DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

AN INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

PREPARED BY

CHRISTINA HUGHES

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK

WHAT IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?

AN INTRODUCTION

•
Qualitative research is empirical research where the data are
not in the form of numbers. (Punch, 1998: 4)

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an

interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This
means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural
settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena
in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative
research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of
empirical materials - case study, personal experience,
introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical,
interactional, and visual texts - that describe routine and
problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives.
Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of
interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix on the
subject matter at hand. (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994: 2)

Qualitative research is ... grounded in a philosophical position

which is broadly `interpretivist' in the sense that it is concerned
with how the social world is interpreted, understood,
experienced or produced ... based on methods of data
generation which are flexible and sensitive to the social context
in which data are produced (rather than rigidly standardized or
structured, or removed from `real life' or `natural' social
context, as in some forms of experimental method) ... based on
methods of analysis and explanation building which involve
understandings of complexity, detail and context. Qualitative
research aims to produce rounded understandings on the basis
of rich, contextual and detailed data. There is more emphasis on
`holistic' forms of analysis and explanation in this sense, than
on charting surface patterns, trends and correlations.
Qualitative research usually does use some form of
quantification, but statistical forms of analysis are not seen as
central. (Mason, 1996: 4)

These quotations convey something of the nature of qualitative

research. They indicate that qualitative research is concerned
with the study of people in their natural settings. Qualitative
researchers use a variety of tools and techniques in order to
develop deep understandings of how people perceive their social
realities and in consequence, how they act within the social
world. They seek to make connections between events,
perceptions and actions so that their analyses are holistic and
contextual. Beyond these broad assumptions, qualitative
researchers are very careful to stress the multiplicity and variety
of qualitative approaches. For example, Mason (1996)
comments that she does not feel comfortable with going beyond
the above general features. This is because there are many
different answers to key questions of qualitative methodology.
Similarly, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) highlight the multiple
nature of qualitative approaches. They also illustrate how these
have changed over time. Denzin and Lincoln (1994: 1) indicate
that `qualitative research operates in a complex historical field
that crosscuts five historical moments ... These five moments
simultaneously operate in the present'. Denzin and Lincoln
describe these five moments as:

•
· The traditional (1900-195): associated with the positivist
paradigm where qualitative research aims to reflect the
principles of (natural) scientific enquiry;

· The modernist or golden age (1950-1970): where we see the

appearance of post-positivist arguments. This is also part of:

· The blurred genres (1970-1986): where a variety of new

interpretive, qualitative perspectives come into the foreground:
hermeneutics, structuralism, semiotics, phenomenology, cultural
studies and feminism. The humanities also became a central
resource for critical and interpretive theory. The blurred genres
phase gave rise to:

· The crisis of representation (1986-1990): where researchers

struggled with how to locate themselves and their subjects in
reflexive texts;

· The postmodern or present (1990-): a new sensibility that

doubts all previous paradigms.

The key points I would make in respect of this are:

· As Ely et al (1991) point out the field of qualitative research is

shot through with a host of labels and a host of proponents of
those labels. Different terms are used in roughly synonymous
ways (naturalistic inquiry, ethnographic methodologies,
qualitative research, interpretive research). This causes
confusion and for the new (and also not so new!) student it
reinforces a sense that it is they who is at fault as they have
failed to get to grips with what exactly qualitative research is.
Take heart: Ely et al note that Tesch (1990) compiled a list of 46
terms that social scientists have used to name their versions of
qualitative research. No wonder we are all confused!

· As Denzin and Lincoln (1994) point out the nature of the field
of qualitative research changes over time. Different perspectives
and concerns arise at different points.

· As Denzin and Lincoln (1994) also point out old concerns do

not go away. The `five moments' are consecutive but also
simultaneous.

· Theories of ontology (what is the form and nature of social

reality and, thus, what can be known) and epistemology (what is
the nature of the relationship between the knower and would-be
knower and what can be known) are central to understanding the
forms of knowledge that are produced through qualitative
approaches.

I would add the following imperatives, drawn from Mason

(1996)

· Qualitative research should be conducted systematically and

rigorously. This means that, like all social researchers,
qualitative researchers have to use key principles of research
design such as linking the research questions to the
methodological approaches, considering issues of analysis and
data collection as integrated and being clear about the purposes
of the research.

· Qualitative research should be conducted in a flexible and

contextual way. This means that qualitative researchers make
decisions on the basis of their research design and in terms of
the changing contexts and situations in which the research takes
place. One of the strengths of qualitative approaches is that this
flexibility can enhance the research leaded to unanticipated, but
significant, issues.

· Qualitative research should be conducted through critical, self-

reflexive enquiry. This means that the researcher should be
constantly asking questions about her or his role in the research
process.

· Qualitative research should produce social explanations to

intellectual puzzles. This means being explicit about the logics
that have produced these explanations (eg. sampling, selection
of events for analysis, researcher's role and so on).
· Qualitative research is not a unified body of philosophy and
practice. For example, qualitative research should not be viewed
as completely distinctive from, or uncomplementary to,
quantitative approaches. The `divide' between quantitative and
qualitative research is to some extent false. Qualitative research
does quantify (look for phrases such as more than, less than).
Quantitative research can collect more qualitative data through
open ended questions. All researchers should think carefully
about how the choices of method and the potential combinations
of approach that are appropriate and possible.

· Qualitative research should be conducted as ethical practice.

Whilst the field of qualitative research is complex and riven

with internal debates, nonetheless it is important to have a
general sense of the key features of qualitative research. To this
end I conclude with the following produced by Ely et al (1991:
4):

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

KEY CHARACTERISTICS

· Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in

context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses
her/himself in the setting.

· The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural.

Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.

· Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak

for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other
actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process
in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their
lives.

· Qualitative researchers attend to the experience as a whole,

not as separate variables. The aim of qualitative research is to
understand experience as unified.

· Qualitative methods are appropriate to the above statements.

There is no one general method.

· For many qualitative researchers, the process entails

appraisal about what was studied.

Ely et al add the following from Sherman and Webb (1988) to

their definition:

Qualitative implies a direct concern with experience as it is

`lived' or `felt' or `undergone' ... Qualitative research, then, has
the aim of understanding experience as nearly as possible as its
participants feel it or live it.

Further Work

For those of you interested in following up debates and issues

within qualitative research in more detail the classic texts are
Denzin and Lincoln, 1994 and Denzin and Lincoln, 1998 (a
shorter paperback version of the 1994 edition). You might also
consult the International Journal of Qualitative Research in
Education both for examples of this form of research and for
methodological discussions.

IS QUALITATIVE RESEARCH A CREDIBLE

METHODOLOGY?

WHICH BEST DESCRIBES QUALITATIVE AND

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH?

SOFT HARD

SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE

SMALL SCALE LARGE SCALE

IDIOGRAPHIC GENERALIZABLE
JOURNALISM SCIENCE

OPINION TRUTH

Ideas that qualitative research is a `second' best approach rest in

large part because of the predominance of the `science' model of
social research. The central values of such an approach are
objectivity and generalizability. Within quantitative approaches,
objectivity is maintained in various technical ways. For
example, through the distance between the researcher and the
researched that is created through the administration of a formal
questionnaire; through the possibilities of replication of the
research; and through the use of external checks on the methods
used. The generalizability of quantitative research is again seen
to be possible through technical solutions. The development of
sophisticated statistical and sampling techniques are key to this.

In contrast, qualitative approaches emphasise the importance of

getting close to the researched. This is because one of the
purposes of qualitative approaches is to try to depict the
participant's view of social reality. Thus, techniques such as
participant observation and unstructured or informal interviews
are commonly used. Because of the time and costs involved in
such work, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples
from large-scale data sets. In addition, because of the central
role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not
possible to replicate qualitative studies.

Ideas of `second' best also rest on the stereotypes that arise when
quantitative and qualitative approaches are compared in this
way. In practice, researchers use a variety of methods or
techniques of data collection under the umbrella terms of
`qualitative' and `quantitative' to enhance the generalizability of
the account (Bryman, 1988). In addition, as Hammersley (1989)
indicates there is much greater variety of theories of social
reality within and between the labels `quantitative' and
`qualitative' than we might at first imagine.
In some ways the concerns that arise about a
qualitative/quantitative divide can be resolved by giving greater
attention to how these approaches can be combined. For Bryman
(1998: 126) this would produce `more complete accounts of
social reality'. However, it is perhaps important to remember
that the values conveyed by descriptions such as soft/hard,
idiosyncratic/generalizable, art/science, small scale/large scale
have political import. There is a politics in the choice and use of
methods, particularly if you hope that your research will impact
on policy or create change in some way. Jayaratne (1993)
encourages feminists to use both methods because she believes
this is more likely to achieve feminist goals. Thus: `My
approach to this issue [of choice of method] is political: that is, I
believe the appropriate use of both quantitative and qualitative
methods in the social sciences can help the feminist community
in achieving its goals more effectively than the use of either
qualitative or quantitative methods alone' (p 109, emphasis in
original).

In a similar vein, Stanley's (1990) account of a Social Services'

referral indicates the politics embedded in the power of
`objectivity' in the production of social research knowledge.
Stanley delivered a paper that gave an account of an elderly
couple's experiences of Social Services' intervention. This
account deliberately omitted the fact that the couple were her
parents. As she states `I felt that presenting `the case study' as
my own still recent experience of caring would disqualify both
me and it from `research' and `papers' in the eyes of those
present' (p 121).

The key points I would wish to emphasise are:

· There are many stereotypes about qualitative and quantitative

approaches.

· Qualitative and quantitative approaches are not as distinctive

as the idea of a `divide' suggests.
· These stereotypes lead to comparisons that are political in
import.

In addition, it is important to be aware of the various strengths

and limitations of any methodological approach. I set out below
a summary that I have adapted, and added to, from Burns (2000-
13-14) in respect of qualitative research:

Limitations of Qualitative Approaches

· The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major

criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data
and its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply
conventional standards of reliability and validity.

· Contexts, situations, events, conditions and interactions cannot

be replicated to any extent nor can generalisations be made to a
wider context than the one studied with any confidence.

· The time required for data collection, analysis and

interpretation is lengthy.

· The researcher's presence has a profound effect on the subjects

of study.

· Issues of anonymity and confidentiality present problems

when selecting findings.

· The viewpoints of both researcher and participants have to be

identified and elucidated because of issues of bias.

Strengths

· Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains

an insider's view of the field. This allows the researcher to find
issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities)
by the scientific, more positivistic enquiries.

· Qualitative descriptions can play the important role of

suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects and dynamic
processes.

· Because statistics are not used, but rather qualitative research

uses a more descriptive, narrative style, this research might be of
particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to
qualitative reports in order to examine forms of knowledge that
might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

· Qualitative research adds flesh and blood to social analysis.

HOW DO YOU DO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?

THREE POINTS TO NOTE

•
The researcher has several methods for collecting empirical
materials, ranging from the interview to direct observation, to
the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the
use of visual materials or personal experience. The researcher
may also use a variety of different methods of reading and
analyzing interviews or cultural texts, including content,
narrative, and semiotic strategies. Faced with large amounts of
qualitative materials, the investigator seeks ways of managing
and interpreting these documents, and here data management
methods and computer-assisted models of analysis may be of
use. (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994: 14).

... unstructured interviewing and focus group techniques are

qualitative methods of data collection (Bowling, 1997: 311)

Qualitative researchers study spoken and written

representations and records of human experience, using
multiple methods and multiple sources of data. Several types of
data collection might well be used in the one qualitative project.
... the main ways of collecting qualitative data [are] the
interview, observation, participant observation and documents.
Whatever the design and whatever the perspective, the data in
most qualitative research come down to these main
types.
(Punch, 1988: 174)

Qualitative research mainly works with two sorts of data.

Verbal data are collected in semi-structured interviews or as
narratives. ... Visual data result from applying the various
observational methods, ranging from participant and non-
participant observation to ethnography and analysing photos
and films ... verbal and visual data are transformed into texts by
documenting them and by transcription. (Flick, 1998: 11-12)

As these quotations illustrate, there are many ways to `do'

qualitative research. You might undertake an interview study, an
observation or collect and analyse documents. You might spend
months in the field living with those whom you research. You
might undertake a series of unstructured, interviews with a large
group of people. You might focus on a single person. The
research may be spread over many years or it may be episodic.
You might be researching an unfamiliar culture or you might be
researching your own organisation. You might combine
methods, using statistics to convey generalizability about the
case you have selected. You might use a computer for analysis
or you might use your living room floor to spread the transcripts
out ready for cut and pasting. You might work alone or in a
team.

I would like to emphasise that the `doing' of qualitative research

comprises of three key aspects. The first two relate to the
distinctions that are made between the terms method and
methodology. The term method is used when we are referring to
the tools or techniques of data collection such as questionnaires,
interviews and observations. The term methodology has a more
philosophical meaning and usually refers to the approach or
paradigm that underpins the research. Punch (1998) suggests
that method includes research design, data collection and data
analysis. He notes that the noun methodology is more
problematic. He states that `Technically, it [methodology] refers
to the study of method(s), the overall analysis of how research
proceeds ... It is often used more loosely, as in the phrase ` the
research methodology of this study'. In such a case, `research
method(s) would be a more accurate term' (p29).

The key point about making a distinction between method and

methodology is to emphasise that the tools that are used to
collect data cannot be separated from the frameworks of
analysis, and their underpinning theories, that are used to make
sense of this data. We can 'do' qualitative research in a
positivistic, an interpretive (the most common), a postmodern
and a critical way (also very common).

Given that how we interpret the data cannot be separated from

how it is collected, qualitative researchers also stress a third
features of this approach. This is that to be a qualitative
researcher requires one to be highly reflexive. Alvesson and
Skoldberg (2000:5) describe this in terms of drawing:

•
...attention to the complex relationship between processes of
knowledge production and the various contexts of such
processes as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer.
This involves operating on at least two levels in research work
and paying much attention to how one thinks about thinking ...
[this means] that serious attention is paid to the way different
kinds of linquistic, social, political and theoretical elements are
woven together in the process of knowledge development,
during which empirical material is constructed, interpreted and
written. Empirical research in a reflective mode starts from a
sceptical approach to what appear at a superficial glance as
unproblematic replicas of the way reality functions, while at the
same time maintaining the belief that the study of suitable (well
thought-out) excerpts from this reality can provide an important
basis for a generation of knowledge that opens up rather than
closes, and furnishes opportunities for understanding rather
than establishes `truths'.

The key point here is that the reflexive social researcher has to
recognise their own place and role in generating the knowledge
that is in the research report. For example, Scheurich (1997)
suggests that the researcher is an imperialist who can marshall
the data according to her will. What does this mean, then, for the
validity of the research?

WHICH HINTS AND TIPS WORK?

Hint: Think of choosing your research topic in terms of the

Goldilocks strategy. You want to select a topic which is not too
big, and not too small, but just right (and one which will not
break). (p 25)

Hint: If you find very conflicting arguments in your reading

around, you may well have identified an issue or debate which
would be worth exploring in your research project (p 95)

Hint: Being critical does not mean rubbishing or rejecting

someone else's work. As a researcher and thinker you should be
able simultaneously to entertain two or more contradictory
ideas at one time. (p 105)

Hint: If you carry out a search of the literature using a

computer database, and this results in hundreds of references,
do not download them all. Narrow your search further, perhaps
by limiting it to works published after a certain date, or by
adding to or changing your key words. (p 113)

Hint: If you feel traumatized or terrorized by the process of

analysing the data you have collected, you might like to think of
it as analogous to cooking. What and how you cook depends on
your taste, skills and the resources you have available. You may
like your food simple and freshly prepared, or carefully blended
over a long period, or fast and processed. You may mix the
ingredients together using a recipe, or based on previous
experience, or you may buy a packet already prepared. You may
use a range of tools in your cooking, from a simple knife or
spoon to an expensive foodprocessor. You may be preparing
food just for yourself or for a banquet. See if you can find
further parallels as you cook your data! (p 174)

Hint: Some of the tasks involved in analysing data are very

basic and repetitive. Save these for when you are unable to do,
or do not feel like doing, anything more demanding. (p 183)

Hint: Try explaining it to a non-specialist again. (p 198)

(All from: Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 1996)

When teaching a class recently, one student admitted that her

focus group interview went badly wrong. She had been
researching `Girls' Nights Out' and had invited two groups of
friends to her house. They did not get on and sat either end of
the room throughout the entire evening. One of the members of
the class (very gently) told her that, because this was a common
problem, it was normal practice in focus group research to
ensure that the people invited did not know each other
beforehand. If it was thought desirable to bring people together
who did know each other then it was important to ensure that
they were one rather than two or more groups.

This `tip', of course, would have been much more useful

beforehand but this story is not so much concerned about when,
and how, we acquire such advice. It is more concerned to
emphasise that it is too easy to dismiss the usefulness of such
knowledge!

The hints set out above have arisen from my own research and
teaching experiences. They are aimed at students who are
undertaking research for the first time. I hope that the following
exercise will generate some more hints and tips that are useful in
your research.

1. What would you advise?

· You are researching reasons for non-participation in adult

learning classes. Some of people you are interviewing are very
uncomfortable about talking to a researcher. What tools or
techniques would you use to facilitate the interview?

· You want to undertake a participant observation study in a

local community. How/where do you begin?

· The person you are interviewing expresses some extreme racist

views. What do you say in response?

· You are facilitating a focus group discussion. How do you deal

with the following:

· (a) two members of the group begin an argument; (b) one

member of the group dominates the conversation; (c) several
members of the group get up to help themselves to refreshments
and begin a conversation in the corner of the room; (d) the group
runs out of steam after fifteen minutes and seems to have
exhausted their thoughts on the topic; (e) one member of the
group never speaks.

· How do I manage all this data?

· This is the first time you have undertaken field research and
you are very nervous and anxious. What will help?

· You have been undertaking some long term participant

observation in a local community centre. You have become very
passionate about the issues that they are facing. Does this
matter?

2. What problems have you encountered in your research that

you would welcome some advice about?

3. What is your worst experience of research going wrong?

THE RESEARCH DIARY

Observational Notes
These record events experienced principally through watching
and listening. They contain as little interpretation as possible
and are as reliable as the observer can construct them.

Methodological Notes

These record aspects of reflection on the methodology. For

example they might include a critique of one's own tactics. They
will note the time, place and technique used.

Theoretical Notes

These are your attempts to derive meaning from your data.

Analytical Notes

These are where you attempt to bring together several aspects of

your analysis within a broader, more abstract

statement.

UNDERTAKING AN OBSERVATION

· Are the times at which you carry out your observations

relevant?

· Do you need to devise an observational schedule or determine

pre-coded categories?

· How are you going to organize your data recording?

· Is it important to you to try and record `everything' or will you

be much more selective?

· Are your age, sex, ethnicity, dress or other characteristics

likely to affect your observations?

· How artificial is the setting? How visible are you as the

observer? Does this matter?
· Is observation enough or will you need to participate, and/or
use other means of data collection?

· Are there any situations to which you cannot get access but
where observation may be important? How can you get
`backstage'?

· If you are going to participate more directly in the events you

will be observing, how are you going to balance the demands of
participation and observation?

CAN RESEARCH BE EMPOWERING?

•
The terms `power' and `empowerment' crop up a great deal in
research related to social justice. This is not surprising.
Improvements in justice are related to power: who has it, how it
is exercised and where it manifests itself. It sounds as if
researchers for social justice would find a lot to agree about
here. But this is not the case. ... the very differences invite
greater reflexivity and clarity about what researchers think they
are doing, and whether it is worthwhile. (Griffiths, 1998: 117)

Using creative genres of writing ... can help mobilize social

action or evoke participatory experiences through imagination,
performance art, and storytelling. (Ellis and Bochner, 1996: 30)

Readers who identify with an oppressed group may achieve a

unique outcome through reading about rhetorical figures who
are metaphors for themselves. Self-re-cognition may result in an
imaginative naming of one's conditions. (Barone, 1995: 69)

We re-present stories told by subjugated Others, stories that

would otherwise be discarded. And we get a hearing. (Fine,
1998: 150).

We might suggest that calls for empowerment, giving voice and

dialogue are fairly commonplace these days. We find the idea of
empowerment in literatures as far apart as those concerned with
organisational competitiveness and those concerned with the
eradication of poverty. The extent of usage of such terms, and
the impact of what some call the postmodern `malaise', has
meant that we are more likely today to find that there are 'calls
for serious skepticism of and critical attention to those
contemporary education narratives that claim to be
emancipatory' (Lather, 1992: 129). All liberatory talk has
oppressive potentials.

Gore (1992: 56) usefully delineates the concept of

empowerment into three components. Thus, empowerment
suggests (1) an agent of empowerment, (2) a notion of power as
property, and (3) some kind of vision or desirable end sate).
This Foucauldian approach suggests that to empower someone,
then, means that you are authorized by yourself or others to give
something. Yet what does authority mean. As Weiler (1995: 33)
points out for many feminists the practices of authority can be
paradoxical:

•
... the issue of institutional authority raises the contradictions of
trying to achieve a democratic and collective ideal in a
hierarchical institution, but it also raises the question of the
meaning of authority for feminist teachers, whose right to speak
or to hold power is itself under attack in a patriarchal, (and
racist, homophobic, classist, and so on) society.

At times, feminist women may indeed seek to claim their

authority `over' precisely because it is already questioned
through gendered organizational and social practices.
Empowerment also suggests that power is some kind of property
that can be given away, handed over, borrowed or shared.
Simplified discussions of empowerment encourage perceptions
of uni-directional models that do not credit others with power
nor allow for the contradictory messiness through which the
everyday enactments of power emerge.
Finally, what are people being `empowered' for? Empowerment
suggests a desirable end state but what might that be? And do
we all agree with whatever that is?

These issues are central for those working to `empower' and to

work for social justice. As Griffiths (op cit) notes there is no
single response to these issues. Yet Griffiths (1998: 95-96 and
102) offers the following ten principles that underpin working
for social justice in qualitative educational research. These are:

1. Improvement: A main reason for doing the research is to get

improvement in social justice in and from education. Results of
research include knowledge (but not only propositional
knowledge or information) and improvements)

2. Knowledge and learning: A main reason for doing the

research is to get knowledge and to learn from it. This is
inclusive of various kinds of knowledge. It implies the best
possible of whatever kind is aimed at.

3. Radical change of any of the beliefs and values is possible:

Improvements in knowledge are always uncertain, so
researchers must be prepared to change their minds radically,
and to challenge others during and after doing the research.
Research results and processes may surprise and discomfort any
or all of the members of the researcher community, and also
other educational researchers.

4. Collaboration and consultation with the immediate

research community. Researchers need to work collaboratively
with people as part of the community carrying out the research.
It is difficult to establish hard and fast boundaries to this
research community. Creating, establishing and working with
such a diverse research community requires that all sectors
respect and work with each other in conditions of trust and
safety, in the interests of improving education. It is
acknowledged that the processes of consultation and change are
going to result in conflict and people feeling exposed when
putting their views on the line. Waiving trust and safety can be
morally justified, but only in extreme conditions.

5. Openness to a wider community: Researchers need to be

open to the viewpoints of all concerned with the research. This
means not only those in (4) above, but also users of the research
and anyone else to whom it is relevant, eg pupils, teachers,
support staff, parents, LEA advisors, the neighbourhood, policy-
makers and pressure groups. Strategies are needed to listen to
quiet, less powerful, voices.

6. Openness to political groupings and perspectives:

Researchers need to seek out and be open to the viewpoints of
socio-political groups. There are alliances to be made between
groups of people on the basis of, for instance, class, race,
gender, sexuality. They cross-cut alliances between, for
instance, teachers, advisors, children and parents. All these
groups need acknowledgement, support and understanding. This
is a source of the reflexivity mentioned in (7) and (8).

7. Reflexivity about own position and interests. Reflexivity is

needed about the researchers' own socio-political positions and
interests. Argument, anger and risk are all part of the process.
Some of the feelings of risk come about because such
consultation requires researcher(s) to be open to reflexivity
about their own position and interests.

8. Reflexivity about own understanding and values.

Reflexivity is needed about the researchers' own understanding
and values. It is important that the researchers acknowledge
their allegiance to beliefs, values and traditions. Their most
dearly held knowledge and values may be based in these
principles of research for social justice, but these too are
revisable.

9. Perfection in research is not to be found: There is no hope

of doing perfect research. Utopia does not exist. All research
programmes have to be constructed on the run, and against a
background of social and educational change. Time constraints
and compromises are inevitable. By the time the best possible
design, methods and forms of dissemination are found, the
situation will most probably have changed. It follows that all
research must be subject to critique. Good research still needs to
improve. This may mean that there are areas in which a research
programme is excellent, but some other things may be out of its
control altogether.

10. Taking responsibility as part of the wider educational

research community. Researchers must recognize their
responsibilities related to being part of the community of
educational researchers. Good research also requires
researchers to be open to the community of educational and
other researchers, in a process of reflexivity related to dangerous
knowledge and power. Advances always come as a patchwork
or ragbag. There can never be a tidy overarching rationale or
masterplan for improving fairness. Danger has to be
acknowledged. Vigilance is needed. On the other hand,
advances need to be recognised and celebrated.

Griffiths warns that it is important to note that this is not a `pick-

and-mix' list. All principles are interlocking.

Does your work embrace these principles or do you think they

are valid enough to adopt?

Further Work

Caution does need exercising with the use of concepts such as

empowerment and power. Most common assumptions are based
on top down, Us and Them, models where power is something
that an elite or a boss has. This is not to deny that some
groups/individuals do have more power than others but the
tendency is to focus in this one direction. Foucauldian analyses
of power highlight how power is not simply repressive but
productive, that power is everywhere and that alongside power
we will find resistance. The Griffiths (op cit) text gives a fuller
exploration of this and provides associated examples from
research in education.

AN INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvesson, M and Skoldberg, K (2000) Reflexive Methodology:

New Vistas for Qualitative Research, London, Sage

Arbnor, I and Bjerke, B (1997) Methodology for Creating

Business Knowledge, London, Sage

Atkinson, P (1990) The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual

Constructions of Reality, London, Routledge

Barone, T (1995) Persuasive writings, vigilant readings and

reconstructed characters: the paradox of trust in educational
storysharing, in J Hatch and R Wisnieski (Eds) Life History
and Narrative, London, Falmer, pp 63-74

Bartunek, J and Louis, M (1996) Insider/Outsider Team

Research, London, Sage

Belenky, M, Clinchy, B, Goldberger, N and Tarule, J (1986)

Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice
and Mind, New York, Basic Books

Bell, J (1996) Doing Your Research Project, Buckingham,

Open University Press

Birch, M (1998) Re/constructing Research Narratives: Self and

Sociological Identity in Alternative Settings, in J Ribbens and R
Edwards (Eds) Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research:
Public Knowledge and Private Lives, London, Sage, pp 171-
185

Blaxter, L, Hughes, C and Tight, M (1996) How to Research,

Buckingham, Open University Press
Bowling, A (1997) Research Methods in Health:
Investigating Health and Health Services, Buckingham, Open
University Press

Bryman, A (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research,

London, Routledge

Burns, R (2000) Introduction to Research Methods, London,

Sage

Butler, J (1990) Feminism and the Subversion of Identity,

New York, Routledge

Coffey, A (1999) The Ethnographic Self, London, Sage

Coffey, A and Atkinson, P (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative

Data Analysis: Complementary Strategies, Thousand Oaks
(Calif), Sage

Crotty, M (1998) The Foundations of Social Research:

Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, London,
Sage

Denscombe, M (1998) The Good Research Guide: for small

scale social research projects, Buckingham, Open University
Press

Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y (Eds) (1994) Handbook of

Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks (Calif), Sage

Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y (Eds) (1998) The Landscape of

Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, Thousand Oaks
(Calif), Sage

Ellis, C and Bochner, A (Eds) (1996) Composing

Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing,
Walnut Creek, Altmira Press

Ely, M with Anzul, M, Friedman, T, Garner, D and Steinmetz,

A (1991) Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles,
London, Falmer

Fine, M (1998) Working the Hyphens: Reinventing Self and

Other in Qualitative Research, in N Denzin and Y Lincoln (Eds)
The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks
(Calif), Sage, pp 130-155

Flick, U (1998) An Introduction to Qualitative Research,

London, Sage

Francis, B, Robson, J and Read, B (2000) Inscriptions of

Gender: Gendered Patterns in Undergraduate Writing and
First Degree Award, Paper presented at Feminist Pedagogy
Conference, University of Liverpool

Gore, J (1992) What We Can Do For You! What Can `We' Do

For `You'? Struggling over Empowerment in Critical and
Feminist Pedagogy, in C Luke and J Gore (Eds) Feminisms and
Critical Pedagogy, New York, Routledge, pp 54-73

Griffiths, M (1998) Educational Research for Social Justice:

Getting off the Fence, Buckingham, Open University Press

Guba, E and Lincoln, Y (1994) Competing Paradigms in

Qualitative Research, in N Denzin and Y Lincoln (Eds)
Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks (Calif),
Sage, pp 105-117

Hammersley, M (1989) The Dilemma of the Qualitative

Method, London, Routledge

Harding, S (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca

(HY) Cornell University Press

Harrison, R (1992) Employee Development, London, IPD

Hatch, J and Wisnieski, R (Eds) Life History and Narrative,

London, Falmer
Hughes, J (1990) The Philosophy of Social Research, London,
Longman

Hughes, C (1992) A Stranger in the House: Researching the

Stepfamily, in R Burgess (Ed) Learning about Fieldwork:
Studies in Qualitative Methodology, London, JAI Press, Vol
3, pp 33-62

Hughes, C (1999a) Learning to be intellectually insecure: the

dis/empowering effects of reflexive practice, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1, 4, pp 281-296

Hughes, C (1999b) The Woman Manager: How Do We Know

Her? Paper presented at the Department of Management
Seminar, University of Keele

Jayratne, T (1993) The value of quantitative methodology for

feminist research, in M Hammersley (Ed) Social Research:
Philosophy, Politics and Practice, London, Sage

Lather, P (1992) Post-critical Pedagogies: A Feminist Reading,

in C Luke and J Gore (Eds) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy,
New York, Routledge, pp 120-137

McPherson, D (1996) Order out of Chaos: The

Autobiographical Works of Maya Angelou, London, Virago

Maynard, M and Purvis, J (Eds) (1994) Researching Women's

Lives from a Feminist Perspective, London, Taylor and
Francis

Mayo, A and Lank, E (1994) The Power of Learning: A Guide

to Gaining Competitive Advantage, London, IPD

Mason, J (1996) Qualitative Researching, London, Sage

Morgan, D (1986/1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative

Research, London, Sage
Oakley, J (1981) Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in
Terms, in H Roberts (Ed) Doing Feminist Research, London,
RKP, pp 30-61

Oleson, V, Droes, N, Hatton, D, Chico, N and Schatzman, L

(1994) Anlayzing Together: Recollections of a Team Approach,
in A Bryman and R Burgess (Eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data,
London, Routledge, pp 111-128

Punch, K (1998) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitatie

and Qualitative Approaches, London, Sage

Rath (1999) Getting Smarter, Coventry, Department of

Continuing Education, University of Warwick (unpublished
PhD)

Richardson, L (1992) The Consequences of Poetic

Representation: Writing the Other, Rewriting the Self, in C Ellis
and M Flaherty (Eds) Investigating Subjectivity: Research on
Lived Experience, Newbury Park (Calif), Sage, pp 125-140

Ribbens, J and Edwards, R (Eds) (1998) Feminist Dilemmas in

Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives,
London, Sage

Scheurich, J (1997) Research Method in the Postmodern,

London, Falmer

Skeggs, B (1997) Formations of Class and Gender, London,

Sage

Slim, H and Thompson, P (1993) Listening for a Change:

Oral Testimony and Development, London, Panos

Smith, M (1998) Social Science in Question, London,

Sage/Open University

Stanley, L (1990) A Referral was made: behind the scenes

during the creation of a Social Services Department `elderly'
statistic, in L Stanley (Ed) Feminist Praxis, London, Routledge

Stronach, I and MacLure, M (1997) Educational Research

Undone: The Postmodern Embrace, Buckingham, Open
University Press

Steyaert, C and Bouwen, R (1994) Group Methods of

Organizational Analysis, in C Cassell and G Symon (Eds)
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A
Practical Guide, London, Sage, pp 123-146

Weiler, K (1995) Freire and a Feminist Pedagogy of Difference,

in H Holland and M Blair with S Sheldon (Eds) Debates and
Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy, Philadelphia
(PA), Multilingual Matters/Open Univeristy, pp 23-44

Wilson, V (1997) Focus Groups: A Useful Qualitative Method

for Educational Research? British Educational Research
Journal, 23, 2, pp 209-224

Useful Internet Sites

CAQDAS Networking Project: set up in conjunction with

ESRC to disseminate an understanding of the practical skills
needed to use software to facilitate qualitative data analysis and
to encourage debate about methodological and epistemological
issues raised by the use of such software.
http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/

Economic and Social Research Council: to keep up to date

with developments and potential websites for both qualitative
and quantitative methods. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/

Sociological Research Online: an on-line journal.

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/