What to do

Theory Into Practice, 51:129–136, 2012

Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2012.662868

Rebecca D. Cox

Teaching Qualitative Research to Practitioner–Researchers

Practitioner–researchers are well-positioned to

apply qualitative methods to the study of signifi-

cant problems of educational practice. However, while learning the skills of qualitative inquiry,

practitioners may be compelled by forces outside

of qualitative research classrooms to think quan-

titatively. In this article, the author considers

two sources of pressure on novice education researchers that may hinder their development

as qualitative researchers. Drawing on the long-

established tradition of reflexivity in qualitative

inquiry, the author outlines an instructional ap-

proach that can guide students in examining and

responding to these pressures.

Rebecca D. Cox is an Associate Professor in Education

Leadership, Management, and Policy at Seton Hall

University. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Re-

becca D. Cox, Seton Hall University, Education Lead-

ership, Management and Policy, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079. E-mail: rebecca.

[email protected]

A FTER MANY YEARS as an ethnographer and as a professor, Harry Wolcott (1994)

asserted that the same “creative effort” required to conduct and to write about qualitative research “ought to go into designing courses that teach it” (p. 395). In the spirit of that sensible assertion, I offer the following reflections on teaching qualitative research methods to education prac- titioners. In particular, I focus on the challenge of teaching practitioners who are pressured in their professional lives to think about research, data, and empirical evidence in quantitative ways. The dominance of quantitative methods and the underlying positivist orientation in the current educational climate can easily constrain novice researchers’ ability to embrace the tenets of qualitative inquiry. In this article, I explore this issue from an instructional perspective, first high- lighting the advantages of qualitative inquiry for practitioner–researchers. I then describe a few of the current challenges involved in developing qualitative research skills, with emphasis on two contexts that orient practitioners to quantitative methods. Finally, I propose instructional strate- gies that may interrupt students’ quantitatively oriented assumptions. Absent such interruptions,

129

Qualitative Research in the 21st Century

novice researchers may be unable to realize the full potential of qualitative research in re- visioning and reshaping educational practice.

The Challenges of Conducting

(and Learning) Qualitative Methods

Despite the potential for qualitative inquiry to illuminate some of the thorniest educational dilemmas and to understand the perspectives that may be marginalized or unrepresented in current educational practices, there are challenges in conducting such research. For novice re- searchers, these include developing the technical skills involved with gathering data, negotiating relationships in the field, coming to terms with one’s subjectivities, solving ethical dilemmas, and complying with institutional review board (IRB) requirements that do not always seem to recognize the realities of the social worlds that qualitative researchers travel.

There is a rich tradition of literature that addresses these issues, and students of qualitative research can draw on the wisdom and insights of veteran researchers. Indeed, it is likely that most qualitative research courses in education programs require students to read from this body of literature as they grapple with the intricacies of actual fieldwork (Webb & Glesne, 1992).

What I am far more concerned about is an- other set of challenges facing the newest gener- ation of qualitative researchers. This other set of difficulties derives from the specific environment within which novice researchers are learning the craft of qualitative inquiry. For the purposes of this article, I focus on two key influences on practitioners who are enrolled in graduate- level education programs. The first is the broader education policy environment and its attendant messages about what counts as evidence and scientific research. For practitioner–researchers, the broader policy climate shapes practices at their specific work sites, and influences how they define the most pressing problems therein. The second key influence is the graduate stu- dent’s particular degree program or departmental context. Specifically, for individuals enrolled in

graduate-level, qualitative research courses, the curriculum of the entire graduate program of study serves as another significant influence on how they encounter and come to understand qualitative research methods.

A Quantitatively Oriented Policy Environment

The current educational climate is informed by calls for evidence-based practice and scien- tific research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Slavin, 2002; Tierney & Clemens, 2011). Quantitative measurements and experimental research designs are privileged within this policy discourse and, at best, qualitative research is described as a valuable addition to quantitative models in the form of mixed methods research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Raudenbush, 2005; Tierney & Clemens, 2011). Describing the current as- cendancy of quantitative methods, Torff (2011) noted the centrality of quantitative data in every- thing from “data-driven” instruction and assess- ment to the accountability measures mandated by states and accrediting agencies. He concluded: “It’s clear that the world has gone quantitative” (para. 9).

Although quantitative methods certainly have merit, and can be used to further educational equity agendas (see, for example, Hurtado, 2007; Stage, 2007), privileging quantitative methods and the underlying positivist worldview can very easily subordinate qualitative research to a marginal role. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the current popularity of mixed methods research. Consistently, the rationale for mixed- methods studies relies on the premise that com- bining quantitative and qualitative methods en- hances the comprehensiveness of the research, thereby increasing the quality of the results. But what if this combination of methods is intended only to “[add] qualitative flesh to the quantita- tive bones” (Sydenstricker-Neto, 1997, section 5, para. 1)? Adding qualitative methods onto a quantitative skeleton means, in effect, that the positivist paradigm dominates the design while the qualitative component is forced to fit. In other words, even though a mixed-methods approach

130

Cox Teaching Qualitative Research

may appeal to an ideal of methodological in- clusiveness, it may actually “serve as a cover for positivist ways of thinking about research” (Giddings, 2007, p. 398).

A rigid quantitative orientation is clearly mak- ing its mark on practitioners who enroll in my de- partment’s doctoral programs. Inside the schools and universities where they work, practitioners comply with various pressures to think about research and empirical evidence quantitatively. In particular, graduate students who are also teachers or administrators in the K–12 system are beginning their research trajectories with re- markably narrow conceptions of what merits in- vestigation inside their schools. For instance, for many of them, the term student achievement has become synonymous with the state’s annual stan- dardized assessment. Even though not convinced of the value of the state-level assessment, these practitioners seem numbed by the unrelenting pressure at their schools to increase the scores. Furthermore, many of these practitioners have also come to understand research and data as exclusively quantitative phenomena, dismissing qualitative data as anecdotal. When such students enroll in my qualitative research course, their no- tions of how to conduct systematic and objective research conflict with many of the fundamental premises of qualitative inquiry. For example, stu- dents often define research rigor in quantitative terms, and worry about assembling large sample sizes and generalizing to the broader popula- tion. This way of thinking makes it difficult for students to investigate phenomena differently, particularly when quantitative definitions suggest that research that does not conform is simply not valid.

When Educational Administration Programs Emphasize Quantitative

Methods

The pressure on graduate students to rely al- most exclusively on quantitative methods is also embedded within many graduate programs. In keeping with the traditional focus of educational administration departments, the required course- work in my department emphasizes quantitative

research design, statistical techniques for data analysis, and an underlying positivist orienta- tion towards problems of research and practice. One could even argue that the curriculum is not quantitative enough, given the dominance of quantitative approaches in current educational policy and practice (Henson, Hull, & Williams, 2010; Torff, 2011).

How much or what kind of quantitative train- ing doctoral students in education actually ac- quire (or even should acquire) is beyond the scope of this article. The fact is that many students who engage in qualitative research are learning how to do so while absorbing messages throughout their program’s curriculum about re- search rigor, validity, and objectivity that are entirely appropriate for quantitative research, but that are potentially at odds with the tenets of systematic qualitative inquiry.

Other scholars have noted how established norms pose obstacles to innovation in educa- tion research (Bensimon, 2007; Keller, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Tierney, 2000). Indeed, the existing body of published research seems to exert tremendous influence on both novice and veteran researchers. Bensimon, for example, described the “dominant paradigm” in research on college student success as one driven by positivist epistemology and focused on the use of quantitative methods to identify the individual student characteristics that “pre- dict” persistence and success (p. 443). Simi- larly, Melguzio (2011) noted in her review of research on college student persistence that even a decade after the publication of critiques of and alternatives to Vincent Tinto’s classic inte- gration model (e.g., Braxton, 2000), subsequent researchers in higher education still tend to focus single mindedly on Tinto’s model. If established researchers take such well-worn routes, then it is very likely that those entering the field of education research as students will come to think about educational problems and research in the same way. As Tierney (2000) put it, “Graduate students become socialized to the culture of the academy. It is hard to reinvent academic norms when one is socialized with and to them” (p. 187).

131

Qualitative Research in the 21st Century

Perhaps more important, graduate students are influenced by the policies and practices of the specific programs and departments where they pursue their graduate studies. As in any graduate program, the actual curriculum consists of more than the content of the research meth- ods courses. In other words, although doctoral students learn from the intended curriculum of their required coursework, they are also learning from other departmental practices. For example, they receive formal and informal dissertation advisement about what topics are appropriate and/or feasible for students in the program. In my department, I find that students often believe that they are required to follow the traditions of research exemplified by recently completed dissertations. This understanding functions as an obstacle to innovation, whether in choice of topic or methodological strategies. Beyond the department level, the university’s IRB exerts another regulatory mechanism on students’ re- search, through the IRB application and review process. For instance, the current IRB application form at my university implicitly suggests that research always consists of testing interventions with instruments that are accompanied by relia- bility, validity, and norming information.

In sum, practitioner–researchers who enter my qualitative research classroom bring with them well-established preconceptions about, broadly speaking, the kinds of topics and methodologies appropriate for education research, and more specifically, the kinds of research topics and methods that are legitimate for students of educa- tional leadership to pursue. If I, as an instructor, do not explicitly and directly challenge their pre- conceptions, students’ approaches to formulating preliminary research problems and developing plans for collecting valid and objective data are likely to impede their progress as qualitative researchers.

In the following section, I examine how these assumptions cause trouble in the qualitative re- search classroom, and tips for instructors in deal- ing with the trouble. I conclude with a suggestion about how the tradition of researcher reflexivity in qualitative research might be expanded in the qualitative research classroom to encompass

student-researcher reflexivity. A form of meta- analysis, reflexivity allows researchers to assess how their personal experiences and social posi- tion(s) shape their inquiry—from the framing of the research problem and the posing of questions to gathering and interpreting data (Finlay, 2002).

The Challenge of Framing a

Research Problem

Whether novice or veteran, qualitative re- searchers are well served by critical self- assessment from the point that they choose a problem to study. Formulating a problem to investigate sets the path for initial research ques- tions and possible research strategies. Clarifying one’s motivations and assumptions from the out- set increases the likelihood of viewing the issues in new and generative ways.

Practitioner–researchers face several chal- lenges when they begin framing the research problem. First, practitioner–researchers may ini- tially conceive of their problem as a problem that needs to be solved, rather than a problem that requires further investigation. In part, this stems from the basic research–practice divide. As faculty-researcher Randy Bass (1999) articulated the typical teacher’s orientation towards problems of practice: “A ‘problem’ is something you don’t want to have, and if you have one, you probably want to fix it” (para 1). Working from a stance of problem solving means that the practitioner– researcher is already considering solutions to the educational problem of interest and may be working as quickly as possible to implement a solution (Wolcott, 1994). With a preconceived remedy in mind, the researcher’s immediate goal can easily become a search for evidence that justifies the preferred remedy. Such a stance works against careful, nuanced investigation of the problem itself.

A second difficulty I have observed among students in my classroom is a tendency to for- mulate hypotheses rather than research questions. Having completed several courses in statistics, students assume that the ultimate research goal is to test their hypotheses. Furthermore, their

132

Cox Teaching Qualitative Research

knowledge of quantitative research, in which the design of the study is established prior to any data collection, discourages them from jettison- ing initial hypotheses or modifying their research questions once they enter the field. And yet, in qualitative research, true discovery depends, in part, upon a willingness to see around an ini- tial hypothesis. Consider the following example: A practitioner–researcher has identified (male) Latino student attrition at the college he works for as a problem worth studying. He decides to interview Latino students at the college to find out how they account for their success, but is guided less by that question than by his hypothesis, that Latino student attrition is largely attributable to an inhospitable racial/ethnic cli- mate and lack of role models at the college. Methodologically, this researcher is located in some no-man’s land between quantitative and qualitative research. On one hand, his approach lacks the logic of systematic hypothesis testing (he asks successful seniors whether the racial climate on campus is hospitable). On the other hand, his assumptions limit his ability to consider how the participants actually make sense of their own college experiences.

A third challenge in framing the research problem arises from the difficulty that practition- ers may have distinguishing between the prob- lem as it has been defined through the school’s standard operating procedures and the problem that actually merits intensive study. For instance, many practitioners begin their graduate study in education seeking answers to the basic question “What works?” In the qualitative research class- room, such students may begin with questions about the effectiveness of a particular initiative at the school where they work. Recently, students in my classroom have wondered about the ef- fectiveness of such initiatives as (a) professional learning communities for teachers, (b) after- school math tutoring for high-school students, and (c) student success courses for community college students. Further discussion of these ini- tiatives and the results they are intended to effect sometimes reveals that an intervention is only tenuously linked to the problem it is meant to address. For instance, in the case of high-school

math, peer tutoring was instituted after a large proportion of 10th graders earned failing grades in the fall marking period. The questions of why so many students failed, or whether the course itself might be improved, were never addressed. Indeed, whether after-school tutoring could even remedy the problem was uncertain, without a better understanding of the reasons for students’ failures.

Strategies for Teaching Practitioner–Researchers

To a certain extent, such difficulties are not new. The existing literature on qualitative re- search offers strategies by which researchers can come to terms with their subjectivities and consider how to prevent those subjectivities from unduly constraining their vision (e.g., Ball, 1990; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Maxwell, 2005). In- deed, those who write about qualitative research methods insist that this kind of researcher re- flexivity is crucial to establishing the validity of qualitative research (Eisenhart & Howe, 1992; Peshkin, 1988; Sanjek, 1990). Thus, instruction in qualitative research typically introduces strate- gies that veteran researchers employ at every stage of a qualitative project (Webb & Glesne, 1992). These strategies can be relied upon to guide students in examining and documenting their personal assumptions and subjectivities while they navigate the processes of framing research questions, conducting field work, and presenting findings.

The advantage of formal instruction in quali- tative methods is that the student researcher can receive ongoing feedback. The more opportuni- ties students have to make their thinking visible to others, the more likely that they will be able to receive, and benefit from, feedback from others regarding the assumptions that are guiding that thinking. This might involve multiple opportuni- ties for students to discuss their research trajec- tories with peers in class—from the development of preliminary questions to data collection and analysis. Group consultations on students’ re- search artifacts, such as initial research questions,

133

Qualitative Research in the 21st Century

interview protocols, and transcript excerpts, offer students one important source of assistance. Such discussions also present the instructor with multi- ple chances to evaluate the language that students are using to discuss their research topic and to point out the underlying assumptions revealed in that discourse.

Another crucial instructional strategy involves building on the traditional qualitative research practice of writing memos. Memos offer another opportunity for students to render their thinking visible and, in turn, receive targeted guidance from the instructor. Given the challenges that practitioner–researchers face in conceptualizing the initial research problem, I recommend that instructors consider assigning three kinds of re- searcher memos and use the resulting memos to assist students in challenging their assump- tions.

Researcher Identity Memo

One helpful memo exercise is Maxwell’s (2005) “researcher identity memo” (p. 27). Max- well suggests that researchers undertake this ex- ercise while first developing a research project, in order to identify how prior experiences and assumptions about the topic may affect their approach to the topic. A key feature of this memo involves considering the question, “What potential disadvantages do you think these [goals, beliefs, and experiences] may create for you, and how might you deal with these?” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 28).

Although novice researchers may be able to identify their assumptions and beliefs, I find that they are less adept at developing strategies for dealing with them. Thus, the role of the instructor becomes paramount: After reading a student’s researcher identity memo, the instructor can mon- itor the student’s subsequent work to determine whether the student is acting upon unconfirmed assumptions. Additionally, the instructor can sug- gest concrete techniques for challenging those assumptions. For example, the instructor can highlight analytical strategies such as searching for disconfirming evidence at every stage, follow- ing up surprises in the field, and executing line-

by-line analyses of transcripts (Maxwell, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Professional Identity Memo

Although writing a researcher identity memo may help practitioner–researchers explore how their professional experiences have influenced their perspectives, it may also be beneficial for them to write a professional identity memo. This exercise could help the practitioner–researcher examine and question how the educational prob- lem under consideration is defined at their work- place. Borrowing from Tierney’s (2000) proposal that researchers take a critically engaged stance, I recommend a memo assignment in which practitioner–researchers consider the following questions:

! What is the educational problem you wish to address?

! How are current school policies and practices defining this problem?

! Whose interests are served in defining the problem this way?

! How might you (and your practice) be impli- cated if the problem is framed differently?

In answering these questions, practitioner– researchers may be able to question aspects of their work that are typically taken-for-granted truths.

Graduate-Student Researcher Memo

The third kind of memo involves consideration of the educational program within which novice researchers are learning qualitative methods. In this exercise, students can reflect on what they have learned—both implicitly and explicitly— during their graduate study. Questions guiding this memo might ask students to consider what kinds of topics they believe are appropriate to study, as well as to discuss their notions of “good” education research. Instructors can use this exercise to better understand (and challenge) students’ quantitative orientations. Ultimately,

134

Cox Teaching Qualitative Research

this would provide students with the chance to critically examine the context in which they are being “trained” to conduct qualitative research.

Conclusion

Each of these reflective memos offers qual- itative researchers a practical means of grap- pling with their subjectivities. For practitioner– researchers who are also graduate students, the benefit of answering such explicit questions about their professional biases as well as the assumptions of their research training is twofold. First, the memo writing process can help students identify the various pressure points that direct them to think quantitatively, rather than qualita- tively. Second, such reflective memos can provide the basis for conversation with other qualitative researchers. Whether inside qualitative research classrooms, or as part of the broader development of a student’s research skills, such conversations offer opportunities for instructors or other quali- tative researchers to interrupt those pressures.

References

Ball, S. (1990). Self-doubt and soft data: Social and technical trajectories in ethnographic fieldwork.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Ed-

ucation, 3, 157–171.

Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s

the problem? Inventio: Creative Thinking about

Learning and Teaching, 1. Retrieved from http://

www.doit.gmu.edu/Archives/feb98/randybass.htm

Bensimon, E. (2007). ASHE presidential address: The underestimated significance of practitioner knowl-

edge in the scholarship of student success. Review

of Higher Education, 30, 441–469.

Braxton, J. M., (Ed). (2000). Reworking the college

student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice,

39, 124–130.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction:

The discipline and practice of qualitative research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE

handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 1–

32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in

educational research. In M. D. Le Compte, W. L.

Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of

qualitative research in education (pp. 643–680).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The op-

portunity and challenge of reflexivity in research

practice. Qualitative Research, 2, 209–230. Giddings, L. S. (2007). Mixed-methods research: Pos-

itivism dressed in drag? In A. Bryman (Ed.), Qual-

itative research 2, vol. 3 (pp. 392–403). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Henson, R., Hull, D., & Williams, C. (2010). Method-

ology in our education research culture: Toward a

stronger collective quantitative proficiency. Educa-

tional Researcher, 39, 229–240. Hurtado, S. (2007). ASHE presidential address: Link-

ing diversity with the educational and civic mis-

sions of higher education. Review of Higher Edu-

cation, 30, 185–196.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed

methods research: A research paradigm whose time

has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26. Keller, G. (1998). Does higher education research need

revisions? Review of Higher Education, 21, 267–

278.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design:

An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Melguizo, T. A. (2011). Review of the theories devel-

oped to describe the process of college persistence and attainment. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen

(Eds.), Handbook of theory and research, vol. 26

(pp. 395–424). New York: Springer.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative

data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1998). Studying college

students in the 21st century: Meeting new chal- lenges. Review of Higher Education, 21, 151–165.

Peshkin, A. (1988) In search of subjectivity: One’s

own. Educational Researcher, 17, 17–21.

Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). Learning from attempts

to improve schooling: The contribution of method-

ological diversity. Educational Researcher, 34, 25–

31. Sanjek, R. (1990). On ethnographic validity. In R. San-

jek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropol-

ogy (pp. 385–418). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

135

Qualitative Research in the 21st Century

Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based educational poli-

cies: Transforming educational practice and re- search. Educational Researcher, 31, 15–21.

Stage, F. K. (2007). Moving from probabilities to

possibilities: Tasks for quantitative criticalists. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 95–100.

Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (1997). Research design and

mixed-method approach: A hands-on experience.

Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.

net/tutorial/Sydenstricker/bolsa.html#Why%20 Mixed.

Tierney, W. G. (2000). On translation: From research

findings to public utility. Theory Into Practice, 39,

185–190.

Tierney, W. G., & Clemens, R. F. (2011). Qualitative

research and public policy: The challenges of

relevance and trustworthiness. In J. C. Smart &

M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 26 (pp. 57–83). New

York, NY: Springer.

Torff, B. (2011). Preparing the educational researchers

the world needs. Teachers College Record. Re-

trieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number:

16285.

Webb, R. B., & Glesne, C. (1992). Teaching qualitative

research. In M. D. Lecompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative

research in education (pp. 771–814. New York,

NY: Academic Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data:

Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

136

Copyright of Theory Into Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.