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 43

Benedict and others: Essays on culture and personality (pp. 1349). Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Stocking, G. W., Jr. (1989). The ethnographic sensibility of the 1920s and the dualism of the
anthropological tradition. In G.W. Stocking, Jr. (Ed.), Romantic motives: Essays on anthropological sensibility (pp. 208276). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Stoller, P., & Olkes, C. (1987). In sorcerys shadow: A memoir of apprenticeship among the
Songhay of Niger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and
resource (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook
of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W. G. (2000). Undaunted courage: Life history and the postmodern challenge. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 537553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trujillo, N. (2004). In search of Naunnys grave: Age, class, gender, and ethnicity in an American
family. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Turner, V., & Bruner, E. (Eds.). (1986). The anthropology of experience. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Van Maanen,J.(1988).Tales of the field:On writing ethnography. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (1994). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and
anthropology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 2359). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (2000). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and
anthropology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed., pp. 3784). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Weinstein, D., & Weinstein, M.A. (1991). Georg Simmel: Sociological flaneur bricoleur. Theory,
Culture & Society, 8, 151168.
Weinstein, M. (2004). Randomized design and the myth of certain knowledge: Guinea pig narratives and cultural critique. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 246260.
West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Wolf, M. A. (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, &
J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 352). New York:
Academic Press.
Wolcott, H. F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
11/1/2007
4:39 PM
Page 44

Denzin and Lincoln 2000 Introdução

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Denzin and Lincoln 2000 Introdução

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Denzin and Lincoln 2000 Introdução

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.

riting about scientific research, including qualitative research, from the

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

2 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

involvement with the colonial project contributed, in significant ways, to qualitative

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 23

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

4 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 25

interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject

The Qualitative Researcher as Bricoleur and Quilt Maker

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

6 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 27

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

8 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

has multiple speaking parts,including conversations with gang members,police officers,

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 29

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

10 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

discussion. We borrow from, and paraphrase, Nelson et al.s (1992, p. 4) attempt to

Resistances to Qualitative Studies

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 211

Volume 3, Chapter 13). The experimental (positivist) sciences (physics, chemistry,

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

12 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 213

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

14 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

To summarize: Qualitative research is many things to many people. Its essence is

QUALITATIVE VERSUS QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Research Styles: Doing the Same Things Differently?

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 215

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

16 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 217

autobiographical materials, among others. Quantitative researchers use mathematical

TENSIONS WITHIN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

18 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

Still, as postempiricist, antifoundational, critical theorists, we reject much of what

THE HISTORY OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 219

THE EIGHT MOMENTS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

As we have noted above, we divide our history of qualitative research in North

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd

20 2 THE LANDSCAPE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCHCHAPTER 1

The Traditional Period

01-Denzin & Lincoln (Landscape)-45378.qxd