Anda di halaman 1dari 18

APPLlED SOCIAL RESEARCH

METHODS SERIES
Series Editors
lEONARO BICKMAN, Peabody Gollege, Vanderbilt University, Nashville
DEBRA J. ROG, Vanderb,lt University, Washington, DC

r. SURVEY RESEARCH METHODS (Third Edltlon) 26. SCALE DEVELOPMENT

by FlOYO J FOWLER. Jr. by ROBERT F. DeVELLlS

2. SYNTHESIZING AESEAACH (Thlrd Edlllon) 27. STUDYING FAMllIES

by HARRIS COOPER by ANNE P. COPELAND and KATHLEEN M. WHITE

3. METHODS FOA POllCY RESEAACH 26. EYENT HISTORY ANALYSIS

by ANN MAJCHRZAK by KAZUO YAMAGUCHI

4. SECONDARV RESEAACH (Stocond Edltlon) 29. AESEARCH IN EOUCATIONAL SETTINGS

by DAVID W. STEWART and MICHAEl A. KAMINS by GEOHREY MAAUYAMA

5. CASE STUDY RESEAACH (Second Edllion) and STANLEY DENO

by ROBERT K. YIN 30. AESEAACHING PERSONS WITH MENTALILLNESS

6. META-ANAlYTIC PROCEDURES FOR SOCIAL by AOSAlIND J. DWORKIN

RESEARCH (Aevlaed Edlllon) 31. PLANNING ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE AESEARCH

by ROBERT ROSENTHAL by JOAN E. SIEBEA

7. TElEPHONE SUAVE Y METHODS (Second Edllion) 32. APPlIED RESEARCH DESIGN

by PAUL J. LAVRAKAS by TEAAY E. HEDRICK.

6. DIAGNOSING ORGANIZATlONS (Stocond Editlon) I.EONARO BICKMAN, and OEBAA J. AOG

by MICHAEL r, HARRISON 33. DOING URBAN AESEARCH

9. GROUP TECHNIQUES FOA by GREGOAY D. ANORANOVICH

IDE" BUILDING (Sacond Edlllon) and GEAAV AIf'OSA

by CARL M. MOOHE 34 APPLlCATlONS OF CASE STUDY RESEARCH

10. NEED ANALYSIS by ROBEAT K. YIN

by JACK McKILlIP 35. INTRODUCTlON TO FACET THEORY

I1 LINKING AIIDITING AND META EVALUATION by SAMlJEL SHYE ano DOV EUZUR

by THOMAS A. SCHWANDT will'l MICHAEl tlOFfMAN

ano EOWARD S. HALPERN 36. GR"PHING DATA

12. ETHICS ANO VALIIES by GARY T. ftENAY

IN APPlIED SOCIAL RESEARCH 37. AESEARCH METHClDS IN SP.ECIAL EDUCATION

by ALLAN J. KIMMEl hy DONNA M. MEATENS

13. ONTIME AND METHOD and JOHN A. McLAlJGHlIN

by JANICE A. KELLY 38. IMPROVINO SURVEY QUESTIONS

and JOSEPH E. McGRATH by FLOVD J. fOWLER. Jr.

14. AESEAACH IN HE"LTH CARE SETTtNGS 39. DATA COLLECTION "ND MANAOEMENT

.by KATHLEEN E. GRIIDY by MAGDA STOU1 tlAMER-LOEBER

and BARBARA STRUDLER WAllSTON and WELMOET BOK VAN KAMMEN

:5. PARTICIPANT OBSERVATlON 40. MAIL SURVEVS

by DANNY l. JORGENSEN by THOMAS W. MANGIONE

6. INTERPRETlvE INTEAACTIONISM (Second Edilion) 41. QUAlITATIVE AESE"RCH OESIGN (Second Edlli,,")

by NORMAN K. DENZIN by JOSEPtI A. MAXWELL

7. ETHNOGRAPHY (Second Edition) 42. ANAlYZING COSTS, PROCEDURES,

by DAVID M. FET1ERMAN PAOCESSES, ANO OUTCOMES

6. STANDAROtZED SIIRVEY INTERVIEWING IN HUMAN SERVICES

by FlOYD J. FOWlER, Jr. by BAlAN T YATES

and THOMAS W. MANGIONE 43. OOIN(; LEGAL AESEARCH

9. PAOOUCTIVtTY MEASUREMENT by AOBER r A MOAAIS, BAUCE D. SALES,

by ROBERT O. BRINKERHOFF and DANiel W. SHUMAN

and DENNIS E. DRESSlER 44. AANOOMIZED EXPERIMENTS FOA PLANNINO

~O. FOCUS GAOUPS ANO EVALUATION

by DAVID W. STEWART by 110B[AT F. BORUCH

and PREM N. SHAMOASANI 45. MEASUAING COMMUNITY INDICATORS

~" PRACTtCAL SAMPLtNG by PAlJL J. GAUENEWALD, ANOAEW J. TAENO. GAIL

by GART T. HENRY TAFF, and MICHAEL KlITZNEA

'2. OECISION RESEAACH 46. MIXEO METHOOOLOGY

by JOHN S. CARROlL hy ABBAS TASHAKKORI and CHAALES TEOOllE

and ERIC J. JOHNSON 41. NARRATIVE RESEARCH

'3. RESEARCH WITH HISP"NIC POPULATIONS by AMIA I.IEBLlCH, AIVKA TUVAL-MASHIACH, and

by GERARDO MARIN TAMAR ZllBER

and BARBAR" VANOSS MARIN 48. COMMUNICATING SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

4. INTERNAL EVALUATION TO POLtCY-MAKERS

by ARNOLO J. LOVE by AOGER V"UGHAN and TERRY F. BUSS

5. COMPUTER SIMULATION APPlICATIONS 49. PRACTlCAL META-ANALY818

by MARCI" LYNN WHIGKER and LEE SIGELMAN by MAAK W. lIPSEY and DAVID 8. WILSON
Copyright Q 2005 by Sage Publicatiuns, Inc.

Al! rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any forrn
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopyíng, recording, or by
any information storage and reuieval systern, without permission in writing from the
publisher.

For infonnation:

Sagc Publicauons, lnc.


2455 Tcller Roau
Thousand Oaks, California 91.\20
E-mail: order(g)sagepull.{:olll

Sage Publications LId.


1 Oliver's Yard
55 City Road
London EC 1y 1SI'

United Kingdom

Sagc Publications India 1'\1. Lid.

B·A2, Panchsheel Enclave

Post Box 410')

New Delhi 1 1 (J () 17 India

Printed in the Unitcd Stutes 01"America

Library of COIIXII'H Cataíoging-in-t'ublication lrata

Maxwell. Joseph Alex, IlJ41-Qualitativc research design: An interactive approach I


Joseph A. Maxwell.-:!nd ed.
p. cm.-(Applied social reseurch methods series; no. 411
lncludes bibliographical references ami index.
ISBN 0-7619-2607-0 (cloth) - ISBN 0-7t> 19-2608-1) (pbk.)

1. Research--Mcthodolugy. 1. Titlc. 11. Series.


Q180.55.M4M3lJ 2005
OOI.4'2-<lc22 2004013006

05 06 07 10 lJ 8 7 6 S 4 3

Acouisitions Editor: Lisa Cuevas Shaw


Editorial Assistont: Margo Heth Crouppen

Production Editor: Melanie Birdsall

Copy Editor: Mattson Publishing Services, LLC


Typesetter: C&M Digitals (1') Ltd.

Proojreader: Chery I 1<ivard


Indexer: Sylvia Cuate»
Cover Designer: Janet Foulger
3
Conceptual Framework

What Do You Think Is Goiog Oo?

Biologist Bernd Heinrich (1\)84, pp. 141·-151) and his associates once spent a
summer conducting detailed, systernatic research on ant lions, srnall insects
that trap ants in pits they have dug. Returning lo the university in

Heinrich was surprised to discover that his results were quite differenl

those published by other researchcrs, Rcdoing his experiments the foll

surnmer lo try 10 understand these discrepancies, Heinrich Iound that

his Iellow researchers had becn led asrray by an unexamined assumption

had rnade about the ant lions ' time Irame: Thcir observations hadn 't bee

enough 10 detect some key aspects of these insects' behavior, As he conclu

"even carefully collected rcsulrs can he misleading if the underlying con

assurnptions is wrong' (1984, p. 151).

For this reason, the conceptual framework of your study-the

concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and Iheories

informs your research-is a key partof your design

1994; Robson, 2(02). Miles and Huberman

framework as a visual or written product, one

cally or in narrative Iorrn, the main things lo be

or variables-ami the presumed rclationships

I use the terrn in a broader sense that

that you hold about the phenornena srudied.

or no\. This may also be called the "theoretic

for the study.

The most irnportunt thing to understand

hat it is primarily a conception or mode

study, and of what is going on with these

the phenomena that yOll are investigating.

the rest of your design-to he1p

realistic and relevan! research


CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THlN3S K IS GOING ON?
QUALIl'ATJVE RESEARCIt flJ<:SIGN

and identify potential validity threats lo your 2. lt ends to generate astrateconclusions. gy 01'"covering the field" rather than focusing 11also helps you
justify your research, something Idiscuss in specifcalymore on those studies and theories that are particularly rel vantdetai] to your in Chupter 7. In this
chapter, Idiscuss the differeru sources for this res arch. Literature reviews thatrheory, lose sight 01'this ne d Ior el vance often and how lo use theory
effectively in your designo Idescribe the nuture deg nerute into a seri s 01'"bok reports" onof the literaue, with no clear Iheory in more deruil later
in the chapter, in dealing with the uses uf exisiing conecring Ihread oragurnet. Therlevantsudiesmaybeotheory, nly asml part Here, I waut tu
emphasize that your conceptual Iramework is a theory, oftherseuch inadefind field, and may rnge acros anumher ofdi ernt however tcntative or
incompleto it may be. uproaches and iscplines.' In fact, he rnost productive coneptual frame-
What is otten called the "rescarch problem" is a part 01'works areoften hyuur ose tha intégrae ditfernt aproaches, linesofinvestigaoconceptual
n,
framework, and formuluring the researeh probleru is oftcn secn asortheoris tha noane hadprevioukeytask sly conectd, Bernd Heinrch used Aam
in dcsigning your srudy. It is part of your conceptual tramework Srnith(although 'sThe Wa/,h ofNations indevloping atheory ofbumleb foragin it
is often treated as a separute couiponent 01'a research dexign) ami enrgybecause balnce rhat ernphasized indviual intaive. cornpetion, andia t
identifies sometlnug that is going VII in the world, something spontueos divtsohn 01at'labor, uther an geitcsder minauo iortcensralizevld f
problernatic or thai has consequenccs rhat are problematic. coYour ntrl (Heinrch, IlJ79,p. 14- 6, 1r984,ep.79)search
problem tunctions (in cumbination with your goals) tojustijv 3yuur. Itcan lead you t hink tha yoursrtask i usrnplydy,descriptve- to repon to
show people why your rcsearch i~ important. In addition,what previous re achers have Iourhind orwhal teoriss have b n pro probl sed, cm is
sornerhing that is not fully understood, or ihat we dou'tIncostrucing aconadequut eptual framework, yourp ose i not lydescriptve, ly know
e
how to deal with, und rherefore we wanl more informutiou about u. Not.
bUIalso crital; yOIlned tounderstand (and early com unicate inyour
every study wil have an explicit statemcnt of a reseurch pro salprobl ) what problems (including ethiccal probm,lems) ther have b n with but every
worthwhile research design contains an implicit or explicprieviouts re ach andtheory, iwhatdconrudiccnttons orhlcs youihavetfouind icution of
some issue or problem, intcl ectuul or practical, abOUI whiexistng viewcs, andhhow your stdy can mamore ke norignal contribuon lOour informa-
uon is needed. (The justification of "necdcd" is where yourunderstandig. You necd to regoal at "he litraue" nOIas suathoriy tobe come inro
play.) defr d to,butas uetl butfalihe source ofideas hout whar's goin o,
Many writers label the pan of a research desigu, proposal and .rouempt lo se alternuve,Wl1ysof ruming theorisue. For god published
paper that dcals with the conceptual frarncwork 01' a stuexamdyples 01'Ihi~atiude, se tExarhnplc 3e.2 and the "Con"ltex" scitiont01e' rature
revicw," This can be a dangerously misleuding term. In devclMarth Regano-Smih'spipro salu(se gtheApendix). yuur con-
ceptual framework, yOllshould not simply summarize some Abody nother way 01'puing this tha 01'the coneptual tfrumheworkeorIor yur etical
or ernpirical publications, for three reasons: resach study is omething tha isconstruced, not fund. It incorp ates
piecs tha re bor wed from elswher, but he struc e, the overal coher-
J. It can lead lo anar ow focus on "the lirerature," ign ring other concep- enc, is omething tha yOI/ build, not smething tha exist ready-rnade. I is
tual resources that may he 01"equal or greater irnportance Ior your study. As importanl Ior you lopay uentio 10rhe xis ng theoris and resarch tha re
Locke, Spirduso, and Silvermau (19 3) poinred out. "in any active area of relvant \o what you plan lü study, because Ihes\:!are often key sources for
inquiry Ihe cur enl knowledge hase is nol in Ihe library-il is in Ihe invisihle understandig whal is going <ln wilh lhes phcnol cna. Howevr. thes
col ege 01'informal as ocialions among resean:h workers"(p. ,lX),This kltowl- theoris and result are often partil, Iliseading, or simply wrong. Bemd
edge can be fl und in unpuhlished papers, dis crlalions in progres , "lid granl Heinrch found Ihal I any 01'Iht~ideas aboUI anl ions in the lieratue wcre
ap li(~alions, as wel as in Ihe heads 01'researchers working in Ihis t¡eld, Locke incorect, and his uhsequnt resarch led loamuch more mnprehnsive and
et al. (19 3) sla ed lhal "the be~1inl lducliün lo lhe clIJn~nl slatus nI'a research wel-suporled Iheory 01'Iheir behavior. You wil ned lo critealy examine
area isdose as ocialion wilh atlvisurs who kl ow Ihe ter ilory" (p. 49). 1 1ad i- each idea or esareh Ijndig to se ir l is a vlid and usefl module for
lion, an e.xclusive orienla ion \(Iward "Ihe li cralure" leads you lo ignore your consiructing aIheory Iha! wil adeqlately infrm your sluy.
own experience, your specula .ive Ihinking (discus ed below inIhe seclion til ed This dea thal e.xislng Iheol'y and resan:h provide "modules" Ihal you can
"Thoughl Experimel s"), al d any pilol and exploratory research Ihal you've use in your OWI resarch was devloped al englh by Beckr (1986,
done. p. 14-146). As he staed,
~6 QUALITATlVE RESEARCII DESIGN CONCEPTUAl. f,'RAMEWORK: WIIAT DO VO\]

1am a/ways collecting such prcfahricated parts for use in future argumcnts. Much 2. You don't have lo adopt in total a single p
of my reading is governed by a search for such useful modules. Sometimes I possible lo combine aspects of different paradigms and
know I need a particular theoretical part and even have a good idea 01'whcre lo
do this, yOIl will need to carefully assess (he cornpatibility
findit(often thanks 10 my graduate training intheory, 10 saya good word for what
borrow from each. Schrarn (2003, p. 79) gave a valuable
Iso often feellike maligning). (1986, p. 144)
bined the ethnographic and life history traditions in
an experienced reacher's adjustrneru to a new school
Before describing the sources of these modules, 1want to discuss aparticu-
larly important part of your conceptual framework-the research paradigm(s) 3. Your selection of a paradigm (m paradigms)

within which you sitúate your work. free choice. You have already madc many assumptions
topic, and how we can undcrstand these, even ir yo
examined these. Choosing a paradigm or tradition
CONNECTlNG WITH A RESEARCH I'ARADIGM
ing which paradigms best fit with your own assumpti
preferences; Becker (1986, pp. 16-17) made the

One of the critical decisions that you will need to rnake indesigning your study in general. Trying to work within a paradigm

isthe paradigrn (or paradigrns) within which you will situate your work. This use assurnptions is like trying lo do a physically

of the term "paradigm," which derives from the work 01'the historian of
science Thomas Kuhn,refers loasetofverygeneral philosophical assumptions
the job f
well.
,
e don't

Such
tit-at

a
best

lack
you'Il

of
be

tit
uncornfortable,

may not be
al

obvious
w

about rhenatur,eoftheworld (ontology) andhow wecan understand it(episte- t


·i
only as yon develop your conceptual

rnology), assumptions that tend to be shared by researchers working in a I methods, since these should also be compatib

specific fieldortradition. Paradigms alsotypically include specific methodolog- I Writing mernos is a valuable way of rev

ical stratcgies linked lo these assurnptions, and identify particular studies Ihat
are seen asexemplifying these assumptions and rnethods. Althe most abstract i
I tions and incompatibilities (ef. Becker,

andgeneral level,cxamplcs ofsueh paradigms arephilosophical positions such !theThcoernapuafloufrniwskcyorthsetumdo:du(1l)arycexnpsien1t0aolktruow-


OWIl
.as positivism, constructivism, realisrn, and pragrnatism. each embodying very
different ideas about reality and how wecan gainknowledge of ir.Atasorne- edg,(2)xistnhoryadec,(3)urpilotandex yrsch,
what more specific level, paradigms that are relevant to qualitative research ami(4)thougexprns,1wilbegrh.xpntialkowedg,
incIude interpretivism, critica] theory,feminism, postmodernism, andphenorne-
nology, and thereareeven more specific traditions within these.
I
becausitohnfmsrptaconeul sdthone
thais10Seroulyngctdiwks01reahgno1wiltdea
Itiswellbeyond thescope ofthisbook lodescribe these paradigms andhow Iwitheus01'xngoryadechis gn,tproe
introducgH10,kwas"epming,thcbvlude-
they can infonn aqualitative study: good discussions of these issues can be i
found inCreswelí (1998) and Schrarn (1003). However, 1want lo make sev- Io01p'yionugrawcnpiletteusalchfrdm"wgkxIymsdn.rFiinape,l1-lcuthes
eral points that are relevant lo using paradigms in your research design:
¡ naryoteivhsbujc.
l. Although some people refer lo "the qualitative paradigm," there are
!
many
radically
different
in their
paradigms
assurnprions
within
and
qualitative
implications
research,
(cf. Denzin
sorne
&
of which
Lincoln,
diffcr
200ü; ¡ EXPRINTlALKOWJG
Pitman & Maxwell, (992). 11will be important to your research design (and
your proposal) lo make explicit which paradigm(s) your work will draw on, Traditonly,whubgescfrmyownbakgud
since a cIear paradigmatic stanee helps to guide your design decisions and lo identyhásbra",ometingwhsflucdbe
justify these decisions. Using an established paradigm allows you to build on elimnatdfrohsg, valubecompntfi.Ths
a coherent and well-developed approach to research, rather than having to bentruosmxviqalterch,dspfa
construct all of this yourself. qualitverschongizdtasfel,hrci
QUAI.ITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

the instrument of the research. In opposition lo the traditional view, C. Wright


Milis, in a classic essay, argued that

the most admirable scholars withiu the schol.uly cornrnunity ... do not splii their
work trom iheu' lives. 'I'hey seern 1,.iake both too seriously tu allow
sud, disso-
ciation, and they waut to use euch Ior rhe euricluucnt 01'iheother. (195'), p. 1')5)

Sepurating yUllr rcsearch Irom other aspects of yOllr lifc cuts you olf from
a major source nI' insights, hypotheses, and validity checks. Alall Pexhk in,
dixcussing the rolc 01'subjectiviry in lile research he had done. concluded that

the subjectivity that originally I had taken a, an atflunon. somerhing 1') bear
because it clluld not be toregone, could. to the contrury, he tukeu as "virtuous."
My subjectivity is the havis tor 11••
z~·'l.lJ·y that 1arn uble tutell Itis a,trell,!lh (In
Ibuild. lt lIIa~~, 111t' wh••Iam as a persou and as a reseurc ha, t>qllll'l'iflg

cuves and i",J~hts that shape ull ihar 1do as a reseurcher. trum
opic clear Ihrllllgh to the emphuses I make in my writing. Set:1I

cuvity is sornerhing lo capitulizc on I uthcr thuu lo exorcise.

lIlany 01' the same points in divcusxing what he

researcher's technical kuowledge, research

euces. He urgued that

nut be ignOlcd hccausc nI" the usual canons gov-

personal cxperience und data as likcly to bias the

In the squashing 01' valuable experienria! .l.ua. We

your expericncc, thcre is potential g,)ld iherc!' IllJX7. p. I 1)

somerirnes seem to ~ystelllali<:ally ignore what their

their OWIl cxperience about the seuings or issues rhey pro-

can seriously dumage the proposal's credibility.

i Strauss emphasized thut this is not a license to uncritically

s and vulucs un thc reseurch. Reuson (1 ~X8, 19(4)

subjectivity" to refer lo

in which we do IWl sllpl'r"ss our pruuary ex perieuce ; nor

eh'e, to he ,>Wt:¡Jl away ¡¡nd uVt:J"whelllled by it:

alld lI~e it as par! 01' the inquiry prol'ess. (1 \IX

or your idelllily all\l experielll'e in your rese

Ihemdical ¡¡lid philnsophical support (e.g., Berg &

l.in<:oln, 2000; Janscn & Peshkin, 1'.i92). The philusupher

<)87. 19(0) argut:d Ihal thcre call1lot. cven in principie,

a "(Jull's eye virw." a Vil'W thal is lhe one trlle "ohjel'tive"


40 QUAl.Il'ATlVF.
CONCEPTUAL
RESEARCII
FRAMEWORK:
nESIGN
WHAT D() vou THlNK IS GOING ON" 4)

EXAMPLE 3.2
topic, and being struck by two studcnts' bringing up issues of the righrs of
particular groups to retain their cultural heritages; it was
Howan One
issue Researcher
that had Used Her Personal
never consciously occurred 10 me. Ami l'm sure that my misspent10 Refocus
Experience youth Her Research Problem
reading science fiction rathcr than studying had a powerful influence on
rny sense of the importance of tolerancc
1 had and spentunderstanding
countless 01'diversiry:
hours 1 in the Iibrary. reading the Iiterature on
wrote my essay for my application
women to college on
's practice tolerance in high
of breast sehoolself-examinatilln (BSE). The articles con-
society. But 1didn 't thinksistedrnuchof someabout where
research all this
studies, carnesorne from.
editorials in major medieal joumals,
It was ralking to the philosopher
and some Arnelie
essays. Rorty
The in the
research base 01'
surnmer was1991very weak, mainly surveys ask-
that really triggered my ing awareness
some oí'these ofroots.
group women She had given a talk
whether they on did BSE, and if noto why not.
the concept of moral The diversity
groupsin Plato,
oftenami were
l gave nother acopy
large of my
or draft
representative. The questions and for-
paper on diversiry andmat solidarity.
varied We met tor lunch scveral
tremendously from weeks to later
study study.lo That most women did not
discuss these issues, and at onedo point
it was she
clear,asked me
having how
been my
Iound concern
repeatedly. with Why they did not do it was
connected my background
diversity with
not at all c1ear. and l experienccs.
was developing l
awas
long sur-
Iist 01"possible reasons women
prised by the question, and found I really couldn answer it. She,
did not do't
ít, They seerned to faIl intoon threethe categories: (1) Women were
had thought about this a lot, and talked
ignoranl of about
how or
her
why to parents
do BSE;(2) erni-
women were too modest to touch

om Belgium to the US, deciding


themselves:
they were
and
going
(3) women
lo be Iarmers
were 100 fearful of what they would find. The

"real Americans," and with no background in farming, buying land


reasons all seemed quite plausible, hut somchow were not satisfactory.

ural Wesl Virginia and learning how to survive and fit into a comrnu-
The quesrion kept repeating itself, "Why don't wornen do BSE?" Then

of people vcry different froru thernselves.


1 asked the question 01' myself. "Why dont 1 do BSE?" l knew none of

e me start thinking, and l realized that as far back as lean


the reasons explained my behavior. Then l changed the question: "What

I've Iclt different from other people, and had a lot of difficul-
would get me 10 do it?" lt occurred to me that, if a friend called each

sult of this
month
difference
and
and my asked
inability ro "lit
if
in"l with
had
pcers, done it, I would do it, either in anticipation

or other her people generally,


call or
This was all eompounded
immediately
by my own
afterward. Changing the question to a positive

and tendency
one
to isol ate rnyself',
completely
and by the changed
frequent rnoves thatmy way 01' thinking about the problern: "Whar

ily made while I was growing IIp ....


would encourage wornen 10 do BSE?" The new question opened a range

way in which this connects with


of
my work
possibilities
on diversity by
rny
is that puuing BSE in thc context of behavior modification,

main stratcgy for dealing with my difference


which
frorn
offered
others, as afar variety
back as 01" lestable techniques for changing behavior,
1can remernber, was no/ to try lo be more like them (sirnilarity-based), (Grady & Wallston, 1988, p. 4\)
bUIlo try tobehelpful lo thern (contiguity-based). This isahit oversirn-
plified, because l aIso saw myself as somewhai ofa "social chameleon,"
adapting lo whatever situation 1was in, bUI this adaptation was much
more an interactionul adaptation than one of becoming Iundarnentally
similar to other people. J'RIOR THEORY ANO RESEARCII
lt now secms incomprehensible to me that l never saw the connections
bctween this background and my academic work ....
[The rernainder of the memo discusses the specific connections The second major source of modules for your conceptual framework is

between my experience and the theory of diversity and community prior that theory and research--not simply puhlished work, but other people's
theories
1had been developing, which sees both similarity (shared characteristics) and empirical research as a whole. I will begin with theory. because
it is
and contiguity (interaction) as possible sourees of solidarity and cornmunity for most people the more probleruatic and confusing of the two, and

(Maxwell, n.d.).) then deal with using prior research for other purposes than as a source of

theory.
42 QUAUTATIVl<: RESEARCH DESIGN CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON? 43

I'm using the term "theory" to refer lo sornething that is considerably This theory is"grounded" in the actual data collected, incontrast to theory that
broader than its usual meaning in discussions of research rnethods. By is developed conceptually and then simply tested against empirical data. In
"theory," 1 rnean simply a set 01"concepts and the proposed relationships qualitative research, both existing theory and grounded theory are legitimate
among these , a structure that is iutended lo represent or model something and valuable.
about the world. As Let.orupre and Preissle (I\}1J3,p.239) stated, "theorizing
is siuiply the cognitive process ufdiscovering or mauipulating abstraer cate-
gories ami the relutionships amoug these catcgories." My only modification The Uses of Exísting Theory
of this is to include not simply absrruct caregorics, but concrete and specific
concepts as well. Using existing thcory in qualitative research has both advunruges and risks,
This use encompasses everytlung trurn so-called "graud theory," such as as discussed carlier, The advuntages ol' existing rheory can be illustrated hy
behaviorisrn, psychoanalyxis, or rational choice theory, to specific, cveryduy two meraphors:
explanations Di"aparticular event or state, sud, as "Dora (IlIY H-year-üIJ daughter)
doesn ~I want to gu lo school today because she's angry al her teachcr Ior
Theory is ti COUT rloset, (1. got this metaphor Irorn Jane Margolis, who once
correciing her yesterduy.t'That is. l' 111 not using "theory" to denote a particular
described Murxisrn as a coat closet: "You can Irang anything in it.") A useful
level of complexuy, ubstraction. (Ir gcuerutity of expluuatury propositions, but
high-Ievcl theory givcs you a frarnework for rnaking sense of what you see.
to refer 10 the entire rtlIIge of such proposirions. AII such ex planations have
Particular pieces 01"data, which otherwise might xeern unconnected or irrele-
fundamental teatures in cormuon, ami tor my purpoxes thc similaritics are more
vunt 10 une anorhcr or 10 your research quesiions, can be rclated by fitting them
important thun the ditlerences.:'
into the theory. The cuncepts of rhe existing theory are the "coat hooks" in the
Thus, theory is not an arcane and mysterious eruity that al some point in
closct; they providc places 10 "hang" data, shuwing their relationship to other
your training you learn lO understand and master, As Groucho Murx used lo
data. However, no rheory will accomrnodate all data equally well; a theory that
say 011 the 11J50s TV gallle show tí/ti Bet Ytmr Lile. "It's an ordinury houschold
neatly organizes some data will leave orher data disheveled and lying on the
word, sornething you use cvery duy." The simplcst form 01"theury ((I!lsiSIS
1100r, with no place to pul them.
of two concepts joined by a pioposed relariouship. Such a iheory can be as
general as "Posirive reintorcement leads to continuauon of the reintorced
behavior," or as specific as "A" usteroid Theory
impact cuused is a
rhc spotlight.
extinction Ihe
01' A usetul theory illuminutes what you seco 11 draws

dinosaurs." The iruportunt point is wluumukes thisarheory: the linkiug of


atremion \o particular
1\'i0 events or phenomena, ano _,hed, light on

concepts by a proposed relatiouship. might otherwisc go unnoriced or misunderstood. Bernd Heinrich,

A major functiou 01theory is lo pruvide


inciden:
a model or map in
ofhis
whv theinvestigarion
world of the feeding habits 01" c.uerpillars, stated

is the way itis (Suauss. 1995). It is a simplificution of rhe world, but a sun-
plificarionaimed al clarifying ami cxplaining some aspect 01"how it works. The c lipped leaf ,1\)0.1 OUI liS ir f1aggccJ in red, because it didn't

Theory is a statement about what is going on with the phenorncnu thar you tions or theories about how I thought Ihings ought lo he. My

wanl to understand. 11is not sirnply a "framework," alrhough il can provide W<JS 0"'; of wonder. HuI the wonder was actually

that, bUIa story about what you think is happening ami why. A useful iheory that crowded my rnind and vied wirh each

is one that tells an enlighlcnin¡! srory about xome phe numeuon, one that lIad 1110 theories al ull, the parrially eaten

nOliced. (1984. 133-114)


gives you new insighls ami broadells your unúerstanding of lhal ph':lIllllle-
pp.

non. (See Ihe discussion of cau~<J1prncesses in Chapter 2.)


Glaser ami Slraus~ 's lerm "grounded Iheory" (1967), which has haJ an By Ihe sarne token, howcver, a Iheory

importalll inl1uence on C]lIalilalive research. does nol refer lo :lIly parlicular leave olher areas in darkness: no theory

leve! of Ilteory, bUI lO lheory Ihal is indllelively devcloped during a stlldy A sIudy lhal lIl<Jkes cxcellenl use

(or series of studie~) and in COIlSlalllinlcraclion with Ihe dilla fn'lll Ihat slUúy. EX<JllIplc 3.3.
44 QLJALlTATIVE CONCEPTUALDESIGN
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU Tl-lINK IS GOING ON? 45

However, Beckcr (1986) warncc\ rhatthe existing literature, and theassumptions


EXAMJ>LE 3..' ernbedded in ir. can deform the way you frarne your research, causing you to
overlook important ways 01'conceptualizing your study 01' key implications
Using Existing Theory
of your results, Thc literature has the advantage of what he calls "ideological
Eliot Freidson's book Doctoring Together: A Studv nf Professional Social hegcrnony," so that it is difficult lo see any phenornenon in ways that are dif-
Control (1975) is an accounr of his research in a medical group practice, ferent frorn those thatare prevalent in the literature. Trying 10 lit your insights
trying to understand hnw the physicians and administrators he studied iden- into this established framework can defor n your argument, weakening its
tified and dealt with violaiions 01'professional norms. In conceptualizing logic and making it harder for you 10 see what a new way of framing the phe-
what wasgoing on in this practice. he used three broadiheories 01'the social nomenon might coniribute. He explained how his own research Otl marijuana
organization ami control 01'work. He referred to these as the entrepreneur- use was deformed by existing Iheory:
ial, or physician-rnercham, model, deriving from the work of Adarn Smith;
the bureaucratic, or physician-official, rnodel, deriving loasubstantial cxteut When 1hegan srudying marijuana use in 1951, the ideologically dominant qlles-
from Max Weber; and the professioual, or physician-craftsman, model, tion, the only one worth looking al, was "Why e10people do a weird thing like
which has been lessclearlyconceprualized andidenrified than the others. He that?" and the ideological y prefer ed way of answering it was 10 find apsycho-
showed how all thrce theories provide insight into the day-to-day work ofthe logical trait or social at ribute which ditferenriated people who did from people
who didu't . IM)y eagernes 10 show ihat this Iiterature (dominated hy psy-
group he studied. und he drcw Iar-ranging implications for public policy
chologists ami cnrninologists) was wrong led me10ignore what rny research was
frorn his results.
really aboui. I had hlundcred onro, and then proceeded 10 ignore. a rnuch larger
Freidson also used existing iheory in a more focused (and unexpected)
and more uueresting question: how do people lcarn 10 define their own internal
way to ilJuminate the results of his research. He argued that the social
experiences? (198ó. pp. 147-148)
noríns held by the physicians he studied allowed considerable differences
01'opinion about both the technical standards of work performance and
rliad the sarne experienc with rny dis ertaion research on kinship in an
the best way to Mal with pauenrs. These norms "limited the critical eval-
lnuit comrnunity in northern Canada. Al the timethal Iconducted the research,
uation of colleagues' work and discouraged the expression of criricism'
the literature on kinship in anthropol gy was dominated by adebate betwe n
(p. 241). However, the uorms also strongly opposed any outside control
two theories 01'the meani g 01'kinshp, onc holding tha inal societ s kinshp
of the physiciuns' practice, defining physicians as the only ones capable
was fundamentaly a rnater of biolgical rclationship. the other aguing tha
01'judging medical work. "The professional was treated as an individual
biolgy was only one posible rneaing of kinshp terms, another being social
free 10 fol ow his own judgrnent without constraint. so long as his behav-
relatdnes. Iframed my disertaion (Maxwel, 1(86) in terms of thes two
ior was short of blatant or gross deficiencies in performance and incon-
theoris. arguing tha rny evidcne mainly snported the scond of thes
venience 10colleagucs" (p. 241). Freidson continued:
thcories. though with signficant modifcations. Itwas only ears later tha I
This is a very special kind of conununity rhat, structural y and normarively. realized tha my resarch could be franed inamore fundamental and interst-
paral els that described by Jesse R. Pius as the "de linquent cornmunity" of ing way-Wh<1 isthe natureofrelationship andsoliarty insmal,trdional
French schoolchildren inparticular ami French collectivities ingeneral dur- comrnuites? Arethse based 01,andconeptualized interms of.sirnlaity (in
ing the first half of the twenticrh century . . lts norrns and practicc wcre this cae. biolgcal sirnlaity orshared gentic subtance) orscial nterac-
such as 10 both draw all members togethcr detcnsively againsi the outside
tion? (Se Example 3.1) Myresach ould have b n much more poductive
world . . ando imernally, lo aJlow each his freedorn to act as he wil ed.
ifIhad grasped this eortical wayof raming thestudy at heoutse.
(pp. 243-244)
Beckr agued tha ther isnowaylOhe sure whn thedominat proach
He presented striking similarities between the rnedical practice he stud- iswrong rmisleadng orwhen youralternive is uperio. What youcando
ied and the Frenen peer group structure identitied by Pitts. He coined the isto ryloidentfy theidolgical compnets ofthe stablihed aproch,
phrase "professional delinquenl community" to refer to professional and tose what pens when yOl abndo thes asurnptios. Heclairned
groups such as Ihe onc he described, and used Pitts's theory lo illurninate Ihat" scrious cholar ought rouliney lo inspect ompeting ways of talking
the process by which Ihis sort of community develops and persists. aboul Ihe same slbject rnater," and cautioned. "use the literaue, don't let i
use you" (1986, p. 149). An awrens of alternat.ive sources ofconepls and

~
46 QUAI.1TATIVE RESEARCH OESIGN CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THlNK IS GOING ON? 47

theories ahout the phcuomenu you are studying-s-including sources other than for developing and c\arifying theory, known as "concept rnapping." This was
"the literature'l-c-is an importaut couuterweight to the ideologicul hegeruony originally developed by Joseph Novak (Novak &Gowin, 191:(4), first as a way
of existing theory and research. to understand how students learned science, and then as a tool for teaching
There are thus lWOmain ways in which qualitative researchers often fail science. A sunilar stralegy is one that Miles and Huberman (191)4, pp. 18-22)
10 make guod use lIf exisring thcory: by not using il enough, und by relying called a "conceptual frumework." Anselrn Strauss (1987, p. 170) provided a
100 hcavily and uucriricaily un ir. The first Iails to explicitty apply third
any variarion,
priorwhich he called .11I "integrauve diagram." These approaches
analytic abstractions or thcoretical framework lo the study, thus have so much in the
rnissing cornmon that 1will present thern as 11single strategy, ignor-
insighis thut ouly exisling theory can provide. Evcry rcsearch dcsign morncnt some important differences in the way rhey are used.
ing for the needs
theory 01" the phenomeua yuu are suidying, evcn if it is only aconuuon- Figures 3.1 lo 3.5 provide a variery of ex.uuplcs 01'concept maps; further
sense one, lo guide the other design decisions you make. The second rypeof examples 'can be tound in Miles und Huberman (1994) und Strauss (1987,
failure has the opposite problern: lt imposes theory on the study, shoehorning pp. 17()-1R3).
questions, rnethods, and dala into preconceived categories aud preventing rhe As these figures illustrate, a concept map (lf a theory is a visual display of
researcher trom secing evenrs und relationships that don't fit the thcory, that theory-i-u picture 01' whut the theory says is ,lioillg 011 wit.h the phenome-
The irnposition of dominaut iheories isaserious ethical problcm, 1101simply non yOl! 're studying, These Illaps do not depict the study itselí', nor are they a
a scientific 01' practica! one (Limoln, 199U); it can marginulizeor specilic dismiss thepart 01'either a rescarch design 01' a proposal. [However, concept rnaps

theories 01'participants in rhercseanh, und conceal or minimizc oppression C(JI/ be or


used lo visually preseru the design or operurion 01' a study-my

explouauon of rhc group studicd. (In some cases, the dominuut of theory ixitself
reseurch design (¡:¡gure 1.1) is just such a IlIilP.J Rather, concept

ethically problctnatic, a;, in the case of thcories of the problems is a thuttool


disudvan- 1'01' dcveloping the conceptual trnrncwork Ior your

taged groups encounrer that unjustifiubly "hlume the viciim.") Tohetheory, genuinely a concept map consists 01' two rhings: concepts ami the

qualitarive research, astudy mus: tuke account of rhe theories uud perspectives among these, These are usually represented, respcctively, as labe

01' those studicd, rather than rclying cniirely 011 estahlished vicws or the boxes and as arrows 01' lines connectiug these.

researcher's IJWIIperspective. There are several reasons for creating concept rnups:

The teusiou beiweeu these rwo problerns in applying iheory (underuse and
overuse) isan inescapable par! of resenrch, not something that can be "solvcd"
l. To pul! togethcr, and make visible, what your implicit
by some technique 01' insight. A kcy strategy rol' dealing with this is crnhodied
clurify an exisring theory. This can allow yOl~ to see the
in the scieruific merhod. as well as in irnerprerive approachcs such as
thcory, irs limitations, and its relevunce Ior your study,
hermeneutics: Develop or horruw theories and coutinually 11'.\1 thcm, looking
1'01' discrepant data und ahernutive ways (includiug ihe research parucipants 2. ' Tu develop theory. Like IllCIIlOS, concepi rnaps are a

ways) nI'making scnse 01'the data. (1discuss this further in Chupier 6, a\ acen- on pupcr": they can help you see une xpected counecrions,

tral issue in validiry.) Hcrnd Heinrich described xeurching Ior crowsor nests.contradictions in in your theory and help you to figure out

which you look through the trees fur a dilrk spOI against lhe sky, and these.
lhen lry
10 see aglimmcr 01'li!!hl through il(re••1crows' nesls are opaque): "It was Iike
science: l¡rsl yOlllo"k lúr sOlllelhing, and then when you lhink yOllhave it('onn'l>! you maps l!~lIally require considt'rablc reworking
do your best 10 prow y\.lur~c1t v,'rollg" (19H4, p. 2K). 10 the point where they are lllos1 hclprul to yuu; don'l

final llJap 011 !tl<' f¡rsl t.fy. One uscful way nI' developing

a blackboard, wherc yOll ..:an erasc unsuccessful altempts


(,ONCEI''!' MAJ'S
seem tu v"urk \Vell, and play Wilh possible arrangelllents

(The disadvanlage uf' ,his is IhJl il d()e~,1I '1 aUlolllatically

For tnally sllldenh, lhe dcveloplllclIl ..\IIdusc ut theory i;,trail" lhe !nosl daunling
ut' )'our ¡Illelllpls; sudl a lrail can help )'011

part 1.11'a ljllalilalive ~ludy. Al lhis POilll, lherdure, lheory


1wanl lo inlroduce ahas
!UDI changed ano avoid repealing lhe ~ame mista
48
QUt\LITt\TlVE RESt:ARCII

...---------.....

LEAOERSHIP PEACEIVED

CONTEXT LEAOERSHIP ROLES

1. Te8ching

2. Farnily

3. Books

4. Coursework

5. Peers

6. Teaehers

7.lnse",iee

1. IncfudinQ

2. Modeling
3. Symbolizing

4. Ad~O~~~i~~ /

L--..
5:¿.~
__
. - .
-==r==-
_
....
I.. --- ---
.
-._._._- _

Wisdom

that

(lile
50 QUAUTATIVE RF:SEARCH DESIGN

pressure
involvement
from Cree
in lur trade

widespread w~~

with other tri~

Á;9h
----- importance ....------

"'01 male sotidaruv


'--- --~
extension
.

of )
New

brolher terrns to

other (81é1tlve~ in

own qenerauon

-----------/

substitutlon 01 comrade

lerm lor orotner lerm in

close retattonsnlps

the events and influences leading to the

in Blackleet society by Ihe late 1800s.

Blackleel were involved in the lur trade.

guns), a grealer value 01 women's

a higllly unequal distribution 01 weallh

bison hunling, and a massive incr

large numbers 01 wives lo

allowed Ihe Blackleel lo

tribes Ihal had previously

hunling crealed a grealer

use 01 brother lerms

this solidarity. However.

wilhin a man's ge

other generalions

use 01 brother

"cornrade,"

o _.

Kin Tcrminology

Kiuship SystCIIIS." hy

01" Chicago, C11H1 "The EVlllutillll

Account," by J. A. Muxwell, 1'J7H.


S2 QI.I¡\LITATlVE RESEARCII lH:SU;N

EXERCISE 3.1 it stand [or?

rather than

Creating (/ Concept Mapfor Your Studv


categories you

ways 01'

w do you dcvelop a concept map? First, you need lo have a set of COI1-
to see what

to work with. These can come frorn existing theory, Irom your OWI1
connecuons,

or from the pcople you are studying=-rheir OWIl concepts 01'


a narrative

what's going on (discussed below in the section titled "Pilot Research").


are studying.

The main thing to keep in mind is that at this point you are Irying lo rep-
the diagram. Figures

resent the theory )'011 already IUII'e about the phenomena you are study-
narratives;

primarily lo invent a new theory.


Strauss {I987,

d011'1 already have a clear conceptual frarnework Ior this, there


part of

strarcgies you can use lo develop your map. Strauss (19!l7,


For exarnple, it

and Miles and Huberrnan (1994, p. 22) provided additional


for

how to develop concepr rnaps Ior your study,


(1986) described

they mark

can think about the key words you use in talking about this topic: rhesc

of this

represent important concepts in your theory. You can pull sorne 01'

these concepts directly from things you've already wrinen about your

research,

2.
stuck

You can take something you've already written in

and try to map thewhat

theory

that is which
implicit (or explicit) in this r (This is ottcn the all
best approach tnr the

arrows people who dou't think visually and prefcr to work


everywhcre. with prose.)

3. You can take one kcy concepi. idea, 01' term and brainstorrn
al

all 01' the things the

that might
thal
he related to this. then go back may
ami select those that seern most he

directly relevant It
to your study. can he

4. You can ask sorneone 10 interview you about your ropic, probing for

your

you Ihink is going 011 ami why: then theory.


listen 10 the tape und

you use in
in talking ubout your
it. Don't ignore concepts based

own experience rather than "the literature"; these can be central


oftcn works

framework.
out.

explicit

ve generated sorne conccpts to work with. ask yourself


way lo

related. What connections do you' see among thern?


dilfcrent

Strauss, 1987, p. 179) suggested beginning with one

and drawing "tendrils" lo others. What do you think

connections between the concepts you're using?


properties.

a concept map aren't the circles, but the arrows; these

relaüonships belween Ihe concepts ór events. Ask yours


a calegory

queslions: Whal do.I mean by Ihis particular arrow?

concept
54 QUALITATIVa.: RESEARCIf DESIGN

you're studying, and different maps incorpórate different understandings of


whar's going on. You should try OUIalternative maps for the theory you are
developing, raiher than sticking rigidly with une Iormulauon. There are also
differcnt kinds o" concepr maps, with different purposes; these include:

a. an abstraer tr.unework rnapping the retutionship among conceprs

b. a"Ilowchurtv-like account uf eveuts ami huw yOll think these are connecred

c. a causal network of variables In influences

d. a treelike diugnuu ur thc meunings of words (e.g., Mi\c~ & Hubennau. 1994.

3)

Vcnn diagrarn, reprcsenting conccpts as overlappiug circles (e.g .. Miles &

2·N)

one 01 these in a given study ; the bortom line is rheir

udvancing your understanding 01' what 's going 011. MOSI

examples are best suited lu studies 01' social

rhe mostuseful models for a study of rnean-

another, Remember Ihal a concept map is not

developing theory and making Ihat iheory more

that a conccpt ITlilp is not something rhar yllll do

should go back ano rework your concept maps

phenomena you are siudying develops, Re care-

egaut; this may he the visual equivalent 01' what

writing" (19X6, p. 2M), und suggests Ihat you may he

at the expense 01' insight.

e conccpt maps in diftcrcnt ways. Novak and Gowin took

concepts ami relarionships could be almost any-

thcir counections in order to kcep these cleur. Miles and

er hand, were much more focused=-their connections

relutionships or influeuces. My advicc is 10 aim Ior

You can start with a fairly diffuse map, huI you should

e it a rnap of a real theory of what 's going on.

ne lhal you may \101 want lo think ubout until ajier

conc;,pl map, is Ihe difference helween \'{/ril1lu;e

2 on Ihe disliuuion hetween variance

10 lclllhe difference is Ihal a vari,lIlce:! map

ccpts Ihal can take dilferclll values, and

eral causal or corrdaliollal rdaliollship

lhings, which are conceplualized as vari-

tells lt stllry; Iltere is a hegirllling and an


56 QIJAUTATlVE RESEARCII IIESIC;N

Doing this \ViII oftcn rcquire Ihinking rhrough the implications uf your thcory
or understanding ro see ir these are consisrent with othcrs' findings. This is one
exampJe of a "thought experiment,' whieh 1discuss later in Ihis chupter,
Finally, prior research can help yOll generate thcory. Bernd Hcinrich. while
conducring his ihesis research 011 thermoregulauon in sphinx rnoths (19X4,
pp. 55-68), discovered that his experimental tinding that rhcse moths maintain
a constan! body temperaturc while f1ying was directly contradictcdby othcrs
research. He describcd his response as fo\lows: out a

As a first step in rny decision In proceed, 1 spent a few monihs in rhe library read- Example

ing about inseci phvsiologv in general and cverything ahout sphinx mnths in par- adolescent

cular. Sornething in the known physiology and morphology nught provide a used a

ue. lt would he uecessary lo collect more and more dctails on the prohlcm until

isuatize il as closely as if it were a rock sitting in the palm

to find OUI /10"· rhc moths were thermoregulating ...

across an obscure Frenen papel' of 1919 by Franz Brocher

of the blood circulatory system in sphinx moths, The odd thing


Howa

hs is that the aorta makes a loop through their ihorucic rnusclcs.


D

insects, it passes underneath thcse muscles .... (Hcinrich,

ve Hcinrich rhe critica! e/uc to how these morhs were

disserration

temperature: They were shuntiug hlood through the t

move the moths' wings) 10 cool these musclcs, which

believed

and then losing Ihe excess heat from the abdomen,

car's water purnp ami radiaior cool the engine. This theory

a study.

subsequenr expcrimcnts.

01'

of course, lo be come 100 immersed in the luerature;

of

"you may drown in it ... Perhaps the point is lo know

Third,

read, ami when you ought not to" (1959. p. 214). One

dealing with this problem was, in rcading, lo always

a conve

studies Ihal could test the ideas he gaincd from the

frorn

[or actual research and as an cxercise 01' the iruugi-

valuable

These two strategies connect lo the final two sourccs

lo

pilot studies and rhought expcriments.

hadn't

how lhey

ANn EXI'LORATORY STlJDIES

specific

some 01' gaincd


the same fUllctions as prior research, hu

preciscly on your
her
own concems and theories. conceptual
Y

specifically lo test your ideas or mel.hods and explore


58 CONEPTUALFRMWOK: IATDOYtJlINKSGO N? QtlALlTATIVE RJo:SJo:ARCH IlESIGN

regulysdinocaesuhconmis,bUIhavercdlit
research and her prior beliefs hallledher atcniosexpltchniqu dso freachdsign,prtu- tounderestimate the long-rerm
consequences of the cancel' experieucelaryquitvesarchdignoTebstudlhogexprimnts h for her family. She learned that
she ueeded to step back and listcn lo socialeuthIknowfisa01'LvendMrch975),wousedt. parricipants ' experiences in new
ways. Finally, shc tound that her own children phrase"cultivmodbng"1'0thiscoep.Dnbmdaty 's responses werc some-
limes guarded andpredictable, due10 theconsequences theword"ml; saenomrictheoy,andLv 01' whut they suid
1'01' family relutionships, ano tended loMarchdetin"molsapifedcturoahelwrd" miniruize negative feelings or
blame. Alihough rhe pil.« srudy was valuuhl(p.3)Theydscribtoka"eprci!gudelosatn,", it could 1101ful y unswer
the questions she hud 1Kuttenberger, 1<)9provideuat9)lncio10thedvlpmuans\I.rpecultiv
modclsfrnepocsthauldveprocanbservdult.Ahog
theurinao01'theirlacptsimanlyqutive,hfrste
One important use that pilot studies havechapres vyreadblnxtreilyusnforqalitvesrch, qualuarive research is 10
develop an understunding , 1'the concepts ¡I lUtLavehndMurchestae,ories held by the people you
are studying=-what is often cal eJ "interpretution." This isnot simply asource
01'ad it onal conceprs tor your OWI1rhcory, \VeiItrocanodels(lnfun ebehaviosr saton fartt,nohheirdavlopmetnt are drawn írum the lun-
guage ofparticipants; thi-,is arype 01'concept that asSkindt01r'vuaocxeui.sLkalrt,iuodeblin(grequsIacolmbinJrK7,p . -:q) :n
culed "in-vi o codes.' More u portant, it provideofiscpln aopylutOnes.Itliwanurtth islearnb. Ithasuexpnlictderstundi g
01'the meani g tha thes phenomeua and evrus htecaniqvuse, dprufctoierlads[oimhprev npt.(1o)75,p.l4)e who are
invol ed in them, aud the prs ectives Ihal inform iher actions. Thes mean-
ings ami pers cives are not iheorctial ubstracions:Thougtexpcrimynsarhelugyoa10lc.meupwsithlraeb xpanstio
peol 's behavior, thoug not as directly visble. torPyucampilothers'bvadtioens, dlomIhinekaboutnhgwlo,suprt01'dis-
ami values are senual parts of the siruaons anprdev ihasc.tTveyidrawsonbythueorsantdexpyri,c alondswer"hat if"
ifyol.dn't understand thes, yoquersitnh,eor(i1ms toabexuptlorewhatre'slogicanl im01plwcaitonslteofyur models, asump-
beinrouplet ormisakcn (Matxiownse,la.de2x0pc4ta;ionsMc01z'thl, 1in9g7sHy)o.uIpnlanoqusatldiy.rTvheycanbothger -
study, rhes meanigs "lid pers ctiavesnw htoeul•d.ticaolnmstdiculeand iksegyht,coraunpd tecsnyour01c' em iheory for
yourtheory; asdicusepdroblinsC;hapinerfuct2,.01h/eyora buinldegoftnhvelsingthouy rexpthiomyns toume
isabout,nOIsimplvaesxoturnc.The0y1'rncoueag lcreutinvsyghadnsebuil0d1'nsgcoverby,lankdscforheltpyuo
íane•.IExample 3.2,thenoumsakedxpvlicutshedxpcbryituhnelksoicwaendg rhiatyoulredypose.Example3.5
Freidsonwreanjop'is<1"wlhuatrisong01"IhikndreomfspcaultivIhn,kgaud Exercis3.2(bad
arefundmtlohisery.Sucohn1J{'ilfLgsavedpncrMuh'saexmlpok)yrvidesamplruhenowicl
compnes'0"al1Iheprviou~act.'\mypl:rsneIcuoativsmklp.A(Fcigourden3IlOLavndMrch,"tbesway
3.5)Evenir'gue3.5,inwhcIeonptslearuOoI\ydelsbauing oIcdrlS"(J7t5',p.10)
behavior01:cnle.xUaitu:nces,".iobnecurly"dsloP(,/C:'ídinsecu-
rily; pa1ciuIlSwt:reIla. hIeirjob<;mghleinacd,!.her
EXAMPLI';3.5
behaviorwuldn'beafct.
Usil/g<1Twt Lxperilu'1/ODevlop
aIheorylit(P.l'í\t!nc 0./Iferav
TIOl(;H EX'I:MNTS
Olt:'fmysuden,oilgrcah JteyinlMdEaq,st:
Thouglexpri~hav Ion!mircspetdainIhe":lL'pofscy01ilUC"naI\:expighcrs~l;of
scile(rnuh01'Eils w.r-absedlIhug.'\pri"nS)ade
!'

6()
()UAI.ITATIVE CONCFI'f'lJAL FRAMEWORK: YOll THINI\ IS <.iOINC' ON?
WHAT DORESEAI(c/1 61 UESIGN

illiteracy in parts of this arca. This match thehas


concept model's prediction, Thus, a we have certain found a model, a process, irnmediate

plausibility-c-illiterate parenls are much that accounrs forlikely our results,


more lo have illiteratc

children than are literato parents. However, my We dofirst not SIOp here, however.reacuon We next ask what other irnplications this to thc memo

was 10 pcrform a thought experiment-e-tu try model has.Ihink


lo For one, it implies that of students in aeach dormirory
processfriendship by which

illiteracy in one gcneration would create illiteracy in thegroup rnustncxr have known generarion.
one another previously: •.hus, they must have
Lack 01' reading materials in the horne would have SOIl1C impacr, auended as mighr
the university the previous year; thus, rhere will be fewer friend-
parerual values regarding litcracy, Howevcr, none rhesc ship clusters among freshmen.
sccmed (lf power-

tul enough to reproduce illitcracy al a time when mOSI children A survey 01'both a frhavc eshman dorm and ajunior-seniaccess
or dorm shows that
10 schooling. On the other hand, I cOI/Id easily imagine (ami support there are aswith many friendship clusters among íreshrnen as among juniors and
data that this student hadpresented) acycle 01'povcrtv, in which poor, illit- seniors. This would nOIhe predicted by our model, unless the students knew
erate farnilies would be under great pressure 1.0 kcep rhcir children OUI of one anothcr in high school. However, examining the backgrounds of the
school lo work in the home 01' in farrning. depriving thcm of ihcir freshmen showsrnaiuIhat almost all of them come from dif erent high schools.
opportunity tolearn 10 read and write.Asaresult, thcsc childrens lack01' So our model does not do a very good job 01'explaining what we
schooling would make it difficult 101' thern lo gel jobs that would cnahle observed. Sornc process other than mutual selection by prior friends must
them to escape from poverty, rhusrecrearing the conditions that led lo thcir be involved. So we try lo imagine another process that could have lee!10
nwn illitcracy. This theory suggests that reducing poverty woukl have a these resulis. Our new speculation is Ihat most college students come
major impact on illireracy, It ulso implies that research on the causes of from similar backgrounds, and thus have enough in C0l111110nthat they
illiteracy needs lo address the role 01'economic factors. could becorne friends. Pairs of students who live near each other wil have
more opportunities for intcraction. and are more likely lo discover these
comrnon interests and values, thus becoming friends. This new specula-
EXERCISE 3,2 tion explains the presence 01'friendship c1ustcrs in freshrnan donns as
well as injunior-senior dorms.
Creating (1 Model of the Development of Friendship Patterns
STOP AND THINK. What other
Suppose we were interested in pauerns 01' friendship among college
implicatiuns does this model have that
students, Why are sorne people friends and not others? We might begin
would allow you lo test it? 110M'would you test ir!
by asking al! of the residents of single roorns along aparticular dorrnuory
corridor to give us a list of their friends. These lists 01'friendsOneareirnplication our is that since the chanee of contact increases over lime, the
initial data, the results we wish lo understand. friendship clusrers should become larger as the school ycar progresses.
Irwe stare al thelistsfor a while, we eventually notice apattern inthem. Youcould test this by surveying students al several differenl limes during
Friends tend lo live close lo one another: Ihey tend lo have adjacenl dormi- the year. Ir you did so and discovered that the prediction was correct, the
mode
tory rooms. What process could have produced this pauernl 01friwould
endship? secrn more impressive. (Can yOl1 think of other testable
implicarions")

STOP AND THINK. Take a minute lo lhink =-Adapted frorn Lave and March. (1975. pp. 10-12).

of a possible process that might produce this observed result.


One issue that Lave and March's example does /101 deal with is the
One possible process that
possibility rnight have ledof
lo this resulaltcmative
t is that students models that also predict most 01'the sarne things
can choose their donnitory rooms, and that groups as of fritheends tend model
lo you have developed. This is one of the most challenging
on about the world. lof
choose adjacenl rooms, This process is a speculatiaspects f model building, and the souree of acommon flaw in theoretical
:","~ real world were like our model· world. me observed facts should
modeling-accepting a model that successfully predicts a substantial
62 QUAUTATIV.~ RES¡':ARCH
CONCEPTUAL ()F.SIGN
FKAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON'! 63

Experience, prior theory and research, pilot studies, and thought experiments
number of things, without seriously attempting to come up with
are the altemative
Iour major sources 01'the conceptual frarnework for your study. Putting
models Ihat would make the same (or better) predictions. togeiher
Fora conceptual
example, Iramework frorn these sources is u unique process for
Lave and March make an assumption, a widespread one euchinxtudy.modem
and specific guidelines Ior how 10do this are nOI (Ir much use; you
Westem societies, that friendship is necessarily shuuld
basedlook un common
at examples of others char- ' conceptual trameworks to see how they
ucteristics-c-shared intereslS and values. An alternative
have dune this. model
The main Ihillg would In keep in bemind is thc need Ior integration 61'
one ihat abandons Ihis assumptiou, aud postulates that friendship
thcxc cornponents with one can
unother, andbe
wuh yOllr goals and research ques-
created by intcraction irsell', and not necessurily by common charucteris-
liol S. The couuertiuus bciween your conceptual íramework aud yuur research
rics (see Exarnple 3.Il. I questions wil be taken up in the next chupier.
i
I
STOP ANIl TltlNK. What tests could
distinguish between these two models? NOTES

One possible test would be lo investigate the beliefs, interests, and val-
l. Furamore deiailed explanation ofIhis point. se l.ocke, Spirduso. andSilven an
ues 01"freshman dormitory students at both the beginning and the end of
(2000, p . 6K-n'J). üne qualif cation lo this principle is ue ded tor the "literature
the year, losee ifpairs offriends consistently had more in common althe review" in adis ertain or dis ertaion prop sal. Some advisors 01' com ite
beginning 01"the year than did pairs of students in the same dorrn who did mernbers er.this a, adcmous ution thut you know the literut rc inthe fieldof your
not become friends, (Determining this similarity at the beginning of the study. relvant ornot. 1'youareinthis ruation, your literaue rview il nedlo be
year addresses a possible alternative explanation for greater sirnilarity of more compreh nsive than 1describe. Howev r, you stil ne d loidenrify thework tha
beliefs and interests within friendship pairs-v-that this sirnilarity is a isrnost relcvant oyurstudyandthespcif deastha youcanuseinyourcnep-
result of their friendship, rather than a cause.) lf you find that pairs of tual fr nework (and other aspect ofyur design), becaus doiug this es ntiul o
friends did not consistently have more in eommon than pairs of non- crentigacohernt presnutio f,and rgument Ior,yu resach plans.
2. Foradetilc aCOUl10'thc waysinwhc resuch anusethoryinfo
friends, then Lave and March's model seerns less plausible (al least with-
lIuaing theirgoals, reuch qestion, admethods, e LComple andPreisl
out modification), because it predicts that friends will huye more in
(193,p.15- 7)
cornrnon than nonfriends. My a1ternative model does predict the observed
3. MilesundHberman ted lOret ovariunce maps "causl networks," and
result, and therefore would deserve further consideration and testing.
toprces maps "evut-sae ntworks" (19Q4.p 10- 71).This ncoretly quates
Eventually, you might develop a more complex model that incorporates causl naysi wrhvaince a lysi:proces aulysi canti/sobecausl.adiscued
both processes. inChaptcr 2rcf.Maxwe+l,20(Ha).
AlI of the tests described previously (and the standard approach lo
rnodel testing in general) are based on variance theory-c-measuring
seleeted variables lo see if they fit the rnodel's predictions. However,
there is a much more direct way lo test the model-illvestigate the actual
process, rather than just its predicted consequenees (Menzel, 1978,
pp. 163-168). For exarnple, you might do participant observation of
student interactions at the beginning of the year, looking al how friend-
ships originate, or interview students about how theybecame friends with
other students. This realist, process-oriented approach to model testing is
rnuch bctter suited lo qualitative research than is predicting outcornes
(Maxwell, 2004:\, 2004e).

Anda mungkin juga menyukai