184 BOOK REVIEWS
methodological, theoretical, and ethical issues that ac-
company this innovation in evaluation. In essence, the
collection addresses the most salient factors in this
adaptation process. The text demands not “immersion”
(to use Bank’s terminology), but careful study and at-
tention to the issues and experiences discussed by these
authors.
Bank attempts a “personal reorga~zation” of the
text and proceeds to evaluate the book within the con-
fines of this new, but undefined, format. Bank asks
and answers her own questions. These questions spring
from “long conversations” with “a bona fide and well
trained ethnographer,” as well as from Bank’s own
personal search for “tips and techniques.” I was de-
lighted to note that despite her distortion of the text’s
structure, Bank found much material to answer her
questions. She offers a “distilled” list of “insights, sug-
gestions, examples, and aphorisms . . . for the novice in
fieldwork,” at the end of her discussion. I am indebted
to her for culling these “how-to-do-it” tips from the
text. Her efforts, however, will not speak to those
scholars, students, and policymakers who have more
than a novice’s interest or experience in fieldwork and
evaluation.
Bank would “like to see a more systematic com-
parison between the various perspectives in evaluation
and ethnography”, an interesting topic, but not the
focus of this book. I might recommend a new collec-
tion, which may be closer to the model she envisions:
Educational Evaluation: Ethnography in Theory,
Practice, and Politics, Fetterman, D. M. and M. A.
Pitman (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 1986). This second
collection presents the next stage in the evolution of
this disciplin~y endeavor and may anticipate her
interests.
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, by Mathew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984. 263 pages.
Reviewer: Thomas A. Schwandt
“You know what you display” (p. 22) is the theme
adopted by Miles and Huberman in their educating
and sometimes irritating discussion of analyzing
qualitative data. “Beware of Greek’s bearing gifts” is
an adage I think applies equally well to this book, but
more on that later.
The five chapters which constitute the meat of the
book are bounded by an interesting introduction in
which the authors explain their methodological point
of view and the nature of the book and by a very brief
(2 pages) set of concluding remarks where they share
some general pointers on data analysis. Within these
boundaries Miles and Huberman discuss the results of
their efforts of “casting about” for “manageable and
straightforward methods for analyzing qualitative
data. They present 49 specific methods in a standard-
The collection in hand, however, presents the art
and science of what ethnographers actually do in prac-
tice. A thorough review would have addressed the sig-
nificance of using a Geertzian approach to discuss
ethnography’s contribution to evaluation and noted
the value of using a methods chapter as a lens through
which to view the chapters. Moreover, the multilevel
and multidimension~ model used in one of the collec-
tion’s more significant national ethnographic evalua-
tions, as well as the subject of programmatic and pol-
icy recommendations, would have been discussed. A
critical reviewer would ask about the validity and re-
liability of the techniques used, the utility of the con-
cept of culture on the program and evaluation project
levels, the potentially contradictory nature of the term
ethnographic evaluation, the conceptual crossroad of
methodology and ethics-including “guilty knowledge
and dirty hands”, the reflective nature of the endeaver
for fieldworkers (across disciplines), and the issue of
whether formalization negates ethnographicness. A
technically informed reviewer would penetrate to more
complex questions such as the role of cognitive theory
bias in ethnographic evaluation today or the relative
merits of continuous versus non-continuous fieldwork
in one’s own culture. Bank’s discussion leaves one with
the sense that the reviewer is not in touch with either
the issues or the people involved in this enterprise. She
left unasked both surface and substantial questions.
The review provided insufficient insight into context
or sensitivity to central issues. An informed book re-
view, however, is itself a scholarly contribution that
should be evaluated as thoroughly and responsibly as
any other analytical endeavor.
ized format: analysis problem (the problem for which
the method is a proposed solution), description, il-
lustration (including how to build the display and enter
and analyze the data), variations on the method, ad-
vice on use, and time required. One hundred charts
and figures illustrate the methods. A field study of
school improvement supplies the qualitative data used
in the illustrations and discussions.
Chapter 2 begins by explaining the need for
pr~tructured research design before starting a field
study. The authors briefly discuss the merits of “induc-
tive,” “loosely designed, ” “emergent” approaches ver-
sus “tight, ” “prestructured” designs. They state that
their “stance lies off center, toward the structured end”
of the continuum of designs, and they build a case ac-
cordingly. Their method of focusing and bounding the
 BOOK REVIEWS
collection of qualitative data is a four-stage process
which includes building a conceptual framework, for-
mulating research questions, sampling, and developing
instrumentation.
The conceptual framework is a graphic illustration
of the “key factors or variables” to be studied. In this
way the researcher labels probable “bins” of discrete
events and behaviors and achieves “some clarity of
thought about their interrelationships” (p. 28). Re-
search questions arise from the relationships stipulated
in the conceptual framework. Through an iterative
process the researcher generates general research ques-
tions as a first step toward “operationalizing” the con-
ceptual framework. These first two stages aid in focus-
ing data collection. The third stage, sampling, actually
sets boundaries for data gathering. Here, the researcher
decides which settings, actors, events, and processes to
sample in order to answer the research questions. Ex-
plicit sampling decisions are necessary to avoid the pit-
falls of “indiscriminate, vacuum-cleanerlike collection
of every datum; accumulation of far more information
than there will be time to analyze; and detours into. . .
blind alleys” (p. 37.).
Given a sampling frame, decisions must be made
about instrumentation. Miles and Huberman briefly
review arguments for and against the development of
well-structured instruments prior to entering the field.
They adopt an “it depends” stance based on choices the
researcher makes between the following sets of param-
eters: exploratory versus confirmatory studies, single-
site versus multiple-site studies; and, site-specific ver-
sus cross-site studies. They maintain that in each pair
of choices listed above, the former option typically
calls for less front-end preparation of instrumentation
than the latter. An excerpt from an interview guide is
provided as an illustration of prior instrumentation.
Throughout this discussion of the their four-stage re-
search planning process, the authors emphasize the
need for revision and iteration.
Chapter 3 presents a set of 12 methods useful for
analyzing data during the process of collection. The
authors assume that the data to be analyzed (e.g., field
notes) have already been converted to “write-ups” that
“are intelligible to anyone, not just the fieldworker”
(p. 50). The methods are presented in order of early to
late in data collection and from simple to complex.
They range from forms for recording a field contact
and summarizing a document to procedures for pre-
paring codes and doing coding. The authors discuss
descriptive codes for summarizing data and “pattern
codes” for identifying patterns, themes, or overarching
constructs. Creating and revising codes and double-
coding to achieve reliability are explained. This chap-
ter also discusses the use of “reflexive” and “marginal”
remarks in writing up field notes and conceptual memos
for theorizing about variables and their relationships.
185
Finally forms for a site-analysis meeting (a meeting of
field workers to summarize the current status of events
at the site) and an interim site summary (a synthesis of
what the researcher knows about the site) are illustrated
and explained. The latter is described as “the first at-
tempt to derive a coherent account of the site” (p. 75).
Chapters 4 and 5 (about half of the book) discuss
methods for analysing data from a single site and from
multiple sites, respectively. All of the methods involve
various strategies for displaying data in charts, tables,
checklists, matrics, or figures. The authors define “dis-
play” as a “spatial format that presents information
systematically to the user.” Data entered into displays
may be “short blocks of texts, quotes, phrases, ratings,
abbreviations, symbolic figures” derived from the coded
field note writeups.
The authors claim that displays enhance the chances
of drawing and verifying valid conclusions from quali-
tative data. They argue that displays are superior to
narrative text as a tool of analysis. In their view, narra-
tive text, “is an extremely weak and cumbersome form
of display,” and “it is hard on analysts” because it is
“dispersed, ” “sequential rather than simultaneous,”
“usually only vaguely ordered, and it can get monoto-
nous and overloading” (p. 79). According to the au-
thors, narrative text is not only hard on analysts, but
also cumbersome for readers of case studies.
Taking their cue from data displays produced by
statistical packages such as SPSS, the authors generate
various set-ups for presenting qualitative data. In
Chapter 4, 19 methods are presented in order of simple
to complex and from descriptive to explanatory. A
context chart (somewhat akin to an organization
chart) and a checklist matrix are simple devices used
for description. Ordering or arranging data in some
systematic way is made possible by time-ordered, role-
ordered (roles of key players at the field site), and
conceptually-clustered matrices. To facilitate explana-
tion the analyst might prepare an effects or site-
dynamics matrix, an event listing, or, ultimately, a
causal network. Causal networks are defined as “a
visual rendering of the most important independent
and dependent variables in a field study and of the
relationships between them” (p. 132). Chapter 5 builds
upon the previous chapter to show how displays can be
constructed using data from multiple field sites. Eigh-
teen methods for conducting cross-site synthesis are il-
lustrated. Me&-matrices (called “monster dogs” by the
authors) and various types of site-ordered, variable
ordered, and effect-ordered matrices are examined.
The chapter concludes with a relatively lengthy (20
pages) discussion and illustration of causal modeling
and cross-site causal networking of critical variables.
Chapter 6, only four pages long, summarizes key
points for building displays, entering data into display
cells, and analyzing that data. Chapter 7 discusses
186 BOOK REVIEWS
specific tactics for drawing and verifying conclusions
from qualitative data displays. The authors first dis-
cuss 12 tactics for generating meaning including,
among others, counting, noting patterns and themes,
making metaphors, factoring, finding intervening
variables, and building a logical chain of evidence.
These are followed by 12 tactics for confirming con-
clusions including, checking for representativeness and
researcher effects, ruling out rival hypotheses and
spurious relations, triangulating, and getting feedback
from informants. The chapter concludes with a brief
discussion of documenting and auditing the procedures
of a field study.
This book is likely to be well-received by quan-
titative researchers who find themselves having to cope
with qualitative data. The discussion of the four-stage
research process will feel as comfortable as an old
shoe, and the attempt to find analogies to computer-
generated data displays that will work with qualitative
data will be gratifying. Putting words and coded sym-
bols rather than numbers into display cells won’t ap-
pear to be such an odd idea. Likewise researchers and
evaluators schooled in the positivist/experimentalist
tradition will find the idiom of the book consoling:
The language of their paradigm (“independent and de-
pendent variables, ” “intervening variables,” “replicat-
ing,” “rival explanations,” “outliers,” sampling
frame,” “ representativeness,” etc.) pervades the book.
The authors admit that “we think of ourselves as logi-
cal positivists who recognize and try to atone for the
limitations of that approach” (p. 19). Clearly this is a
book written about qualitative analysis from the per-
spective of the quantitative tradition.
It should also be noted that this book promotes the
pragmatic “primacy of method” solution to the debate
between quantitative and qualitative research tradi-
tions. It reflects a viewpoint which the authors pre-
viously elaborated (Miles & Huberman, 1984), namely,
that the debate between different epistemological posi-
tions is best left to philosophers of science and to those
methodologists with a philosophical bent. In this
sourcebook the authors foster this point of view by
arguing that “any method that works is grist for our
mill regardless of its antecedents” (p. 17).
The language and approach that pleases proponents
of one tradition will no doubt peeve supporters and
believers of another. The authors admit as much, al-
though I believe they think of themselves as being a bit
more ecumenical than they actually are. For example,
one of the cardinal principles distinguishing the two
traditions is the primacy of subject matter versus the
primacy of method (Diesing, 1971). In the qualitative/
ethnographic/naturalistic tradition, researchers are
admonished to first be acted upon by the subject mat-
ter. Further, methods are to be chosen in view of their
compatibility with the subject matter under investiga-
tion and not in view of their capacity to meet require-
ments of scientific investigation. Qualitative Data
Analysis reveals the primacy of method approach on
virtually every page. Despite these and similar errors
which caution the reader to beware of Greeks bearing
gifts, I believe that the sourcebook itself provides
much grist for the qualitative researcher’s methodolog-
ical mill. If quaIitative researchers looking for better
ways of displaying information can hold their dis-
pleasure with the book’s language and philosophy in
abeyance long enough to inspect the suggestions that
Miles and Huberman offer, I beIieve that they also will
find much of value in this sourcebook. I found myself
in the latter category, so I know whereof I speak.
These caveats not withstanding, the book is not with-
out its irritants, and I will devote the remainder of this
review to discussing the major and minor annoyances.
Under major irritants I would classify the following
observations. First, Miles and Huberman frequently
adopt a very patronizing tone toward practitioners of
qualitative/naturalistic approaches and their method-
ologies. They refer to themselves as “savvy practi-
tioners” (p. 48) and leave the reader with the implica-
tion that many who practice qualitative research are
not. Consider the following two passages:
So, unlike some schools within social phenomenology, we
consider it important to evolve a set of valid and verifiable
methods for capturing these social relationships with their
causes (p. 20)
Our stance involves orderliness. There are many research-
ers who prefer intuitive, relaxed, nonobsessive, voyages
through their data, and we wish them well. But for 11.x.. .
thoroughness and explicitness are quite paramount. (p. 20)
In the passages above, I put the emphases where I
felt it when reading. I found Miles and Huberman’s
argument that we need a clearer understanding of the
process of qualitative data analysis appealing. But I
think that the case for clarity is taken aback by this
sort of us versus them tactic. Second, the authors tend
to bear false witness against their colleagues, Consider
the following passage:
Methodologi~ly, our beef is with the somewhat magical
approach to the analysis of qualitative data advocated on
the grounds that such an approach is idiosyncratic, in-
communicable and artistic and that only those who have
been fully socialized and apprenticed in its practice can
claim to comment upon it. (p. 20)
“Wizards and magicians we ain’t!,” is the response
this passage invoked from me. I resent being cast as an
alchemist, and I know of no self-respecting qualitative
researcher who would make a claim such as is presented
here. A third major irritant of this sourcebook was the
labeling scheme employed to identify illustrations.
 BOOK
Often I was bewildered by the scheme, searching for
references in the text to Chart 13b or Box 1II.A.a.
Minor irritations included a significant number of
proofreading errors, poorly drawn charts, charts
which weren’t typeset, and charts with print so small
that it discouraged perusal. Often, I thought that if the
chart in question was being proposed as a more palat-
able alternative to narrative displays, then the authors
must be pulling my leg. Since displays were the theme
of the book, one would expect that more attention
REFERENCES
DIESING, P. (1971). Parterns of discxwery in the sociai sciences.
Chicago: Aldine.
REVIEWS I87
would be paid to their display! Lastly, there were an-
noying errors in the reference list. For example, a
reference to one of the authors’ previous publications
was nowhere to be found in the bibliography.
Finally, I would recommend this sourcebook as an
addition to educational research courses, with the
caveat that it be an advanced course. Prior knowledge
of epistemological traditions and research approaches
is necessary to fully appreciate its contribution to the
methodological literature.
MILES, M. B. & HUBERMAN, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid mean-
ing from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational
Researcher, 13, 20-30.