Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Qualitative research requires strong conceptual skills coupled with creativity and
imagination. Qualitative researchers require these skills because qualitative approaches represent
ways of thinking about what it means to be human beings. As Strauss (1991) wrote about
grounded theory, “This is a general way of thinking about analysis and we said so in the
discovery book (p. 2).” The “discovery book is The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies
for Qualitative Research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Bogdan (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) said something similar about how Blanche Geer
(Becker & Geer, 1957; Becker, Geer, & Hughes, 1968; Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961)
taught field research.
Blanche modeled how to think conceptually. What I got out of her seminar was
not the content. She was teaching a way of thinking. I felt right at home….(Gilgun, 1992c,
p. 9).
What happened to Bogdan has happened to many qualitative researchers: we become less
self-referential and more drawn into the experiences of others. The change does not stop there.
We cannot lose our analytic stances even when we participate vicariously in other people’s
experiences. We make sense out of the experiences of others in their own terms and our own. We
often go through a prolonged period of not knowing as we attempt to understand others.
We position ourselves to think deeply about other persons’ accounts of their experiences
if we are to come up with concepts that might organize those experiences and render them
communicable to others. Qualitative research is inherently theory-driven because researchers
require theoretical concepts in order to understand research material, organize it, and then
communicate findings.
Not Knowing
“Not knowing” means that we wait for evidence to come in before we draw conclusions
and, more practically, before we decide upon the concepts that we believe help organize the raw
materials of accounts of experience. In addition, we continually look for evidence that adds to,
contradicts, and undermines our evolving thinking. This is a multi-layered process that involves
shifts in perspectives that happens when try to understand the worlds of others as well as shifts in
thinking as we attempt to represent and then interpret our understandings, while all the time
being aware of the differences between our experiences and interpretations and those of research
participants.
As we conduct research in these ways, our worldviews may change. Mine did as I
interviewed perpetrators of family and community violence. While committed to social justice
and care before I began, I am even more deeply committed in response to what I experienced
through this research (Gilgun, 2008; 2010). Other researchers, such as LePlay in the nineteenth
century, Wax (1971) and Stack (1974) more than 100 years later reported similar experiences.
They were concerned about social injustice before they did their research and took on roles of
advocates in response to their research (Gilgun, 1999, in press).
An Informed Public
Some, while committed to social justice, believed an informed public would take on roles
of social change agents, and researchers should not. For instance, Park, an early developer of the
principles on which this present paper held this position during his years as a university
professor. He railed against women reformists, but he wanted research to contribute to the social
good (Bulmer, 1984; Deegan, 1990; 1996). Earlier in his life, he said he had been a muckraking
journalist intent on social reform (Park, 1974).
Qualitative research, therefore, appeals to researchers who have the conceptual skills that
enable them to do credible representations and interpretations of other people’s experiences, and
who want to contribute to the social good. Researchers who do other kinds of work may have
some of these qualities, but the combination of the four characterizes persons drawn to
qualitative research.
Ogburn, for example, a leader in moving early social research toward what he thought
was objective science, certainly had strong conceptual skills and believed in the power of
research, in particular technology and mathematics, to transform society, but his commitment to
what he defined as objective science contributed to his rejection of the principles of immersion,
vicarious participation in the lives of others, and understanding of complex experiences from
informants’ points of view (See Laslett, 1991).
Many of today’s researchers share Ogburn’s ideas about science, objectivity, and
quantification, stemming back at least to the ideas Descartes explicated more than 300 years ago
(Christians, 2010; Hamilton, 1994).
Not everyone trained in qualitative methods, however, takes to them. O’Connor (2001),
in a brief written account of her experiences as a Ph.D. student of Bogdan’s and Biklen’s
research methods courses (Bogdan & Biklen, 2008), reported on the six weeks of qualitative
methods training in the required first-year methods sequence that Biklen taught at Syracuse
University
The most striking memory I have from that class was how we as students
separated ourselves out. There were those students who just didn’t connect with the
process. It was too unclear. Those unknowns, I began learning, was what I loved…I liked
and understood the ambiguity, the inquiry, the discovery. The handful of us who went on
with the qualitative process began to sit on the same side of the room talking among
ourselves and feeling very engaged in the process. Other classmates were frustrated.
O’Connor meant by “those of us who went on with the qualitative process” that these
were the students who took the optional one-year course of study on qualitative methods that
Bogdan taught the following year.
O’Connor’s account of her classmates and herself fit well with Dewey’s (1958)
observations of other philosophers who rejected the pragmatist emphasis on experience because
of its instability and precariousness and the difficulty of understanding it. Perhaps a bit crankily,
he wrote that some have abandoned the study of experience and substituted “theoretical security
and certainty” (p. xi) (emphasis in original). They prefer, said Dewey, to craft universals, laws of
nature, and systems that emphasize unity among entities. They back away from particulars,
pluralism, and processes of change.
Qualitative research is worth doing because of the amazing range of products that can
result. These products include theories and/or typologies grounded in personal, contextualized
interpretations of experience. In addition, qualitative methods yield rich descriptive material that
researchers sometimes let stand on its own because of its value in fostering deeper
understandings and its capacities to illuminate other similar situations. This descriptive material
can also be re-crafted to become items in various types of instruments such as surveys, clinical
rating scales, and practice guidelines.
Qualitative methods can also be used in concert with experiments and research on direct
practice, such as social work, nursing, therapy, counseling, and education, in order to understand
how participants experience the interventions. Some qualitative researchers create performances
and write songs and poetry that use the words of informants so that audience members can
understand other people’s experiences and participate in them imaginatively.
Discussion
Over the many years that I have conducted qualitative research, I have been continually
taken up with the experience of listening and perhaps understanding how other people
experience their own lives. I have been enlightened, delighted, awestruck, and assaulted by the
meanings of the narratives they share with me. In the process, I have learned a great deal about
myself, my own limitations and possibilities.
Above all perhaps, the experience of participating in the lives of others has given to me
the desire to share what I have learned not only through scholarly articles and books, but also in
essays, poetry, children’s stories, and many other media. I began my career as a qualitative
research in the late 1970s because I wanted to understand. I had no idea what I was in for. It has
been
more
wonderful
than
I
could
have
imagined.
I
hope
that
the
numbers
of
qualitative
researchers
continue
to
grow.
Numbers
and
surveys
are
important
but
if
we
are
to
bring
about
the
ideals
of
democracy
that
so
many
people
want
and
have
even
died
for,
then
qualitative
approaches
that
focus
on
understanding
how
human
beings
actually
live
their
lives
have
important
contributions
to
make.
Jane
F.
Gilgun,
Ph.D.,
LICSW,
is
a
professor,
School
of
Social
Work,
University
of
Minnesota,
Twin
Cities,
USA.
See
Professor
Gilgun’s
other
articles,
books,
and
children’s
stories
on
scribd.com,
Amazon
Kindle,
and
iBooks
for
a
variety
of
e-readers
and
mobile
devices.
References
Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1960). Participant observation and interviewing: A comparison.
Human Organization, 16, 28-32.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., & Hughes, E. (1968). Making the grade. New York: Wiley.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. & Strauss, E. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in
medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bogdan,
R.
C.,
&
Biklen,
S.K.
(2007).
Qualitative
research
for
education:
An
introduction
to
theories
and
methods
(5th
ed).
Boston:
Pearson.
Bulmer,
M.
(1984).
The
Chicago
School
of
Sociology:
Institutionalization,
diversity,
and
the
rise
of
sociological
research.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Christians,
C.
G.
(2010).
Theories
for
a
global
ethics.
In
Norman
K.
Denzin
&
Michael
D.
Giardina
(Eds.),
Qualitative
inquiry
and
human
rights
(pp.
45
-‐65).
Walnut
Creek,
CA:
Left
Coast
Press.
Deegan,
M.J.
(1990).
Jane
Addams
and
the
men
of
the
Chicago
School,
1892-1918.
New
Brunswick,
N.J.:
Transaction.
Deegan,
M.
J.
(2006).
The
human
drama
behind
the
study
of
people
as
potato
bugs:
The
curious
marriage
of
Robert
E.
Park
&
Clara
Cahill.
Journal
of
Classical
Sociology,
6(1),
101–122.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(1992a).
Chicago
days:
Handel,
Lopata,
&
Strauss
tell
stories
of
their
lives
as
students
at
Chicago.
Qualitative
Family
Research
6(2),
3-‐6.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(1992b).
Definitions,
methods,
and
methodologies
in
qualitative
family
research.
In
J.
F.
Gilgun,
Kerry
Daly,
and
Gerald
Handel
(Eds.),
Qualitative
methods
in
family
research
(pp.
22-‐41).
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(1992c).
Field
methods
training
in
the
Chicago
School
Tradition:
The
early
career
of
Bob
Bogdan.
Qualitative
Family
Research,
6(1),
8-‐11.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(1999).
Methodological
pluralism
and
qualitative
family
research.
In
Suzanne
K.
Steinmetz,
Marvin
B.
Sussman,
and
Gary
W.
Peterson
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Marriage
and
the
Family
(2nd
ed.)
(pp.
219-‐261).
New
York:
Plenum.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(2001,
November).
Case
study
research,
analytic
induction,
and
theory
development:
The
future
and
the
past,
paper
presented
at
the
31st
Preconference
Workshop
on
Theory
Development
and
Research
Methodology,
National
Conference
on
Family
Relations,
Rochester,
NY.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(2005).
Qualitative
research
and
family
psychology.
Journal
of
Family
Psychology,
19(1),
40-‐50.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(2007,
November).
The
legacy
of
the
Chicago
School
of
Sociology
for
family
theory-‐building,”
paper
presented
at
the
Pre-‐Conference
Workshop
on
Theory
Construction
and
Research
Methodology,
National
Council
on
Family
Relation,
Pittsburgh,
PA.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(2008).
Lived
experience,
reflexivity,
and
research
on
perpetrators
of
interpersonal
violence.
Qualitative
Social
Work,
7(2),
181-‐197.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(2010).
Violence
actual
and
imagined:
Reflections
on
more
than
20
years
of
research.
Reflections:
Narratives
of
Professional
Helping,
16(4),
50-‐59.
Gilgun,
J.
F.
(in
press).
Qualitative
family
research:
Enduring
themes
and
contemporary
variations.
In
Gary
F.
Peterson
&
Kevin
Bush
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Marriage
and
the
Family
(3rd
ed.).
New
York:
Plenum.
Gilgun,
J.
F.,
Kerry
Daly,
&
Gerald
Handel
(Eds.)
(1992).
Qualitative
methods
in
family
research
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Hamilton,
D.
(l994).
Traditions,
preferences,
and
postures
in
applied
qualitative
research.
In
N.
K.
Denzin
&
Y.
S.
Lincoln
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
qualitative
research
(pp.
60-‐69).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Laslett,
B.
(1991).
Biography
as
historical
sociology:
The
case
of
William
Fielding
Ogburn.
Theory
and
Society,
20,
511-‐538.
Park, R. E. (1974). Life history. American Journal of Sociology, 79 (2), 251-‐260.
Stack,
C.
B.
(l974).
All
our
kin:
Strategies
for
survival
in
a
black
community.
New
York:
Harper.
Strauss,
Anselm
(1991).
A
personal
history
of
the
development
of
grounded
theory.
Qualitative
Family
Research,
5(2),
1-‐2.
Available
at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44659994/Anselm-‐Strauss-‐Writes-‐A-‐Personal-‐
History-‐of-‐Grounded-‐Theory-‐Other-‐Articles
Strauss, A. (l987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University.
Warren,
Elizabeth
(2007).
Unsafe
at
any
rate.
Democracy:
A
journal
of
ideas
(5),
Summer.
http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6528
Warren,
Elizabeth
&
Amelia
Warren
Tyagi
(2004).
The
two-income
trap:
Why
middle-class
mothers
and
fathers
are
going
broke.
New
York:
Basic.
Wax, R. H. (l971). Doing fieldwork: Warnings and advice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.