presenting methodology and research approach - sage pub · pdf filepresenting methodology and...

3Presenting Methodologyand Research Approach

OVERVIEW

Chapter 3 of the dissertation presents theresearch design and the specific proceduresused in conducting your study. A researchdesign includes various interrelated elementsthat reflect its sequential nature. This chapteris intended to show the reader that you havean understanding of the methodologicalimplications of the choices you made and, inparticular, that you have thought carefullyabout the links between your study’s purposeand research questions and the researchapproach and research methods that youhave selected.

Note that in the proposal’s chapter 3, youproject what you will do based on what youknow about the particular methods used inqualitative research, in general, and in your tra-dition or genre, in particular; hence, it is writtenin future tense. In the dissertation’s chapter 3,you report on what you have already done.You write after the fact; hence, you write inpast tense. As such, many of the sections ofchapter 3 can be written only after you haveactually conducted your study (i.e., collected,analyzed, and synthesized your data).

To write this chapter, you need to conductliterature reviews on the methodologicalissues involved in qualitative research design.

You need to show the reader that you(a) have knowledge of the current issues anddiscourse, and (b) can relate your study tothose issues and discourse. In this regard, youneed to explain how you have gone aboutdesigning and conducting your study whilemaking sure that you draw supporting evi-dence from the literature for the decisionsand choices that you have made.

This chapter, which is usually one of thedissertation’s lengthiest, is essentially a dis-cussion, in which you explain the course andlogic of your decision making throughout theresearch process. In practice, this meansdescribing the following:

• The rationale for your research approach• The research sample and the population

from which it was drawn• The type of information you needed• How you designed the study and the meth-

ods that you used to gather your data• The theoretical basis of the data-collection

methods you used and why you chose these• How you have analyzed and synthesized

your data• Ethical considerations involved in your study• Issues of trustworthiness and how you dealt

with these• Limitations of the study and your attempt

to address these

C H A P T E R

65

03-Bloomberg-45467.qxd 12/26/2007 11:52 AM Page 65

Following are the two sections that makeup this chapter. Section I offers instructionon how to develop each section of chapter 3.Section II illustrates application by way ofthe example used throughout this book andgives you some idea of what a completechapter 3 should look like. Note that SectionI includes various “how-to” matrices, charts,and figures. Although not all of these maymake their way into the main body of yourfinal dissertation, they can and often doappear as “working tools” in the disserta-tion’s appendix.

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

Chapter 3 Objectives

Section I: Instruction

• Identify the key components ofthe methodology chapter:(a) Introduction and overview,(b) research sample, (c) overview ofinformation needed, (d) researchdesign, (e) methods of datacollection, (f) methods for dataanalysis and synthesis, (g) ethicalconsiderations, (h) issues oftrustworthiness, (i) limitations of thestudy, and (j) chapter summary.

• Provide explanation of how eachcomponent of the researchmethodology must be developed andpresented.

• Show that you understand how all ofthe components combined form alogical, interconnected sequence andcontribute to the overallmethodological integrity of the study.

Section II: Application

• Presentation of a completedmethodology chapter based on thecontent and process as describedpreviously.

SECTION I: INSTRUCTION

The dissertation’s third chapter—the metho-dology chapter—covers a lot of ground. Inthis chapter, you document each step thatyou have taken in designing and conductingthe study. The format that we present for thischapter covers all the necessary componentsof a comprehensive methodology chapter.Universities generally have their own fixedstructural requirements, and so we recom-mend that, before proceeding to write, youdiscuss with your advisor how to structurethe chapter as well as the preferred orderof the sections and how long each sectionshould be. Most important, make sure(a) your sections are in a logical sequence,and (b) what you write is comprehensive,clear, precise, and sufficiently detailed so thatothers will be able to adequately judge thesoundness of your study. Table 3.1 is aroadmap intended to illustrate the necessaryelements that constitute a sound methodol-ogy chapter and a suggested sequence forincluding these elements.

As pointed out previously, although qual-itative research as an overall approach isbased on certain central assumptions, itis characterized by an ongoing discourseregarding the appropriate and acceptable useof terminology. Current thinking over theyears has caused some qualitative researchersto develop their own terminology to moreeffectively reflect the nature and distinction ofqualitative research, whereas others still bor-row terminology from quantitative research.Throughout this chapter, we point outinstances in which you should be aware ofthese differences so that you can make aninformed choice.

Introduction and Overview

The chapter begins with an opening para-graph in which you restate the study’s pur-pose and research questions and then go on

COMPLETING YOUR QUALITATIVE DISSERTATION66


Presenting Methodology and Research Approach 67

Table 3.1 Roadmap for Developing Methodology Chapter: Necessary Elements

1: Introduction and OverviewBegin by stating purpose and research questions. Go on to explain how the chapter is organized.Then provide a rationale for using a qualitative research approach, as well as a rationale for theparticular qualitative tradition/genre you have chosen. Provide a brief overview of your study.

2: Research SampleDescribe the research sample and the population from which that sample was drawn. Discuss thesampling strategy used. (Depending on the qualitative research tradition, a sample can include people,texts, artifacts, or cultural phenomena.) In this section, describe the research site if appropriate(program/institution/organization).

3: Overview of Information NeededDescribe the kinds of information you will need to answer your research questions. Be specific aboutexactly what kind of information you will be collecting. Four general areas of information are neededfor most qualitative studies: contextual, perceptual, demographic, and theoretical information.

4: Research Design OverviewThis section outlines your overall research design/methodology. It includes the list of steps in carryingout your research from data collection through data analysis. The two sections that follow elaboratein greater detail on the methods of data collection and the process of data analysis. The narrative inthis section is often augmented by a flowchart or diagram that provides an illustration of the varioussteps involved.

5: Data-Collection MethodsExplain that a selected literature review preceded data collection; although this informs the study,indicate that the literature is not data to be collected. Identify and present all the data-collectionmethods you used, and clearly explain the steps taken to carry out each method. Include in thediscussion any field tests or pilot studies you may have undertaken. To show that you have done acritical reading of the literature, you may be required to discuss the strengths and weaknesses ofeach method of data collection used. In this regard, you may either include in this section what theliterature says about each of the methods you will be using, or the literature on methods may be aseparate section.

6: Data Analysis and SynthesisReport on how you managed, organized, and analyzed your data in preparation to report yourfindings (chap. 4) and then how you went on to analyze and interpret your findings (chap. 5). It isimportant to note that this section of chapter 3 can thus be written only after you have written upthe findings and analysis chapters of your dissertation.

7: Ethical ConsiderationsThis section should inform the reader that you have considered the ethical issues that might arisevis-à-vis your study and that you have taken the necessary steps to address these issues.

8: Issues of TrustworthinessThis section discusses the criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness of qualitative research—credibility, dependability, and transferability. Moreover, you must indicate to the reader that youhave a clear understanding of the implications thereof vis-à-vis your own study and the strategiesyou employed to enhance trustworthiness.

(Continued)


to explain the chapter’s organization. Youthen proceed to discuss how your researchlends itself to a qualitative approach and whythis approach is most appropriate to yourinquiry. Critical to a well-planned study isthe consideration of whether a qualitativeapproach is suited to the purpose and natureof your study. To convey this notion to thereader, it is necessary to provide a rationalefor the qualitative research approach, as wellas your reasons for choosing a particularqualitative tradition—namely, case study ormultiple case study, ethnography, phe-nomenology, biography, or grounded theory.

In your discussion, you begin by definingqualitative inquiry as distinct from quantita-tive research. Then you go on to discuss thevalues and benefits derived from using aqualitative approach; in other words, itsstrengths. You would not talk about itsweaknesses here; you will do that in the lastsection of the methodology chapter called“Limitations.” Make sure that this first sec-tion flows logically and that you structureyour discussion well by using appropriateheadings and subheadings. Once the overallapproach and supporting rationale have beenpresented, you can move on to explain whothe research participants are, the samplingstrategies you used to select the participants,what kind of data were needed to informyour study, and the specific data-collectionand data-analysis strategies employed.

The Research Sample

In this section, you need to identify anddescribe in detail the methods used to selectthe research sample. This provides the readerwith some sense of the scope of your study.In addition, your study’s credibility relies onthe quality of procedures you have used toselect the research participants. Note thatsome qualitative researchers object to the useof the word sample in qualitative research,preferring terms such as research participantsor selected participants. This is anotherexample of the discourse among qualitativeresearchers that was mentioned previously.

Some research is site-specific, and the studyis defined by and intimately linked to one ormore locations. If you are working with a par-ticular site, be it a particular place, region,organization, or program, the reader needssome detail regarding the setting. Although itis typically mentioned briefly in the beginningpages of chapter 1, in this section of chapter 3you need to talk more specifically about howand why the site was selected.

After discussing the site, if applicable, youproceed to tell the reader about the researchsample—the participants of your study. Youalso need to explain in some detail how thesample was selected and the pool from whichit was drawn. This discussion should includethe criteria used for inclusion in the sample,how participants were identified, how they


Table 3.1 (Continued)

9: Limitations of the StudyCite all potential limitations and your means to address these limitations. The discussion shouldinclude problems inherent in qualitative research generally, as well as limitations that are specificto your particular study. Regardless of how carefully you plan a study, there will always be somelimitations, and you need to explicitly acknowledge these.

10: Chapter SummaryA final culminating summary ties together all the elements that you have presented in this chapter.Make sure that you highlight all the important points. Keep your concluding discussion concise andprecise.


were contacted, the number of individualscontacted, and the percentage of those whoagreed to participate (i.e., the response rate).You also need to discuss why the specificmethod of sample selection used was con-sidered most appropriate.

In qualitative research, selection of theresearch sample is purposeful (Patton 1990,2002). This type of sampling is sometimesreferred to as purposive sampling (Merriam,1998) or judgment sampling (Gay, Mills,& Airasian, 2006). The logic of purposefulsampling lies in selecting information-richcases, with the objective of yielding insightand understanding of the phenomenon underinvestigation. This method is in contrast tothe random sampling procedures that char-acterize quantitative research, which is basedon statistical probability theory. Randomsampling controls for selection bias andenables generalization from the sample to alarger population—a key feature of quantita-tive research. Remember, one of the basictenets of qualitative research is that eachresearch setting is unique in its own mix ofpeople and contextual factors. The resear-cher’s intent is to describe a particular con-text in depth, not to generalize to anothercontext or population. Representativeness inqualitative research is secondary to the par-ticipants’ ability to provide informationabout themselves and their setting.

As its name suggests, a qualitative researcherhas reasons (purposes) for selecting specificparticipants, events, and processes. The pur-poseful selection of research participants thusrepresents a key decision in qualitativeresearch. Thus, in this section, you need toidentify and provide a brief rationale for yoursampling strategy. The strategy that youchoose depends on the purpose of your study,and you need to make that clear in your dis-cussion. For example, in a phenomenologicalstudy, you might employ “criterion-basedsampling.” Criterion sampling works wellwhen all the individuals studied represent

people who have experienced the same phe-nomenon. In a grounded theory study, youwould choose the strategy known as theoret-ical sampling (or theory-based sampling),which means that you examine individualswho can contribute to the evolving theory. Ina case study, you might use the strategy ofmaximum variation to represent diverse casesto fully display multiple perspectives aboutthe cases. Appendix C presents an overviewof the variety of purposeful sampling strate-gies used in qualitative research.

Once you have offered a rationale foryour sampling strategy, you need to go on todiscuss the nature and makeup of your par-ticular sample. Describe who these individu-als are, disclose how many individualsconstitute the sample, and provide relevantdescriptive characteristics (e.g., age, gender,occupation, level of education, etc.). It ishelpful to include charts to augment andcomplement the narrative discussion. Pro-viding information regarding selection proce-dures and research participants will aidothers in understanding the findings. Havingprovided a description of the research sampleand the setting, you are now ready to pro-ceed to explain exactly what types of infor-mation you will need from the participants.

Overview of Information Needed

This section briefly describes the kindsof information you need to answer yourresearch questions and thus shed light on theproblem you are investigating. Four areas ofinformation are typically needed for mostqualitative studies: contextual, perceptual,demographic, and theoretical. The followingsections define the content and the specificrelevancy of each of these areas.

Contextual Information

Contextual information refers to the con-text within which the participants reside or



work. It is information that describes theculture and environment of the setting, be itan organization or an institution. It is essen-tial information to collect when doing a casestudy set in a particular site or multiple simi-lar sites because elements within the environ-ment or culture may, as Lewin (1935)reminds us, influence behavior. Lewin’s fun-damental proposition is that human behavioris a function of the interaction of the personand the environment. This theory is particu-larly relevant when one is trying to under-stand the learning behaviors of a discretesegment of a population in a particular orga-nizational or institutional setting.

Given the nature of contextual informa-tion, such a review would provide knowledgeabout an organization’s history, vision,objectives, products or services, operatingprinciples, and business strategy. In addition,information on an organization or institu-tion’s leaders and its structure, organiza-tional chart, systems, staff, roles, rules, andprocedures would be included in this area ofinformation. The primary method of collect-ing contextual information is through anextensive review of organization/institutionalinternal documents, as well as a review ofrelevant external documents that refer insome way to the organization or institution.Documentation can be of a descriptive and/orevaluative nature.

Demographic Information

Demographic information is participantprofile information that describes who theparticipants in your study are—where theycome from, some of their history and/orbackground, education, and personal infor-mation such as age, gender, and ethnicity.Such demographic information is needed tohelp explain what may be underlying an indi-vidual’s perceptions, as well as the similari-ties and differences in perceptions amongparticipants. In other words, a particular

data point (e.g., age) may explain a certainfinding that emerged in the study.

Demographic information is typically col-lected by asking participants to complete apersonal data sheet either before or after theinterview or other data-collection methodstake place. The information is then arrayedon a matrix that shows participants bypseudonym on the vertical axis and the demo-graphic data points (age, gender, education,etc.) on the horizontal axis, as illustrated inTable 3.2. This demographic matrix, whichis usually presented in the prior section, inwhich you discuss your research sample, canalso later be used in conjunction with fre-quency charts. The latter, to be explained fur-ther later on, table the findings to help youwith cross-case analysis, which is requiredlater in the dissertation process. A samplecompleted participant demographics matrixappears as Appendix D.

Perceptual Information

Perceptual information refers to partici-pants’ perceptions related to the particularsubject of your inquiry. Particularly inqualitative research when interviews areoften the primary method of data collec-tion, perceptual information is the mostcritical of the kinds of information needed.Perceptual information relies, to a greatextent, on interviews to uncover partici-pants’ descriptions of their experiencesrelated to such things as: how experiencesinfluenced the decisions they made, whetherparticipants had a change of mind or a shiftin attitude, whether they described more ofa constancy of purpose, what elements rel-ative to their objectives participants per-ceived as important, and to what extentthose objectives were met.

It should be remembered that perceptionsare just that—they are not facts—they arewhat people perceive as facts. They arerooted in long-held assumptions and one’s



own view of the world or frame of reference.As such, they are neither right nor wrong;they tell the story of what participantsbelieve to be true.

Theoretical Information

Theoretical information includes informa-tion searched and collected from the variousliterature sources to assess what is alreadyknown regarding your topic of inquiry.Theoretical information serves to:

• Support and give evidence for your method-ological approach;

• Provide theories related to your researchquestions that form the development andongoing refinement of your conceptualframework;

• Provide support for your interpretation,analysis, and synthesis; and

• Provide support for conclusions you drawand recommendations you suggest.

It is recommended that you create a matrixthat aligns your research questions with theinformation you assess is needed and the meth-ods that you will use to collect that informa-tion. Creating this type of alignment ensuresthat the information you intend to collect is

directly related to the research questions, there-fore providing answers to the respectiveresearch questions. For planning purposes, thealignment indicates the particular methods youwill use to collect the information. It is usefulto array a table similar to Table 3.3, whichillustrates how you might go about setting upsuch a matrix. A sample matrix showing acompleted overview of information needed ispresented as Appendix E.

Research Design

Once you are clear about the informationyou need and the methods you will use toobtain that data, you are ready to developand present your research design. Whatevercombination of methods you choose to use,there is a need for a systematic approach toyour data. The main objectives of this sectionare to identify and present the data-collectionmethods and explain clearly the process youundertook to carry out each method. Be sureto include in your discussion any field tests orpilot studies you may have undertaken todetermine the usefulness of any instrumentsyou have developed. Because the researchdesign in qualitative research is flexible, alsomention any modifications and changes you


Table 3.2 Participant Demographics

YearsParticipant Enrolled (by pseudonym) Age Male % Female % Ethnicity Education In . . .

Participant 1

Participant 2

Participant 3

Participant 20

N = 20

03-Bloomberg-45467.qxd 12/26/2007 11:52 AM 1

might have made to your design along theway. That is, describe all the steps that youtook as you moved through the study to col-lect your data. Indicate the order in whichthese steps occurred, as well as how each stepinformed the next. The narrative can beaccompanied by a flowchart or diagram thatillustrates the steps involved. A sampleresearch design flowchart appears inAppendix F.

Appropriate methods are derived fromhaving done your analysis of the kinds ofinformation you need to answer yourresearch questions. The discussion of meth-ods and process is preceded by a brief state-ment concerning your literature review. Thepurpose of this brief pre-data-collection liter-ature review statement is to underscore:(a) the theoretical grounding for the study,(b) that the review of the literature wasongoing and related research was continuallyupdated, and (c) that the conceptual framework

developed from the literature review was usedto guide the data analysis, interpretation, andsynthesis phases of the research. This litera-ture review statement comes before the iden-tification and description of methods because,although the literature review is ongoing, gen-erating new information and supporting evi-dence, it is not a data-collection method perse. You are now ready to discuss the methodsyou will use in your study.

Methods of Data Collection

Qualitative researchers are concernedabout the validity of their communication.To reduce the likelihood of misinterpreta-tion, we employ various procedures, includ-ing redundancy of data gathering andprocedural challenges to explanation. Theseprocedures, called triangulation, are consid-ered a process of using multiple perceptionsto clarify meaning. Keep in mind that the use


Table 3.3 Overview of Information Needed

Type of Information What the Researcher Requires Method*

(a) ContextualTo provide context Organizational background, history, Documentand background and structure; mission; vision; values; Review,

products; services; organizational culture; Observationleadership; staff and site description

(b) Demographic Descriptive information regarding participants, Surveysuch as age, gender, ethnicity, discipline, etc.

(c) Perceptual Participants’ descriptions and explanations of their experiences as this relates to the phenomenonunder study.

Research Question 1. Write out what you specifically want to InterviewWrite out question know regarding this question. Critical Incidents

- Focus Group-

Do the same for all your subsequent research questions

*List of documents and instruments for all data collection methods should appear as appendices.


of multiple methods of data collection toachieve triangulation is important to obtainan in-depth understanding of the phe-nomenon under study. There are severalmethods used in qualitative research tochoose from: interviews (often the primarymethod), summative focus groups, documentreview, observation, and critical incidentreports. A variety of combinations of meth-ods can be employed. Surveys and question-naires, which are traditionally quantitativeinstruments, also can be used in conjunctionwith qualitative methods to provide corrobo-ration and/or supportive evidence. AppendixG provides a summary overview of the qual-itative data-collection methods from whichto choose.

A common pitfall in writing this section isthe tendency to describe the data-collectionmethods chosen as if they exist in a vacuumwithout explaining the logical connectionsamong the methods you have chosen,your research questions, and your researchapproach. Following are the sequential stepsthat must be covered in this section. Be spe-cific and precise in your discussion as you:

1. Describe each data-collection method youused.

2. Provide a rationale for each of the methodsselected.

3. Provide complete information about howyou used each method.

4. Describe how you developed each of yourinstruments.

5. Describe how you field tested yourinstruments.

6. Describe how you recorded and safe-guarded your data.

7. Describe the steps you took to preserveconfidentiality and anonymity of data.

A note of clarification: Methodology refersto how research proceeds and encompasses a

range of logistical, relational, ethical, andcredibility issues. The term methods com-monly denotes specific techniques, proce-dures, or tools used by the researcher togenerate and analyze data. Unlike theoverview of methodology discussed earlier,which reflects an overall research strategy,this section describes what the literature saysabout each of the methods you used in yourstudy. In other words, you discuss how theinstruments you have chosen are appropriateto your study, making use of the literature tosupport each of your choices.

To show that you have done a criticalreading of the literature and to acknowledgethat data-collection methods, although cer-tainly useful, are not without some disadvan-tages, the discussion should include somedetail regarding the strengths and weak-nesses of each method. In your discussion,present the methods of data collection in theorder in which you use them, and be sureto structure the discussion well by having aseparate heading for each method.

Based on the research questions, specificdata-collection methods are chosen to gatherthe required information in the most appro-priate and meaningful way. Remember toothat triangulation strengthens your study bycombining methods. Having presented themethods that you have used to gather data,you are ready to go on and explain how thedata have been recorded and managed, aswell as your strategies for data analysis.

Because interviews are, in most cases, theprimary method of data collection, it is usefulat this point to explain how interview ques-tions are developed. To carry out the purposeof your study, all the research questions mustbe satisfied. Therefore, designing the rightinterview questions is critical. To ensure thatthe interview questions are directly tied to theresearch questions, type out in bold font eachof your research questions and then under-neath each brainstorm three or four questionsthat will get at that research question. When



you have done this for each of your researchquestions, you should have a list of 12 to 15interview questions. To do a preliminary test ofyour interview questions, think about all prob-able responses you might get from each inter-view question, and reframe the questions untilyou are satisfied they will engender the kind ofresponses that refer directly to the researchquestions. A sample of a completed interviewschedule or interview protocol based onresearch questions is presented as Appendix H.

Constructing a matrix that lists theresearch questions along the horizontal axisand the interview questions down the verticalaxis can further indicate the extent to whichyour interview questions have achieved thenecessary coverage of your research questions.Table 3.4 is an illustration of this approach.This type of matrix, which allows a visualoverview of the required coverage of theresearch questions via the interview schedule,in conjunction with pilot interviews, can helpyou further refine your interview questions.

Data Analysis and Synthesis

In this section, you report on how youmanaged, organized, and analyzed your data

in preparation to write up and present yourfindings (chap. 4) and then how you went onto analyze and interpret your findings (chap. 5).Thus, it is important to note that this sectionof chapter 3 can be written only after youhave written up the findings and analysischapters of your dissertation.

The process of data analysis begins withputting in place a plan to manage the large vol-ume of data you collected and reducing it in ameaningful way. You complete this process toidentify significant patterns and construct aframework for communicating the essence ofwhat the data revealed given the purpose ofyour study. Here your conceptual frameworkbecomes the centerpiece in managing the data.The categories that comprise your conceptualframework become the repositories of yourdata. Thus, as you look at your raw data, cat-egorize them within the construct of your con-ceptual framework and assign initial codes torelevant quotes. This iterative process of opencoding leads to the ongoing refinement of whatwill become your final coding schema.Generally, include your coding schema or cod-ing legend as an appendix. Appendix I is acompleted coding scheme sample. In addition,it is useful to show the reader how your coding


Table 3.4 Research Questions/Interview Questions Matrix

Research Questions

Interview Questions 1: 2: 3: 4:

1

2

3

4

5

Do the same for all your subsequent research questions.


scheme developed. Appendix J offers such anillustration.

Therefore, the process of analysis is bothdeductive and inductive. The initial categoriesof your conceptual framework were deduc-tively obtained from the literature. From yourown experience and the data as they emergedfrom pilot tests, you begin to see patterns andthemes. In this way, coding occurs induc-tively. As the coding schema continues toemerge, you must obtain inter-rater reliabilityby requesting colleagues, usually three, toread one of your interview transcripts to testyour codes. Any discrepancies that resultfrom the independent review by your col-leagues must be discussed and reconciledwith each of them. Such discrepancies mayresult in additional exploration of the data.Exploration of such discrepancies in whichfurther clarification is needed will help you asthe researcher to refine how you state yourfindings, as well as subsequent analysis andrecommendations (Creswell, 1998). You alsocan have these same colleagues act as “devil’sadvocates” or peer reviewers throughout datacollection, analysis, and interpretation.

Computer software programs can be use-ful in both managing and analyzing yourdata. Various programs (e.g., ATLAS ti,NUD.IST, NVivo) enable the researcher tostore, categorize, retrieve, and compare data.At the same time, there are other researcherswho prefer to manage and analyze their datamanually—to see visual displays of the dataas they move through the analysis process.These researchers also are concerned withwhat they perceive as a limitation related tomechanical handling of data (Berg, 2004;Merriam, 1998), and so they may feel morecomfortable using flip charts, tables, charts,and matrices. We are not suggesting oneapproach over the other because the methodyou select to manage and analyze your datais a matter of personal preference anddepends on what you are most comfortablewith and/or institutional requirements.

Whether you use a computer-basedsystem or a manual one, the development ofvisuals—tables and/or figures—can be usefulin helping you organize your thinking inpreparation for writing. Aside from helpingyou develop your own thinking, visuals alsoare useful for displaying your data so yourreaders can better understand them. Varioustypes of charts can be constructed, and youcan indeed be quite creative in devising thesecharts. For presenting and analyzing find-ings, we have found three charts to be partic-ularly effective: data summary tables, theanalysis outline tool, and consistency charts.

Data summary tables, discussed in moredetail in chapter 4, can help you in prepar-ing to present the findings from the data.These tables are used for recording thenumber and types of participant responses,tracking the frequency of participantresponses against the categories on yourconceptual framework, and formulatingoverall finding statements with respect toeach of your research questions. Sampledata summary tables are presented asAppendices R through V.

To further help in the analysis and inter-pretation of findings, we suggest using whatwe call an interpretation outline tool. Thistool, discussed in more detail in chapter 5,prompts you to probe beneath the surface ofyour findings to uncover the deeper mean-ings that lie beneath them. A sample inter-pretation outline tool appears as Appendix Y.Consistency charts, discussed further inchapter 4, help align your thinking withrespect to how each finding can generatesuitable conclusions and recommendations.A sample completed consistency chart is pre-sented in Appendix Z.

Because qualitative research is, by itsnature, flexible and because there are nostrict guidelines and standards for qualita-tive analysis, every qualitative researcher willapproach the analytic process somewhatdifferently. Therefore, it is necessary to



(a) provide a detailed description of how youwent about analyzing your data, (b) refer tothe matrices that you used to display yourdata, and (c) identify the coding processesused to convert the raw data into themes foranalysis. Your description should includespecific details about how you managed thelarge amount of data. Include informationabout the computer software, Post-it notes,index cards, flip charts, or other processesthat you used. This list helps the readerclearly understand how and in what waysyou reduced or transformed your data.

As a last point in this section, it is impor-tant that researchers understand what ismeant by synthesis of the data. Whereasanalysis splits data apart, synthesis is the pro-cess of pulling everything together: (a) howthe research questions are answered by thefindings, (b) how the findings from inter-views are supported from all other data-collection methods, (c) how findings relate tothe literature, and (d) how findings relate tothe researcher’s going-in assumptions about thestudy. This process is not linear; rather, youdescribe your findings, interpret and attachmeaning to them, and synthesize throughoutyour discussion.

Ethical Considerations

As researchers, we are morally bound toconduct our research in a manner that mini-mizes potential harm to those involved in thestudy. We should be as concerned with pro-ducing an ethical research design as we are anintellectually coherent and compelling one.

Colleges, universities, and other institu-tions that conduct research have institutionalreview boards (IRBs) whose members reviewresearch proposals to assess ethical issues.Although all studies must be approved byyour institution’s IRB committee, there aresome unique ethical considerations sur-rounding qualitative research because of itsemergent and flexible design. Ethical issuescan indeed arise in all phases of the research

process: data collection, data analysis andinterpretation, and dissemination of theresearch findings. For the most part, issues ofethics focus on establishing safeguards thatwill protect the rights of participants andinclude informed consent, protecting partici-pants from harm, and ensuring confidential-ity. As a qualitative researcher, you need toremain attentive throughout your studyto the researcher–participant relationship,which is determined by roles, status, andcultural norms.

In this section of chapter 3, you need toshow the reader that you have considered theethical issues that might arise vis-à-vis yourown study, you are sensitive to these issues,and you have taken the necessary steps toaddress these issues. In most instances, youwill be talking in generalities; the potentialissues that could arise apply to any qualitativeresearch study and are usually not specific toyour own. Because protection of human sub-jects is such an important issue in socialscience research, the main point is that youacknowledge and convey to the reader thatyou have considered and taken heed of theissues involved. Remember, informed consentis central to research ethics. It is the principlethat seeks to ensure that all human subjectsretain autonomy and the ability to judge forthemselves what risks are worth taking forthe purpose of furthering scientific knowl-edge. In this regard, it is important that youinclude in your appendix a copy of the con-sent form that you used in your study. A sam-ple consent form appears in Appendix K.

Issues of Trustworthiness

In quantitative research, the standardsthat are most frequently used for good andconvincing research are validity and relia-bility. If research is valid, it clearly reflectsthe world being described. If work is reli-able, then two researchers studying thesame phenomenon will come up with com-patible observations. Criteria for evaluating



qualitative research differ from those usedin quantitative research, in that the focus ison how well the researcher has providedevidence that her or his descriptions andanalysis represent the reality of the situa-tions and persons studied. In this section ofchapter 3, you need to clarify to the readerhow you have accounted for trustworthi-ness regarding your own study.

As mentioned previously, qualitativeresearch is characterized by an ongoing dis-course regarding the appropriate and accept-able use of terminology. Current thinkinghas led some qualitative researchers todevelop alternative terminology to betterreflect the nature and distinction of qualita-tive research, whereas others still feelcomfortable borrowing terminology fromquantitative research. While some qualitativeresearchers argue for a return to terminologyfor ensuring rigor that is used by mainstreamscience (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, &Spiers, 2002), others object to the use of tra-ditional terms such as validity and reliability,preferring instead credibility and dependabil-ity. This contrast is a matter of institutionaland/or personal preference, and we recom-mend that you check with your advisor inthis regard. Lincoln and Guba (1985) andGuba and Lincoln (1998), among others,belong to the latter camp, proposing variouscriteria for evaluating the trustworthiness ofqualitative research:

1. Credibility: This criterion refers towhether the participants’ perceptions matchup with the researcher’s portrayal of them. Inother words, has the researcher accuratelyrepresented what the participants think, feel,and do? Credibility parallels the criterion ofvalidity (including both validity of measuresand internal validity) in quantitative research.Evidence in support of credibility can takeseveral forms:

a. Clarify up front the bias that you, asthe researcher, bring to the study. Thisself-reflection creates an open andhonest attitude that will resonate well

with readers. You should continuallymonitor their own subjective perspec-tives and biases by recording reflectivefield notes or keeping a journal through-out the research process.

b. Discuss how you engaged in repeatedand substantial involvement in the field.Prolonged involvement in the field facili-tates a more in-depth understanding ofthe phenomenon under study, convey-ing detail about the site and the par-ticipants that lends credibility to youraccount.

c. An aspect of credibility involveschecking on whether your interpreta-tion of the processes and interactionsin the setting is valid. Typically, qual-itative researchers collect multiplesources of data. The information pro-vided by these different sourcesshould be compared through triangu-lation to corroborate the researcher’sconclusions.

d. Triangulation of data-collection meth-ods also lends credibility. Using multi-ple methods corroborates the evidencethat you have obtained via differentmeans.

e. Present negative instances or dis-crepant findings. Searching for varia-tion in the understanding of thephenomenon entails seeking instancesthat might disconfirm or challenge theresearcher’s expectations or emergentfindings. Because real life is composedof different perspectives that do notalways coalesce, discussing contraryinformation adds to the credibility ofyour account.

f. To ensure that the researcher’s ownbiases do not influence how partici-pants’ perspectives are portrayed, andto determine the accuracy of the find-ings, you can make use of “memberchecks,” which entails sending thetranscribed interviews or summariesof the researcher’s conclusions toparticipants for review.

g. Use “peer debriefing” to enhance theaccuracy of your account. This processinvolves asking a colleague to examine



your field notes and then ask you ques-tions that will help you examine yourassumptions and/or consider alterna-tive ways of looking at the data.

2. Dependability: This criterion parallelsreliability, although it is not assessed throughstatistical procedures. Dependability refers towhether one can track the processes and pro-cedures used to collect and interpret the data:

a. Provide detailed and thorough expla-nations of how the data were collectedand analyzed, providing what isknown as an “audit trail.” Although itis not possible to include all of yourdata in the findings chapter, manyqualitative researchers make it knownthat their data are available for reviewby other researchers.

b. Ask colleagues to code several inter-views, thereby establishing inter-raterreliability. This process of checking onthe consistency between raters reducesthe potential bias of a single researchercollecting and analyzing the data.

3. Transferability: Although qualitativeresearchers do not expect their findings tobe generalizable to all other settings, it islikely that the lessons learned in one settingmight be useful to others. Transferability isnot whether the study includes a represen-tative sample. Rather, it is about how wellthe study has made it possible for thereader to decide whether similar processeswill be at work in their own settings andcommunities by understanding in depthhow they occur at the research site. Thus,transferability refers to the fit or matchbetween the research context and othercontexts as judged by the reader. As a cri-terion of trustworthiness, transferability isassessed by the following factors:

a. The richness of the descriptionsincluded in the study give the discus-sion an element of shared or vicariousexperience. Qualitative research isindeed characterized generally by

“thick description” (Denzin, 1989/2001).Thick description is a vehicle for com-municating to the reader a holistic andrealistic picture.

b. The amount of detailed informationthat is provided by the researcherregarding the context and/or backgroundalso offers an element of sharedexperience.

This section of the dissertation’s chapter 3addresses this central question: How do weknow that the qualitative study is believable,accurate, and plausible? To answer this ques-tion, one must have some knowledge of thecriteria of trustworthiness in qualitativeresearch and the approaches to addressingthese criteria. You need to discuss the criteriafor evaluating the trustworthiness of qualita-tive research and to indicate to the readerthat you have a clear understanding of theimplications thereof vis-à-vis your ownstudy. As the researcher, you are expected todisplay sensibility and sensitivity to be theresearch instrument. Begin this section bydiscussing what validity and reliability inqualitative research involves, using referencesfrom the literature to support your state-ments. Then go on to talk about the strate-gies that you have employed to enhance thetrustworthiness of your own study vis-à-visvalidity (credibility), reliability (dependabil-ity), and generalizability (transferability).

Limitations of the Study

Confusion sometimes exists around theterms delimitations and limitations, and thisissue deserves some clarification. Delimitationsclarify the boundaries of your study. Theyare a way to indicate to the reader how younarrowed the scope of your study. As theresearcher, you control the delimitations, andyou should make this clear. Typical delimita-tions are selected aspects of the problem,time and location of the study, sample



selected, and so on. Limitations of the studyexpose the conditions that may weaken thestudy (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2000;Rossman & Rallis, 2003).

In this section of chapter 3, you cite poten-tial limitations and your means of addressing/guarding against these limitations. Regardlessof how carefully you plan a study, there arealways some limitations, and you need toexplicitly acknowledge these. This sectiondescribes the problems inherent in qualitativeresearch and how you can control for theselimitations to the extent possible. In mostinstances, you can control for limitations byacknowledging them. Limitations arise from,among other things, restricted sample size,sample selection, reliance on certain tech-niques for gathering data, and issues ofresearcher bias and participant reactivity.Discussing limitations is intended to show thereader that you understand that no researchproject is without limitations, and that youhave anticipated and given some thought tothe shortcomings of your research. Stating thelimitations also reminds the reader that yourstudy is situated with a specific context, andthe reader can make decisions about its use-fulness for other settings.

Chapter Summary

The purpose of a final culminating sum-mary is to tie together everything that youhave presented in this chapter. Provide a shortsummary overview, making sure to cover allthe sections of this chapter, recapping andhighlighting all the important points. Keepthe discussion concise and precise.

The application section that follows is askeleton view of what a methodology chap-ter should look like. The methodology chap-ter, as evidenced from the prior instructions,is lengthy, and much detail is required ineach section. In an actual dissertation,each section of this chapter would be more

thoroughly elaborated, and hence wouldrequire a much more extensive discussion.

SECTION II: APPLICATION

CCHHAAPPTTEERR IIIIII

MMeetthhooddoollooggyy

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

The purpose of this multicase study was toexplore with a sample of doctoral candidatestheir perceptions of why they have not managedto complete their dissertations. The researcherbelieved that a better understanding of this phe-nomenon would allow educators to proceed froma more informed perspective in terms of designand facilitation of doctoral programs. In seekingto understand this phenomenon, the studyaddressed five research questions: (a) On comple-tion of their coursework, to what extent did par-ticipants perceive they were prepared to conductresearch and write the dissertation? (b) What didparticipants perceive they needed to learn tocomplete their dissertation? (c) How did partici-pants attempt to develop the knowledge, skills,and attitudes they perceived are necessary tocomplete the dissertation? (d) What factors didparticipants perceive might help them to com-plete the dissertation? (e) What factors did par-ticipants perceive have impeded and/or continueto impede their progress in working toward com-pleting their dissertation?

This chapter describes the study’s researchmethodology and includes discussions around thefollowing areas: (a) rationale for research approach,(b) description of the research sample, (c) summaryof information needed, (d) overview of researchdesign, (e) methods of data collection, (f) analysisand synthesis of data, (g) ethical considerations,(h) issues of trustworthiness, and (i) limitations ofthe study. The chapter culminates with a brief con-cluding summary.



RRaattiioonnaallee ffoorr QQuuaalliittaattiivvee RReesseeaarrcchh DDeessiiggnn

Qualitative research is grounded in an essen-tially constructivist philosophical position, in thesense that it is concerned with how the complexi-ties of the sociocultural world are experienced,interpreted, and understood in a particular con-text and at a particular point in time. The intent ofqualitative research is to examine a socialsituation or interaction by allowing the researcherto enter the world of others and attempt toachieve a holistic rather than a reductionist under-standing (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Locke et al.,2000; Mason, 1996; Maxwell, 2005; Merriam,1998; Merriam & Associates, 2002; Patton, 1990;Schram, 2003; Schwandt, 2000). Qualitativemethodology implies an emphasis on discoveryand description, and the objectives are generallyfocused on extracting and interpreting the mean-ing of experience (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Denzin& Lincoln, 2003; Merriam, 1998). These objectivesare contrasted with those of quantitative research,where the testing of hypotheses to establish factsand to designate and distinguish relationshipsbetween variables is usually the intent.

It was the researcher’s contention that purelyquantitative methods were unlikely to elicit therich data necessary to address the proposedresearch purposes. In the researcher’s view, thefundamental assumptions and key features thatdistinguish what it means to proceed from a qual-itative stance fit well with this study. These fea-tures include (a) understanding the processes bywhich events and actions take place, (b) develop-ing contextual understanding, (c) facilitating inter-activity between researcher and participants,(d) adopting an interpretive stance, and (e) main-taining design flexibility.

RRaattiioonnaallee ffoorr CCaassee SSttuuddyy MMeetthhooddoollooggyy

Within the framework of a qualitative approach,the study was most suited for a case study design. Asa form of research methodology, case study is anintensive description and analysis of a phenomenon,

social unit, or system bounded by time or place (Berg,2004; Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Merriam &Associates, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake,1994, 1995, 2000, 2001). As Merriam (1998) indi-cates, qualitative case study is an ideal design forunderstanding and interpreting educational phe-nomena. As she describes it,

A case study design is employed to gain an indepth understanding of the situation and mean-ing for those involved. The interest is in processrather than outcomes, in context rather than aspecific variable, in discovery rather than confir-mation. Insights gleaned from case studies candirectly influence policy, practice, and futureresearch. (Merriam, 1998, p. 19)

The present research fit well with Merriam’s cri-teria because it sought to better understand whycertain people who complete the coursework donot go on to complete the dissertation and hencedo not graduate with a doctoral degree.

TThhee RReesseeaarrcchh SSaammppllee

A purposeful sampling procedure was used toselect this study’s sample. To yield the most infor-mation about the phenomenon under study, pur-poseful sampling is a method that is typical of casestudy methodology (Patton, 1990; Silverman,2000). The researcher sought to locate individualsat a variety of universities. Thus, a snowball samplingstrategy, sometimes referred to as network or chainsampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002),was employed, whereby participants were asked torefer other individuals whom they knew to be ABD.The criteria for selection of participants were:

• All participants were enrolled in a doctoral pro-gram for at least 3 years, and

• All participants completed the coursework andpassed the certification examination.

A delimiting time frame of 3 years wasdecided on by the researcher to ensure adequateexperience in a doctoral program. Purposefulsampling allowed for sampling across various



locations in the United States. The research sam-ple included 20 individuals. Included in thesample were individuals from doctoral programsat nine universities, including Columbia University,Wayne State University, University of Massachusetts,University of Georgia, University of SouthernCalifornia, University of Michigan, RutgersUniversity, Fordham University, and NorthwesternUniversity. Purposeful selection also was based onvariation across certain distinguishing character-istics. Although participants were all ABD doc-toral candidates, there were differences amongthem along the following parameters: length oftime spent in doctoral program, university anddiscipline, gender, age, and occupation.

IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn NNeeeeddeedd ttooCCoonndduucctt tthhee SSttuuddyy

This multicase study focused on 20 doctoralcandidates from nine universities located in differ-ent regions of the United States. In seeking tounderstand why these doctoral candidates havenot obtained doctoral degrees, five research ques-tions were explored to gather the informationneeded. The information needed to answer theseresearch questions was determined by the concep-tual framework and fell into three categories: (a) perceptual, (b) demographic, and (c) theoreti-cal. This information included:

• Doctoral candidates’ perceptions of what theyneeded to know and how they went aboutobtaining what they needed to conduct theirresearch and complete their dissertations.

• Demographic information pertaining to partici-pants, including years in program, doctoral pro-gram concentration/discipline, age, gender, andethnicity.

• An ongoing review of the literature providingthe theoretical grounding for the study.

OOvveerrvviieeww ooff RReesseeaarrcchh DDeessiiggnn

The following list summarizes the steps used tocarry out this research. Following this list is a morein-depth discussion of each of these steps.

1. Preceding the actual collection of data, aselected review of the literature was conducted tostudy the contributions of other researchers andwriters in the broad areas of higher educationalprograms and adult learning theory.

2. Following the proposal defense, the researcheracquired approval from the IRB to proceedwith the research. The IRB approval processinvolved outlining all procedures and pro-cesses needed to ensure adherence to stan-dards put forth for the study of humansubjects, including participants’ confidentialityand informed consent.

3. Potential research participants were contacted bytelephone, and those who agreed to participatewere sent a questionnaire by mail. The survey wasdesigned to collect demographic as well as per-ceptual data.

4. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were con-ducted with 20 ABD doctoral candidates in nineuniversities located across the United States.

5. Interview data responses were analyzed withinand between groups of interviewees.

6. Critical incident instruments were given to partic-ipants at the end of each interview to check datacollected through other means. Of the 20 partic-ipants, 12 responded.

7. A focus group was conducted with six ABDs whowere drawn from the pool of participants identi-fied for this study to cross-check data from thatgroup with the data collected through interviews.

LLiitteerraattuurree RReevviieeww

An ongoing and selective review of literaturewas conducted to inform this study. Two topics ofliterature were identified: higher education doc-toral programs and adult learning theory. The focusof the review was to gain a better understanding ofwhat prompted participants to enroll in doctoralprograms, the requirements and challengesinherent in these programs, and the effect onparticipants and the means they took to meet therequirements and overcome the challenges theyfaced.



IIRRBB AApppprroovvaall

Following the literature review, the researchersdeveloped and successfully defended a proposalfor this study that included: the background/context, problem statement, purpose statement,and research questions outlined in chapter 1; theliterature review included in chapter 2; and theproposed methodological approach as outlined inchapter 3.

DDaattaa--CCoolllleeccttiioonn MMeetthhooddss

The use of multiple methods and triangulation iscritical in attempting to obtain an in-depth under-standing of the phenomenon under study. Thisstrategy adds rigor, breadth, and depth to the studyand provides corroborative evidence of the dataobtained (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).Therefore, this study employed a number of differ-ent data-collection methods, including survey, inter-views, critical incident reports, and a focus group.

Phase I: Survey

Potential participants were contacted. Of thosewho were contacted to participate, three individu-als declined. The 20 individuals who agreed to par-ticipate were sent a questionnaire by mail andwere asked to return the completed forms by wayof a self-addressed envelope. The questionnairewas designed to collect profile data and also askedparticipants their purposes for enrolling in a doc-toral program. The survey appears as Appendix L.

An advantage of survey methodology is that itis relatively unobtrusive and relatively easily admin-istered and managed (Fowler, 1993). It must beacknowledged, however, that surveys can be of lim-ited value for examining complex social relation-ships or intricate patterns of interaction. In keepingwith the qualitative research tradition, the surveysused in the present study included some open-ended questions that sought to tap into personalexperiences and shed light on participants’ percep-tions. For the purposes of the present study, surveyshad a distinct place in the study’s methodological

design and served as a useful complement oradjunct to other data-collection methods.

Phase II: Interviews

The interview was selected as the primarymethod for data collection in this research. Theinterview method was felt to be of the most use inthe study because it has the potential to elicit rich,thick descriptions. Further, it gives the researcheran opportunity to clarify statements and probe foradditional information. Creswell (1994), Marshalland Rossman (2006), and Denzin and Lincoln(2003) state that a major benefit of collectingdata through individual, in-depth interviews isthat they offer the potential to capture a person’sperspective of an event or experience.

The interview is a fundamental tool in qualita-tive research (Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 1998; Seidman,1998). Kvale (1996) describes the qualitativeresearch interview as an “attempt to understand theworld from the subject’s point of view, to unfold themeaning of peoples’ experiences, to uncover theirlived world . . .” (p. 1). As Patton (1990) similarlyclaims, “qualitative interviewing begins with theassumption that the perspective of others is mean-ingful, knowable, and able to be made explicit”(p. 278). The researcher’s logic for using this data-collection method is that a legitimate way to gen-erate data is to interact with people (i.e., talk to andlisten to them), thereby capturing the meaning oftheir experience in their own words.

Although interviews have certain strengths,there are various limitations associated with inter-viewing. First, not all people are equally coopera-tive, articulate, and perceptive. Second, interviewsrequire researcher skill. Third, interviews are notneutral tools of data gathering; they are the resultof the interaction between the interviewer and theinterviewee and the context in which they takeplace (Fontana & Frey, 2003; Rubin & Rubin,2005; Schwandt, 1997).

Interview Schedule of Questions and PilotInterviews. With guidance from her advisor, theresearcher used the study’s five research questions



as the framework to develop the interview ques-tions. Matrices were constructed to illustrate therelationship between this study’s research ques-tions and the interview questions as they werebeing developed. Three doctoral colleagues werethen asked to review and provide feedback to theresearcher. Their comments were incorporated, andthe researcher resubmitted the schedule of ques-tions to her advisor. With the advisor’s approval,two pilot interviews were conducted by phone.The preliminary themes that emerged from thepilot interviews revolved around reasons thatindividuals enroll in doctoral programs and theirlearning during the process. From the pilot inter-views, a series of open-ended questions wasdeveloped, which enabled the researcher theflexibility to allow new directions to emerge dur-ing the interview. The final interview schedule isincluded as Appendix H.

Interview Process. The researcher sent individuale-mails to prospective participants describing thepurpose of the study, inviting their participation,and requesting a convenient date and time for atelephone interview. The researcher sent confirm-ing e-mails to the 20 individuals who agreed to beinterviewed. The interviews took place betweenAugust and October 2006. Before the interviewcommenced, the interviewee was asked to reviewand sign a university consent form required for par-ticipation in this study (see Appendix I). All inter-views were conducted telephonically and weretape recorded in their entirety. At the end of eachinterview, the interviewee was asked to completeand return by e-mail the critical incident instru-ment, which had been prepared by the researcher.On completion of the interview, the audio tape wastranscribed verbatim.

Phase III: Critical Incidents

The researcher selected critical incident instru-ments with the intention of corroborating interviewdata and, further, to allow the uncovering of per-ceptions that might not have been revealedthrough the interviews. Critical incident reports,

a data-collection method first formulated byFlanagan (1954), are useful because qualitativeresearch methodology emphasizes process and isbased on a descriptive and inductive approach todata collection (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Of partic-ular importance is that written critical incidentreports probe assumptions, allowing time for reflec-tion (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Brookfield, 1991;Marshall & Rossman, 2006).

Although there is support in the literature forthe use of the critical incident as an effectivetechnique for enhancing data collection, with sev-eral authors noting its advantages (Bogdan &Biklen, 1998; Brookfield, 1986, 1987, 1991;Flanagan, 1954), the researcher was mindful ofBrookfield’s repeated caution that critical inci-dents cannot be the sole technique for collectingdata. Critical incidents are too abbreviated to pro-vide the rich descriptions that can be obtained ininterviews and observations. A further concernregarding the use of critical incident reports hasto do with the accuracy of data because this tech-nique relies solely on the respondents’ recall. Arelated concern is that, although reporting infor-mation that respondents perceive is important,the researcher may fail to report salient incre-mental data and the information, as such, may beincomplete.

The critical incident instrument was developedby the researcher and further refined by her advi-sor. The instrument was field tested in conjunctionwith the pilot interviews. The results of the field testcalled for minor revisions, and these were incorpo-rated into a final critical incident form/instrument.This instrument is included as Appendix M.

The critical incident instrument was subse-quently given to the 20 participants in this study atthe end of each interview by the researcher. Theinstrument asked respondents to think about a spe-cific time when they felt ill-prepared to conductsome part of the dissertation process. Specifically,participants were asked to briefly describe the inci-dent, indicating who was involved, what theylearned, and how they thought their learningwould influence how they would handlesimilar situations in the future. Participants were



given a self-addressed envelope and wererequested at the end of the interview to returncompleted critical incidents to the researcher assoon as possible. The researcher received 12 com-pleted critical incidents from among the 20 partic-ipants. Although the researcher had hoped for agreater response, when analyzed, the returned crit-ical incidents served as a “validity check” on someaspects of the data uncovered in the interviews.

Phase IV: Focus Group

Focus groups, or group interviews, possess ele-ments of both participant observation and individ-ual interviews, while also maintaining their ownuniqueness as a distinctive research method(Morgan, 1997). A focus group is essentially agroup discussion focused on a single theme(Kreuger, 1988). The goal is to create a candid con-versation that addresses, in depth, the selectedtopic. The underlying assumption of focus groups isthat, within a permissive atmosphere that fosters arange of opinions, a more complete and revealingunderstanding of the issues will be obtained. Focusgroups are planned and structured, but are alsoflexible tools (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996).Kreuger and Casey (2000) list various uses of focusgroups, many of which fit well with this study’s pur-pose. These are to: (a) elicit a range of feelings,opinions, and ideas; (b) understand differences inperspectives; (c) uncover and provide insightinto specific factors that influence opinions; and(d) seek ideas that emerge from the group.

It must be acknowledged that focus groups,while serving a useful function, are not without dis-advantages. Among these disadvantages is “group-think” as a possible outcome (Fontana & Frey,2003). Furthermore, logistical difficulties mightarise from the need to manage conversation whileattempting to extract data, thus requiring strongfacilitation skills.

One 1½-hour formative focus group was con-vened with six participants who were not part of thestudy sample. These participants were purposefullyselected based on the established criteria. Thepurpose of this focus group interview was twofold:

(a) to augment the information obtained, and (b) toprovide additional data to ensure trustworthinessand credibility. In the open-ended format that wasused, the researcher asked the group to explore twoissues. First, what did they feel helped them themost in the research process? Second, what chal-lenges and obstacles did they encounter thatimpeded their progress?

The researcher contacted the 20 study partici-pants seeking their interest in joining a focus groupdiscussion. The study participants were advised ofthe purpose and were told that the discussionwould be held over an Internet Conference CallSystem and would be audiotaped. Eleven of the 20participants responded that they would be willingto join the discussion, and the first 6 respondentswere selected. A general e-mail was sent by theresearcher thanking the participants who hadexpressed interest. Following that, the researchercontacted each of the focus group members toschedule a convenient time to hold the discussion.

MMeetthhooddss ffoorr DDaattaaAAnnaallyyssiiss aanndd SSyynntthheessiiss

The challenge throughout data collection andanalysis was to make sense of large amounts ofdata, reduce the volume of information, identifysignificant patterns, and construct a framework Inthis regard, Merriam (1998) cautions researchers tomake data analysis and data collection a simulta-neous activity to avoid the risk of repetitious, unfo-cused, and overwhelming data.

The formal process of data analysis began byassigning alphanumeric codes according to thecategories and descriptors of the study’s conceptualframework. The researcher prepared large flip chartsheets. These sheets were color coded and taped onthe wall. Each sheet identified the descriptors underthe respective categories of the conceptual frame-work. As the process of coding the transcripts pro-ceeded, new flip chart sheets were prepared tocapture other themes as they emerged.

Before cutting and pasting coded participantquotations, the researcher shared samples ofcoded interviews with two colleagues. Discussion



with both colleagues confirmed the researcher’sdesignations. The researcher also prepared writ-ten narratives on each of the sheets after all thedata had been assigned. These narratives werehelpful in cross-checking the data and served asa secondary analysis.

As a final step, to see whether there were anyvariables that would account for similarities or dif-ferences among participants, the researcher testedthe coded data on the sheets against the frequencycharts prepared for each finding and the numeri-cally coded profile data on the participants. Thisstep aided the researcher in her cross-case analysisof the data, which is described more fully later.

The coding process fragments the interview intoseparate categories, forcing one to look at eachdetail, whereas synthesis involves piecing thesefragments together to reconstruct a holistic andintegrated explanation. Overall, the researcher’sapproach was to come up with a number of clus-ters, patterns, or themes that were linked together,either similarly or divergently and that collectivelydescribed or analyzed the research arena. Towardthis end, the researcher essentially followed athree-layered process in thinking about the data.First, she examined and compared threads and pat-terns within categories. Second, she compared con-necting threads and patterns across categories.Third, the current work was situated with respect toprior research and was compared and contrastedwith issues that had been raised by the broader lit-erature. These three layers were not separate, butwere interlocked and iterative throughout the syn-thesizing process.

Based on analysis and synthesis, the researcherwas able to move forward and think about thebroader implications of this research. Toward thisend, she formulated several conclusions anddeveloped various practical and research-relatedrecommendations.

EEtthhiiccaall CCoonnssiiddeerraattiioonnss

In any research study, ethical issues relatingto protection of the participants are of vital con-cern (Berg, 2004; Marshall & Rossman, 2006;

Merriam, 1998; Pring, 2000; Punch, 1994;Schram, 2003). A social science researcher isresponsible for both informing and protectingrespondents. The research process involvesenlisting voluntary cooperation, and it is a basicpremise that participants are informed aboutthe study’s purpose. The central issue withrespect to protecting participants is the ways inwhich the information is treated. Although itwas anticipated that no serious ethical threatswere posed to any of the participants or theirwell-being, this study employed various safe-guards to ensure the protection and rights ofparticipants.

First, informed consent remained a prioritythroughout the study. Written consent to voluntarilyproceed with the study was received from each par-ticipant. Second, participants’ rights and interestswere considered of primary importance whenchoices were made regarding the reporting and dis-semination of data. The researcher was committedto keeping the names and/or other significantidentity characteristics of the sample organizationsconfidential. Cautionary measures were taken tosecure the storage of research-related records anddata, and nobody other than the researcher hadaccess to this material.

IIssssuueess ooff TTrruussttwwoorrtthhiinneessss

In qualitative research, trustworthiness featuresconsist of any efforts by the researcher to address themore traditional quantitative issues of validity (thedegree to which something measures what it pur-ports to measure) and reliability (the consistencywith which it measures it over time). In seeking toestablish the trustworthiness of a qualitative study,Guba and Lincoln (1998) use the terms credibility,dependability, confirmability, and transferability,arguing that the trustworthiness of qualitativeresearch should be assessed differently from quanti-tative research. Regardless of the terminology used,qualitative researchers must continue to seek tocontrol for potential biases that might be presentthroughout the design, implementation, and anal-ysis of the study.



Credibility

The criterion of credibility (or validity) suggestswhether the findings are accurate and crediblefrom the standpoint of the researcher, the partic-ipants, and the reader. This criterion becomes akey component of the research design (Creswell,2003; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Marshall &Rossman, 2006; Mason, 1996; Maxwell, 2005;Merriam, 1998; Merriam & Associates; 2002;Miles & Huberman, 1994). Seeking not to verifyconclusions, but rather to test the validity ofconclusions reached, entails a concern with bothmethodological and interpretive validity (Mason,1996).

Methodological validity involves asking howwell matched the logic of the method is to thekinds of research questions that are being posedand the kind of explanation that the researcher isattempting to develop. Dealing with this type ofvalidity involves consideration of the interrela-tionship between the research design compo-nents—the study’s purpose, conceptual framework,research questions, and methods. Interpretativevalidity involves asking how valid the data analy-sis is and the interpretation on which it is based.Although this step is somewhat dependent onmethodological validity, it goes further in that itdirects attention to the quality and rigor withwhich the researcher interprets and analyzesdata in relation to the research design (Mason,1996).

To enhance the methodological validity of thestudy, the researcher triangulated data sources aswell as data-collection methods. Gathering datafrom multiple sources and by multiple methodsyields a fuller and richer picture of the phe-nomenon under review. To enhance the interpre-tive validity of this study, the researcher employedvarious strategies. First, she clarified her assump-tions up front, and the steps through which inter-pretations were made also were charted throughjournal writing. Second, the researcher used vari-ous participatory and collaborative modes ofresearch, including the search for discrepant

evidence and peer review, which has been dis-cussed at length by Lincoln and Guba (1985).This entails looking for variation in the under-standing of the phenomenon and seekinginstances that might challenge the researcher’sexpectations or emergent findings. Reviewingand discussing findings with professional col-leagues was a further way of ensuring that thereality of the participants was adequatelyreflected in the findings.

Dependability

Reliability in the traditional sense refers tothe extent that research findings can be repli-cated by other similar studies. Qualitativeresearch usually does not cover enough of anexpanse of subjects and experiences to provide areasonable degree of reliability. As argued byLincoln and Guba (1985), the more importantquestion becomes one of whether the findingsare consistent and dependable with the datacollected. As the researcher understood it, inqualitative research the goal is not to eliminateinconsistencies but to ensure that the researcherunderstands when they occur. Thus, it becomesincumbent on the researcher to document herprocedures and demonstrate that coding schemesand categories have been used consistently.

Toward this end, inter-rater reliability (Miles &Huberman, 1994) was established by asking col-leagues to code several interviews. Although cod-ing was generally found to be consistent, therewere certain instances where the raters made someinferences that could not be fully supported by thedata. In these cases, the researcher reviewed thedata and reconciled differences in interpretations.In addition, the researcher maintained an audittrail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) that chronicled theevolution of her thinking and documented therationale for all choices and decisions made duringthe research process. This trail, which Merriam &Associates (2002) describe as offering “trans-parency of method,” depended on the researcher



keeping a journal as well as a record of memos thatincluded detailed accounts of how all the datawere analyzed and interpreted.

Confirmability

The concept of confirmability corresponds tothe notion of objectivity in quantitativeresearch. The implication is that the findingsare the result of the research, rather than anoutcome of the biases and subjectivity of theresearcher. To achieve this end, a researcherneeds to identify and uncover the decision trailfor public judgment. Although qualitativeresearchers realize the futility of attempting toachieve objectivity, they must nevertheless bereflexive and illustrate how their data can betraced back to its origins. As such, the audit trail(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) used to demonstratedependability, including ongoing reflection byway of journaling and memo, as well as a recordof field notes and transcripts, served to offer thereader an opportunity to assess the findings ofthis study.

Transferability

Although generalizeability is not the intendedgoal of this study, what was addressed was theissue of transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)—that is, the ways in which the reader determineswhether and to what extent this particular phe-nomenon in this particular context can transfer toanother particular context. With regard to transfer-ability, Patton (1990) promotes thinking of “con-text-bound extrapolations” (p. 491), which hedefines as “speculations on the likely applicabilityof findings to other situations under similar, butnot identical, conditions” (p. 489). Toward this end,the researcher attempted to address the issue oftransferability by way of thick, rich description ofthe participants and the context. Depth, richness,and detailed description provide the basis for aqualitative account’s claim to relevance in somebroader context (Schram, 2003).

LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff tthhee SSttuuddyy

This study contains certain limiting conditions,some of which are related to the common critiquesof qualitative research methodology in general andsome of which are inherent in this study’s researchdesign. Careful thought has been given to ways ofaccounting for these limitations and to ways ofminimizing their impact. Unique features of quali-tative research methodology present potential lim-itations in its usage.

Because analysis ultimately rests with thethinking and choices of the researcher, qualita-tive studies in general are limited by researchersubjectivity. Therefore, an overriding concern isthat of researcher bias, framing as it doesassumptions, interests, perceptions, and needs.One of the key limitations of this study is theissue of subjectivity and potential bias regardingthe researcher’s own participation in a doctoralprogram first as a student and currently as a fac-ulty member.

A related limitation was that intervieweesmay have had difficulty adjusting to theresearcher taking on the role of interviewer, aphenomenon referred to by Maxwell (1996) asparticipant reactivity. Because a few of the par-ticipants knew the researcher, their responsesmay have been influenced or affected. They mayhave tried overly hard to cooperate with theresearcher by offering her the responses theyperceived she was seeking or which they per-ceived might be helpful to her. Alternatively,because of familiarity with the researcher, thesefew participants might have been guarded andtherefore less candid in their responses.

Recognizing these limitations, the researchertook the following measures. First, she acknowl-edged her research agenda and stated herassumptions up front. Coding schemes werescrutinized by advisors and through peer review,as were coded documents and transcripts. Toreduce the limitation of potential bias duringdata analysis, the researcher removed all partic-ipant names and coded all interview transcripts



blindly so as not to associate any material ordata with any particular individual. To addressthe problem of participant reactivity, theresearcher continued to reflect on how andin what ways she might be influencingparticipants. Furthermore, she made a consciousattempt to create an environment that was con-ducive to honest and open dialogue. Experienceas an interviewer, as well as prior research expe-rience, was helpful in this regard.

Aside from issues pertaining to bias and reac-tivity, a further major limitation of this study wasthat the research sample was restricted. Therefore,a critique of this research might be the limitedpossibility of generalizing this study to othergroups and other programs. Although generaliz-ability was not the intended goal of this study,what the researchers addressed is the issue oftransferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By way ofthick, rich description, as well as detailed infor-mation regarding the context and background ofthe study, it was anticipated that knowledgecould be assessed for its applicability and appliedappropriately in other contexts.

CChhaapptteerr SSuummmmaarryy

In summary, this chapter provided a detaileddescription of this study’s research methodology.Qualitative case study methodology was employedto illustrate the phenomenon of why some peoplewho complete all the doctoral coursework do notgo on to complete the dissertation, never obtainthe doctoral degree, and hence remain ABD. Theparticipant sample was made up of 20 purpose-fully selected individuals. Three data-collectionmethods were employed, including individual inter-views, critical incidents, and a focus group. The datawere reviewed against literature as well as emer-gent themes. Credibility and dependability wereaccounted for through various strategies, includingsource and method triangulation.

A review of the literature was conducted todevise a conceptual framework for the designand analysis of the study. A process analysis

enabled the key themes from the findings to beidentified. Through a comparison with the liter-ature, interpretations and conclusions weredrawn, and recommendations were offered forboth educational practice and further research.The intent was that this study would make acontribution to the understanding of doctoralstudents, current and future, with regard totheir completing a dissertation. Additionally,it is hoped that this study will be of value tothose educators who are responsible for doctoralprograms.

SUMMARY DISCUSSIONFOR CHAPTER 3

Writing the methodology chapter requirestime, mind work, and a great deal of reflec-tion about the nature of your inquiry. Youmost certainly want to present well-reasonedresearch that will illustrate the integrity ofyour study. Be sure to give careful thoughtto how you present the discussion, and, asalways, remember to work from an outline.Your headings and subheadings in this chap-ter are contingent on your particular univer-sity’s requirements. How well you presentthis chapter illustrates to the reader that youhave carefully designed and produced asound study based on the principles of qual-itative research.

As emphasized throughout this book,writing a dissertation is not a linear process.Rather, it is an iterative and recursive onethat requires much back and forth, remindernotes to yourself, and memos to change,revise, and update what you have alreadywritten. Chapter 3 is one of those chaptersthat must remain flexible and open to changeright up to the very end. Frustration isinevitable, but don’t despair! This is all partand parcel of managing and organizing theresearch and writing process.



Chapter Checklist

Do you have a clear introduction to this chapter that includes your purpose statement (if required),as well as an explanation of how the chapter will be organized?

Does the discussion have a logical flow?

Does the discussion illustrate that you have a good understanding of the assumptions andprinciples of qualitative research?

Do you offer a convincing argument for choosing a qualitative approach?

Do you provide a convincing argument for the particular qualitative tradition or genre (orcombination of traditions) that you have chosen?

Have you made it clear how the research sample was selected from the population, as well as thespecific criteria used in selection?

Have you provided a sufficiently detailed description of the site and research sample?

Have you discussed issues of access and consent?

Is the information that is needed to conduct the study clearly and specifically outlined?

Are you clear how and from whom the necessary information will be obtained?

Is there a logical connection between the type of information needed and the methods you haveselected to obtain that information?

Are the data-collection methods sufficiently described? The description of each instrument shouldrelate to the function of the instrument in the study and what the instrument is intended tomeasure.

Have you provided a comprehensive literature review of the data-collection methods used andincluded details regarding the strengths and limitations of each method?

Are the data-collection methods congruent with the problem being investigated and the specificqualitative tradition employed?

Do you explain the procedures you use for recording, managing, and storing information?

Has triangulation of the data-collection methods been achieved?

Is the study’s methodology/research design documented in sufficient detail? Have you described inchronological order each step taken in conducting the study?

Is there a sequential progression inherent in the methodological design? That is, is the reader able tosee how each stage of the study’s design builds on and flows logically from the stage preceding it?

Have you discussed all decisions made during the course of the study, and, if applicable, have youmentioned any changes or modifications in focus, direction, and design?

If applicable, have you described all field tests or pilot tests that you have used?

Are your methods of data analysis, synthesis, and interpretation sufficiently described and detailed?

Are your methods of data analysis congruent with the principles of qualitative research?

Are the ethical considerations that you have identified clear and acceptable, and have you discussedthe procedures followed to address them?



Does your discussion of the key issues pertaining to trustworthiness in qualitative research showthat you have a clear understanding of these issues?

Does your discussion around trustworthiness show how you have considered and accounted forcredibility, dependability, and transferability vis-à-vis your own study?

Do you acknowledge potential limitations of your study?

Do you indicate how you have attempted to address these limitations?

Are headings and subheadings used effectively to structure and present the discussion?

Does the discussion in each section flow logically?

Are the transitions from one section of the chapter to another clear and logical? Have you madeuse of effective segues?

Are tables, figures, and appendices used effectively and appropriately?

Do tables and figures follow the format specified by your required style manual?

Are the columns and rows of each table labeled correctly?

Does the title of each table and/or figure indicate exactly (clearly and concisely) what the table orfigure is intended to represent?

Have you checked for institutional and/or program-related differences regarding the content andstructure of chapter 3?

Have you checked for institutional and/or program-related differences regarding the appropriateuse of qualitative language and terminology?

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

The author covers the entire research design process from sampling strategies tocollecting, organizing, and making sense of qualitative data. This book provides asolid grounding in the mainstream qualitative methods, with chapter 2 providing adiscussion of purposeful sampling and its many different types of strategies, and chap-ter 3 providing a thorough overview of ethical issues. Chapters 4 and 5 offer detailedinformation pertaining to interviews and focus groups. Chapter 11 provides an in-depth overview and description of content analysis—the basis of the qualitative ana-lytical approach. There are extensive lists of references presented at the end of eachchapter, which offer the reader a variety of primary sources. Overall, the book focuseson current issues in the world of social research, which include a serious concernabout ethical behavior and a more reflexive and sensitive role for the researcher.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfive traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell uses the metaphor of a “circle of interrelated activities” to describe aprocess of engaging in activities that include but go beyond collecting data. In chapter 7,he introduces each activity: locating a site, sampling purposefully to obtain a researchsample, collecting data (interviews, observation, document review, and audiovisualmaterial), recording information, exploring field issues, and storing data.



Furthermore, he explores how each of these activities varies by tradition of inquiry. Inchapter 8, Creswell discusses generally, as well as more specifically for each of the fivetraditions, the different procedures for data analysis and the representation of data inboth narrative and visual forms. Chapter 10 focuses on the intricacies involved in theissue of trustworthiness: establishing standards of quality and verification.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualita-tive materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This comprehensive collection of chapters written by experts in the field covers avariety of qualitative methodological issues related to gathering, analyzing, and inter-preting data. Unlike most of the other books recommended in this section’s annotatedbibliography, this book is not a “how-to” handbook. Rather, it uncovers and examinesthe philosophical and political implications of qualitative research methodology,addressing issues of equity and social justice. Part I includes discussion of data-collectionmethods, including interviews, observation, documents and material culture, andfocus groups. Also included is a chapter on software and qualitative research. Part IIincludes discussion of issues pertaining to the practices of interpretation, evaluation, andrepresentation.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Interviewing is an essential tool in the repertoire of any qualitative researcher, yetthe hows and the whys of the interview process are not always easily understood. Thisbook does a good job of explaining the theoretical underpinnings and practical aspectsof the interview process. After examining the role of the interviewer in the researchprocess, the author considers some of the key philosophical issues related to inter-viewing. He then takes the reader through what he calls “the seven stages of the inter-view investigation”—from designing a study to writing it up. Particularly useful arethe chapters on analysis (chap. 11) and validity (chap. 13).

Marshall C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

These authors offer comprehensive instruction as well as outline the challengesinvolved in the design and conduct of a sound qualitative study. Chapter 4 offers use-ful guidelines about the various qualitative data-collection methods, with a particularfocus on interviews, observation, and document review as primary methods. Theauthors also provide good discussion of secondary methods, including survey, lifehistory, and narrative inquiry. The focus is on how to design a data-collection strat-egy by way of thoughtfully combining methods so that they build on and complementone another. Chapter 5 deals with recording, managing, and analyzing data. Thischapter defends the value and logic of qualitative research and offers some usefulinsights and background reading around issues of trustworthiness in qualitativeinquiry. Particularly useful are the exhaustive and well-organized bibliographies foundat the end of each of these chapters.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The intent of this book is to provide qualitative researchers with a set of tools anda mode of critical thinking to help them plan and develop a sound research design. Itis based on the notion that qualitative researchers need to think and act strategically in



ways that combine intellectual, philosophical, technical, and practical concerns.Chapter 2 deals with questions about planning and designing a qualitative study.Chapters 3 and 4 cover the various methods for generating qualitative data: interviews,observation, and document analysis. The author uses the medium of posing questionsaround pertinent issues related to the choice and use of methods. These questionsare not designed to probe qualitative research in the abstract, but represent the activethinking-and-doing skills required to make informed and thoughtful choices.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa-tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The primary focus of this book is on qualitative research in general, with appli-cations to case study as a secondary emphasis. Part I includes discussion of the differ-ent types of qualitative research and how to design a qualitative case study, includingsample selection. Part II consists of four chapters that detail data-collection tech-niques: These chapters include how to record and evaluate interview data, how to con-duct observations and record observation data in the form of field notes, and how touse documents, including their strengths and limitations. Chapter 6 illustrates theapplication of all three methods of data collection with regard to case study method-ology. Chapter 10 in Part III deals with issues of trustworthiness and research ethics.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

This book is an excellent guide to focus groups. It covers how focus groups com-pare with other qualitative methods of data collection, pointing out the strengths andweaknesses of this method and outlining the many uses of focus groups vis-à-vis qual-itative research. The author offers clear instructions regarding how to plan a researchdesign that includes focus groups, as well as how to actually go about conducting thegroup interview and analyze the data that are generated.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patton’s classic book brings together theory and practice, offering many usefulstrategies for designing and conducting qualitative studies. Examples serve to clarifyand deepen understanding of the qualitative research process in its many facets.Especially useful are the sections on the defining characteristics of qualitative research,the variety of qualitative research traditions, sampling procedures, methods and tech-niques of data collection (there are detailed and thorough chapters dealing with obser-vation and interview), data analysis and interpretation (including computer-assistedanalysis), ethical issues, and criteria for enhancing credibility. Patton is one of the fore-bearers of qualitative research. This often-quoted book set the standards for the fieldin the 1980s and 1990s. Recently revised, it brings readers up to date with the varietyof current perspectives about (as well as the variety within) qualitative inquiry.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists andpractitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

This book deals with qualitative design issues and data-collection methods. Thebook is wide ranging and offers the reader an appreciation of the complexities andissues involved in designing, carrying out, analyzing, and reporting on different kindsof studies. Particularly useful for dissertation writers are discussions in Part III around



the use of surveys/questionnaires, interviews, observation, and document analysis, andinstruction in Part IV around preparing for data analysis and synthesis. This text,which emphasizes the importance of a flexible research design for qualitative inquiry,is a useful reference to use along the way as you conduct your research and begin towrite the dissertation.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers ineducation and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Most qualitative research employs interviewing as a primary method of data col-lection. This book is a concise yet one of the most informative overviews on the art ofinterviewing, with the author offering concrete examples of interviewing techniques,as well as discussion of the complexities involved, including technical, logistical, andethical issues. What are especially useful are the guidelines to analyzing and interpret-ing interview data, which are presented in the final chapter. Here the author gives clearinstruction on how to manage the data (interviews usually generate an enormousamount of text), as well as studying, reducing, analyzing, and interpreting the text.Particularly helpful are the suggestions regarding transcription, as well as the differentways in which interview data can be displayed. In this regard, the author discusses twobasic ways in which to do this: creating profiles and developing themes.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in educa-tion and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This book illustrates the specific steps to take in conducting focus groups in edu-cational and psychological settings. By way of numerous examples, the authorsexplain how to prepare for focus groups: create a moderator’s guide, select a setting,and understand, analyze, and interpret the focus group findings. This book isextremely reader-friendly; it is clearly written, and instructions and guidelines are easyto follow. Each chapter contains numerous procedural tables, as well as ideas forapplications of trial runs of the techniques discussed.



presenting methodology and research approach - sage pub · pdf filepresenting methodology and...

Documents