Overview of Qualitative Methods Qualitative inquiry cultivates the most useful of all human capacities - the capacity to learn

from others. This is a "methods" course. As such, students will be required to engage in real research. This differs from a "methodology" course in which we would be more likely to discuss and critique various methods, their theoretical underpinnings, and the ramifications of their use. Qualitative researchers study people by observing them in their natural settings, or by analyzing the cultural symbols they use. We attempt to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research brings together a variety of empirical materials (case study, personal experience, life story, interview, participant observation, historical, and visual texts) that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives. Our end product is a collage of images, understandings, and interpretations of the phenomenon under study. This collage will connect the parts and stress the meaningful relationships that operate in the environment under study. I have tried to design the course in a way that allows for the accumulation of necessary knowledge and skills early enough in the semester to leave ample time to complete the major research project. It is imperative that we hit the ground running. A fairly complete description of each of the course requirements can be found on the assignments page. Here I simply want to paint a picture of the course in broad strokes. Clearly, the centerpiece of the course (and your grade) is the final research project that you will accomplish. The purpose of the assignment is to gain the valuable experiences associated with an entire research process. The culmination of the project must be a completed journal article (appropriate for submission for publication) of approximately 25 pages. To make it possible for you to produce a high quality piece of research, it is absolutely necessary for us to learn at least one way of doing research that has a proven track record for effectiveness. This is the reason I am requiring ethnographic interviews. The series of steps we will follow, though not the consummate field technique, is generally recognized, in one form or another, as a basic starting point for qualitative studies. It resembles closely what Glaser and Strauss (1967) call the Grounded Theory Method and its structure is well accepted. We need to have a plan for organizing the immense amount of information that is accumulated in this type of research. If there is one thing all qualitative researchers agree on (and it may be the only thing), it is that we produce a mountain of data. Organizing all these data and sifting through to find significant patterns can be a daunting task. James Spradley has put together a series of steps that take us through the interview process in a way that makes sense. The skills learned in interviewing are very applicable to other qualitative approaches including field observations, content analysis, and archival searches. Each week we will discuss whatever readings are scheduled to be sure we get the very most from

the authors. Most importantly, we will discuss YOUR projects. It is only through actual practice that you will gain the skill and confidence necessary to complete your project. By discussing your experiences and sharing thoughts, feelings, successes, and tribulations, you increase your overall understanding of the craft and, therefore, your chances of producing a quality project. Like any other graduate course in higher education, your success is very dependent on your staying current. There is little chance of cramming at the last minute. If you come to a session unprepared, it is a form of double jeopardy. Not only is it difficult to clear up any problems you may be facing with the past material, there is every reason to believe that the new material will not be easily understood. In addition, your voice will not be included in the important discussion that will ensue. In effect, your peers also loose out. On a more pragmatic note, this course requires roughly 9-10 hours a week (average) of outside time. If you devote only 1 hour per week for the first ten weeks (a common occurrence, unfortunately), then you will be faced with the incredible task of accomplishing approximately ninety hours of work in the final five weeks. When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions.

FIVE ASSUMPTIONS "It's time for a dose of reality." "Come back to reality." "Eventually reality sets in." "Get real!" We've all heard some of these; perhaps we've uttered them from time to time. What do we mean when we say these things? Most would agree that we're saying that there are some things that actually exist and others that are figments of imagination, deception, or hallucination. In a more common usage, we are probably saying that there is a difference between the world as is and the world as it could or should (according to someone) be. "What is real?" This was one of the central questions for the ancient philosophers whose ideas we've all at least touched upon at some time in our lives. I guess we could add "...as opposed to hallucination?" in order to get a clearer notion of what's at stake here. There was a prevailing idea that everything we see about us was ultimately reducible to some basic (primordial) "stuff." In other words, everything that is known is composed of this stuff, which can combine in various ways to give us the total variety of what we call the universe. This stuff was, then, the final "reality." Once we could discover it, we would have gotten to the bottom of explaining everything, because the stuff could not be divided any further. The Greek word "atom" means, literally, not dividable. Lively debate raged over the character of this stuff. Some said it was matter (materialists) and some said it was mind (idealists). Others even said it was some of each and still others said there was no such thing as the stuff. While these and other questions are profoundly interesting and surely important to the discipline of philosophy, they have more limited, but still very important implications for us as social researchers. When we say that we are pursuing a "philosophy of science" we are saying that we are examining the same puzzles that tantalized the ancients. For example: What is real? How do we tell reality from fantasy (illusion)? As researchers we are committed to finding out whats really going on as opposed to reporting illusions. However, going after whats really going on assumes we have a sense for what reality is before we start out. This is the ontological question as it relates to our current quest in SOC 608. We need to have a working understanding of ontology, as well as epistemology and axiology, in order to better understand the various decisions that have to be made along the road to designing a research project that will, in fact, bring us closer to apprehending whats really going on. Quite a few of the nuts-and-bolts issues that we will face along the way are decided based, in part, on the assumptions we are bringing to the project. We will also discover that many of the dilemmas we encounter in our own work are often the result of an internal

contradiction between assumptions embedded in our personal paradigm (view/perspective) that would remain problematic without some way to diagnose our procedural decisions. Such mundane matters as constructing a survey question or organizing field notes rest on basic assumptions regarding: what is real and knowable what we must do in order to know what is worth knowing and why what techniques will lead to fruitful inquiries, and how best to share our research with others. Several thousand years of development and debate are on the table when we take up these points. This short presentation will not begin to do justice to the depth, breadth, and complexity of these assumptions. In fact, I am quite sure our colleagues from the philosophy department would find this monograph extremely simplistic. That said, my defense of simplicity is clear: We need only the products of the philosophers debates, in usable form, in order to begin our work, which is different enough from theirs that we must part ways somewhere. As an analogy, we part ways with the mathematicians once we have adequate knowledge and skills in statistical work. We also move along a different path than the journalist, historian, and anthropologist, though we borrow much from them and then reconstruct what we borrow to meet our specific needs. In fairness to our own discipline, we also contribute to their endeavors and again, our tools and techniques are customized to take whatever form needed. What we are developing is a kind of map of the major inquiry (research) paradigms in sociology. Paradigms are the basic beliefs that lie behind and support legitimate inquiry. The assumptions that most clearly reveal the underlying paradigm are: ontological, epistemological, axiological, methodological, and rhetorical. Various writers differ on the logical order for examining these assumptions. Almost all agree that the first point in need of critique is the ontological question: what is the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it? Most scholars also agree that the next logical question is the epistemological one: What is the relationship between the researcher (knower) and that which can be known? Who can produce knowledge? From here there is some disagreement on the relative importance on the remaining assumptions. For our purposes, the axiological question occupies the third position. This is the question of the place of values, both those of the researcher and of the researched, in the research process. Fourth, the methodological question is: which research techniques will best serve the researcher in looking for what can be known?

Finally, what is the most appropriate language and voice to be used in reporting the results of inquiry? This is the rhetorical question. It probably comes as no surprise that these fundamental issues are inter-related and interdependent. At the core of ones paradigm is the central question of what constitutes reality. Clearly, this sets the framework for the other questions. There are several inquiry paradigms in existence from which we could select in order to investigate the social world. They range from the classic positivist perspective to the constructivist perspective of symbolic interactionism. As with the philosophical questions, I will try to simplify our task without losing the important aspects that will shape our course. Keep in mind that everything included in my typology is a synthesis and simplification, though hopefully a useful one. THE QUANTITATIVE PARADIGM Ontological assumption: There is a reality that can be apprehended. We can determine the way things are and, often, discover the cause effect relations behind social reality. At the least, we can find meaningful indicators of what is really happening. Epistemological assumption: The investigator and the object of investigation are independent from each other and the object can be researched without being influenced by the researcher. Any possible researcher influence can be anticipated, detected, and accounted for (controlled). Axiological assumption: Values are excluded from the research process. They are considered confounding variables-phenomena that cloud our view of reality. Methodological assumption: The most prevalent methods used include experiments, quasiexperiments, and other hypothesis-testing techniques. Meaningful phenomena are operationalized by determining variables that can be accurately measured. Rhetorical assumption: The research is written from the perspective of the disinterested scientist. Typically, our report is couched in mathematical terms. THE QUALITATIVE PARADIGM Ontological assumption: Realities are constructed by the social actors. These realities are relative in that no reality is considered more true than any other; they may be more or less well informed within the context of the social actors lives. Epistemological assumption: The researcher interacts with the object of research and can affect that object. Findings are created through interaction between researcher and researched. Axiological assumption: Values have a privileged position. Often, there is a value-laden purpose to the research. The researcher is not reluctant to be openly passionate about pursuing the

project. Methodological assumption: The meanings of the social actors can only be discovered through close interaction between the researcher and respondents. The aim is to work toward a construction of the social milieu that is consistent with the experiences of the participants. Methods include long term observations, in depth interviews and content analysis of documents. Rhetorical assumption: The research is often written in the first person, indicating an involved, even passionate investigator. Possibly, an appeal is made for action to correct a social ill. SOME MODELS Thomas Theorem: What we believe to be real will be real in its consequences. Traditional (Deductive) Research Puzzle (what is association between X&Y?) Hypothesis Operationalization Choose Method Pre-Test Evaluate Method Choose Sample Measure Consolidate Results Test Hypothesis There is a "truth" that can be found Distant researcher is the expert Value-free Reported in numbers Q1 -> A1 Q2 -> A2 etc. Qualitative (Inductive) research Puzzle (How do ... define their experiences?) Choose primary method Begin Collecting Data Analyze First Data for possible themes Continue Collecting/Analyzing

Generate Theory The "truth" we seek is that of the informants Involved researcher is the "student" Value-ridden Reported in words Q -> A -> Q -> A etc.