. . . . . . .

,THE SAGE HANDBCXJK OF

....__SE:ARCH
THIRD EDITION

EDI1DRS

NORMAN K. DENZIN
University af Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

YVONNA S. LINCOLN
Texas A&M University

t.\SAGE Publications
~ Thousa,d Oaks• London• \lew Del,1
Copyrigh· 2005 by n.1 bl:catio:1s, Inc
All rights reserved, J\:o part o:· this book may be reproduced or i:tilized in anr form or by any mea 11,,
electronic or mechankal, ,nduding photo.:opying, recording, or by any inlnrmatmn ,tmagc ,m<l
ret:ieval systct:1, without permission in writing from foe publisher,
For informatioJJ:
?uhl'.:allo1s, Inc,
Teller Road
1'housand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: ordc:@sagepdu:om
Sage Publications Ltd,
1 01:ve,'t; Yard
City Rold
London £Cl Y l SI'
United Kir:gdom
Publirntious India Pvt. Ltd,
B-42, P,mchshcd 1'11dav2
Post !lox 4 I09
:--ew Dd:1i I IO 017 India

Printed in United States of Amrrka.

Th is hook is printed on acid free p,iper,

The SAGE handbook of quallrativc research/ edited by Nomrnn K, Dt·nzin,

):\•onna S.Lincoh:,-3rd ed.
p.nL
Rev, ed, of: Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. d(lOO,
Ir.eludes biblkgrnphical refr·rcnces and index,
ISBN 0-76' (doth)
I Sodnl sci,en:c~--llese·arch I, Dcrizi11, Sorman K, II. Li:iwln, Yvonna S,
UL Har:dbook of q ualitat iv,· rcsearc:i,
ll62. H245.5 2005
UOIA'2-dc22

2004026085

05 06 07 01:\ 09 IO 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l

A,·q,;ir!11g Ediwr: U,a Cue\'as :ihaw

.4w:,ciare Edit11r: Margo Crouppen
Pr.ject Editor: L1audia A, H:iffinan
CoP,v EdiJ'ors: D. ), Peck, J,idy 'iclhorst, and A,), Sobczak
'Jyp!!s£:!ter: C&M Digitals (11\ Ltd,
!ndexer: Kathlee:1 Paparchon Iis
Ravi llalasuriya
 PREFACE
T
his third edition of the Handbook of
Qua! itative Research, like the second
ed:tion. is virtually a new volume. Nearly
two-thirds of the authors in this edition are new
contributors. Indeed. this editio:i indudes 42 new
chapters, authors, and/or :oa'Jthors. Among the
;hapter topics in tl:is editioi:, 16 are totally new,
indudinJ! .:ontribu:ions on indigenous inqoiry,
decolonizing methodologies, critical ed:no-
graphy, critical humanism and queer theory,
perforrr,ance ethnography, narrative inquiry,
arts-based inquiry, onlinr ethnography, analytic
methodologies, Foucault's methodologies. talk
and text, focus g:uups and critical pedagogy,
relativism, cri:eria and politics, tne poetics of
place, cultural and investigative pnetics, quali-
tative evaluation and social policy, social
science im1uiry in the new millennhm, and an
anthropology of the co1:1emporary. All return-
ing authors have either suhstantially revised
their original contributions or haw produced
chapters that are completely new.
This tr.itd edition of the Handbook af Quali
:111i1'!! Rese,;rd; .:ontinues where the second edition
ended, Over the past quarter century, a quiet
:nethodologica! revolution has been occurring in
:he social sciences; a blurring of ,lisdplinary
boundari.:s is taking place. The social and po:icy
sciences and the hwnanities are dra,1'ing d01,er
toge:1:er in a mutual focus on an interpretive,
qualitative apj>roach to research and theory. These
are not new trends, but the extent to whicl:
"qualitative revolution" is taking over the social
sciences an<l related professional fields is nothing
short of amazing. The overwhelming:y positive
reactions to the first and second edit:cms of the
Handliook affirm 11:ese observations, We continue
to be astonished at tl1e ren~ption the ?tevious
editions have received. Researchers and teachers
alike have fou::id useful materials in them from
which to teach and laur.ch new inqr.iries.
Not surpris:ngly, however, this quiet revnlutior.
has been met by resistance, which we discuss
in Chapter I, our introduction to this edition.
Needless lo say, tl:is resistance grows out of neo•
conservative discourses (e,g., the No Cl:ild Left
Behind Act) and the recen, report published by
the National Research Coarn::il (see Feuer, Towne,
& Shavelson, 2002), whkh have appropriated
neopos!tivist, so-a!Jed evidence-based e?iste-
mologies. Leaders of this move:nent assert tha:
qualitative research is nonscientific, should no:
receive federal funds, and is of li;tle value the
social policy arena (see Lincoln & Cannella, 2004).
There continue to be r:1Ultl?le social science
and humanities audiences for this Handbook:
graduate students who wa:tt to do :earr. how to do
qualitative research, interested faculty hoping to
become better i:r:formed about the field, indhidu-
als working ;n policy settings who understand the
value of qualitativr research n:ethodolOj,!ies and
want to learn about the larest devc!oprr.ents in the
field, and faccity who are experts in one or mo:e
areas covered the Handbook but who also wont
JI ix
 CONTENTS

Preface ix
lVorman K. Uenzin and Y,,umui S Lincoln

L Inlroduction: The Disdp: ine ar:d Praclic.: of (,!nalit,dve Research

Ncrman K. Denzin and Yvorm11 S. Lincofn

PART I: LOCATl'.'JG THE FIELD 33

2. Reform of 1t.e Social and of Universitie~ ThroJgh Ac;iun Rcsea:-cl: 43
Drivya'd f. Creer.wood and Mor/en Levin
Co:n rositional Studies, in T¥10 Parts:
Critical Theoriz:ng ar.d Analysi.$ on Sodnl (1:-t)Justke
Michelle Fim: arid Lois lVeis
t On 'fr'cky (round: Researching the Native in 6;: of Uncertah:ty 85
Und11 T;ih fwui 8mith
5. r:-eeing Ourselves from Keocolonial Dmninalior: in Research:
A Kaupi!pa Maori Approach to Creatir.g Knowledge 109
Russell Bishop
6. Ethics and Pulilies io Qualitative Res ea rel: 139
Cliftiml Christian,
7. Instirntional Review Boards aml Mcthudologkal Conservatism:
The Challenge to and fro:n Phenomenological P"radigms 165
frow1u S. Linwln

PART H: PARADIGMS At>;D PERSPECTIVES IN CO!i!TENTIOK 183

It Paradig:natic Contruversies, Cuntradictlons, and Emerging Confluence, 191
Egon G. G,iba arid )'vcmia S. Linmln
9. Critical Ethnography: The Politics Collaboration 217
Douglas Foley and Angela Vakn:mela
IC. Earl1• Millennial Femin:st Qualitative Rescan·h: Challenges a:id Comuurs 2.l5
Virginia Olesen
11. The Moral Activist Role of Critical Race Theory Scholarship
Gloria Ladson-Billings and Jamel Donnor
12. Rethinking Critical Theory ar:d Qualitat:ve Research 303
foe L. Kincheloe and Peter McLaren
ll Methodologies for Cultural Studies: An Integrative Approach 343
Paula Saukko
14. Critical 1-lnman :sm and Queer Theory: Living With the Tensions 357
Plummer

PART HI: STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY 375

15. Tl:e Practice anc Politics of Funded Qualitatve Research 387
Juiianm: Cheek
16. Performance Ethnograpl:y: The Reenacting a:id Inciting of Culture 4: J
Bryant Keith Alexander
Q;u1litative Case Studies 443
Rubert E. Stake
Ht The Observation of Participation anc the Ernerge:ice of Public Ethnugraphy 467
Barbara Thdlock
I9. Interpretive Practice and Social Action 483
James A. Holstein and Jaber E Gubrium
20. Gruunded Theory in the 21st Century:
Applications for Advancing Social Justke Studies 507
Kathy Charmaz
21. Cri:ical Ethnogra;:ihy as Street Performance:
Rellections o~ Home, Murder, and Justice 537
D. Soyin i .\1adi5on
22. Testimmiio, Subalternity, and Narrative Authority 547
John Beverley
P'..rtidpatory Action Research:
Commc:nkative Action and the Public Sphere 559
Stephen Kemmi:; and Robin Mc'Iilggart
Clinical Research 605
William L. Miller and Benjamin f: Crabtree

PART IV: METHODS OF COLLECTING

AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS 641
Narrative Inquiry: ~lultiple Len~es, Approaches, Vokes 651
Simm Chase
26. Art,• Based lnqcir y: Performing Revolutionary Pedagogy 681
Susan Finley
l7, ·1 l:e Intervie1v: From Nrutral Stance to Political lnvolvc:nerit 695
Andrea Fontana aiul James H. Frey
28. Recontextualizing Observation: Elhnograpl:v,
Pedagog}', and be Prospects for a Progres~ive Polit'cal Agenda 729
Mich<1el \i Angrosino
What's New Visually? 747
Dottgli,s Harper
30. Autoetlu:ography: Makir:g the t1crsm:al Poli tic al 'l(;J
S1i.cy Halman Janes
31. The Methods, Politics, and Ethics of Representation in Onl be Ethnogrn?hY 793
Armette i'l. Mllrkham
Amdyfa: Perspectives 821
Paul lllki,mm and Sam Ddamoni
Fo;icault's Methodologies: Archcaology and Grncalugy 841
Jame.1 Joseph Schei.rich and K"thryn Rell McKenzie
34. Anayzing Tai~ a:.d Text 869
Anssi Plm1kJlii
35. Poca, Groups: Strategic Articulation~ of Pdagogy, P,;litks, ai,d [nqui~y 887
George Kambtm/L< ,rnd /Ji milriadi5

PART V: THE ART i\~D PRACTICES Of

INTERPRETATION, EVALUATION, ANl> PRESEKTATION 909
36. Relativism, Criteria, aud Poli:ics 9:5
John K. Smith and Phi! !lodkirmm
Emane' ;Jc :o~v Discourses the Et:iics and i'olitics of Inttr,"rctation 933
' '
Norimm f( lhmzin

38. Writi:ig: A Method lnquiry YSY

L1wref .r.?ic!,ardsm, 1wd 1::'lizul,eth Adams St. Pierre
39. Poetics tor J Planet:Discoursc o:, Some Proh:e1:1s of Being-in-Place 979
lv.m Brady
40. L1ltura: Poc,is; The Gcncrativity of E:ncrgent T'lings 1027
Kathleen Stewart
'~l\ria in ·;·ime of War": liwest:gative Poetry and the Politics of'!Vitnessing 1043
Stephm J, Hartnett and Jeremy D. Enge/;
42. Q,ialitative Evaluation and Changing Social Jlol icy 1069
ErueJt R. House

PART VI: THE FUTURE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 1083

43. Af:c:1h11·Jgh:: On Writing; On Writing Suciology 1089
lygm:mt Bauman
44. Refunctioning Ethnography:
The Challenge of an Anthropology of the Contemporary 1099
Douglas R. Holmes and George E. Marcus

Epilogue: The Eighth and Ninth Moments-Qualitative

Research in/and the Fractured Future 1115
Yvonna S. Lincoln and Norman K. Denzin
Author Index 1127
Subject Index 1161
About the Editors 1197

About the Contributors II99

x III IIANTllJOOK Of QUALfl:\TTVt: RESEARCH
to be informec about ,he most recem devdopmen:s
ii: the field. We never imaginec these audiences
would be so large. Kor did we imagine that the
flandbook would become a text u~1::d ir: i:nder-
gracuate and graduate research methods courses,
but it did. In 2003, we created from the Handbook's
second edition three :iew paperback volumes
for ,'.assmom use: The Lcmd,cape r,j Qu;..iitative
Research. Strategie.; f;j Qualitati1•e fn,iuiry. am:l
Collecting and lnterpreling Qualitati'.Jt; Materials.
Quali1ati\!e inquiry, amn:1g other friings, is the
nan~c for a "refo,mist :uovemenl foat brgan rn
the early 1970~ in the academy" (Sc:iwandt, :moo,
p. 11'19). :he interpretive and critical paradigms, :n
!heir :nnlt•?k forms, are centra: to this m; )Vemer:t.
lndeed, this muvcm,mt rncompasses multi?lc p,lr-
adigmatic for,nulatioi:s. It a:so indudes con:plex
epistemological rnd ;:-ll:kal criticisms of lrndi·
lional soda! science research, The movement 110w
has its own journals,scientlfk a,sociatittns, confer-
mcrs, annual workshops, aru: faculty posiliuns.
The transformat:ons in be field of qualitative
research that wert' taking place in tl:e early J 99(h
co:nir.ued to gain momt:ntum a;; the decade
1:nfo!ded, Many scholars began tu judge the days
uf value, free inquiry based on a God's-eye view
o: redity to be .:wer, Today many agree that all
inqui:y :, moral and pul'ticaL By .:entury\ rnd,
few looked back with skeptk:sm on the narrative
turn. Tl:e turn had been taken, and rhal was all
there- was to say about i,, Many ha,•e now told
their t,iles from the fielc. l'urtl:er, 1oday we
luow that :nen and won,e:i write cul ai re diffrr•
ently, and Iha: writing itself is not a:1 i;moceut
praclice.
Experi meritel, reflex:,e ways of wri ;ing first-
person e:h1mgra11hic are- r.ow o:immonplacc.
Critical personal :1a rratives have he come a cc 1:
tral foature of counterh(:gemonic de.;olonizing
methodologies (Mt::ua & Swadrner, 2004, p. 16 l.
Sociologists, ilnlhropologists, and educators con-
:i 11ue to explure new ways of mmonsing ethnog-
raphy, writing fictio:1, drama, performance :exts,
and ethnographic pocir,: Social ,c"""'·"' io:ir:ials
arc holding fict:011 contests. Civ'c jor;rn,1l:s111 is
shaping calls for a d vk or pub: i ~, ethnogiaphy,
anJ cui aira! c·iticism is now accepted pm ct ice,
lbday there is a orcssir,g need to show hnw the
practices qualitative restarch can he:;:i ci:anJl.l:
11:e wnr;d :n positive :io al the brg'nning
o( 2 bl cent,J ry it is necessary to rcc·1gal(r
the pro:nise of qua:itative :-e~eard'. as a of
radical democratic ;m1ctke {Pe,hkiu, 1993;. In
our letter inviting authors to contribut;; to :h·s
volume, we stated:
rhis will he the third ger.ernfa1r. of the ha,1d!>011k.
The first edition established the that q;alitative
research had cmne as a field, .. ,;;cl/d t,
be t,;!w11 seriously. The se.:cmJ edil ion ~aid w<:
10 shnw how <;ualilali ve rcstard1 can ·k t:,ed :o
address of sodul justke. ~ow, in t:1c lhird
edition, we want tn ,w ewn more explici: ciolitically.
We agree with Ginnk Olesen /20f10, 1, 21;), :s
not enough'.'' \'Ve want you to hclp :eJd tbc v;ay.
How do we move the =·~treat ge ... eration o[ aitkal,
in!crprttive thought and inquiry be}'Ond rar,c lo
progressive p,~itka! action. to theory anc :nerhod
th,11 mn nee! politics, pedagogy, mid ethics lo action
in worltl? We wan, the t'tird edition :" cair,
,[mditativc inqulry well ::itn the n<"xt ,c:,lury. We
want the new edition to advance a demorrn:ic pm•
jecl mmmi!!ed re S()c:a] Ju~!ic< i11 an di(!' ,{~,:cer-
tainty. Al the same time, \'ie wam authors who can
write ch,p!ern that wirJ dddress practkal. m11mte
of impJ,,mentation w:~'le cri1i,1uing the tld:'
and m~pping key current and c:nerg<'nl thcmEs,
debates, dcvelop::,cnt,,
This is 1:1<' agenda nf this thirJ edition, 10 ~lmw
how scholors can use :he disco,rscs of
re~earch to hdp create imagir.~ a free demM·
society. Eacho: the chq1te1·s it1 th:, \'Obmc is
defined by these commitnents, in rmt way or
another.
Ill 1111 11!1
\Ve ask of a handbook that i: do mar.y things,
A handbook, ideally, should represent ;1 dfa:illa-
tion of the knowledge of a fidd; it should be a
bern:hmark vulllme that syntnesizes an existing
'.itcraturc, helping to define and shape lhe present
and fiH11rr of that di~dplinc, A h:mdboo,: charts
the past, the present, .and the rutu:-e of the dis-
courses at hand. rt rcprese:,ts the besr ·.hlnk,
ing of 1i1e very bcsl ~d:olars i:1 the world, It is

reflexive, co:nprehensive, dialog:cal, accessible. It
is a.1tho:itative and det:nitivc. Its subject matter is
dearly defined. Its ac.tlmrs wor~ with in a shared
framework. [ts autl:nrs and ed:nirs seek to impose
order on a field and a discipline, y('I they respect
and attempt to honor dive,sity across disciplinary
and paradigmatic pers pcctives.
A ha:idbook is more than a review of the liter•
ature. It speaks to graduate students, to estab·
lished scholars, m:d to scholars w'lo ·wish to learn
about the field. It includes infor:nation useful for
hands-on re~earch, It shows scholars how they rnn
move 'rom ideas to i;1qlli ry, iom inquiry to
pretation, from interpretation to :>raxis, to action
:n the world. It :ocates its project with i tl larger
dibdplinary historical forn:a:ions. It takes n
stai:d on social ji:stke issu~,-it is not just abm::
pure scholarnh ip. lt is humble. It is ind isuensa':,lc.
Tl:ese understandings orga:iized fae first and
second edit'.ons of :hi:; Hane/book. In metaphoric
terms, :f you were to take or:e book on qualitative
res1:a:ch with you to a desert island (or choose
one book to read before a comprehensive gradu ·
a:c examir.ation), that book would 'le a hand-
book. In the spring and summer of 2002 we
returned to this mandate, askir:g oursel~es how
bes: to map what had r:appened :n tbe field sin.:e
the fl rst and second editions Wl:'.ff published.
II. THE "F:i:Ln"
QUALi l'I\.TIVE RmmA,{CH
Our choice of a pr:otograph of fac Rrooklyn Bridge
for the cover uf the semnd edition was deliberate.
Like that complex structure, in that edition as
'Nell as this, the 1landbook bridges the new and the
ok'. It joins multiple ir:terpretive mmmunities; it
strrtches across different lam:iscapes. It offers a
p,thway back and fo:1h betw.:cn the public and the
:>rivate, between scier.ce and tht' sacred, be:ween
discip'.ined inquiry a:id ar:i;;tk expression.
Methodological Ft,ncamentalis1:1
II cid rmt take tis long to discover that the
"t1eld" of qualitati ~e rcseard: had un dcrgone
Preface J!I xi
quantum leaps since the spring of I991, when
we had planned the !lrst edition. We or:ce again
earned that the field 01 quali:ative research is
definec primarily ti}' a serie, u:' cssent:al tensions,
c0:1tradictions, and hesitations. These tensio11s-
rnany of which emerged after 1991-wor;,, back
and forth between ccmpt'ti11g dtffo: tions .md
ronceotio'.ls of :he field. These tcr:sions are lodged
witllin a:1d outside the field. in recent years, the
methodologica: conservatism embedded b the
educational initiatives of George W. 3ush', presi•
tlential ,1Jm :nistrati1m have inscribed narrowly
dethed governmc:1tal regin:es of truth. Tht> r:ew
"gold sta1:dard" for producing knowledge that is
worthwliile is based rn1 (Jt:antitative, cxpcri:nenta,
design ~tudies (Lincoln & (~nella, 2004, p. 7 ).
This "methodologk11.I fundamentalism" {I.ir:.:oln
& Cannella, 2()(14, p. 7) reti: n:s to a mucr: discred,
ited moc.d of empirical inquiry. The experimer.tal
quantitative mode: is ill suited to ''eim:nlr:ing the
complex and dynami~ contexts of public education
in its n:any forms, site,, and varialion6, csped,lly
considering the . , , subde social differencC;l oro·
duced by gender, roce, etbnici:y, lir.gui;,tk status, or
class. Indeed, multiple kinds of knowledge, pm·
duced by multiple epistemologies amt merbod-
nlogies, are nnt only worth havi:ig but also
demanded if pol'cy, legbl.ition, anr. practice are ID
be sensitive to sodal needs~ (Lincoln & Ca:mella,
2004, p. 7). Qui;itative researchers twist and :urn
W:,hii: this polilldzed space (Lather,2004).
Clearly, the :ensions ,md crn:trnc!ictio:i.s that
chamcteri,c the fidd do not exist with:n a uni•
fied Rrena. The issues and com:erm of qualita•
tive researchers i:i nursing and healt:t rnre. for
example, arc dcc.idedly differer:t fmn: ,bust: of
rcsc,m:hers in ct:ltural anthropology, where
tkal and evidem::e-based models of inqt:.i ry a:'<' of
less irr:portance. The qucst't1:is that intligenm;,
schola!'S dca'. with are often different from those of
interest to critical theorists :n educ.dona] research.
Kor do the intematiomil disciplinary neh~urks
ol' qualitative researchers r.eccssarily cross one
armth~, speak to one another, read one another.
Our attempt in this volutr:e, then, once again,
is 10 solidify, inter~wet, and nrg,mize a "fielc''
of qualitative research in face of cssenti~I
 Ill IIAJ\'JBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
pol: :ical, paradigmatic d:fferences and inherent
contradictions among and types of resean:h,
and over the barriers of disi;:iplinary, national,
racial, cultural, and gender differem:es. We pre•
sent our discussion of how these tension6 resolve
therr:sel ves in ou, introductory and conduding
chapter,, We also address these tensions in the
:m;,Ecit dialogue we carry on with various con•
tributors to this volume, many of whom view the
field quite diffe:-e:nly than we. For you, the reader,
to understand why we have resolved these dilem•
1:1as as we have, we must first locate ourselves b
these tensior:s and contradictions,
Norman Detuil: is committed to a critical ped-
agogy; critical race, cultural studies, perfo:rnance·
based, post~tructural pos:tion faat ;;tresses the
importance of politic.~ ar.c social justice. Yvonna
Lincoln is an avowed constructio:iist, postmod-
ernist, and femi:1ist, likewise co:nmitted to soda:
justice, who alsu places great value on theoq• am::
paradigm formation. W<' share a belief in the
limitations of positivism and its successor, post•
positivism. Lincoln brings to the project :he dis•
cipHnes of edacation, psychology, and history,
wne,eas Denzir:'s groundir.g is in sociology, com•
munications, anthropology. and the humanities,
Our ricspe,live biases have shaped the cons,ruc-
tion of th'.s volume and have entered directly into
our dialog1es with each other, Although we do
not always agree-for example, on the quesrior: of
whether paradigms can be crossed or integrated-
our two voice& are heard often in the following
pages. Ot~er editors, working from different
perspectives, would define the field and con-
sr met th:s book in diferent ways, choose differ•
en: spokespersons for the various ::o:;,ic:s. focus
on other cor:cems, emphasize differen: methods,
or otherwise organize the contents differently,
Ill ORGANIZATION OF THIS VOLUME
The organiza6m of :he Handbook move.s from
the general to the s::,ecifo;, the past to the present.
Part I locate, the field, starting with applied qual-
itative research tradit:ons :n the academy, then
takes t:p :he topics of critical theorizing and
analysis on social (in)justke, researching nati\'C5
in the ~age of uncertainty,» resisting neocolonial
domination in the :Maori context, and the politics
and ethics of field research. Part II isolates what
we regard as the major historica: and contempo
rary paradigms now structuring ar..d lnfbendng
quaEtative rese-arch in the l:.u:nan disciplines.
The chapters move from competing paradigms
[positivist, postpositivist, constructivist, critical
theory l to specific interpretive perspe.;:tives (cril ·
k:al ethnography, feminist discourse, critical race
theory, cultura'. studies, and cdtica: humanism
and queer theory).
Part III isolates the major s:rategies of
'nqtdry-his~orically the research methods~faat
researchers can ctilize :r. concrete studies. Tr:e
contributors to this section embed their discus•
sions of specific strategies ofinquiry (perfor:11ance
cthnography,case study, public ethnography, inter·
pretive practice, grounded theory, critical ethnog-
raphy, testimo11io, participatory action research,
clinical research) in social justice topics. These
chapters extensively explore the histories and i:ses
of these strategies.
Still, the question of methods begins with the
design of the qualitative research project. This
always begins witr: a socially situated :esearrher
who moves fro:n a research question to a para·
digm or perspective, to the empirical world. So
located, the researcher then addresses the rar.ge
of methods that can be employed in any study. 1:1
Chapter 15, Julianne Cheek wisely observes that
questions surrounding the practice and politks of
fund:ng qualitative research are often paramo·Jnt
at frtis point in ar:y study. Globally, funding for
qualita~ive research becomes mnre difficult as
methodological conservatism gains mumer,h:.in
in neolberal political regin:es.
Part Iv examines methods o: collec,ing a:1d
analyzing empirical materials. The::,e include
narrative inquiry; arts-based inquiry; interviewing;
observation; the use of artifacts, documer.ts, and
records from the pasl; visual, auto , and onllne
ethnog:--aphy, interpretive perspectives; Foucault's
methodologies; analyses of talk a:ic text; and
focus groups. Part V takes up the art and prac:ices
of interpretation, evaluatio;i, and pre,5entation,

iI:duding cr:leria for pdging fae adequacy of
qualitative materials in an age of relativism. the
interpretive process, writing as a method o"
inquiry, the poetics place, .:ultura l pocisis,
investigative poetry and the politics of witness•
ing, and quahtalive cva\Jation an(: changing
social policy. The ·,hrcc chapters in l',•. rt Vl specu-
late on the future and promise of the social
enc es and qur.li tat ive resC"arc:1 in au age of glohal
unc:er;ainl 1•,
J11 PtEi'AR.'\TIOX OF TIIE
ft=,v1sEl> H4NDB:KJK
The idea of a :1ew edition of the l:!andbor,k was
taken up ,eriou,ly in an all-day meeting 'n ~ew
u,
Orlem1, in April 2002, Tl:e:e the two of met w::h
our editors iit Alison .\1udditt ar:d Margaret
Seawell, Once agai:1 it became dear in our ler.gtl1v
discussior.s that we needed in,:ml from 'ndividu-
als with perspectives different from our own, To
accomplish this, we assembled an international
and interdisciJ". inary editorial board made up of
highly prestigious scholars who assisted us in the
selection of chapWrs wriUs;n by equally """er..
giou.- anthors, the preparation of the table of con•
lents, and the reading of (often muh:?le drafts of)
each d1apte, {the :1amcs of all edtorial board
n:e:nbcrs are Ested on d,e page faci:lg :his vol
mne's Iirle page). We t:sed our edlorial board
members as windows into their respe-ihrc disci-
plines. We .sought info~mation from therr. on key
tnpics, perspectives.and controversies that nccccd
to :,c addres;.ed, l:i our selection of cdittdal board
members and chapter aut:iors, we attempted ro
uosscut disciplinary, gender, race, paradig:n, ar,d
n,tional bou1:daries. Our hope was that by seeki:ig
board mcm'lers' views we would mini:nize ou,
own disdpli nary blit,dcrs.
We receivec cxtensiv<' feedback from lhe board
tnemtlers, including suggestion, for new cbap-
lers, d iffer.:nt slants to take on of the chap•
tern, a:1d si::;i.\e,sd,om of authcrs for different
,h"ptcrs, In addition m asking each Handbook
wthor-i nternationaJly recog:iized in his or her
JJcefacc II xiii
Sllbjcct matter-to consider social hislice issues,
we asked each to addre.,s mch topics as history,
episte:nology, unto:ogy, exemplary texts, key con·
tmve1<cs, competing p;,1radigms, and predictions
about the future.
Responding m Critics
We have been gratif:ed by the tremendous
response frorr: the rc:d In the previous editions of
the lfandbook; it h.is hern especially gratifying
that hu1:drcds of professors around the world
bve chosen :he llrmdbook (in one form or
a:rntherl to be part of their assig:1ed readir:gs
for students, We 'lave also beer: grat:fied by the
.::rit ical responses to the work. The Handbook has
helped open space for a dialogue that was long
ove~dt:c. Ma1:y readers have fo:rnd problems with
our approach to the ficlci, aml these problems
indirn:e places where; more conversations need
to take place. Among the criticisms of the first
and second editio:1, have been ;he following: Tic
lfandbook's fra:nework was LLnwicldy; the con ·
tribt:tions did not give e11ough attention lo the
Chicago school; th~re was lou much cn:phasis
on the postmodern period; we employed an arbi-
trary r. istoricul model; the co11ter.ts were loo
edectic; we overe • phasi zcc :he fifth a;id sixth
moments and the crisis representation; we
too mm:h at~cntion lo polit:ca: correctness, ar:d
rm! enough to ki:owledge for its own sake; there
was not e:iough on how to do qualitative research.
Some felt that a revolution had not occurred, and
they wondered, too, l:ow we proposed to eva!uale
qualitative research now that the narrative turn
has been taken.
We can not ,pea'., for the :nore th an 120
author, who have cor:tributcd chapter, lo the
Ii rsl, second, and third editions, Each person
t._kcn a star:ce on these issues. As cd:tors, we have
attempted :o represent a nu:11ber of rnmpe:ir:g or
at least contesting ideologies a::id frames of refer-
ence. Thi, llaridbook is not, no, is it int<cnded lo
be, Denzin', o~ lh1ml11's viei.v from the bridge,
We are not saying lhat there is only one to
,fo re,C"arch, or :hat our way ls hes!, or that the
so-called old ways are bad. We are just saying this
xiv II HANDBOOK Of Ql:ALEATIVE RESEARCH
is one way to conceptualize this field, and it is a
way that we find useful.
Of course the Handbook is not a single thing. It
even transcends the sum of its parts, and there is
enormous diversity both within and between
these d1apterl>. It is our hope that readers find
spaces within these spaces that work for them. 1:
is our desire that new dialogue take place within
these spaces. This wHI be a gentle, probil:g, neig:1-
borly, ar.d critical conversation, a conversation
that bridges the many diverse interpretive com-
• unities that today make up this field called
c;.ualitat:ve research. We value passion, we invite
criticism, we seek to initiate a c.iscourse of resis-
tance. rmernationally, qualitative researchers
must stn:ggle against neoliberal regi:nes of truth,
science, and justice.
• DEFINING THE FJELD
The qualitative re;earch community consists of
groups of globally dispersed persons who are
attempting to irr.plement a critical inter:iretive
approach tha: will help them (and others) make
sense of the terrifying couditions that define daily
life in the first decade of this new cent~ry. These
individuals employ constr'.lctivist theory, critical
theory, feminist theory, quee~ theory, critical race
theory, a:1d cultural studies models of inte,-
pretation. They locate themselves on the borde!'s
between postpositivism and post.structuralism.
They 'JSe any and all of the research strategies (case
study, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded
theory, biographical, historical, participatory, and
clinical) discussed in Part III of the Handbook. As
interp::etive bricoleurs (see Harper, 1987, pp. 9, 74),
the members of this group are adept at using all of
the methods of collecting and analyzing empirica:
materials discussed by the authors of the chapters
in Part IV. And, as writers and interpreters, these
individuals wrestle with posh ivist, postposi-
tivist, poststructu,al, and postmoderr tTiteria for
evaluating their writ::en work.Z
These scholars constitute a loosely defined
international i:1terpretive communi:y. They are
slowly co:ning lo agreement on what cons:i:u,es
"good" and "bad:' or banal, or emancipatory,
troubling both analysis and interpretation. They
are constantly challenging the distinction betwee:1
the "real" and that which is construe led, ,ir.der •
sta:iding that al: events and understandings
are mediated and mace real throug:i interac
tional and material practices, through discourse,
conversation, writing, and narrative; through
scientific articles and realist, postrealist, and
performance tales from the fie!d.
This group works at botn the centers and the
margins of those emerging interdisciplinary.
trar:snational forn,ations that c1isscro.ss the bor-
ders that separate communications, race and eth-
i:lcity, religion, women's studies, sociology, history,
anthropology, literary criticism, po'.itica: sclence,
economics, social work, health care, and educa-
tion. Th is work is cr.aracterized by a qJiet change
ii: outlook, a transdisdplinary conversation, a
pragmatic change in practices, politics, and habits.
It is a: this junc:ure-the i:neasy, trou'::iled
crossroads where neoliberalism, pragmatism, and
postmodernism :neet-that a quiet revolution is
occurring. This revolution is defined by the poli-
tics of representat:on, which asks, What is repre-
sented in a text, and how s:iotdd it be judged? We
have left the world of naive realism, knowing now
that a text does not mir:or the world, ii ceates the
world. Further, there is no external wo,ld or fir.al
arbiter-lived experience, for example-against
which a text can be judged.
Pragmatism is central to this conversation, for
it is itself a theoretical and philosophical concern,
firmly rooted i:l the pos:realist tradition. As such,
it is a theoretical position that privileges practice
and method over reflection and deliberative
action. Incecd, postmodernism itself has i:o pre-
disposition to pr'vilege ciscourse or text over
obse::-vation, Instead, postmodernism (and post•
st,ucturalism) would simply have us attend to
discourse and performance as seriously as we
attend to observation (or any other fieldwork
methods) and recog:iize that our d:scourses are
the vehicles for sharing our observations with
those who were not in the field with us.
It :s precisely the angst attending our recogni-
tion of the hidden powers of discourses that

Iii NOTES
l. fnrc:sing her remarks nn feminist issues. (lies en
(2000) calls for"injsive scholaruhip to frame,direct,and
ha mess pas.io:1 'IJ the interest; oi red rcs.,i ng grit"liH:,
problems in ma:iy «reas of womens h,-altr:" (p.
2. These cri!trla range :mrr. those e:·dor,ed h}·
postposilivisls ( v,1riation s on vr.::dily and re:' ability,
including credibility ,md trustwPrthinc,s) ro ,:o,t-
srru.::tural, re:11ini~I &tandpoint s:;,mcc:n, errphasi,ing
coJaborJ!ive, cvocalive, performance ln:s th2t cn::ate
etliical ly respnnsiblt rd at ions h<ctw,•cn researchers and
lhOSC they study.
l ".'he real isl text, Jame son (19':IQ J argues.,
.:onstructed its version of the wnrk' by 'program•
'.':ling ... readers; by m1iulng therr: in new habits and
"'''"''•'"·, , ..,uch mirrntjves mJst i.:ltimatcly ;iroduce
:h,,t wry c,.tegory Rea Iity _.. of th,' n:al. of
'obk:-:live' or 'external' world, whidi is ilsdf bislurical,
may ,mde:go decisive mod dication in other modes.
p:o,luction. if n~t ln later slagc3 of this om:l" (p. 166).
Tt:e new cllmograp:1ic text is p:o,'ucing its vers:cns of
reality am: leaching readers l:ow lo engage this vkw
the soc:al world.
113 REFt.RE'ICES
r:mlknrr, \V. ( 1967). Add res, upo:- receiv'ng the Nobel
Prize for Literature. ln M. Cowley (fat;, The
f1:,r/,li:/e Fm1l.b1er (Rev. eci.. IJP- 723-724).
New York, y;:,ing.
M. )., Towne·, L & 5havel,ou, R.j. (2.002).Scirntific
.,;ullun: Jnd educationJI ,-,,,,,,,, ··ch Educ,1tionai
llcs,wn-hn; 3 J(!< ). 4-14.
Harper, ll. (, 987). Warki11g kmnv!edge: Skill mid rommu-
nity in u ,mr1II ,;/:op. Chical!o: U:1ivcrsity of Chicago
Press.
Preface Ill xi,
l;;me,on, F. ( 1990). Sig11a,,1re·s ,if tl,e i·isibie. New York:
Ro_tlrdge.
Lather, ?. (2004). This i, your father's ,iaradig::::
Government intrus:on and the cise of gllalitativ,,
research :n ct\u,a!ion. Qualitmive fr:quirr IO,
& Cannella. G. S. (20:J4). Dangerous dis•
course;;: Methndolog,rnl mnscrvarism and gov•
tmni,:,nta: regimes of trut:i. Quuli,atfve r,11Juir,;1
iO,
.'1-tatli,,m, D.S. 11998;. Peformam:rci, personal 1:arra
tiveli, «:'.d the 1:0\itics of poss:bility. ln S. J. Dailey
(l'd.), Tlie,[wlurc <!f' p<rformnn,·e si,1die.,: Vi~bis
and r<',·i,icm (pp. 276-285). Washington, DC:
Natiorrnl Communication Association .
Mu:L:a, & Swadener. 3. lt (2(l{l4). Introduction. Ir:
K. Mutua & 1' B. Swadentr (Flis.), l)eco/anizing
reScar,h /11 C'(•S.,-cultumi conr>:xr,: Cri•ira/ per,;,,.1a!
1111,mfives (pp. Albany: Stale llnivrrsity o:'
Xe1, "orl, Pres,.
Clesen, V. L. (2000). :-emini,ms and qualil:n:ve
re5earch al an<1 into f,e r.il!en:,ium. Jr: :,..J. K.
De111in & Y. S. Lincoln tEds,). Handho()k olquali-
111/ive research ( 2nd ed., ?P· 2 l5-255 ). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sag<'.
1'1:sliki11, A. (1993). Thr j!Oodness of gualit,dvc
research. Educatiun,il Rese,rr::'fwi; 22(2), 24-30.
Schwandt, 1'.A. !.20CO). Thrc, cpis.tr:milogkal .~ranee-;; for
gualit.11:ve inquiry: lntcrprc1ivism, hi::rme11eL:lks,
and so,ial constrnct:onism. In K K. Denzin &
Y. S. [j r,roln (fah.), Il,mdboak of qua!irati1·e
(2nd ed., p:;, 189-213). T::ous,md Oaks,(:A: Sage.
Snow, ll. (1999). A,sessing the ways in which gualita-
tivc/eihnographic research ,or.trib,ites t,, social
psychology: Introduction to special Soda/
P,ydw!ugy Quarter!;; ~2. ~7 - I 00.
Trinh T J\l. (1992;. Fmmerfrtw11:d. !\cw York: Routledge.
Weems, M. (2002 ). f speak jhim the wound that i,
mout.~. New Yt1rk: Peter tang.

leaves us now at the threshold of postmodemisrr:
and faat signals the adver..t of qc_estior..s that will
leave none of us untouched. It is true that coll-
temporary qualitative, interpretive research exists
within compet:r,g fields of discourse. Our present
history of the field locates seven rr.oments--and
an eighth and ninth, the future. These moments
all circulate in the present, competing with and
defin:ng one another, T'.1is discour~e is moving in
several directions at the same ti me. This has the
effect of simultaneously creating new spaces, new
pos.si'J:lities, and new formations for qualitative
research methods while dosing down othe::s.
There are those who wocld marginalize and
politicize the postmodern, poststmctural versions
of qualitative researc'.1, equating it with P?litkal
correctness, with radical relativism, narratives of
the self, anc a,rnchair commentary. Some would
chastise this Handbook fur not paying adequate
homage to the hands-on, nuts-and-bolts app:uach
to fielcwork, to texts that tell us how to study the
"real" world. Still others would seek a preferred,
canonical, hut flex:ble version of this project,
returning to the Chicago school or more recent for-
mal. analvtic, realist versions. Some would criticize
the for:n~tion fiom within, contendng that the
privileging of discourse over ohse1:7ati~n does ~ot
yield adeqi:.ale criteria for evah;atmg mterpre~ve
work, ·,rondering what to do when left only wnh
voice and interpretation. Many ask for a normative
framework for evaluating their own work. None
of these desires is likely :o be satis5.ed anytime soon,
however_ Contestation, conttadktion, and philo-
sophical tensior:s make fae achievement of consen
sus on any of these issues :es than imminent
We are not collating history here, altl:ough
every ch,r?ter describes the his,tory of a suh~eld.
Our intention, which our contnbutors share, IS to
point to the foti:re, where the :ield of qualitative
research methods will be 10 years from now. Of
course, many scholars in the field stHI work
within frameworks defined by earlier histo.dcal
moments, This is how it should be. Thrre is no
one way to do inlerpret:ve, qualitative inquiry,
We are all interpretive bricoleurs stuck h the
present working against the past as we move i:lto
a politically charged and challenging future.
Preface • JtV
JJ1 COMPETING DEFINlTlONS Of
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHU)S
The oper: -ended nature of the qualitative research
oroject leads to a perpetual rei:,istance against
~!tempts to impose a single, umbrellalike para-
dign: over the ent're project. There are mul.ti?le
interpre:ive projects, including the decolomzmg
metr.odological project of indigenous scholars;
theories of o:i:ical pedagogy; perfor • am:e (auto)
ethnographies; standpoint epistemologies; criti-
cal race theory; critical. public, pnetic, queer,
materialist, feminist, and reflexive ethnographies;
projects conneeced to the British cultural stlldies
anc. Frankfurt schools; grounded theories of sev-
eral varieties; m·Jkiple strands of ethnomethod-
o:ogv; African American, prophetic, postmodern,
and ~eopragmark Marxism; a US-based cr:tkal
culturai studies model; and transnational cultural
studies pro; ects, ,
The generic focus of each of these vers10:1s of
qualitative research moves in five directions al the
same time: (a) the "detour through ir.terpretive
theo:-y" ar.c. a politics of the '.ocal,linked (b) :o the
analysis of the politics of represer.tation and the
textual a:1alyses of lite:-a:-y and culti.;ral forr.n,
inc; uding their production, distribution, a:id con-
sumption; (c) the ethnographic, qualitative study
and representation of these forms in everyday
life; (d) the investigation of new pedagogical and
interpretive practices that interactively engage
critical cultural ana'.vsis in the classroom a:1d t:le
local community; a~d ( e) a utopian polit:cs of
possibility (Madison, 1993) that redresses soc:al
injustices and imagines a radical democracy that
is not yet a reality (Weems, 2002, p. 3).
Iii \VHOSE REVOLCTION?
To ;,urnmarize: A single, several-part thesis orga·
nizes our reading of where the field of qualitative
researc'.:l methodology is today. First, this project
has changed because the world that qualitative
research confronts, w:th'.i: and outside the acad-
em); has changed, lt has also changed becaus: uf
the inc:-easing sophistication-- both theoretmil
xvi II HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
and melhodological-of i ntcrpretivist researchers
everywhere. D'sjuncture and difle,ence, violence
and terror.define the globeJ pol it:cal economy. This
is a po~t- or ncocolonial world, It is m:cessary to
think beyond th~ nation, or the local gr01:p, as the
focus of inqdry.
Second, this is a wrdd where cti:r:ograph ic
texts circulate like other commodities in an elec-
tronic world economy. lt may be that et:1 r:ography
is one of t:Je 1m1jur d'scourses of the ncomodern
world. But if this is so, it i~ :10 longer possihlr to
take for granted what anyone means by eth '10·
graphy, even in traditional, realist qualitative
re~.~~r,·h (see Snow, 1999, p. 97). Global and loca'.
legal D:1J,,e;se& have erased the pcrsm:al and
iu.\'titutional distance hen;;een the rth nographer
and Ihose he or she writes about \Ve do :wt "own"
the field note, we ma~e about tho~e we stady,
We do :rn L:1 ave an undisputed warrant to study
anyone ur anything, Subjects r.ow challenge how
they have been wri:ten about, and r:mre than one
ethnographer has lx><'n taker. 10 court.
Third, this :s a gendered -,rn 11•,.. Fen:inist,
postcolm1ial, and queer theurisls qi:.estion the
t ,adi ti onal logk of :'le heterosexual :uirrative
eth11ogmphic text that reflexively posit ions the
ethnographer's gender-neutral (or masculine)
se'.f within .1 realist story, Tod,1y :here is no solidi•
tkd ethnograp t: ic ide:1ti ty. The ethnographer
works witJ-.:11 a "hybrid" reality. Experience,
c.iscourse, and self-understandings collide wlth
larger cultural ass:.nn;nion& concerning race,
ethnicity, nationality, gender, class, ,md age. A
certain idei:tiry is nevc, possible; the ethno·
grnpher must always not'' \<1,'ha a:n I?" but
"When. where:, riowam Ir'' (Trinh, 1992, p,
Fourth, qualitative research is an inquiry
project, but it is also a moral, allegorical, and
therapeutic project, Ethnography is more than
the record of hu:nan experience. The ethno-
gra;ihcr writes tiny rr:oral tales, tales tha: do
more :han ceiebrate cultural difference or bring
a:rnther culture alive, The researcher's storv is
'
writte:1 as a prop, a p'llar that, to paraphrase
Williao l'aulkner (I 967, p. i24), will help men
,me women endure and prevail in ~::e opening
y,3ars of the 21st century,
Pifth, althoug~ the fie:d of quul italive research
is defined by con,tant break:! and ruptures, there
is a shifting C;;nter to t:ie project: the avowed
humanistic and social justice oommitme:it to
study the social work: fron~ the perspective of the
interact i11g individual. From th is principle flow the
liberal and rndical :iulilks of action that are held
by feminist, clinical, ethnic, critical, queer, critical
race theory, and cultural studies researchers,
AIt hough multiple inter;,retive cor:u:rnnities now
d,culate within the field of qoalitatiYe research,
they arc all united or. this single point.
Sixth, qualitative research's seventh and eighth
moments will be defined by the work that ethnog-
raphers do as they implement above assum;i-
tions. These situations ss::I the stage for qualitative
research's transforn:ations in the 21st centurv.
'
Fina'.ly, we anticipate a continue.:: performance
turn in quruitative inquiq', with writers perforn,-
ing their texts for others.
a. TAL RS OF Tl! ll lIi\ NTJBOOK
Manv of the diffict:lt:es ·we have encm.1r:lcrcd in
'
developing I!:is volume a:-e corn • :on to any p:11•
jcct flf substantial magnitude, Others arose from
the essential tensions and eontmdictions that
operate in thls field at th is histmical r:10ment
was the case when we wc,e working on the fir&!
and second editions, the "right" chapter authors
were sometimes unavaila;)lc, too bu~y, or over·
committee. Conscquen:ly, we sought out others,
who tur:ied out to be more ·'r:ght" th,rn we had
imagined possible. few overh1pping networks cut
across the ma:iy disciplines we were attempting
tu cover, We were fortu:u1te, in more than one
instance, fo have ail t'ditorial board mrmber point
us in a direction we hJd not previorn:ly been
avmrc existed. \Ve 2re grateful tn Michell.: fine for
connecting us with tl:e community uf indigenous
~dmlars in New Zealand, in particular Linda
1ti:iwai Smith and l~usse[ Bishop.
Altho·Jgh we knew the terri:ory somewhat
be~tcr th :s time around, there were stil'. spaces ·,ve
blundered into with Ettie knowledge about whorr:
we shouid a;;;c lo do what. We confronted ciscipli-
nary and generational blinders including our
owr.-and dfacoven;d the re an: separate traditions
surrounding each of our to:;ics within distinct
:nterpretive communi :ies. It was often difi:cult to
know how to bridge these diflerences, and m1r
"bridges·' wt·n, often makeshift cm:structions. We
also ::iad to cope with vas:ly different styles o:·
rl,frtking abou: a variety of topics based on d:sci•
pli nary, epister.rnlogical, gender, racial, ethnic,
cultural, and m1tior:al bdie.fi,, bound arks, ,rnd
ideologies.
In many ir.sta:1ces we unwittingly enlt:red into
pditkal battle, over who should write a given
~ha?ter, or over how a chap1er s:iould he writren
or evaluated. These disputes dearly pointed to the
politi.:JI natun: of this pruj.:d and to the fact that
each chapter is a :iotential, if not real, site for mul-
ti pk interpretat:r.ns. ).1any times lhe politics of
meaning came into play at we attempted to ncgo•
tiate ar.d navigate our way throi:gh areas fraught
with emotion. On more than one occasion we dis-
agrerd w :th both an au tho:: and an editorial :iuard
mcmbe~, We often foi:1;d ourselves adjudicat:ng
between competing editorial reviews, wor'.<lng
the hy ?hens hrtween mean lng making and diplo-
macy. Rcgrctmb: y, in some ca,es we hurl fod ings
and perhaps even damaged long-standing frcnd•
ships. I:1 sue'; rno1:1ents we sought forgiveness.
With the clarity of hindsight, we can see :!:at there
are many things we wodd do differently today,
and we a;:iologize
. ,.. for the damal!e we have aone.
'-.,
We, as well as our authors ar.d advisers, strug•
gled with the meanings we wantec to bring to
such :err:i s as thecwy, paradigm, epistemillogy,
interpretive fmmework, empirical material, versus
data, and rese1ird1 stmtegics, We discovered that
the ve~y term qualitative researdi means different
thing, to :mmy ditlcre:it people,
We abandoned the goal of bt::ng cornprehen·
,ive, ever: wit!: 2,000 manuscript pages. We fought
with authors over deadlitH'S and ove:- the number
of pages we would give therr:, \Ve also fought
with aul hor.~ over how to conc,~ptualiz:e their
ch,1pter ar:c found that whf,l ,ws clear to us was
not nece;,sa rily clear to anyone else. We fought
with authors too over when t hci r chapters were
done:, const,mtly seeking their forbea~ar:ce as we
xqucsted yet a not her revisim:.
Ill REA DI\IG Tl!E HANDBOOK
v\!ere we tow rite our own niti,~ ue of this book, we
would point to the shortcomings we see in it, w:ikh
in many senses arc the same as those we saw in the
l 994 ar.d 2000 edi :ions, Th;;;se i:1duce ar: over re•
liaoce on the perspectives of o·J r respective disci-
plines (sociology, commu:1 :mtim1s, sml edm:al ion l
as well as a fa:lure to involve, more scho'.,m; from
inte:11ational indi11enoos
,, communities, This ~,a]•
ume does not provide a Jetailec trcatme i:t of the
interi;ection of critical and indigenous inquiry, nor
does it include a comprehens:ve chapter on human
subject t'Csean:h and instiutiona: review boa~ds.
We worked hare to avnid the,e prob:erns, yet they
rcmab,. On other hand, !n this edit ion w<: do
address some of problems that we::e present
in the second edition, We have madr r; greater
effort to cover more areas of app:icd qualitative
wo::k, We ha\'e hdped to initiate dialogues be:ween
the au:;10roe of various chapters, We have created
spaces for more voicrs from other discipline:;, c~pc-
da:ly an:i~opology and comnu:r.k(i,tions, but we
still have a ~horlfall of voices representing people
of color and of the Third Wor'. d. You, the reader. will
.:ertai:1ly have yum own responses to this ho,,k,
response;; that may hig:iligh: otl:er issues that we
have not yet sec:i,
This is all in :he nature of the Handbook. and !n
t.hc nature o: doing qualitative research, This honk
is a ~ocial con~truction, a socially enacted, cocrc-
ated entity, and although it ,'.xi sts in a material
fo::m, will no doubt be re-created in subsequenl
iteration:; as genc:-at:ons uf sd10:ars and graduate
stude:1ls use it, adapt it, a::d launch from it addi-
tional methocologirnl, paradigmatic, throret:cal,
a1:d pract:cal work. It is not:; final sllllemer:t, ll is
a starting point, a springboard for new 1hought
cr.d ncw work, work tr.at is fresh and sens'!
tba1 hlurn the bouncarie, of ou~ di,dp:bes :1111
,,!ways sharpen:; m:r um:ersumdings of the larger
human proj eel.
I: is our hope tlrnt this third edition, with all its
strcngtbh and all its flaws, will contribute to the
growing maturil y end global iniluenct of qua] ita.
tivr research in the human disciplines. And, ,1s we
were originally mandated, we Imp;; th is convim;cs
xv'ii 1111 F.ANDllOOK OF GUA:TTATIVE RESEARCH
you, reader, that qualitative research now
con~titules a field of study in its own right,
allowi og you to better ~.nchor and locate your own
work in the qua Iitative research tradition and
its cen;ral place Io a radical democratic project.
If this happens, we will have sacceeded in build-
ing a bridge that serves us all weli.
Ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Handbook would r.ot exist without its authors
and the editorial board me • berli who gave freely,
often on very short noHL<', of their time, advice,
and ever•cm.:rteous suggestions. V\'e acknowledge
en n:asse the support of the authors and the edito-
rial board members, whose names are listed fac
ing the title page, These individuals were ab:e to
offer both long-term, sustained commitme:its to
the project :me. short-term emergency assistance,
There a,e ofacr debts, intensely personal and
doser 10 home. The Har;dbook wocld never have
been possible without the ever-present help, sup-
pn:t, wisdom, and encouragement of our editor~
ar.d publishers at Sage: Alison Mucditt, Margaret
Seaweh, and L'sa Cuevas Shaw, Their grasp of 1his
field, its history, and diversity is ext:aordinary.
Their conceptions of what this project shou:d look
like have been extrer:i.ely valuable, T'.1eir energy
ke;n us rr:aving fon"lard. Furthermore, whenever
we cor.fru:itcd a pro::ilem, Lisa was there with her
a:ssislance and good-natured humor. Jndy Sclhorst,
Astrid Virding, and Claudia Hoffman moved the
project through production w::1 tl:dr usual grace
and humor. Aisha Durham, Grant Kien, James
Salvo, anc Li Xiung provided mrts:anding proof-
reading sk:J.ls. Ravi Balasuriya designed the cover.
'We woulr. also like to thank the following
individuals and institutions for their assistance,
suppo~, insights, ar.c. patience: our respective
universities and cepartmen ts, especially, at
Yvonna's 11niversity, Dean Jane Corl(Jley, Associate
Dean E,nest Coetz, and Department Head Bryan
R. Cole, each of whom facilitated this ,'lOrk b
some i1:1pmtant way. In lrbana,David Monje was
the sine qua non. His good hwnor and grace kept
our e1:er-growing files in order and everyone on
the same timetable. Without David, w'.o inherited
the mantle from lack Bratkh, this project would
never have been completed.
Norman also g,atefully acknowledges the
moral, intellectual, and financial support given to
thl s project by Dean Ron Yates of the College of
Communication and by Paula Treichler and Bruce
\'\'IlEams, past and present directors, respectively,
of the Institute of Communication. He also thanks
~ina Richards and Tom Galer·Unti, who kept t:1.e
"immcial accounts straight Claudia Hoffman al
Sage helped move this projec~ through produc-
tio11; we are extremelv' i:irateful to her, as well
~
as to D. J, Peck, A, J, Sobczak, Judy Selhorst, and
Kathleen Paparchontis lo= their excellent work
during the copyediting, proofreading, and index -
ing phases of production. Our spouses, Katherine
Ryan and Egon Guba, helped keep us on track, lis-
tened to our complaints., and generally displayed
extraordinary patience, forbearance, an.! support.
Finally, there are two groups of individuals
who gave i:.nstintingly of their time and energy to
provide us with their expertise and thoughtful
reviews when we needed additional guidance. The
first group :s ou, lnterna:ior:al Advisory Board-
the names of all board members an: listed oppo·
site this vobme's :itle page. The sewnd gronp
consists of invited guest readers, whose names are
.isted below. Without the help of all these individ·
uals we would often have found ourselves with
less than complete understandings of the various
traditions, perspectives, and methods represented
in this volume. We would like to acknowledge the
impo:tant contributions of tl:e following special
readers to this project: Bryant Alexander. Tom
Barone, Jack Z. Bralich, Susar, Chase, Shing-Ling
Sarina Chen, Nadine Dolby, Finley, Andrea
Fontana, Jabi..--r Gu::dum, Stephen Hartnett, S:acy
Holman Jones, Steve Jo:ies, Ruthelien Josse1son,
Luis Miron, Ronald J. Pelias, Joh:1 Prosser, Johny
Sa:dafla, Paula Saukko, Thomas Schwandt, Patrick
Sla:tery, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith,
-Norman K. Denzin
University of Illinoi~ at lfrbana-Champaign
-Yvonna Lincoln
Texas A&.M' Uni11er!ity
1
------------------------~HHt:;.H}H;,,,,
INTRODUCTION
The Discipline and
Practice of Qualitative Research
.
•
Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln
riling abou: sc:entific research,
W :nduding q1:alitative research, from
~he vantage point of the colonized,
a position that s'.1e chooses to privilege, Lbda
Tuhiwai Smith (1999) sta:es that "the term
'research' is inextricably linked to European
imperialism and coloniaHsm?' She cor::inues,
"The word itself is probably one of :he dirtiest
words in the indigenous world's vocabulary: ... It
is implicated in the worst excesses of colonial-
ism:' v/th the ways i:1 which "knowledge about
indigenous peoples was collected, c:as.s:fied, and
then represented back to the West" (p. 1). This
dirty word stirs up ar.ger, silence, distrust. "Jt is
so powerful that indigenous people even write
poetry about research" (p. 1). It is one of colodal-
ism's :nost sordid legacies.
Sadly, qualitative research, in many if not
a!l of its forms (observation, participation, inter-
viewing, ethnography), serves as a metaphor for
colonial knowledge, for power, and for truth. The
metaphor wo~ks this way, Research, quantitative
Authors' Note. We a~e grateful :a many who have helped w!tl: this ;:hapter, ;ndudfog Egor. Guba, Mit,h l\ll,;:11, David Mon;e,and
Katherine£. Rynn.
and qualitative, is scientific. Research provides
the foundation for reports about anrl represen-
tations of «the Other." Ju the colonial co:11ext,
research hecumes an object've ''l'llY of represent·
ing the dark-skinned Other to the white world.
Colonizing nations relied on the human dis-
ciplines, es?ecial]y sociology ar:d anthropology,
to ?roduce knowledge about strange and foreign
worlds. This close involveme:1.t with the colonial
p~uject con:ributed, in significant ways, to quali-
tative research's long and anguished history, to its
becoming a dirty word (for reviews, see in this
volume Foley & Valenzuela, Chapter 9; Tedlock,
Chapter I 8). In sociology, be work of the
"Ch kago school" in the 1920s and I930s estab-
lished the in:portance of qualita:ive inquiry for
the study of human grou :> life, In anthropology
during the same period, :he discipline-c.efining
studies of Boas, Mead, Benedict, Bateson, Evans•
Pritchard, Radcliffe-Brown, anc Malinowski
charted the outlines of the lieldwo:-k method (see
Gupta&: Ferguson, 1997; Stocking, 1986. 1989).
Jm l
2 1111 HA;-DBOOK 0~ QIJMSl'ATIVE RES!iARCH-,CHAPTFR I
The agenda ,\'aS dear-cut: T:1e obserwr ;,;ent to
a foreign setting to study the cuhure,customs, and
1:abits of ano:her humar. group. O:'te1, tH~ was a
grou? t:1at stood ::i the way of white settle,,. Ethno-
graphic reports of these groups where incorporated
in:o colcn:zing strategies, ways of controlling the
fo,eig:1, devian:, or truublcsvmc Other. Suon quali-
tative resettrch would be employed in other social
and behavioral ,qc'encc discipli:ies, ind:iding
education (especial~, the work of Dewey), history,
political scicr:ce, business, medic:ne, :1ursing,
social wor'.<, and communications (for criticisms of
1his tradition, see Smith, l 999; Vidich & Lyman,
200ll: see abu Rosaido 1989, pp. 25-45; 1cdlock,
Chapter 18, this volm:r.c).
llv the I%Os, battle lines were drawn within
•
quantiti!:ive and qualitative camps. Quanti-
tative schular, reiega:ed qua:itative research to
a subordinate status '11 the scicntifk arena. In
re,'.'!unE-c, qualitative rescarcherg ex!el led the
humar:istic virtue~ tl:ei~ subjective, inler-
pn:t[ve appru~ch to the s~udy of haman group
life. L the meant:me, indigenous people~ found
then,,elves subjccteci to i11dign itics of bot!,
approaches, as each mc:hudology was used in
the name of colonizing powers (,cc Battiste,
20CO; Scmali & Kincheloe, IY99),
Vidkh and Ly:na:1 (1994, 2000; have charted
many key features of this pain:ul history. 111 tr.ei:
now·d?.ssk 1:m1:y,i~ they note, with so:nc irony,
that qualitative research b sociology and anthro-
pology was "burn out of concern to understand
tr.e 'other"' (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p. 38).
Furthcr:norc, this "otb,,r" wm the:- exotic Of:ier, a
primitive, nonwhite pe:oor: from a foreign culture
judg('d to he !css civtltzed than ours. Of course,
there were 1.'0loniali~ts long be:ore there were
anthropologists and ethnographer;;. ~ooetheless,
there would be nu co'.onial, ar:d 110w no ncncolo-
r. ia:, h'sto:-y were it nnt for this inYestigative
mentalil y that turned the d,1rk-ski rmed tlther
into tt:e objrct of ethnograp:ie:-'s F:nm
the very [lcginning, qualita:ivc 1est:'arch was
implkall:d in a project'
l;i ,his intrcd ;.icto,y chapter, we deft ne f:lc
:ield q11alitative research, then navigate, chart,
and review Ihe hlstory nr qualilat ive research
in tht hur:1an disdpl' ncs. This will allow us :o
locate this volume a:d co:1tents within their
historical moment,;_ (These hi,turical moments
are smnewhat artificial; they are socially con-
structed, quasi-hi,torka1, and overlappbg cm1ven-
tions. :'lewrthr;ess, :hey pem, it a ~performance"
of developing ideas. Thev aiso faci; [tale an increas-
ing sen~::i,,ity to and sophi~tication .dmut the
p: :falls and promises of ethnog:aphy and qualita-
~h·e restarch.1 We also present a conceptual faunc-
work for rea,:ing the qualitative researc~ act as
a ltl'Jlticultural, gendered process ar.d the 1: provide
a brief introduction to the chap:ers that follow.
Returning to th~ ohscrva:ions ofVidkh a:id Lyn:ar,
as well as those of hooks, we condi;de with a hrief
discussion qualitative research and critical
race thenry (see Ladson-Billi!lgs & Du;1:1or,
C:,"?ter I I, this volu:ue). \\'e also discass the
fa reals to qualitative,hun:an subject n:sear.::h from
the methodological conservatism movcme:1t men-
:ioned h::iefly in ou~ ,m:fa~e. As we note in the p:ef
ace. we ·.1se the meta;;hor of the bridge to structure
what follows, This volume is intended lo s;;,rvc as
a bridge mnncrtir,g historical momenM, p()litic,,
the decolonization pro:eel, rcstard1 metho(:s, par-
adigm~. and commnP. ides of intenretive .~cholars.
• DEfJ;,llTlONAt ISSUES
Qualitative research is a field of inquiry in its
own right ;t crusscuts disciplines, Eckis, and
subject matter~. A complex, interconnected
family uf terms, concept,, ar:d assumptions Sil,·
rour1cl the term qualit.1ti1,c research These inc: ud~
the traditions associated with foundationa 1isrr,,
positivism, postfour:datim1alism, postpositivis •,
post ,trncl uralism, a :1d the m my qualitative
research pe:s;,tct:ve,, and/or mcthvds mnnccted
lo cuhural and interpretive s:udics (lhc chapters
in ~art II take np these paradign:s).' There are
separate and detailed litera::ures on the many
methods and approaches tl:at ·" under the catc•
gory q:.talit:;:ivc research, such as case study,
politics and ethics, p:;irticipatory inc;uiry, hter
viewing, participant observation, visual me:lmds,
au<l interpretive analysis.
k North America, qualita:lvc re-,;ean:h oper-
ates 1n a comp:cx hisl(lrirnl field that c,0$;,cuts at

least eigh: historkal moments. (We disa1ss 6ese
•
rr.mncnts in detail below:) These mon:€r.,s over-
lap and shm:itaneoJsly operate in the prescn:.'
We define tl:er:1 as the traditional ( 1900-1950 );
moder,rist, or golden {1950-1970); blurred
genres {1970- 1986 ); the crisis of repre,eni at i()n
{1986-1990);the postrrwdern,a ::1e~iod of exper'-
nrntal and new cthnogrqihies ( 1990- l 995 );
poslexpcrimental inquiry (1995-2000}; the
methodologically contested prese/11 (2000-2004);
ar:d the fractured _ftmire, which is now (:>005- ).
The futi.:.re, :he tigh:h mor:1ent, confronts the
methodological backlash l\ssociated with the
evkence-hascd ;ocial rnovemcm. It is conce:"noo
wi:h :noral disrnu:-se, with the development of
sacred textualities. The eighth mon11:111 a,ks that
the social scie:.ces and the humanities becorr:e
silt's for critical ~orwersations about democracy,
race, gender, da;;s. nation-states, globalization,
freedom, and community.5
The poslmoder:1 ,;.nd postexperimental
moments were defl ned in parl by a conce:-n Im
literary and 0 -r.,,...-," 1 trope:, and the narrative
turn, a ru11cem for storytelling, for composing
ethnogra?hie, in new ways (Bochner & Elli,,
2002; Ellis, 200,;; Goodall, 2000; Pelias, 20D4;
R:chardson & Lockridge, 2004: Truji!:o, 2004).
Laurel Richardson (1997) observes that this
mm:ient was shapeci by a new sensfoility, by
doubt, by a refusal to privilege any method or
throry (P- 17:'I ). llut now at !he dawn of this new
century we struggle to cnnnect qua] itative
researd1 to the hopes, ;;eoos, goals, and prom iscs
of a free democratic society.
Success ivc waves of epis:cm ological theori,i ng
n:011e acrms these eight moments. The :raditional
period is associated w:th the positivist, founda-
tional paradigm. The modernist or gold-~n
and blurred genres r:10mcnts are connected to the
appearance of postpositivist arguments. At the
same time, a variety of new interpretive, (JUali-
tative perspectives we:e taken up, including
hermeneutics, stm.::turalism, sem i(Jtks, phenom-
enology, cultural studies, and feminism_' In the
'llurred genres phase, ;he hmnar.itics becamf
central resu;.m.;es fo:· cr:tical. interp,e:ivc theory,
and the qualitative re.,ea~,:n project hmadly
cur, ceivcd. The researcher beca:ne a brico/eur
Denzin & Lincoln: lntroductinn 111 _l
(sec below), learning how to :mrrnw Iron- many
different disdplines.
blurred genres phase produced t:le next
stage, the crisis of repre,enlalion. Here researd:ers
straggled wit!, how m lnrate themselves and the:r
subjects in reflexive texts. A kind of methodological
diaspora took place, a tlvo-v.·ay exod·Js. Humanists
:n igrated to the sociai sciences, ,earching for nC\v
socii!l theory, new ways to .,mdy populllr culture
and its local. etl::10graphk con:exts. Social scicn•
fists turned to the burm.nities, hoping to learn hovv
to do complex structural and ;;oststrnrn;lll read
ing, of social te::,,1:s. Fru:n human 'ties, social
scientists also learned how lo produce texts that
refused to hr read simplistic, :incar, inrnmru-
ver:ihle terms. Tb:: Ii :ie between tat anc co:ncxt
bl-Jrred. In the posl:1mde~11,experirmn:1al moment.
researchers continued to move- away from foun-
dli!tional and quasi-foundatior:al criteria (see in
this volume Smith & Hockinson, Chapter
Richardson & St. l'ierre, Chapter 38). Altt'marive
evalualiv<' criteria wer~ sought, nileria that m:ght
prove cvo.:.1tive. moral, critical, ai:d rooted in local
understanding.;;.
A:1y cefinition of qualitative research :lhlSt
work withiu :his complex historical field. Qi,a/iw-
tl ve research mcar:;; difterent lhir:gs ifl cac:1 of these
moments. Nonetheless, an ir.::ial, gc:ieric defini-
tion c;m offered: Qualitative research 's a situ-
arrd activity that lorntcs the observer in the world.
It consist~ of a set of interp:-etiw, material pmcti ces
thal make the world \· isibk. 'l11ese prncl ices 1,ans-
form tl:e world. They turn the world ir.to .i series
of representations, including t:dd notes, inttr-
views, conversations, photogr>1phs, :<'rnrcing,s, ind
memos to the self At tbis level, ,Jt:alitat:ve research
involves an interpretive. naturalistic aJlproach to
t:1c world. This r:,eans that qualitaE ve researchers
study things in theit natural settings, attempting
to make sense of, or interp:et, phenomena in terms
of th~ n:canings peup!e bring to them_7
Qualitative rcsearc:i invoht•s th,:, s:udied tise
and colledion of a variety of empirical materials-
case study; personal cxperienct; int·ospcction; lite
story; interview; artifacts: cult;ual tells and pro·
dt:ctions; observational, l,istorirnl, interactional,
anc v'sual texts-that dcs;;ribe routine and proh-
:ematk rnm:1ents and meanings i:1 individuals'
4 1111 IHNUllOOK Of QUAL'.TAIIVE RESbARCH CHAPTER I
lives. Accord:ngly, qualitative researchers c.eploy
a wide range of interconnected interpretive ?rac-
tices, huping always In get a belier understanding
of :he subject n:atler at hand. 1t is u:iderstood,
however, that each prac:ice n:akes the world visible
in a d:fferent way. Hence there is faxpently a
commitment to using more thar. one interpretive
practice :n ar:y study.
I'he Qualirative Researcher
as Rriwleur and Quilt Maker
The q t1ali talive researcher may be described
usir.g multiple and gendered images: sc:entis:,
nat:iralist, field-worker, journa:ist, social crirk,
arcist, performer, jazz muslciar., fi.mmaker, quilt
maker, essayist. The many methodological prac•
tices of qualitative research may be viewed as soft
:;ciem:e, jo·Jmalism. etr.nography, hrkolage, quilt
making, Lff montage. The resrard:er, in turn, may
Je seen as a brirn/ew; as a maker of quilts, o~, as
iu film:naking, a persu:i who assembles inages
itito monmges. (On montage, see Cook, 1981,
pp. 1-1 Monaco, 1981,pp.322-328; and fat
discu,sio:1 below. On quilting, see hooks, 1990,
pp. I I I Wokon, 1995,pp.31-33.)
Ha:-per ( 19S7, pp, 9, 92), Certeau
( 19,94, p. xv), Nelson, Tre:chler, and Gro.,sberg
(1992, p. 2;, Uvi•Strauss ( 1966, p. 17), Weinstein
and Weinstein (J':191, p. 161), ar.d Kincheloe
{20()!) darify the meanings o:' brimlage and
bricoleur." A brbJ/e:IY makes do by "adapting the
brim!es of 1he work'. Brirolage is 'the poetic n:ak-
ing do""· (de Certeau, 1984, p. xv) with "such
bricoles-the odds and ends. the bits left over"
(Harper, 1987, p, 74}, The briroleur is a "Jack of
all trades, a kind of professional do-it-yourself"
(tevi•Strauss, 1966, p. 17). In their work, bricoieurs
define and extend themse'. ves ( Harper, 1987.
p. 75). Indeed, the bricoleuls life story, or biogra-
phy, "rr.ay be thought of as brkolage" (Harper,
p.92).
:here are many kinds of bricoleurs-:nter-
p,etive, narrative, theoretical, political, method-
ological (see below). The in:erpretive bricoleur
produces a brimlage-that is, a pieced-tog<"ther
set of repre,e:llations that is fitted to the specifics
of a complex situation. ·'The solu:ion {bricolage)
which is the result of the bricoleurs method is an
{emergent] construction" (Weinstein & Weinstein,
I991, p. , 61) that changes and takes new forms
Uli tl:e !,ricoleur adds diflere:it tools, methods, and
technic_ ues of representation and ir.terpretation
to :he puzzle. Nelson et al. (1992) describe the
methodology of cultural sti:dies as "a bricolage. Its
choice of prac~ice, that is pragmatic, ,trstea,r
and self·reflexive" (p. 2), Tl:is understa.,ding can
be applied, w:th q ualiflcalions, to qualitative
research.
The qua;itative researcher as bricoleur, o:-
maker of quilts, uses the aesthetic and material
tools of his or her craft. deploying whatever
strategies, methods, and empirical materials are
at !:and (Becker, 1998, p. 2). If the researcher
needs to invent, or piece together, new tools
or techniqnes,he or she will do so. Chokes regard-
ing which i:ltcrpretive practices to e:nploy are
:10t necessarily mad<" in advance.As N<"lson et al.
( 191.12) note, the "choice of research practices
depends upon fae questions that are asked, and
the questions depend on their context" (p. 2),
what is available in tnf' context, and whc.: the
researcher can do in faat setting.
These interpretive p,actices invo,ve ae,,:t1,:t1c
issues, an aesthetics of representation that goes
beyond the pragmatic or the practical. Here the
concept of montage is useful (see Cook, 1981,
p. 323; Monaco, 1981, pp. 171-172). Montage is
a method of editir.g cinematic images. Ir: the
history of cinematography, montage is most
closely associated with tile work of Sergei
Eiscnste'.n, especially his f'lm 1he Battlesfiip
Potemkin (I 925 ). In montage. several different
images are juxtaposed to or superimposed on one
another to create a picture. In a sense, montage
is like pentimenta. in which something that has
been pa'.nted out of a picture (an image the
pain:er "repented:' or denied) beco1m:s visible
again, creating something new. Vl1hat is new is
what had been obscured by a prev:ous image.
l\~cmtage and pentimento, like jazz, which ls
improvisation, create the sense that images,
sounds, ad undcrs,andir.gs are blending together,
overlapping, forming a composite, a new creation.
The i:nages seen: to shape anc define one another,
ar:d an emotior:al,gesralteffcct is produced. In f:im
,\

montage, images are often cor:1bined a swiftly
run sequence that produces a dizzily revolving
collection of several images around a central or
focused picture or sequence; cirectors often use
such effects to signify fae p-&ssage of :ime.
Perhaps the most famous instance uf montage
in film :s the Odessa Steps sequence in 'the
Battleship Potemkin. In the climax of the film. the
c:ti1.ens of Odessa a,e being massacred by czarb1
troop~ on the stone steps leading dmvn :o
harbor. Eisenstein cuts to a young mother as
pusr.es her baby in a carriage across the lancing in
o:
front the firing troops.; Citizens rush past her,
jolting the car;iage, which she is afraid to push
down to the next flight of stairs. The troops are
above her, firing at the citizens, She is trapped
bet\veen the troops a:id the steps, She screams. A
line of rifles points to the sky, the r:fle barrels erupt-
ing in smoke. The mother's head sways back. I11e
wheels of the carriage teeter on the edge of the
steps. The rr.other's hand clutches the ,ilver buckle
of her bell. Below her, people are being beaten by
soldiers. Blood drips over the mother's white gloves.
The babys hand reaches out of the carriage. The
mo6er sways back and forth. The troops advance,
The mo6er full& back against the carriage, A
woman watches in horror as the rear wheels o:
the carriage roll off the edge of the landing, W:tl1
accelerat:ng speed, the carriage bounces down lbe
steps, past dead citizens, The baby is jost:ed from
side to side inside the carriage. Tl:e soldiers fire
tneir :'illes into a group of wounded citizens. A
student screams as the carriage leaps across tbe
steps, tilts, and overturns (Cook, 1981, p, 167).'Q
Y,m:tage u~e& brief images to create a dearly
defined sense of urgency and complexity, It invites
viewers to construct interpretations that build on
om' another as a scene unfolds, These interpreta•
tions are based on associations a;nong the con•
trasting images that blend into one another. The
underlying assumption of montage is that viewers
perceive and interpret the shots in a "montage
sequence not sequemfriily or one at a time. but
rather sim11ita11eously" (Cook, 1981, p. 172). The
viewer puts the sequences together into a mean•
ingful en:otional whole, as if at a glance, all at once.
The qi.:.alitative Iesearcher who uses montage is
like a quilt maker or a jazz improviser. The quilter
Denzin & Lincoln: Introdu<::tio:; • 5
s:itches, edits, and puts slices of reality together.
This procrss creates and brings psychological and
emotional uni:y-a pattern-to an interpretive
experience. There are many examples of montage
in current qualita,ive research (see Dive::-si, 1998;
Holman Jones, L999; Lather &: Smithies, 1997;
R01:ai, 1998; see also Holman Jones, Chapter 30,
this volume). Using multiple voices, different trx•
tual formals, and various typefaces, Lather anc
Smithies (1997) weave a complex text a,o'Jt AIDS
and women who are HlV·pOllitive, Holncan Jones
(1999) creates a performance text using lyrics
from the blues songs sung by Rillie Holl.day.
Ir, texts based on the metaphors of montage,
quilt making, and jazz improvisation, many dif-
ferent tl:ings are going on at the same ""'"--
cifferent voices, different perspectives, points
o" views, angles of vision. Like autoethnographic
performance texts, works that use montage
simultaneously create ar.d enact moral meaning.
They move from the personal to :he political,
from ;he local to the iistor ical and :he cuit'J ral.
These are dialogical texts, They pn:sume an
active audience. They create spaces for give-and·
take between reader and writer. They da more
than turn the Other into the object of the social
science gaze (see in this volume Alexander,
Chapter 16; Holman Jones, Chapter 30),
Qualitative research is inherent:y multi•
method in focus (Flick, 2002, pp. 226-227).
However, the use of multiple methods, or
triangulation, reflects an attempt to secure an
in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in
question. 0 biective reality can never be captured.
We know a thing only through its representa-
tions. Triangulation is not a tool or a strategy of
validation, bet an alternative to validation (Flick,
2002, 22 7), The comb in at ion of multiple
methodological practices, empirical materials,
perspec ti11es, a:1d observers in a single study is
best u:1derstood, then, as a s:rategy that adds
rigor, breadth, complexity, richness, and depth to
any inquiry (see Flick, 2002, p. 229).
In Chapter 38 of th :s volume, Richardsor:
and St Pierre dispute the usefulness of the
concept of triangulation, asserting that the cen·
tral image for qualitative inquiry should be tbe
crystal, not the triangle. Yixed-gen re texts in the
6 Ill HA'IDllOOK OF Q~IALITA71VE llESEA:KH-C~AlrH't I
postexperlmcr:tal momcr:: have more than three
sides. Like crystals, Eisensteio's :nor::age, the
jazz solo, or the pieces in a ,guilt, the mixed-genre
telit "combines sy1IL11e1ry ar:d substan::e with an
'.nfinite varie~ shapes, su·:)stances, lransmu•
tations. . . . Crystal" grow, change, alter....
Cry,tal, are prisms that reflect exte~nal'ties and
:efract within ther.rnelves, ..:rc.1 d1:g (iifferer.t
colors, patterns, ar:ays, cast:ng off in dlffcre::it
directions" (Richardson, 2000, p. 934).
In the crys:allizaiion process, the writer tell.~
the sane tale from different poinl, of view. For
example, in A 11irire-Told 'Jale C992), Margery
Wolf uses fiction, field notes,and a scie:1tifk arti-
cle to three different accounts of the same
se: of experier.ces in a native .,dbge. Sim::arly, in
her play Fire, m the 1Wirrar (1993 l, Anna Deavere
Smith prese:it, a series of ::ierformance piece,
based on i:uerviews with peopk who were
involvec in a racial con tlict in Crown Heights,
Brooklyn, on A:.1gust 19, 1991. The play has mu:ti-
ple spca',;i11g pans, including conversations with
mcmbe:-:i, police officers, and <1 r.onymous
yoaag girls and boys. There is no one "correct"
telling pf this event. Each telling, like light hi:ting
a crystal, rctl,:x:ts a different perspective on this
indc!.ent.
Viewed as a c:ysta!Hnc form, as a montage,
or as a creative perforn:ancc a,ound a central
the1:1e, triangulation as a form of, or alternative
to, valiriity t'ms can be extended. Tr:a:igulation is
the simultaneous display of multiple, refracted
realities. Each of the metaphors "works" to create
simultaneity rather tb~n th .,eque:1tial or
Readers and audiem::es arc tl1er: invited to explore
competing visiotJS of the cnntex:, to become
immersed in and merge with new rc,J ities to
com?rehend.
The methodologkal brir:o!cur is adept at
tiJrming a number of diverse :n.,ks, ranging
from interviewi:lg to i nlensive self-reflection and
1ntmspection. The theoretical bricaleur reads
widely and is know!edgca:ile abo·.11 the many
interpretive pa radigrn s {feminism, .\farx ism,
::ultural studies, rn;1,tructivism, queer theory)
that can be bwughtfo any particular problem. He
or she :nay nut, however, feel that parndigms can
be mingled or synthesized. That is, rn1e 0111r:ot
easilv r.wve hc:1-vee:i paradigms as overarching
philosophical systems denoting padcular ontolo-
gies, cpistemol ogies, and mefaudologies. They
represem belier systems Iha; attach users to par-
ticular wor!t1view.,. l'erspect•ves, in contrast, ar;;
less well deve:oped systems, and one can move
betweec tl:e m more easily, The researc:icr as
bricoieur-theorist works between and wifain
cm1: peting and overla;:ipi:lg perspectives and
pa;--adigms,
The interpre:ive brimle•ir understandb th at
research is an inlcracliv~ process shaped by hi&
or her ow:i peroonal history, biography, gender,
' .
social dass, rare, and cthnid1v,a:1d bv those of the
;:ieo;ile in the setting. The critical bricoleur stresses
the dialectical ,md hermeneutic nature of i:lter-
disdplinary inquiq,; knowing that the bour.dar'es
that previously separated traditio:-ial disdplwes no
longer hold (Kindw'.ue, 2(101, ?• 683). The politkal
briwleur knows that science is power, for all
reseaxh findings have po'.itkal implications. There
is no value-free science. Thi, researcher seeks a
dvic social sd~nce based on a politics of hope
(Lincoln, 1999). The gendered, narrative brimleiir
also ',;nows that rese~_rchers all tell stories about tl:e
worlds they have smdiec. Tht:s the narratives, or
stories, ~cientisL~ tell are accounts couched :me
framec within specific sto:-ytell 'ng traditions, often
defi:ied as parP.digms (e,g., pos: :ivism, postposi-
tivism, con~trnc:iv ism).
The product of the interpretive bricoieurs labor
is a complex, ,r.1iltlike brkolage, .i reflexive wllagc
or mo:itage-<. sel of fluid, intercnn:iccted images
and representations. This in:crpretive structure is
like a quilt, a pt'rformam:e text, a sequence of rep
rebentation, conncctir.g :he p,irts lo the whole.
Quali tativc Research as a
Site of Multiple lntcrprctive Practices
QualitHl ive research, as a se: of :ntcrpretivc
:idiv•:ie;;, privileges no single methodological
prac tkc over ano:her. As a site !1f discussion, or
discourse, qt.alitativ<' rr.search is diflkult to define
clearly. It has no !fleory or paradigm that is dis-
ti m:tly own. contrib;iti01:s to Pttrl II of

this volume '.1:Yeal, mull iple theo:-etical paradigm;;
claim 1.se of qualit,dve research me::iocs anc
strategies, from :ons:rucfo:ist to cultural stucies,
feminism, :Marx'sm, and ethnic nodds of study,
Quali:at'.ve resea,ch is used in many separate
di,cipl ines, as we will discuss below. It doe, not
·:Jelong m a single disclpline.
No:- docs qualit:::tive research have a distinct se:
of method, or practices that arc entirely its own.
Qualitat'.ve rcsearche:-s use semiotics, nar~ative,
::onten:, dis,:;uursc, archiv:tl and phonemic analy•
sis, even stalistics, tables, graphs, and m:r:1bers.
They also draw on and utilize the approaches,
me:hods, anti techniqi.:.es of etr.nomcthodology,
phccomenology, hermem:u:ics, ferr.inism, rl:i-
wmatics, deconstructio:1'sm, ethnogra11hy, lr:ter-
view ing, p.sychoana.ys:s, cultural studies, survey
re~earch, and partici?ant observatio:1, among
others." All of the,e research :m,ctices "can pro•
vide '.1;1porta:n insights and knowledge" (Nel,on
e: a:., I9Y2, p. 2). :r,;o specific me::ioc or prnctke
can be :,rivil=e<l over anv other.
' v '
Many of these !T.ethods, or research practk:es,
are used in other contexts ir. the human disciplines.
l:a~h beats the tra-:es of its m,m disciplinary hismry.
Thus there is ,m extensive history of the ru,es ,md
meaning:; of ethnography aud ethrology ii: educa-
1ion (see in this volume Lmlson-Billings &: Donner,
Chapter ll; Kincheloe & i'vkLaren, Chapter 12);
of participant observation a:id ethnography in
anthropology (see Foley & Valenzuela, Chapter
Te,!loc:<., Chapter 18; Brady, Chapter 39), sociology
(see Hulstei:1 & Gubrium, tnap:cr 19; Fontana &
hey, Cnapter 27; Ha:-per, Chapter 29), communica-
tions (see Alexander, Chapter 16; Holman Jones,
C:iaptcr JO), and cultura'. studies (sec Saukko,
C:1apter 13); of textual, hern,eneutic, feminist, psy-
.
diuaralvtic. arts-based, semiotic, and narrative
'
analys:s in cinema and literary studies (sec Olcsc:1.
Chapter JO; Finley, Chapter 26; Brady, Chapter 39h
and of narrative, discourse, and cor:versational
analysis in sociology, :nedicine, communications,
and cducatiu:i (set: Miller & f.rabtree, Chapter 24;
Chase, Chapter Pc,,,kyla, Chapter 34).
The many histor:es that surround each method
or researd1 strategy reveal how multiple use, am:
meaning, are brought to each practice, ·1extnal
L>enzir. & :.incoln: lntroduoion 1111 7
anal~scs
,
in literarv' studie1;, for example, ofter:
treat texts as self-contained systems. On the o;her
hand, a researd:er working fron: a cultural studies
or feminist perspec t:ve reads a text in terms of
:oca:io:1 within a his:orical momen: marked by a
particular gender, race, or class ideology. Acultural
sludies use of ethnography would bring a set o:
1:ncerstandings from femir:Lsm, pn,tmodernism.
and poststructuralism to the projrct ,hese under•
standings would not be shared by mainstream
postpositi vist soriologi sts. Similarly, postpositivis:
and poststrm::urnl historians br':1g different
understandings anc. uses to the method~ and tl:id ·
ing~ of historit1tl research (see Tierney, 2000).
These tensions and contradictiom are all evident
in the chapters in this volume_
T'.,esc separate and r:1ultiple uses and mean-
ings of the methods of qualitative rest:arch make
it diffk,11lt for scholars to agree on any essi::ntial
dec"nitio:i of the field, for it is never just one
thing.tz St:], we must es:ablish a definition fo:-
purposes thi, discus,ion. We burrow from, and
purap;uase, Nelson et ( 1992, p. 4) attempt to
define cultural stulies:
Qualitative research is all interdi:;dplinary, trans•
disciplinary, and sometimes countcrcl&cipli11ary
field. fl cros:,rnl:, !he humanities and the soda] and
physkal sciences. Qualitative r,·sc;m:h is many
things at the same lime, It is multiparndigrnatic :n
focus. practitioners are sensitive to the value of
the m·Jlt' method approach. They are committed :o
the naturalistic pers;,cctive and to the interpretive
understandi ::g of hu:nan experience. At the same
time, :he lield is i&ierc:1tly ;1oliti.;al and shaped by
multiple eth icFJ m:d political positl:rns.
Q;;alitative res,ean:h em:ira,es twu tecsions al
the same time. On the one band, tt is drawn to ~
hnrnd, intc,pretive, poMcxperimental, postmodern,
feminist, and critical sensi'::,ility. On t:~e othe: ".and,
it is dr~wn to mon' :iarmwly de:7 ned pc)sitivis;,
pt)stposi:i1lsr, h:.imar:'stk, and naturalistic rnnccp•
tiu:is of human experience and analy~fa. Further,
tensions can he coml:iincd in t:ie same projec:,
bringing both postmodern and naturalistic, or hoth
critirn; and humanistic. pers:ie,!ives to bear.
This rather awkY,rard statement means that
qualitative research, as a set of p;3ctice;;, embraces
 8 • HA~DBOOK Oc QUA:,:TATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP':'ER I
within its own multiple disciplinary histories
constant ter:sions and rnntrac:ictions over the
project itself, including its n:ethods and the forms
its findings and interpretations take, The f:eld
sp:'awls between and cuts across all of the human
disdpl:nes, even induding, in some cases, Hie
physical sciences. Its practitioners are variously
committed to modern, postmodern, and postex•
perimental sensibilities and the approaches to
social research that these sensibilities imply.
Resistances to Qualitative Studies
The academic and disciplinary resistances to
qualitative research illustrate the politics en:bed-
ded in this field of discourse. The challenges to
quahtative research are many. As Seale, Gobo,
Gubrium, and Silverman (2004) observe, we can
best unde~stand these criticisms by "dist in
guish [ing. analytically the politkal (or external)
role of [qr:alitative] methodology from the proce-
du;al (or imernal) one" (p. 7}. Politics situate
IT):thodology within and outside the academy.
Pmcedu ral issues define how qualitative method-
ology is 'JSed to produce knowledge about I he
world.
Often, the political and the procedt:ral inter
sect Politicians and "hard" scientists sometimes
call qualitative researchers journalists or soft sci
entists. The work of qualitative scholars is termed
unscientific, or only exploratory, or subjective. It is
called criticism rather than theory or science, or it
is interpreted poll:i,ally, as a disguised version of
Marxism or secular humanisrr. (see Huber, 1995;
see also Denzin, 1997, pp. 258-261 ).
These political and procedural resistances
reflect an uneasy awareness that the i:lterpre:ive
traditions of qualitative ,esearch commit the
researcher to a critique of the positivis: or post-
positivist project. But the positivist resistance to
qualitative researd: goes beyo:id the "ever-present
desire to maintai:i a distinction between hard
science and soft scholarship" (Carey, 1989, p. 99;
see also Smith &; Hodkir.son. Chapter 36, th:s
volume). The experimental (positivist) sciences
(physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology,
for examp:e) are otten seen as the crowning
achievements of Western civilization, and in their
practices it is assumed that "truth" can transcend
opinion and pe:-sonal bias (Carey, 1989, p. 99;
Schwandt, 19970, p. 309). Qual:tative research is
see:i as an assault on this lr.1dition, whose adher
ents often retreat into a "value, free objectivist
science" (Carey, 1989, p. 104) model to defend
their position. They seldom atterr. ;;t to make
explicit, or to cri:ique, the "moral am: political
comr.1itme:1ts in their own contingent work"
(Carey, I98':I, p. l04; see also Gi.;ba & L: ncoln,
Chapter 8, this volume).
Positivists further allege that the so-called
ne-1v experimental qualitative researcher, write
fiction. not sdence, and that these researchers
have no way of verifying their truth state:nents.
Ethnographic poetry and f:ction signal the death
of empirical science, and there is falle to he
gained ·,y at:empting to engage in moral criti-
cism. These critics presume a stable, unchangi:ig
reality that can be studied using the empirical
methods of objective social science (see Huber,
1995). The province of qualitative research,
accordingly, is the world of lived experience, for
this is where individual belief and action intersect
with cultu::e. Under this model there is no preoc-
cupation with discourse and method as material
interpretive practices that ~onstitute :-epresenta-
:ion and description. Thus is the textual, r.arrative
turn rejected by the positivists.
The oppositior: to pos' tive science by the post•
structuralists is seen, then, as an atta..:k on reason
and tr:.ith. At the same time, the positivist science
attack on qualitative res,ean:., is regarded as an
attempt to legislate one version of truth over
another.
Politics and Reemergent Scietttism
The scientifically based research (SBR) move•
men! initiated in recent years by the Na:ional
Research Council (~RC) has created a hostile
political environment for qualitativr rtsean::1.
Cunrn:cted to the federal legislation lcmwn as the
No Child Left Behind of 2001, SBR embodies
a reemergent scienti.s.m (Mar11ell, 2004), a posi-
tivist, evidence-based epistemology. The :novement

encourages resea:x:hers to employ ''rigoro'Js,
systematk, and objective methodology lo obtain
reliable and valid knowledge " (Ryan & Hood,
2004, p. 80), The preferred methodo'.ogy employs
well,.defined causa't models and independent and
dependent variables. Researchers examine causal
modcfa in the con:ext of randomized controUed
ex,ierimcnts, wl:icl: allow for replication and genrr-
o:
alization their results (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p, 81 ),
Under such a f:amework. qualitative research
becomes suspect Qualitative research doe~ not
require well-defined variables or causal models.
The observat:ons and measurements of qualita-
tive schohm, are not based on subjects' random
assignment to experin:er,tal groups. Qualitative
researchers do not gei,erate "hard evidence'' using
such methods, At best, through case study, inter•
view, and ethr:ograph:c methocs, researchers can
gather descriptive n:aterials that can be tested
with experimental methods. The epistemologies
of critical rnce, queer, postcolonial, femi:!ist, and
postmodern theories are :endered useless by the
SBR ?erspective, relegated at best to the category
of scholarship, not science (Ryan & Hood, 2004,
p. 81; St. Pierre, 2004, p. 132).
,,,,,,.M of the SBR movement are united on
:he foUo"'ing po'nts. "Bush science" (Lafaer, 2004,
p, 19) a:id its experimental, evidence-based
methodo:og!es represe:it a racialized, masculinist
h.tcklash tu the proliferation of qualitative inquiry
methods over the past two decades, The moveme:1t
e:1dorse5 a narrow view of science (Maxwell,2004)
that celebrates a "neoclasskal experimentalism
that is a throwback to the Campbell-Stanley era
and its dogmatic adherence to a:1 exclusive reliance
on quantitative n:elhodi' (Howe, 2004, p, 42). The
movement represents "nostalgia for a simp:e a:1d
ordered un:verse of science that never was"
(Popkewitz, 2004, p. 62). With its emphasis on only
one form of s::ien:itk rigor, the NRC igi:ores the
value of us:ng complex historical, contextual, and
political criteria to evaluate inquiry (l!loch, 2004),
As Howe (2004) observes, neoclassical experi-
mentalists extol evidence-based ''oedkal re~earch
as tht model for educational research, particularly
fae random clinical trial" (p. 48). llut dispensing
a pill in a random clinical trial is quite unlike
Denzin & Lincolr:: Ir:troductimi 11, 5
"dispensing a curriculum:' and the of an
educational ei::periment cannot be easily mea-
sured, unlike a "10-poinl reduction in ciastolic
blood pressure" (p, 48; see also Miller & Crabtree,
Chapter 14, this vohm:e ),
Qualitative researchers must learn to think
outside the box as they critique the NR<: and its
methodological guidelil1es (Atkinson, 2004), They
must apply their imaginations and find new ways
to define such terms as randomized design, causal
model, policy stu,11es, and public science (Cannella
& Lincob, 2004a, 2004b; Lincoln & Ca:inella,
200<ta, 2004':,; Lincoln & Tierney, 2004; Wtinstein,
2004). More deeply. qualitative researd1er5 must
resist oonservative attemp,s to discredit qualita-
tive inquiry by phldog it back inside the box of
positivism.
Mixed-Methods Experimentalism
As Howe (2004) notes, the SBR movement finds
a place for qualitative methods in mixed-methocs
experimental designs. Jn such designs, qualitative
• ethods may be "employed either singly or ir.
con:binarion wit1i quantitative methods, including
the use of ,andomited experimen:al designs"
(p. 49). Mixed-methods designs are di'.'fct desce11-
da:1ls llf classical experimentalism. They presume
a methodological hierarch)' in which quantitative
methods are at the top and q1:alitative me:hods are
relegated to "a largely a'JXiliary role in pursuit of
the technocratic aim of accum'.l!ating knowledge uf
'wha: wo,ks'" (pp, 53-54),
The mixed-methods movement takes q11<1lita-
tive methods out of their natu,al ho:ne, which is
within the critical, ir,terpretive framewurk {Howe,
1004, p. 54; but see Teddlie & 1ashakkori, 2003,
p. 15), It divides inquiry into tlkhotmnous cate·
gories: exploration versus con:irmation, QuaJi,
tative work is assigned to the first category,
quan~italive research to ;:he second (leddEe &
Tashakkori, 2003, p. Uke the classic exper:-
mental modd, it exd udes stakeholders from
dialogue and active participation in .:he research
process. This weakens its dem-0aatic and dialog-
ical dimensions and decreases the likelihood that
previously silenced voices will be heard (Howe,
10 111 'IANDBOOK 01' QUALTTATIVE RBSEAllCl!-CEAPTER I
2004, pp. 56-57), As Howe (2004) cwlions, it is
not just :he mmethodological fundamentalists'
who have bought into [this] approach. A sizable
number of rather influer,tial ... educational
researchers ... have also signed mi. This might
be a con:promise to the current political di:nate;
it might be a hacklash against the perceived
excesses of posl modcrni,m; it might ',e Jx1th. [t
is an nm;nuus deve!opmenl, whatever the expla-
nation" (p. 57),
l'ragm::itic Criticisms of An rifoundationaiism
Seale et al. (2004 l contest what they regard as
the excesses of a:1 an:ime':hodologlcal. "anything
goes;' romantic postnodernisr:1 that is associated
with our project 'l''ley assert that loo often the
approach we vah:c produces "low quali:y qua'.ita·
tive r~se;1rch and research resu'. :s that are qu:te
stereotypicai and dose to commor: sense" (p. 2).
111 con:rast, they propo,c a practicc·-based, ;irag-
matk approach that places rese~rch prnct ice at
the ce:iter. They note Ihat rese,1rch involves an
engagement ''w' th a va::iety of thir.gs and people:
research :naterials ... soda! theories, philosoph
ical debates. values, methods, tests ... ,eseard1
partki?ants" (p. 2). (Actually, this approach is
quite dose to our own, es?edally o,ir view of the
bricoleur and bricolage.) Seale e~ aJ:s situated
methodology rejects the antifoundational claim
that there are only ::,artial truths, :hal lhc dividing
line between fa,.,,: anc :ktion has broken down
(p, 3), These scholars believe that this div'dini;;
line has not collapsed, anc that qualitative
rese<1rchers shoulri r:ot stories if they do
no: ,.-rnrr witt. ,he best available facts (p. 6).
Ocdly. these pragmatic ?rocedural arp1ments
reproduce a variant of the evidence•based model
and its criticisms of poststru~:ural, performa:ive
sensibilities, They can be to provide political
support fur tbe methodological n,arginali1.ation
o:: the posdons advanced bv' manv of the contrib-
;
i:tors to tbs volume.
The com pl ex polit:cal terrain ccscribed
above define.; the :nany tracitio:is and strands
of qualitative research: the British t:-adi:ion and
presence in other national contexts; the
Ar:ierirnn pragmatic, 11aturalistic, and inter-
pretive traditions in sociology, ant hropo,ogv,
communications, and educa:ior:: the Germa11 ilnd
Frend: phc:1oreenol11girnl, henr:e-neutk, semi-
otic, Marxist. stmctural, and poststructural per-
spectives; feminist studies, Afr:can Ar:1erkan
studies, i,atino studies, queer stud ks, studies of
indigenous and aboriginal c.iltures. 1':te politics
of qualitative research creates a tensinn that
informs each of these tradition,. This tension
itself is constantly bciug reexamined aud interro-
gated as qualitative research conf:nnts ;, changing
historical world, new inte:lectual posi:ions, and
its owi: institutional and acadenic cnnditions.
To s11mn:arize, QuaEtalive resear6 is many
things to mar.y people. lt, essem::e is twofold: a
con:m itmer:t lo some version of the naturalistic.
interpretive approach to its su:iject matter and an
ongoing critlq·Je of the politic, and netl:ods of
postpositivism. We turn now to a brief dIsci:ssion
of major differences be,ween qualite:ive and
quantitative approaches to restarch. We tl:cn
l~iscuss ongoi:1g differem.'Cs and tensions w[thin
q·Jalitative inquiry.
Ill QuA:,:TATIVF, VERsus
QLJA\/'71TA1"1V E RESEARCH
The word qualilati·,e implies a::i emphasis on the
qualities of entities and or: processes and u:e~n-
ings that a,e not experimenta'.:y examined or
measured (if meiisured al all} in terms of qua11•
tity. amoun:, inler:siry, or frequency. Qualitative
researchers ,tress the socially ,1>r:structed nature
of reality, the intimate relationship between fae
researcher anc what is studied, and the sit u.itional
constraints that s:1ape inquiry. Such researcrcr..
emphasize the value-laden nature o: !n1cuiry. They
seek answers tu quest:ons that stress how social
experience is crea:cd and givei: mean:ng. I,1 con-
trast, quantitative studies rmpha,ize the mcasure-
r:1enl ar:d analysis of amsal relationships between
variables, not pm~esse,. Propo::ients of such
ics claim tr.cc :heir wo:k is done from witnit1 a
vabe- free frw1ework,

Research Styles:
Doing the Same Things Differently?
0~ course, hoth qua:itadvc and quantitative
resea:cbers "think they know something about
society worth te;linB lo others, and they use a
variety of forms, media means to communi-
~ate their ideas and findings" (Becker, 1986,
p. 122). Qcalitat:ve research dffers from quand-
tative researth ir: five significant ways (Becker,
19%). These points of differenu,, discussec ir.
turn below, all involve ciffere:tt ways of address-
ir.g the same set of issues. They return always to
6e politics of research and to who has power
to legislate co,rect so'.utions to social problems.
of positivism mtd postpositivism. hrs I,
both perspectives are shaped by fhe positivist and
postpo,itivist traditions ::n the physical and social
sciences (,ee :he discussion below). These two pos-
i:Mst science tradition; hold to naTve and critical
realist positions concerning reality and its percep-
tion, In the positivist version it ts contended that
there is a reality out the:e :o be studied, captured.
and W1derstood, whereas the postpositivists argue
that =lity can never be fully apprehended, only
approxioated (Guba, 1990, p, 22). Postpositivis:n
relies on multiple methods as a way of capturing
as much of :eality as pos.sihle, At the same time,
it emphasizes 1he disco\'l::ry ,md verification of
theories. Traditional evaluation criteria, such as
internal ar.d external validity, are stre,sec., as is the
use qualitative procedures that lend themselves
to sln:ctured (sometimes statistical) analysis.
Compule:·-assisted methods of analysis that permit
frequency counts, tabulations, and low-level statis-
tical analyses may also be emp!oyed.
The ?OSitivist and i,ostpositivist traditior:s
linger like long shadows over the c.ua:itative
research project. H:storically, quaUtative research
was de:ined wi:hin the positivist paradigm. wI1ere
qualit:dve researc:1ers attempted to do good
positivist research with less rigorous methods
and procedcres. Sorr:e mid-20th-ce:itury qualita-
tive researc'.,ers re?orted participant observation
findings in terms of quasi-slatistics (e.g., Becker,
Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, l 96 I). As recently as
1998, S;rauss and Corbin, tv,o leading proponents
Denzlr. & Lincoln: lnt~oducrion 111 • 1
of tl:e grounded theory appmach to qualitative
research, attern;Jted to modify the ust:al car.ons of
good (positivist) sdem:e to fit their own postpos·
itivis: conception of rigorous research (but see
Charmaz, Chapter 20, this volume; see also Glaser,
1992), Some applied researchers, while claiming
to be atheoretical, often fit withir: the positivist or
postpositivist framework by default
Flick (2002) usefully summar12es the dif•
ferences between :h ese two ap?roaches to
inc uiry, noting that the quantitative approach
has been used for purposes of isolating "causes
and effects ... operationali2:ng theoretical rela-
tions ... [and 1 measuring ... qi.:an:ifying
?henomena . . allowing the generalization of
findings" (p. 3). Bui today doubt is cast on such
projects: "Rapid social change and the resulting
diversification of life worlds a:e increasingly um-
fronting social researchers with new soda! ror.-
texts and perspectives .... traditional deductive
methodologies . . . are failing.... thus research
is increasingly forced to make use of inductive
strategies instead of starEng from :heories and
testing them, •.. knowledge and practice are
studied as lm:al:Snowledge and practice" (p. 2).
Spindler am: Spindler (1992) summarize their
qualitative approach to quantitative n,aterials:
"Instrumentation and qlllllltifa:ation are simply
pro<:edJres employed to exte:1d and reinforce ce:-
lain kinds of data, interpretations and test hypo-
theses across samples. Both must be kept in their
One must avoid :heir premature or overly
extensive use as a security r.1echanism" (p. 69).
Although many qualitative researctiers in the
pustpositivist tradition use statistkal measures,
methods, and documents as a way of locating a
group of subjects within a larger population, they
seldom report their findings i:l terms of 1he kinds
of complex statistical measures or methods to
which quantitative researchers are drawn (e.g.,
path, regression, and log-lbear analyses),
Acceptance of postmodern sensibilities. The use
of quantitative, positivist methods and a,;surnp•
lions has been rejected by a new generation of
qualitative researchers who are attached to pm,1
structural and/or postmodern sensibilities. These
researchers argue that positivist methods are but
12 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALJ'J/\'.l'!Vli R:.Sf:ARCE-CHAl'TF.R 1
one way t,f tell'ng slmics ahout socie:it's or soc:ul
worlds. These methods n:ay b,; no hetter or no
worse than any ot'lcr n:ethods; the:, just tell
different kinds of storks,
This tolernnt view is not shared by all qualita,
tive researchers (Huber, 1995 ). Many members of
t:ie critk11l faeory, i:onstructivist, poststrnctural,
and postm°':em schools of thought reject posi•
t:vist ;me postpositivist criteria when evaluating
their own work. They see tlwse criteia as irrele-
vant tc their work and co111enc that such ,rite::a
repniduce only a cc,tain kiudof science, a sder:ce
that silences too many voices. These researc:1ers
,eek al :cmative r:1ethod, for evaluating their
work, including verisimilitude, en:otionality, per-
sonal responsibility, an ethic of caring, political
pra:-Js, multivoiced texts, and dialogues with
subjects. In response. po~itiv'st~ and postposi-
:ivists argue that what they do !s good science,
:ree of individual bias a:id subjectivity. As noted
above, they sec postmodemism aml po5tsl~uc-
turalism as attllCks on reason and truth.
Capturing the b111iridw1/'s point of vie·.4c Hmh
qualitative ,rnd quantitative researd:ers arc
wncerncd wit:! :he imliv:dual's point of view.
However, ,Ji:ali:ative investigator~ think they can
get do~er lo the actor's perspective lhrough
detailed interviewing and observation. They
argue that qua:ll:tativc r,·searchers are seldom
ablt to capture 1heir subjects' perspectives
because :l:~y have lo rely on more remote, i nfcr-
clllial cmp:rical methods and materials. Many
quantitative researchers reg,mi the C'mpirkal
material; produced by interpretive methods as
1.:nrefoible, impresslonistk,and not obj~ct:ve.
E:wmining the constraints of everyday life,
Qt:alitative researchers arc more likely lo
confront and come up against the constra:nts of
the everyd3y social world. They see tUs wurld i:1
acrk,n ard embed 1:1eir t:ndings in it Quantita•
live resc;rchecS abs,rnc t from this world and
seldom study it directly. They seek a 11omotl:N ic
nr ctk sri.::ice ba,Ell on p mbab iii tie, derived
fro:n the st Jdy of large nu m:icrs of :andoml y
sele, tt"d c:i;e~, These kinds of state'n:ents ,tand
above and ontside the con.,traints of everyday
life. Qualitative resC'archcrs, on the other !:and,
are committed m an cmic, idiographi2, case-
based po~:I ion that directs alien lion to the
specifics of partkula: case$.
Sernring rid, d1:scriprio11s. Qua'.itative researchers
believe th at ricl: descriptions o: the soda: world
are valuable, whereas quantitative re,carchcrs,
wil ~ th efr etic, :wmothetic co:n 'll it:nents, are
less .:oncerned with such deta ii. Qt1,rntitativf
researchers ,re deliberately unconcerned with
rich descriptions because such detail inlerrnpls
the process of developing generalizatio:ts.
Ill III Ill
The five points o: d:fference des.:ribed above
reOect qualitaliw and quintitative scholars' o:im•
mitments :o difforenl styles of ret.::ar..:::,, different
episl1e1m,lugies, and diffo,enl forms o:' representa·
tim:. Each work tradition is governc,l by a di:fereI:I
set of genres; each has its own classics, its ow:i
preferred forms of repn:se11tatiu11, i:lterpre:a-
tion, uustwonhiness, and textual evaluation (see
Becker, 1966, pp. 134-13:,). Qualitative researchers
use ethnographic prose, h:s,orical narratives, first•
person accff.mls, still phntogrnphs, l'fr h:stor:es,
fic7ionalized "facis;' ,111d biog:aph; cal ,.ind aulobio-
graphkal materials, among others. Quantitative
researchers use mathe:11atkd models, statistical
tables, ,rnJ graph,-, ac,I they 1:sual:y write 2bot1t
tl:eir research in impersonal, :hird-r,crson pm~c.
11:1 TFNSlO\lS \Vll'E!N
QUALITA'f:VE RESEARCH
It is erroaeous to pn:sumc that all GLtalilative
rese,1rd:ers share tl:e same assu111pl io:is about
the tiw points of dlfforence desni:::.ed above. As
the following cisci:ssion reveals, positivist, post·
posl'. ivisl, and post,! ruclurnl differences def:nc
and shape the ciscourse~ of qual'tative rcscarc:i.
Realists ,ind postpositivists within the inter-
pretive, qual'ta:ive research tradi:ion criticize
poststrnctmalists for taki:ig the textual, na::·,itive
tun:. T'Iese critics contend that such work is r.avd
gazing. lt produces tl:e couditio:1~ ~for u dialogue

the deaf bctwee:t itself a11d the community"
(Silverman, 1997, p. 240 ). Critics accuse ,hose who
attempt to capti;.re the point of of the inter·
acting suhjec, in the world of naWc humanism, of
repmdudag Roman:k impulse which elt:Vates
the experiential to the level of the authentic"
(S::venr:an, 1997, p. 248).
Still other, a,,ert that those ;vho take the
textual, p;;rforn:ance tum ignore Ii vcd experi
em;e. Snow and Morr!II (1995) argue "t.,is
per!bm:ance turn, like tl:e ;mcocn:?alion wit:l
di sco1:rse anc storytelling, will take us further
fror.1 the firld of social action ar.d the real dramas
of c-veryday life and thus s:gnal foe death knrll nf
ethnograp:rr as an en:::iirically grnundec enter·
prise" (p. 361 ). Of cou'.'Se, "" disagree.
Critical Realism
for some, there is a thin! stre-,un, between na'fve
positivisrr: and po,ist:-ucluralism. Critical realisrr:
is an antiptJ;itivist movement in :lte social scien.:es
c:(l,e]y a,suciated with the works of Roy Bhaskar
anc Rom Harre (l)anermar:,:, Ekstrom, Jakobsen, &
Karlsson, 2002). Critical rcal'sts use the word criti•
cal ir: a particular way. Th:, is not "Frankfart
schoor ,ritkG' theorr, although there are traces of
soda! criticism herr and {sec Dam.:rmark
el al., 2002, p. 20 I), lrstead, critical in thi, co:itext
refers ~o a :rans,endcntal rc.!lism that reject,
:nethodological individualism a:1d universal claims
m truth. Critical realists op:;ose logical positivist,
relativist, and antifuundationa: cpistemolog:es.
Critical rcali,1s agree with the positivists that there
is a world of events out there that is ohs<'rvablc and
i11cepe:1de111 of human consciousness. They hole
that knowledge about thi; world is socially .:on•
structrd. Society is made up of feeling, tl:inki:ig
human ::ieings, and their interpretatinns of ~he
wor'.d mt:,t be studied (Darn,:11:ark et al., 2002,
p. 200 ). Critical reabts reject a correspo:1dence
theory of trath, They believe that is ammged
in levels and that scientif:c work mt:.'!! go beyond
,tatrments of regdarity to analysis of the mec:1a •
:1isms, processes, and structure, that account for
patterns that are oh.,ervro.
Still, as poste:npiricist, antifoundationaL ::riti•
;:al thcor•,ts, we reject n:uch of what the crit:cal
Dcniin & Linroln: Introduction !I 13
real is:s advocate. Throughout the past century,
sodal ,ciem:e and philosophy have been co:1tir:u
ally ta:1gled up with one another. Various "i,m,"
and philosophical movemcn~s have cris,cro5',ed
sodo'.ogical and educational discourse:,, from pos-
itivism :o pustpusitivism, to analytic and linguistk:
philosnphy, to hermeneu:ics, s:r·Jcturalism, post-
s:ructur..ilism, );farxism, fomin'sm, and rnrrent
post•post versions of all of the ahove. Some have
said that the logical positivists steered the social
sciences on a rigorous course of self.destruction.
We do not think th.at critical realism will keep
the social science sh:p aOoat. The social sciem:es
are norn:ative disciplines, always already embed-
Ced in is.sues of value, ideology, power, desire, sex-
:sm, racism, do:ni11ation, repression, anc control.
\'¼: want a social science that is committed ap front
to issurs of soda! justice, equity, nonviolence,
peace, and universal human ri!!h:s. \\\:; do not want
a social science th,1t says it can acdrcss issues
if it wants to. For :.rn, that is no longer ar option.
With these dif.erences witnin and betwre11
interpretive traditior:s in hand, we rr, as: r:ow
bricflv discuss the historv of qua Iita :ive research.
' '
1/\'e break th:, history into eight historical
moments, mindful that any history is always
somewhat arb: trary and always at least partially
a social rnn.struclion,
• THE HISTORY OF
QuAL!T,\TlVE RESl'ARCH
The history of ,,ualitative research reveal.a t'.lat the
modern soda; science disciplines have taken as
their mission "the analysis and understanding
the patterned conduct ar:d social processes of
socicty"(Vidich & Lyman,2000, p. 37).The notion
that ~ocial scientists conic carry out this task
presupposed that they had tbr abil'ty to o':iserve
this wor:d ob;cctively. Qualitative methods were a
major too! of such observations. n
Throughout the history of qJalitative resea:-ch,
qualitative investigators have defim,d their work
in terms of hopes ,me va'.ucs, "~eligious faiths,
ocn:patimml and professional iceologies" (Vidkh
& LymAn, 2ilUO, p, 39). Qualitative research (like
all research; has always been judged on the
14 11 HAJIDROOK OF QaAl.lTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER I
"standard of ,,/nether the work co• municates or
'says' something to (Vidkn & Lyman, 2000,
p. 39). based on how we conceptua:ize our reality
and our images of the world. Epi.;temofagy is tht
word that has historically defined these standards
of eva:uation. rn thf contemporary period, as we
!lave argueri ahnve, many received discourses on
epistemology are now being reevalua:ed.
Vidich and Lyman's (2000) work on the
;iistory of qualitative research covers the follow-
ing (so1:1ewhat) overlapping stages: early eth:10g-
raphy (lo the 17th century), colon:al ethnography
(17th-, i8th-, and : 9tl1 century explorers), the
ethnography of the American Indian as "O:her"
(late-19th- and early,20th century anthrnpol-
ogy ), mmm unil y studies and elh 110(!,raphies
of America:i immigranls {early 20th century
through the 1960s), studies uf ethnicity and
assimilation {midcentury farough :he 1980s), and
the present, which we call the eighth moment
[n each of these eras, researchers were and
have been influenced by their polltkal l:opes and
ideologies, discoverbg ::lndings in their research
that confirmed their prior theories or beliefs.
Early ethnograpl:ers co:ifinned the rac:al and
cultural diversity of peoples throughout the
globe and attempted to fit this diversi:y in:o a
theory about the origins of h1story, the races,
and civilizations. Colonial ethnographers, before
the pro~essionalizatio:1 of ed:mography h the
20th century, fostered a colonia: pluralism that
left natives on their own as long as their leaders
could be co-opted by the colonial admir.i~tration.
European ethnographers studied Atr:cans,
Asians, and other Third Wor:d peoples of color.
Early American ethr.ographers st udierl the
American Indian from the perspective of the rnn-
qt:e:ur, who saw the lifeworld of the primitive as
a window to lhe prehistoric past. The Calvinist
mission to save t1:te Indian was soo.:i transferred to
the mission of saving the "hordes" of immigrants
wr.o entered fae United States with the begin-
nings of industrialization. QuaE:ative comraur.ily
slt:dies of the ethnic Other proliferated fro:n the
early l 900s to the 19608 and included the work of
E. Franklin Frazier, Robert Par;,;, and Robert
Redfield and their students, as well as William
Foote Whyte, the Lynds, August Hollingshead,
Herber:: Gans, Star.ford Lyr.,an, Arthur Vidich, and
Joseph Bensman. The pos!-1960 etlmici:y studies
challer:ged the "melting pot" hypotheses of Park
and his followers and corresponded to tile e:ner-
gence uf ethnic: studies programs that saw Native
Arr.erkans, Lafams, Asian Americans, and African
Americans atlempt:ng to take .:ontrol over the
study of their own peoples.
The postmodern aad poststructural challenge
emerged in the mid· l 980s. It questior.ed the
assumptions that had organized this earlier
his:ory in each of its .:olonizing moments. Quali-
tative research that crosses the "postmodern
divide" requires the scholar, Vidich and Lyman
(2000) argoe, to "abandon all established and pre•
conceived values, theories, ?erspectives .. , a:id
p,ejudices as resources for eth:iographic study"
(p. 60 ). In this new era the qualitative researcher
does more than observe history; Ile or she plays a
part in it. New tales from the field will now be writ·
ten, and tney will rellect the researchers' direct and
personal engagenent with this historical period_
Vidich and Lyman's analysis covers :he full
sweep of ethnographic history. Ours ls coofincd
to the 20th and 21st centuries and complements
rnar.y of their divisions. We begin with the early
foundational work. of :he British and French as
well as the Chicago, Columbia, Harl'ard, Berkeley,
and British sr:mols {lf ,ociology and anthropology:
This early foundation2I period estahlisheri tl:e
norms of classical c.ualitative and ethnographic
research (see Gupta & rergumn, 1997; Rosaldo,
l 9K9; Stocking, 1989)_
a TH£ EIGHT MoMENrs
OF Qt:ALJTATIVE RESEARnl
As we have notcd a'::love, we divide ou, hlstorv, of
qua;itative research ir. North America in the 20th
century and beyond in:o eight phases, which we
descr:be in turn below.
The Traditional Period
We call the first moment the traditional period
(this covers the second and third phases discussed
by Vidicn & Lyman, 20oot It begir:s in ihe early

1900, anrl con:inues until World Wa: IL In this
period, qualitative resea,chers wrote "objective:'
colonizing acrounts of :leld experie:ices that were
refle<:tive o: the ?Ositivist ,dentist paradigm. Thty
we:e ,:oncerm:d with uf.ering valid, reliable, and
objective interpretations in faeir writings. ·111e
"Otie:-" whom bey studied was lllien, foreign, and
strange.
Herc is Malinows~i (1967) discussing his field
experiences :n New (i c.i nea and the Trobriand
Islands in the 1914-15 and 1917 18. He is
bartering his way into field data:
No:hing whatever d:aws me to ebnogra;,l::c
studies. , , On whole the village s;mck :;ie
r,lher unl,;vcmi:ily. There is a crnex:- disorganiza•
!:on ... llii: rowdin~,s and f!ersif.tence of the people
who laugh a::d stare and cliscouraged me seme,
whet. ... Wen: :o !he ,'Hage hoping to photograph a
few s:agc& fmm dam:<!, I handed ,1ut ha;:-stid:s
of tobacco, then wa1:d1,•d ~ few dances; then tnok
pictures-bul results were pior.... they wou:d not
poae hmg enough for time exposures. At rr.oments
l was tur'ous at them. particularly because after
l gave them thcir port:ons of 1n·Jacco they all wrnt
away.(quoted in 1988,pp. 1>-1"1
ln a:wther work, this lonely, frustrated, isolated
field-wor;,:er describes his metbods in the follow-
ing words:
in the fie:d one has to face a chaos of facts.... 1::
thi, crude lor::i they an: not scientific facts at all;
they are absolutely du;ivc, and can only be fixed by
intcrf!retation, .. Only laws an,t generoli:zations
arc sdentilk fi1m, fidd work consists on lv and
J • "
excbsively in the interprttation of the chaotic
•
social reality, in suhordir.ating ii to gen<'ral rules.
(Malinowski, 19: 6! l ~48, p. 328; quoted in Geertz,
1988, p. 81)
Malinowski's ren~arks a,e p:urncati ve. On the one
hand they disparage fieldwurk, but on :he otl:er
they speak of it within the glnrified lar,gJage of
science, with laws and genera:izafams fashioned
out of this selfsame experien<:e.
During th:s pe:iod the field-worker was lion-
ized, :nade into a larger-than-Efe :1gure who went
into :he field and returned with stories about
strange peoples. Rosaldo ( 1989) describes tbs as
Denzin & Lincoln: lnl~oduction 11 15
the period of the Lor:e Ethnographer, the story of
6e man-sdentist who went off in search of his
r.ative in a distanl land. 1':1ere this figure "enco·Jn-
tered the object of his quest ... [and] underwent
his rite of passage by enduring the ultimate ordeal
of 'fieldwork'" (p. 30), Returning nome with his
ciata, the Lone Ethnographer wrote up an objec,ive
account of the culture stt:died. This accou:it was
structured by the norms of dass:cal ethnog:-aphy.
This sacred bur.die of terms (Rosaldo, 1989, p. 31)
o;ganized ethnographic texts around four beliefs
and commit:nents: a comm itmrnt to o':Jjectiv'.sm,
a cor.1plicity with imperialism, a bel:ef in monu-
menta lism (6e ethnography woulc 1..Teale a muse-
umlike picture of the culture studied), and a belief
in timelernness (what was studied would ni:ver
char.ge). The Other ;;.-as an "object" to be archived.
This model of the researcher, who could also write
complex, der:se theories about what was !.'tudied.
holds to tbe present day.
The myth of the lone Ethnog:apher depicts
the birth of dassic ethnography. The texts of
Malinowski, Raddffi:-Brown. Margaret Mead, ar.d
Gregory Bateson are still carefully studied for wha:
they can tell the novke about fieldwork, taking
field nores, and writing theory, But today the
image of the Lone E:hnograpl:er has betn shat-
tered. Marry scholars see the works of the dusk
cthnogrnphers as re;ics from the colonial past
(Rosalco, 1989,p. 44).Whereas some feel nostalgia
for this past, ntbers celebn,:e its passing. Rosaldo
(l 989) quotes Cora Du Bois, a retired Harvard
anthropology professor, who lamer:ted this pass-
ing at a conference i:l 1980, reflecting on the crisis
in anthropology:" :1 feel a distance I from the com-
plexity and disarrar of what I once four.cl a justifi •
able and challenging discipline.... l: has been
like moving from a dist:ngJished art musei::m into
a garage ,ale" (p. -14).
Du Rois regards the dassk ethnograpl:ies
as pieces of timeless artwork contained in a
m'Jseurr.. She feels uncomfortable in the chaos
of the garage sale. In contrast, Rosaldo (1989) is
drawn tl1 this metaphor because "it provides a pre•
dse image of the postcolonial s',11ation where cul-
tural , rtifa rt, flow between unlikely places, and
r.orhing is sacred, permancllt, or sealed off. The
image of antl:ropology as a garage sale depicts our
present glubal situation' (p. 44), Indeed, many
valuable tre-.isurcs may be found :n unexpected
places, if one is willing to look long anc hard, Old
standards nu longer hold. Etbnograph ies do no:
produce timeless truths. T:ie com:nitme:11 to
objectivism '.s now in doubt The complici:y with
imperialism is ope:ily chaJenged :oday, and :he
belief in r:mnumentalism is a thing of the past.
The legacies of 6is first pcrioc begin a: the
end of fae 19th century, wher: the novel a:1d the
s('lci2l sciences had beco:ne distinguished as
,;:,epa rate systems of discourse (Clo'.lgh, 1998,
pp. 21-22). Howtver, the Chicago school, wit!: its
e:nphasis 0:1 the h:e story and the "slke•ot:life"
approach to et:inogr-.1ph 'c materials, soaght to
deve:op an ir:terpretive mct:indolngy that main-
tained the cent,ality of the narrated Iife hislory
appmar:t This Ice to the production of texts that
gave tile researchcr-a~•ai::hor the powe to repre•
sen: the ,u.Jject's story. Written under the mantle
of straightforward, sentiment-free social realism,
these texts used :he language of ordinary prople.
ar~iculated a social science versio:, of liter•
ary naru:111ism, which often prmiuced the sympa•
the:ic ilksim1 tr:at a solution to a sod.i: problem
had been fo\lnd. Lke the Depression-era juvenile
delinquent a:1d other "soda! problems" 'ilrr:,
(Roffman&: Purdy, l9Rl), these accounts ,oman-
tidzed the subject They turned the devian: into a
sociological vers'on of a screen hero. These socio-
logical stories, like their :Hm counter :,arts, usually
l:ad h,qpy endiugs, as tney fol:owec individuals
through the three stages of the classic morality
tale: being in a state of grace, being seduced by
evil and falling, and finally achieving reden:;;,tio:1
t'imugh suf:ering.
Modernist Phase
Tl:e modernist phase, or second momen:,
builds 011 the canonical works from the traditional
period. Socia: realism, naturalism, and slice-ol~lile
ethnographies ax ,iill va'.ued. This phase extended
through the postwar years to the l970& and is still
present in the work of many (for reviews, sec
Wokoll, 1990, 1992, !995; see also Tcdlock,Chapter
18, this volimw). In !his perioc many texts sou~,ht
to formalize,1uuEmtive methods (see, e.g., Bogdan
& :\lylor, I975; Cirnurd, I%4; Filstead, 1970;
G'.a,er & Strauss, 1967; Lofland, 1995;
Lofland & Lofland, 1984, I99 5; ·iaylor & Bogdan,
1998). 1• Thr modernist ethnographer and ,odo•
logical pa:tkipanl observer a\lempted rigorous
qualitative studies of impor,ant soda! process~,,
indudi ng deviance and sndal contro: in t:ic r'ass
roo:11 and ~odety. Thi, was a mmnent of creative"
ferment
A new generation of gr-aduate students across
the :-iun::an disciplines enctr,mtcrcd ne;v in:erpre•
Iiw :heories (ethnomethodology, pbenorr.enol-
ogy, critical theory, feminism). r:,ey were drawr,
t,, qualitative research practices that would let
the:n give a voice to society's ;mde~dass. Post•
posit ivisrn fuuclil.)oed as a powerful cp:steino-
logical paradigm. Resee.rchers attempted to fit
Campbell and Stai:ley's ( 1963) rr.rn:lel of internal
and exter:ial validity lo co11slrnc:ionist a:1d intcr-
actim1ist conceptions of the research act They
returned to the texts the Chicago scimol as
sources of inspiration (,ee Denzin, 1970. I'!,ti).
A canonical text from this momem rcnains
Boys in White (Becker et al., 196:; see also Heckrr,
1998), Firmly entrenched in mid 20th-century
methotlological discm:rse, this work allemptc<l to
:nake qu,.:itativc n:seardl as rigorous as its quan •
,itative cour.terp<lrt. Ca1:sal narrative, were cent ml
:o th is project This multimethod work rnmbined
open-rnded ,md quasi-struc:ured intc rviewing
with participant obscrvation and the careful
anal)·,is of such mater:als in standard:zec, slati,·
tic.al for:n. In his c:a,~ic article ~Prubler:i, of
lnte::ence and Proo: :n Pirticipant Observation;•
Howard Becker ( I958/l9i0) describes the use of
quasi-statistics:
Par:ic:pant o·:iscrvatir.ns ha~c occasionally :iecn
gathtred in ,lant'ardiled fmm ,apable of bdr:g
t·ansforme,I imo legi:imate statistical l.'.ata. llllt the
exigencies of tl:e fidd usually prevent th: cn:lecti,m
of data '~ such a form to mc>et the assumptio:ts of
srntistic,11 tests, so th,: the observer dea:s i:: what
have calhl '·quasi ·statidrn:' His rn·'.dusion~,
while imp::citly :1.umerical, do not require Dre,·ise
,1ua11tificatim:. (p. 31)
In the analysis data. lkc'..<.er note;;, the quali!a·
,c:.10.;n.;1,; takes a ct:e from :non.· qum:lilalively

oriented coJ:eagues. The :esearcher loo:<s for proba•
hilities or SU?port for a:guments concerning the
likelihood that, or frequei:cy with wt1ich, a conclu.
s:on in :act applies in a specific situation (see also
Becker, 1998, pp. 166-170). Thus d:d work in the
modc:nist period clothe itself in the language and
rhrtoric of positivist and postpositiv:s: discourse.
This was th<' go:der. age uf rigmmis qualitative
an;1~ysis, bracke:ed in sociology by Boys in White
(Becker et al., L961) at one end and The Discovery
of Grounded Tl1e;iry (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) at
the othe. In educati £m, qi;al itative research in
this period was defined by George and L,mise
Spindler, Jules Henry, Harry Wolcott, and John
Si:1gleton. This form qualitative research is still
present in the work of scholars such as Straass
ar:d Corbin (I 998) and Ryan and Bernard (2000).
The "golden age" reii:forced the picture of qual•
researd!ers as cultural romantics. Imbued
with Promethean human powers, they valorized
villains and mitside,s as heroes to mainstreac
society. They embodied a belief in the cont:ngency
of self and society, and held to emanci?atory ideals
fur "whkh or.e lives and dies:' They put in place a
:ragic and ofren ironic view of society and self, and
joined a long \ir,e of leftist cultural romantics that
Jndr.ded E:nerson, Marx, Ja:nes, Dewey, Gramsd,
and Martin Luther King.Jr. (Wes:, 1989, chap.6).
As ::his moment came to an end, the Vietnam
War was every.vhere present in American society.
In 1969,alongside these ;:)Olitkal ci.;rrents, Herbert
Blumer and Everett Hughes met wifa a group of
you:1g sociologists caLcd the "Chicago lrreg~hm."
at the A:nerican Sociological Association meetings
held in San Francisco and shared their memo-
ries of the "Chicago years'.' Lyn l.ofland (1980)
describes this time as a
mo• ent of crea:ive fer:nent-sch~lar:y a:id poli:i-
csL The Sar. Franci,rn meetings witnessec not
s::nply the Bbmer.Huj<hes event but a "coun:cr-
revolutian:' , , , a group first came to ... talk about
the problems ot bei n5 a wciologi,t and a
female. , , , the cis,bline seemed !Uerallv to ':le
bursting with new. : , ideas: :abclling th~ry, e:h•
nor:ietho.:ulogy. conHkt thmry, phenomenology,
dramaturgical analysis. (p.2:,3)
Thus did fae modernist phase come to an end.
Denzin & Lincoln, Introduction 111 17
Blurred Genres
By the ht>ginning of the third phase ( 1970-
1986), which we call the moment of blurred grnres,
qualitative researchers had a full complement of
paradigms, methods, and strategies to employ
i:1 their research. Theories ranged from sym-
bolk interactionism to mnstructivism, natural:stic
inquiry. positivism and postpositivism, phenom-
enology, ethnomethodology, critical theory, m~o-
Marxist theory, semiotics, structuralism, :'em inism,
a:id va~ious radalle:hnic paradigms.Applied qual-
'.(ll!ive research was gaining in statu,e, and the pol•
i:i.:s and ethics of <;_ualiuttive re~earch-implicated
as were in various applications of tr.is work-
were topia; of considerable concern. Research
strategies and forn:ats for re:;;,orting research
ranged from grounded theory to the case study, to
metnods of historical, biographici, ethnographic,
action, and clinical research. Di,'erse ways of col-
lecting and ana'.yzing empirical materials were also
available, indudir.g qualitative interviewing (open•
ended a.,d quasi-structured) and observational,
visual, personal experience, and documentary
methods. Computers were entering the situalio~,
to be fully developed as aids in the analysis of qua!.
ita:ive data in the next decade, along with narrative,
co11te11t, and semiotic methods of reading inter•
viev,-s and cultural texts.
Two books by Clifford Geertz, The lnter11reta1ion
of Cultures (1973) and l.ocal Know/edge (1983),
de:med the ht>ginnill@ and the end of this moment,
In these two works, Geertz argued tbt tr.e old fanc-
tiona:.. positivist, behavioral, totalizing approaches
to tt,e human disciplines were gil'ing way lo a mo::e
pluralistic, interpretive, open-ended perspective.
This new perspective took cultural represemations
and their meaning.~ as :t~ points of departure.
Calling for "thick description" of particular events,
rituals, and ,ustoms, Geertz suggested that all
a:ithropological wrlt:ngs are interpretations of
interpretations. '5 Tile obse:ver has no privileged
voice in the inter?retations that are written, The
central task of theory is t<:1 make sense out of a local
situation.
Geertz went on to propose that the bound,eies
between the social sciences and :he hJmanities
:tad beco• e blurred. Social scienfats were now
Iurning to the human ii ics for mo<lds, theories,
a1:d methods of analysis (scn:iotics, hern:eneu-
tks ). Aform of germ.' diaspora was occJrrh:g: doc-
u:nentaries that read like fic:ion (Mailer), ?arables
posing as cth:wgraphies (Casta:1eda), theoretical
treatises that look li;.;c travelogues (Levi-Strauss).
At the same time, other new approaches were
cmer!iing: post,,tructuralism (Barthes ), t'.eoposi-
th,ism (Philips), r.co-1\farxism [Althusser), micm-
macrn descriptivisl'.1 (Geertz), ritual :heories of
d:ama and culture ( V. T'Jms:r), dernnsl:llclionism
([)err id,1 ), ethnmnethoc.ology (Garfinkel). The
golde;'l age of fae ;d,--nccs was over, ar.d a
n-:w r.ge of blurred, interpretive genres was upon
us. The essay as an art form was replacing the
scientific artid c. At now was :he amhor's
presence i:l the interpretive lexl (Gee,t1., : 9811).
How can the researcher speak with aut:IO;i ,yin an
age wl:en !here are ao longer any firm rules con
cem i ng the text, including the author's place i.:t it,
its standards of evaluation, and its mbject matterr
The naturnl:stk, ptislpo,il!vist, and constru,-
tionist pan,digms gained power in this. period,
especially in education, in tt.e works Harry
Wo,cott Frederick Erickson, Egon G1,ba, Yvonna
Lbceln, Robert Stake, and Elliot Eisr:er. 3y the
end of the 1970s, several qualitative juL1rnals were
:n pl,ice, inch:ding [Jrban Ufe and Cu!ture (now
Journal of Contemporary Eth,wgraphy), Cultural
Anihropo/ogy, Arcthropology Education
Quartim>; QualiMfive Sociology, ;J.nd Symbolic
lnl,'mction, as well as the book series Studies in
Symbolic Imeracriori.
Crisis of Represenmtion
A profound rnpt:lre occurred in the mid
1"llllls. What we .:all the fourtn moment, or the
representation, appeared with Am,lm;pology
as Culrurol Critique (Ma:cus & Fischer, 1986), The
Amhropology of Experience (Turner & Bruner,
1986), Wriring Culture (CHfford & Marcus, 1986).
Works and J.ii,,::s ( Geertz, 1988), and 't}w Predica-
meni ,if C;;/fure (Clifford, 1988). These works
made research and writing more rdlexive and
called inlo question the issues of gender, class,
and ~ace. They a~ticularod tl:e co:isequences of
Geertl:'s "blurred genres" interprctatior. of the
f:eld in 1he earlv IY!!O,. 16
Qualitative 'reSiear,chers sought new fTI()<lels
o; truth, method, and representation (Rosaldo,
19!!9). The erosion norms i:i anthropol-
ogy (objectivism, complicity with co:onialism,
social Iifo s:mctu red b}· fixed rituals and customs,
ethnograpnies as monumc1:ts lo a rnll Ll:·e) was
complete (Rosaldo, I989, pp. 4'---4:>: see also
Jackson, 1998, pp. 7-8). Critical theory, £emir.isl
theory, and epistcnmlogies of color nnw rnn:peted
for attention in this arena. ]ssi:es such as validity,
reliability, and objectivity, previously believed set·
tied, wee once more prnblenmtic Patt<"n: and
interpretive theories, as opposed to causal, linear
theories, were nuw more co:nmon, as writers con•
tinned to challenge older models of truth and
meaning (Rosaldo, 1989).
Stoller and Olkes (1987, 1111.227~22 describe
hm, they fell the uisis of repre,tnla:ion in their
'ie:dwork an:m1g the Soaghay of !\ige:. S:oller
obi,cnres:"\\'he11 [ began to write an:1:ropolngiml
'.ens, I fo'.lowed the cmivcr:tions of my training.
I 'gathered <!ata: a:id once the 'data' were
arranged ir. neat piles, l 'wrote them up.' In one
case J reduced ~ll1:ghay in.sdt, to a series of neat
logical formdas" (p. Stoller became dissatis-
fied witb this form of writii1!l, in pa:·• hecause he
lmmed "everr·one h,.d lied to me and ... !:le data
I has so painstakingly col:ected were worthl!"1;s. I
learned a lesson; ln::orr:,ant, routinely :ie to tl:eir
ar.thropologists" (Sto[er & o:kes, 198'7, p. 9). This
discovery led tc a ,eco:i<l-that he had, in follow•
ing l:lt? co:iventions of edmogrnpl:ic n,alism,
edited h:m self out of his text. This led Stoller to
p:oduce a dJforcnt type of text, a memoir, in
which he became a central charuc:er in the story
he tole. This i>iory, an accm:nt of his experiences
in the Snnghay world, became ar: a,;1:ysis of t'le
dash between world and the world of Song11ay
sorcery, Thus Stoller's journey represent, a:i
attempt lo cm:fnml the crisis of representation b
the 'mirth moment.
Clough (1998) elaborates tliis crisis rnd
criticizes !hose who would argue that r.cw forms
of writing represent :1 way out of the crisis. She
a~gacs:

Whik many ,,odologists now mmn:~nting on
11:c criticism of ethnograpr.y w,il'ng as
"d,wmright ce:itrnl to Inc eth nog~aphic mlcrprise''
!Van ,\faar.er, 1988, ;,. xi], H:e pmbleim writ-
i1:j! ax st:11 viewed as different from t!:c :imblems
of mclhnd or fieldwork 'tse![ Thu, the solutior,
usually offered is ex?crimcnts in writing, tha: i~ a
,~::-wnsciousness abuut writing, (p. 136)
It !, th:s insistence on the difference be1ween
w riling and fle:dwor" that must 'le analyzec.
( Richardson & St. Pierre are c ulte artici::ate a':lout
tl:is Chapter 38 of this volume•).
ln writing, the field-worker make:,, a claim to
moral and scientific authority. This claim allows
the realist and tx ?er' mcn:al ethnographic texts to
funclion as sources of \'lllida:ion for t1n ernpirical
sci,enc'e. They show th..1t the wnrld uf real Ii\'cd
experience can still he ca?turcd, if only in the
writer', memoirs, or fictional experirr_entat:ons,
or dramaEc readings. Bu: :hese works have the
danger of c'ir~"ting at:ention away fron: the w.:iys
b whid: 1he text constructs srxual:y situa,t!d
individuals in a field of social d:fference, They
al~o pc:rpcrnate "empirical science's begerr.ony"
(Clough, 1998, p, 8), for these new writir.g tech-
nologies of the sttbject become :he s:re "for the
production of knowledge/power ... Ialigned I
with ... the capital/slate axis" (Aronowitz, 1988,
p. 300; r1uoted in Clough, 1998. p, 8). Such experi-
ments come up agair:st, and the:i back: away :rom,
the ,iit1,erence ·::,etween empirical science a:id
social \:riticism. Too often they fail to engag,· folly
a new po]tks of textu,lily in.it wm11d "refase the
idei::ily of en:pirical (Clough, I998,
?· !JS). This i:cw social critkfam ~would inter-
vene in the relationsb ip of information er:onom
nation-stale pofairs, a;1d tedumlog:es of mass
communk:ation. especially in terms of the enpir-
kal (Cough, :998, p. 16). This, of
course, is the terrain OCl.'.U?ied by cultural studies.
l n Chapte~ of volume, Richa,dsoi: and
St. Pierre develop the abovr a~guments, 11iewii:g
writ'riii as a method of i:1quiry that moves
through succes,ive stages of sdf-rctlecfam. As
a series of writte:i representations, the field
worker's texts flow 0rom the field txperience,
th ni ugh intcrr:iedialc works, :o later wmk, a11d
Denzin & Lincoln; l:ltrodt:ct ion Ill l 9
finally to the research text, which :, public
presentation of the ethnographic anc narrative
expcr:rnce. Thus fielmvork anr. writing blur into
one another. There is, in the f:nal analy;is, no
difference Jetween writing and fieldwork. These
two ;>ernpect'ves inform one armt'ler throughout
every chapte, in this vobme. In these ways the
crisis of representation moves quali :atlve research
in :iew and crn,ic... dircctio:is.
A Triple Crisis
The cthnographer's author:ty remains under
assault today (Beha~, 1995, ?, 3; Gupta & Ferguson,
1997, p. 16; Jackmn, 1998; Ortner, 1997, p. A
triple crisis of representation, legitimation, and
praxis confronts q·Jalitative researchers in the
human disciplines. Hmbedded ir. the discourses
of pcststructuralism and postmodemisrr. ( Vidich
& Lvman. 2000; see also Richardson & St Pierre,
' '
Chapter 38. :his volume), these three crises are
codtd :n multiple ten:r.s, var:ousir called a:id asso•
ciated with the critical. i11terpre1 ive, lmguistic,femi-
nisr, and rhetorical rums in social theory. These
new turns make pmblenatic Iwo key assumptions
of quajtatiw research. The first ii. that qualitative
researchers can no longer di:ectly capture lived
experience. Sach experience, it :s argued, is created
in the soda! text written by rhe researcher. This
is the rcpre~entatitmal cr:sis, It rnnfrunts the
inescapable pmhle:n of representation, but does so
within a framework tl:at makes the direct :ink
hetween experie:icc and text prob:e:natic.
T'ie seco:id assumption makes problematic
(he tmd itional criteria for evah:ating and inter•
?re ting quali:ative research. This is the legitima•
:ior. crisis. It :nvolves a cnin,,, • rethinking of such
terms as valir:i'iiy, gemm,/izability, anci reliability,
terms a'.ready retheorized in posl:>ositiv ist
[Ha1mr:ersley, 1992), constructionis:-:iaturalistk
[Guba & Lir.coln, 1989, pp, 163-183), feminist
(Olesen, Cha.pt.er IO, th:s v,Lume ), interpretive
and pcrformative (Denzin, 1997, 2003 ), pnst-
structural (:ather, 1993; L1 ther & Sm i thi cs,
1997), and critical discourses (Kincheloe &
McLaren, Chapter L2, this volume), This crisis
asks, lfow are qual:tative ,;tudics to be evaluated
 11 HA:-!DBOOK OF Ql'ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 1
in the contempornry, puslstructural moment?
The f:.rst two crises shape the third, which asks,
Is it possible to effect change in the worlc. if
society is only and always a text? Clearly these
crises intersect and blur, as do the answers to the
questions they generate (see Ladson-Billings,
2000; &hwandt, 2000; Smith & Deemer, :2000),
The fifth moment, the postmodern period
experimental ethnographic writing, strugglec. to
make sense of these crises. Kew ways of compos·
ing ethnography were explored (Eliis & Bochner,
1996 ). Theories were read as ta~es from the
field, Writers struggled with different ways to
represent the "Other;' although they were now
joined by new representational cor.cems [Fine,
Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000; see also Pine &
Weis, Cl:apter 3, this volume). Epistemologies
f:nm previously silenced g:oups emerged to offer
solutions to these problems. The concept of the
aloof observer was abandoned. More action,
participatory, and activist-oriented research was
on the horizon. The search for grand narratives
was being replaced by mo::e local, small-scale
theories fitted to specific problems and specific
situations.
T':ie sixth moment, postexperimental inquiry
( 1995-2000), was a period of great excitement,
with AltaMira Press, under the direction of Mitch
Allen, taking the lead. AltaMira's book series titled
Ethnographic Alternatives. for which Carolyn Ellis
and Arthur Bochner served as series editors.
captured ,his new excitement and brought a host
of new authors into the interpretive com :mmity,
The follow! :ig description of the series from
publisher reflects its experimental tone: «Ethno,.
graphic Alternatives publishes experimental
forms of qualitative writing that blur the bound·
aries between social sciences and humanities.
Some volumes in the series ... experiment with
novel forms of expressing lived experience, includ ·
ing literary, poetic, autobiographical, rr.ultivoiced,
conversational, critical, visual, performative and
co-constructed representations:'
During th:s same period, two major new
qualitative jourr,als began publication: Qualita•
rive fnquiry and Qualitative Research, The
editors of these journals were committed to
publishing the very best new work. The succes,,;
of :hese ventures framed the seven;h moment,
what we are calling the rr:efaodologically con•
tested present (2000-2004), As discussec above,
this is a period of conflict, great tension, and, in
some quarters, retrenchment.
The eighth moment is now, the future (2005-).
In this moment scholars, as reviewed above, are
confronli ng the methodo;ogical backlash assoc!•
ated with "Bush science» and the evldence•based
social move • ent
Rrading History
We draw sev,eral conclusions from this brief
history, noti:lg that it is, like all histories, some•
what arbitrarv,• First, each of the earlier historical
mon:ents ls still operatbg in the present, either
as legacy or as a set of practices that researchers
continue follow or argue against. The multiple
and fractured histories of qualitative research
now make it possible for any given researcher
to attach a project to a canonical text from any
of the above-described his tor! cal moments..
Multiple criteria of evaluation compete :o; a:te:i ·
tion in this field. Second, an embarrassment
of choices now characterizes the field of qualita-
tive research. Researchers have never before
had so many paradigms, strategies of inquiry,
and methods of analysis to draw upon and i; ti·
l:ze. Third. we are in a :noment of discovery and
rediscovery, as new ways of loo:<ing, inter•
preting, arguing, and writing are debated and
discussed. Foarth, the qualitative research act
can no longer be viewcc. from within a neutral
or objective pos:tivist perspective. Class, race,
gender, and efanidty shape inquiry, making
research a multkul:ural process. Fifth, we are
dearly not implyiog a progress narrative with
om hi story. We are r:m saying that the cuttil:g
edge is located in the present We are saying
that the present :s a politk:ally charged space,
Complex press~res both within and outside of
the qualitative community are wor!{ing lo erase
the positive de\•elopments oftbe past 30 years.

II QUAL!TXl'IVE RF~l'ARCII AS PROCESS
Three intercon m~cte.:I, generic activities define the
qualitative research process. They go by a variety
of di:'ferent labels, inc:uding theory, artalysi,,
,m t11fo,izy, epistemology, and ttiethodology, Behind
these terms stands the personal biograpl:y of the
rese,,rcher, who ~peak, from a parcicwar class,
gender. racial, cultural, and eth:1ic comm:rnitv
perspective. The gem.:ercd, :nulticulturally situ'.
alee researcher a:iproaches the world with a set of
:deas,a framcwor':< (theory,ontology) ,hat sped•
;ies a s~: of questions (episremology) that he or
she then exam incs in specific ways {:nethodology,
analysis). That is, the researcher collects empirical
materia'.s bearing on the question a:1d fae:i ana•
lyzes and w,ites abuut ll:ose r:iarerials. Every
researcher speaks from v.ithin a distinct inter·
pretive com mur,ity that configures, in its specia'.
way, fae multicultural. gendered components of
the research act
In thh volume we treat these generic activities
under five :1ead!ngs, or phases: thr researcher and
the researched as :nult:cul:ural subjects, major
paradigms and interpre:ive pe1:s;;ectives, reseaxh
s:rat.::gies, metho.:s of cnllecfrig and analyzing
empfrkal materials, ar:d the art of interpretation.
Beh:nd and within each of these pha~es stands
the biograp:i.ically situated researcher. Tl:!s indi •
vidi:al encers the research process fro:n inside
an interprelive commur.ity, This community has
ii s own historical research trad: tio:;s, which
constitute a distinct point of view. ':his pcrspec·
tive leads the researcher to adopt particular views
of the "Other" who is studied. At the same time,
po:itia, and the e:hics of ,esearch • us! also he
considered, for tl:ese concen:s permeate every
phase of ,he research process,
Ill THE On-:ER A~ REsi::ARCH St:BJECT
its early-20th-century bicth b modem, inter•
pretive forIT., qualitative research has been haunted
by a double.face.:: glmst On the one ha.mi qualita•
live researchers have assumed that qJalified,
Denzin & Lincoln. Ir.rrodunion 111 21
competent observers can, with objectivity, darity,
and precision, report on their own observatior.s
of the soc:.al world, induding the experiences of
others. Second, researchers have held to the belief in
a real subJect, or real indiv:dual, who is present in
the world and able, in some form, to re:1ort on his or
her experiences, So armed, researcher~ cotdd blend
their own observatitms w:th the self-reports pro-
vided by subjects through :nte:views and '.ite story,
personal experience, and case ,iudy document,.
These two beliefs have q uali tat ive
reseurchers across disciplines to seek a method
thal will allow them to record accurately 1heir
own observations while also uncovering the
:neanings their sabjecls bring to their life eKpe-
riences. Sue:, a metl:od would rely on the subjec-
rive verbal anc wrilte:1 expression5 of mea11iq1,
giver; by the individuals studied as windows into
the inner lives of these persons, Since Dilthey
( 1900/1976), this search for a ::nethod has led to
a perennial focus ir: the hi:rnan disciplines on
qualitative, interpndve methods.
Rece:nly, as noted abo11t:, fais position and its
beliefs !::ave rume under assault Poststructuralists
and postmodernists have contributed to tne under-
standing that there is no dear window :nto tbe
inner life of an individual. Any gaze is always fiJ.
tered th::nugh the lenses of :ar,guage, ge:ider, social
c,ass, race, ar;d efanicitv.
i
T:i.ere are no obiective
•
observations, only observations socially situated
in the worlds of-and between-:ne observer and
the observed. Subjects, or ir:dividuals, a,e seldom
able to give full explanations of their actions o,
intentions; all they can offer are accounts, or stories,
about what they have done and why. No sir:gle
metr:od ca:1 g:as? all the subtle variations ;n ongo-
ing human experience. Conseq ue:1tly, qualitative
researcners deploy a wide rar.ge of interconnected
interpretive methods, always seeking better ways to
make more understandable the v,,orlds of experi·
ence they studied.
Tab'.e 1.1 dep:ds the relationships we see
among the five phases that define the research
process. Behind all but one of :hese phases stands
the biographically situated researcher. These five
levels of activity, or practice, work :heir way
 11 HANDBOOK Of QUALI~ATIVF. RESEARCH-ClAPTER 1
through the biography of the researcb::r. We ta:,e
them up briefly in order here; we discuss these
phases more fully in our introductious to the
individual parts of this volume,
Phase I: The Researcher
Our remarks above indka:e the depth and
complexity of the traditional and applied ,Jualita•
tve researc:i perspectives into wh:ch a social'y
situated researd:er enters. These traditiom locate
t'te researcher in hi.story, simultaneously guiding
and constrni ning the work that is done in any
spe.:ific study, This fielc !las always been c:iarac-
ter!zed by d:veroit y and conflict and these are
a:ost enduring :raditions (see Greenwood &
Levin, Chapter 2, th :s volume). As a carrier of this
complex anc con Iradictory history, the researcher
mu :;t also confront the e1:1ics and politics of
research (see in this volume fine & Weis, Crm;.iter
3; Smith, Chapter 4; Bishop, C.hapter 5; Ch rist'ans,
Chapter 6), Researching the na:ive, :he indige-
nous Other, v."1 ile claiming to engage in value-free
inquiry for the hr:r:ian cisd ;,Ii nes is over, li;lday
researchers str Jggle to develnp situational and
1ranssituationa'. ethics that app'. y to all lo:ms of
the rescarc:i act and its human-to-human rela ·
tlonsh ips_ We no lor.ger have the option of defi,r-
ring the drmlo:1'1.atior. ,,,,,,,,,rt
Phase 2: Interpretive Paradigms
All qualitative researchers are ph:losophers
in t:1at ~universal sense in whicr. all human
beings .. , are guided by highly abst:act princi-
ples" (Bateson, 1972, p, 320), These pri:lciples
com\Jine he:iefs about ontology (What kind of
being is the human being? What is the r.ature of
reality?], epistemology ( W;1at is the relationship
between 11:e incyirer and the known?), and
methodology ( How do we know t:ie world, or gai r.
know'.edge ofitf) (see Gu'::la, 1990,p.18; Lincoln&
Guha, l985, pp. 14-15; see also G'Jba & Lincolr.,
Chapter 8, this volume). These beliefs shape how
:he qualitative researcher sees the world and acts
in it Tl:e researcher is "bound within a net u:
episte:nological and ontological prem lses which-
regardless of ultimate truth or falsity-become
partially sel:•va;idating" (Bateson, l ')72, p. 314).
The net that cor:tains the researcher's episte-
mological, ontological. a:ic methodological
premises 1:1ay be ter:ned a paradigm, or an inkr·
pretivr fra:nework, a "bask set flf beliefs that
guides action" (Guba, 1990, p, 17). All research is
interpretive; it is guided by the researcher's set of
beliefs and feelings about the world and how it
should be understood and stucied. Some beliefs
may be taken for grunted, invisible, only assum1;:d,
~ .
whc,eas others are hi,zhlv prohlematic and rnn·
troversiaL Each interpretiv;;: paradigm make~
par:irnlar demands on the re~eard11:r, induding
t:1e qucstior.s 1he researcher asks and lhe inter-
pretations he or she brings to l hem.
Al the most general level, four major inlerprc•
tive paradigms structure qualital ivc research:
positivist and postpositivist, construct:v'st-
:nterprelive, er itical (Marxist, en: andparory),
and fe minist-?ostst:'llduraL These four ah.stract
paracigms become a:cre comp:icate,: 111 the level
of concrete specific interprct've commun'tir,L
Al this leve: it is possible to idrntfy :mt only the
,onstructivist, but also multiple vcrsior:s of fomi-
nbm (Afrocentric and puststructural), 17 as well
as specilk ethnic, Marxist, a:id cu !tu ral studies
paradigms_ These perspectives, or paradigr:is,
are exa::nined in Part II of th is voh:me.
The para<l:g:11s exam :ned in Part [1 work
against and alongside (m,d sorr:e within) the pos-
itivist and postpositlvist models. They all work
within rclativ'st ontologies (mulliplc const:ucted
realities), interpretive ep istemologie, (;he knower
and known interact :md shape one a:10ti:er), and
interpretive, naturalistic methods,
·; able L2 prcscnt!i these paraci1:FllS and their
assumptions, indudi ng their i;rileria for evaluat-
ing research, und the typical form that an inter-
pre1ive or theoretical statei:u:nl assumes in each
paradigm, 18 These paradigm~ arc explored i:i
considerable detail in the chapters in Part II by
Guba ar.d Lincoln (Chapter 8), Olesen (Chapter
10), Ladson Billings and l>onnor (Chapter ll),
Kincheloe ar.d McLaren (Chapter :2), S:mkkt>
 Denzin & Lincoin: lntrodU<e-tion 11 23
Table 1.1. The Res,:arcn Process

Phase I: The Researcher as a Muiiicu!turaJ Subfect

History and research t:aditions
Conceptions self a:id the Othe:
The ethic, and politic, of research

,, and PersfJectives
l'hase 2: Th.roreiical Paradi,ms '
Positivism, p.istpositi,ism
lnter?re:iv:sm, constructivism, hermeneutics
Feminis::1(s)
Racialized discour,e,
Critical theory and llilarxist models
c-...:tural >ll'lC:!:> models
Queer theory

Phase 3: Research Straiegies

De-½'g::
Case study
Ethnography, participant observation, perl'orr;;ance ethnography
Phenomenology, ethnomethodology
Grounded :heory
Llfe history, testimonio
:listnrical method
Actinn and applied n'search
Clinical reseatch

Phase 4: Method,, of Collection and Analysis

Interviewing
Observing
Artifa.:ts, do,:Jmer:ts, re~'Ords
Visual methods
Autoethnr.graphy
[}ata managcmem methods
Com?uter-assisted a:ialys:s
Textua: analysis
Foms gro;:.ps
Applied ethnography

Phase 5: The Art, Pr11ct1ces. and Palitlcs of lllterpretmion and Evaluation

CrJeria for jutigmg adeq::acy
Practices a::d polib:s of l:iterpretation
Writing as interpretation
Polley analy~ls
Ewluatioa traditions
Applied research
 II Hl'lh')BOOK OF QUALITATlVE RESEARCH-ctlAP'.:'ER l

Table 1.2. lnterprelive P,:,~dig:11~

1 f'amd(,;m!Tlt.:o(Y Criteri~ Form ,fJlm>ry 'Type ofNarration I

Positivist/ Internal, cl<:emal validity 1.r,gical-deductive, Sci.:ntifk report

postpnsi:ivist grounded
Construc:'vis1 Trlll'twcrtr.'.ness, credi':J!lity. Substantivc-fonm,l lnll~rpretivc ca~e
lransfcrability, rnnfirmability studies, et:mographic
fiction
[<i;~inist Afroce :1tric, lived experience, dia 1o~ue. Cr:t't.111, ,1,rndpo'-it Essay~. rn,r[cs,
carin~. arcouctah':ily. race, experimental wri: i ng
gender, reflexivity, praiis, emotinn,
;;onm:te grounding
Afrocerrtric, lived experience, dialogue.
caring, accountabi:il v. raa:, clo.s.s, gender
Stancpoi nt, critic,,:,
~istorkal
t:
.. fab "· a..~M I
C •

Marxi,t F.mand;iato~y thenry, falsifiabiUty Cri1kal. historicru, Historical, econcmk,

dialogkiil, ra.:e, class, gender enmomic ,ucioculturai analyses
Cultarnl studies Cultu,al practices, praxis, social kx!s, Seda! ni::cism C.;ltural :heo~y-a,
s·~~iectinhes criticism
------

Queer thetiry .::tellexivit}, dcccn5trnction !hicfal cilicism, -:·h•:.:orv as. . . :-· ·

hislorkal analysis autobiography
L

(Chapter I and Plum mer (Chapter 14). We
have discussed the posirivist and poslpo~itivist
paradigm~ above. They work from withlr: a realist
and critical realist ontology and objecrive cpisle-
mo:ogies, and they rdy or: experimental, quasi-
cxper :n:.;:ntal, s·Jrvey, and rigorously ,'efir:ed
qualitative methodu:ogies. Ryan and Bernard
(2000) have developed tlrmer:ts o~ this para,'igm.
The constrm: tiv i,t paradigm assumes a rela-
tivist ontology (there arc muhip:e rt'<llities), a
subjc.:tivist episten:ology (knower and res;xm-
de:1t mcrea1e unde~sl.u1ding.~ ), and a mnura'.istic
(in the natural world) sel of methodoiogkal pro-
cedures. Findings are usua]y presented in terms
of the criteria of groar:c:ed theory or pattern
theories in this volume Guba & Linroln,
Chapter 8; Charmaz, C!.iapter see also Ryan
and Bernard, 2000). Terms such as credibility,
tramjerabiiity, dependability, and canjhnability
replace the usu al posit'.vist criteria of internal and
external validity, reliability, ar:d objectivity.
Femini~l. -::ti:ntc, Marxist, culm:al studies,
and queer theory models pr:vilege a mate:ialist-
realist ontology; that the real world makes a
material difference in tcn:1s da;s, and
ger.c.cr. Subjcctivis: e;,i,lemulogies and nah:ral-
istic methodologies (usual~· e:hnogra;,h'es) arc
also employed. Empiric~! materials and theoreti-
cal arguments are tvalual ed in termb of their
emanc:patory i:nplkations. Cri~eria from gender
and racial communities African Amcr'c:m)
may be applied (cmutiom1lity and fed i:!g, caring,
personal accountability, dialogue).
Posti::trnctural feminist theories emphasize
problems with the soda l text, its logic. and its
irn;::i;lity ever to reprcse11l the world of liv,xj expc·
riencc full}\ Positivist and :,..1stpositivist criteria of
cvaluati01~ are replaced hy other cri ccria, in duding
the reflexive, multivokcrl text that is grounded in
Ihe experiences of opp~cssed peoples.
The cultural studies and queer theory para-
d:gms are mu 1tifocu8cd, with :nany different

sLrands drawing from Marxism, fem:nism, and
the ?OStmodern sensibility {sec in this volume
Sai.:kko, Chapter 13; Plummer, Chapter 14;
Richardson a:id St. Pierre, Chapter 38), Thrn~ is a
tension he:l'l'een a humanistic culbra: st:idies,
which stresses lived c1qer:ences (n:eaningl, and a
more ,tractural cultural studies project, which
stness,,sfae strnctural and material determinants
(race, class, gender} am: effects of experience. Of
course, there arc two to every coin, and botl:
<des are needed-indeed, buth are nitica:, :he
cult~ira! studirs and queer theory paradigms use
n:erhods strategically-diat as resources for
u:iders!nnd:ng and for producing, ~esistances to
local stnictc,res of domination. Scho!ars :nar do
dose textual readings and di ,course analyses of
cultural texts (sec in this Yolume Oksen, Chapter
10; Saukko, Chapter l 3; Chase, Cha pier as well
as loca~ onli:ic, reflexive, ar,d critical ethnogra-
phi~, opcn-s::1ded inlerv'.ewing, 2nd participanl
observation. The focus fa ,m how race, class, and
gender arc pro<lu ced and c:1acted in historically
,oedfic situations,
Pa radigrn and personal h:s:ory in hand,
focused un a cuncrc,te empirical probkm to
exam :ne, the researcher now moves to lhe next
of the research prncess-namely, wurki:'lg
with a specif_, st rakgy of bqoi :y,
Phase 3: Strategics of Inquiry
aud Interpretive Paradigms
Table LI p,esents some of the major strategies
of inquiry a researcher may i:se, Phase 3 begins
wit!: re,earch de~ign, which. broadly conceived,
involves a dear focus o:i the researd: que,tion,
the purposes of tne study, and "what information
most appropriately will answer specific research
qt.cstions, and whid.1,trategies are most cftec:ive
for obtaining ii" (LeCompte & l'reissle, 1993,
p. :,o; ~ee a',c Cheek, Chapter 15, this volume), A
research design describes a !Jexible set of guide-
lines that connect theoretical para!!igms fi:st to
strateg'es of inquiry and st:cond to methods for
collecting empirica'. materials, A research dt·sign
siruaU:'s the researcher in the empirica: world and
Denzin & Li11coln: Introduction a 25
con:1ects him or her to specific sites, persons,
groups, :nstitution~, and bodies of relevant
intcr?reti,•e material, ir,ch1ding docu:nents and
arc':tives, A research desi1,m alsn sredfics how the
investigator will address the two critkal issues of
,eprrsentation and legitimation.
A strategy of iaq;l[ry comprises a bundle of
skills, assumptions, and practices rhal the
rcsear.:her employs as he or she moves from
paradigm to the empirical world, Strategics of
inqui!'y put paradigm~ of interpretation into
motim1, At the same time, strategie!1 of inquiry
also connect t'.1e researcher to specific methods
of collecting am:: analyzing empirica; materials,
Fur exarr,ple, the case studr strategy relies on
interviewing, obs1:rving, and document analysis,
Research strategies implement and and,or para-
digms in ,,,,,c,t,,• en:pirical sitei or in specific
me1hodological p:actices, such as making a case
an object of study. The~e strategies inch.1dc the
case study, pheno:m:nological and ethnointthod -
ological techniques, and the use of grou:1ded
th1:ory, as we!: as biographical, amot:thnograph:c,
histori1.11I, action, and c' in ical methods. Each of
these strate!!ies is connected to a complex litera-
ture, and each has a separate history, excnplary
work.,, and preferred ways of puning t'.1e str2'.egy
into motion.
Phase 4: :vlethod, of Collecting
anri Analyzing Empirical Materials
Qualitative resear,hcrs employ several met'.,,
ods for coliecting empirka: materials. 9 These
methotls, which are take:1 up in l'art IV of this
volume, indnde interviewing; direct observatior:;
the analysis of artifacts, docunents, ar:d cultural
records; the 'J,e of visual materials; and the use
of perounal experience. T:ie re.-earcher may also
read and analyze interviews or cultura; texts in a
varitty of different ways, induding content, narra-
tive, and ,emiotic strategies. Faced with :arlle
amounts of qua Iitative materials, the investigator
seeks ways of managing and interpreting these
documents, ar:d here data management n:cthod,
26 • HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVERESEARCH-CEAPTER l
and computer-assisted models of analysis may be
of use,
Phase 5: The Art and Politics of
Interpretation and Evaluation
Qualitative research is endlessly creative and
interpretive, The researcher does cot just leave
tr.e field with mountains of empirical materials
and then easily write up Ms or her findings,
Qualita;ive interpretations are constructed. The
researcher first creates a fie:d text con,,isting of
field no~es and documents from the field, what
Roger Sanjek (1990, p. 386) calls ": ndexing" and
David Plath (1990, p. 374) rails "filework:' The
writer-as imerpreter moves from this text to a
research text: notes and interpretations based on
the field text. This text is then re-created as a
working interpretive document that co:1tains the
writer's initial attempts to ma:,e sense uf what he
or she has learned. Finally, the writer produces
the public text that comes to the reader. This final
tale from the field may assume several forms:
confessional, realist, impressionistic, critical, for-
mal. literary, analytic, grounded theory, and so on
(see Van Maanen, 1988).
The interpretive practice of making sense of
one's findings is both artistic and political. Multiple
criteria for evaluating qualitative researcr. now
exist, and those that we emphasize 5lre,s the situ-
atec, relational, and textual structures of the e-:::mo•
graphic experience. There is no single interpretive
truth, A!;, we argued earlier, there are multiple inter-
pn:tive :ommunities, each with its own criteria for
evaluating interpretations.
Program evaluation is a major site of qualita-
tive research, and qualitative researchers can
in[uence sodal policy in :mporlan: ways. The
chapters
.
in this volume bv' Greenwood and Levin
(Chapter 2), Kemmis. and McToggart (Chapter 23),
Miller and Crabtree (Cr.apter 24 ), Tedlock
(Chapter JS), Smith and Hodkinson (Chapter 36),
and House (Chapter 42} trace and discuss the
rich history of applied qualitative research in
the social sciences. This is the critical site where
theory, r:iethod, praxis, action, and policy all
come together. Qualitative researchers can isolate
target populations, show the im:nediate effects of
certain prog~ams on such groups, and isolate the
constraims that ope,ate against policy c:ianges
in snch settings. Action-or:ented and dinically
oriented qualitative researchers car. also create
spaces where those who are studied tthe Other)
can speak, The evaluator becomes the conduit for
making sach voices heard,
II BRIDGING THE HISTORICAL
MOMENTS! WHAT CoMES NEXT?
-------
In Chapter 38 of this 110:ume, Richardson and
St. Pierre argue tr.at we are already in the
post- "post" ?eriod-posl-poststructural ism,
post-postmodernism. post-postexper imentalism.
What this means fo~ :nterpretive ethnographic
practices is still not dear, but it ls certain that
things will never again be the same. We are in
a new age where messy, uncertain, rr: ultivoked
texts, cultural rritidsm, and new exper:men~al
works wlll become more common, as will more
reflexive furms of fieldwork, analysis, and inh:r-
textual representation. The subject of oar final
1;.'tlsay in this volume is these sixth, sever.th,
eighth, and ninth moments. [t is true that, as the
poet said, the ce:1ter no longer holds. \Ve cir.
reflect on what should be at the new center.
Thus we come full circle. Returning to our
'tddge metaphor, the chapters that follow take the
researcher back and forth tr.rough phase of
the research act. Like a good bridge, the chapters
provide for two-way traffic, coming and gdns
between moments, formations, and interpretive
communities. Each chapter examines the relevant
histories, controversies, and currer:t practices that
are associated with each paradigm, strategy, and
method. Each chapter also offrrs projectior.s for
the future, where a specific paradism, strategy, or
metl:od wm be lO years from now, deep into
torma:ive years of the 21st century,
In reading the chapter& that follow, it is
important to remenber that the fic'.d of qualita-
tive research is defined by a series of tension,,

contradictions, and hesitations. These tensions
work back and forth between and among the
broad, doubting postmoderr. sensibility; the
rr:ore certain, more traditional positivist, post•
positivist, and naturalistic conceptions of t:iis
project; and an increasingly conservative,
:1eolibe~a: global environr.,cnt. All of the chap•
:crs that fallow are caught in and ar:iculate these
rensions.
• NnTe:s
; . Recall bcll hooks's ( 1990, p. readtng of the
famous photo of Stephen Tyler d~ing fieldwork i11 India
that appears on cover of Writing Cu/lure (Clifford &
Marcus, : 986). In 1he picture, Tyler is se11ted at some
dis,Jncefrom threedark-skiin1ed persons. O:ie,achild,
i, p()king his or her head out of a basket A woman is
hidden in the shadows of the hut A man, a checkered
white and black SM. wl at rnss his shoulder, elbow
prepped on his knee, hand :esting along the side his
facc,is staring at lyler. Tyler ls l'i:itingin a field jcr.ir:ial.
A piece of white doth is ,ma,hed to his glasses, perhaps
shielding hir1: :mm the sun. This patch of whiteness
marks Tyler as the white male writer studying
passive brown and bl,;.:k persons. lncieed, the brown
male's gaze signal, some desire, or some attachment to
Tyler. In contras:. the terr.ale's gaze is m:nplctdy hidden
the !ihadows and by l'1e words of the book's :itle.
which are µrinted across her face.
2. Qualitative research has separate and d:stin·
guished histories in education, social wo:-k, cor:1muni·
cations, psychology, history, organizational smdies.
medical sc11,:ice, anth mpnlogy, ar:d sociology.
3. Some dcfinitimi., arc in orde, here. Positi:Ji&m
a;s,erts Iha! objective accounts of the real world can be
giveE. Postpc1iti11ism holds that only partially objective
acceunts of the world can be produced, for all methods
eKamining su..:h accounts arc flawed. Accordin!! to
Joimdativnaiism, we can haVE an u'.limatc gmunding
for onr knm;,,Jedge da:ms about tb: world, and this
i 1woh·es the use empiridst and positivis: epislt·
molngies (Sc'lwandt, 1997a, p. 103). Nonfimndational•
ism holds that we can make slllter:ien:s about the world
without ":eeourse lo ultimate proof or fo·~ndation,
for that know:ng'' (Schwandt, 1997a, p. 102}, Quasi•
fc1md1111orrnli,m 'mids that we can make certain
k:mwledge d~ims about the world ba.ed on neorealist
Denzin & Lincoln: i:Jtroduction Ill 27
criteria, indnciing the correspondence concept of :ruth;
thtre is an independent rl'ality :hat can be mapped (see
Smifa & Hodkinson, ('Jiapter 36, :his wlume).
4. Jameson (1991, pp. 3-4) reminds us that any
;ieriodizatior: hypothesis is alw2.ys sus;iect, even one
tr.at rejects linear. stagelike models. It is never :o
what reality a stage refers, and wha; divides one stage
fm:n another is always debatable. Our eight moments
are mear:t to mark discemf;:;le shifts in style, genre,
epistemol.:igy, ethics, politi~s, and aesthetics.
5. Se•1eral scholars have termed this model a
progres; narnmve lAlasuurari,20U4,pp, 599-600; Seale
et 2004, p. 2). Critics assert lhat we belie\'<' 11ml
the most recent mor:irn; is the most up to date, the
avant-garde, the cutting edge {Alasuutarl, 2004,
p. 6•: }. Naturally, we dispu:e this reading, Toddlie and
Ta~hakkor: (2003, pp. 5-S) have modified ou: l:is:ori•
cal periocs to fit their historical analysis o: t'ie major
moments in the emergence a' the use of mixed met:i•
ods in rncfal science research in the past century.
6. Some additional defmitions are neeced here.
Strnctuniiism holds that any systtm is made up of a
set of opp()sitional categories er::beddcd in fanguage.
Semiotics :s the science of signs or sign systems-.,
stru,turalist project. .According lo poststrucluroiism,
languagr is an uns!ahle system of referents, 1hus :t is
impossible eve1 lo capture completely the rr:eanillg of
ar. action, text, or in:ention. Postmoder,;1sm is a con-
temporary sensibility, developing since Wo:-ld War II,
that privileges no single authority, me:hod, or para-
digm. llerrneneutirs is a:i ap;,roach t,i the ~nalysis of
texts that stre~ses how prior understmdings and prej·
udices shape the interpretive process. Phenomenology
is a comple.1: system of ideas associated with the works
of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, ~lerleau-Ponty, and
Alfred Schutz. r:ultur.~l studies is a complex, interdisd-
plinary field that merges critical theory, femini,m, and
poststructuralis:n.
7. Of cou:-se, set:ings are natural-that is,
places where everyda)' experiences take place. Qnaliuitive
:esearchers study people doing thmgs togetl:er in the
places where 6ese thlngs are done {Becker, 1986). There
is no fidd site or na:ural place where one goes to do this
kind of work (see also Gupta & Ferg'.lson, 1997, p. 8).
The site is constituted through the researcher's inte,pre•
tive practices.. Histo~ically, a.1al vsts have distinguished
between experimental :laboratory) and field (r:atural)
research settings, :ie::ce the argumer.t that qualita::ve
research ,s r.aturalistk. Activ'ty theo,y en1ses tlli:, dis-
ti::ction (Keller & Keller, 1996, p. 20; Vygotsky,: 978).
28 llll HANDBOOK 01' Ql;AUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP fER I
8. According to Weinstein and Weinste::, ( 1991 ),
"T"se mca:::ng -:f bricoleur in French popular spcci::h is
'sorr:eonc who woizs with his (or her) hands and usl:'li
devious mtans ,::ompared to those of t'ir crnfts·
man; ... the bricoleur i;; practical and gets th,· .ioh
done" (p. :ol ). These authors provide a history of the
terr:i, connectin~,. it to the vmrks of the Ger7:1an sodol•
ogist and social :heorist b:org Simmel and, by impli ·
ca.,un, Baudelaire. Hammersley (1999) disputes our
use of lhis term. Following J.ev\·Strm1~s, ht reads the
briroleur as a mythrnaker. He suggests that the term
be replac,xl with tl:c notion o: :he ho.. :builder.
ffammcrsley also quarrels with ff~: "moments" rnocd
of the history of qL:alita:'ve rese~rch, co111et:cing t:iat it
implies scme ~ense of progress.
9. Brian De Palma reproduced this baby carri2.ge
s,ene in his 1987 film The Unumdu;;bks.
IO. the harbor, the muzzles of the Potemkin's
two h:2ge J:lllllS swi:,g skiwly tuward the camera. Words
on the screen inform -s, "The ':irutal military power
answered by guns of bat:leship;' A fillll: fari:ous
thrcc•shot montage sequence show, first a scu:pture of
a sleeping lion, th,:n a lion rising from his sleep, and
fi::ally the hm waring. symbolizing the rage of the
R.,ssian people (Cook, 1981, p. 167), l11 this sequen.;e
Eiscmtein uses montage 10 ,'xpand time, creating a
;isrc'mln!!ical duration for this h()rrihle ew,111. 'ly draw,
::1g uut this sequence, by showinis t'ie baby in the car
riage, t'ie soldiers firin!l on the cit:zens, rhc blood on kc
mother'i glove, t'.1e descending carriage o:: tbe s:eps, he
su,gges:s a level deslr;.clio:: of ~reat r:iagn irnde.
l I. Hex it i.\ rde\•,mt to t::akc a distiuction
between techniq:.:e~ that are used ac:'Oss disciplines
and methods that ,m; used within disciplines.
EthnomNhodologis:s, for exar:iple. employ their
approach as a method, whereas others sekctivdy bor•
mw that mcthnd as a tcdrniqu1; for their own applirn·
tions. Harry Wokcll !prrsnnal comr.iuni,ation, 1993)
sugg,ms !his di,tinction. lt is also rckvar:t to make di,·
tinctions among topic,::iethnd, and rcscr~,ce. Methods
can he studied as topit, of inqufry; lhat is how a case
stud}' gets done. ; n this irenic, rlhnomethodofogical
sense, ::1clh~d i~ bo:1: a resource and a to(.)ic of inqniry.
12. Indeed, any atterr:pt to give an essential ddini-
t:011 qualitative :1:sea7ch requires a qualitative analy·
of the circumstances thal produce sue:: a dcfinit'on.
: 3. In this sense all research is qualitat:vc, because
"the observer is at the center of the reseaxh process"
IVidich 1k Lrman, 200[}, p.
H. Lincoln and Guba (1985) for an extension
and c!abur,tion of this tradition in the mid- I<Ji\O.~, and
for more receu: cx:en~ions sec 'Jliylor am: llogdan
(]99~) and Creswell i 1991!).
: 5. Greenblatt (: 997, pp. 15-18) o'1i.:rs a uselul
deconstructive ,cadirg c,' the many meaning, and
practin:s G~ertz bring;; to the tern t/1ick. de,,riptfou,
Tl1ese work., marglna':;:cd minimized 1he
conlri':rJtions slandpoim :eminis! theory and
m.earch to :r.:s disar~rse Behar, 1995,p. 3; 1;ordm;,
l 995, p. 4:!2),
Olesen (Chapter 10, lhis vrlume) idmtifrs
three strands of leminist research: maiTJslrtam empir•
,tandpoim anc' cultural s:udies, ,md pnst,tru,·
lural, posr::iodern. She pl~ccs Afrocentric and o;i,cr
!ll(idels of color mider the cul:L:,al studies and posl ·
modern categc1rics.
18. These, uf course, are our intcqretatk,ns ol'
paradigms and interpretive sty!es,
19. EmpirirnJ m;,/erfriis is the pn:forrcd term fo,
what tradilim:ally have been described as data,
II Rti:llREJ\CfS
AlasuLJtari, P. (2004). The glob<1lization uf qi,::dita,,:ve
research. In Seale, c;. c;o·Jo, l E Gubrium, &
D, Silvcm:an (Eds.), Qualilatfve ,,,.,,.,rc·II prattice
(pp. 595-608). London: Sage,
Aronowitz, S. ( 1988). /icic:m:;: as ;,>wer: Disnna,e
and ideolngy in modern s,;cie,y. Mi:rnca:mli,:
University o: ,\1inne,ota Press.
Atkinsm:, I!. ( 2004). Thinking ou Iside the hox: An ext•,.
in heresy. Quaiitauvc In11uir): 10, 111-129.
E\alcwn, G. O972 ), 1>tep, to an ecofogy of •1iind.
New York: Ballrntinr.
BaHiste, M, (2000). lntrodm:tion: U:1folding lt•ssons
of mkmizahon. !11 M. flaniste iF,d,J, Rtdaim,ing
indf.9,enous voire and visfrn; (pp. xvi-xxxJ.
Vancouver: Universitv of Br:ti.sh Colum·:i'a Press.
•
Btcker, H. S. {19701. Problems uiint,~re1~ceand :m:nfi11
partic'panl nh"e:1;ation, In :i. S, Becker, ,'11cio-
logiml work: MetJwd and su/mam:e. Chicago:
,\ldi11e. (Reprinted fror.: American Sociologfr:<1/
Revie"~ l93!!,2J, 652-660)
Becker, H, S. (I 986). Di1ing thmg; lOge:iler. l!vansl:!!:,,
II.: Northwe.,tern Ur:: ve:·,it y
llecker, H. S. (1996), The epistemology of q·Ja!itative
re&<:arc::. In R, Jessor, Colby, & R. A. Shwedcr
(F.ds.), Ethnegraphy and human deyeJcpmem:
C:mtext and meaning msocial i'lqulry(pp. 'd-7 l).
Chicago: University of ,,r::'"'J;u Press.

Becker, Ii. S. (1998). Tricks oi ,,lie trade: How to thin/;
about y,iur use,m:h while you're doir,g it. Chicagn:
Universi: y of Chicago Press.
Hecke~, H. S., Geer, B., Hughe,, I':. C., & Strnuss, A, L.
[ I 96 I). B.,ys in whirr: 811.tLtem culture in medirnt
school. Chicago: llniversitv ,£ Chkago Press.
Be:1ar, R. ( 1995). Introdu.:rion: Out of exile. In R. Behar
& D. A, Gordon (Eds,), Wvmen writing culture
{pp. l 29). Berkeley: Cni·,ersity of California
Press.
Bloch, M. (2()04). Adi1,,uurse that disciplines, governs,
and regulates: The Nationa. Re~carch Courn;il's
report on sd11r:liilicn:seaxh in educalion, Qualita-
tive f1;quiry, 10, 96-1 IO.
Bochner, A. &: Ellis, C. (Eds.], (2002), Etht10·
grnphicall;r speaking: Auwethnography, literature,
and acstltetics. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira,
Bogdan, R., & 'lnylor, S. J. [1975 l, i11rrua1u:!ian to quaii-
tative rese11rclt methods: A pher.omenolagical
approach ta the sccia! s.-irnce;;, New York: John
Wiley,
Campbe:i, D. T., & Stanlty, J. (1963 ). Ex:oenrnental
,md qua,i-e:i::perimenta3 for research,
Chicago: Rand McNally.
(annclla, G, & Lincolr:, Y, S. (2004a\, Dangerous dis-
courses II; C,1:n?:·ehending and counte~ing !he
reileplorment of discourses (and resources) in
the generation of liberatcry inquiry. Qualitaii'l'e
illquiry, W 165-174.
Cannella, & :.ir:culo, Y. 5, ;2004b). Epilogue:
Claiming a critica: publk social sde::cc-
rcconce11tualizi n5 and redeploying research.
Q;,11lirat1fe i11quirJ; IO, 298-309.
Carey, J, W. ( J 989), Cormr;1micatio11 as culture: Hssa;rs Oil
media and society. Boston: Unw in Hyman.
Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method ond measurement in
wcfo/ogy, New Y11:ic Free Press.
Clifford, J, (1988). 1'/ie predimmellt of culture:
1we11tie1h-cenrury ethn11graphy, lirerature, and art.
Cambridge, MA: Ha:vard University Pres~.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing
culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography.
llerktley; University oi California Press.
Cloagh, P. 1: (1998). The eml(s) of crhncgraphy: flnm
realism w s,1daJ critici.<:"1 (2nd ed.) New Y,1rk:
Peter Lang.
Cook, D. A. (198:), A hi<tary (lj narrative film,
New York: WW. Norton.
Creswell, r. W. ( 1998), Qualitative inquiry and research
design: Choosing among five traditions, Ti:ousar:c
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin & Lincoln: Introdurtion 1111 29
Danermark, B., Ekstrom, ,'vi., la;.;obsen, L., & Karhsun,
f, C, (2002), Explaining society.· Critical realism in
•he s,iciai sciences. London: Routledge,
de Certeau, M, (1984 ). fhe practice cf .,,eryday life,
Berkeley; Univcrsi:y of California Press,
Denzin, N, K. (]970).11,e research act Chicago: Aldine.
Iknzin, N [1978). l'lw researcl, act: A t,l:roretfca/
iruroductian w soch1!cg,mi metlrnds {Znd ec.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N, K. (! 997). flltcrpretive ethrrnxraphy:
Ethnographic practices for the 2!st century.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sagt.
Der.zin, ~. K. (2003 ). Performa.~ce erh,11:;;ra;,hy:
Critical pedagogy and ihe politics of' culmre.
Thuusand Oaks, CA:
Dillney, W. I., \ 1976 ). Sefec1ed writings, Ca::ibridge:
Cambridge Universi:y Press. (Original work puh-
lished 1900)
l)i,ersi, M, ( l998 ), Glimpses of streer life: Representing
lived experience lhruugl: short stories. Qualitative
Inquiry,4, 131-'37.
Ellis, C. (2004), The ethnographic I: A methodoiogimi
11ovel about tutoetlrno1,raphy. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira.
~llis, C., & Bochner, A. I'.. (Eds.). (I 996 ). Composir.g
etlnwgraphy: Ait<1rnath•e forms of qua!irarive
writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Altal,1irn,
Fil stead, W. J. (Ed.). ( 1970 ). Q11 ...ii1111i1'!! melhod;,log;v.
Chicago: Markham,
Fine, M., Wc,s, L, Weseen, S,, & Wong, L, (2000). For
whom? Qualitative ,es,rart:1, representations,
and soda! responsihili:ies. In X. It Denzin &
Y. S. Unrnln (Eds.), Handbook of quulitative
research (2nd µp, 107-131). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Flick, U (2002), Au inlroductior: to q,u,lii~tive nmltlrc/;
ed.), London:
Gee,tz, C. (1973 J, The interpn:tati:m of rnJrures:
Selected e,says. New York: Basic !looks.
Ge~rlz, C. (1983 ). Local knowietl,.,:e· further in
interpretive a11lhropology. Ne\\' York: Basi;: Books,
Gte,11., C, (1988), Works and live,· T'1.e anilmipo!ogist
as aut/wr, S:an:ord, CA: S!anfmd Univers::y
Pres~.
Glaser, 3, G. 0992), Er,wrgent'e y,;, forcir:g: Basics of
grounded theory. Mill va::ey, Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G,, & Straus~, L, C967). The diu1nery of
grounded theory: S!rafeguts for qualitative rtSean:11.
Chicago: Aldiuc,
Goodall, H, L,, Jr, (2000 ). Writing !~e new ethnography.
Walnut Creek, CA: AitaM ira,
30 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATTVE RESEARCH-CHAPTf,R I
Gordon, D.A. (1995 ). Culture writing women: Inscribing
feminist anthropology. In R. Behar & D. A. Gordon
(Eds.). Woml'tl writing culture (pp. 429-440.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Greenhlan, S. ( l 997). The to'Jci'. of the real. In
S. B, Ortner (Ed.), The fate of'culture'': Geertz
beynnd fSpec:al issueJ. Represmratums,59, 14-19.
Gi;ba, E.G. ( 19901. 1be alternative paradigm dialog. In
E. G.Gub.i (Ed.), The paradigm dialcg(pp.17-30).
!Sewbury Park, CA; Sage.
Guba, E.G .• & Lincoln. Y S. [1989). Fourtf1 generarion
evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
G:.!plil, A., & Ferguson, j. IP,ds. ). ( I997). Discipline and
pra.:t,ce: "The field" as site, method, and :ocation
in ;imhropology. In A. Gupta & J. FergJson (F/41sJ,
Anthropolcgirnf io,·ations: RotmdarieJ. 1md gm.mds
oftifieldscfence (pp. 1-46). Berkeley: L:n[versity of
C;,;Jfornla Press.
Hammersley, 1'(. (:992). W~at'., wrong with etJmo•
gruphy? Methodological e:cpklratfons. London:
ll<:tciedge.
Hamrne:siey, M. ( i 999). Not brie<llage bu'. boatbuild-
ing: E.xplor:!lg two metaphors for thin;.;ing ahout
ethnography. /oumal of Conte,rqwrary Et}mo•
J!,raphy. 28, 574-585,
Harper, D. (:987). Working knowledge: Skill ami c,:;m•
munity in a small shop. Chicago: l'niversity of
Chicago Press.
liolcan Jones, S. (1999). Torch. Qua!itati1'e !11quiry.
5, 235-250,
hook:;, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gmder, and cult.rat
politics. 3oston: South End.
Howe. IC R. (2004). A tdique nf experimentalism.
Qualitative Jriauir·;, 10, 42-61.
' ✓
Huber, J. (l 995 ). Centennial Institutional perspec·
lives on :<0ciology. Ameri;:;an f{;urnal of Sociolog;;,
!OJ, 194-216.
Jackson, M. (l 998). Minima ~:hrmgraphica: Inter•
subjectivity and the anthropological project.
Chicago: University of Chicago Pr~,s.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism; or. 11ie cultural
logic of late ca11ira/ism. Durham, NC: DLlke
University Press.
Keller, C. M., & Keller,J. D. ;1996). Cognition anti tool
use: 1'he blacksmith a: work. New York: Cumbrldge
University
Kincheloe, J. L (2001 ). Descrlbing the bricolage:
Conceptualiz[ng a new rigor in quai':ative
research. Qualitative lnquiry, i, 679-692.
Ladson-Billings, (200ll). Social:ze<l discourses
and ethnic episte:nologies. Jr. :,J. I<. Denzb &
Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.,.), fland/Jcok of qualit,itive
research (2nd ed., pp. 257-277). Thousar:c: Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lal her. R (l 993). Fertile obsession: Validity after
poststructu ralism. Sociol.igicai Quarter/;,;
673-694.
Lather, P. (200,1). This is your father's paradigm:
Govemr:iem intrusion and the case of qualitative
research in eciucalio~.. Qualitative Jnquir;,. J(I,
15-J4.
1,atber, P., & Smifr.:es, C, (199?). 1roubiing ang,>/s:
Women living with HIV/AIDS, Bou;der. CO:
1/restview.
1.cl.:omptr, M. D., & !'reissle,J. (with ·,esch, R.). (l993).
Etlmogmphy and qualitative design i11 educarfcmaf
research (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Levi-Strauss, C, (1966). The ;aV(ige mind (2nd ed.).
Chicago: L:r.'versily of Chicago Press.
l.incoln, Y. S. ( 1999, ;une). Ccurage. vulnerability mid
truth. Keynnte address de!:vered at the conferer.cc
"Redaiming Voice II: Ethnographic Inquiry a"\d
Qualitative Research in a Postmodern "
Univer!ii:y of California, Irvine.
Lincoln, Y. & Cannella, G. S. (2004a). Dangcmus
discourses: 'vlethodDlog'ral wnservalism and
gtwernmentd regines of md1. Qua[itotive
Inquiry. HJ, :--14.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannrlla, G, 5, (2il04b). Qllalitative
rc;;earc'i, power, and the radical Right. Qualitative
Inquiry, 10, l75· 201.
Lincoln. Y. S., & Guba, F,, G. ( BISS). :Valura/istic inquir;:
Beverly Hi:Js, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. 5,, & Tierney. w: G. (2004;. Qualilal!vc
researd: and iiistitutional review hoards.
Qualitative Inquiry, !O, 219-234.
Lofland, f. ( 197 l ). A11aiyzing social settings. !le!mont,
CA: Wadsworth.
LoHand. J. (1995). Analytic ethnography: Fe.ilures,
foilings, lll1C: future;;, Journal of Contemporary
Etlmograp!iy. 21, 30-67.
Lo(and, J., & Lofland, L H. ( 198·1). Ana(yzing sod~/
settings: A guide tu ,1ualitatfve observation and
tma!)'Sis (2nd oo.). Belmont, Warisworth.
Lofland,).. & Lo£and, L H. (1995). A.na[yzing sorial
setti11g1: A guide to qualiratfte observation and
analysis (3rd ed.). Beln:o::t, CA: Wadsworth.
Loflai:ri, L H. (1980). The 196'i Blumer.Hughes Tai,:.
Urban life and Culture, 8, 248-260.
Malinowsiti, B. (1948). Magic, sde11rc ,ind r1•ligio11, and
othtr essa;;s. New York: 'iaturai Hlstory Press.
(Origbal worit puollsh.:d 1916}

Y:alinowski, D. (1967). A diary in rhe strict sense of the
1erm (N. Guterman, Trans,). New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.
Marcus, G. & Fischer, M. M. J. (: 986). :tnr/tropology
as cu/rural :::ritiqu,,· An experimental momi:nl in
1he human .-riencts. Chicago: Univen;ity nr Chicago
Press,
Maxwell, J,A. i 2004). Reemergent sder:rism, postmod.
ernism, and dialogue across differences. Qua/i!ll ··
tive Inquiry; 1(), 35-4:.
Monaco, J, ( 1981 ). How to read afilm: The art, tedmo/
ogy, language. history and 1heory offilm (Rev. ed.).
s~w York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, Irek:h'er, P. A., & Grossberg, L (1992).
Cultural studies:An inlrnduction. In L Grossbe-rg,
C, Nelson, & P.A. Treichler {Eds.), Cultural smdie,
(pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge.
Ortner. S. B. (1997), Introduction, Ins. B, Ortner (Ed,),
The :ate of ''<:ulture": Geertz and beyond [Special
, Represenlllticns, 59, 13.
Pe'.ias, R. J. (2004), ), methodology of the heart: Evoking
academic and driily life, Wa:nut Creek, CA:
Alta Mira.
Plath, D. W. (1990). Fieldnotes, filed m.ite;, and 11:e
. . o:• note, I r: R. ~anJe
conterrmg • . k ''Ed' ~- Id notes:
< ,J, rie.
The makings cf 1mthropology {pp, 371-384).
Ithaca, NY: Cornell 1,;niversity Press,
Popkewitz, T. S. ( 2004}. ls the National Res<:arch
Council committee's re;:iort on scientific :-esearch
in educa:ion scientific? On trusting the manifesto.
Qut1ii!ative Inquiry, 10, 62-78.
Richardson, L. (1997) Fields (Jf play: Cvnsrructing
an academic /tfe. Kew Brl.lllSwick, NI: Rutg<':-5
University ?ress.
Richardson, L. (20001. Writir.g: A method of 'r:c11irv:
In ;\I, I(, Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), H,:mdtmok
of qm:r!itiitive 11/searrh (2nd ed., pp. 923-948).
Thcusa:1c Oaks, GA: Sage,
Richardson, & Lockridge, (2004), Jrai•els with
Ernesr. Crossing the literarylsocwlogical divide.
Walnut Creek, CA: Alta!vlira.
Roffman, P., & Purcy, J. (1981 ). The Hol(vwood wcial
problem film. Bloomington: ;ndiana U:::versity
P:ess,
Ronai, CR. (199/\). Sketc'-iing with De,rida: An et;mo~-
raphy of a resea:chcr/erotic dancer. Qualitative
lllquiry, 4, 40.5-420.
lksaldo, R. (~989), Cultur~ and tru,r.: The remaking of
social mrn!ysis. Boston: Beacon.
Ryan, W., & Bermrrc, H. R. (2000). Da!a rr:anage
mem and ana:ysis methods. In N. K. Denzin &
Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction Ill 31
Y. S. 1.incob (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (Znd ed., P?- 769-802), Thousa1:d Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ryan, K. E.., & Hood, L. K. (2004), Gl!a:tling th.e castle
a::d opening gates, Qual1tafr1e Inquiry, 10,
SI. Pierre, E. A. (2004), Refusing alternatives: A
science of i.:011,eslation. Qualitative h:quir), 10,
130-139.
Sanjek, R, (1990). On etl:nog:a11hic validity, In
R. Sanjek (Ed), Fid,Jnoles: The makings ofantliro•
pology (pp, 385-418). Ithaca, '-lY: Cornell
rniversity Press.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997a), Qualitative inquiJ'y: A
nary cf terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, T.A.(1997b). Iextualgymni!Stics,ethics a;:d
angst In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. l.incr,:n {Eds,),
R,prtsentatfon and the text: Re-framing the n,;;mi·
ti-It voice (pp. 305-31 lj. Albanr S:ate t:niversity
of New York Press.
Smw.mdt, I A. (2000). Three epistemological stances
for q:.:alitative inquiry: lnlerprtlivism, hermeneu•
t:cs, and social constructionisr.t. In N. K, Denzin
& Y. S, Lincoln (Ecls,), luindbook qua/itati~e
research {lnd ed.. pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Seale, C,, Gobo, G,, Gubrium, J. E, & Sllvrrman, D.
(2004), :ntroduction: In.side qualitath·e research.
In C S!!ll!e, G. Gobo, J, F. Gubri·Jm, & D. Silverman
(Eds,), Qualitative researc.~ prattice (pp. l -11 ).
L,1ndon: Sage.
Sen;ali, L M., & Kim:he'loe, 1. L. (:999). Introduction:
What is indigenous knowledge and why should
we study it?" L M. .Semali & J. L, Kin,he!oe
(Eds.), What is indigencrns knowledge? ·,111ces from
rhe academy (pp. 3-57). New York: Fahner.
Silverman, D. (J 997). Towards an aesthetics resear.h,
(n D.Silverman (Ed,), Qualitative researc!:: Theory,
method and pra,:tice (pp. 239-253). London: Sage.
SmJth,A. D. (: 993). Fires in the mirr.ir: Crown Heights,
Brooklyn, and ether idenrities, New York: Anchor.
Smith, J, K., & Deerr.er, D. K. (2000). The problem of
c:iteria in the age of rrlativism. In N. K. Demin
& Y. S. Lincoin (Eds.), Handbook of qualitatin
research (2nd ed., pp, 877-896 J. Tho•~sand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Smith, L. T. (I 99'1). Decc/,:miring methodologies:
Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin.
New Zealand: Universily of Otago Press.
Snow, D., & Murrill, (1995 ). I;0nies, puzzles, and
wntradic~ions i!: Denzin and Lincoln's vision
 111 HA:-!DROOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAirl'r.R I
qt.:al:!ative re,earch. Journal of Cmm::mporur;•
Ethnography. 358-362.
Spindler, G., & Spindle:, L. (1992). Cultural proces,
and ellmogra;ihy: An anthropologu:al perspec•
tive, In M. IJ. LeCnmpte, W. L. Millmy, &
I. ?reiss'.e (Eds.I, The handbook qualitatM,
research ill edurn/ion {pp. 53-'12). New York
Academic Pre~s.
Slocking,G. W,,J:. (1986).Ant:iropology and the science
of the irrational: t✓.allnowski's encounter w:lh
Freudian ps,dwanalysi,. In G. i"l. Stock: og, Jr. (Ed.},
Malimr.v.~ia, Rivers, Benedict and r,r/1.or<• Essays
on rnltim and personality (pp. 13·49). Madioon:
Univc:.ity of Wisco1L'>in Press.
S1ocking, G. W.,)r. (1989). 'fhe ethnographic senslbi.ity
c;f the l 92Us ar:d the dualism of the a111hropo•
logical tradition. In G. W. Stocking, ]r. (Ed.},
Ronumtic matives: Essays or: arithropol-0gicai
serrsibi/ity (pp 208-276). Madison: Uni'verslty
·vviscons;n Press.
Stoller, P., & Olkes, C. (: 987). Ir, sorcery'., ,hadow: A
mr:moir af apprenticeship 1.mwng the Songhay
Niger. Chb,go: University of Chicago Pre.»•
.1:c.1u,,.A. L, & Corbin,). (1998). B,mc, lif qualitaliPe
research: Tedmiqi.es and proicduro, for deveiopir,g
grouuded theory '.2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Taylor, S. I., & Bogdan, R. ( 1998 ). lntwductio11 ta qua.ti·
t..itive re,e,trd1 m,irhods: A guidebook and resource
(3rd ed.). Johr. W:icy.
Tcddlie, C., & Tat,hak:·wr:, A. (2003). ,\fa)or issJes and
contrnversies it: fhe 'JSC of mixed mrthnds ir. the
,oc:a1 at:d heh11vinral sciences. In A. 'fasbakkori
& C. Tedd lie (Edb.), Handbook of mixed methods
in s,,ciai and behavioral r.•.,earch (pp, 3-50).
Thumand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, 'N. G. (2000). Undaimtec courage: Life history
and the po~tmodem challenge. In N. K. Den,in
& Y. S. Lincnlu (Eds.), HandbaQk ,f qaaU1.atfre
re,eard: (2r:d ed., pp, n-""" Thom,a:1d Oak~,
CA:Sage.
Trujillo, N. (2004). Jn ,.,arch of Nmmny', grave: Age.
cl,1.~ gender. and etlmic/1y m an American fami!y.
Walnm Creek, CA: Aita;;,1irn.
Tt:mer, \I., & Bruner, E. (Eds.). ( l 986 ). nze anlhrcpology
,if1rir:periente. Urbana: University oflllinois Press.
Van llfaanen, ;. (19138}. Tale., of the fiel,i: On writing
ellmography. ChiC.:!gtJ: t;niversity of Chicago Prc,s.
Vidkh, A. J., & Lyn:an, S. :vt (1994;. Qualitative 1m:th-
ods: t:istory i:1 sotiology and anthropology.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Linmln [Uds.), liand/Jook
of quulitutivl! researdi (pp. 23-59). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vidich, A. J.. & Ly;11an, S. M. (2000). Qualitative n:d1-
ods: Their bi story ln sociology and anthmpoiogy.
I:i N. K. Dc:nlitl & Y. S, Li:icoln (Ec!s.), Uandb~ok
of quali!ruive research nd ed .• pp. 37-84).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Vygotsky, I.. S. (: 978). Mindi,; so,:1et;v: TTje development
,ifhigher psychological processes (M. C,lle, V Jnhn-
S:eir.er. S. Scr'bner, & E. Souberman, Eds.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wei:lstein, !l., & We!ns!ei:i, '.\1:. A. (l99i }. Georg
Sim me!: Sodologka; t:aneur hrkolcur. Th~Dry,
Culture & S,det;, 8. 151-16,'I.
Weinstein,M. (20C4), Randomized uco1;sua11d the 111}'tfl
of cer:ab kr:owlecge: Gmr:ea pig narratives and
.:L:ltu~al citi,JLle. Q<...alitam-e Jnquir;,; 10, 246-26::.
Wesl, C ( 1989). rhe American e1·asfon cfpliilosopf:y: A
ger:ealogy of pragmatism. ;\fa,lisou: Uniwrsity of
Wisconsin Press.
Wolf, M, A. (I 992;. A rhrice-tol,i tale: Feminism, pcw-
modernisrn, and ethnographic respo11sibili1y.
Sta:ilbrd. CA: Stan:ord Univen;ity P,ess.
Wo:rntt, H. F. {] 990). Writing up qu,ditatii'<3 research.
NewbJry Park, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. E (1991.), l'o,turing in <Jualitativc inquiry.
I:i M. D. LcComplc, W. L Millroy, & J. Preissk
(F.ds.), The handbook of . o;;a/itarive
, research in
education (pp. J 52). New 'ihrk: Academk P;ess.
Wokott, H. F. (I 995), art of fteldwor¾. 1Nalnut
Creek, AltaM:m.
Part I
- , ~- - - ~ h " ¼ ' l ' l , T , J " , , , ; , , ,

1 LOCATING THE FIELD

T
his part of the Jiandbook begb s wit!: the suggested reforr.1 of the social
and the academy through action research. It then rr:oves to issues snrrour.c:ing
compositional studies and crihc.d theurizi:ig, l,1quiry u:1der neocolonial regimes
is examined next. The discussion then turns to the social, political, ,md moral responsi-
biE:ies of the researcher as well as the ethics and politics of qualitative inquiry,

111 HrsrcRY AND rHF. PARTictPATURY Acr10~ TRADITION

The oJlcni:ig chapter, by Greenwood and Levin, reveals the cept'l and compkxity the
trnditional and applied qualitative research perspectives that are consciously and um::on •
sdously inherited by the researcher-as-lnterpr;;tive-hricoleur. 1 Tl:ese trad'tions locate the
inve~tigator in a system of historical (and organizational) discourse. This system gu,dcs
,md constrains the interpretive work that is beir.g rionc la ai:y specific stucy.
In their monumrntal chapter ("Qualitative M.:thods: Their History in Sociology and
Anth:-opologf l. reprinted in the ~econd edition of the Hamibook, Vldich and Lyman
(2000) show how the ethnographic tradition extends from the G:-eeks through the
15th· and 16th-,entury interests of We&lerners in the orig:ns of p:-imitive cultures;
to colonial ethnology connected to the empires of Spain. England, Prance, and Holland;
to several 20th•ccntury transformations in America and Europe. Throughout this history,
the users of q1.:aEtativ1: research have displayec commitments to a s:nall set of beliefs,
indudir:g objectivism, the desire to contextualize experience, and a willingness lo
interpret theoretically what has been observed.
These beliefs supplement the positivist tradition of complicity with colollialism, the
commitments to monumrntalism, and the prmbctiorr of timeless texts discussed in
our introductory Chapter 1, The colonial mor.~1 located qualitat:ve inquiry in racial and
se.,ual discourses that privileged white patriarchy. Of course, as indicatrc in t}ur in:roduc-
tory chapter, recently these beliefs have cume under conside:able attack. Vidich and Lymar.,
as well as Smith (Chapter 4l, Bishop (Chapter 5), and Ladson-Billing~ and Donnor
(Chapter 1L ), document the extent to 11,fi:ch ea:ly as well as contemporary qunlitative
rcscarrhers were (and re:n.iin) implicated in these systems of oppression.
34 lll :fA~D300K OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Cree nwood and Levir: expand and extend this line of criticism. They are quite explidt
that scholars have a responsibility to do work that is ,odaEy meaningful and socially
responsi:ik The relationship betwee:i researchers. universities, and society must change,
Politically informed action researcr., icquiry conmitted to praxis and social c.1ange, is the
veh id<' for accomp:ishing this transformation.
Actior: researchers are .:ommitted to a set of disdplbed, material practices that
p:-oduce radical, democratizing transformations in the dvk sphere. These practices
involve collaborative dialogue, participatory decision making. inclusive democratic
delibe,ation, and the maximal participation and representation of all relevant parties
(Ryan & Destefano, 2000, p. I). Acton researchers literally hei? traosform inquiry into
praxis, or action, Research subjects beco • e coparticipants and stakeholders in the pmcess
of inquiry. Research becomes pra,;.is-praclical, reflective, pragmatic action-directed :o
solving problems in ti'.e wor:d.
These prob'.e • s o~iginate in :he lives of the research coparlicipants • th<')' do not come
down from on high, by way of grand theory. Together, stakeholders and action researchers
co-create knowledge that is pragmatically useful and is grounded in local knowledge. In the
pro,ess, they joi1:tly define research objectives and political goals, co-construct research
qutstions, pool knowledge, hor:e shared research skills, fashion interpn,tations and perfor-
mance texts that ir:1plement specific strategies for social change, ar.d measure validity and
credioility by the willingness of local stakeholders to act un the basis of the results of the
action resea:c.1.
Academic sdence has a history in the past century of not being able to accompEsh
cor.sistently goals s:.icl: as these. According to Greenwood and Levin, there several reasons
for 6is failurt', including the inability of a so-called positivistic, value-:ree social science to
proc:.i;;e useful social research; the increasing tendency of outside corporations to define
:he needs and values of the university; the loss of research funds to entrepreneurial and
private sector research organizations; and bloated, inefficiem internal administrative
:nfrastrucn:res.
Greenwood and Levin are not re1:uu11dng the practices of science; rather, they are
calling for a reformulation of what science and the academy are all about. Their model of
pragmatically grounded action research is not a retreill from disci?Jined scientific inquiry.'
This for:n of in.:;uiry reconceptuali:zes science as a collaborative, communicative, cor.1mu·
,1itarian, context-centered, moral project. 'Ihey want lo locate action research at the center
of :he contemporary university. Their chapter is a call for a soda! science, a pragmatic
science that wi d lead to the radical reconstruction of the university's relationships with
sodet y, slate, and comm:mitv in this new century.

Ill CR'.TICAL THEORIZI'l'G, SOCIA~ RESPONS:BILITY,

DECOI.ON!ZING RESEARCH, AND THE ETHICS OF INQUIRY

·~he contributions of Michelle Fine and Lois Weis (Chapter 3), Unda Tuhiwa: Smith
(Chapter 4), Russell Bishop {Cr.aptt'r 5), Clifford Christians (Chapter 6), and Yvonna
Lincoln (Chapter 7) extend this call a committed, civic mo~al social science. Fine and
Weis offer a 6eo,y of method, a new approach to ethnography, a new way of reading and
wrlting this complex, f:agmented, and fractured social puzzle we call America.
Compositional studies arr contextual, relational, and sensitive to the fluidity of social
 Part I: Locatir.g ,he Field 111 35

identities, Fine and Weis seek to create compositional works that place race, class, gender,
and ethnicity in relation to one another, in ways that work back and forth among history,
economy, and politics, Their chapter offers brieflooks al two compositional designs: Wei s's
long-term study of white working-class men and women, and Fine's participatory action
project involving youth as critical researchers of desegregation. Ead1 of these e:hnograph ic
projects is desig:ied to understand how "global and national :'ormations, as we'.! as rela•
tio:ial ir:kraclions, seep through the lives, ide:itities, relations, and commu:1itie:; of youth
and itdults, ultimately rdracting back on the larger formations that give rise to them to
begin with" (p. 69), They offer a series of stories tl:at reveal a set of knotty, emergent ethi-
C'al and rhetorirnl dilem:nas that were encountered as they attempted to write for, with, and
about poor 1t:1d working-class staket:olders.
These are the problems of qualitative inquiry in the current historical moment. They mrn
on the issues of voice, reflexivity, :nformed consent, goud and bad stories, and "com•
ing dean at the hyphen;'Voice and rellexivity are primary. Fine and Weis struggled with how
to locate themselves and i::1eir stakeholders in the text. They also struggled with how to write
a:iout"race:' a floating, unstable fiction thal is also an inerasable aspect of the self and its pe~•
sunal history. \Vith them, we take heart in the observations of Nikoury, a youth researcher
from the Lower East Side of Manhattan who s:unned an audience with words: "I used
to ser flat. l\o more . _. now I know ,hings are much deeper than :hey appear, And it's :ny job
to f:nd out what's behind lhe so-called facts. I can't see flat anymo:-e" (p. 80).
Fine and Weis are hopeful tha: C'Omposlticmal studies can "provide a scholarly m:rror
of urgency, refracting back on • nation . , , [aski:ig] us to re-view the very structures of
powc, upon wbch the cm:nlry, fae economy, onr schools, and our fragile sense of
selves . , are ;:,remised, and :a imagine, alternatively, what could be" (p, 80).
Linda Tul:iwai Smith, a Mi'!ori scholar, discusses 1esearch in ar.c. on ir:digenous
commun:ties-those who have witnessed, have been excluded from, and have survived
:nodernily and imperialism, She analyses how indigenous peoples, tl:e native Other,
'1istorically ~ave heen vulne:able :o neoco~onial research. Recently, as part of the decolo
nization process, indigenous co:110mnities have begin to resist hegemor.ic research and to
inveur new research methodologies. Maori scholars have developed a :esearch app:-oach
known as Kaupapa Maori. Smith (Chapter4) and Bishop (Chapter 5) outline ::1is approach,
vmich makes research a h:ghly political activity.
In indigenous con:munities, re!iearcb ethics involves both es:ablishing anc maintaining
nurti.:rir.g reciprocal and respectful relationships, This ethical f:amework is very much at
odd, witl: the Western, lnstitutional Review Board type of appar.atus, with its informed
consent fonm,. Indigenous resear~h activi:y offers genuine utopian hope fo, creati:1g and
living in a more just and humane world.
Russell Bishop shows how a Kaupapa Mi'!ori position can be used by the Maori toge: free
ni :1eoculunial domination. Kaupapa Milil:'i creates the conditions for self-determination,
It emphasizes five issurs of power that become criteria for evaluating r~.sean:h; initiation,
benefits, representat:on, legitimation, and accountabil::y. Jndigenous researchers should
initiate research. not be the ,ubj{:ct of someone else's research agenda. The community
should benefit from tl:e research, which should represent the voices of indigenous peoples.
The indigenous cmnmi;nity shou'.d have the power to legitimate and produce :he research
texts that arc written, as well as the power to hold researchers <1ccou11table for what :s writ-
ten. When lh~sc five crilt:ri8 are addressed in the affirmative, empowerbg knowledge is
created, a::owing indigenous persons to therr.se]ves from neocolonial dor.1:nation.
36 a HAJ,.,'DROOK OF QUALITATIVE Rl:'SEARCE

A Feminist, Communitarian Ethical Framework

Clifford Christians (Chapter 6) locates the ethics and polfrks of qualitative inquiry
wi:hin a broader historical and intellectual framework. He first examines the Enlighten•
ment model of positivism, vah,e-free inquiry, utilitarianism, and utilitarian ethics. ln a
value-free soda! science, mde:s of ethics for professional societies become the conventional
format for moral principles. By the 1980.s, each of the rr:ajor social science associatim:s
(contemporaneous with passage of federal laws and promulgation of na~ional guide-
lines) had developed its. mvn ethical code, with an emphasis on several guidelines:
informed consent, nondeception, the absence of psychokigkal or physical harm, privacy
and confidentiality, and a commitment to collecting and presenting reliable and valid
empirical materia;s. ]nstitutiona: Review Boards (IRBsl i:npiemented t:iese guideli:1es,
including ensuring that informed consent is always obtaiI:ed in !luma:i suhjec: research.
However, Christians notes, as do Sm i:h and Bishop. that in reality IRBs protect institutions
and not individuals.
Several events challenged the Enlightenment model, including the Na2i medical exper-
iments, the Tus:.:egee Syphilis Study, Project Camelot in the I960s, Milgram's decepl'on of
sub; ects in his psychology experiments, Humphrey's deceptive study of homosexuals, and
the complicity of social scientists with military initiatives in Vietnam. In addition, charges
of fraud, plagiarism, data tampering, and misrepresentation continue to the present day.
Christians details the poverty of this model. It c:utes the conditions for deception, for
the :nvasio;1 of private spaces, for di:pir:g si;bjects, and for d:allcnges to the subjects' moral
worth and dign:ty (see also Angrosino, Chapter 28, Ibis volume; C,uba & Lincoln, 1989,
pp. 120-141). C:-1ristians calls for its replacemrnl with an ethics based on the va'.aes of
feminist communitarianism.
Th is is an evolving, emerging et:iical framework that se,ves as a powerful antidote to
the decept:on-based, utilitarian IRB system. It presumes a community that i, ontologically
and axlulogirnlly prior to the person. This community has common moral values, and
research is moted in a concept of care, of shared goverr.ance,of neigh::iorliness,and of ~ove,
kindness, and the • oral good. Accour.ts of social life should dis;ilay these values and he
basec on irJerpretive sufficiency. They should have sufficient de;i:!1 to a'.low the reader to
form a critical understanding about the world studied. These :exts should exhibit an
absence of racial, class, and ge:1der stereotyping, These texts should genrrate social criti·
cism and should kad to resistance, empowerment, and soda! action- ~o positive change
in tl:e social world.
In the fe,ninist communitarian model, as with rhe model of participa:ory action
research advocated by Greenwood and Levin, Fine and Weis, Smith, Bishop, and Keomis
and McTaggart, pa:ticipants have a m·eqaal say in how research should be conducted,
w:iat should be studied, which methods should be used, which findings are Yalid and
acceptable, how the findings are to be implemented, and how the consequences of such
action are lo be assessed. Spaces for disagreement are recognfaed, and discourne aims for
mutual understanding and for the honoring of moral comn::itments.
A sacred, existential e?istemology p1aces us in a nor.curnpetitive, nm:hierarch:cal
relationship to the earth, to nature, and to lhe larger world (Bateson, 1972, p. 335). 7hls
sacred epistemology stresses the values of empowerment, shared governa1:ce, care, soli-
darity, love, commuai:y, covenant, morally invo:ved ob,ervers, and dvic transformation.
As Christians observes, this ethical epistemology recovers the moral values that were
excluced by the 1ational, Enlightenment science project. This sacred epistemology is
-
Part I: Locating the Field • 37

based on a philosophical anthropology which declares thal "all humans are worthy
of d:gnily ami sacrec status without exception for dass or ethnicity" (Christians, l995,
p. 129). A universal human ethic, stre5sing the sacredness of life, human cignity,
truth-telling, and nonviolence derives from this position (Christians, l 997, pp. 12 15).
This ethic is based o:i locally experienced, culturally prescribed protonorms (Christians,
1995, p. 129). These primal r.orms provide a defensible "conception of good !'Ooted in
universal human solidarity" (Christians, 1995, p. 129; see also Christians, 1997, 1998).
This sacred epistemology recognizes and interrogates the ways in which race, class, and
gender operate as important systems of oppression in the world today.
Tl:·Js does Christians outline a ~adical ethical path for the future. In so doing, he
transcends the usual middle of the-road ethical models that focus on the problen:s
associated with betrayal, deception, and ha~m in qualitative researd:. Christians's call
for a collaborative social science research model makes the research.er responsible not
to a removed discipline (or institution) but rather to hose studied. This implements
critical, action, and feminist tradit:ons that forcefully align the ethks of research with
a po ii tics of the oppressed. Christ:ans's framework reorga:iizes existing disconrses on
ethics and the social sdences. 3

The Bimnedical Model of Ethics4

Christians reviews the criticisms of the biomedical model of ethics, t:ie apparatus of
the Institutional Review Board, and Common Rule understandings_ Criticisms cen:er on
four key terms and their definitions: human subjects, human subject research, he. rm,
and ethical conduct.
A note or. the relationship between science ar:d ethics is i:1 order. As Christians notes
in Chapter 6, the Common Rule principles reiterate :he basic themes of "value-neutral
experimentalism-individual auto:mmy, max:mum benefits with minimal risks, and
ethical ends exterior to scientific means" (p. 146). These principles "dominate the codes
of ethics: info:med consent, protection of privacy, and norn!eception" (p. 146). These rules
do not conceptuaEze research in participatory or collaborative formats. Christians
observes that in reality the guidelines do not stop other ethical violations, ir.cluding
plagiarism, falsi:kation, fabrication, and violations of confidentiality.
Pritcnard (2002, pp, 8-9) notes that there is room for ethical conflict as well. The
three principles contained in the Common Ru:e rest on three different ethical traditions:
respect, :rom Kant; beneficence, from Mill and the utilitarians; and justice as a dist:ibu•
tive ideal, from Arislutle. These e:hical traditions are not compatible: Tr.ey rest on differ•
ent r:1oral, ontological, and political assumptions, as well as on different understandings
of what is right, jus:, and respectful, The Kantian principle of respect may contradk: the
.itilitar:ar. ?rindple of beneficence, for instance.
Respoct, beneficence, anc justice are problematic terms. Surely there is r:io!'t to respect
than informed consent-1:1ore, that is, ilian getting people to agree to be participants in a
study, Respect ir.volves caring for ot.½ers, honoring them, and treating the:n with dignity. An
informed mnsent form does not do this, and it does not co:ifer respect on another person.
Beneficence, including risks and benefits, cannot be quantified, nor can a dear mean-
ing be given to acceptable risk or to benefits that dearly serve a larger cause. Smith
(Chapter 4) and Bishop (Cha pier 5), fo~ instaace, both argue that the collectivity must
determir.e collectively what are the costs and benefits for participating in research.
111 HANDBOO!< Of Qt:A!.lTAllVF RESEARCH

Furthermore, individuals rr:ay no: have foe individual right to allow particular for:ns of
resea~ch to 'Je done if the research :ias negative effects tor the vealer soda: whole.A cost-
benefit model of society and i:lq uiry does injustkc to the empowe~ing, participatory
model of research that many peoples are now advocating,
Justice extends beyor,d implementing fair selection procedures or t:.nfairly distribut -
i:lg the benefits of research across a :;icr;:mlation. Jnstke involves principles care, love,
kindness, and fairness, as well as con:mitments to share.:'. responsibLity and lo honesty,
truth, balance, and harmo:1y. "l\lken out of their W~s1em utilitarian framework, respect,
hen eficem::e, and justi.;e must b~ seen as principles t:ia: are felt as the)' are performed; that
they can serve as performati ve guicclines to a moral way of bel ng in the world with
others, As currently enforced by rRBs, l:owever, they serve as coldly calculating devices
that may posilion perso11s ag;;inst one another.
Regaxling research, Pritchard (2002} contends that the biomedical n:odel's concept
of research does no, adequate;y deal with procedural changes in research projects and
wirh unforeseen contingencies that kad to changes '.n purpose and intent, Often,anonyrr.ity
ca;rnot be maintained, nor is it always desirab!e; for eiample, participatory a::hon inquiry
presumes foll com:nunity par:icirrntion in a research project
Staffing presents anotl:er level of difficulty, IRBs often arc understaffed or have
members who either reject or are uninformed about the newer, c~it:cal qualitative research
tradition. 11?.ny TRns lack pruper appeal procedures or methods for expediting research
bat should be exempted,
Recent s·Jmmarics by the American Assodarion of University Professors (AAt.;P) (200 I,
2002) raise additional reservations, wh:ch also cer:te, on t:1e five is~ues discussed ahovc.
These reservations involve th(> till bwing topks,

Research and Human Subjects

• A failure · lRBs to be aware of nc·w ::1terpret:ve and qualitative development, in the
social scii:nc,:s. mdudini; partidpaot ohscrvalion, etl::;ography, au:oethnograp'iy, and
oral hislory resc,uch
• The applica:inn of a co:icept of research and science that pr:vileg,-s the biomedical m,1del
1Jf science not the model of trust, negotiation, and resp~ct that mus: he esla blis!:ed in
et:rnographk o, historkal inquiry, where research i., ::ol on, but is rather with, other
human beings
• An event-based and not a proces,-bas,:d concepl ion of research 1he consent process

Ethfr:s
• A failure to see humar. hdngs a& ,1icial creatures :ocatcd complex hi~l!mcal. politicaL
and cultural spaces
• Infringements an acade:nic freedom res·,1'.tir.j! from failure m allow cer:ain types of
inquiry to go forward
• Im:ippropriate applications of lhe "Ctlmmon Rnl.;" in a~sessing pm~ntial hann
• Overly reslricfive ,1p!)licati()t1S of the inforr-.rd rnn,ent rule

tRHs as Institutiotial Structures

• A fui:urc to have an adequate appeal system in pla,;e
• The need lo ensure 11:at IRHs have member, fror:; the newer interprctlve parndig:ns
 l'arl I: Locating the ~'eld • 39

Academic Freedom
• Pirst Amtndme1t and arndtmic freedom infringement;
• Polic'::g of inquiry in the tmmai::ttes, ::iduding ord ::islory re;.eari::h
• Polic'::g and obstr:::tion of research seminnrs ,md dissertation p1ojccts
• Constraints on crit irnl inquiry, ;:1dnding historkal or jour nali,tic work that c,1:itributcs
to the public ;.:~.owledge of the past, while incrir:;inating, or passing negative judgment
on, p,:rsons and ins:imtio11s
• i\ f.dure to consider or inrurporat,' existing :orms of regulation into the Common Rule,
including laws and rules reg,mling '.ihel,copyright, and intel\ectm1; pm;icrly rig:11s
• The general extension of IR!l power, across disciplines, crellting a negative effect on what
will, er will not, be studied
• Vastly different "PP: 'cations of the Common Rule across campus mmnmnilies

fmpr1rtant Topics l\iot Regulate,i

• co::du,ct of research with indigcmr.:s pe,:ple, ( ,ec below)
• T::e regulation of unorthodox or p:nblcmatic conduc: ,;; !he :sexual rch11ions)
• Relations betwcm IRBs and ethio1l codes involving universal h·J man :·ighh
• Disciplinary of ethics and IRB.s, and nevr codes of and moral perspcc:i\•es
coming from the standpoints of feminise.queer, and rac:ali.:cd epistemologie&
• Appeal mec::anisms for any human subje.:t who to grieve and who seeks some
form of restorative j:,:slkc a~ a result of harm experie::ced as a research subject
• Indigenous discourses and a:rernative views of research, srien<:c\ and human beings

Disciplining and Constraiohg Ethical Conduct

The conseque:ice of these restr'.ctions is a disdpli ning of qi:alitative inquiry, with the
disciyliue process extending fnn:i oversight by granting agendc, tn the policing of quali-
tative research seminars and even the conduct of qualitative dissertations (Lincoln &
Canr.ella, 2004a, Z004b). Io some cases, Enes of critical inquiry have no: been fum:ed and
have :wt gone forward because of criticisms from local IRBs. Pressures from tt,e political
right d;,credit cri:ica: inte:pretive inqu'.ry. From :he federal to the local levels, a trend
seems to be err.erging. In too rr:a:iy i1:sta:1.:es, there seems to be a n:ove away from
protecting nu man subjects and toware increased monitoring, censuring, and 1wiicing
of projects tha: are critical of rnnservative po:itics.
Li:icoln and Ti!!rney (2004) observe that these polici:ig activities have at least five
importar:r implications ror crifaal, sucial iustice inquiry. First the widespread rejection of
~l!erna:ive forms of research means that qual: tativr inqu:ry will be heard less am'. less in
federal a:1d state policy forum.,. Second, it appears that qualitative :e,earchers are being
deliberately excluded from this national dialogue. Cons0qnently, third, young rest:'Jri:her,
trained in the critical Irnd ii ion arc not beir.g lislened to, Fourth. the definition of research
has no! changed to flt newer r:iodels of inquiry, Fiftr., in rejecting qualitative inGJiry, tra-
ditional researchers are endorsing a more distanced for:11 of research that is compatible
with existing stereorypcs concern:ng persons of color.
Lincoln extends this ana'.ysis in Chapter 7, uncerscoring the negative effects of the;,e
recent developments 0:1 academic freedo:n, J?,mduate student trni ning, and quillitative
in,1uiry. These dcvdopmer.ts threaten acacer:iic freedom in four ways: (a) They lead to
increased scrutiny of hum rn ~llbject research, as we] as (b) new scmtiny of classroom
40 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEAil.CH

rs?search and trai:ling in qualitative researc:'l involving human subjects; (c} they connect
to evidence-based discourses, which define qua1ttative research as being unscientific; and
(d) ;;y endorsing mcthodologk:al conservatism, they reinforce the status quo on many
U1mpu,es, This conservatism produces new constraints on graduate trainir:g, leads to the
irr.proper review of faculty research, and rreates concitions for politicizing the IRB review
pru.:ess, while protecti:ig institutions and not individuals from risk and harm,
These constraints must be resisted, and the local TR B is a good place to start.

Dl CONCLUSIONS

As does Christians, we endorse a feminist, communiti,ri,m ethic that calls, after Slclith
a:1d Bishop, for collaborativr, trusting, nonoppressive relationships between researchers
ar.c ,hose studied. Such an eth'c pres~mes that investigators are committed to stressing
pe~sonal accountability, caring, the value of individual expressiveness, the capacity for
er:1pathy, and the sharing of emotionality (Collins, 1990, p. 216),

Ill NOTES
I. i\.ny dislinction ·Jetwecn applied and non applied qua:itative research traditions ts
somewhat arbitrary, Both tradi::uns aie scholarly, Each has a iong history, and each carries basi.:
imp'.ication, for theory and soda[ change. Good theoretical ,esearch ,hould also have a?plied
relevance and implications. On occasion, it is argued that applied and action research are non-
thenretical, but ever: this condusk1:1 can be disputed, as Kemmis and .\1cTaggart (Chapter this
vo' mne) ,'cmonstra:e.
2, We 'Al ill develop a notion of a sacred sdence below and in our condudir1g chap;er
(Epilogue).
3, Given Christians's framework, there are two prima:y ethical models: utilitarian and non·
,; lilitaria:1. Eisturically and mos: recently, however, one of five ethical stances (abso:utist, conse·
.;u.::ntialist, feminist, relativist, deceptive) has been followed, and these s:ance5 r:1erge witl:
enc another, The absorurist posi::on argur.s faat any "!lei.bod that contributes to 11 ;;ociety's self·
t:ndersMndinr, is acceptable, but only conduct in the public sphere should be studied. Tl:e deeep·
tion model says that any method, including the use of lies and n::'.sre;iresentation, is justified in the
:mme of truth. T'it· relativist s:am:e say~ that researchers have absolute freedom to study what :hey
want a:id that et:1kal standardb are a matter of individual .:onscience. Chr:stians's feminist·
comrr:unita:i:rn framework elaborates a cor,textual-consequential framework that stresses m:itual
respect, noncoercion, nonmanipulation,and the support of democ;atk vabes (see Guba & Lincoln,
1989, 120-141; Smith, 1990; also Collins, 1990, ;,. 216; Mitchell, 1993),
4, This seetinn draws from l>et:zin (2003, pp. 2'18-257),

ml REPbRE>ICES
American Association of University Professor~. (20(1: ), Protecting hu1:1an beings: [nstitutional
Review lloar<ls and scier:cc research,Arndeme, 87(3),55-67,
Amc:ican Assndation of Univers:ty Professors. (2002), Shonld all disciplines be sub;ect to the
Com:non Rule> Hu ;,1an subj ".::ts of social science research. Jl.rndeme, 88( I;,
Bateson, G, ( 1972). Steps to an ecology of mind, New York: Ba:lantine,
Christ:ans, G. (1995). The naturalistic falla~y in co:itemp,m1ry interac~ionis:-interpreliv~
research, Studies ii: Symlniir lnl11rnction, 19, 125-130.
 Part I: Locating the r:ield 11 41

Christiar.s. Ci (:997:. The ebks of being in a communications context. In C. Christians &

M. Trahe~ (Eds.), Comrnwricati,m ethics and universal values {pp. Thousand (},.b,
CA: Sage.
Cirislians,G. \1998), The sacredness of life. M;dia lkvelopment. 2, 3-7.
Collins, P. (I 99()). Blackfi,minist thought. :,lew York: Routledge.
Guha, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). l:1our!h generation evai'ualim:, .Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lincolt:, Y. S., & Can:ie:l,1, G. S. (2004a). Dangerous discoursts: Methodological conservatism ar:d
governmental rrgimes oft ruth. Qualimiive lr1qui1J; 10( I),
Lincoln, Y. & Cannella, G. S. (2004h ). Qualita:ive research, power, and the radkal r:gh1. Qua1fu1ti·;e
lnquirJ, 10(2), 175-201.
Li:icoln. Y. S,. & Tierney, vV. G. (2004). Qualitath>e resear,'i and InstirJtirmal Review Boards.
Q1u1Ji1at!ve Tnquiry, i 0(2 ), 219 234.
Mitchell, R. J., Jr.(', Y93 ). Sei:'1~)' and fieliiJ~ork. Ncwbu ry Park, CA:
PritJ1ard, I. A. (2002). 'lravders and tmlk I'ractitioner research ill!d Institutional Rt,·iew Boards.
I:.duca1ion.il Researcher, 31, 3.
Rvar;,
'
K., & Destefano,:.. (2000), 1:itroduction. , & L. Destefano [Eds.), Ev,1/umum i11 a
In K Rvan
democratic society: IJdilieratfon, dialogue 1md inclusion ( pp. l-20). Sa11 Fr:u:cisco: Jossey-Sass.
Sr:iith, L. tv:. (1990). Eth:cs,field s:udie,,aml the paradigm crisis. In E.G. Guba (Ed}, The paradigm
dialog (pp. 137-157). t-frwbury Park, CA:
Vidich,A. J., & Lyman, S. M. (1000). Qualitative mrthods: Their hi,tory i:1 sodo:ogy a:ithropol-
ogy. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (F.ds.), IJ111:dbo..1k of qualitutivP re.search ed., pp.37-84).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
2
REFORM OF THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES AND OF
UNIVERSITIES THROUGH
ACTION RESEARCH
Davydd J. Greenwood and rviorten Levin
W
hen dissatisfied practitioners seek
to explain Wh)· important, innovative,
transdisciplinary developments such
as fem in ism, grounded theory, cuitural studies,
social studies of science, na:uralisrk inquiry, and
action research have difficul,y gaining a foothold
and then surviving in universihes, the analysis
focuses on the organizational structures created
by the disciplines and their aggregations into
centrifugal colleges (Messer-Davidow, 2002).
Most critics account for the conservative behavior
o: which they do not approve by referring to
academic "politics:' to the maintenance of mini-
cartels and disciplinary monopolies that control
pub;ication, promotion, research funding, ai:d
similar processes, The apparent cause is the
political power of the owners of the various dis-
ciplinary b:mkers on campuses.
As "political" as this behavior seems, ii is obvi-
ous worldwide that the relationship betwee!l what
i~ done in univ~rsities-especially what we do in
the social sciences-and what tr.e rest of society
(on whic'i we depend) wants is not being handled
with much political ~kill. In our opinion, university
reiationships to key external constituencies (e.g.,
taxpayers, national and state government funders,
private foundations, our surrounding comm·.ini-
ties, and public and private sector organizations)
err.body politically (and economically} seJf.
destructive behavior,
A great number of university social scientists
write about each other and for each other, pur-
posely engaging as little as possible in public
debates a:id in issues that are socially salient.
Of:en, their research is written up in a :anguage
and with concepts that are in comprehensible to
the people who are the "subjects" of research and
to those outside the university who might want
to use the findings. That philosophers, mathe-
maticians, or 11". usir.ologists do th is fits their
image as humanists conserving and enhancing
ideas aud productior.s of human value, regard•
less of their direct app:icahility, That social
scientists do this as well, despite their d a:ms to
study and comprehend the wor~lngs of society,
is more problematic.
111 43
44 1111 llANDHDOK OF QL:ALITA':T\!I' RRSEARCH-CHAPTER 2

Put mon, bluntly, :nost social science disciplines Marxist or ~eo-Marxist Views
\:ave exci:sed themselves from social engagement
These analytical framewor;__s stre,s the impact
by de:i ning ,'o: ng "social science" as separate from
o: the !arber poiitical ecor.omy on institutions and
the a;:>pl'cation of :heir insights. The remaining
ideo'.ogies, incl ud '.ng those of tl1e academy (S:,va
gestures toward social engagement are lefl ma'nly
& Slaughter, 1984; Slaugh,cr & 1997). From
ro the soc:al &ciencc associations• mission state-
this perspective, the ,1rindpal function cf univer•
;nents. Tile cost of this disengagement to the social
slties is the reproduction of social class difterences
:;cier:ces is visible in the small state and federa'.
throug'.1 teach:ng, research, and the provision of
researd: allocations for academic social science
new gem::ra:ions with t1a:ess to ;_ey positions of
research.'
power wibin the system. Pmm a Marxist
These observations raise the :'ollowing ques-
perspective, universities contain a complex n: ix of
tions: How can social scientists be al once so
elements t:1111 :i: vulve both j)romoting and demot
"p>Lt ical" on campus a:1d so impolitic in relation
ing the da;ms of as?irants to social mobility.
to society at large? Wr:y is it that the knowledge
Unh•ersities emphas:1e re~p1.x;t fur the past and
c:-eated by social science research seldom leacs to
its structuring value schemes while simultaneously
soh::iuns to major societal pro·:i:em,? W~1y is it
engaging in researd1 designed to change !he hu!Mn
that social di,e11gage:ne:1t is more t;-pical lhan
condition. .\{uc':1 of 1his research is eitcrnally
atypical for social scicnli,ts? This chapter is our
funded, placing universities in a service rek1tion-
effort to sort out these is~mis. We seek to account
ship to existing structures of power. l'urtherm11re,
lor the discon ncction bctwren the internal poli-
moot univt'rJ;ities are hoth lax exempt and tax sub-
tics ti:' professional practice ard the external con-
sid:r.ed, p:adng them in a relations:iip of sioo:tli-
stit'-lrndes of the conventional social scie:1ces
mition to the state and to the public. Despite this,
sociology, ant'lropology, pulitical scllmce,
it is q·Jlte typical for ma:1y of those employed in
ar:d manv' 11canchcs of e.::onomks). in view of the
univers:ties to forget that thty a,c: ::ienefkiaries of
fact thut those external cor:stltuen c'es provide
public suhs:dies.
the financial and instit1Jtional support needec for
work organizations, universities arc char-
the survival of the sndal sciem:es. We then
acterized by strong hierarchical structures and
sent an alteri:ative approach ro soda! science and
a number of si;p~rimposed networks. They 2.re
action ~esearch, because we believe that action
d:vicied into colleges, with fu;th:r divisior. the
research is key to be needed fundan:er,tal trans-
colleges into di~dpl:nary de_oa,tment, and the
formation of the behaviors engaged in b)' social
ci!.'parlmenls i11to rnbdisciplincs, with nationally
scienlists.
and :nte,nationally networked seL, of rc\at'.or.•
ships linking individual researchers to each other.
'leaching is strongly controlled bureaucralka]y,
a WnY Is THERE Suu1 A but the organization of research is n:ore entrepre-
D1scor-:,rncr10:-,; BE7WEEN -HE S(}c!AL neurial and more determined by the researchers
SC!b:-!CES :\Nil Socmrv AT LARG:o? themselves. Despite the rec:-uitment of some
seeio:: faculty into adn:inistrative roles, universi-
There is 110 one r:g1:1t way to conceptuaiize and ties increasir:gly are run by managers who ofte1:
i:nderstand the relationship between social have strongl}· ·tayluristic v:sions of work organi-
science work at universities and society at large, zation and who operate at a great distance from
and different perspectivrs kad to different the site of value production.
insights. What we offer is simply our view, As in fewriali,:n, administrative power is
based on the uoe of three e:ements: Marxism, wielded by enforcing competitiveness among
the socio:ogy of the professions, and historical! the units. Academic managemen: philosophies
developmental perspectives. a1:d schem cs ge::1erally 17limic those of the private
 (:reenwoud & Levin: Reform Through A,'tion Rc;earch
sector, bi.:t with a tirr:e delay mea~ured i1: years, As
a result, most of the recent efforts to be,:on:e more
"busines,Ekc" in universities involve the applic2.
t:on of ma1:agcm01r stra:cgie, aiready t:ied and
discarded by the private sector (Birnbaul!I, 2000),
:deologically, universities clai:n to serve the
pubHc good" by educating the young for good
'obs and wnducting research that is :n society\
interest or that directly creates value for society
lntern,11 management ideologies ,,tress cost-
e::Tective:iess, encouragement of entrepreneurial
activity in university operations, competitivene"'~
in student admissions and support servkes, a11d
rntrepreneurialism in attra<:ting research mrmey
and alu:nni
The Tayloristk and econo:uistk ideolog1es of
cost effec:iveness and n:arket tests, increasingly
used hy university adm:nisrralor, and boarcs of
trustees to di5ciplinc campus activities, have to deal
wit!: the cripplbg 'nco:wenience Lhal !here are few
:rue "market tcsls" for academic activity, As a result,
administrativi: "i:npression," and beliefs often sulr
stitute ror r:1arket tests, and framing them in "mar-
ket"laaguage serves mai11iy to obscure the cor:stant
or
shifts power wi:hin the system, indud'ng shifts
in th<' structures of patron-dicnt rdationships.
cnanges. in favoritisms, and the ongoing consolicia-
tiun of administrative puwer, This situation is basi-
ca'.!y the sa:ne in most industrial ~oc'etie,&, ever, if
the u;1 iversi1 y forms part of the pu blk ac!ministra·
tive system, a, it does in many £umpean countries,
Al the level of work organization, universities
are characterized by intensely hierarchiral relil-
1ionships between senior and junior faculty;
between faculty anci staf~ and e.mong facu:ty,
students, a:1d staff. The same contradictions
b!.>twce1: pubEc political expressio:1s of prusocia'.
\'a:ues am! orivately cumpetitiv1: and ent::cpr~
neurial behavior, that characterize major co:-po
rations and political parties are visible with:n
university structures al all levels, The notion of
rgalilarian collegiality, often used to describe
relationships between "disciplinary" rarely
is v:sible and usual~· wht'Tl a disciplinary
:,eer group is undc:- threat or is trying to wrest
resoun:es from other such gro~ps, Most people
invoh,ed in tbe workings of universde,-faculty,
\Ill 4S
students, admlnis:rators, ;11:d sta:f-ex ?erience
them as pm[oundly authoritarian workplaces_
Sociology of the Professions Views
Perhaps the most abundant literamre on the
i,sues discussed in chapter is round in the
many variants of the sociology of the profcss'ons,
These approaches range among Marxist, function·
a);st, and intep:etivist strategies and resist eas)'
summary (see Abbott, I988; ll:-h:t, 1996; Fre!dson,
1986; Krause, 1996t \iVhat they share i& a more
"lnternalisl" perspective than is commonly found
in the more comprehensive Ma~ist/neo-Marxist
framings of these issues, The sociology of the pro-
fessions focuses on the multiple stmcti.:rings of
professional powers_ These structurings involve
centrally the developmen: of boundary ma'.nte
nance mechar:isms that serve to include, e,rducie,
certify, and decertify practitioners and groups of
practitioners, This literature also err:phasizes fae
deve!opn:ent of internal professional power sl,uc-
tures that agendas for work, that define the
"discipline" of waich the pmtession is an cm':iodi-
ment, arid that estabiish the genealogies of some
of the most powerful suhgrnup s of pr ;tctitiun •
ers and tur:1 these partisan genealogies into a
"his:ory" of profession (Madoo Len1:,,ermann
& Nieh:1.1ggc- Rrar:tley, 1998),
In these approaches, the self-interest of the
establishe(! academic practitioners is cent:at
Essential to professionalism is th~,t a strong
boundary exist between w'1a: is insk1e and what
is outside the profession, This is key to the devel-
opment of arnden:ic pro:'essional structures and
also directly requires that groups of professiun~l
colleagues engage in numernJS transactions
with superordinate systems of power i:l order rn
he cerrified by them, 'lb function, the acade:nic
professions must be m::cq::ted anc accredited by
those in power at u ;ijversities, yet nwmbers of
the profession owe principal a[cgiance to their
professional peers, not to bcir universities,
With:n the Jniwrsily structure, disdpEnary
deparlme:it chairs-no matter how importanl
their discipline might be-are suhord[nate 10
deans, provosts, and presicen:s. Thus, a department
 Ill H,\NDBOOK 01' QLAL:TATIVE RESEARCH
chair who might he a major player in the national
and internation11: disciplinary associations in his
or her field is, on campus, a relatively low-level
functionary. This sitt:atio:t often leads to a double
str,,teJ!:y. Ambitious department chairs work on
the ranking of their depart:ne:tts ir. various
nat:onal schemes in orcier to acquire and control
university resources. Deans, provosts, and vice,
chancellors m'.lst pay attention to these rankings
because declines in the rankings of the un:ts in
tl:eir charge are part of the pseudo-market lest of
tl:eir abilifes as academic administrators.
Such prolessional strategies have some advan-
tages for senior academic ad:ni:tistrators or public
higher education o:fidals because they encourage
the "acuity the departments to compete mainly
with each other. In this way, disciplines "disci-
pline" each other and permit higher administrators
to behave like referees in a contest. Clear:y, organi-
zations structured this way are generally passive in
relation lo central power and ll.,e rclali vely ea~y to
control. campus controls are backed up by
national ranking schemes that encourage fu,ther
compet::iveness ar:d by s:ate and national funding
schci:1cs that set the terms of ?he competition
wi:hin groups and that privilege and pi;nish profes~
sirn:al group5 according '.O extradiscipHnary criteria.
Stude:its and ; unior colleagues a re socizlizerl
into these structures through req·Jired curricula,
examinations, ideological pressures, and threats
to their ability to continue In the profession. Tl:eir
attention is driven inward and away from the
exte~nal relations or social rolesiresponsibilit:es
of their professions, and certainly away from
ing any challenges to higher authorities.
These str-.tclures, of course, are higl:ly sensitive
to the larger management schemes into which they
fit and to the larger political economy. As a ~emit,
there are qu:te dramatic national differences i:1 the
composition, mission, and ranking of different
professiom, as Elliot: Krause has shown (1996),
but pursuing fa is topic W'Ould take us beyond the
scope of this chaptrr.
Historical/Developmental Views
Perhaps the best-developed literature or. these
topics comes from history. Scholars such as Mary
CHA_PTER 2
Fi;rner (1975}, Ellen Messer-Davie.ow (2002),
Dorothy Ross (1991), and George Stocking, Jr,
(1968) have ,fommrnled and analyzed the long•
run tramitions in the social sc:ences and the
hi::manities. There are also scores of self promoting
and self protective professional association histo•
ries (i.e., the"offidal stories"). We igmxe this latter
set here, finding them useful as ethnographic rioc-
uments but not a.s ex?lanations of the processes
involved. There is an advantage in having a long
time ?erspective because large-scale changes in
the disciplines often become sharply visible only
wl:e:1 viewed as they drvelop over several decades.
The literature on the history of the social
sciences i:t the United Sta res st.ggests some•
thing likr the fo]owing narrative. lt begins with
t:,e founding of ,he American Soc:al Science
Association in 1865 as an association of senior
academics who would sti:dy and debate major
issues of pu·::.lic policy and provide governments
and corporalt leaders with supposedly balanced
advice. By ,he 1880s, this approach began 1o
wane, and the various social science disciplinary
associations emerged, beginning wi:h econ om•
ks. The link between fae founding of these
associations and the emergence of c.iscip:inary
depanments in PhD-granting instb.aions was a
sea change in the trajectory of the wdaJ sci,enoes
and resulted ii, many of the structures that exist
today.
The works of Mary Furner ( l 97 ;'i ), Patricia
Madoo lengermann and fill :,{iebrugge-Brant'.ey
(1998), Ellen :Vlesser-Davidow (2002), and F.dward
Silva and Sheila Slaughter {198.i:) amplify this larger
picture by showing how the institutionalization of
the disciplines and their professional associations
was achieved through homogenizing tl:e intellec-
tual and political agendas of each field, electing
the reformers, and creating the self. regn:2ting and
self-regarding disciplinary structures that are so
powerful in universities today.
These histories also show tl:.a7 these outcomes
were human products, were context dependent,
and were fought over for decades at a time, Despite
differences ln the d iscipl:nes and in timing, the
overall trajectory from "advocacy lo object iv it y"
(as Furner [1975] phrased it) seems to beoverde
ter:nined. Onr of the sobering apparent le»ons
 Greenwm:d & Levin: Reform Hmmgh Ac:io:1. 3.esearch Ill 47
of these hislories is ;hat the prospect rebuilding
a soclallv• connected or, less likelv,• il social~vf
reformist agenda in the conventional soda! sci-
ences not only faces negative odds but also r:.ms
directly counter to the course of 120 years of
disdp:ina:y histories.
Just how this pmces, of disciplinarization anc
domestication applies !O the newer social sciences
(e.g., plllicy sl udies, management studies, organi-
zatiomil behavior) is not dear, as there is E:tle crit·
icai historical work avai:able. I:npression:stk:ally,
it seems to t:s tl:at these newer social sciences are
beginning to repeat the process undergone in con-
ventional social sciem;es. a process that resulted
in their current disdplinarizatim1 and separation
from engageme:it in :ue everyday wor~d of social
practice.
T:1e consistent divergence between theory a:1d
practice in all the social sc:em:e fields is especially
notable. How this develops in a group of disci-
pli:ie:, explic:tly founded to inform social practice
should puzzle everyone. Even the great :1ational
differences that appear in these trajectories ,md
t:1e•r organizational contexts do not overcome
the global cy:iamks of disciplinarization and the
segregation of theory from practkc in academic
work. Whatever the causes uf these consistent
p:1e:1omena, they must be both powerful and
global. There appear rn be direct links among
disdpllnarization, the purgi :ig of reformers, and
the .sp~itting of theory and practice, with theory
·.,e;;.o:ning the focus of the acade:nic social
scl<en(:es. Having brtter understandings of these
dynamics obv:ously is crucial to the future of tl:.e
social sdem:es.
The above, highly selective, survey suggests
a few lhings about this subject. There is ample
reason :o agree with Pierre Bourdieu's ( 1994)
obs~ rvatior: that acaclem ics resist being self.
reflective about their p:ofessional practice, As
interesting as the materials we have cited are,
they are a very small window :nto a largely
unstudied world. 1,\'e soda! scie:1tists generally do
JJOI apply ollf own sodal .science frameworks to
the study of our professional behavior. Instead, we
permit ourselves to inhab't positions and espouse
ideologies often in direct conflict with the very
t:ieories a:1d methods we claim to have c::eated
(Bourdieu, 1994). For example, Greenwood has
pointed ont repeatedly that when threatenerl,
anthropologists who for f!enerations assid-
uously have deconstructcd the notion of the
homngeneity and stabiEty of notions like
"traditior."-oflen ::-efo1 to the "traditions" oi
anth::opology as an ideological pro;> m drtend
their profossional interests.
It is also striking how l: ttle academics rcllect
upon and understar.d the idea that they are
mem hers of ll Iaeger work organization in which
relat:onships both to colleagues ar.d to manage-
rr:er.t have important effects 0:1 their capacity to
do academic work. "Social" scientists regularly
conceptuali1.e tiemselves as solo entrepreneurs,
leaving aside their pmfes~ional knO'!vledge of
social structures and power relatior.s, as if these
were only disguises they wear while making their
way into the "cisciplinc;'
Iii THE POLITICAL ECONOMY WITHIN
IKST!TUT:ONS OF H!Cl!ER EnUCATION
Whatever one concludes fro:n :he above, it
shonlc be dear ~hul what happe:1s on u• iversity
campuses is not isolated from what happens in
society at large. The not:o:i of the "ivory tower"
notwithstanding, universi:ics are both "in" and "of"
their societies, but it is i:nportant to understand
that these external forces do :10t apply across a
smooth, unditterer.tiated in:emal a~ademic sur-
face. Universities snov, a high degree of inter:rnl
differentiation, and this differentiation matters a
great deal tu our topic of university reform.
The internal political economy of universities
i~ heterogeneous. In the United States and in
other industrialized societies, one of the strongly
rmergent foa:ures of university :ire is the hlg..11] y
entrepreneurial behavior in the sciences and
engineeri:ig. Driven by the governrr;ental am: pri-
vate sector markets and by explicit higher edu
cation policy designs, these have become
expert in and st;'Ucturally organized to capture,
manage, and recapture the governmental and
private sector funds th at keep their research
operations going. A complex web of interpene-
trated interests links gove:-nme:1ts, businesses,
48 lll HAND300K OF QUALJTAIIVR RESEARCH-CHAPTER 2
and university scientists a:1d engineers in a
collaborative activity in which senior scientists
and engineers basically become entrepreneurs
who manage large laboratories and research pro
jects, with the assistance of large numbers of
graduate assistants, lab tech nidans, and grants
administrators.
Social scientists, except those in the relatively
rare environments of n:ajor contract research
shops (such as the University of Michigan's Survey
Reqearch Center), are not so organized. Groups
of t>eonomists, some psychologists, and some
sociologists occasionally manage ro mount mult'.-
person projects, found institutes, support some
graduate students, and bring son:e resources into
tl:e university. In this ::egard, from a university
budgetary point of view, they are sc:enhsl-like,
with the virtue :'.1at their research does nol require
tr.e large infrast,nctural investments typical of
much sder.tific research. The activities of eVt!TI
the most stccessful economists, psychologist.s,
and sociologists, however, appear minuscule
fl nancially when compared to the scale of what
goes on in the natural sden.:es and engineering,
Generally speaking, in poH:ical science, anthro-
pology. and the qualitat:ve branches of sociology
and psycho'.ogy, the fonding sources brought in for
external research are derisory. As a consequence,
from the point of view of a central finandi\l officer
at a university, large proportions of the budgets for
t'.,e social sciences and the humadties in the U.S.
context represent calls or. the university's resources
that are nm matched by an external revenue
source. Instead, the social sciences and humanities,
focused as mey are on issues of so,;:ial .;:ritique,
ir:terdisciplir:ary research, gender, and posilional-
ity, provide a kind of prestige to universities. They
are part of the university "offering" that makes an
institution seem appropriately a.:aden:k, but their
activities are maintained by cross-subsidies, justi-
fied in ideological rather than econo:nic terms, and
always in danger of being c:~r off.
Because self-justification in terms of financial
:evenues in excess of costs is not possible, the
social sderu:es generally focus on being hlghly
ranked nationally among the:r competitor
departments other universities. That they
substiti::e one kine of market test for another.
These national rankings follow a variety of
reputational ar.d accountancy schemes and are
the subject of both strong critique and constanr
attention in the United States, the t:nited
Ki:lgdor.1., and inc:rcasingly, elsewhere.
Explaining how these ranking systems were
generated and are maintained wonld take us.
beyond tl:e scope of this chapter, but such an
explanation must be provided. Suffice it to say
that the disciplinary d~par:ments need to do well
in national rankir.gs in order to carry clout on
campus, to recruit bright fac:.ilty, and to attract
good undergraduate and graduate students. A
great deal of energy goes into assessing, manag-
ing, and debating these rankings.
These dynamics create a heterogeneous sur-
face within universities. The sciences, engineer-
ing, parts of economics, psychology (mainly
laboratory work) and sociology (mainly c;uantita-
tlve), the applied fields of management, and law
all generate significant reve:1ues. Most are el :her
organized as profit centers or are understood to
be self-:'inandng and to be good investments.
By contrast, the rest of the social sciences (inch.:d-
ing all those practicing qualitative • efr10ds)
and the humanities depend for thei ~ survival on
redistr:butions from these "profitab:c" units and
on subsidies from tuition, the general fund,
alumni giving, ar:d earnings on univers::t· invest-
ments. That is to say, a competitive, market-based
research economy-in which the deans, individ-
ual entrepreneJrial academics, ar.d others seek to
mini:nile costs and maximii:e earnings-coexists
with a redistributive economy in which those who
generate expenses wlthoul revenues are the net
beneficiaries of the profits of others.
Whatever else this r.1.eans, it suggests that a
university "economy" is a complex organization
in wh:ch a variety of economic principles are at
work and in which the relationships among the
sciences, engineering, the sucial sciences, and lhe
humanities are negotiated through fae central
administration. Counter!r.tuitivelv,• there c:.irrentlv•
exists no overall management model tr.at explic-
itly conceptualizes these conditions or provides
guidance about how to manage them effectively
 Greenwood & Levin: Reform Through Ac:ion Research 1111
for the ongoing growth of the organization.
Rather, given the hierarchical structi:.re of decision
making described above, senior administrators
are faced with attempting to keep a complex
system afloat while not being able to operate most
of the units in an "economic" way. To put it more
blun:Jy, the complexity of ·Jniversity "economies"
is such that neither faculty nor senior administra •
tors have relevant understandings to guide them
in making choices. Ko or:e can turn to well-argued
visions about the principles that shodd be used
to operate a u:iiversity, about how much entrepre•
neurial activity is compatible with university
life, and about what happens when and :f tuition
revenues, research contracts, patent income, and
alumni gifts start oscillating wildly. Neither social
democra:ic nor neoliberal r:wdels are adequate to
the task. In the absence of intelligently structured
models, simplistic neoliberal fiscal fantasies take
over, to the detriment of everyone (Rhind, 2003).
This is the internal '·political economy" of the
contemporary research university. Because its
structures are neither widely understood nor
carefully studied, most un:versity administrators
and public authorities apply less differentiated,
monodimensional management models to uni-
versities, succumbing often to the ter:1ptation of
attempting to view whole universities as for-profit
businesses and thereby making both "irrational"
and counterproductive de;;;sions, engaging in
anti-economic behavior, and supporting ur: justi •
fled and highly pofaicized cross-subsidies while
not guaranteeing the survival of their institutions.
• \\THAT COUNTS AS K:,OWLJ::l)(jE
IN CONTEMPORARY UNrVERSITJES?
If, among other things, one of the key missions
of universities is the production and transmission
of knowledge, then what counts as k:1owledge is
central to any definition and proposed reforr:1 of
universities. Within this, what counts as social
scie:ice knowledge is quite problematic.
Iust because universities are. among other
things, knowledge producing systems, it is not nec-
essarily the case that universities have a very dear
49
idea about what constitutes relevant knowledge.
There are some cor:ventional views of knowledge in
the sde;1ces and engineering that at least keep their
enterprises funded, but the views of knowledge in
current circulation are :mt much help when we try
to think about the social sciences.
The com't!ntional understar.ding of knowledge
tends to be grounded in its explicit forms: what
can be recorded in words, numbers, and figures
and thus is explicitly accessible for humans.
Based on this understanding, knowledge tends to
::1e trea,ed as an individualistic, cognitive pnenom•
enon formed by the ability to capture insights
(Fuller, 2002). This oo:1ception of know:edge is
of very little use in the social sciences and the
humanities, and challenging this view is necessary
to our argument.
Social Science Knowledge
If we attempt to conceptualize social science
knO\vledge, consistent with its origins, as the
knowledge that is nece.5$ary to crea:e a bridge
between soda I research anl the k:'!owledgt needs
of society at large, faen the disconnection
between what currently counts as social science
knowledge and what se:-ves society's needs is
nearly complete. In what follows, we intend to
create a different pictme by expanding the
understanding of what counts as knowledge to
include bridging concrete practical intelligence
and reflective and value-based retlectivitv.
Knowing
Very limited organizational and admin-
istrative meanings attach to knowledge concepts
at universities. Contemporary debates about what
constitutes knowledge can add three important
dimensions to commonsense notio:1s, d:men-
sions that have the potential for shifting the way
universities generate and apply knowiedge.
Tacit Knowing
Much of our knowing is tacit; it exprtssts i:self
in our actions, We focus on the verb knowing
 11!1 :l:AND300K OF Q:JALfl'.A'.l'IVE RESJ!ARC!i-CHAJ>TER 2
instead of the noun kr.owledge because knowing
emphasizes the pain! that knowledge is linkd
to people's actions. Tadt kr.owing is a term gener•
ally attributed to Michael Polar1yi (1974), and
Polanyi's argument is partially built on the argu-
meuts in I'he Concept of ,'vfir.d written by OxfoJd
philosopher Gilbert Ryle ( 1949), In Polanyi's view,
tacit knowing connote5 the «hidden" understand
ings that gdde our actions without our ability to
explicitly communicate what the lmowledge is,
Knowing How
Although Pofanyi's work is more recent, in our
view, R~1e created a more fruitful cor.cept than
Polanyi's "tacit knowing" by introducing the
notion of"knowing bow:• ''Knowintz bow" grouuds
knowledge in act1ons and, because this is precisely
how we arc able lo identify tacit knowing, knowing
how seems a mo:e dirc<:t anchor to c1sc.
Collective Knowing
Knowledge is also inherently collective. ·wu:k by
Berger and Luckmam1 (1967) and Sd:utz (1967/
1972) on the social construction of soda! realities
paved :h.c mad for a deepc~ u:1derstanding of
knowing as a socially constructed 1111d socially
distributed phenomenon. People ,vorking together
develop and share knowledge as a collective effort
and collective ;>roduct, petty comn:odit y
view of knowledge production notwithstandi:lg
(Greenwood, 1991).
Bent Ftyvbjerg (2001) follows a somewhat
diftere:1t path but ends up making some o:' the
same distinctions. He refors to the work of
Aristotle in making a taxonomy based on
!eme (theoretical knowledge), lech>Je (pragmatic
a:1d context-dependent ;>ractical rationality'),
and phrcmesis (practical and context-dependent
deliberation about values).
He seeks a solution to !:le current dilemmas
the social sciences by advocatbg a closer link
t(I phronesis,' The argi:ment is that teclme and
phume,is cm:stitulc th ncn.:;sar y "know-how"
for organizational change, social reform, and
regional economic development Neither we nor
Flyvbje::g assign any special ;>riority to episteme,
the conventional and favored form of ,Af'·"'' and
theoretical knowledge and the form that currently
do:ninatcs the academic social sciences.
The Arislutelian disli :1c:ions between ep1s-
teme, ttchne, and ph r<mesis center on distinguish•
ing :hree kinds of knowledge, One is not superior
to the other; all are eq·Jally vaEd forms of k:1ow•
ing in particular contexts. The key here is the
equal validity of these forms of knowing when
faey are properly contextualized aad deployeci.
Episteme ce:1ters fm:damentally on contem-
plative ways of know:ng aimed at understanding
6e eternal anc uncha:1geable operatio:1s of the
½'Orld, The sources of episterne are :nultiple-
speculative, analy1kal, logical, and experiential-
but the focus is always on eternal :ru:hs beyond
their 1:u,tcdalizatiu:1 in rnncrele situations.
Typically, the kinds of complexity found in epis-
te1m take the form of defu1itional statement:;,
logical con:1ect ions, and building of r:10dels and
analogies, r:pist"me is highly self-contained
because tt is dt:ployec. mair:ly in theoretical dis-
courses themselves. Although episteme obviously
is no: a selt~conlained activity, it aims to remove
as many cor.cre:e empirical ri>u•r;,11,,< as possible
in o:<ler :o ach:eve the status of general truth.
If this meani11g of episteme accords rather
doseiy :o everyday usage of the term tltecry, this
is not the case with tedme am:iphronesis. Techne is
onr of two other kir:ds of knowledge beyond epis-
ieme. ur:hm: arises from Aristotle's poetkal
teme. It is a li1r:n of knowledge that is inherently
action oriented and inherentiy productiw. Techne
engages in the analysis of what shoulc be cone in
th world ii: order to inc::ease hi;man happiness.
The sources of techrw are multiple. They necessar
ily involve sufficient expe~iential eni;:ag,:1:11:n: in
the world lo permit t;1e analysis nf"wlml should be
done:' It is a mode of k:10wing and acting of its
own. To ,1uote Flyvbjerg," 1echne is thus craft and
art, and as an activity it is concrete, variable, and
conlex1-Cependent The objec:ive of techne is appli-
ca:ion of technical knuwledge and skills according
to a pragmatic ii:str111nental rationality, what
l¾mamll calls 'a pracliml rnlimmlity 19)Ve:u,d by a
conscious goal'" (:'lyvbjcrg, 2001, p. 56).
The development of techne iuvolve,, :1rsl and
foremost, the crcatior: of that conscious goal. :he
 Greenwood & Ltvin: Reform Through A,tion Rescu:.:h • :, .
genemtion of ideas of bette~ designs for living that
w:H increase human happ'n ess. The types of corr:-
plexity involved in techni! around the debate
a:mmg ideal ends, the complex contextualization
of these ends, and the instrumcn:al design of
activities to enhance the human condition. 1h:hne
[s not the application of episteme and, 'ndeed, its
link to episfeme is tenuous in many situatio:1s.
1ecfme arises from its own souxes in rr.oral/
ethical debate and visions of an ideal society.
'frcfrnc is eva:u.ated prirr:aril y by ;mp act
measures developed by the ?rofcssional experts
themselves who cedde whether or not their
projt;cts have enhanced human happiness and,
if not, why r.o:. Practitioners of tecfme do eny,age
with loci stakeholders, power holders, and other
expt:rls, of:e:1 being contrac:ed by :hose in power
to attempt to achieve positive soda! changes. Their
relationship to fae subjects of their work is often
dose a:id collaborative, but they are ::rst and fure-
mos.t professional experts who do things ''for;' not
"w;th:' the local stakeholders. They bring general
dt:signs and habits of work to the local case and
privilege their own irmwledge over that of the
local stakeholders.
Phrane;1s is a kss well• :mown idea. Fon:i ally
defined bv. Aristotle a~ internallv' consistent
reasoning that deals with all possible pnrtku
lars, phronesis is best understood as the .Jesign
of action t:uough co[abo:11tive knowledge con-
struction with the legitimate slakeholdern in
a problemat:c situation.
The liOurces of phronesis are collaborative arc•
na:; for knowledge dcve!opr:1ent in which :he pro•
fessional re~earcher's knowledge is comb:ned with
the local knowledge of the stakeholde:s in defir:ing
11:e problem to be addres~ed. Together. they desigr.
and imp:ement frie rcsea~ch that needs to he done
tc understand the problem. They then design the
actions to improve the situation together, a:id they
evaluale the adequacy of what was dnne. If they a~
not satisfied, they cycle through the process again
un:il the results are satisfactory to all tl:e pa:r:ies.
The type, of romplexity involved in phronesis
are at once intellectual, contextual, and social,
as phrom:sis involves the creation of a new space for
~ullabomtive refiedion, the contrast and i:itegration
of rr.ar.y kinds of knowledge systems, the linking
the general and the pa:tkular through action and
analysis, and ,he collaborntive design t1f buth the
goals anc the ac:ions aimed at achieving them.
Phro11esis is a practice that ls deployed it1
groups in which ali the stakeholders-both
research ex?crts and local coll;, :.ioralors-;1 ;i;VC
'.egitimate knowledge claims and rights to de1er-
mir1e !ht: outcome. It is evaluated by the coLabo-
rators diversely accorc.ing to :hci r interests, but ail
share an interest in tr.e adequacy the outco,nes
achie,,ed in relation to the goals :hey coilabma •
tive:y develo?ed. Thi:,, phro11esis imrolves an ega'.-
itar:an engagement across knowlecge .systems
and diverse experiences.
This praxis-oriei:ted knowing, which is col-
lective, develop& ou: of comr:mnities of practice,
to use the wording of Brow:i and Duguid ( 1991)
and Wenger(l998), This literature pinpoints r:ow
people, through working together, develop and
cultiva:e knowledge that enables the participants
to take the apj)ropriate actions to achieve the
goals they seek. The core pt:rspt:clive j,, <1 con-
ceptualization of kt1owledge as inscrihec in
actions that a:-e collectively deve:oped ar:d shared
by peop:e working together. Explicit know1edgt: ;s
prese1:t am\ necessary ·:mt not dominant
This kind of knowing linked to ac:io11 h:her-
ently has physical and 1ec:1nologkrd dimensions.
Theon'tical capability is necessary, hut no results
ever wil: be achieved nnless local actors learn
how to act ir: appropriate ar:d effective ways and
use suitable tools ar:d methods. Thus techmq ue,
technology, and knowlrdge merge in an u_:ider
standing of knowing Ju,w to act :o reach certain
des!red goals. Knowledge is not a passive form of
reflection but emerges through actively strugglhg
to know how to act in real-world contexts with
real·· world materials.
Vvnen knnwledge is understood as knowing
how to act, skillful actions are always highly con•
textual. It is impossible to cor:ceptualize action
as taking place in a "generalized" e:ivironment.
To act is to contextualize behavior, and being able
to act skillfully implies that actions are appropri-
ate tu :he given cuntex t, The actor needs tc
make sense o" the context tu enable appropriate
actions. "Knowing how" thus implies knowir:g
how in a g:ven context in whic;; a:ipropriate
:,2 ll HANllBOOK Of Ql.A 1.11)\TIVE RESEARCH -CHAPTER l
actions emerge fro1;1 contcxtnal knowing. The
cor.ven:iona'. m:derstandi:!g of general know!•
edge that 1:-eats ii as su?racontex:tual and thus
universally applicable is of very little interest to us
because we do not believe faat what constitutes
knowledge in the social sciences can be addressed
usefully from the hothouse o' armchair in:ellec•
tual debate.
\'v'hy Knowledge Matters to Universities
Uniwrs'ties increa,ingly v:ew themselves as
knowle<lgc generntion and knowledge manage·
ment organizations, and the)' atte:npt to pmfit
from knowledge generation efforts and gain or
retain control over knowledge produc:s that have
a value in the n:arketplace (Fuller. 2002), In this
regard, scientific and engineering knowledge has
led tho way, creating patentable discoveries ar.d
processes that, at in the Unittd States, make
significant contrbutions to the nr:ancial well•
being of research universitie,. There are pressures
for the expansion of thi; commodity ;iroduction
notion of knowledge into broader spheres, p:es-
sures tha.t go along with in::reasing emp:rnsis on
cost-benefit :nodels in decision making by higher
education rr.anagers.
Iust how this struggle over the 'Jnivenity
genemti01;, managerner:t, and sale of knowledge
will t1.,m out is not clear. On one hand, research
universi1ies increasingly act :o commoditize
knowledge production to cre-.ite regular re,,"fn-Je
flows (as well a, academic pre,tige the com-
modi:y pmdt:ction-based ranking systems)_ In
the sciences, tl:is has led m a sp.1te of applied
research and a de-emphasis on basic resear·ch.
In the social sdences, the balk of the external
research money available to 'Jniversity social
science is for positivistk research or: economic
:ssues, demographic trends, a:id public attiti:des.
Whatever else it does, the current academic
regime does not support unequivocally
epistftne-o:nlered views of social science knowl-
edge. However,:: is also c:ear that few universities
supp11rt "kom\'ing how•' work either, hecaJse such
wor~ focuS,'S altention on :m:damental needs for
social and economic reform and thu" often irri•
tales public and private sector constituencies and
wealthy donors. There ls almos~ no indication tha,
existing research funding patterns support more
linked erlorts betwee:1 multiple academic part•
ners anc relevant non-university stakeholders.
The "Humpty Dumpty" Problem
Another difficulty in the way universities, most
particularly in the social sciences, organize
knowledge production activities has been called
the "Humpty Dumpty" problem by Waddock and
Sp,mgler:
Speoalizatio11 in frofossions 1oday resembles a:!
the king's horses and all the king', men ta,kling
the puzz:e ,;reared ':ly the frag:nents of Humpty
!)umpty's broken body. Professionals ... are tack•
ling proble::1s with only somt> of the ;._:iowledge
::eeded to solve the ;iroblems .... Despite the frag•
menta,ioo into professional spedal:ies, profession•
~ls and :nanagers are expected :o somehow p,t
tbdr-and only their---;.>ieces of Humpty Dumpty
!Jack together again. Further, they are to accomplish
this l:ll~k without real~, unders:anding what
Humpty looked like in the f::sr place, or what tl:e
other professions can do to rnakl:' him whole again.
C);:-arly, !his :node! does n!ll work. In addilion to
their tradilional areas of expertse, ?rofessionals
must be able to see society h111istically, thorough
lenses capable of integrating mi:\tiple perspectives
simulumrously, (Waddock & Spangler, 201!0, p. 211)
The Humpty Dumpty problem is relevant
because the worlc. does not i\sue problems in
neat disciplinary packages. Problems ,o:ne up .IS
complex, rn ultidimensional, and ofren confus-
ing congeries of issues. To deal with them, :heir
multiple dimensions must be understood, as well
as what holds them tog<'ther as problems. Only
a university work nrgan izatio::i that moves easily
across boundaries between forms of expertise
and between insider and outsider knowledges nm
deal with such problems.
Action Research as "Sciern:e"4
We reject a:gu:nents for separating praxis anrl
thcorv in soda) research. Either social research is
collaboratively app~ied or we do not believe that it
deserves to be called research. It should s:mply be
.Ill
 Greenwood & Levin: Reform Through /\:lion Resea:ch • 53
callee what it is: speculatim:. The ler:ns "pure" and
"applied" research, current everywhere in univer-
sity life, imply that a division oflabor between the
"pure" and :he "applied" can exisL We believe :hat
th is division makes social resea,ch impossible.
Thus. for us, the world divides into action
research, which we support and practice, and con-
ventional social researd: (subdivided i:lto pure
and applied social research and organized lnto
p:ufe~sional subgroupings) that we reject on
combined epistemological, methodological, and
ethk:alipolitka: grounds (Greenwood & Levin,
1998a, l 998b, 2000a, 2000b, 200: a, 200 Jb; Levin
& Greenwood, I998).
Because of the dominance of positivistic frame-
works and episteme in the organization of Jhe con-
vent'.onal social sciences, our view auton:atkally is
heard as a ,etreat from the scientific method into
·'activism." To hard-line ime:pretivists, we are seen
as so epistemologically naive as not lo understand
that i: is impossible to commit ourselvell to any
course of action on :tu: basis of any kind of social
research, since all knowledge is cor:tinger:t and
positional-the ultimate form of self-justitying
inaction. T:1e operating assumptions in the con·
ve:irional social sdencrs are :hat grea:er relevance
and engagement automat:cally ir.volves a loss of
sdentiflc validity or a loss of courage in the of
the yawning abyss of endless subjectivity.
Pragmatism
A different grounding for social rocsnc.:, can
be found in pragmatic philosophy. Dewey, James,
P'.erce, and ofaers (Diggins, 1994) offer an inter-
esting and fruitful foundation for ontological and
epistemological questions inherent in social
research that is action relevant. Pragmatism links
theory and praxis. The core reflection process ts
mnn;;cted :o action outcomes that in11olve 1.1<,.. 1.v•i•
lating mater:al and social factors in a !1,iven context
Experience emerges in a fOntinual interaction
between people and their environment; accord·
ingly, this process constitutes both the subjects and
objects of iaqairy. Th~ actions taken are purposeful
and aim at creating desired outcomes. Hence, the
knowledge creation process is based on the inquir-
norms, values, and intere-ts.
Validity claims are identified as "warranted"
assertions resulting. from an bquiry process in
which an indeterrr:i nate situation is made deter
minate through concrete actiow in an actual
context The research logic is constit~1ted in the
inquiry process itself, and it guides the know lecge
generation process.
Although it seems paradoxical to pos'tivists,
with their episleme-based views of kno'1'14edge,
as action researchers we strongly advocate the use
of scien:ific methods and emphasize the irnpo,•
ta nee and possibility of the creation of valid kn owl•
edge in soda! research (see (;reenwood &: Levin,
1998b ). Furthermore, we believe that this kind of
inquiry is a foundational demem in democratic
processes in society and is the core mission of the
"social" sciences.
These general characteristics of fae prag• atist
position ground fae action research ap?roach. 'J\vo
central parameters stand out dearly: knowledge
generation throus.li action and experimentation
in context, a:;d partici;:iative democracy as both a
method and a goal ~either of these is mutinely
four:d :n the cu:rent academic social sciences.
The Aai,m Research Practice of Science
Everyone is supposed to know by now thar
social research ls c.ifferent from the study of
atoms, molecules, mcks, tigers, s:ime molds, and
ot:ier physical o:ijects. ):et one can only be a1;1azed
by the emphasis that so many conventional social
scientists still place on the clairr: that being"scien•
tilk" requires researchers to sever all re_ahons
with the observed. Though epis:emologically and
methodologka'.ly indefensible, thi5 view is still
largely dominant i:i social science prnc,ice, must
particularly in the fields gaining the bulk of social
science research money and domir:atbg the world
of social science :;ublications: economics, sociol-
ogy, and political science. This positivistk credo
obviously is w:ung, and it leads away from pro-
ducing reliable in formation, meaningful in:erpre-
tations, and social actions in social research. It has
been subjected to generations of critique, even
from within the conventional soc!al sciences.; Ye!
it pe:Sists, suggestir:g that its soda! embedded-
ness itself deserves attention.
34 • HANDBOOK OF Ql:AL!TA'flVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 2
We believe that s~rong btervention& in the
orga:1ization of univer,ities and the academic
professio:is are required to root it out Put mo:e
simply. the epistemological ideas underlying action
research are :101 new ideas: they slmp:y have been
purged as conventional social researchers (and the
social interests they serve-consciously or uncon-
sciously) have rejected university engage:11ent :n
social reform.
Gogenerative Inquiq
Actior: research aims to solve pertine:1t
problems in a given context th:'Ough democrati<:
bquiry in which pmfossional researcm:~s col:ab-
orate with local stakeholders tu and enact
solutions to problems of n:ajor importance to
the stakeholders. We refer 10 this as cogenerative
inquiry because it is built on professional
:-esearcher •stakeholder collaboration and aims to
solve real-life proble:ns in context. Cogenerative
i uquiry processes involve trained professional
researchers and knowledgeable !0011 stakeholders
who work to get her to define the problems to be
addressed, to gather and organize relevant knowl-
and data, to analyze the resulting informa-
tion. and tu design social change interventions.
Tb:: rdat:onship between the professional
researcher and the local stakeholders is based
on bringing :he diverse bases,,: their knowledgi:
and their distinct:ve social locatior.s to bear
on a problem collahorat'vely: The professinr.al
researcher ofte:1 br:ngs knowledge of other rde-
v,,nt cases and of relevant research methods,
and he nr sne often has experience in orgar.izi ng
res,N1r.:1: processes. The insiders have extensive
and lor.g-t<"rm knowledge of the prob;ems at
hand and the co:itexts ir, which they occur, as
well as knowledge about how and from whom to
get additional inforrr:ation. They also mn:ribute
urgency and focus to the process. because it cen,
tcrs on pro':ilems they are eager to so:ve, Together,
these partners create a powcrft:J research team,
Local Krwwledge and ProJi:ssi,mai l(nowfedge
::or cogcnerative inquiry to occur, t:te collabo-
ration :nusc be hased on ar: interaction between
local know ;rdge a1:d professional '.<nowledge,
Whereas conventional soda) research and con-
sultii:g privi:eges profess:onal lmmvledge uver
local knowledge, action research does not, Given
tl:e complexity of t',.c pro ::ilem, addressed, only
local stakeholders, with their yectrs of experience
in a parti,;;dar situation, have suffide111 in"orrr:a•
tion and knowledge aJout the situation to design
effective social change proc~s~es. We co :ml, how-
ever, romanticize local knowledge and denigrate
professional knowledge. Both forms of knowledge
are essential to co generative ir.q uiry.
V.,!idity. Credibility, and Rcliabiliiy
Va;idity, cn:dihilily, am.I reliability :n ac:ion
~esearcb are t1easurrd by the wifangncss of local
stakeholders to act on the res;ilts of the action
researd1, thereby riskir:g their welfare on the
"validity" of their ideas and the deg,ee to which
the outcomes meet their expectations. Tht:s,
cogenerated oont1~nual knowledge is deemed
vaEd if it generates ,,1arrants for action. The core
validity claim centers 0:1 the workability of the
actual social change activity engaged in, and the
test is whether or not the actual solution :o a
problem a:-rived at solves th,, problem.
Dealing With Context-Cerrtered Knowledge
Com mun irnli:1g context-ccn:ered knowledge
effective:y to academics anc to other potentiil
users is a :omplex process, The action research
inquiry process is li:iked iulimately to action in
context. This means Cllnsiderable challenges i:1
comrnunicat ing and abstracting results in a wa)'
that others who cid not participate i;i a particular
pmiect, in duding ofae; sta~eholder groups facing
comparable but not idcnlica: s:tuations, w:ll
unders:and. Precisely because the knowledge fa
cogenerated, includes local knowledge and a:wJy-
ses, ,md is built deeply into the local co'.ltex;, com-
parison uf results across cases an,;. :he creat:on of
generalizations is a challenge.;
Compari,011 and Genera/izat!on
We do not think 1h ,It these complex itics justify
having handed over the ter,itory of comparative
 Greenwood & Levin: Reform Tb(lug:, t\c:ion Research Ill 55
genera'.ization and abstract theori,at:on to
conventim:al soda] researchers working in an
e,r;,isteme mode only. The approad: of positiv islic
research to general:zation has been tu abstract
from context, averagt oul cases, lose sight of the
wo!·ld as lived in by human beings, a:id genera:Jy
make he knowledge gained impossible to apply
(which, for us, means that it is not "knowledge" at
all). Despite the vast sums of money and huge
numbers of person•honrs put :nto this kind of
rcscarcn, we find :r.e theoretical harves: scanty.
On tn.:: other side, the rejection of fhe possibility
of learning and generalizing at all. typical of
much interpretivism, constructivism, and vulgar
pos:modernism, strikes us as an equally open
invitation to intellectual posturing without :my
se1:se of social or moral responsibility.
Central to t:1e act:on researc:1 view of grneral•
iia:ion is tiat any single case that runs cou:iter to
a gcreralization invalidates it (Lewin, I948) and
requires the generaliza:ior: to be reformulated.
:n contrast, positivist rest~.rch often approaches
e:x,::eptional cases by attempting to disqaalify
them, i:1 order to preserve the existir:g generaliza•
tion. Rather than welcoming the opportunity to
n,visc: the ger.erafo:ation, the reaction often is to
t:r:c a way to ignore it.
Creenwood became par:icularly well aware
of this during hi, perioc' of action research in
the labor•rr:anaged cooperatives of Mondragon,
Spain, the :nost s·.iccessful labor-managed
hdustrial cooperatives anywhere (see Green-
wood, Gonzalez Santo&, e: al., 1 Because
the "official s:ory" is that cooperatives cannot
succeed, that Spaniards are relig:ous fa:wtks,
and that they ,.re not good at working hard or
at ma:.d:1g money, the bulk of the literature on
Mo:idrag6n in the 1960s and 1970s attempted :o
expluln the case away as a mere oddity. Basque
cultura. predispositions, d1aris:nat'c leadership,
and solidarity we~e all tried as ways of making
this exception one tl:at could be ignored, ktting
the celebratior: of the supposed greater com-
petitiveness of the sta;1dard rnpitaEst fir:n go on
unaffected bv this, and otner, glaring exceptions.
Positivist theorists did not want to learn fro •
the case, in direct contravention of the require-
ments of scientific :hinking that vie,,v importar::
exceptions as the mos, potential! y valuable
sources of new know;edge,
Willi a:n Foote Whyte (1982) captured the
idea of the ?=oduct: vi t y of except ior:s in his con-
cept of "social inve:1tion.s;' He proposed thllt
forms of business o::ganilllltions could learn
from this Basque case by trying to figure oi:t
how the unique social inventions they had n:ade
heiµe<l explain their success. Having identified
these inventions, ~escarchers could then begin
the process of figuring out which the:n could
be genera:ized and diffused to other contexts
where their utility could be tested, again in
collaborative action. Of course, the key to this
upprna~h is that the valid ii y of Ihe comparison is
al;o tested in action and not lreated as a thought
experimenl.
If we readdress gene~a'.izatio11s in light of
what we have argued above, we reframe general-
ization in action research t<'rms as neressita:ing ll
process of reflective action rather than as being
based on structures of rule-based interpretation.
Given our position that knowledge is cm,text
bound, the key :o utiliz:ng this knowkdgc in a
different setting is to follow a two-step mocd.
First, ii is important to understand the contex-
tual conditions under which the knowlecge ha;;
hee1: created. This ,~cogn izes the ir:l:erent con
texrualization of the knowledge itself. Second,
the transfer of this know :edge to another st'lting
implies tmdersta:1ding the contextua'. conditions
of the new setting, how tJ:tese diffo, from the set-
ti:lg in which :he knowledge was produced, and it
involves a ret1cction on what consequences rh is
has for applying the acrnal knowledge in the new
con:ext. Hence, generalization becomes a:i active
process of reflection in which involved actors
must make up their minds whe:her the previous
knowledge makes sense in t:ie nt'W cnntext or not
and begir: working on ways of acting in t'le new
context.
Although it would take much more space to
r:1ake the full case (see Greenwood & Levi11,
1998b), we have said enough to make it dear !hat
actiuu researc:i is not some kind of a social science
dead end, II is a disciplined way of devdup'.ng
valid knowledge and theory while pm:notir:g
positive social change.
56 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 2
S!I RECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN UN:VERSITIES AND
SOCIAL STAKEHOLDERS
We believe that the proper response to the episte•
mological. methudologkal, political economic,
and ethical issues we have been raising is to recon•
struct the relationships between the univero 1ties
and the multiple staieholders ir. society. We
believe that a signiftc:ant part of the answer is to
make action research the central strategy in social
:esearch and organizational deve'.opment. This is
because actlon research, as we have explained
above, involves research efforts in W'.'lich the users
(such as governments, social service agencies,
corporations large and small, communities, and
nongovernmental organizations) have a definite
stake in the problems under study and in which
the research process integrates co:Jaborative
teachingllearning among multiple disciplines
with groups of these non-university partners. We
~now that this kind of university-based action
research is possible because a number of succes;;-
ful examples exist. We will end this chapter by pixr
viding an accou:it of two such examples, drawn
from a muc.'1 larger set.
Social Science-Engin~ring Research
Relationships and University-Industry
Cooperatfon: The "Offshore Yard" 7
This project began when the Norwegian
Research Council awarded a major research and
development contract to SINTEF, a Norwegian.
research organization located in Trondheim and
closely linked to the Norwegian University of
Sclence and Technology. This contract focused on
what is called "enterprise mode:ing:' an informa-
tion systems~entered technique for developing
models of complex organizational processes, both
to improve efficiency and to restructure organi•
iational behavior. SiKTEF received t::le contract
for this work as part of a major national initiative
to support applied research and o:ganizational
development in manufac:uring :ndlllitries.
A key ~ational Research Council requirement
for fais program was that engineering research o:i
enterprise modeling had to be linked to social
science research on organization and leadershi;,.
This required the co\laboratkm of engineers and
social scientists within SINTEF of a more inten-
sive sort than usual. The National Research
Council argued that enterprise rr:odeling could
not be reduced to a technical effort and that the
enterprise mode:s themselves had to deal with
organizational issues as well, because their
deployment would depend on the employees' abil·
ity to use the models as "tools" in everyday work.
The research focus o'. this ac,ivity was not
dear at the outset, The instrumental goal for the
national research organization was to create a
useful enterprise model rather than one tr.at
would be only a nice ;:mzzle for information tech-
nologists to solve. T:1e research focus emerged in
the form of an engineering focus on enter;>rise
models as leamir.g opportunities for all emplov•
ees and a social sciem:e focus on participatory
change processes.
The Offshore )'.ard agreed to be a partner in
this effort, and the project was launched in early
1996. The Yard employs approximately l,000
persons and is located a 90· minute drive north of
Trondheim on the Trondheim fjord. The yard has
a long history of specializing in the design and
construction of the large and complex o:fshore
installations used in North Sea oi: explora:ion.
The pro;ect was to ·:,e comanaged by a joint
group of engi:Jeers and social scientists. The key
researchers were [var Blik0, Terje Skarlo, Johan
Elvemo, and Jda Munkeby, two engineers and nvo
soda! scientists, all employed at SINTEF. The
expecta:ion was that cooperation across p~ofes.
sional boundaries would somehow arise as an
automatic feature of their being engaged in the
same project.
The process was by no means so simple.
Throughout the initial phase of the project, the
only cooperation seen meant merely ,hat team
members were present at the company .site at the
same time. In part, tbis was because the two engI •
neers on the tea1c1 had a long history with the
company. They had many years of contact with
the company as consulting researchers, and,
before that, they worked as engineers on the srn.ff
 Greenwood & Levin: Reform Through Actirn1 Research • 57
i:1 the Turd, As a result, the engineers took the lead
in the early project activity.' They were running
the project, and the social sc'.entists seemed fairly
passive. The engineers were working concretely
on compi:.ter-::iased mockups of enterprise mod-
els ·:iecause this was a strong focus of plan-
ning inte~est in the <:ompany, they accordingly
received a great deal of a:tention from the senior
management of the yard,
\Vhile this was going on, the social scientists
were devoting their allenlio11 to a general survey of
the company and making an ethnographic effort
to learn about the organization and social realities
of the company, This ,,vas considered important
:o g:ve the social scientists a grasp of what the
company was E'.,e, Th is researd1-based knowledge
generation meant Ettie to company people, as this
work was neither understood nor valued by the
cmr.pany or by the engineering members of rhe
team.
The first opening for social science knowledge
can:e whei: the social researchers o:ganized a
amference" to address the :,roblems of the
organization of ·v.ork a: the shop floor level. This
search conferer:ce produced results that caplllred
the attention of both the local union and manage
ment and made it clear locally that the social scien·
lists :iad skills that uffered significant opportn:iities
for lea:ning and collaborative plann:ng in the mm·
pany, This wa, also the first t:me the researchers
mar.aged to include a fairly large r.umber of
employees from different layers of the organization
ir. the same knowledge proc.oction process,
As a consequence of this experiem;e, coopera ·
tim: between the university and Offshore Yard
begar. to deep<'rr. At the til:1e, the company was
ceveloping a leadership ,raining progrnm.
Through the social scientists, company officials
lea,:ied about other experiences in running such
programs, and this helped them plan locally, They
were helter able to plan their overall orga:1iza•
tional developme::it activity in their own training
prograr:1 because knowing about other prog:a:ns
helped them with their design, In addition, they
felt it would be an advantage to them if company
partkip,mts in tne training also could get official
Lm: 1,ersit}' credits for their involvement, Thus,
the resu'ting program was desigued th:1ngh a
university-company dialogue and, in the end,
one of the social scientists on the team ran
The program also gave official university-based
credits to those participants who deddec to t~ke
a formal exam. The leadership program became
an effort that enhanced 1hr formal skill level of
the participants, and the university .::red:ts gave
them ,e<ognition m:tside the context of the yard.
The program was very successful, mak in!!
evident how close collaboration between the com-
pany and the university cou:d be mutually reward-
ing. Tl:e univers:ty people could exptrimenl
professionally and pedagog'cally in real-life con-
texts, whi1e the company got access to cutting-edge
knowlec.ge bmh from the university an{: from
other companies, ;hrough the 'Jniversity's contacts.
As an interesting side effec, the Y.'lnl cedded to
;ovite managers from ne:gh':Joring plants lo par-
ticipate, The Yard recognized :hat its own futue
depended on its havir:g ~oc re'.ations with its
neighbors and suppliers. Con:pany officials decided
that or:e way to improve this cooperation was to
,;,are their program, as a gesture symbolizing the
interdepe:ident relationships they have and the
mut·Jal stakes i• e-ach ofaer's success,
Over the course of the project, the cooperation
be(ween engineers anc sodal scientists began to
grow and create neil' insights, A key first :nove in
this direction was a :edesign of the tube mar:u-
factt.ring fa<:ility in the Yard. The reorganization
of work pro<esses that was cogenerativel y devel-
oped through workers' participation meant tha:
shop floor workers gained direct access to lhe
computer-based procu,:ion planning and sched-
uling the company engineers used. Instead of
having information from the sys~em filtered
through the foreman, workers at the shop floor
level C(l'Jld utilize the information system and
decide for themselves how to manage the produc-
tion process, T:1is form of organizational leveling
probably woulc not have come about had it not
heen for the increase.i mutual unde:standfag
between the S£NTEF engineers and sucial scien
tists and tl:eir mmpany partners that en:erged
thwugh thir working together or. the same
concrete problems as a team.
5!:l J11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 2
Gradually, based on these ex:leri.er.(:es, a
:crnncepmalizatior: eme;ged of the whole way
to develop enterprise models. The conve:itiorud
er:gineering take on enterprise models was that
the experts (the engineers) coliected i:ifo;mation,
made an analysis, and then made expert decisions
regarcing what the n:odel should look like. A new
ap?roach to enterpr:se modeling in the Yard was
developed which :he involve('. employees actu•
ally have a direct say. Although this is a modest
step in the dixction of partki?ation, it is polen·
tiallya very important one. It is lair to saythat:his
changed frx11s toward pa,tic:ipation would not
h2vc occur:ed unless the social scientists had pre-
sented sabslantive k:iowledge or1 issues of uq~ani-
zalion and leadership that were il)stable ti: mugh
padcipa:ory processes.
As more rnntual tru~: developed between
company people and researchers, the marginalized
positior. of the social scientists gradually changed,
and the company rnme lo rnm:t or. thr social sci•
enlists a, well. for example, rn1e of t:ie major chal-
lcngrs for the rnmpa:1y in the fc:ure will be how to
manage wil:i a signit:ca:il reduction in the number
of employees humanely and without des:roying
;;umpanv morale. These changes originate both
from restructuring of the corporation the Yard is
part of and from new engim:i:ring and ?mduction
processes that led to a redaced :ieed for laborers.
The has invited the researchers to take a seri •
ous role in this process by asking them to draw,
from all over the world, kr.owledge and diverse per·
spe"1ives on this difficult sub; ect. The researc:iers
have been able :o su?po:t new and often critical
k:1owledge faat l:as dla:1ged or extended the com-
pany's u:1ders:and'.ng of its downsizing challenge.
The research team also has been ai<ed to assist
in workit1g or. the learning atmosphere :n the Yard.
This has involved cxte:isiw interviewing of a broad
spectrum of employees to build a view about how
to improve the Yar..:i1 capacity for ongoing learning.
The results of these interviews were fed back to :he
invo'.ved emplop,•es, and the resea:cher, sha:>ed
&a:ogues with them lb.t ahrn,d both at presenting
the resub and at examining tl:e i11lerences made
by the researchers through comparison with the
local knowledge of the workers. Again, we c.m see
how models of learning with an origiI'. in
sdence circles can be applied to the local leamir.g
process, and the results are important !actors in the
researchers' assessments of the strength and vabe
of f:teir academic findings.
Perhaps fae most interesting overall develop-
ment in this project is how the co;opany-university
relationship ceveloped. Tr.e senior executive offi-
cer is now a strong supporter of :he fruitfulness
of the <.))r.tpany'., relationshi? with the university.
[n public presentations, hi' credits the researcher,
with bringing relevant and important k:mwledge
to the company and explains that he can sec how
this relalitmsh:p can become i11creasi11g;y impor-
t:mt. It touk him s.:veral years. of cooperation to
sre these possibilities, hut now he does, a11d tl:e
university is glad to respond. Allhoug:1 There is
no reason to :um:mticize the relation.ship, heca:ise
differences ut opinion and interest do energe,
the relationship seems so robust that further
developments are Ekely.
In :he end, only through mult:disciplinary
action :esearch over a sustained period of t imc
w,cre these results possible. The research vabe5
and the action values ii: the process have both
been respected, ar:d all 6e parti:ers ir: the process
have benefited.
Collaborative Research for
Organizational Tran,for:nation
Within tbe WaUs of tbe University
Here we report on an exampk of an action
research initiative Illa! occurred at Cornell
University, :.:suiting hi refo,m of a major, re qui red
unive:-sity course: introductory physics. The pro-
tagonist of this effort was Michael Reynolds, who
wrote this work up as a doctoral dissertation in
,qci,2:1c..:, education at Co,nell (Reynolds, 1994)."'
Because unive~sities are redoubts of h iera,chical
and territorial ::iebavior, changes initialed by
students or by graduate assislar.ts a:id lcctt:rers
ace rare, makir:g this case particulady interesting.
At the time the project began, Reynolds wa5
employed as a teach:ng assistant in an i:1tro-
ductory physics course that is one of the require-
me11t5 for stuc':ents wishing to go to medical
 Greenwood & Levin: Reform :'hrough Action Research Ill 59
sd:ooL ".'his makes the course a key gatekeeping
mechanism in the very competitive process of
acquiring access to the medical pro:'ession and
makes the s:ake the students have in doing well
h't'l and the power of the :acuity and university
over the fr '.ives considerable. II al so means that
the course has a gc.a,anteed dientele, almost no
:natter how badly :t is taught.
Although there is more tha,1 one physics course,
this particular one is crucial in completing pre-
medical requirements. Because of a comprehen-
sive reform undertaken in the late 1960s, this
co1,;rse was and is delivered in what is called ar:
"auto-tutorial" format. This neans that studentll
work througti the course materials at their own
pace (withi:1 limits), doing exptriments and
studying in a learning center, asking for advice
there, and taking examinations on eacn unit (often
mar:y times) until they have achieved the mastery
of the material and grade they seek, Despite the
inviting and apparently flexible format, the
course had become notoriously unpopular among
students. Performance on standardized national
exams was poor, morale amonr the students and
staff was relatively :ow, and the Physics department
was wncerned.
The staff struct·Jre included a professo, in
charge, a ser:ior lecture, who was the de facto
principal course manager, ar:d some graduate
assistants. Among these,R<')'11old~ was working as
a teaching assistant i1: ~he course to support him·
self while he worked on his PhD in Education.
Havl ng heard about action research and finding ;t
coosiste.:1t with his view of ,he world. he proposed
to the professor and le.::turer in charge that they
attempt an action research evaluation and reform
of the course. With Greenwood's hel?, they got
funding from the office of the Vice President for
Academic Programs to support the reform effort.
There Jollowed a long and complex process
that was skillfully guided hy Reyno:ds. It invo:ved
the u:idergraduate stude:its, tead1ing assistar:ts,
lect'Jrers, professor, and members of Reynolds's
PhD committee ir. a long-term process. It began
with an evaluation of the maiu difficul:ies
students had with tile course, then involved the
select:on of a new text and pilothg the revised
course. Reynolds guided this process patiently
and consistently. Ultimately, tlie profess.or, the
lecturer, instructors, teaching assistams, and
students collahurated in redesigning the course
through ln:ensive meetings anci debates.
One of the things they discovered was that :he
course had become unworkable ln part because
of its very nature. As new concepts and theories
were developed in physics, they were added to
the course, but :here was no overaU system for
examining what materials should be eli:ninated
or consolidated to make room fur the new ones.
The resJlt was an increasingly overstuffed course
that :he students found increasingly difficult to
deal with. In bringing the whole course before all
the stakeholders and ir: exa:ninlng the choice of
a possible ne'lv rextbook, lt was possible for the
group to confro:it these issues.
There were many conflic:~ on issues of sub-
stance and authority during the process, which
was stressful for all involved, vet ' .
thev staved
together and kept at .he process until they had
.
completely redesigned the course. It was then
pilotec, and the results were a dramatic improve-
ment in student performance on national rests
and a cor,sidera::ile increase in stude:it satisfac-
tion with tne course.
Reynolds t:1e:1 wrott the process up from his
ceta:iec. field notes and Journals and drafted his
dissertation. He submittec. the draft to h:s collab-
orators fo, comment and revision, then explained
to them the revisions he would make. He also
offered them the option to add the'r own writter:
comments in a late chapter of the dissertation,
using either their real names or pseudonyms.
Th:s iteration of the process produced some
significant changes in the dissertation and solidi-
fied the group's ow:1 learning process. Eventually,
many of the collaborators attendee Reynolds's
d!sse:tation defense and were engaged in the
discussion, the first time we know of that such
a "collaborative" defense occurred at Cornell.
Subsequently, that kind of defense, with rnllabora-
tors present, has been repeated w:tli other PhD
candidatrs (Boser, 2001; Grr.dens-Schuck, 1998).
Interestingly, though tl:e process was extremely
stressful for the participants, the results were
(,0 • HA!'GBOOK OP QUALITATlVE R3SEARCH-CHAP1'i'R 2
phenomenally good fo: the students. ,4. proposal
was made to extend this approach to curriculum
reform to oth~r courses at Cornrll, but the univer•
sity adr:iinistraiion was unprepar<'d to unde:-
w,ite the process, des;iite lts oi:Jvious great success
in th is case.
Perhaps the reforr:1 of a single course does not
sa:rn like much of a soda! cl:ange, but we fr1ink
i: :1as powerful impEc2tions. This case demon•
strates the poss:bili:y of a:1 action rtsearch-bascd
reform being initiated frnm a position of little
power within a pmfoandly bureaucratic antl hier •
a:chical orga:1iza1 ion, the university. The value
of the k:1owle<lge [If eas:h category of stakeholder
was patent tlmmghout. and the shared ir:terests of
all in a good m:tcomc for the studer:ni helped hold
the ?mce~, together, That su.;h reform is possihle
and succe~sfu; means that .:hose who write off the
possibi1ity nf significant university reforms are
simply wroll£, Of course, it also shows that an iso-
lated success does 1101 add up to ongoing instih:-
t'rmal change without a broader strate11y In back
it lip. Thus, it was a success, but an isL>laleti one.
A'.though :his is a mocest amount of case
material to prese:11 in sup?ort uf our rontentions,
we believe tha: tne cases ut least give the reader
a general sense of the ki1:d of vision of social
reseuch we advocate,
Ill lNsnTuno:,i1;.uz1NG AR 1r,
ACA!l!'MIC ENVIROKMR'.15
One of the ma; or challenges facing modern uni-
versities that are fanded with private or public
money lies in making visible their contribution
:o :mportanl social and technological challer.ges
in the larger society. This cannot be done unless
research and teaching are dearly aligned to extra·
univrrsil y needs.
Althoq;'1 such an argument is often hearc in
the rnrrent dcba,:!S about the social obJgalions
of universities, l:nle progress has bee11 made
at meciating university-socie:y relationships
because of the pro:ound differences between what
is considere<l ap?m;,ria.c research and teaching by
:irndemic; and what the public wants and expects,
Few processes arc in place to work towarc creati:1g
a shared understanding of wbat a desired focus
of collaboration should be, The parties operate
in two difforent world,, with very limited cross-
boundary commtmication and learning, and they
operate with the inconvenience tnat tile p•Jblk
ha, thr power to malle decisions affecti rig future
university budgets,
Action research meets the need for t b, kinci
of mediated COT:1mu11ication and action. It deals
with real-:ife problems in context, and ii is bLiil:
011 participation by the non-university problem
owners. It creates mutual learning opporlun ities
for rcsearchc,s t1nd pa,\ idpants, it produces
ta:1gible resalts. Hence, action re~earch, if man-
aged skillfu]y, c.rn respond in a positive way to
the changing and incrcas:ngly ir.tervcntionist
public and private sector env :ronn:enis in which
universitfos must operate.
How, then, do we e11visage a university
operating witllin the frame of reference of action
research? Giwn what we h,tvc already said about
now resear,;;h would have lo ':,e organized. it is
dear that problem definition must be acco:n-
plished rnoperatively wi:b :he actors wl:o expe:i•
cnce the actual ?roblerr: situations. Thus, research
will have In he ~ondu:ted "natural" settings
without trying to create a univcrsity-cenle1l!d
substitute experimer:tal situation.
Co:1ducting research this way guaraatees l'1at
research foci will not em1eri::e from reading about
tile latest fa.sh ionable theory with!n an arndrn1k
?rofession, but rathe: as a negotiated juint under-
standing nf what the problem in focas should be,
an understand: ng in which both profossio,mls
and problem owners have a say in setting fae
iss:ie the group ,viii deal wit:t. For m;ademic
researchers, this places a prcnitm rm the ability
and w:llingnem, to fra:ne researchable questions
ir: roncrele problem s[ruation,,~, a prnuiss that
certainly forces tr.e researc:iers to !ldopt perspec-
tives that often are not ccmral or even weil known
within their own disciplines.
One way to create this po:cn1ii1 is t{) train
re;carchers who are capable o:' embracing per•
spc;;tives zj"nd those of single, constraineci
professional discip:inar y territories, Another
 (:'ccnwoc•d & Levin: lteform Through Ac:it,11 Resea:ch 111 61
possibility is to create b,an:s that contain cnm:gh
varict'c, LJf experl:se relevant to the problem
at nand so t'1Jt the interr.al capacity to mo·::iiliie
the nL"t'ded fimn& of knowledge I:, bo:h
situatiom. :he cen:erpiece is the requiremen: t~at
academic researchers be able to operate in a trans-
disdplinary environment, where the challenge,
cente:: on acth·ely transforming their owri persoec-
tivcs iri order 10 accommodate and help build the
necessary :mowledgc platform neeGed for working
through problem. They also would aiso have
to understand their accountd,ility to the extra-
university stakeholders' evaluation of the results
t:irough action. Thus, team-hased research and
breaking down bour:daries between diffl.'rent
professional posit ions ate ce:1tml features of the
ceploymenl of act'on research in un :versities.
':eaching would 'lave lo change in much the
sar.1e way. 1n fact, it is pnssi':>le lo envisage a
teachir.g process that mirrors the action res.::arch
process w~ have articulated above. The obvious
starting point would be u"e of concrete proolem
situations in dassmo;ns, probably accomplished
by ust" uf real Ulses. Stanir.g here, the develop-
mer.t lear:ii11g foci (e.!!•· problem definitions)
would have to eme"<'efrom the concrete probleu:
situations, a posi tio:i that is the centerpiece of
roh n Dewey's pedagogy.
In this regard, this teach'ng situatiCln is pi!ral-
ld to an action resear,:1 p;0jcct main diffo, -
ence is that are three types nf ;;rincipal
actor~ in o,-srn,m,- the problem owners, the
s:udents, ar:d the ,,,,cma,.As in actlon research,
they will aJ be linked in a mJtual lear:ikg
process. Even though students might themselves
be participants, without many the necessary
skills and insights, they will discover tr.at, as
students, they bring a d:ffcrcnt set of experiences
and points view into the collaborative learning
arena a:1d ca11 make i:nportant crm:ribt:ions as
gair, confider:ce in their own a:iil ities. T:rns,
all three parties will be teachers a:id co'.earm,rs_
The orofossional acacemks w iU have a ,peci al
oh:igatior: to structure the learmng situation
effectively and to provide ne,:essary substantive
knowledge to the partkipants in the lcarni ng
process. As is genernlly 6e case in leaching,
the ?tofes,ors would start the course using beir
com:eption of what are key substantive isllues in
:he si:uation under examinatiu:i. Because this
'.{ind of teaching is problem driven, however, all
predetermined plans will have to De adjusted to
the concrete teaching s:tuation as new, cog1mer-
ated understandings err;erge fro:n learning
group.
Focusi1:g rn1 real-life problen:s also forces the
different disciplines to rnopi!rate because relevant
knowledge must be s;nght from any and all
Stmrci;s. No single discipline or strand of thinking
c,rn dominate act:on :-esearch because real-wor:d
pmble:ns are not tailored to match disdpli nary
structures and s!andarc., of acaciemk popularity,
The valuable acidem k professiona: thus is r.ot
the world's leading expert in discipline "X" o:
theory "Y" but instead is the person who can
bring rekvant knowledge for solving the problem
to the table,
Through such pedagogical processes, whatever
cl~e they do, it is certain that students will learn
how to apply what they inow and how to learn
from otr,er. from the professor,, and from
the problem owr.ers. What tl1ey wHI nut develop is
a narrow allegiance to a particular discipline or to
a u:iiversi:y world sepa,ated from life in society al
large. And together, the professors and students
will be of .;;crvice to the world outside the acad-
emy Thus, universities lhat fotus their tcachin!!
on acfam research will he able to supply practical
results and insights to the surroumlii:g rnciet;,
Is This Possible?
The question is not whether t1c:ion research
can be accom1;10da:ed i:1 contemporary un:versi-
lies, but how to create experimental situations to
:llake ii happen, We can find examples of tl:is in
under!!::a<luate education, in professional degree
courses, and in PhD pm grams. Programs action
research at both of the authors' institutions
(Cornell and the >lorwegian Univc:Sity of Science
and Technology) have sl:own ;hat such programs
are possible, albeit on a ve::y sn:all at present.
The biggest obstacle is itow 10 imegrate thb
type of <1llerr:ative educational process :.illy :n the
62 a HANDlllJOK 01' QUALITATfVE RESEARCH"-CHAPTER 2
current structures of universities. Everything we
have said above constitutes a challenge to the
cur,ent division of labor and to the disciplinary
and administrative structures of universities.
?ursuing this wo'Jld weake:i the hegemony of
separnle professional and disciplinary structures,
would force professional activity to move toward
meeting ~ocial m:eds, and wo'Jld limit the se)f.
serving and self-regarding academic profession·
alism that is the hallmark of contemporary
lll:i versities.
Despite how difficult it appears to be, there
are reasons to think that progress can be made
along these lines. The increasing public and fl S·
cal pressure on universities to justify the:nselves
and their activities creates a risky but promising
situation in which experimenthg with action
research approaches may be the only possible
solution for unive,sities that wish to survive lnto
:he next generation.
There is a choice. One strategy some universi·
ties have adopted is that, as the public finam.ial
support for universities drops, they consider
themselves even less accountable to the public,
Another is to l:·y lo renegotiate this relationship
a:i d reverse the m:gative trend. We believe in using
action research to try to repair the deeply com-
promised relationships universities have with
their publics and governments.
________
Ill NOTES ., ,,,_, _______
L The exceptions to f.iis poverty are positivist'c,
p01icy-orien:ed economic research and bits llf policy-
relevant social science research anchored primarily in
schools business, planning, and pub::c policy;
2. Techne can also be interpreted as the technical
rationality that is in the heads and the hands of
exper;s, but, in the context of this essay, it denotes t::e
kind of knowing necessary for making sk:lled mms
formation processes and t:1erefore is no! connected lo
the experts' power :,osition.
3. ari;umenls have been :nade in much
mo~e c:et:ail and with a much mnre comprehensive
understMdir,g of :heir Greek origins by Olav Eikefand
( 1997),
4. Aver:;ion of tn:s section ;,ras delivered by Green-
wood ,:,,s a paper titled La cmtrapl.llag(a "foaplica/Jl~':
El divorcio ,mire la teoria y la prdctica y el dediv. de ia
m:tropol(Jgfa imiversitaria (Inapplicable Anthropology:
The Divorce :Between Theory and Practice and :he
Decline of University Anthropology) at the conference
of Soc'edad Es]>aflola de Antropologfa Aplkada in
Granada, Spai:-., in Ko\'ember of W02.
5. A critique of this kind o"blind positivism was
cer1tral ID the ideas of the :najor social thinkers who
gave rise to the soda! sciences in the first ?lace ( Adam
Srn:th, Karl 11,ian,:, Max Weber, l::nile Durkheim, and
John Dewey, among others J. i\ good source of currenr
critiques is James Scheurkh ( 1997),
6. For a full discussion of these iss;ies, :;ee Robert
Stake (1995).
7. This :s a pseudonym.
8. observed much of this process because
he served as a member of the local steering co=nmlttce
for :he projec:. He :'!'collects :,ow little linilagc there
was at the outset between engineering and the social
sciences.
9. A Se!!rch conference is a democratically orga•
nized action research means for !,ringing a group of
problem owners together for an imcnsive process of
reflection, analysis, and action planning. For a more
detailed description, sec Greenwood and Levin (1998b ).
10. Greenwood served as a ir.ember of Reynold s's
PhD committee and wo:i.ced with him throughout this
research. However, the ideas, processc:s, and interpre:a•
tions offered here are thnse Reyr.olds generated, not
Greenwood's, Beca·Jse Reynolds is now hard at work ':i
semndary school reform, he has not made a further
write-up of his wo:k, so we enwurage the interested
reader to consult his dissertation directly.
ml REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Berger, P., & Luck::iann, :. (1967). The social cm1struc·
tfon ofreality: A trearise in tJ1e sociology of iam w/.
edge. Nc:w York: Anchor.
Birnbaum, R. {2000), Management fads in higher
education. San Francisco: Jnssey- Bass.
Boser, S. (2001 ). An action mear,+. approach w rr:fomr·
ing rural lieaitli and .~11nrnn services administr1•
tior1 1hrough Medi'caid managed care: Impiicafion
fer tile policy .,cience1. Unpublished doctoral dig.
sertation, Cornell t:ni\'!'rsity.
Bo•~rdieu, ?. (19941. Homo ai.,;idemicus (Peter Collier,
Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford t:nivcrsity Press.
 Greenwoori & Levin: Reform Through Action Rese3rdi Ill 63
~hnl, S, {1996), In an age experts: Tile changing
r;J/es of professionals ir: politics and public lilt,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
Brown, J, S,, & Duguid, P. I 1991}, Organii:a1im1a! learn-
ing and co:nmunities,of-practice: Toward a m::-
fied view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2, 40-57.
Diggim,, ], ( 1994), The promise ofpragmatism. Chicago:
University of Chicago ?ress,
Eikeland, 0. (1997}, Erjilrfng, dia{ogikk ogpolitkkk, Oslo:
Ada Humaniora, S,andinavian University Press,
Flyvb;erg, B. (200: ), Making social science matter: Wlty
social inquiry jails and how ii can suc,:eea again.
Cambridge, t: K: Cambridge University Press,
Freidson, E, (H86). Prajessfmu:il powers: A srudy uf the
instituti,malization offormal knowledge, Chicago:
U!liversity of C'iirago Press,
r111ler, S. ;2002), K1,cwledg,: management foundutfm,;,
Boston: Butterwo:1h/Heinemann,
~u,ner, M. (I 975), fwm advocac,,• to objectivity,
:exington: Un iver;;i1y of Kentu~ky Press,
Greenwood, D, J. (1991), Collective reilective pncfi,;e
:hrough parlidpatory action ~cs~ar,:h: A case
study from the Fagor coopera:ives of >-fondrag6n,
In D,A, Schtin (Ed,), The rofiectiw tum; Case stud,
/11 and an educatfrma/ pmctiu (PP- 84-:07),
New Ye rk: Tca,chers (Qllege Press,
Greenwood, D. [., & Gonzalez Santos, J, L., with
Cant 6 n A;onso, J., Galparsoro Markaitle, I.,
Goirkelaya Arruza, A., Legarreta Ruin, '.,, &
Salaherr:a Amesti, K, (1992), Industrial democ·
raq ,is process: Partiripat~ry aclfrm research
ili the Fagor cooperarive group oj Mondragon.
Assen-Maastricht, Netherla:ids: Van Gorcum.
Greer.wood, n, & Lc'Vin, M, (1998a). Action :esearch,
science, and :he co-optafa:n of sccial research,
:-in,dies i11 Cultures, Organizations and Societies,
4(2), 237-261.
Greenwood, D. ;,, & Levin, M. (199ilb), lntroductio'I to
actum research: Socill/ research for .rndal changt!.
Thuu,.ind Oaks, CA: Sage,
Green,..,md, I), J,, & h'Vin, M. (2000a). Reconst:ucting
the :elationships b<:twe~n ur:iversities and society
through action research_ In N. K. Denzin &
Y, S, LirmJln H,mdbook of ,11uii:tati11c
research (2nd ed,, pp, 85-106). Thousand Oaks,
· Sage,
G:ee11wm1d, D. J., & !,evin, M, (200Gb). Recrent':1g
univcrsJy society relatinnshlps: Action :-es,:arc:r.
ve:!>uS acl!dem ic Taylor ism. In 0. :,I, Sabt:oglu,
M Emery, and Associ.• :es (Eds,), Educatfo'laf
futures: Shifting paradigms imiw,rsities and
educaticn [pp. 19-30), Istanbul: Fred Emery
Memor'al Bcok, Sabar.d l'niversity,
Greenwood, D. 1-, & l.evin, M. l2001a), Pragmatic action
res,:im:h and the struggle to transform universi-
ties int(J learning communities. In P. Reason &
H. Bradbury (Eds,}, Handbvuk of action researcli
(pp, 10:1-1 DJ.London: Sage,
Greenwood, D, J,, & Lev::1, M, (200: b;, Re-organizing
univers':ies and "knowi::g how'': Unive~sity
restructuring and knt'lwl edge creation for tht
twenty-first cenli.:;y. Organization, 8(2), 433-440,
Grudens-Schucil., :S. ( 1998)_ ,Viren farmers design ci,r-
ritu/11111: /larticipatcny ed1m1tion far Sll5tai,nb/e
agri,·u/t11re in Ontario, Canada. ;Jnpubllsbed
do:toral disscrtatior:, Cornell University,
Krai:se, E. (1996). The death of the guilds. '.'lew :-lai:en,
CT: Yale lnivtrsity Press_
Levin, M,, & Greenwooc, D. ( 1998;, reconstructi,m
of univi:rsitie,; Seeking a c:;J·e:ent integration
into knowledge developme::! processes. Concepts
and Traniformarfrm, ! 45- 163,
Lewin, K. (1948), The .:0111lk1 bttween A:is:oteliar.
and Gcii[:an modes of :hough: in rontemporar1·
ps1·chology, In A dynamic theory of pcrsonalfty
(pp, 1-42), New York: :-1:Graw-Hilt
l\fadoo Lengermann, P.. & Niebrugge,Brant'.ey, J. (1998 ),
Tlie women founder$. Bos:on: ,\.l,Graw-Hil
Messer•Davidot,:, E. (2002).Discip!iningjeminism: From
S11cial activfam to academic discourse. lLrham,
~K: Duke University
Po:a:iy', (1974). Personal /wow/edge: foward ,,
past,critica! phi!csophu Ch:cago: Un:versily of
Chicago Press,
Reynolds, M. ( 1994 ), Democrnc)' in higher education;
ParticipaM ry action re,etirch ln rhe Phys ks
10 I I02 curriculum revision proju' at Come//
University, l.J::puhlishs:c doctoral dissertatior,,
Cornell l:nivers it}~
Rhind, D, (2003). Grea, expecialions: fhe social scienas
in Britairi London: Comm issinn on the Social
Sciences,
D. (I 991). Tiu: origi,r of American social sn,,m,
Cambridge, UK: Car:ibridge Universit r Press,
Ry.e,
1 G, {J94'h ' T'
, ne concept OJ' mm , J. ('h'
• u:ago:
Universi:y ,if Chicago Press,
Scheurieh, ), ( 1997), Reseiirch method in postmod,
m1, London: Fa:mer.
Scbirt10 A. ( 1972 ), The pimiome11a!ogy of the social
world, C'l\~ago: :'lorthwestem Uni,crsity Press,
[Original wo,k published 1967)
64 111 c!ANDB0OK OF QUA IJTATIVE :!.£SEA RCH-CJIAPTliR 2
Silva, E., & Slaug'ile:, S. (1984), Serving power:
rr,•ai<ing of a modern :r,cial stienfe expert
Wc,:p,lrt, CT: Greenwood,
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. ( l 997). Academic capitarism:
Pollrics, pclicies, and e11trepremmriai univer•
sity. Hallimore: Johns Hopkins Un' vcrsity
R, (1995), The art of , case study. rese,m:lr.
Tlmusand CA: Sage.
S:ocking, l., Jr: (1~6!!). !lace, culture, attd evolution:
in ,fie history of amluopology. Chkago:
Un:verdy af Chicago Press.
W.1Jddc1ck, S, A,, & Sp,mgler, E. (WOO). Action learning
in :ealersh:p for cha:1ge: Partnership, pcdagogv,
anc projects for responsi'Jlr management
develo;,ment Inf: Sl:crmm & W. lbrbert (Eds.),
Tramfonr:iing sudal inqui~y, truns/Orming :wciul
acti,m; New pararligim j,>r cr,1ssillg the t/i,~,~yl
pract1re divide in universities and cammuttilies
'.pp. 207-228). Booton: ::<bwer.
Wenger. E. (1998). Ca1!11n1un!iti,:':i <if pmcrii:e: uardng,
me;;ning,,wd id,mliiy. Cam!:Jridge, 'JK: Ca:Tibridge
t:11iversity Press.
Why le, W, f, [ 1982). SodaI il:ventir.ns for ,olv:ng
hu:nan problems. .1;,1<-rirn11 Sm:io/agirnl !levier,,
47, 1-13.
3
COMPOSITIONAL
STUDIES, IN TWO PARTS
Critical Theorizing and
Analysis on Social (ln)Justice
tvikheHe Fine and Lois Weis

Like the artist, we cxp,'fcilly explore the negative bridging spaces within the
composition; we intentionally explore the refatior,ship between vnegative" and
"positive# spac.;s and understand tf,at no Hpositiw,n exisr, except in relation to the
frnegt!lfve."'

-Fine and \IVei,, from this chapter

W
e offer here a detailed explanation of
what we are putting forward as ~,om•
positional studies;' in which analyses
of publlc and private institutions, groups, a:id
1:ves are lodged ir. relatio:1 to key sodal and eco-
nomic ,,tractures. We d,aw on what some have
described as oscillation (AJo rd, 1998; Defouze,
1990; Farme:, 2001; Hitchcock, l 999), a deliberate
movement between tr.eory "in the clouds" and
empirical materials "oi: the gmund."lu this cha?ter,
we articulate our theory of method, offering a
crit:cal loo" at compositional studies as frame
and a serious elaboration as to how we osci]ate
fmrr. local to structura:, how we analyze ii: ways
that reveal what photographers call the "varied
depths of field:' and how we try to positio:1 the
work to "have legs:' that is, to be useful tu stmg·
!!!es for social justice. We write to mu:ie the
am1:nptions of our com?Ositional studies, reilec:
upon its possibi'.ities for theorya:-td activism,and
consider the limits of this work.
We write as well-educated and influenced ':Jy
eth:iographers who have written powcr:ul "oscil ·
lating" works (see Anzaldua, ! 999; Crenshaw,

Author,• Note. Om ::antin.red th,rnks ~ Craig Cer::rie, who offered great instg:tl i11tu ·Jur artistic metaprror. Cra~g, a visual :ir:is:
io hls own eight, prompted us :r, think Lnroogh the rcb!ions~ip betw""r. th, visual arts an.: what we do a, ed:nographt<>.

'I. 65
66 Ill H,~~DROOK Of QC:AU,ATIVE RESlARCH-CHAl'll'R 3
l995; Fanon, 1C/fi7; hooks, I9R4; Ladson-BiUings,
2000; Matsuda, 1995). Paul Willis ( 1977) ar.d
Valerie Walkerdi1:e Walkerdi 11c, Lacey, &
Melody, 2001 ), for i:tstance, have crafted analyses
of whfte working-class youth ~itualed expl:citly
in histor:cal and dass politics, with a keen eye
toward c.evelo;:nnent and idcnlil y, Patricia Hill
Cnll:n, ('.991), ).fari Malsu,la (1995), Gloria
Ladson-[H:ings (2000), and Patricia Williams
(1992) have crafted Critical Race H:eo:y to speak
explicitly back ;:o the webbed relations of history,
the political economy, and everyday lives Df
wome:i and men of color. Barri" Thome (1993)
i'.as boldly i:iroadencd our cnderstandings of
gentle~, arguing fervently against "sex differci:ce"
research, 'misting instead that gender be analyzed
as reh11iorml perform.inc,\ Paul Farmer (2001)
moves from biography of indiv'duals living in
Haiti who sufler tuberculosis ro the international
politic, of e?iderr:iology, illni!Ss, and health care,
while Angela Valenzuela (1999) skill:ully helps us
cm:ie lo know Mexican A:rn:rican yomh across
context, in the s.:hoo'., home, and com:nmiity,
Thrsc scholars produce writings cen:ered on the
rich complexity within n given group, offering
ca:n;:,b::, detailed, and sophisticated analyses of a
slice o:' the social matrix and theorizing its relation
to the whole (see also Bourgois, 2002; Duneier,
1994; Foley, 1990; Rubi:i, 1976; !:i.;:liepe:•Hughes &
Sargent, I998; Ste pick, Stepick, Eugene, & Teed
2!YJl; Stack, 1997: Twine, 2000; Waters, 199'1),
In compositional stulies, we take up a m:n•
pan ion project, writi11g through th.; perspectives
of r:mltiple groups of th:s social puzzle we call
America, fractured by jagged Hr.es of power, so
as to theorize carefally this rdatio:iali:y and,
at the same lime, rt><:ompose the institution,
commcnity, and nation JS series of fissures and
connections, Although faere is always a risk that
the in-group dep:l: may be compromised in the
pll~suit of cross-group analysis, we try, in this
chapter, to adcul:m how this :nethod responds
to qllest:ons of social critique and imagination,
social 'u,tke theo,v, and advo.:acv.
' ' '
To 'le :nnre specific, in The Unknown City (Fine
& Weis, l998) and in Working Class Wit/1out Work
(Weis, 1990), ao;,lyticalty speaking, we have
argued that white working claM mc-11 lea,t
in the urba11 Northeast of the Cnited State,~) ca:1
he understood only in relation to a constrnckd
African An:erka.'l "other; with the most powe:·
:ful refraction ucrnrring b relation to African
Ar.1e,ic,rn men. These while working-class men
must he theorized about and the:r word, a:1a•
:yzed, then, in relation to dbordecing" 12,ruups-
white women, African American men and
wome:i, gay men across racial/ethnic groups. and
so forth. Al:l:ough their oarratiom rarely refer·
e11t;e l:isto,y or the global economy explicit!:,,
we have had ttl sl!uatc these nen, as thl:'y ,uuve
through their daily lives and narrate their social
rela:ions, in the shifting historic sar.ds of social,
econom k:, political conditions,
The key point hen: is :l: at soda! theorv and
a:i,i: yse~ can no lo:1ger afford to isolate a ~group:'
or to re-present :J:eir stuiies as "transparent;' as
though that gmup were wherenl and bmmded;
ins:ead, we must theor:ze explicitly-that is,
"oon:1ect fae dots" -lo rem:lt>r visib:e relations to
other 'groups" ai:il to larger sodopoliti.:al for ma•
tions, The emergent mon:age groups must
sirrm',tanemisly be positioned within :iistoric,!lly
shifting soda! and economic relations in
L'nited Sta:cs and acruss the globe. Although the
specific "bordertng" groups are uncovere(' etr,no•
graphically a:id may by .site, deep theorizing
and deep analysis arc required lo join these seem·
ingly separate and iso:atec. groups a:id :o Jii1k
them inslitutiona[y ideologically, More
broadly speaking, 011 r notiim aml prad'cc of
!Jualitative work suggests thal no one group c::i:1
be understood as if outside the relatiu:1al and
struo:ral ~-pee ts of identil y formation.
At the heart of compositional studies lie lhr<'<'
a11alytic move, we seek to make exp:idL ':'ht> firsl
is the deliberale placement of eth:1ographic and
narrative material into a contextual and historic
undcrstandi:115 oi economic ar,d racial for:nations
:see Sartre, I':168). Without presuming a simple
determir1ism of economics :o identity, we never•
theless take as foundational the idea that ir,c.ivid·
uals o~vigate lives b what Mart'n, 13ar6 (I 994)
am:: Freire (]982) would call "limit situations;'
within historic mmnents, unequal power relations,

and Lhe everyday aclivitics of life, As Jea:1-Paul
Sartre articulated in 1968, weaving a method
betweer: Marxism and existentiali~m, ":f one
warns to grant to Marxist thought full cor.1•
plexit y, one would have to s;;1y that man :sit! :n a
period of exploitation is at once both the product
o' his own product and a historical agent w:io can
unde, no circumstar.ces be taken as a prmluct
This contradiction is :101 fixed: :r must be grasped
in the ,'l!ry movemer,: of praxis" (1968, p, 87).
Yet when we engage et:rnographicall)', speak
to people, co; lcct survey data, or mnd uct ~ focus
group, it is most unusual for individuals to -:on-
:iect the dots between thdr "personal lives" and
;he historic, economic, and racial relations within
which they exist (Mills, 1959). Histnry appears
ai, a "fo:-eign force'; people do not recognize the
":neaning nf their ente:prise . , in the total,
objective remit~ (Sartre, 1%8, ?· 89). That is,
indeed, Hw insidim1, victory of neoltberal ideol-
ogy: People speak as if they are seff.consciously
imm'.me and inc.ependent, disconnected and
insulated from l:istory, the sta:e, tl:e eco:iomic
context, and ''others;' As social theorists, we know
well that the webs that connect structures, reJa.
lions, and lives are essential to understanding the
rhythm of daily life, possibilities for social
change. and the ways in wh 'ch indivic:.1als take
form ir:, and transforr:1, social relations. Thus, we
work hard 10 ,. ,iu,cc our analyses of communities,
schoo:s, and lives, positioning them historically,
cconomlcaily, and socially so that :he material
context within whicn individuals arc "making
sense'' ca:i be linked \:0 their very effo~ts :o relled
upo11 and transform these condi:ions.
Secord, in our work we rely more on cate-
gories of soda! identity than co many of our
poststructural sc:iolar• friends. That is, whilt, we
refuse e~se:itialism, resisting the r:i:mtrn-like-
c,itegories of social life-race. etlrn ici:y, da,s,
gender-as co:icrent, :n rhe body, "real;' consis•
t~nt, or r.omogeneous, we also lake very serious:y
:he 1·,01iot1 that tbt'se calrgor ies become "real"
inside i nstitutior:al life, y:e:ding dire political and
eco:ionic comeqm,nces. Even if resi,ted, they
come to hr fm11:datiun11] to social identities, Even
as per:omicd, mlllliple, s:1 ifti ng, and flu:d, the
Fine & Wei.~: S;icial (l::)Juslice • 67
technologies o:' survtillance ensu:c: partial
penetration of the politics of socia: ident:1ies
(Butler, 1999; Foucault, 1977; :knH, l 990), You
sin: ?IY can'! hang o111 in JXlOf rnd working-class
comu:unilies, a rnburban mall, a prison, or
an elite suJurba n golf murse ar.d cm:1e away
bl'lievii:g that rac1.:, etlrnicit r, and class are sim-
ply inventions. Thus, with theoretkal ambiva-
lence and political comm itr:1ent, we ar.alvticallv
' '
embrace these calegorics of iden:ity as sodal,
poroas, flexible,and yet profoundy politlcal ways
of organizlng the world, By so doing, we seek
to ui:derstand how :11di,iduals make sense of,
resist, em::m1ce, and embody sodal categories,
just as dramatically, l:ow they sit·Jate
"others;' at times even essenrializing a:1d reifying
"other" cate!l.o,ries, in relation to themselves. Th:,
is, we argue, what demands a relational mrthod.
Third, as a corollary to ou, interest in c;:;:c-
as fluid sites for meaning making, ne seek
to e,~bol"ate the texturl'd variations of identities
that can be found within any single cate&ory.
Tht:s, as you will read, our method enables :i,
to search explicitly for vadety, dissent withii:,
outIiers who sland (by "choice" or otherwise) at
the dejected or radical margins, those who de:iy
category membershi?, and those who chalk:ige
the exislem.:e of categories at alL Analytically, it
:s crucial to searchir.g for in·group cohcr•
ence or consensus as anylhirg other than a hege-
monic constr:ictioa, althoug~. a, we argue, rhe
,ea,ch for modal fon:is is exceedingly nsefd.
l\cvcrthdcss, it is c:itical tu theorize how vari·
ation and outliers :n reiation to such modality
rc-preM~:il the larger group (Bhavnani, 1994).
These three moves-contextual, rel at ion al,
and potential~, focusing on am: through individ•
mil variatio:1 while seeking n:oda: forms-are
cracial to what we are calling our "tht'Ory of
n:ethud;' lndeec, we would argue that this "theory
of method" is com:epmally akin to what an artist
does, a:id this leads us to rail our arirulated
method "compositional sUdies:' A visua'. a rtisl
can have no composition without paying exp:lcit
attent'on to both the positive and the negative
spaces of a composition. Positive spare (!he 11:-1 i 11
object) m:ist have a negative ref~rent, and the
68 • HA:,IDB0OK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 3
negative referent, visual'.y speaking, is as important
as the positive to the composition as a whole.
It is these "blank" or "black" spaces in relation to
"color" or "white" that we pay attention to in our
work. Like the artist, we expHcilly exp:ore the
negative bridging spaces within the composition:
we ir.tentionally explore the relationship between
"ne!!alive" and "positive" spaces and understand
that no "positive" exists except in relation :o the
"negative." Again, this is an artistic metaphor, but
it is one that offers great power as we r.:ne;;;,upon
and name our ethnographic practice, Under our
theory and prac:ice of method, then, relevant
1:iordering groups (those groups that border the
primary subject of interest in the ethnog,aphy)
are as essential to t.lie ethnographic composition
as primary group under consideration. '!bus,
our specific genre of ethnog,aphk practice his•
torically implies a particular analytic method,one
that considers the In-between, the gauze that
glues groups together, even as it is narrated to dis•
t:nguish "them:' The in-between, like DuBois's
color line, grows to be as theoretically and politi ·
cally cr:,kal as that group which initially captures
o:ir etr,nographic atter.tion. Like the Black arts
movement in the I%Os am! 1970s, then, we inten·
tiona\lv and self,001m:iouslv politidze our artis·
' '
tk/ compositional me,apho:, argui :ig that our
ethnographic compositions sit at the nexus of
str;ictural forces and :ndividual lives/agency,'
Extending our notion of "compositional stud-
ies;' we a'.so argue that no group, even as in rela-
tion to other bordering groups. can be understood
without reference to the larger economic and racial
formations within which interactions take piace.
Given kaleidoscopic changes in the world economy
in the past several decades, for irur:ance, Lois Weis'.,
follow-up study of individuals who initially were
the subjects in Working Class Without Work (Weis,
1990) drives home the po'nt :hat none of this is
statk and that it is important to watch the ways
in which this all plays out over ~ime, Identities are
constructed in relation to tlie constructed identities
of others, as well as diale.::tkally in relation :o the
broader economy and culture. Bnt r.one of this
remains un changec.. Long-term ethnograph k
investigations enable us lo track thi.s set of
interactio115 and relationships over time. Here is
the unique contribution of Weis's Class Reunicm
(2004 ); she uses data gathered in 1985 in a work-
ing-class high school and then re-interviews
students from that school 15 years later, This form
of ethnographic longitudinality enah\es us lo ,hift
our eye from pieces drawn at one point in lime to
those drawn at another; opening ever further tl:.e
spectrum of compositional ethnography. We Or.is
begin here-with a dear(ish) focus as to w'iat the
economic and racial formations look like over
time, and as to what the fiC:.d of relational interac-
tions is within this broader, evolving co::itext.
Importantly, our r:otion of com position al
studies inv:tes a rotating position for the writer/
researcher; that is, composi,ional s7Udies affords
researchers the opportunity and obligation lo be
at once grounded and analytically oscillating
between engagement and distance; explici:ly
committed to drep situ atedness yet able to
embrace shift:ng perspectives as to the full com•
position, Our theory of methud, then, extends an
invita~ion to the researcher as multiply posi-
tioned: grouoded, engaged, reflective, we!! versed
in scholarly discuurse, knowledgeable as .:o exter•
nal circnmstances, and able ta move between
theory and life "on the ground:' Whether in a
school, a prison, a neighburhood, a cultural
center, a community center,, a religious institution,
or wherever, we invite researchers/w rilers to
travel between t;ieory "in the clouds:' so to speak,
and 6e everyday practices of individuals living
in communities as they (and we) negotiate, make
sense of, and change their/our ?ositionalities and
circumstance, Th:, method suggests, then, an
artkula:e, lntelJectually and personally flexible,
and engaged individual who really does enjoy and
respect what others havE lo say. The responsibility
of placing these interactions/narration, and all
that we have come to refer to as "data;' then, lies
largely with us.
We offer, in this chapter, a brief ;ook at two
compositional designs, '::>oth of wbich will be elab-
orated elsewhere ( Fine et aL, 2004; Weis, 2004 ): a
longitudir..al analysis of white working-class men

and women, followed by Lois Weis after 15 years as
their lives, stories, and hor:u:s carry the seams of
the e:oi:omlc and racial formations in contempo-
rary white working-class America, and a partid·
patory action research project that Michelle Ene
has coordinated, in which youth across suburban
and urba:1 districts learn to be critical
of "desegregation» through an analysis of race,
ethnicity, and oppor~unity in their own
schools and in the New York metropolitan region.
In putting these two pieces forward, we argue t'.1at
both projects are imdamentally rooted in what we
call cori:positional studies-ethnographic inquiry
designed to understa::id how global and nationa~
formations, as well as rela:ional interactions, seep
through the lives, identities, relation~, and com-
munities of youth and adults, ultimately refracting
back on :he larger formatiuns that give rise to
them ro begin with.
II Cuss REUNION
Amie cries of "farewell to the working d~' (C,orz.
1982) and the assertior:_ of the com:ilete eclipse of
this class given the lack of '\lirect representations
of the interaction among workers on American
television" (Arm10w:tz, 1992), I (Lois) offer C1ass
Reunion (2004)-a volume aimed at targeting
and explicating the remaki:1.g of the American
white working class in the latter quarter of the
20th cer.t;uy. Arguing that we cannot write off the
white working class simply because white men no
longe~ have access to well-paying laboring jobs
in the prl mary la::wr market ( Edwards, 1979), jobs
that created a distinctive place for labor in the
cap'>:al-labor accord (Apple, 2001; Hlllller, 1987),
and that we cannot assume tha: this class can be
understood only as a tapestry that seamlessly inte -
grates people across ethnicity, race, and gender
(Bettie, 2003), I explore empirically and '.m::g::udi-
nally the remaking of th is class both discursively
and behaviorally inside radical, globally based
economic restructuring (Reich, 1991, 2002).
Beginning in 1985 with my ethnographic
investigation of Freeway High (Working Class
Fine & Weis: Social (ln)Justice Ill 6't
Without Work: Hig!i School Students in a
De-Ind,1strializing Economy; Weis, : 990) and
culminating with intensive follow-up interviews
with these same students in 2000-2001, I track a
group of the sons and daughters of the workers
of "Freeway Steel" over a 15-year ti :-ne period.
The o:iginal volume, Working Class Without
Work ( 1990), explores identity formation among
white working-dass male and female Studer.ts
in relation to !:le school, economy, and family of
origin, capturing the complex relations among
secondary schooling, human agency, and the
formation of collective consciousness within a
radically changing eronorrJc and social cmitcxt.
I suggest in the volume that young women
exhibit a "glimmer of critique» regarding tradi •
tional gender roles in the working-class family
and that yollllg men are ripe for New Right con-
sciousness given their strident racism and male•
dominant stance in an economy that, like the
ones im1:1ortalized in the justly cdebrated films
The Full Mr.mty and The Missing Postman
(Walkerdine et al., 2001), o:1er~ them little.
Fifteer. years later, I return to these same
students as they (and we) meet in Reunion,
a study lodged firmly in uur theory uf method as
outlined earlier. Through a carefu: look at the high
school and young adult yea::s (ages I8-31) of the
sons and daughters of the industrial proletariat in
:he northeastern "Rust Belt" of the United '""·•>,
I capture and theorize the resha?ing of this class
under a wholly restructured global econor,y_
Traversi:1g the lives of these men and women in
line with our large:- working method tJf composi-
tional ethnography, I argue that the remaking of
this class can be understood only t:1rough careful
and explicit attention to issues that ~wirl around
theories of whiteness, :nasculinlty, violence, :-ep-
resentations, and the economy. Reflective of the
triplet of theoretical and analytk moves that we
put forward here as signature of our work-deep
work within one group (over a IS-year time
period in this case); serious relational analyses
between and among relevant bordering groups;
and broad str:ictural connect:ons to soda!,
economic, and political arrangements-[ argue
70 11 HA:-JDROOK OF QUALITATIVE RF$EARCII
that the remaking of the white workir.g class can
be understood only in reiation to gendered con•
structions witbin that group and the constrJc:ion
of relevant "others" outside :tself-in this case,
African Americans and Yemenites, particularly
men-a.swell as deep shifts in large social tor:na-
tions, p.irticularly the global eco:iom}~
Ii C:!ANG!J\G ECONOMJF.S,
C!iANGIJ\G GENllER
In this '·"··•"'"' I (Lois) probe varying ways in
which wl:ite working.-dass men remake class and
masculinity ir. the conrext of massive changes in
the global economy, changes that mos: sped:i-
cally targel the fonner industrial pro Ieta riat.
Stretching to situate rhemsel ves within the
postindustrial world, you:ig white working-class
Freeway men take the:r selves as forged in relation
to the three primary defidtional axes that are
defining characteristics of their youth identity:
(a) ;;n emerging contradictory code of respect
toward school knowledge and culture not in evi•
dence in key previous studies of this group con-
di.:ctcd when the economy was kit1der to the white
working (b 1 a of virulently patriarcha:
constructions of home/fa_:nily life that posilior:
future w:ves in particular kinds of subordinate
relations:1ips, and (c) con~tn;ctec notions of
rac'a'. "others" ('Weis, 1990), Tluough careful
engagc:nent wi:h data collected in 2000-2001,
, argue here that it is the ways in which indvidual
white working class mt:n simultai:eously position
themselves and are positioned vis-a-vis these
three major axes that determine, to some extent at
leas:, both where they ir:dividually land l5 years
later ar;d the broader contours of white working-
class culture, Spcdficall7; in the case of the men,
it is :11 the pulling away from what are defined
wi6in peer g:uups in high school as nonnative or
perhaps hegemonic masculine cultural forms thrir
we begin to see yo1:ng people, in this case young
men, move tm'l'.ird adulthood. Tracing the push
and pull of 'icgcmonic cultural forms as defined in
hi~h schooL I ,uggest here that it is within :his push
and pull, a:; lived i:1side !:le new global economy
and accompanying t'g'iter sorting :nechan isms,
CHAPTER 3
that we can begin to !indersta11d both the
generalized shape of the new wo,king class and
the individual positio:is within th is class as wei l
as potentially 011tside it.
fn this section, we meet, for illustrative
purposes, Jerry and Bob, both of whom were in
the honors bubble in high school (constituting
20 students out of a class of 300-the only
students spedfically pursuing college prep work
in high school) and thus already were outside,
to sorr..e extent at least, the dominant wh:te work
ing-dass male culture as described in Working
Clas.s I.Vithout Work (Weis, 1990), Jerry, a star
athlete, in high school lived mainly inside the
honors group. Bob, on the other hand, did not
When I firs! met him, when he was 16 years old,
Bob loved heavy metal bands and wore their
T-shirts. fle often got into fights.and he frequently
got stoned and drunk. He exr.ihlted a set of atti•
mdes and behaviors that placed him squarely
within the hege:nonk working-class masculinity
exhib:ted during tl:e high school years of Freeway
students. Most of hi, friends were in the non·
honors classes, leaving him little time or intere,st
for his pee:, in ,be hf\nors bubble. lltimately,
however, both men distanced themselYes from
the normative male white wo~king-dass youth
culture-Jerry is now a n: id die school math
teacher, and Bob is co:npleting his degree in ve:-
erinary medicine at what is ,1:-guably the most
prestigious veterinary school in the country.
Jerry: I grew up in the second ward which is, so
the first ward is c:efinitely the lower class,
lower than most of Freeway, but it's
Iwhere: I live now, it's similar to where I
grew up, I\:! say a little bit more, you know,
where I may have grown up in a !owe:•
middle dass neighborhnod, l'd say maybe
where I Jve now it's mid&e dass. And rn
it's a little step above.... My dad was def-
inite! y p:uud of me; he got to expect that
of :nt and always mngratu:ated me, and I
tl:ink I made him very proud of me. All m}:
siblings went to college. )Tone of them
were scored as well ar.ademicallv. I'm a
'
little bit more serious than the ,est of
them .... Yeah, it is weird that 01:r close

immediate five to ten group of people rnot
including Bob) that were in that advanced
group mge6e:- all had a '.ot of similar
beliefs and goals and we all wanted to go
to college, wamed to succeec. Am: that's
the mir:ority. yoi: look overall at that
dass !Freeway High;, you wouldn't find as
rr:uch s;iccess, but in that group, I don't
kr:ow. We were all competitive wi:h eac'..1
ot::ter, and yet still friends.
Lob: What do you think happened to some of
tbe rest of the kids that were not in that
(advanced]
Jerry: I don't know. Probably just went out to
work wherever they found a job and
maybe they'd have htg:1 goalll for them
selves, but a lot of them are still living in
Freeway.
Lois: [Fifteen years ago] We talked about your
parents, what kind of work they did. You
said your mom is not educated past 8th
Grade. How does she talk abm;: her work?
Does she work now?
Jerry: No. She's retired also [like his dadl. She
actually made envelopes. She wurked "ull•
time and then there were t'me~ when she
worked part •time when rhe kids were
really young, and l remember once for
a few years, when I was very young, she
workec. on the r.igh: shift and she stayed
home with the kids during the day: Then
my dad came bocie and she went to work
at night. I remember going with my dad to
go pick her up late at night. How did she
talk about it? I never once he-ard her say,
"I hate my job:' I never neard her say she
loved her job. She r:ever really talked
about it a who:e !ot. .. , Except when she
was happy when she brought a box of
envelopes home that she got at work.
Lois: You're descrlbing [earlier he did so] your
dad as a pretty traditional Italian man.
Sometimes those men are not happy
when tl:eir wives work outside the home.
How did that play out in your ho·.isehold1
Fine & Weis: Soda! (In )Justice 111 71
Jerry: I never sensed that he might feel that We
needed ••. with all the kids [five kids I we
needed two :ncones in the family ... J
don't know, it was pretty, like I said, tradi-
tionai, what I think of back to the 1950s,
how when my mom cuuked, my dad
expected a meal when he came home. You
look back now at how sillv it was. But
'
that's how they grew up imd that's r.ow it
was.
Lois: Can you drscribe a typical weekday in
your house [nmvl?
Jerry: Typical weekdsy, yeah. From morning,
getting up and coming to school here,
extra early, always havir:gkids here before
schooL Giving, really giving of what l have
as I teach. r kind of work very hard until
the school day is over. Ther: rm involved
with extracu:-ricu~a:: activities, whether
it be :unning the fitness ?rograrn after
school, or when softball season comes,
coaching the teams, whid1 involves p,ac·
tice every day. But then, coming home and
cooking dinr.er. 11 ike to cook dinner ... I
do it more bt:cause I like to, and so she'll
Ihis wife] do more of the dean;1p work,
whkh I hate to do. So, we share that
responsibility. Anc. then, whether it ·:ie
working out or Just relaxing watdiir.g TV
or going to a sporting event or comi:tg
back to school to watch a sporting event,
watch the kids play, ..• So, that's a typical
day... , ,veeker:d? Sundays are pretty
typka: of going to Mom's at o:ie and hav-
ing a big dinner and statng there for a
couple of hours. And then coming home,
doing the \au:idry, grocery shopping and
planning for the next school week. But
Saturdays are the ones :hat are changing.
lsually we'll do more fun things. That
wor;ld be going to a movie or sometr.ing.
Jerry had several things going for h: m that
enabled him to stake out a nonhegemonk form
wr.ite workhg-dass masculinity a,
far back
as middle school. Although solidly in the white
manual-laboring wo~king class, his parents worked
72 JIii HAN DllOUK OF QUA UT/1:fl VE R!;;SEAl:KII-CIIAYfliR J
to instill a strong work ethic in thci, <.'hilcren. Th:s,
though, is not enough to explain Jerry's class
repositioning. Many. but certainly not all, of the
Freeway ?arents had a strong work ethic tied to
mam:al labor' and maov, in the 1980s desired that
tneir chilcren go on to school (Weis, l 990 ), feeling
stmr:gly :hat schooling was :heir only chance to
sc;;ure an economic future. Jerry's break came
when his mca~ured intelligence Iwhatever »mea-
sured il'.tclligr1:c"" is, it rnr: !:ave serious conse-
lJUenres; placed him :n the honors dasscs in
mid die s.::hool, classes that he took seriously for
the next 6 yep_rs. Bv hi, own admission, ar:d that of
1110,l uf tbe honors sl udents whom I interviewed
in the mid- l 980s, he associated only will: :bis
grm;p of srnde:lls, the majority of thm holding
together as a grou? formed in relation :o the non-
honors students. !'or the men, this meant elaho-
rati ng a form of mascu]ni ty forged centrally
around academic achievement rather than
physical prowess, sexism. arcd racism, as I sug-
gestec eader were the valued norms in Freeway
High. This does not mean that Jerry did not have
in rr.ind marrying a girl like his mothe,, who
could take care of him. Inceed, evidence suggests
tnat he cid have such a girl in mbd whom he
dated throughout high school. llut as he grew into
his t\'lentics, he changed that opinion ar:d now
participates in family life w:ierein he does a good
portion of the domestic activity. He does all of the
coo~ing. for example-something 1:nheard of in
b~ father's generation w'lile she "deans up:'
The honors bubble e1:cm1mgal lhe formahnn
of a ditlerenl kind of working •dass masculinity,
one exempt in rmny respects from that ,mtlined
above as hegemonic within this class fo,tion.
The majority of the 20 students in the h01:or,
bubble socia:ized and h.>a:-n ed only wi~h one
another over a. 6 year period. The voung men :hus
coL;d stand ~q1;arely or: the space of a different
ki11d of masci:li nity, and virtual,y eve, y une of
them (all bu! two) did sn in the mid-191\0.s, when
I engaged ir: 6e original work. The honors
bubble, h fact, enablal and encouraged young
wo~king<lass men to forge a masculir:ity differ•
en: from that embecded in the b:0ader d ass and
gendered cull ure. Significantly, :he honors bubble
had no African American students or Pt:erto
Rican sti:dents (unlike the broader schoo:} ar:d
only nvn Yemenites, one male and un e female,
in spite of the much larger representation of
students of color in tlw sdmo: as a whole. T'ie
just mentioned woman is o: mixed :ieritage
(Yemer:ite and Vietnamese), .,nd she grew up mt
the ''white" side of town. Thus, core mascul in ist
culture in fae honors bubble was not formed in
relation to people of culm, wumen w:10 were posi
Iioned as "less than" i11 precisely the same way as
occurred in the larger class cultural configura-
tion, or the contradictory code of respect outlined
ear:ier. Rather, like tl:c mcn from p:-ofessional
families whom !lob Connell :alks about (1993,
19951, fae mr::n in this ,illy segmer.t (,f the work-
ing class have a rlomioant masculinity etched
around acacemks, offering a distinct alternative
to the b'.asting l:egemonic masculinity that per-
mea;cd the l91l0s w'iite youth in Freeway and the
broader da~s cultural relations at the time. Jerry's
hard work, parenta'. support, connection to athlet-
ics, winning personality, and ,hccr smarts
all-Owec him to move off the dass space inm
whkh he was born, Jerry is now married to a
young woman from ar: affluent suburban family,
am: his class backgrot:nd ls now largely invisible.
Space does not permit an intensive analysis of
Rob, who, in con! rast to Jerri, lived a hegemm:ic
form of wl:ile working-class masrniin:ty in high
scl:ool des,;jte being placed in lh honors bubble.
Suffice ii lo ~ay that Bob moved off that space as
he emharkd on a lrajectory that .titimate:y led lo
the :iear ;:ompletiu:i of a highly va:ued veterinary
sd:onl program_ Working agaiIJst and with lhe
image o' his father-a ne'er-do-well who had a
dis.tan! relationship with his son-Bob never
wants to "s:ag:natc'.' Living in a church-owned
hoi:se rented for a small sum of mor:ey to an oi:wi-
ously poor family; Hob's mother augrr:ental family
income, which could never be countal on. by
tak;ng in on1: foster ,hild a::ter another. As a youth
and teenager, Bob walked between the ,racb
of the fuster care sptem, listening to his musk,
frequently gettir:g drunk and stoned, engaging
in physical fights, and i:np:egnating hi, 17-year-
old girlfriend when he was lll. \vorld:ig at Home

Depot, ca~ning the minimum wage, and even:ually
enterfrtg t'.1r service, Bob appea:-ed ,o have a clear
Me trajectory, in that he would play off of a:id Jvc
OJI deeply roote,l and wcll-artk:ulated hegemonic
working-dass masmlinist furms in the early 21-
.
cen;urv" econmnv.. lmnicallv, Bo:is Ar:nv" service
interrupted :his, offering space within wh 1ch his
marriage was b~1:tally severed, he was mentored by
hls platoon sergeant, a:1d ultimately ;1e found God
(Weis, 2004). Now desirous of a mak-temak re:a
tions:iip ia which he takes seriously t:.is role as pm-
tecto,, he dai:ns that his wife, although highly
edi:rated and the daugh:cr of a university fac:.1lty
member, woulc like ~o btke pies, n:2;.:e ,1u:lt,, and
t:ltimately''open a Christian bookstore'.'\"{nether or
not hi, wife would agree witn this or not is upen to
debate, out I ,,10\Jld argue that for m,my reasons, her
agreement is ,,relevant for the pur?ose of the cur·
renJ discussion. Bob has been ailapulted, or has cal•
apulted himsell: across whatever dass hor<ler may
exist fur a man &om his social class background.
hi,
.
Whatever fantasies Bob mav' m mav not have about
future pie-making activity, the fact is that
hi, wife, born into a pmfessianal family, is h'ghly
educated, possessing n r~search-based master's
ee~:ree and wor~ing tuward a '?hD in the sdcnces;
she has a job and, by Boos own ad:nission. they
share on a cay-lo.day basis hnusehold tasks. He
is, in fac:, almnsl totally responsible fur his two
tt"e::iage sons wr.en they mme to visit, which is often
(the entire sllmmer and two weekends per month
!11 spite of the fac: that he ;ives 3 hours :-rom rhem).
Rob has movec far from his h;gh school em.Kt men!
of woriing•dass .:o:e white male masculir:ity. He,
like Jerry, is headed for a new space within the ecun-
omy, 01:e very differe:1t fron:: that occupierl by their
parents am! sabstantially different from the major-
ity uf their peers. Significantly, bo:h men are physi-
cally dist:mced from Freeway, although lerry lives,
for :he mmnent at least, in a bordering inner-ring
wbile working-class suburb. Nevertheless, both
m<sn metaphorically and actually crossed the bri,:ge
that links working-class Freeway w:th the wider
society, Jerry is a well- ,espected middle sdiool
teacher and, by the time of this writing, Bob will
have become a ve1rrinarian, having graduated from
one of the top vet schools in the world,
Fine & Weis: So~'ai (ln)Jt:stice 111 73
In terms of our theory and me-I hod of
cnmpositiom1l smcJes, Chm Reunion a:tows us
to il:terrogate ~he rela:ion o: large-scale eco-
nomic and social relations on bdividi:al and
group identities-to excavate the soda! psvcho•
logical relations "between" genders and races, as
narrated by \'ITiite men, aud to eicplore tlw nuanced
variations among these men. We come to ,cc iden-
tities carved in relation, :n solit'arity, and :n OP?O--
sit[on to other marked groups and. important~·. in
relation to wnat the economy "Dffers up" over time.
lt is in the push and pull of thest" men, both w;thin
hegemonic high schonl masculii:ist form;; and the
currency of such forms in the restructured econ•
omy, that we can b~gin to understand the retnak,
ing of the white workitl§ class. Significantly, for
white worki:,g-class males, stmgg'.es to ensure
symbolic domi :mnce in an ever-fragile economy
sit perched on tl:e 111:steady fulcrum of racial and
gender hierarchy (Weis, 2004).
For ar: alternative constructio:1 of composi
tional studies, designed wlth son:e the same
episte1mllogical commitmer.ts, we tttrn now tn 3
'Jroad-based qualitative study of racial j,1stice and
public eduai.1inn, conducted by Michelle Fine at:d
colleagu~s through a partkipa,ory design with
ym1th. In this case, we witness cump1,do11al
design in tlte rr' 71 r•I study of ~ace-, ethnicity-,
and class•based academic opporlun ities within
ar.d across the New York City (NYC) metropolitan
area, investigating in particular : he ways in which
wl:ite, African American, Latino, Afro-Carib'Jean.
and Asian American youth conce'.,)lualize :hem•
selves and their oppormnit:es, :heir "place" i:i tht
'Jnited States and i:1 tr_eir schools, at the very
;evealing fractures of social:, ierarchies.
D C• :v11'0SI-IONA[ Sn;IJ!f5
UN TfE FAULT LINF.5 OF RACIAL
fUS1'1CE AND PUB:..lC EDUCATION
Almost 50 years after JlrlJ wn v. Board of
Education, we continue to confront wt.at is prob-
lematically coined an "achieverr.ent gap" between
Africt1n Americans and Latinos, on one hand, and
74 11 HANDBOOK OF QUA! .ITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 3
whites and Asian Ar.11:rkans, on the other; a
similar gap appears between middle-class and
poor children (Anyon, 1997; Bowles & Gintis,
1976; Ferg\lson, l998; fine, 1991; Fordham, 1996;
Hochschild, 2003; New York Assodation of
Community Organizations for Reforrr. Now
[ACORKI, 2000; Orfield & Easton. 1996; Wilson,
1987; Woodson, 1972). 1 In 2001, a series of school
districts within the New York metropolitan area,
in suburban New York and New Jersey, joined to
form a consortk.m to take up this question of the
"gap" and invited Michelle and students from the
Graduate Center, City L:niversi,y of New York, to
collaborate on critical research into the produc-
tion of, performance of, and :esistance to the
"gap;' Drawing on Ron Hayduk's ( l 999) call for
regional analyses (rather tl:an urban or suburban
analyses in isolation}, we conceptualized an
ethr.ograph :c analysis of the political economy of
schooling as lived by ym1th in and around the
KYC metropolitan area,
By crossing the lines separating suburbs and
urban areas, we designed the work to reveal simi-
larities across county lines and identify important
contrasts. We sought to do<:urr.ent the codependent
growl!\ of the subm bs and the defunding of tuban
America, as well as to reveal the fractures of
inequity that echo within "desegregated" suburban
communities and schools. We hoped, finally, to
capture some of the magic of those spaces in wh'.ch
rich, engaging education flourishes for youth
across lines of race, ethnidty, class, geography, and
"1 rack;' With graduate studenl., Maria Elena Torre,
Janice Bloom, April Burns, Lori Chajet, :v!or.ique
Gui.shard, Yasser Payne, and Kersha Smi.h,
.Michelle undertook this work committed to a tex•
:ured, multimethod critical ethnographic analysis
of urban and suburban scbooli r:g with youth,
designed to speak back to questions of racial. eth-
nic, and class (in)justire in American education
(see Torre & Fine, 2003, for design). To reach deep
into the varied standpobls that co:1stitute these
schools, we created a partici;,atory action research
design with yomh representing the full ensemble
of standpoints within these urban and suburban
desegregated settings (Anand, Fine, Perkins,
Surrey, & t11e graduating class of 2000, Re:iaissance
Middle School, 200 I; Fals-Borda, 1979; Fine, Torre,
et aL, 2001,2002; Freire, 1982; Hartsock, 1983)_
The Design, in Brief
We have,over the past 18 months, been collab-
orating with more than 70 diverse youth from 11
radally integrntrd suburban school dist:icts and
3 New York City high schools, crossing radal,
ethnic, class, gender, academic, geographic, and
sexuality lines. We designed a series of research
au:ips in schools, on college campuses, and in
communities ranging from wealtby Westchester
suburbs lo the South Bronx of Kew York City.
At the first research camp, a 2-day overnight at
a l\"ew Jersey college, youth participated in "mettJ,
ods training:' learning about qualitative design.
critical race theory, and a series of methods
including interview, focus group, observation, and
survey design (e.g., we read with t11em Collins,
1991, and Harding, 1983). Urban and suburban
students and tho$e of us from the Graduate
Center crafted a survey of questions lo be distrib
uted across districts, focus'.ng on youth views uf
distributive (in}juslke in the r.ation and their
schools. The youth insisted that the survey nal
look like a test, so they creatively subverted the
representations (lf "science'' by inc;u&ng photos,
cartoons for respondents to interpret, a chart of
the achievement gap, and open-ended questitln,
such as «what is the most powerful thing a
teachrr has ever said to your' Available in English,
French, Spanish, and Braille, as well as on tape, the
survey was administered to nearly 5,000 9th anc
12th graders in 13 u:han ar.d suburbaJJ districts,
Within 6 weeks, we received 3,799 surveys-
brimming with rich qualitative and quar,tilative
data that could be disaggregated by race, ethnic-
ity, gender, and "track:' Beyond the surveys, over
foe pa>! year we have engaged in padcipant
observations within four si:bu,han and two
urban schools, arranged for four cross-school vis-
itations, and conducted mox tl:an 20 focus group
interviews, In addition, five school "1earru;" and
one community-ba~ecl actvist group pursued
their own inquiry crafted under the larger
"opportunity gap" umbrella.

We offer here a slice into our material on racial,
eth.1ic, anc dass justice in public education, :o
unders:and how differen:Iy positio;ied youth, Like
the men in Class Reunion, sp:n r:1eaningful ;den•
tides as stt:dents, re;;earch,::s, and activists when
tl:ey "discover" bow deeply historic :nequit:es are
woven into the fabric of !;,S, ?ublic education. The
empirical material presented has been carved out
of the larger project, at a key fracture ?oint where
youtb confront structures, policies, practices, and
relations that organize, naturalize, and ensure
persistent inequity. We enter through this crack
because WI: f:nd it to be a compelling window into
how privileged and marginalized youth negotiate
political a:id intellectual identities, dreams, and
imaginations in a (national and local) Grand Hall
of mirrors in which privilege comes lo be read as
r.1.er;t and in which being poor and/ur of color
gels read as worth less,
.Separate and Unequal? The Interior
Life of "Desegregated" Schools
As we visited and worked with a numbe, of
desegregated suburban sd1ools, 49 years after
Brown v. Board of f;ducation, we couldi:'t help but
notice th.at diverse bodies indeed pass through
the integrated school doors of llistoric victory
but then funnel into classes largely segregated
by race, et'.inkity, and social Compared to
ur'.ian schools, these scllools are indeeri well
resourced. However, within these schools, we
were str·Jck by the persistence of useparate and
uneq,ar access to educational rigor and <;.uali,y.
Unlike r:10st students in U.S. schools, youth in
desegregated schools must theorize their own
identities relationally ail the time and every day,
':>ecause they are makir.g selves in spaces where
"cifference" matters. That is, they are learning,
claiming, and negotiating the:r places in a ,nicrn-
cos:nk racial/dassed hierarchy on a daily basis.
To understand now yout:i n:ake sense of their
positions in :hese global/local race, ethnic, and
dass hiera:chies, we enter a focus group co:n•
posed of diverse youth from across schools.
zip codes, and tracks who have come together to
discuss academic tracking within their schools,
fine & Weis: Social Un)Justice 1111 75
These students attend desegregated schools in
whidl almost 70% of whites and Asians ar1; in
advanced placement (Afl) and/or honors classes,
but only about 35% of African A:nerican and
Latbo students arr. We listen now as students j us·
tify and challenge the America i1: whid: th~y are
being educatd, the space of the racial dream of
:ntegration, about which they know far ~lm mud1,
Charles: My thoughts? Wt.en we just had I one
grou;:, in a classJ . , . you reaay don't
get the full perspective of everything.
Yot.: know what I mean? rf they were
in t:11cked classes, they wou:dr:t get to
interact_ And like ... when you're in
class with like all white peo?lr, because
I know the same t:iing happens at [my
school} like sometimes I'm the only
black male in class, und you do.feel sort
of inferior, or yau do like sort of draw
back a little l1it laulhors' emphasis]
because you have nobody else to relate
with, you k:1ow, If it's more integrated,
like, you know, you feel more comfort·
able and the learning envimnn:enl is
heller _, , you just get more sides of it
because, I don't know, it's hard to, even
with ma:h, everybody learns tile same
thing in math, bu: if it's all wh lte
people, you know what I mean? T'ley"re
going to learn it somewhat different.
It's not that they don't get the same edu-
c.it/on, bur they're going to miss that one
little thing th..t a Latino perscm or a
black person ,rJuld add to the cl.,ss. ...
[authors' emphasis I
1111 • •
Jack: [l don't think we should de track
entirely], maybe not in like all classes,
but that really like what they, '.ike
maybe if they just had all freshman
classes li:.~e that, you know, it ¼'Ould
help out a lot, , , Ito change it all] ...
you know the kids that might not have
achieved so 1tmch in the pt1st could see
76 111 HAJ.IDBOOK OF QUALl'EATIVE RESEARCl~CHAPTI:;R 3
like, yrm know:, like "I do ltave a dM!1ce"
[a·Jthors' err. phasis]. And you know, "I
don't , , . I jt:st don't have to stop. I can
keep going and keep learning more
So I don't know, maybe not like
every sr.oulc be tracked, bi:t they
[,uthors' emphasis I should definitely
be exposed,
a II II
Tarik: It starts fro;n when you grnduaie eighth
grade. In eigr.th grade they ask you,
~would you want to be in [lop trackj?''It
!.'~pends on yrn:r gnides. If )'Our grades
are good enough to in top, then yo;i
can, but if :mt, you have to choose
[authors' emphasis J the [regula:· 1 lcvc:.
1111 !II II
Jrne: B~cause, :ike you know, some peo;;,le
evrn say that, you know, the smart kids
[autlmr.-' em;ihasisj shook: in a
dass :1y themselves because it's more
condu<.:tive to their learning. But then
the other people would say like well the
speci?J education kids , , , they need :o
he wifh their kind so they'll learn better
.authors' emphasis l,
Charles (African An:erican, high- and
medii.:m-track dasses) opens by revealhg his dis-
cor:tfort with ,adal st,atilications in his school. In
o:1e ;,,veep, Ile pose,~ a c:-itique of the school, and he
smuggles in the possibility that Afrkar. American
o:- Latino students may !::ave "one lit:le thing"
to contribute, Jack (white, high-achieving boy)
quickly navigates the "presenting problem" away
from school structure or black/Latino contribu-
tions, ""''".-''"a to a discourse of pity, he detours
the group's focus on:o the st'Jdents' presumed
(lack of) motivation. Tarik, who sits at the top of
a:i underre,murced school composed entirely of
st·1dent,s of color, :e11gthens Jacis line o:' analysis
by foregnm:iding individaal motivatior: and
"choice'.' Jane, a while girl ii: top ""'·"°' returns the
conversation to sdmul ,structure, but now-given
that low motivation and bad grades are "in fae
room"· s:ie j nstifies tracks as responsive to, indeed
"needed"by, students al the lop and at the bottom.
In less than 2 m im:tes, race has ·:,cen evacuated
fmn: the conv<:>rsafam, replace<l by the tropes of
"smart" and "s;>edal educalio:1:' Collectively per-
forming a "color-blind" exchange, the group has
evacuated the politics of race, Black and Latlno
students have dege:ierated from potential contrib-
utors to needv., Trncks have been resuscitated from
racist to responsive. .'vlclanie and Emily (both bira•
cial, high-11chieving young women) try to reassert
questions of race and racism by introducing
aspects of radalizi ng ':iy educators (Deleuze, 1990 J:
Melanie: like tracking has been in the whole
school system that I've been going to
like frorn beginning, ar.d if yon grow
Llp in a tra66 ng system, that's all you
can kr.ow, So if you g:ow up and the
whole time l've been in honors
classes, and a lot of the time, and I'm
mixed so a ~ot of the time when, if you
want lo hang out with diffi:rent people
aud yo;i're forced, and the other
students in your c.a1,ses and you're
kind of forced to hang out w'th some
people :hat you don't normally, v,ould1c'1
normally like hang around wit!:. Aud
at the same time, it's Eke a lot of
en:phasis is put on by the parents and
teacher, I reme:nber a lot of the tim c,
like "You're a good~ . , , like teachefll
would tell me, "You're a good student,
but vou need :o watch out who voi.;
' '
hang ou; with, ;:iecause they're going
to have a bad int1uence on you:' Tl:ey
didn't see me doing anything. I was
walking down the hallway talkir:g
to sonebody, II wasn't like, you kr:ow,
we were out do:ng whateve:_ But a lot
of times it is the tea ,:hers and the
parents' first impressious of their
ideas tl:at rn1:1e off. , ,
II II II

Emily: But I want to say like ... Melanie and
I are a lot alike because we're both
interracial and we were both i:1 like
honors classes. BUI with her, a lot of her
friends are black and with me a lot of
my friends are white. And I get really
tired ofbeing the 011/j' • •• one of the very
Jew people my class to actually speak
up [authors' empl:asis] if I see some·
thing that's like ... or lf I hear some·
thing that's not ... that bnthers me.
And then r feel like Im all of a sudden
the black voice Iauthors' emphasis I, you
know. Like I'm all black people. And it's
nottrue al all. I ... lots of people have
different kinds of upinions and I want
to hear them. It's just that I think a lot of
the time, like Charles was saying, when
yoi:'re the only person in !he class, you
do get intimidated. And voices aren't
heard any more ther l,ecause of every•
one overpowering.
Across this focus group, we hear youth
identities constructed in relation to state school
practices that re:fy and stratify race, as well as
in relation to "others" (wr.ltes, blacks, teachers,
parents, "them:' un:notivated stude:tts, stude:its
with bad grades). These youths sci:lpt them-
selves in a :1at'or., in a community, and in
locai school bulldhgs in which racial signifiers
have come to be the organizatio:ml mortar with
which intellectual hierarchies are built, ,ms-
tained, and resisted. Alfaot:gh stratified schools,
and perhaps focus groups, undoubtedly invite a
set of essentialized performances (Butler, 1999;
Phoenix, Frosh, & Pattman, 2003), these you:h,
like the men h Class Reunion, M:affold identities
through the th:c:.:. {and sometimes toxic) fog
of national and local policie~, aml wi:hi n local
:-epresenta:ions of themselves as value-fol or
wor:h-less. Note that Jack, Tarik, and Jane fran:,;-
the probler.1 ( aod their worth) as one oCacks in
"others:' Charles, Melanie, and Emily try to inserr
cri :ic_ae of racial for:nations within the school
building.All these yout:1 are growing selves amid
Fir.e & Weis: Soda: (ln)Justice Ill 77
social anci academic relations stinging with power,
privilege, and inequity. All define themselves,
and are defined, in relation and in hierarchy;
fortunately, they are also define<: in flux and i:1
complexity. Although their personal selves may
be :luid and performed wildly differently across
sites, "others" are fixed, in ways that legitin:ate
existing structures, buttress their owu position
within, and anesthetize themselves to their anx·
ielies about inequity.
Apr:! Burns (2004) argues powerfully that
privileged ( primarily but not solely white}
students are indeed discomforted with their
advantage within the tight quarters of internal
segregation. ln a close discursive analysis of high
achiever focus groups, she documents the rever-
sals, critiques. and momentary interruptions that
students offer as they reflect on the racialized
hierarchies within their presumabiy in:egrated
schoo'.s. Afore expressly, we hear African American,
biracial, a:Jd U1tino st.1dents-like Charles,
Emily. and Mdanie-struggling wit!l the hall
mirror;; in which they anend school-mirrors
that typically represen'.: them in ways discrepant
from how they see themselves. Students uf coior
traverse and negotiate social policies a.ad prac-
tices of syrr.bolk and material violence as they
survive a torrent of everyday representations
within their desegregated schools. Some do beau·
tifullv; others fall. To this task they all import
DuBois's "double consciousness" by which the
"sever.th son" watches through a veil.
The Negro is a sor: of seventh so:1, horn with
a veil and g:fted with ,e.::,~r:d sig:it in this
American world-a w,1rlrl which yields l:im no
ln:e self consdou:mess but only lets him sec
I: imsel: through the revelation of the other
world. 1: is a peculiar sensa:ion, !hi$ dou b:c-
cor:scioumess, this sense o: always looking at
o:1e's self thrnugh :be of o,hers, of measur•
trig om's soul by the tape of a world that looks
on in amused contempt aml p:ty, O:ie ever
his two-ness-an American, a '.-legrn; two souls,
twu thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two
warring ideals in one dark body, whu,c dogged
drengtn alone keeps it from being mrn astnder.
{DuBois, 19\lO, p. 9)
711 ia HA ND!JOOK OF QUA TJTATI VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER '.I
The veil is er itical tu compositional studies
because it is the lens !hn:, al 01:ce, .:onnects and
separates. It is ganze, a way of seeing, shifty. ]t is
not a tattoo, an inoculation, a stain on the soul.
And yet the veil is, itself, work. both intellectual
and psychological. We heard about the veil in var-
ious fo:ms, from sons and daughte11<, beneficia-
ries of Browu v. Brmrd rJ{ Educatirm. With access to
sub'Jrban schools of material wealth and oppor-
tunity, African American and Latino yout'1, com-
pared to white and Asian American youth. offer
vastly different responses ro survey items re:ated
to alienation: Does your teacher know you?
Understand you? you a second chance?
!lla,k and Latino s1;.1de;1ts score much higher
on allenation, and lower on being known-even
and especially fbose high-track courses- thm:
white and Asian American students. When askec
"\Nhat was the most l1owerful thing a teacher has
ever said to you-positively or nrgat ively? ;' Black
and Latino students, i11 sharp and biting contrast
:o their white and Asian Am.;rkan peers, were
for more l:kdy to write sl:ch words as "Ko effect"
rir ":-lo teacher ever s,id anything to me tha:
affeded me:'
Ti:t> veil doubles. A p;ophylactic against
engagc,oent, it ali,o facilitates other forms of con•
nection. As a s:iield of protection, it is a way to
view the world witr.out ass,mlt It also fills a
moat of alienation. The veil, like tl:e color !he,
constitutes a relational analysis; it recognizes the
ironies walls. that at once separate and connec,.
T:1rough ,he veil. youth of co:or wit11ess all.
Some narrate pai:l, some pleasure, and a sigr.ifi-
cant group daims they do :iot al:ow the words
to penetrate. This is not to say that youth internal
ize fully the blaring messages, nor that tlley are
fully inoculated by the wisdom of their cri:ical
ana:ysis. The veil is tne social psychological lex
ture through which the gap is prodi:ced, :ived,
witnessed, and err.bodied.
The "gap" is a trope for tile most penelr.iting
fissurl"s that have formed Ame:ica. Urbanlsnbur•
l,,.n financt> ir.equi,ies guarantee :he gap; acade-
mic tracks vivify and produce an embodiment of
the gap. The "gap" is neither inevitable nor nat-
uni.:. Schools du not have to reprocuce social
formations; manv of the small, derrack<'d urban
schools in o.tr study ' were designed, indeed, HJ
'But broadly cor.ceived, the structure, and
of dass and racial formations rnnstitute
pub Jc schooling {Noguera, 2003; Payne, 1995).
Inequitable state financing, school organization,
school and classed and rad al izcd access
to r;gor, as well as deep-pocket privat.: supports
that ?ri11ileged studrnts enjoy rather than the
"bodies" or ''cultures"<{ race/etl:nkity-produce
consistent differential outrnmes w ifai11 and
across schools (Gra:nsci, I971). Tte is
overdeterm lned but not fully inhaled by all.
Although social analysh; may reveal the
of the lor.g arr:1 of the state, the economy, and
racial formations on the lives of youth and young
adults, it i, interesting, for a mo:neut. to consider
who does, and who doesn't, acknowledge the
presence (and stranglehold) of the arm.As in :he
focus gro;;p narrative and oi;r survey ma:erial,
we see that youth of privilege a:td success largtly
(for ,n1,u·a re-examiua1ion see Burns, 2004)
re-p,esent themselves "as if" untouched hy lht'se
structural forces, if" they an.> graceful! y
moving forward simply 011 the basis of merii, liard
work, good luck, and/or cmnmi:tec parenting. rn
contrast, youth of color and/or poverty never
immune to neger.mnk i:iscourse-season tl:eir
worcls vdh e:i:iq ue, outrage, and the twit: ned
relations of stnichiral and personal responsibil-
ity. Like the men in Class JZeunfrm (and maybe
cve1: more so), tl1ese young wome:1 and men
speak through a relational. companitive sense of
the "other'.' Hui in their fon11·Jlations, they are sad-
dL'neci It> realize that they have become the "other:'
A11 livl's are fotmed in history, power ineqnities,
institlll:onal arrangen:cnts, and relational negotia·
tions. Compositiona: studes are we!'. suited to
reveal these relations. Youb of color and in pnve:1y
know these :elations and ronsistently narrate :hem
for Lil\ all.
This projrct, like Reunilm, reveals the
complexil }' and, we believe, the power of corr.po-
sitional St'Jdics. Across and withiJi institutions
of pu'::ilk education, we come to see how finance
inequities tattoo shame and lack 1m the intellec-
tually hi;ngry S<1uls of poor aud working-das~

urban youth, as well as how, within racially
desegrega:ed high schools, the theater of tracking
organizes and produces differences associated
with race, ethnicity, ai:d dass within bu:ldings,
rm:lically differentiating students' access to rigor-
ous curriculum and teaching. The interior pol; ,ics
of these schools have been linked ,heoret:cally
and :,ystematically tu :he economic, racial, and
poHcy environments in the the production
of the "gap" nas been e:npirically tied w the pro-
duction of privilege-as-merit: anc the identity
formations of "high-track" and "low-track" youth
are interroga:cd as they define faemsd1Tes with
and against one another. Then better devclnped
elsewhere-we enter the vast variation within
groups: the struggles of low ad:ieving Asian
Ame:ican studer:ts co:1fmnting the "model rnir:or-
ity myth" (Lee. 1996 ), the high track African
American studei:ts who report lnyally oaths and
n:ixed messages fro:n facidy, and the high-
achieving white stadents wl:o recogr:ize and c,re
discomforted by tl:e structund p;0ps and private
supports that enable segregatio:1 and assure thei:
advantage (Burns, 2004). It is this compositional
capaci :y to move, theore:ically and empirically.
bet ween stn:ctures, groups, ar.d lives and behi:1d
the scenes, that enables us to produce work that
speaks back to larger struggles :or soda! and
educational justice.
A Note on Social Justice
and Compositional Studies
Compositional studies responds to tr.e ques
tion of social research for social justice in varied
ways. In its largest sense, compositional studies
makes explidt a mapping of economic, rm.:iai, and
polilical fo,mations inside the structures, rela-
tions, and identities of youth and ynur;g adults.
Ou invile.,ion toward method asks rescarche rs tu
rmder visible the long arms of the state, capital,
a:id racial form ations as they sat urale com mu ni-
ties, hur:1es, s.:hnols, souls, identities, and dreams
of poor and working-dass, middle and U?per
middle-c'.ass America. Lois's work reveals, the
:rajectory of young white working·c:ass men and
women can '::le understood only in re!ation to the
Fine & We's: Social (ln)Justice • 79
economy, gendered construct'ons and relations,
and the cons:ructions and benefits of whiteness-
all of which will he occluded in the typic2l narra
th-e and, as s:.ich, must be instantiated through
theory. The tmckir.g of the remaking of the white
workiag class in the last quarter of t:1e 20:b cen-
tury speaks \/{llumes about economic ju.~tke and
i:ijustke, the ways in which groups and individu-
al one and the same time refuse to be "slotte<l"
ever. as they arc "s:otted" ir.to "appropriate" and
predetermined pos itiom. The white woridng-dass
men und women have, in fact, fought hack in the
past 15 years, demanding calt"Jral and e,,:onomk
space within the new economy, b·Jt, as Lois sug-
gests in the larger project, this is not without con-
:radictur y impulses and outcomes. Surely this
"fighting back» is no: si:nply aroui:d white male
demaads expressed :hrough union activities, as
was largely the case in the past The desire to repo-
sition and maintain relative privilege in relation to
groups of color continues-a set of struggles that
revolves around reconstituted notions of appropri-
ate gender relations and rolei;. It is t:ic pain and
delight of these tnderstandir.gs through whicl:
we gain a deeper se:1se of soda! and economic
injustice. We can also witness the contradictory
in:pulses e:nbedded within narrow identil y move-
men:s. Here, "compnsil ional slmlies" re\feals the
power o: what could be a das,-based movement
across wurking people, as well as the political
s:1ortsightedr.ess and divis:veness of organizing
cxdusivdy for white n:ales,
So, too, in Michelle's work, youth across
racefelhnic groups, rich and poor, yearn for
s,:imols and societies "not yet'' (Greene, 1995). We
hear discomfort :tom al: with the current states of
finunce inequities and t::acking; we hear the dire
prire, paid most dearly by urban youth of color,
but also suburban youth, of inequitable state
policies, tracking systems, and perverse local
(mis)represcntat:ons. Yet we see the power of
youth standing together-across lines of race,
ethnicity, class, geography, and "academic levd"-
to back to educa;ors and to America.
We leave you with a scene of ambivalence from
a recent «speak back'.' Youth research<"rs in a sub
urban school were presenting their "findings" lo
80 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALI1:ATIVE RFSEARCH~CHAPTER 3
the faculty. Quite criiical of racial and ethnic
stratification in bis school's acadernics and disd-
pEnary policies, Derrick explained to the almosl-
all-white teacher group that he, as an African
American male, spends "lots of tirr.e in the
suspension room . , , and you notice it's mostly
black, right?" Hesitant nods were erased rapidly
by awkward discursive gymnastics, "Well no,
,K1ually in June it gets whiter when the kids who
haven't shown up for detention have to come in;'
followed by "Sometimes there are white students,
maybe when you're not there;' Bui Derrick per-
sists, with the courage uf speaking his mind to
educators who may or may not listen; standing
with peers across racial and ethnic groups and a
few adults willing to bear witness as he sp~aks
truth to power.
Derrick is 110 more optimistic than we that in
his school, at tl:is moment, his critique will t:,ms-
form local policy. In our research carr.ps, we
rehearse the presentation, cxpecti:lg engagen:ent
ar.d resistance. 1:1 the folded arms of disbelieving
faculty, the institution declares, "We are coherent,
we zre integrated, ,ve are fair, it's not about race:•
But 1rnw, skillfully able to slict~ the school-base.:
analyses by race, ethnicity, and track, able to read
the tables and the discursive analyses, Derrick
kr,ows :ie stands not alone. He insists, "I tlon't
speak just for me. I'm ~11eaking fur 1, 179 other
Black and Latino students who completed the
survey and report high rates of suspensions:'
Suddenly his disrn issible, personal "anecdote"
1ransforms into facL He stands tall and represents
the concerns of hundreds of African American
and Latlno students in his school, and from more
than a dozen other schools, who report that
suspensions, and access to rigor, are unevenly
d:stribu:ed, and opportunities are denied or dis-
couraged. Flanked by white, Africar_ American,
a:ad biracial sh!dents-allies-together they
have a job to dn. He writes, after his presentation,
that he will not "walk away, to swagger to the
policies of life , :• He will, instead, continue to
deepen his analysis and outrage, surrounded by
allie, and representing hundrds, with the critical
skiils of participatory research directed toward
social justice,
When asked. "Do you think it's fair to teach
students of color about racism and critica'. con-
sciousness and involve them in this work? Doesn't
it depress you?" Jeneu,se, a youth researcher from
the South Bronx,assured an audience at Columbia
Cniversity, "We've lor.g known about radsm; that's
not news, What I know now, though, is that I can
study it, about it, and we need to do some
thing to change it:' Nikoury, a youth researcher
from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, stunned
an audience with her astute reflectior. on partici-
patory action research and its benefits: "I used to
see flat. No more .. , now I know ,bing,, are much
deeper than they appear. And it's my job to find ou;:
what's behind the so-called facts. I can't see flat
anymore'.' These young women and men have,
indeed, come to appreciate the complexity of the
composition, the shape of tne frac:ure&, ,md
their own capacity to repaint the canvas of rhe
future.
Compositional studies will require scholars
willing to dip into the watern of history and
p11·1 itkal economy, while sharpening the skills of
case study, ethnography, and autoethnography.
We may witness a delicate, perhaps clumsy,
choreography balancing ove:- the waters of slruc-
\llral and cultural explanations, as Sartre wTote,
through both Marxism and existentialism ( 1968;
see O'Connor, 2001 ). The costs may be overtheo-
ri zing and underatlending to the materia I before
us, or losing the fine-graineci analyses of what
Geertz calls ''thick description" inside a g:uup, a
space, a frnctiim of the nat:on. Yet we are hopeful
that compositional studies can provide a scho!-
arly mirror of urgency, refracting back on a
nat:on, constructed and represented as if we
were simply individuals flourishing or languish-
ing in oarnllel lives, as we move toward conquer•
ing chunks of the globe in our own frightening
image.
In both instances, Class Reunion and critical
analysis of the "gap;' compositional studies speaks
back to our nation and ask us to re-view the very
frnctu~es of power upo:i which the country, the
emnomy; our schools, arn:i our fragile sense of
selves/comfort/leisure are premised, and to imag-
ine, altemat'vcly, what could be.

a Non:s
I, Vve are indebted to Norman Denzin for stretch-
ing our t:ii nking o:: :his point See Y.aulana Karenga
(1982), a theorist of the Black arts movement, as a
rca,:ion to "hig::» Europea11 art
2, Race-, ethn:dty-, a:id dass,based inequities in
educational opportunities and outcomes per,,ist despi:e
struggles fo~ finance !!<JUity ;Hochschild, 2003; Kozol,
1991 ), teacher quality in poor urban districts (Darling-
Hammonc, 2000; Education T:usl, 1998; Iatarola,
2001 ),school integration Cross, 1991; Fine.Anand,
Jordan, & Sherman, 2000; Fullilove, 2000), affir:nativc
action (Bek & Bowen, 1998), ,llll!!l schools {¼asley
et ;.I'.,, 1999 ), special education and bilingual reform
{Nieto, 1996; Rousso & Wehmeyer. 2001; Stamon-
Salazar, 1997), and parrnr organi:ilng {Fruch:er,
Galiena, & Whit,;:, I992}, as well as struggles against
high-stakes standardizeu testing {Haney, Russell, &
Jackson, 1997) and :racking (Dauber, Alexander, &
Entwisle, 19%; Hurtado, Haney, & Garcia, : 998; New
Yo~k ACORN, 2000; Noguera, 2003; Oakes, Wells,
von~zawa, & Ray, 1997; Useem, 1990; Wheelock-1992},
3, The youth researchers attend East Side Co:11mu-
nity High School, a small, detracked urban school o::
the Lower East Side of York Citv, Most of the
s:udents corr:e from poo~ a:id working\lass families,
man}' are recen: immigrants from Centra: and South
America, and resour~es are low and acadrmic expc't-
tations hig:i. They are, indeed, neighborhood kids
who were lucky enough to find an "alternative" school
comr::itted to rigorous education for alt
• REFERENCES
Alford, It ( 199/J). The craft of inquiry: Tlworie;, meth-
ads, evidtnce. New York: Oxford Univen.ity Press,
Anand, It, F:ne, M,, Perkins,'I:, Surrey, D,, & the gradu-
dass of 2000 Renaissance School. (2001 ).
The struggle never ends: An oral history ofd~egre-
gation in 11 nt>rthern commur, iry. ,t,;cw York:
'l~achers College Press,
Anyon, I. (1997). Ghetto .clwoii11g, New York: Teachers
College Press,
Anzaldua, G, (1999}. Bordtriamis/la Frontera. San
Francisco: Aunt Lute Publishers,
Apple, M. (2001}. Educating rhe 'right" way: Markets,
sumdards, God and inequality New York:
Routledge.
Ftr.e & We:s: Social (In)Justke II Ill
Aronm,.,.itz, S. (1992). Flllse promises: The shaping of
Americ,m working ciass co,uciousness {2nd ed, ).
Durham, NC: Du~ Universitv Press.
Bettie, J, (2003). Women with~,;; class. Berkeley:
Un:versil y of California Press.
Bhavnani, K. ( 1994). Tracing the ,:ontours: Ferni-
n i st researc:i and obJe·ctivity, ln H. Afsbar &
M. Yiaynard (Eds,). The dynamics of "race'' and
gender: Some feminist interventions, London:
Taylnr & Francis.
Bok, W,, & Bowen, D. {1998). The shllpe of the rii-er:
Long term conseqwmces of ccmsidering mce in
college and wiiversity admissioris, P::incetor.. NJ:
Princeto:: University Press.
3ourgoh, P. {2002). In search of re.,pec1: Selling crack in
fl Barrw, Cambridge, t;K: Cambridge m1iversi1 r
Pres,.
Bowles, & Ginlis, 1-1. ( 1976), Schooling in capitalist
societv. Sew York: Bask Books.
Burns.A. (2004}. The racing of capability ar:d the c:Jlpa-
hility in desrgregated schools: Viscourses of merit
a::d ri:!ipon,ibi:Jty, rn ~I. fiine, L, Weis, L. Pruitt, &
A, '3ums [Eds.), Off wl!ite: Readings on power, priv-
ilege ,rndresi'.~tance (2nd ed.),New York: Routledge,
Butler, J. (I 999).Gender trouble: T,mth ~m1iversary,
New Yiirk: Routledge.
eo:::ns, P.H. (1991 ). Blacl;; Jeminist dwughr: K,mw/edgt,
consciou.rness, and the politics of empowr:rment,
1'ew Yor:..: Routledge,
Con r:dl, R, W, (1993 l, o:sruptions: Improper mas•
culinities and schooling. In L Wris & M. Hne
( Eds.), Beyond silenced voices. Albany: SUNY
Press.
Connell. R- W. (:995). M/,l!icriinities. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Crenshaw, K. (1995), Mapping the margins:
Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
aga:nst women of co:our. ln K. Crensha I',,
N, Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds,), Critical
r.:u;e theory: The key writings that formed tht
m(J1!et11ent. New York: New Press.
Cross, ','f. F_, Jr. 0991 ). Shades of blade Diversity in
/ifrican·American identity. Philadelphia: 1emple
University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teach::ig q1:ality and
student achiever.ient Education Policy AM{vsis
Archives, 11; I),
Dauber, Alexander, K. L, & Entwisle. D, R (1996}.
1racking and transitions th rough the r.1iddle
grades: Char. neling educational trajectories.
Socicilogy of Education, 69(3). 290-307.
 82 111 IIANDl300K OJ:1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 3
Deleu:a:. G. (I 990, May). Postscript on societies of
control. L'A utre Joum .. i, J.
Du Rois, W. E. B. ( 1990 ). Souls of b!ac.~ Jofks. New TIJ:k;
:'irnl Vintage Books.
Duneier, M. ( 1994). Slim} table: Race, r-..spectabi/ity, and
mas,:uimil.y. Chicago: tniversity of Chicago Pre,s.
Education Trust. (1998). Good teac;::ng ma:ters: How
well-qualified teachers can dose the gap. Thinkin8
I 14.
Edwa:us, R. { 1979). C€mtested terrain. '.lltw )brk: H:csic
Books.
Pafa-Rorda, 0. i 1979). Investigating :he reality ln order
to transform it: The Colnrr:bian cx?erience.
Dialectical /I rrthropologJ\ 4, JJ "-'·
fanon, F. (1967). lllack skin, ·,41ite musk~. New rork:
Grove.
Farmer, P. (200 l ). lnfe.:ti(m.s ,md inequalities: Tr;e
modern plagues. Berkeley: ln iverstty of Ca:;:or:iia
P:ess.
l'erg~so:i, R. ( 199fl). Can schools na:ww the Bla;,;k-
Whlte le~! score gar? In C Jencks & M. Phillips
'.Eds,), The Black-White test score gap, 'Nashington,
DC: fkookings Institulion.
fine, M. ( 1991 ). Framing ,iropuuts; Notes on t!J,, politic$
ofan urban high ,duia/. Albany: SU NY Pr.-:,s,
I'ine, M., Ana::d, 1$., Jnrcan, C., &: Sherman, :1. (2mm}.
llefore tb.: bleach gels us ~IL In L. Weis & M. Fine
( Eds.), Construction nles: Spoces ,for urban yourh
to rcimagine roce, clas,~ gender and s.:.waiil)I
:-few York: 'Jeachers Collrge Press.
fine, M,, Roberts, R,, Torre, M., Uloom, j., Burns, .~ ,,
Chajet, L, et at {2004).1:idwes of Brawn; Ym11h
documenting and pnforming the legacy of Bro}l;n
v. Board of&lucation, New York: Teachers Co:Jege
Press.
Fine. M., Torre, W.:., llnudin,K., Bnwen, I., Clark, J., Hylton,
IJ., et aL (2U0J ). Changing minds: The impact of
rollege in ,1 mt1:dmum Htcuri£y prison. :-few York:
The Graduate Center, Ci! y University of New ~ork.
Fine, M., Torre, M.• Boud::i, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J.,
llyltor., et al. (2002). l'artidpatory action
resear·ct:: From within and beyond prison bars.
In P. Cam:c, ]. E, Rhodes, & L. Yardley (lids.),
Qua/i1ati1'1! research in psychology: f,::cpa11di11g per-
spectives in nmhod,,Jogy and design. Washington,
DC: Ameriarn !'syd:ological Association.
Fine, M.• & Weis, L ( l ggg }. Tiu: imknown city. llo;ton:
llt-acon Press,
Foley, D, (1990 J. Ltcaming cupitaUst cu/lure: Deep iti
the ,lierirl 1exas. P'iiladelphia; t:nive1 ~ily "f
l'e:msylvania l're.,s.
fo:dha111, S. ( 1996}. Black oul: Dilemmas of race.
idemiiy w1d su,·cess at Capital High Sc}w!Ji,
Chicago: l:niversity of Chicago Press.
l:'oucault, M. ( Discipline urnl p,mi.!h: The birth of
the prison. New York: Pantheon,
rreire, P. ( 1982). Creating altema1ive research methods.
I.earning to ,lo it by doing it.In [I_ Hall.A. Gilldtc,
& R, Tandon (Eds.), Creating kno1>/edge: A
mc1wpo!•: New Delhi: Socict 1• :or Partidpatory
llesea.rch in Asia,
l'rud1ter, N., Gallcna,A., & White, J. (; 991.). New d1rec-
rions in parent invof-;iim,int. Washington. DC:
Academy fer Educational Duvelopment.
l-ullilo·,e, M, 12UOUJ. The how;e of Joshua. In Wds
& M. Fine (I:ds.), Constri,t!frm sites, New York:
'fea,:;hers College Pre.,;s.
Gorz,A.11982). Farewe/i to rlre 11mrking ciass. London:
Pluto.
Crnm,d, A. ( 1•>71). Select:'ons f,'um prison ,w1ebooks.
New York: lntematk,·:al.
tinxr:e, M. ( 1995), Releasing !he imuginarion:
on edw:ation, ,he arts, and social change, San
Francisco: Jossey-[la~s.
Haney, W., Russell, '-1., 8< Jackson, L (l 997). [l.<ing
drawings to study and change edumtion. Boston:
Centel' fo; lhc Study d Test:;g, Evalu11tio11 and
liducational Polic 1 at Boston College,
Harding, S. (1983). Di:sc{lvering realiry: frmim.11 per-
spectives ,m ~pistcmolagy, mrtaJJliysics, methodol-
ogy, and philowphy cfsdmce. Dorcrecht Holland:
ll Reidel.
Hartsmck, "f.C.M. (1983 ). bfoney, sex, m1d p,,wcr:
Toward a femini..t him:,rica/ materiaiim1, New
York: l.oJJgman,
Hayduk, R. (1999 ), Regional anatyscs and sm11:tural
racism, Aspen, CO: Aspen Roundtable 0:1 Comp,e-
hensive Community Refo,m.
Hitch.:ock, P. (1999)_ Osci!Ja1e wildly. Yl:nneapolis:
Univen;it y of Mim:e~ota Press.
Ho.:hschild, J. /2003). Social class ::ic-ets the Amerkun
dream it: public schools. /oumal of Social L.sue~
59( 4), 821 ··· MO.
hooks, b. ( 198-1], FemiJiist rh~ory from margin to centrr.
Hosten: Sculh End,
Hunt.-r,A, ( 1987). The role oflibcral political culture in
the ronsrruc1io11 nf middle America. Uni~ersi1y cf
Miami I.aw Review, 1).
Hurtado, A,, Haney, C., & Garcia, E. (1998), Becoming
the mai n.strcam: Merit, changing demogr.1phics
higher cdurario11 in California. La Raza Law
Jormwi, 10(2), 645-690.

Iatarola, P. (2001 ).Distributing tead1crquali11equi,abl}·;
The c1ue o[New }lmi: Ciry [Policy bridl. Ne,.,; Y(:rk:
lns:il u:e for Education and So;;ial Policy.
Karenga, ( 1982). lntrod;;ctfrm to blr1d, studies.
!ngle'A'Ood, CA: Kawaida.
Kozol, J. (19'l I). ~aV<tg£ inequalities, I\ l'W Yorlc Crown,
t,u:son-3il:ir.gs, G. (2000), Raci;a\;;;;;:t: d's.;o,;rses
and ethnic eJi,temo\cgies. : :: N, K. Denz, n &
Y. S, t n;;oln (Eds.), Htmdbook of qualitative
rrsearch (2nd ed.). Thm:sand ()ak,, CA: Sage,
Lee, S. J. (1996 ). U11r,:weiing the "model minority"
Slereotype: Listening fo ,isian American youth.
>.fow York: Teachers College Pres,.
Martln•Bar6, L (1~94). Writings fi>r a liberation
cho/ogy. <:iimbridge, MA: llarvarc University
Press.
Malsuda, M, {l 995). Look':1g :o the bottom: C: r:tical
1egal studies and reparation,. In Crenshaw,
N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & Thon:as (Ecis.}. Critical
race rhecry: 1'/u, key writings llwt formed the
11uwemer,t. New York: New Pre,s.
Mills, C, W. ( 1959). The ,,cio/ugical imaginatilm.
London: Oxford l'niverslty Press.
:-Jew York Association of Communi;y Organizatim:s
fo~ Reform Now. (2000). The secret apartheid.
Ne 1, York: AL'UR~ Organizing Projtcl,
::-lido, S, ( 1996 ). Afjirming diversity: The sociopnlitical
context of mu!1irniturai eduallion {2:id ed.).
New York: Lo::gman,
Nog::cra, P. {2003 ). City sc1wols and /he llmcrirnn
dream: h1/jilling th,! prorr.ise of pulilic educa,ion.
New Yor:.t: ·:eachers College Press,
Oakes, J.. Wells, A., Yom:r.i!wa, & Ray, K. (l 9'<7).
Equity ,.,,,,u::. from dctrading schools. ln
A. Hargreav,·s (Ed.},lMlifnld11g tdUL·atior:al diw:ge
wftri heart and mind. Aiexandria, VA: As,,ociation
for S·~pervision and Curriculum [>eve:opment.
O'Connor, C, (2001), M1.;ki ng ~nse of the complexity of
so;;i,d idenlily in relation to acl::eveme11t: A socio•
logical challenge in the new millennium.Sociology
of Fducntion. 74, 159-169,
Orficld, & '.:'a.ton, S. (1996). Di£mantling desegn:ga•
lion. l',;ew York: New Press.
Payne, C. ( I 9'l'.:>). f'ye got light offre,,i,mi: 1'he orga ·
riizing tradition and the ,\1ississippi freedmt, st•ug•
gle, Berkeley: t:niversity of California Press,
P:menix, A., f:ush, & Pattman, R. (2003). Produc•
ing contrndi,;;tory mascul'::c subject pnsi:ions:
Narrative of homoph-0bia and bulling in
11 14 year-o:d hoy~. /ourm;/ of .'incial lmies,
I), 179-196.
Fine& (ln)lusticc Ill 5)
Rekh, R. (1991), The work of natums, London: Simon
and Schuster.
Reich, R. (2002). Tl1<' future r.f success. New Yo,k: Alfred
Knop:.
Rousso, H., & Wchr::eycr, M, (2001 ), J)()uble jeopardy:
Addre;,irrg gender equity in spec/a! e:duci::tiun.
Albany: S~rNY Press,
Ru,;11, L ( 1'176), Worlds ,if pain: Life in the workinJ;•
class Jamify. ;,few York: Books,
Sartre, ].. ?. i 1968). Search for method. New York
Vintage.
Scheper-Hnghes, N., & Sa:-gent, N. ( '.998). Small wars:
The rnltimli politics of childh,wd. Berkeley:
Univernil y of California Press.
S..:ott, !. (1990). Daminatir,n and the art rif resistance:
Hi,Men tnmstript,, ':llrw Haven, CT: Yale University
Press,
Stack. C. ll. ( 1997 ). A!! our kin, New York: Rask llnoh,
Stanton-Salazar, R. {1997). A capital framework :or
under,ianclng the socialization of rndal mino:i1y
chlldrm ur:d youths. Harvard Educulimud Revicv;,
I
Stepick, A,, Stepkk, Euge::e, l,, & Teed, D. (2031),
Shift:ng identifies, In A. Portes & R. Rumba:.it
Ethnicities: Coming of ag.; in immigrim:
(F.d,.),
America. Berkeley: U11iv.:rsi1y of Califo~nia
Thorne,IJ.( 199,1 ), Gender play:Girls 111:d br.ys in .school.
New tlmnswick, 'IJ: ltutgt'IS Uuivers:ty Press.
Torre, M. & Fine, M. (2003'., Critkal per,p~~tivcs
Ol1 the "gap"; Participatory adion research with
youth in "integrated" and segrega:ed ,chm,: set -
tings, Harvard F.vaiuatim1 F.xrhange ,Vewsletler.
Twir:e, E (WOO). Racial ideologies and r.,,dal method•
£llngies. In F: Twine & I, Warren (Ed,.), Racing
research, n>seardring race: 1l!le!fwdolri11:iml di/em•
mas in ihe critical mre studies. New Y,i:-k: New
Yor:S University P~ess.
Usrem, E. (1900), Tracking students out nf advanced
me.th,'llla:ics, American Educator, 14, 24-46.
Valenzuela, (1999). Subtractive schoaffog, Alhany:
SUNY Press.
WalkenEne, V., Lacer, IL & Melody, J. (200:).
Growing up girl. New Yurk: :Jew ,ork U:iivcrs::y
Press.
Wa,~ley, E, Fine, M,, King, S., Powell,:.. , Holland, N., &
Cladrlm, M. (1999), Sma!I schools: (ireat strides,
New York: Bank Street College of Education,
Waters, M, ( 1999). Black i,ientities: West Indian immi•
grmll dreams and American realities, New York:
Russell Sage l'mmdation.
S4 'Ill HANDROOK 011 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Weis, L. ( 19901. Working class wit/tout work: High
sch;1ol students in a de•indusrria/izing economy.
New York: Routledge,
Weis, L (2004 ). Class reunion: 1'hc new working class.
Kew York: Routledge,
Wheelock, A, (1992), Cros,ing t/1e tracks, New Yorit:
New Press.
W:lliar::s, P. (:992). The alchemy of race and rights,
Cambridge, MA: Earvard Unive~i:y Press.
C.HAPTER 3
Willis, P. ( 1977), Learning to Jabour. Far::borough, UK:
Saxon House.
Wilson, W. f.; 1987), The truly disadvantaged: The inner
cilj\ the underclass and p11blic policy, Chicago:
Univcrnilv or Chicago Press.
Woodson, C, G. (I 972). riu: mis·education of the
Negrn. New York: AMS Press. (Original work
publishrd "933)
4
ON TRICKY GROUND
Researching the Native
in the Age of Uncertainty
Linda Tuhiwai Smith
II )NTRODLTTlON
In the spaces between TT'search methodologies,
ethical principles, institutio:tal regulations, and
burcmn subject, as individua!s a:id as sodally
organize.: .ictors and communities is tricky
ground. The ground is tricky because it is compli-
cated ar.d changeable, and it is tricky also berause
it can play tricks on research and researchers.
Qualitative re;;eard1ers generl!'.,y :earn to recognize
:md negotiate this grounc in a nu;nher o:' ways,
such as through their graduate studies, their ao::iui-
sition of deep ~hcoretkal and met:1odological
understancings, apprenticeships, experiences and
practices, conversations w[7h colleagues, peer
reviews, their «a1cHu1g of o:hers. The epistemo•
k,gical challenges to rc,;earch-~o lts paradigms,
practices, and impacts-p:ay a significant rule in
:imking thn,e spaces rkh:y r.uanced in terms of
the diverse interests ,hat occupy such sp.1ces and
at the same time much more cangerous for the
unsuspecting qualitative traveler. For it is not just
the noisy com:nunitie~ of difference "ot:t there"
ir. the margins of society who are moving into
the research domain with new methodologies,
epistemological approaches, aoc. challenge; lo the
way research is conducted. The neighbor, ax
misbehaving as well The pursuit of new scientific
;;1nd technological knowledge, with biomedic;il
research as a specific example, has presented new
challenges to our understandings of what is sden•
rifica'.iy possible and ethica'.iy acceptable. The tu:n
back to modernist and imperialist discourse of
discovery, "bur.ting, rndng, and garhering" across
the gfo'>e to map the human genome or curing
disease thro:.igh the new science of genetk engi-
neering, has an impact on the work of LJnaE:ative
social sc'.encc researchers. The discourse of
discovery speaks th:-ough globalization .ind the
marketplace of knowledge. "Hunting, racing, and
gathering" is wi:hout doub: about w:nni:ig. But
wait-there '.; rnore. Also lurking around the
cor:iers are countervailing conservative forces !hat
seek to disrupt aay agenda of juster that
may :orm on sc.:h tricky grounc. These forces
have little tolerance lor public debate, have little
patience tor alternatlvevie1vs, and have no interest
in qualitative rid,ness or ,'.omplexity. Rather, they
are nostalgic for a return to a research paradig:n
that, l'ke iife in general, should be simple.
Ill
St> 111 HA NDBOO'<'. 01' QlALITATIVE RESEARCH······· CHAPTER ,l
It is often at the level of speci::Ic comrr:unities in
the margbs of a society that these complex cur-
rents inte:sect and nre experier.ced, Some indige-
nou& comn:unities are exanplcs of groups that
have beer: bistorieally 1;ulnerabk to research and
remain vulneraJle in many ways, but also have
been able to resist as a group and lo attempt to
reshape and er:gage in rest:,m:.1 around their own
interests. Tbs chapter appiies indigenous per-
spectives toexam:ne the ir:tersecting challenges of
methodologks, ethics, lnstin:dons, and co:mn'Jni-
It is a chapter about arriving at and often
departing from commonly accepted 1,ndershmd-
ings about :he relationships between metho-
do'.ogy, ethics, :nstitulional demands, and the
corr:munities in which we live ar,d with whom we
n:search. Rather thac a story of how complex the
world is and how powt>rles;; we are lo change it,
this chapter is framed within a se:ise of the possi-
ble, of what ir:digenous commm:ities have strug-
gled for, have tried to assert and nave achieved.
II lN::>IGE1'0US RESEARCH AN[)
THR SPACES FRmv'. WEICH IT SPEAKS
Ind:g.:·nous peoples can be defined as the assem:ily
of tl:o,e who have witnessed, been excluded from,
and have survived modernity ar:d in:per'.alism.
They are peoples who have experienced the impe-
rialism and colonialism of the modern historical
period beginning with the Enlightenment. They
remain culturally db1inct, some ,vith their native
languages and belief systems still ali\·1;;, They are
mino::ities i:1 territories and states over which they
once hek sovereignty. Some indige:ious peoples do
hold sovereignty, but of such small stales that they
wield :iule power over their own :ives because they
are subj.:c: to the whims am: anxieties of large and
powerful states. Some indigenous cor.1munities
survive outside their traditional lands because they
were iorciblv removed from their :ands and con-
nections. They' carry many ::tames and labels, being
:-eforred to as nati.1:s, indigenous, autochthonous,
~r:bal peop:es, or ethnic minorl:ies. Many indige-
nous peop!es come together at regional and inter-
national levels to argue for rights and recogni6m.
In some countries, s1:ch as China, tr.ere are many
different indigemius groaps and languages, In
other places, suc't as New Zealand, there is or.c
indigenous group, known as Maori. with one
common language but multiple ways of defining
themselves.
There ,ue,of course,othcrtiefinitions of indige-
nous or native peoples, stem :nir:g in part from
international agreerr.ents and understandir.gs,
national laws and regulations, ?Opular discou,ses,
and :he self-defining identities of :he pa1p1es who
have been culonizrd and oppressed (Bu,ger, 1987;
Pr ii chard, 1998; Wilmer, 1993 ). The category of the
native Otl:er is one that Fanon (I 96111963) and
Memmi (195711967) have argued is implka:ed ir,
the same category as the settler and the rnlonizer,
As npposing iden:il ies, they constitute each other
as much as they cons:itute themselves, Rey Chow
( 1993) remhds us, however, that the native did
eifat before the "gaze of the settler and before the
image of"native" came to be w:istituted by imp,·-
rialism, ar.d that the native ,foes have a:1 existence
outside tind predating the settler/n;;tive :denUy,
Chow (1993) refers to the ''fascination" with the
nathT a, a "lahor with ('ndangered authrntidties:·
The ider.tity of ":he native" is regarded as compli-
cakxl, amhigmms, .md therefore tmubl :ng even for
those who :ive the realities and contradictions of
being native and of beir:g a member of a colonized
and minority community that still re• embers
other ways of being, of kr:owing, and of relating to
the world. What is troubling to 11:E domi 11ant cul-
lural !1,roup about the definition of "native" is no:
what necessarily troubles the "native" com:nm:ity.
The desire for "pure:' uncontaminated, a:1d sire ;,le
definitions of the native by the settler is often a
desire lo cm1tinue to know and define the Other,
whereas the desire by the r,a:ive to be sel:-defining
and se:f-naming can be read as a desire to be free,
to escape definitio11, to be complicated, to develop
ar.d change, and ro be regarded as fully hu:nan. In
hetween such desires are mull: ?le and sh:fting
identities and hybridi:ies with much more
nuanced positions about what constitutes :iative
identities, native communities, arni nalivc knowl-
edge in antilpos:co'.onial :imes. There are also
L1e not-insigi:ilfornl matters uf disproportionately

higl:: leve:s of poverty and underdevelopment, high
levels o( skk1:ess and earlv' death from .ore1;entable
Jlnesses, dispmportionatr levels of incarceration,
and other indices of soda\ :narginalization experi•
enced by most im!igenous ci:im:nunilies.
There are some cautionary notes to these defi
nitions. as native communities are not homoge-
neous, du not agree fm the same issues, and do not
live in spier.did isolation from the world. There are
internal relations of power, as any society, that
exdude, marginalize, and silence some while
em?owering others. Issues of gender, economic
class, age, Ianguage, a:id religion are also struggled
over ir. contemporary indigenous co• munities.
There are native indigenous coIT.munities in the
developed and in the developing world, and
although material conditions even fur those who
live in rich countries are often horrendous, people
in those countr:es are still better off than those in
developing countries. There are, however, still
many native and ind:genm:s families and comrnu•
nities who possess the anckn: memories of
another way of knowbg that informs rr:any of
their contemporary practices. When the fo:rnda
lions of those memories are disturbed, space
some:imes is created for alter::iative imagir:ings to
be voiced, to be sung, and to he hearc (again).
The genealogy of indigenous approaches to
research and the fact that tl:ey can be reviewed ir:
this chapter is i:nporrant because they have not
simply appeared overnight, nor do they exist-as
with other critical resea:-ch approaches-without
a politics of support around them or a history of
ideas. This chapter speaks from particular histor-
ical, political, and moral spaces, along with a set
of relationships and connections between indige•
nous aspirations, political ac~ivism, scholarship,
and other soda! ;ustke movements and scholarly
work. Indigenous communities and researchers
from differer:t parts of the globr have long and
often voiced concern about the "problem of
research" and represented themselve, to be
a:nong the «most researched" peoples of the
world. The critique of research cam;; to be voiced
in the public domain in the I970s, when indige·
nous political ac,ivism was also reasserting itself
(Eidheim, 1997; Humpnery, 2000; Langton, l981;
Smit!:: Researc:::ng the Native Miimi Ill B?
L. T. Smith, 1999}. The history of research from
:nany indigenous pers;,ec:ives is so deeply
em·Jedded in colonization that it been
regarded as a tool only of cnkmization and not as
a pote.:itial tool for self-determination and <level•
op:nent For indigenous peoples, research has a
significai:ce that is embedded in our histo:-y as
natives under the gaze of Western science and
coloniaEsm. It is framed by indigenous attempts
to escape the penetra1:on and surveillance of that
gaze while simultaneously reordering, reconsti·
ruting, and redefining ourselves as peoples and
communities in a state of or.going crisis. Research
is a site of contestation not simply at the level
of epistemology or methodology ;mt also in
broadest sense as a:1. organized scholarly activity
that is deep'.y connected to power. That resistance
to researd1, however, is changing ever so slightly
as more indigenous and minority scholars have
e:1.gaged in research methodologies and debates
about research with communities (Bishop, I\l98;
C.ram, Keefe, Ormsby, & Ormsby, 1998; Humphery,
2000; Pidgeon & Hardy, 2002; Smith, Worby
& Rigney, 2002 ). II is also changing as ir.digenous
communities and nations have mobilized inter·
nationally and have engaged with issues related to
globalization, education systems, sovereignty, and
the development of new technologies.
lndigen0t.1$ peoples are used to being studied
by outsiders; indeed, many of the basic di.sciplines
of knowledge a,e implicated in studying the Other
and creating exper: knowledge of the Other (Helu
Thaman, 2003; Said. 1978; Minh-ha, 1989; Vidich
& Lyman, 2000). More recently, however, indige-
nous reseaxhers have been active in seeking ways
to disrupt the "history of exploitation, suspicion,
misunderstandi1:g, and prej'.1dke" of indigenous
peoples in order to develop methodologies a:id
approaches to research :hat privilege indigenous
knowledges, voices, experiences, reflections, and
analyses of their social, material, and spiritual
c.unditions (Rigney, 1999, 117). This shift in
?OSition, from seeing ourselves as passive victims
of aJ research to seeing ourselves as activists
engaging i:l a counterhegemonic struggle over
restvarch, is significant. The story of that progres-
.sion has been told elsewhere in more depth ana is
88 11!1 HAMBOOK OF Qt:AL:TATIVF. RESFA :!CH--CHA:ITEI! ,t
nol nnk]Ue lo indigenous petJpb;; women, ga,-
a:1d lesbian mmmt:niries, eth:iic minooi:ies, and
other marginalized conmunities have n:ade
sim[ar Journeys of critical discovery l:1e role of
research in tl:eir lives (Hill Collins, I991; Ladson-
Billings, 2000; Mies, 1983; Moraga & Anzald1ia,
1983; Sedgwick, I991). There have been multiple
challenges to the C?istemk basis of the dominant
scien:ific paracigm of research, and these
led to tr.e develo::iment of approaches that
offered a promise tf rnm:terhegemonic work.
Some bmac exaF.Ip:es of these indude oral
history as storks of 6e worki:1g class, the ra:1ge o:-
fominis! methocologics i:t both qu;;ntitative and
qJalitati ve research, the dcveloprner:t of cu:tural
and a:11ifpostrolon'al studies, c:i:ical race theory,
and other cri:iui: a;>proaches wit:iin disciplillrs
(Beverley, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2000; McLaxn.
1993; Mohanty, 1984; Reinhari, 1992: Spivak,
l987; Stanley & 'Wise, 1983 ). Critical theorists
have held out the :iope that ~esearch could lead
lo cmandp>1:io:1 and social j uslke for oppressed
groups if research undc'rstood ar.d adcressed
i:neq ual relations power, fen: in ism has chal-
lenged the deep patriarchy of 'Nestern knowledge
and opened up new :or the examl nation
of epistemological differe:1ce. Third World women.
Africall American women, b:ack women, Ciicanas,
and ot:1er minority group women have added
immensely to our i:n(:er,.tar1ct111gs of the bter-
sectio:is of gende~, race, dass, alld imperialism
and have attemp :,·d lo drsnih, wha: that
0
mellr.s for theinsel,i:s as reseHc her, choosing
to research in 6c margins (Aldama, 200 I ;
Elabor-ldemudia. 2002; Hill Collins, 1991;
Ladson-Billings, 2000; Mobanty, 1984; lv'.oraga &
Anzaldua, I983; Te Awekoh:ku, 1999). Indige-
nous wome1 have played important roles in
ex?loring the intesections of ge:icier, race.
and difference through the lens of
people and agai 11st the frame of color:ization
and nppre~sim: ( K. Anderson, 2000; Marade,
1996; .\foreton-Robinson, 2000; L.'I: Smith, 1992;
leAwekotuku, 1991; Trask, 1986).
The decolm:ization project rc>search engages
i:l multiple o: struggle across m•Jl1 iple
It involves the unmasking and decor.struct;on o:
i:nperialism, and its aspec: of colonialism, in its
old and :ww ;ormatin:is alongsidi: .i ,earch !or
sowrcign:y; for redamatiou of knowiedge,
language, and culture; a11d for the soda! transfo,-
mation of the colonial relations between the native
and the settler. It has been argued elsewhere that
indigenous research needs an agenda that sit1:ates
approaches aml progni.11s of research in the decol-
onizatior. politics of 1hr indigenous pcoph's move-
mer.t (L. T. Snith, 1999). I wot:d emphasize the
i:nportance of retainhg the connections between
the academy of researchers, the diverse indigenous
communities. and the larger polifaal struggl.: of
decolonization because the discor.nectior. of tbat
::elationship reinforces the colonial approach to
educaton as dh:isive ar.d destructive. This i~ not to
si:gge,t that sud1 a rclat:onsh:p is, has been, or ever
will ;)e :1armu11ious a:ul idy Ilic; rather, it suggests
that the conttect[ons, for all their :arbulr1m,, offer
the best possibility a transfornativc agenda
that moves indigenous m:nmunitie, to someplace
bette: faan where they are now. Research is not just
a highly moral and dvili1ec search !hr km1wledge;
:t i; a set of very human activit'e, that repmduce
particular soc:al relatim:s of power, Demlonizing
is not simply abm:t d:allenging or
:miking refine:nents to quali:ative research. lt is a
mm::h hroade~ but still pu r:1osefal agenda for
transforming the institution o:' re;earcb, the dee?
under'.ying structures and taken-for-granted ways
of organizing, conduct'ng, and disseminating
~e;m;h and knowledge, ':'o borrow fro:n Edward
Said (1978 ), research can al sn be de~cribed as "a
co,porate institution» that !:as made slate:nenls
abm:t rndiger:ous peoples, "authorisi:ig vii·ws" of
us, "describing lus], teaching a':iout [usl, set1ir1g
[us J and ruling over [us J:' 11 is ,he COtyOfate insti-
tution of rcsearc'1, as well as tl:e ep:s7en:ological
:ou:idations from whkh 'I sprillgs, that needs In be
decolonized.
I riame this research methodology as
lndigenisL
-Lester Rigi,ey (1999, p, 118)
Becoming an indigenous researcher is some-
what like Maxine Green'., (2000} description of
 Smith: Rese,m::hing lne Nat:ve Mao,i !Ill .S9

Table-ll. Coqorate tayers

• Fo:;::cations, genealogie,, and discipline, of :.r:10wkdge that dd1ne it, methodologites and its syste:11s of
dassification and reprcsentatio~.
• H'storka, ernbeddedne;;s in imperial ism, the pmduction of knowledge, and :he devdopmc::t oC s.:ien.:e
• Cultures and subrultures of its i nst'tu:iuns and infra,tructures
• Communities oflikc-mindec or trained scholars, disc:plinary bodies, and rcscaxh associations
• Ways in which research is regula1ed and ins,ribe,' through notions ethics, ethical review boards, and
rn,ies of co,1cuct
• Practices of reporting and publishing
" J\ational and international funding agencies and the] r links to part:cular agenda,
• Ways ::: which li(lme forms of resear,h legitimate Lb:ninant for:ns of knowledge and r::ainlain hegemony or
dominan: myths
• Chain and distribution of bencl:ls frorr. research
• Intersection of rcsearc". with policy and the design and implementation ol inlerve:itio:·s

how artists from margi :15 come to ::e-imag:ne
public spaces. «Tr.rough resistance in the coJrse
of their be,;oming-through naming what stood
in thir way, throJgh coming together in efforts to
overco1m:-people are likely to fnd oul the kinds
of selves they are creating" (p. 301), b.digem.ius
researchers are "becoming" a research conmu•
nity. They have mnnected with each other across
borders and have sought dialogue ar:d conversa•
lio:1s with each other. They wr ire in ways that
deeply resonate shared histories a:id struggles.
T:iey also write ;:bout what indigenous research
ought to be, Australian Aborigine scholar Leste
Rigney ( 1999), emphasizing Ward Churchill's
( 1993) earlier dedarations of indigenist posltior.•
lng, l:as argt:ed for an i ndigenist appmad: to
research that is fonneti arour:d the three ;irir.d-
rles of resistance, po/ftica! integrity, and pririleg•
irig indigenous voices. He, like other indigenous
::esrarchers, connects research to liberation and
:o the history of o?pressio:1 and racism. Rigney
argues that research mi:sl serve and inform the
political liberation struggle of indigenous
pmples. It is also a struggle for develupment, for
rebuilding :eadership and govema:1.;e structures,
for strengthening soda! and cultural :ns:itu•
tions, for protecting and restoring environments,
,md for revitalizing language and culture. Some
indigenous writers would argue that indigenous
research is research that is carriec out by indige·
nous researchers with indigenous communities
for indigc'nous communities (Cram, 200 I; Rigney,
1999 i. Irr.pltdt in such a definition is thal indige-
nuus researchers are committed lo a plat:orm for
changing the status quo and see the engagement
hy indigeno·J, resear.;hers as an important lever
for tra:isforrr.ing bslitut\ons, communities, and
society. Other w r ikrs state that purpose more
expl'dtly in that they de:lne ind:grnmrn research
as being a ~ransformat:ve project that is
in pursuit of social and institutional chaT1gc, that
makes spare for indigcr:ous knowledge, that
has a critical view of power relations a:id inequal~
ily ( Bishop, : 998; Brady, 19':19; Pihama, 200 I:
LT. Smith, 1991). Others rn:;1hasize the critical
rok of research in enablir.g peoples and com·
mun::ies to rcdain: and :et: their stor:es in their
uwn ways and to give testimonio lo their collec•
tive herstorics and struggles (Battiste, 2000;
Bcverley,2000; The Latina Feminist Grot:;i, 2001 ).
Em 'Jedded in these stories are the ways of
knowbg, deep met;;.phors, and moti\'atlona'.
dri\'ers that inspire the t:-ansfor mative praxis
that many ir.digenous :-esearchers identify as a
powe:iul agent for res:star:ce and d1ange. These
approaches connect and draw from i:idigenous
9l/ 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESF.ARCH-CHAl'TER 4
knowledge and privilege indigenous pedagogies
their practices, re;ationships, and m~hodnlo-
gies. Most indigenous researchers would daim
that their research , .iJJdates an ethical and cultur•
0
ally defined a?proach that enables indigenous
cornmur:ities to theorize their own lives and that
connects 1:-ieir past histories wi~h their future
Eves (Marker, 20()3). Indigenous approaches
are also mindft:; of and sensitive to the audiences
of research and therefore of the accoai:tab:lities
of researchers as st-0rytellers 1 documenters of
culture, and witnesses of the realities of :ndige•
:urns bes, their ceremonies, their aspira-
:ions, their ;m;arcerations, faelr deaths. (Pihama,
1994; Steinhauer, 2003; Te Hennepc. 1993;
Warrior, 1995).
In 'lew Zealand, Miiori scholars have coined
their research approach as Kaupapa Maori ur
Maori research rather than employing the term
"indigenist" Tbere a~e strnng reasons for such a
naming, as the struggle has been seer. as one over
Maori language and the ability by Manri as Maori
to :1arm, the world, to theorize world, and lo
research back to power: The genealogy of indige-
nous research for Maori has one of beginnings
in the developmenl of alternative Maor: immer-
sion-based ;;chooling (Piha:na, Cram, & Walker,
2002; H. Smith, I990; L. T. Sir.Uh, 2000). Grahal!l
Smith ( 1990} has argued that the strugg'.e to
develop alternative schools known as Kara
Kaupapa Maori helped produce a of edu-
catior.al strategies that engaged wit:i multiple
levels of colonizatloo aad soda I inequality. These
strategies included er:gagement with :heory a::1d
research 'n new ways. Kau;,apa Mltori resea,ch
has developed its own life, and as an approach
or theory of research methodology, it has been
appliel across different disciplinary fields, includ-
ing the scier.ces. It can be argued t:tat researchers
who employ a Kaupapa Maor: app:-oach are
er:tployiog quite rnnsciously a set of arguments,
prind pies, and frameworks that re:ate to the
purpose, ethics, analyses, and outmrm,s of research
(Bis:1op & Glynn, 1999; D:Jrie, 1992; Johr.ston, :Z003;
Pihama, 1993; LT: Smith, 1991; Tomlins-Jalmke,
1997).It isa parliu:larapproach that sets out to make
a positive difference for Milori, d1at incorpora:es a
model of social change or :ransfunnation, that
privileges Miiori knowledge and v,ays of being, that
sees the engage:nent lo theory as well as empirica:
research as a significant task, and that sets ou: a
frameworkfororganizing,rnnductir.g,a;1d evaluat•
ing Maori research iJahnke & Taiapa, 1999; Pihama
et al., 2002). It is also an appmach that is active in
buildir.g capacity and research infrastructure in
order to sustatn a sovereign research agenda that
supports community aspiration$ and development
(L. T. Smith, 1999). ']'hose who work within this
approach Y,'OUld argue that Kaupapa Maori research
comes out of the practices, value systems, and social
relatim:s lhat '1.re evident in the taken-fur-gran:ed
1'11.l.ys that Maori people live their lives.
[ndigenlst research also bdudes a critique of
the "rules of practice" regarding research, the wa,·
research projects are fenced, ai:d the develop-
mem u( strategies that address conmunity con
cerns about the assu mp lions, ethics, purposes,
procedures, and outcor:1es of research. These
strategies often have led to innovative research
questions, oew me:hodologies, 11 ew researc'i
relati1Jmhips, deep analyses of the researcher in
c0ntext, and analyses, interpretations, and the
making of meanings that have been enrid::ed by
indigeoous concepts aml language. To an extent,
tl:ese strategies have encouraged mmindiger.ous
researchers ir.to a dialogue about research and, on
occasion, to a reformulated ar.d more construc-
tive and collaborative resean-:h relationship with
indigenous communities {C:rm:1, 1997; Haig-
I!rown &. Archi':,ald, 1996; Sir:10r: & Smith, 2001;
G. H. Smit:1, 1992), Critical and soc:al justice
approaches to qualita1:ve research have pmv ided
acadm:ic space for much of ;he early work of
indigenous research. Denzin and Lincoln (2000)
describe a moment :n the history of qaalitative
research ( 1970-1986) as the momcm of"blurred
genres" wher: local knowledge and livec'. realities
became importart, when a d:versity of pa,adigms
anc methods developed, and when a theoretical
and methodological blurring across boundaries
occurred. Arguably, an iodigcnist research voice
emerged in that blurred ar:d liminal space as it
paralleled the rise in indigeno;is political activism,
especially in places like Australia, New Zealar:d,

:-!orway, and Nortl: America. For indigenous
activ:sts, th is mon:ent was al~o or:e of recognition
:nat decolonization needed a pos:tive a::id more
inclusive social vision and needed more tools
for devclopmen: and selfdeter• ination (as an
alternative to violcr:t campaigns of resisllrnce),
Research, :ike schooling, once the tool of mloni-
zatio:i anc oppression, :s very gradually coming
to be seen as a potential mca::is to reclaim 1an•
guuges, ,1islories, ~.mi kr:owledge, to find solu•
tions to the negative imp<1cts of rnlonialism ar:d
to give \'Oke to an alternative way of knowing m:d
of being, Indigenors research focuses and situates
the hrnader indigenous agenca ir. the research
do:nain. This domain is dominated by a history,
by insEtutional ?taclkes, and by particular para-
digms a:id approaches to research 1:eld by aca-
der:ik co•• unities and disciplines. The spaces
within the research domain through which indi-
genous research can operate are small spaces on
a s'tiftir.g ground. '.Jegofon ing and lransforn:-
ing institutional practices and research :rame-
works is as signlficar:t as carryhg out of
act:Jal :-.:search programs. Th:s makes indigcnm:s
research a highly political activity that can be
perceived as threatening, destabilizing, p,m-
leging of indigeneity over the in'.erests and ex;:>e-
n.:u_ccc, of other diverse groups. )eco:onizution is
political and disrup:ive even when the Hrategies
employed are pacifist be,;ause anytl:iing that
requires a major change nf worldview, tnat fun::es
a society to confront its past and .iddrcss it at a
.structural and institutional level that ch~ Henges
the systems of power, is indeed political !ndige-
• ous research preser:ts a c~allenge to the .:orporate
institution of research to diangc- its worl<'-vie-1,i, to
wnf:o:it i:s past and make char.ges.
Indigenous research approa~hes, Ii ke feminisr
:nethodolog!es, have not emerged imo a neu:ral
context, althoJgh their arrival has bee:i precicted
!,y those working with silenced and marginalized
communities. As Linco:n ( 1993) forewarned, how-
ever, social sciences canr.ot simply develop grand
narratives of the s~enced without including the
voi,es and u::iderstandings of marg'.nalized and
silenced commu:1ities. There contim:es to be vigor-
ous critk1ue of indigenm:s appmaches and dai:ns
Smith: Researching 6e Kative '.iiiori 111 ) 1
to knowledge, and, indeed, the indigt"nous preser,ce
in the academy. in sorr:e cases, this critique is
frar:iec by the di sconrnes of anti-affirmative
action, such as calls for "rnlu:- and race-free" pol:-
ln other cases, the critique is a very focused
attac:.C on the ?Ossib:Jty :hat indigenous people
have a knowledge that can he difteren:iated from
dogma and witchcraft or is a focused and
personal attack on an individual ('J'rask, 1993 ). ,n
ober examp:es, the critique does refled attempts
by mmindigenous scho:ars to engage seriously
with indigenous schola:::ship and understand
impEcatio:is for the practices of noni:idigetious
scholars and their disciplines. I11 a Jim ited sense,
there has been an attenpt at dialogue betweer.
ir:dlgenous and nonindige:tous scholars, usual, y
occurring after indigenous scholars have provided
a critique of the discipline-for example Vine
Deloria's (1995) critique o: anthropology and
Ngugi wa Tbiong'o's (1981!]987} cr'tique of what
counted as Afrkar literature. Kenyan writer :'Jgugi
w.1 Thiong'o viewed the language of the scttleri
colonizer as heing ireplicated '.n the "colonization
oi the mind" and came to thr decision that he
would not write i:l :he language of tt,e rolonizer
b•Jt insteatl would write i;i his own language of
Gikuyu or Ki-Swahili. Ngagi's stance helped create
further space for debate about "postcolonial" liter-
ature anc the role of literal ure in colonial educatio::i
svstems (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, l989 ). V:ne
'
Deloria's snstained political critique of the place of
the Arnerica::i Indaa in American system has
c,eated space for the further development of
American Indian Studies and a dialogue with othe,
disciplines (Biolsi & Zimmerman, I997). Unfortu-
nately, dialogue is often the solution to fractures
created through lack of cialogue between those
with power and marginalize<' group$. Similar
debates have occu,red and au;tinue to occ,1r in
other :ields, including literal are (Cook Lynn, 19%;
Harjo & Bird, 1997; Wo:nad,, 1999), feminist studies
(M;irade, 1996; Moraga & Ar.,2.ldua, 1983; 11oretor: •
Robir:son, 2.000), anc multku:rural ar:d ethnic stud-
ies (Nlillesuah, 1998). Some debates are very public
11'.edia caopaigns lb.I ir.voke the prejudices and
attitudes toward :ndigen01:s peoples held by the
dominant social group. t h: some of these campaigns,
92 111 HANDBOOK QUALITATIV:' RESEARCH-CHAPTER 4

d:e cth:ticity of the dominant group is mai,ked
behind sueh soda categories as "the public;' "the
taxpaye:s~ or "the rest of sodety:'The rears and atti·
tudes of the dominant social liroup, and of other
minority social groups, are employed qt:ite purpose
tu::iy in public debares about indigenuus knowledge
as the arbiters what indigenou., people are per·
mitted to do, of what they are allowed to know, and
indeed of whu they are,
A:i important task of indigenous rcs<:'arch in
"bocomir.g" a com;11unity of researchers is about
capacity building, developi:ig and mentoring
researchers, and creating the space and SUP?Ort for
new approaches to research and new e:can:ination;;
of indigeno'JS knowledge, That activity can now be
seen in a range of strategies that are heing applied
by diverse rommur.ities across the world to build
research ca?abl:ity. Conversat:ons abett indige-
no·Js methodologies-albeit in different !lis1orical,
disriplinary, ar.,i institutimial spaces are being
discussec anc app:ied by a diverse range of indige-
nous scholars across :be globe, These indude Sa:ui
scholars in northern ~orway, Finlar.d, Sweden, and
Russia (Keski1alo, 1997) and native scholars in the
Pacific Islands (Helu Thaman, 2003; Kaomea,
2003). Sa!Ili lite~ary scholar Hara:d Gaski ( I997),
for example, that "Ever since the world's var-
ious indiger:ous peo?les began turning their efforts
to co-operative e:ideal/llurs in the 1970s, the Sarni
have partici?ated adively i:i the strugs[e to make
these peoples' and their own voice heard. Art and
literature have always played a:i important :ole in
this endeavour, Therefore, the time for Sarni litera•
ture to Join world literature is past due" (p, 6), Jan
Hen:i Keski:alo ( 1997) points to a resea,ch agenda
for Sami peop'.e that is "based on the freedom to
define, initiate and Drganize re,eard1, and the pos-
sibi:ity to prioritise w!lal kind of research should be
defined as Sam; ;esearcl:, at least when using public
funding" (o, 169), All these discussions represent
cross-border ,onversations and activism, as the
territorial boi:ndaries of many indigenous mmmu-
nities have been intersected and overlaid by the fo:-
mlllion of modern states, Some discuss•on~ occur
through sp;:cific indigenous forums. or through
feminist or envimr:mentalist networks. and others
occur through the dia.,pora of the Thin: World.
the "developing world'.' and regional gathe:ings
(Alexander & Mohanty, 1997; Saunders,2002; Sh'.va,
1993; Sp'.vak, 1987),
Researching the Native
in the Knowledge Economy
Knowledge is a key cor:11:1odity in the 21st ,en•
Jury. We understand this at a commo:1sem;e level
si:nply us an effect of iiving in the em of global-
ization, altho:igh it i; also cxprcsse<l as the coiise
quences of life in the postindustrial age, t:1e age of
information and postmodernity. Kr.owledge as a

1\ible 4,2. St~ategies for Builcing l:ldigenoua Research Capability

: • The t rainii:g of indiger1011s peop'.e as researchers

I• The employmtnt r.f indigenm1s people as researchers
• Partidpation by indigenous people ir. a wide of research projecls employing dif'e,enl kinds ,:if
approaches a:1d methodologie,
• The ge:1erat:ng of ~esearch questions by rommur Ities
• Developing indigenous re,ean:::1 mtthodolog:cs
" Devdopir.g ~esearch pro:ocols for working w:th com;'lltm:ties
• The support by various in,1Mduals and commc:nit'es of research, based decision making
• The e,11:.blishmer.t uf indigenocs resear.:h organ:zat:on;,
• Presen:atim: of !heir researd1 by i11dige1:uus resean;hcrs to indigeno·Js researc':e:s
• £ngagements and dialogue be:ween ind:germus and mmimligenous researchers and communities

commodity is a co.:iception of knowledge (and
currkulu:n) that is sitJated in the intersection of
different visions of and alliances for globalization
(Peters, 2003), Michael Apple (2001) re"'rrs to this
alliance as one that brings together neoliberals,
neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, a:1d
t'le new middle dass. Apple defines neoH:ierals as
t:iose who are "deeply committed to markers and
to freedom as 'individual choice;" neoconserva•
tives as ones who "want a return to disc: pline and
traditional knowle.!ge:' autho:-itarian populists as
ones who "want a return to (their) God in all of
our institutions" (p. Ll), and the new middle class
as those who have created and stand to benefit
most from this configuration of interests. The
neoliheral economic vision of globalizatio:1 is one
in wh icl: the r:iarket shapes and determines most,
if not all, huma:1 "'-'lV"''"· Far from being simply
an economic theory, neoliberal propur.ents have
used their access to power to attem?t to reform
al: aspects of society, including the relationshbs
between the state and society. New Zealand is
often used as a model, the "exper:ment'' ;or how
far this agenda can be pursued, because of the
significant neoliberal reforms undertaken over
the last 20 years (Kelsey, 1995). The reforms have
included a "hullowiug out'' of the the reform
and re-regulation of the welfare syster:J educa-
lio:1, health, banking, and finance; and the
removal of tariffs anc other barriers to free trade
{Moran, 1999). Th.e reforms have been supportec
by a powerful ideological apparatus that has
denied empirical evidence that grm: ps were being
marginalized '.'urther by policies and that tl':e gaps
between the rich and poor. the well ar.d the sick,
were widening uuder the reform regime. This
ideological apparatus is most visible in its discJr-
s.ive strategies wlth rhetoric and slogans such as
"'user pays," ptivatization, increased co:npetition,
freecom of choke, and \'oucher edi:.cation. It is
also evident in ,he construction of new, idealized
neoliberal subjects who are supposed to be "self•
regJ!ating seirctive choosers, higr::y competitive
and autonomous individuals liberated from their
:ocations in his:ory, the economy; culture and
community in order to become comumers in a
glo':,al market''(L. T. Smith et al., 2002, p. 170 ).
Smith: Researchir:g the Native Maori • 93
The significance the neoliberal agenda
for social science research is that the "oocialf
the "sci.ence; a:1d the "research" have also been
~e-env isionec'. and re-regulated according to the
neollbcral ideologies. One ~ite where this re-
envisioning and re-regulation of the social, the
science, and the research intersects is in the econ·
omy of knowledge, As with other sl rateg'es of
power, it is often :Ile marginalized and silrnced
communities of soc:ety who experience the brunt
and the cruelty of both the slogans and the mater·
ial changes in their lives. The "knowledge econ•
omy" is a term used by busi:lesspeople such as
Thomas Stewa:t (I 997) to define the ways in
wl:kh changes in technology sucn as the bternet,
the removal of barriers to travel and trade, and tl:e
shift to a postindustrial economy have created
conditions in which the knowledge content of all
goods and services will underpin wealth creation
and determine competitive advantage. As a co:n•
modity, knowledge is produced u:ider capitalist
hi::mr marke: conditions: it can he bought and
sold, and it is private rather than public property.
Researchers are knowledge wurkers who produce
new ,mowledge. In this environment, new am:
unique k1:owledge IJroducls beco:ne highly prizec
objects of ca?italist desire. lv:ap?ing the hun,an
genome and searching for ci:res to various disease.~
that wil: require the manufactu:-ing of special
produces are just two examp'.es of the "race" now on
for ",mowledge; the new 1:1 Dorado. Now, where
can o.:ie discover new :mowledge that is nm already
under private ownership? The laboratories? The
rai:1 forests? The human body? The knowledge and
practices of those who nave ma: n:ained their
unique ways ofliving? The answer to all the al.Jove
i.s "Yes;' and there is more. !ndigenous knowledge
once denied by science as irrational ar:d dogmatic
i~ one of those new frontiers of knowledge. The
efforts by indigenous peoples to reclaim and pro-
tect their traditional knowledge now coincides and
ronve:ges with scientific interests in discovering
how that knowledge can offer new possibilities
discovery (Ste\'l'a:t-Harawira, 1999),
One convergence of indigenous koow'cdge and
science is in the field of ethno::HJtany, a t:dd that
has bota.:iists and ::iiolngists working closely with
94 11 HA '.';D llOi l K01' QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 4
indigenous com munitics in the collection ar:d
docur.1emation of plants, rr:ed:cinal remedies, and
other practices. Ji: doing science, et'lnohotanists
are also doing qualitativr rrsearch, talking to com-
munity ex:ierts, observi:ig practices, and develop-
ing word banks and other resources. The protocols
6at have been developed by t'le International
Society o'' Ethnobotany will be dscussed agai:1
later in this chapter, One use of the :-esearch that its
members gather '.irs in the idenffication of medi-
cinal properties that can be reproduced in the
laboratory and developed for rnrr:merci~lizatio:1,
Tr.e pharmaceutical industry has a kee:1 hunger
fur such research, and is real in:ensity in the
hunt fnr new miracles to cure or al1eviate holh oid
and modern diseases. The search for r.ew kr.owl-
roge knows no borders. lt is compet:7ive and
expensive, and only a foi.,. can participate, ln the
biomedical field, the rapid advances in knowledge
and techno:ogy-for exa:npk, in reproductive
birth technologies and in ee~1etiic engineering-
present new challenge, to what sm:icty thinks is
ethically acceptable, raised b rdatlo:, to
cloning a human being, new genetic therapies,
and other remedie~ anJ practkes stretch our
undcrntandings of what !ife is about Although
:he science can develop the new knowledge, it
:s the social science that has an understanding
of the nature of social change. Scientists, 'loweve~.
can also be pov1erfal ad,·ocates of Lheir own dis-
coveries and fields of research, sum that institu-
tions and :ndus:ries «buy into" :he p:umise of
new technologies and expect society to ~catch up"
to :he ethica: implications of the new knowledge,
For qualitative research, new terhnologies preser.t
new vistas i:, a scr.se, new at:itudes to examine and
ne'lv dilemmas lo resolve. ror indigcnomi and other
marginalized communities, the new vistas present
new threats ar:d in terrr:s tr.eir ability to
protect ,heir traditional knowledge and the iikeli-
hood the benefits of research being distribJted
equitably to the poor rather than to the rich,
1\s Applr (21llll) rem'nds, us, however, ~he
ncoliberal agenda also converges with the counter-
vailing nem:onscrvative and authoritarian tenden-
cies that seek to protect and strc:1glhc:1 certain
"1rad:tionar' of privilege, The ''traditional"
values and forms of ~ nowledge bei:ig reified by
t:iese interest groups arc not the same traditional
values and wa)'S of knowing ,hat indigenous
peoples speak uf but arc in foci the very antithesis
of any :orm of non-Western, nonheterosexual,
r.onfomin:st knowledge, Graham Hingangaroa
Smith (I 994) argues tha: thert: are r.ew types of
rolon11.ation in the neolibernl version of globaliza-
tion that enable dominant i:m::ests in society lo be
• air,ta:ned, Smith (1994) further contends tha:
in tl:e global marketplace, w:1erc everythbg am be
cummodified, lo,al comm:.mities, cultures, prac-
tices, and values are put at accelerated risk, with
little room to maneuver or develop res:stance, One
analogy uf huw the glub~l marki:'tplace works :o
put local com rnunities ar:d knowlooge at risk is the
irr:pacl of the large nu:.;:inational or national com-
pany that sets up its store o, its mall in a town that
has sn:all am: struggling hus:nesses. There are
powerful criving forces that shape tbe ways i:l
which 'ndivfr: J ;;J interests come to be either
aligned with or marginalized from tl1e new devel-
opment For example, so:11e people may noed
employment a:id otl:ers may 1:eed access to
cheaper products; some people need to retain their
businesses o, see their cmmr:unity as helng
defined by the "Main St,eet;' not the Mall. YoJng
people may see the \fall as :ircscnling new social
possib::ities that would cater :nore to their tastes
hy pmv'.ding access to nore global brands. In the
end, the com:nunitvbeco• es divided by economic
interests, although all n:ay ultirr.ately wish for a
u:i::eti community. In end, the Mall wins; The
small businesses eithe, rnllapse o, stmggle on;
Mair. Street look, even more dep;essin~. driving
more people :o the Mall; and 0very1me it1 tow:i
begins wearing the global brands, just like the
people on television and the people who live i:i the
r:ext community, the next state, the r,ext country,
Local pr0<.hcts, if they are m,u'e, find Lheir way :o
a boot sale or a ma,ket cay, basically consigned
to the margir:s of the eco:10my and commur:i'!J
consciousne,s. Some lucal or native produc:s are
selected as marketable in the Mall, such as native
medicine wheels a1:d small hanging crystals. T:iese
pmduct, are not produced locally, because that
wunld cost too mu:h, so the im,1ge is reproduced at

a cheaper price in cuuutries with poor la'Jor market
conditions and tl:en so:d in t>very mall i:1 the world.
Imagine th:s as a global process having an iir:pact
i11 every little com mur.ity of the world. It is a very
seductive process., but somethbg gets lost, in this
process, for the commun::y: For indigenous com-
nmnities, the "so:netning lost" ha; been denned as
indigenous. knowledge and culture. In biological
terms, the ''something lost" is our d'versitv; in
socioli:1guistics, it is the diversity o: minority
languages; cult:.1rally, it is m;r uniqueness of s:ories
and experiences and how they are ,,.,,,.p,c,,o,,'['hcse
are fae "endangered authentlcitles" of which Rey
Chow [: 993) w,.=,, ones that are beii:g erase,;:.
rhmngh the homoger:izalion of culture.
The knowledge eco:10my, as one theme of glob-
al izat'o:., constitutes the new :d,:n~ities of the self
regulating and selective chooser, the consumer of
knowledge products, the knowledge wor:,.er and
knowledge manager, and the clients of kr'.owledge
organizations. McLaren (! 993, p. 2: 5) calls these
market identities that reflect the corporate model of
market educa:ion .ind educational consumpt:0:1,
One might thil:.\ that this makes for a very edu·
and knuwledgeable society-not so. The
knowledge eco:.omy is about crcati ng and process··
ing knowledge, trading and using k1:owledge for
competitive advantage it is not .1bou: know :ng nr
knowledge for its mvn sa~e. it is .:101 abou: the pur-
suit of knowledge but abo:.1t "creating" k:1owledgc
by turnJr.g :mowledge into a commodity or prod·
uct. Research plays a:t itr:portant role in the cre-
ation (If knowledge and, as argued by Steven Jordan
(2003) in an article he entitled "Who stole
my rr:et'indology;:' even the most participatory
research models. arr being subjected to the
pmcesses conmodification "for the purposes of
suppurting and reproducing the social relations of
acC'Jmulationin their multifarious forms" (p.195).
Jordan further suggests that the methu<lolugy of
participatory research is being appropriated and
:.-i:conslituted by neu[beral disrourses of participa·
:ion "m ways :hat are anrithe:ical lo both its found-
ing p:indples and traditions" (p. 195).
The neoliberal version of glub,llhla:ion :s not,
however, the only ideology al wurk ,icrnss the
g'.obe. There are other interests at work, some
Smith: Researching the Native :via or i 1111 95
repressive a:.d others progressive, Trafficking in
dr:igs and people, catering tu pedophilfa, and other
organized crimir.al ac:ivities also !:ave gone globa'..
Mure rect:1:tly, global terrorism (recogni,:ng th al
some communities have bee:1 terrorized for hun-
dreds of years by vario·Js forms of colonialisr:1) has
heigntened the impulses and fears of neocor.serva-
tives and authoritarian PO?Uli~ts and simultane-
ous:y created th:eats to the free operat'o:1., of
the global marketplace. The powerfi.:! nostalgia of
neoconservati;,e.s and authoritarian populists for a
curriculum of the right (Apple,20011.a currkulur:1
of simple "fa~ts;' and a re:fication of what Denin
( 1991} refe:-s to as "a.:1cie111 r.arratlves" augurs dan·
gers forea:ication. for educational research,and for
any social j:rntice research. ~eoconservative and
authoritarian interest gruups seek to disrupt any
agenda for social justice and already have bee:1
effec:ive in peeling back gains in social ;ustice pro•
grams, although Roman and Eyre ( 1997} .:aut ion
us to see the dangers of ",tpplying 'backlash' exdu
sivcly to Righ:-wing po]itk:al reactions (t"iatl fail
10 <lraw atte:.tlon to reactionary defensive
politics within and c.cruss left-w: r.g/ progressive
group,-whe:her fominisl, cril kal rnultkulturalf
anti· or auti-h~terusexist" (p, 3). The neolib-
er.11 agenda crosses the '.ef: and rig,.1t of the politi-
cal spectrum, and to some extent the fellow
t:-avclers of ncolihrrali,m manage to infiltrn:e a
wide spectrum poE:ks.
Other, rnure ?rogressive groups also have mar.·
aged to go global and make use of knowledge in
!he pursuit of a social justice agenda. Nongovern-
memal organi:i:atio:1s am: communities of interest
have managed to p;1t up resistance to lhe powerful
interests of wealthy :1adons and corpo~ations.
Some of :he,e coalitio:is have brought togethe:
diverse inten:st, and unusual bedrellows to contest
free trade; others have organized important con-
sdousness•raising activities to keep information
about injustice in the public Small communi-
still to t"ieir own schools and identities. 2s
th~y attennt
' . to build democratic oomn:unitv' co:1 •
sensus. One of the perspectives that indigenoi.:s
research bri ogs to an understandbg of this
:nmnent in the history of globalization is that ii :s
simply another his,orical r:mment (one of many
 96 111 HANDllOOK OF QUALIT:IT!VE RESEARCJ!-Cl!Al'TER 4
that indigeno'Js communities have survived) that
reinscribes imperialism with new versions of old
colon:alisms, This is not as cynical as it may sound;
rather, it rnmes from the wisdom of survival on the
margins. This moment can be analyzed, under-
stood, and disrupted by holding unto and reartirn-
lating an a.temative vision of lite and society. [t is
also not the only defining moment: Other changes
have occurred :hat make commu:1ities somewhat
more prepared to act or resisr. For example, :nore
i:ldigenous researchers are choosing to research
alongside the:r own communities. There are more
allies. There also are other Imperatives that have
driven an agenda of wmsfor:nation; among them
is language regeneration, Language regeneration
programs iave created a momentum, especially i;i
New Zealami, that neoliberal refurr:ts have not been
able or will :ng to subvert, as these programs have a
strong hold on :he rnmmunity's aspirations.
lr.digenous development is op:imistk despite what
often appear to be huge barriers.
The new subjectivities of the free market
and lhe knowledge economy also ii:clude 1:1e
re-envisioning and re-regulation of new native
subjects, a reworked Ofaer, still raced and gen
dered, idealized and drmonized, but now in pos-
se;;sion of "market potential:' Some of these :1ew
subjectivities resonate with the glo!Jal :narkct,
where evoking of"the image'' is a powerful rnec~ •
anism for dfotancing the material conditions of
the people fmm the image itself. Otl:er subjec-
tivities are ''turn 'ng the back onto the dom-
inant settler society, reeect:ng the momentJm
of political, educational, and ernno:nk change
that a~ready :ias occmred in many indigenous
con:munities. These identities are formed "in
translation;' in the constant negotiation for mean-
ing in a changing context, New ident::ies form
am: re-form in response to or as a .:onsequem:e of
other char.ges a:id other identities. New voices are
expressed, new leaders eme:ge, new organizations
form, and new narratives of identity get told.
One newly worked native identity is that of the
native intellect·Jai as scientist. 1'his is a small,
emerging group of native scientists wlt'.1 strung
connections lo :heir native knowledge and prac-
tices. 'These scientist~ represent a :iew type of
translator or interloct:.tor, one who bridges different
knowledge traditions in ways tbal Weste:n scien
tists find diffirnlt to .:lsmiss and indigenous
coe1:nunities find acceptable (Li:tle Bea,, 2000;
Thomas, 2001). The :iat:vescientisl not on'.y is the
native healrr, herhalist, or spiritual expert but aiw
is someone w:1.0 understands the philosovhies,
knowledge, and histories that underpin cultural
practices and beliefs and who generates or her
science from these foundations. As Basso (1996)
and Marker (2003 J have sugge,'led, these people
are not in tl:e academy to "play word and idea
games" but intend to contribute lo change for the
benefit communities, to ensure that science
listens to, aeinowledges, and benefits indigenous
communities. The role of these indigenous pro-
fessionals is similar to the role played by the
generation of indigenous teachers and nurses and
by the first generation of medka: doctors and
soc:al workers in native communities, a difficult
ro~e of translatir:g, med:ating, and negotiati:lg
values, beliefs, and ,ractices from different
worldvie,.1, in diffirnlt political contexts.
Ill ETHICS ,\ND RESEARCH
One area of re.~carch being vigorously conlestec by
indigenous com rnunities i5 that of research ethics
and the definitions and prac:kes that execi-
plify ethical ar.d respectful research. l:ldigenoi;s
researchers often situate ciscussions about ethics
in the context of indigenous knowledge and values
a:1d i:, the context of imperialism, co!o:iialism, and
racism (Cram, 1993; 2001; Menzies, 200!; Rigney,
1999 ). Indgenous understand iags of research
ethics have often been informed by indigenous
scholars' broad exper:ence of research and other
interactions with the media, heith system, muse-
ums, sch.ools, and government agencies, [ncreas-
ing;y, however, research ethics has come to be a
focus of indigenous efforts to transform research
and instit:itiuns (Worby & Rigney, 2002). Research
ethics is often much more aboi.:: institutional ar,d
profess:o:ial regulations and codes of condi:ct t:ia:i
it is about the needs, aspirations, or worldviews
of «marginalized and vulnerab;e'' communities.

lnstitut:ons are bound by ethical regulatimw
designed to govern conduc, within well-defined
principles that have been embedded in interna-
tional aa•,-,,r1Pri,t< and national laws. The Nurem-
berg Code ( 1949} was the first major international
expressior. of principles that set out to protect the
rights of people from ,esearch abuse, but there are
other significant agreements, such as the World
Medical Assoc:ation Declaration of Helsinki
Agreement 1964 and tb, Belmont Report of
1979. :-lational jurisdictions and professional soci•
eties have their own :-egalations that govem ethical
conduct of research with human su:ijects. Im::reas-
ir.gly, the challe:1ges of new bioterhnologies~for
example, new birth technologies, genetic rngi
neering, and issi:.es related to cloning~also have
given rise to ethical amcerns, reviews, and revised
guidelines,
for indigenous and other marginalized com-
mm:ities, research ethics is at a very basic level
about establishing, maintaining, and nurtur'.ng
reciprocal and respectful relationships, not just
among people as individuals but also with people
as inchriduals, as collectives, and as mrrr.bers of
communities, and with humans w'.10 live in and
with other entitles in the envi:111unent The abili-
ties to enter preexisting relat:onships; to build,
maintain, and nurture relat:o:1ships; and to
suengthen connectivity are important research
skills in the indigenous arena, They require cr[tka]
se:1sitivity a:1d reciprocity of spirit by a researcher.
Bishop (1998) refers to an example of relationship
building in tile Maori context as whakawhanaur.-
gatanga, "the process of e,;tablishing family
(whanau) rclat1ons11ips, literally by means of
identifybg, through culturally appropriate means,
your bodily linkage, your engagement, your con•
nectedness, and therefore, an unspoken but
implicit commitment to 01:ner people" (p. 203),
Worby and Rigney (2002) ::efer to the ''Five Rs:
Resources, Reputations, Refatio:iships, Reconcilia-
tion and Research" (pp, 27-28) as informing the
process of gaining ethical consent. They argue that
"The dynamic relationship between givers and
receivers of knowledge is a reminder that dealing
with indigenous issues is one of the most sensitive
and complex tasks facing teachers, !earners and
Smith; Researching the Natlve Mliori 111 97
researchers at all levels . , '.' (p. 27), Bishop and
Clynn t1992) also make the point that relation-
ships are not sl :nply about making friends. They
argae that researchers must he selt~aware of their
positlon wi:hln the relationship and aware of their
::ieed for engagement i:i power-sharing processes.
lo Decolonizing M,irhodologie, 1.L T. Smith,
I999), I also gave some examples of the ways in
which my communities may describe respect,
respectful conduct, trusrwo"hi ness, am! integrity
at a day-to-day level of practke and co:nrnunit)'
assessment My concern was to show that comrnu-
ni:y people, Eke everyone else, make assessments
of d1aracter at every interaction, They assess
people from the first time they see them, hear
them, and engage with them, They assess them by
the tone of a letter that ls sent, as we'.l as by the way
they eat, dress, and speak, These are appted to
strangers as well as insiders. We all do it Different
cultures, societies, and groups have ways of n:ask,
ing, revealing, and managing how much nf the
assessment is actually conveyed to the other per -
son anc, when it is connnunicatro, ir. what form
and for what purpose, A colleague, Fio:ia Cram
(200:), has t 1a11slated how the selected value
statem<i:n:s in Decolonizing Mer/waoiogies coi.::d be
applied by re,eard1ers to :.:fleet on their own
rodes of conduct This could be described as an
exerc;se of"bottom-up" or"community up" defin-
ing of ethical behaviors that create opportunities
to discuss and negotiate what is rnea:it Jr' the term
"respect:' Other colleagues have elaborated on !he
va}ues,adding more and reframing some to incor-
porate other cultural expressions. One point to
make is that most ethical codes are top down,
in the sense of "moral" philosophy framing the
meanings of ethics and in the sense that the
powerfu! still make deds:ons for the powerless.
The discussions, dialogues, and conversatiom;
about what ethical research conduct looks like are
conducted in the meeting roorr:s of the powerful,
~o o:ie would dispute the principle of respect;
indeed, it is embedd.:d in al: the major ethical
protocols fur researchlng wi7h human subjects,
However, wha: is respect, and how do we know
when researchers are behaving respectfolly' ,Vhat
does respect entail at a day-to-day level of interaction!
'Jll JIii : !AN llllOOK OF Ql"A :,:TATIVE RESEARCI !-CHAl'T3R 4

Tuble4.3. "Community-Up" Apprna~h lo Defining Researcher Coo duct

Cultural Values (Smith, 1999) .~esearcher 1;u/dtlim: (Cram, 200!)

Aroha k: le tangata A re;;pecl for people-allow people to 6efine their cwn spaC<' and ::ieet or.
own ~erms.
He kanohi ki~ea :: is important lo meet people face to face, especially when introducing
4
idea of the :esearch, fronting the community before sending
om long, coc.plica:ed letters and ma1crials.
Titiro, wimkarongo .. k6rero :.nuking and lis\:nlng (and then marhe s;,eaking). This value emphasizes
' r:;e importance of lm1k::1g/ilbser,:::g and listening in order to develop
underst,mc 'ngs and find a place fron: which to speak.
M~::aak: ki le tangata Sharing.hosting, being gene:ous. T'iis is a value :!:.ii underpins a
roll aborative approach to resea:ch, one that e:1,1bks kuowlecge to
bolh wc1ys and tha: a.::knowledges the researcher as a fo!l::ncr and r.ot just
a datg gatherer or observer. It is also facilitates the pr:icess u1 I!' ,~"I!
back:' of sharing results and of bringing do,ure if that is rt.quired for a
:imiect but ::cl to a rciatinns:1ip,
Kia tu?aln Be cwtious. Th i.s suggests that resea:chcrs need to be prt.tically as:ute,
rnlturally safe. and ceflective ab,.ml lhcir insiJerfoulside; status. It is also
,1 caufrn to insiders and outsiders that in commur::ty researd1. thir:gs can
rnmc -:idone without the re:;earchrr being aware or hing 10:d directly.
Kaua e takabm te mana Do not trample on the "mana' or dignity of a pec11on, Ihis is about
o te langata infom1ing peopt,, and ,r~arc:::ig agains; being paternali,tic or impatie111
hecm,e pm:ilc do not know wha: :he researcher mar know. It is 11lso
ahm1t s':nple things lilu• the 1,111y Westerners ~se wit. sarcasm, irony as
di ,cllrs've strateg'es or wh.:re one sits c,w1n. For example, Maori people
are offended when sonwmw s't, on a table designed and used for food.
Kaua e ma:1aki l !Jo not l:launl yoc: knowledge. This is ahn~:t :in ding ways to share
knowledge. lo he with knowledge withm:t being a "show-off'' or
being arrogant Sharing know :edge is about empowering a process, but
the conunun:ty has lo empower itself.

'lo be ra;:iectful, what else does a n,,,,ac1;:1,:i need
to andc:-stand? Jt is when we ask qm:~tions about
the apparen:ly universal Vlllue of respect that
lhings come undone, because the basic premise
tr.at value is quintessentially r.uro-A t:lerkan. What
at first appears a simple matter of ris,r.,,,rtcan end
up as a cornpEcated ma;ter of cultural protocols,
languages of respect, rit1:als o:: respect, dress codes:
ir. short, the "p's and q's" of etiquette specific to
cultural. gender, and grn·Jps and s;.1bg;oups,
Respect, like other social va:ues, err.braces qJite
complex social norms, behaviors, and meanings. as
one of many competbg and active values in anr
given sod al situation. As an ethical principle,
re.,pect is constructed as universal partly through
the process defining what it means in philo~
sophical and moral cerms, partly through a process
of distancing the soc:al va:uc and practice of respect
from tl:e messiness of any particular set of social
intc•ract'o:1s, and partly through a pmccss of wrap-
ping up the prbciple in a legal ar:d procedural
f:.1mcwork. The practice of w,1,,t'I in research is
ir.terpreted ,md expressed in very different ways on
the basis of methodology, theoretical paradigms,

i:1s1itJtional preparation, and individual idiosyn-
cras1es. and"manners.,.
Similarly, :he principle and practice of
informed consent presents real-world problems
for resec.rchers and for the ::e~earched. Fine, Weis,
Weseen, and Wong (2000} already have discussed
the ways in whid: "the consent lbrm sits at the
con;radictory base of the i:istitutionalisation of
research" (p. 11 The form itself can be, a, they
argue, a "cn:de tool-a conscie:ice-to ceminc
us of our accountabili:y and posit:or:" (p. 113).
They argue that a consent form makes the power
relations between researchers and researched
concre:e. and this can present c:ia'. lenges to
researchers and researched alike, with some par-
ticipants wanting to share their stories while
others may :eel compelled lo share. The form itself
can be the ·Jasis of dialogue anci mediation, but
the individual person who is participating in the
research still must s;gn it. The p rbciple of
informed consent is based on the right of individ-
uals to iz.ive consent to participation once ~hey
have been inforr:ied ahout the project and believe
t:iat they understand the project. In some juris-
r.ictinn~, this right does not necessarily apply to
children, pr£soners, or people who have a inental
ii'. ness. ;>Jeverthdess, the r:ght is an individual
one. However, what ff participating in a resrnrch
project, unwittingly or wittbgly, reveals coikctive
information to researchers-for exam pie, provid-
ing DNA, sharing the making of a mecic:ne, or
revealing seeret women's or men's bwsiness as
may .x:c~1r in ~m:ietics like Aboriginal Aus:ralian
comn:unities. where men's knowledge and
women's knowledge is strictly d ifteremiated?
Researching with children already has opened up
the poss(oility that family secrets, especially
stories of ahuse, require actions to be taken
beyond simp:e gathering of data. One concern
of indigenous communities about tile ir,.formed
consent principle is about the bleeding of knowl•
cd!'\e away from collective pr<itectio!1 through
individual partic: pation in research, witr. know!
edge rr:oving to scie'.ltists and organizations in the
world at large. This ?rocess weait:ns ir.dige:10us
collectively sb1red knowlec!ge and is espedally risky
i:l an era of knowledge hunting and gather: ng.
Smith: mearchir.g the Native Maori 111 \l\l
Anotl:er concern is abma the nati:re of what it
really :m~ans :o be informed for people who may
not be literate or well educated, who may not
speak the language of the researcher, and who
may not be able to different:ate the invitmion to
partk'.pa:e in research from :he enforced corr.jllt-
ance L, s ig::1ing official forms for welfare and
social service agencies.
The claim to universal principles is one of
the difficulties with ethical codes of conduc, for
resercrch. It i5 not just that the concepts of respec~,
beneficence, and justice have been defined
through Western eyes; there are other prim::iplcs
that inform ethical code, that can p~oblematic
under certain conditions. In some indigenm:.s
contexts, the issue is framed more around the
concept of human rights rather tha:1 principles or
values. However, whether it is about principles,
va'.ues, or rights, there is a common underpin·
ning. Ethics codes are for the most part about
protecting the individual, not the collective.
Ir:dividuals can be "picked off" by researc'le,s
even when a ,;:ommunity signals it does not
approve of a project. Similarly, the claim to benef•
kcnce, the "save manki:ld" c!ai:n made even
before re.search has beet1 comple7ed, is i::sed to
provide a moral imperative that certain forrr.s
o: research n:ust be suppor:ed al expense
either individual or commur.ity cor:sent Research
is often assu:ned to be benef:cial simply because
it is framed as research; its benefits are regarcied
as µself-e1,ident" becau.~e the intentions of the
researcher are "good:' In a review of healtli
research literature reporting on research involv-
ing indigenous Australians, L Anderson, Griew,
and McAJllay (2003) sugges: that very little
attention is paid to the cor.cept of benefit by
researchers, and even less attention is paid to the
assessment of research benefit. A consequence of
the lack of guidelines in rhis area, they argue, is
that uin the absence of a11y other guidelines the
values that guide such a judgement will reflect
those the ethks committee as opposed to ~hose
of :he Jndigenuus community in which resear-::h
is proposed" {p. 26).
A • ore significant di fficull y, already alluded
to, can be expressed more in terms "who"
100 11 HANDBOOK OF QL'ALJU\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 4
governs, regulates, interprets, sanctions, and
monitors ethkal codes of conduct" "Who" is
resp1m~ible if things go terribly wro!!g? And
"who" really governs and regulates the behaviors
of scientists ou1skle ins,itotions and voluntary
pro:essional societies? For example, rogue scien-
tists and quirky religious groups are already com-
peting for lhe glory of cloning human beings with
those whose research is at least held to a accept-
able standards because of their employment in
recognized institutions. From ar: indigenous
perspective, the "who" on ethkal review boaros is
representative of narrow class, religious, acade·
mic, and ethnic groups rather than :eflecting the
diversity of society. Because these boards are fun-
damentally supportive research for advancing
knowledge ancl other high-level aims, their main
las'.i< is to advance research, r:o: ro limit it Jn other
words, their purpose is not neutral; it is 10 assist
institut:ons to unc.ertake research-within accept·
able standards. These boards are not whi:re larger
questions about society's interests in research
ougJit to be discussed: they generally are the place
where already determined viev.-s ahout research
are proccll!led, primarily to protect institutior.s.
Margir.alizcd a:1d vaberahle gro·Jps are :iot, by
and large. represented on such boards. 1:-· a margin-
alized group 1s represented, its voice is muted as
one o~ many voices of equal weight but not of eqi;al
power. Hence, even if a representative of a margin-
alized group is included on a review board, ':he
individual may r:o: have the support, the knowl-
edge, or the language to debate the iss"Je among
those who accept the dominant Western view of
ethics and society. These are difficult concerns to
resolve but need to be discussed Ulan ongoing way,
as ethical challenges will always exist in societies.
Kir.g, Henderson, and Stein (1999) suggest
that there are two paradigms of ethics, the one we
know as principalist and a potentially new one
in process that is about reiationships. King,
Henderson, and Stein argue that the ethics regula-
tions that researchers currently work ur.der a:-e
based on three factors:
• 3afanc'::g prindpks: autonomy, benetkence,
; ustice, informed mnsent, and cunEdentiality
• Ethical universalism {not moral re'ativis:n):
:ruth (r.ot smries)
• Atomlstk foecu: smat: frame, centered on
imiiv'duals.
In the case of the International Societv of
'
Ethnobiology ([Sf:), a society of scientists whose
work involves indigenous commun~ties, the Code
of Ethics that was developed with indigenous par•
tic:pation identit:es 15 principles upon which eth-
ical conduct rests. These p:inciples include such
:hings as the principles of self-determination,
inalienability, traditional guardianship, and active
participation. The !SE Code of Ethia, suggest.
that research needs to be built on meaningful
par:nerships ane collaburation with indigenous
communities. Similarlv, the Austra:ian Institute
'
of Aboriginal and 'Jbrres Strait Islander Studies
published the Guidelines for Ethical Research in
Indigenous Srudies i 2000) after conciuc:ing work-
shops with bdigenous studies researchers. The
Guidelines connect the notion of ethical principles
with humar rights and seet- to 'i:m';mdy the best
standards of ethical research and human rigks"
(p. 4). T:ie Guidelines prnpose three major pr:nd
pies, inside ot which are fuller explanations of the
principles and practical ap;-,Hrntim1s. The three
main principles are
• Consultation, negotiation, and mutuai under•
standing
• Resped, recog::i6:m, and ir:volvement
• Ilene fits, outcome,, and agreement.
With: n the prin.::ples of the Guidelines are furthe:
subprinciples, such as respect for indigenous
knowledge systems and proces,ell, recognition
of the diversity and uniqueness of peoples and
individuais, anci respect for intellectual anci cul-
tu,al property rights and involve:nent of indige-
nous individuals and communities as research
colla::mrators.
Principles are balancing factors that still rest
upon tl:e assumption that the principles are
understood a.~ meaning the same thing to all
people under all circumstances. As Denzin (2003)
acgues, this approach implies a singular approach

to all forms of inquiry that oversinplifies and
dehumanize~ the ht:man subject Indigenous
comrnun ities and o~her rr:arginalized groups may
not understand the hislorr" of the efaical code of
conduct or its basis in Western :noral philosophy.
but they do understand breaches of respect
and negative impacts from research sud! as the
removal of their r:ghts and lands. Qualitative
researchers also know that emerging methodolo·
gies and emerging researchers have a diffict::t
ti :ne making their way through the review process
to gain approval. Kathleen Yi, Cumiskey ( 1998)
narrates her experiences in dealing with her insti·
tt::ional review board as ones that came down to
a reminder tl1at graduate students would not be
inde • nified if she happened to he arrested or r.er
work subpoenaed, T:1e empl:asis on procedu::al
isst:es, including the balancing of ris'.rn and bene-
fits, inh'bits o~ limits tl:e poten;ia! for institutions
and society to examine ethics against a much
broade:: social and epistemological framework.
What does an indigenous approach to research
contribute to a discussion about ethical standards?
Indigenous perspectives challenge researd:er, to
reflect upon two significa:it contr ihutions. 1n the
t:rst instance\ indigenous commun:~ies share with
ofoe~ marginalized and rulnerablc communit:es
a collective and historical! y sustained experience
of research as the Object. They also share the use
of a "research as expert" representation of who
they are, It is an exper:er:ce indigenous communi·
ties associate with colonialism and rac:sm, with
i:lequality and injustice. !'✓.ore important, indige•
nous communities hole an alternative way of
knnwing about themselves and the envirnr:ment
that has managed to survive the assault, of colo-
:1ization and its impacts, This alternative way of
knowing may be different from what was known
seve:'al hundred years ago by a community, but it
is still a way of knowing that provides access to a
different epistemology, an alternative vision of
society, an alternative ethics for human conduct.
IL is not, therefore, a question of whether the
knowledge is "pare" and authentic but whe,her
it has been the means tr.rough which people
have made se:ise of their lives and circum•
stances, faat has sustained there and their cultural
S:iiith: Researching the f;ative Maori II \0 I
practices over time, that forms the basis for their
understanding of h'.lman cor:duct, that enriches
their creative spirit and fuels their determination
to be f:ee. T:ie first contribu.tion of ar: :ndigenous
perspective to any discussion about research
ethics is one that challenges those of us who teach
about research ethics, who participate in approv•
ing and monitoring ethics proposals, to under-
stand the historical development of research as
a corporate, deeply colonial '.nsfautloi: that is
structurally embedded in society and its institu-
tions. It is not just about training and then polic-
ing :ndividual researchers, nor about ensuring
thi: research with human subjects is an ethical
activity. One thing we must have learned fro:n the
past is that when research subjects are not
regarded as human to begin with, when they have
been dehumanized, when they havi: been margin-
alized from "normal" '!uman society, the human
researcher does not see human subjects, To
unravel the story of research ethics with hu1:1an
subjects, teachers and students mus, understand
that research ethics i, not just a body of historical
"hiccups" and their legal solutions. It ls a study of
how societies, institutions, disc;p!ines, and indi·
viC:Jals authorize, describe, settle, and rule, II is a
study ofh:storka: imperiaEsm, racism,and patri
archy and the new formations of these systems in
contemporary relations of power. II is a study of
how hu:nans fail and succeed at treating each
other wit!: respect
Just as important, the second contribu ~ion
indigenous research offers is a rich, deep, and
di ,erse resource of alternative ways of knowing
and thinking about e6ics, research relationships,
p~rsonal conduc:, and researcher i:Jtegrity, There
are other ways to think about ethics that are u:ii-
que to eadi culture. The::e are other way~ to gnide
researcher conduct and er.sure the integrity of
research and the pursuit of knowledge. In New
Zealand, as one example, Maori are discussing
ethics in relation to tikanga, defined briefly bv
Mead (2003) as'½ bocy of knowledge and custom-
a:y practices carried out characteristically by com-
munities"(?, 15), Mead (2003) argues that Tikanga
has three main aspec:s, of knowledge, practices,
and actors, and thal among, other things, tikanga
102 1111 HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVE RESEARCH--C::fAPTER 4
provides guidelines about moral and behav:oral
lssties and informs ethical matters. He pmposes
five "tests" that can be applied to an ethical
dilen:ma from a tikanga Maori perspective, These
"trsts" draw on Maori values to provide a frame-
work fur arriving at a Maori position on a specific
ethical issue, The "tests" include the follow:ng:
• A?plying cultural understandings of know>
edge (for example applying ma11ri, the view that
every living faing has a m~uri or /if, ftm:e}
• Genea'.(jgical slo,ies (such as those that explain
huw living things 1vere created)
• Precedents in his:ory
• Relationships
• Cultural values (s:.ich as the value of looking
after pe,,;:ile).
Mead suggests that exam(ning an ethical issue
against each of the five "tests" provides a frame-
work that enables the dilemma created by new
terhnolog:es to be thought :hrough in a way that
neets cultural and ethical scrutii:y while remain-
i:lg open to new possibililies. It is also a way tu
b'Jild a cultural ar.d community body of knowl-
about new discoveries, technolog:es, and
rescard1 clh ics.
It may be that these and other explorations
connect with .King, Henderson, and Stein's (19991
rnncep~ion of a re\ationsh Ips paradigm that
inc,1des the foEowir.g elements:
Layering of releVIIDt relationships-individuals
and groups
Cori text based-what are the rel,w.rnt contexts?
Culture, gender, race/ethnicity, commu11lty,
olace, n:hers
Crosscutting issues, wider frame of reference
::Jarrative focus
Cor.tin•.i;,y-:ssues arise befure ar:d mntin~e
after projects
Change-i11 relationships OYl't time
Tt may also be a way :hat connects with
Denzin, (2003) call for a more inclusive and flex-
ible model that woulc apply to al~ forms of
inquiry, Also, as suggested by L Anderson, Griew,
and MeAullay (2003), there is a tension bctwren
the regulations of practice and the develop • e:1t
of ethical rela:ionships. They argue that there is a
need to develop at least two layers of responsive-
ness, une i;Jvulving ;nstitutional collaborations
with communities and the other involving
researcher relationships with commu:1 ities that
are also mediated by reformed reseim::h struc-
tures. Indigenous research offers access to a range
of epistemic alternatives. I would not want to
gest that srn:h ways are simply out there waiting to
be discovered, bot certainly there are peo?le and
commuuilie~ willing to engage in a meaningful
dialogue, and there is mud: to rolk ah out.
Ill QUALlTA:'IVE TRAVE:.ERS
0-1 TRICKY GROUND
Qualitative research in an age of te:ro:-ism, b a
timr of tm.:ertainty, and in an era when know:-
edge as power is reinscribed through its value as
a commodity 'n the global market place presents
tricky grour.d for researchers. It is oft..-n at the
local level marginalized communities that
these complex currents intersect and are exper:-
enced as material conditions of poverty, injus
tice, and oppression. It is also at this level
that responses to such cur:1:!nls are created on
the ground, for seemir.fy pragmill'c ,easons.
So:netimes this approach may indeed be a rea•
sonablr solutior., hut at nther times it draws into
question the taken-for-granted understandings
that are being ,qp!icd lo decisions made under
;:m::ssure. \¥hat maps should qualitath-e researchers
sti:dy befrm, venlur ing onto such terrain? This i:;
not a trick question ':mt rather one that suggests
:hat we do have some maps. We can begin with aU
:be maps of qualitative research we currently
then draw some new maps that enrich and
extend the boundaries of our understandings
beyond the margins. We need to draw on all our
maps uf understanding, Even those tired and
relhe..: nlll!)6 of qualitative research may hold
important clues such as the origin stories or
genealogical beginnings of certain trends and
sticking points in qualitative research.

Qualitative researchers, :iowever, must be
mure than either travelers or cultural tourists,
Qualitative ::esearch is an importa :it tool for
ind:genous commi:nities ':iccause it is the tool
that seems most able to wage the battle of repre-
sentatfrm (Pine et at, 2000); to weave and unravel
competing storylines (Bishop, I998); to situate,
place, and contextualize; tu create spaces for
decolonizing (Aldama, 2UDI. Tierney, 2000); :u
prov:de frameworks for hearing s:lence and \lsten•
ing to the voices oi the silenced (Le Comp le, 1993,
L r Smith, 2001 ); to create spaces for dialogue
across difference; to analyze and make sense of
complex and shifting experier:ci'ii, iden,ities, and
realities; and to understand little and big changes
that affect our lives, Qualitative research approaches
have the potential to respond to epistemic chal-
lenges and crises, to unrnvd and weave, to fold in
and 'Jnmask the layers of the social life and depth
of human experience, This is not an aq;ument for
reduc:ng quaE:ative research lo social activism,
nor is it an argument suggests that quanti:a-
ttve research cannot also co some of the same
things, but ra:he~ an argument for the tools, strate-
gies, insights, and expert ~now:edge that can come
with having a focused r:1ind trained on the
:aiive experience of people.
Qualitative research has an expanding set of
tools that enable finer graiued interpretations of
social Expanding the understandings and tools
of qua:i:ative re~earchers is impor:ant in aic era
when the diversity of h1man experience in soda!
groups and comrr.unities, with languages and epis-
temologies, ls undergoing profound cultural and
politic.tl shifts,AJ:hough it could be argued faat this
has always been the case becaase societies always
are dynamic, there is an argume:ir to be made about
the rapid loss languages and cultures, t!le
homogenizatio'.'l of cultures thmugh globalizatior.,
and the significance for many communities of the
impact of human beir:gs on the environment
Indigenous communities live with the urgency that
these challenges pxsent to the world and have
sought, lhr01,;,gl: international mobilizalion, to ca::
attention to these concerns_ l, is considered a sign of
success wl::en the Western ;,.'Qrld, through one of its
inslikticms, pauses ever: momentarily to consider
Sr:1i,h: Researching !hr Native Maori Ill IIH
an alternative possibilit l'· lndige:10us research
actively seeks to extend that momentary pause into
genuim:: engageme:1t with indigemms communities
and alternative ways of seekir:g to Eve with and i:1
the world.
D Norn
L For example, i:1 fanuary, 20()4, a series of
speeches w.;s made in ;"lew Zealand by a ;;;,mservativc
11olitical leader that allacked the role of the Treaty ol
Waita11gi in legislation, Ihat da: med Maori :iad extra
holiday entitlements, !ha! ¼aori with a,ade:nic quali-
lkatioos r:ad :{]wer standards because of affi::mativt
action entry practices, and that purported to represent
a"race free" vi~ion for New Zcala::c, TI1e speeches were
quickly taken up as a populist :nessage even though
t:;cy were ·~a.sed on information later found ID be
incorrect and exaggerated and were dearly under-
pinn~-d by an understanding of race and ethnicity that
re~onaloo with the racist mei,sa~•e:; of Australia's One
~atio;; :,;:ader Pauline Hanson,
Ill REFEREI\CES
Aldama, A. J. (2001). Drsrupting savagism: Intersect-
mg Chicaml/c, Mexican immigrant, and Native
American siruggies for self representation,
Durham, 'JC: Duke University Press,
Alexander, M, J., & Mohanty, C, T, Feminist
genealogies. colonial legacies, demllcmric futures,
New York: Routledge,
Anderson, :,, Griew, R., & McAullay, D. {2003], Ethics
guidelines, h.ealtl: research a~,d ind:genous
Australians. New Zealand Bioethics Journal, 4( I),
20-29,
Anderson, K, ( 2000), A recognitiim rlf being:
Remnstructing native wom,rnh1Jod. Tornnto:
Sumac:1 ?ress,
Apple, M. (2001), Educating the "rig'it'' waF Markets,
sumdards, God, and inequality, Kew York:
Rou!ledgeFalmer,
Ashcroft, Griffiths, G,, & Tiffin, H. (l 989), The
empire write, bacA: Theory and practice in post-
colonial literatures. London: Rout:cdge.
Australian Institute of Aborigina: and Tor,es Strait
Islander Studies, (2000), Guidelines for erl?ical
t'f!search in indigenous st,uJie5. Canberra: Author.
LO~ • HANDBOOK OF QUA~'.TAIIVi' RESEARCH-(HAPTER 4
3asso, K. lL (19%). Wisdom sits in places: Landsc,;pe
and ltmguage ammrg 1he Western ilpache,
Alhuqu~rq uc: Gniversity of New 1\:lex;co Press.
B,mlste, M. (Ed.). (2000). Redaimillg indigenous v,1ice
arrd vfsil!n. Vancouve:: 1:::iven,it y of British
Colum·J:a Press.
!kverley,J. (2000;. Tcstimo:iio, subalternity,a:;c nar,a·
live autho:ity. In N. Denzin & Y. S. i.incolu (Eds.),
Handbook of qu.,iitativt' re.iearch (2nd ed.,
pp. 5:.S-566). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Biolsi, & Zimmerman, L J. (Eds.). ( 1997). Jndians
am! ,mrhropo/ogists: Vi!!e Deloria and the criri,~ue
of .;r,thrcpolagy. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press,
Bishop, R. ( 1998 ). Fxciog ourselves Cro,11 neo-ml :i:;h!I
domina:inn in rcsearc"i: A Maori approach to cre-
ating knowledge. Qualitatiw: Srudie:; in Education,
11(2), 199-219.
m~:mp, R., & Glynn, T. (1992 ). Ee kanohi kitea:
Conducting and evaluating educa:ional rese;i rd:.
New Zeaia11d Journal ,if Educational Swdi~s,
1 thoory and cmr!empur,;~y cint'rna. Newbury Park,
Bishop, R., & Glynu, T. (I 999 ). m•searching in \.15or:
contexts: An intcrpret~tlon of panidpa:o,y con
sci,ousne,rs. Journal :if rnrern1lt11ra/ .~t,LdiP< 2012),
167-:82.
llrzdy, 'v\~ ( 1999). Observing Ot::er. Eureka Srreet,
9(1 ), 28 30.
,,.. :;.c,, J. (! 9117). /?eport from ,iw: Jranlier: T~e ,,ate of
tht worlds fr1dige,wu; pimples. London: 7..ed
llooks.
C:iow, IL (l 993 ). Writing diaspora: Tactics of imerrenti,m
in contemporary cultural ,w,,,,s. Bloomington:
Indiana Unive~ity Press.
Churchill, W. (199)), I am indigenist. In W. Churchill
(Ed.), Struggle for the land: lndig.:11ous rt,i$tanct'
to genocide, eco~ide, and expropriatio>i in ccmem•
po?Ury North knerirn (pp. 403-451}. Monroe,
ME: CA1mmo11 Cou:age
Coak- ~yrm, E. ( 1996). Why i can't read Wallai-e Stegner
and other e.,says: ,4 frib,11 voice. Macison:
t:niver~il y of Wis;;onsin
Cram, :'. (19•)'~). Eth ks in Maori research. [11 :... Ni.<ora
(Rd.), Cultura, justice and ethics. lProceedings
of 1he C:.i:tural Justice and Ethics Symposium
held as p~rl of the 'Jew lcafand Psych<llogical
Society'; annual ronferencc]. Wellington, New
Zea:and: Victoria University.
Cram, F. (1997). Developing partnerships in rest-arch:
Pakeha researchers and M~nri reqearch. Sites,
44-63.
Crn:n, I' ( 200 I). Rangahau Maori: Tona :ika, Iona
pono-Thc validity and i::regrity :V:ilori
resear:h. ln '-t Tolkh (1'11.), Rcsearc/1 etlik, in
Aoteama New Zeal::n,d {pp. _,..,.," ,. Auckland,
New Zealand: Pearson E,kcation.
Cra •, F., Krrfe, V., Ormshy, C., & Orm,by. W. ( 1998),
Memorywo::k and Maori health research:
Disc•~ssion of a q1,:alitalivc method. He Pukcnga
K/irero: ii Jou.mat of Maori Studies, 37-45.
Cumiskey, K. M. (1998). (De/acing the Institutional
Review Board: Wrangling the fear and fantasy of
ethical dilemmas and :e,carch on "at-risk"
y()uth. In J. Ayafa. et at (1:ds. ), bumps:
Rejleclions on t/J,, politics and ,1whods of qua//.
rati~e ·,vork {pp. ZS-31 ). New York: State
University New York, Graduate School of
fafocation.
IJeloria, V., Jr. (1995 l Red earth, w/u1e /.;alive
A mericaris arid !he myt/1 of srientific Jae/.
New Ycrk: S<;ribner.
ve1:iz:::.i, ( 1991 ). f,nage, ofpostmodern so,i1t·1: ~ocia!
Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln,~- S, (2000). The discipline Rnd
qualit.;tive research. In '.'I. Ornzin &
Y. S. Lin:oln (Er.s.), Ifandbook af ~uaimni·ve
research (2nd t'd., pp. 12!!). ThouSlllld Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Durie, A. ( 1992). l'llhaia w Am Tika: Resean:h mellwd-
ologies and Maori. Seminar on Mi!()ri research
at Masli<:y Uniwrsity, Plllme:-ston N'orlh, New
Zealand.
Eid ::el rt', cl. (1997). Eth no political devdopment
amo~.g ,he Sam! after World War II: Tl:e
lion of ~elf-:1ood. Tn H. Gaski (Ed.), Sam/ rnlture
in a new eta: The Norwegian Sami experic11cc
(pp. 2Y-6 l ). Katasio::ka, Norway: Davvi Girji.
Elabur-Jdemudia, P. (2002). Partidp-.i:nry research: A
tool in the produdn:: llf knowledge in devdop-
me,1t i:!iscuursc. In K. Saunders (Ed.), Feminist
devclcpmcnt ,uid ch,mght: Rethinking modemiry,
post-col1111iali,m ,md repn,,;ema,ion (pp. 227-242),
London: r,ed Books.
Fa non, E (1963), Wretched of the ccmh IC, Farrington,
'rrans.). New Yt1rk: Greve {Original work
published 1 Io
Fine, M., V,\!is, L, Wesccn, & 1Nong, L. (2000). for
whom? Qualilalive researc::, rcpresenta:ir.m:;, and
social re,ponsibilitics. !11 'l. Denzin & Y 5. Lincoln
fEds.), H~ndbook of qw;/itari·1e rl!search (2nd ed.,
pp. l C7-1 J2 J. Thousa::c 02ks, CA: Sage.

Gaski, H. (fa::,). ;1997). In 1/;.: shadow of the midnigh1
sun; Clmiemporory Sam, Jmm: ;;,1d lilarature,
Kan!sjohka, Norway: DaV\·i Girji.
Green, ,\{, {2JCU), lived space5, shared spaces, publk
•I'"•"''· In L Weis & M, Fim, (fds, ), Cmis 1ruaiar.
Excavating race, class, an.I gen.ler among
urb,t~ ym1ih (pp, 293-304). 2'/ew Yor'.,: Teach,·rs
College
Ha1g-Brown, C,, & Ar,hihald, (. ( :996 ). Transforming
First Nations res~arch with respecl power.
Quali1a1ive Studies in faiu,·aiion. 9(3), t1:>-.,:t>1.
Harjo, J., & Bird, G, (1997), Reinventi11g the enmiy~
i,mgmige, Cor.tempor~ry n,,tive w,m1ens ,,riting
of Nor.ii America. Ne-i¥ York: W, W. Norton ;u:d
Con:pany.
Helu Tharmm. K. (20G3), Re,pr,~eming and r.:•:,wrch·
ing Oct!1:mia: A sugg.·sticm Jar synthesis. Keynote
add7eSS to lhe F.eahh Re.sea,ch Fon0,
Health Research Coun~JI of ?sew Zealand,
Auck'1and,
Hill Colllins, P. (l 991 J, Learning from the llutsider
within. In M. fo::r,w & l A. Cook Il!ds.;, Bey~1;d
mechoda!ogy: femin£st sd1ol~r,hip us l1Ved
research !p;:,, Bloomington: '.ndiana
University P~ess.
Eu r.'.phery, K. (2000), fndig<'rwus health and "Wesrern
researcl(' (Distus,si,m par~r for Vid lealth ;(00ri
HC";]:h Researc;i and Commun:ty IJevelopmem
t:nit), .\-iclbourne: Ce::tre for the Study of Health
.
and Socictv, Universitv n:: Melbourne.
'
iiumpllery, K. (2002). llirty que,;lions: l11digc11ous
hedtr. and "WCllrern research'.' Austraium and New
lea!ami Journal .;fPublic Health, 25(3), 197-202.
Jahnke, H., & Ta'apa, 1, (1999). :'vlaori research. I;;
C. Davidsen & M. lblich (Eds.), SDcia/ me11ce
researcl; in New lea/and: Many paf/15 tc under-
sta11ding (pp. 39-50). Am;!,]and, 'Sew Zealand:
I.tmg:11a11 Pearson Education,
John&llm, PM. (2003 ). Resear;;h in a bicultura: mn:~xt:
The case in Aotc;;roa/New Zealand. l n J. Swann
& ], Pratt (Eds.), Eaurntivnal research practice;
Ma king semc of methodofogy (pp. 98-110),
Lendon: Co~.tinuum,
Jordan, S. (2003). Who stole my methodology? Co-
o;iting PAR. Gfobalisation, Saaeties and Educa,ion.
185-2!;0,
Kaume.:, J, (2003), Reading erasures and r::aking the
familiar st::"-.1ngc: 1Jefamiliari1.i ng rr:ethods for
research in fomierly ,olot:'zed and historica:ly
oppressed commtmities. Educationa! Rese1m::l1e1;
Smith: Researching the Nat:ve Maori 111 : Q5
Ke!sey, J. (1995). rile New Zealand experime11t.
Auckla11d, New Zealand: Auckla::c L:11ivcrsity
Keiikitalo,:, H.(199)).SamJ post secondary,-ducat:on-
ldeals and realities. b II. Gaski (F.d, ), Sami culture
ir, a new era: The Normgitin Sami experien~t:
(pp. i55-l 71 ). Karisjohka. No1w3j': Dawi Gir;i.
King, K, lii:ndrr5on, G. E,, & Stein, j, E. ( 1999). &1ond
regulmions. Ethic, ir1 human wbject, resear:11.
Chapel Hill: University cf 2'/orth umlina Press,
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000), Radalized discourses and
ethnk epist,:molugies, In N, K, Denzin & Y, S,
!.incnln (F,c,s,), Har.dboo~ qr1alitam-e t'ftSearch
(2nd ed., pp. 257-278 ), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Langton, M. (198 I), Anthropologists m11st change,
ld,m1ity, 4(4), l L
The La;ina Feminist Group, (2001 ). 1eUing w lir.?:
Larina femini;I testimonies, Durham, NC: Du',{e
Cniversity Press.
Le(ompte, M. ( 1993). A framewort. for hearing s:len,x:
W:iat does telling mea., when we are
supposed to be doing science? In D. Md.aceghlin
& W, G, Tierm,•;r [hds.), Narning silenced live,
(pp. 9 28). Sew Ycrk: Rcutkdge.
Lincoln, Y. S, (1993), I and thou: Method, ~\Jice,
roles in re sea rcn w '.;h the silenced. :n
McL5ughlin & W, G. Tierney (Eds.), Naming
si!enc.ed lives (pp, 29-SC), New York: Routledge.
:.it:le Bear, L, (2000), jagged worldviews co;:'c'::g,
In .'vt llal:iste (Ed,\ Reclaiming indigenous voiee
tmd visio11 (pp. 77 -85 ), Vmmrc: v,r: L:nh-ersity of
'.btis":-, Columbia Press,
/vlaracle, L. ( '.996). Jam woma11: A rn1rive persperli<I!
cm :we!oiogy and fi.,>tninism. Vancouver: i'ress G,ing
Publishers.
Marker, M. (1003). Indigenous voi:e, community, and
ep:stemic violence: The ethnog~a;iher's "in:cr-
ests" and whal "intere,:s" ;he ethnographer,
Quaiit,,tive Studies in Educat1i:m, J6(3 ), j6l - 375.
Mclaren, P. ( 1993). Border dispute,: ;v'.d!icultural 11:'.:-
rative, idmli!y forma:ion, and crih:al p1ccagogy
::: postmodern AmerkR. In f}, McLaughlin &
W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Naming silenced lill!'S
(pp. 201-236;. l\"ew '!brk: Routledge,
Meat!, H. M. (2003). Tika,igu Maori; /.i•Jir,g by Mifori
mlues. WeEngton, New leala:1c: Huia P::hlica•
lion; and Te Whan: Wa11an!ia o Awan;;:arangi
Pre;;s.
:Vlemm i, A. (I 967). 'fhe co/or,fzer and the wlor;iud.
Roston: Beacon Press. (Original work p;,blishi:d
19571
 106 a IIANDDOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP':'ER 4
rvlenzies, C. (ZOOI). Researching wi:h, for and amo::g
indige:1ous penples. Canadian Journal of Native
Education, 25(1), i9-36.
Mies, M. (1983). lowards a methodology for fon::nist
research. :n Bowles & R. D. Klein (Eds.),
Theories of womens ,w,1ie< (pp. ll7-:39).
New York: Routledge.
Minh-ha, T. T. ( 1989). Woman, native, other: Writing,
postcoiomaluy and feminism. Bloomington:
Indiana University Pre8s,
Xohanly. C. (1984 J. Under Wes:em eyes: Feminist
schularnhip and colonial discourses. Boundary,
12(3) 13(1 ), 338-358,
:Vloraga, & Anzaldua, G. (Eds.). (:983). this bridge
called my b,11:k New York; Kitchen 'Iltble Press.
:vtoran, W. {1999}. Democracy and geography in the
reregulation of t>;ew Zt.'",!land. 1n D. R. Knight
& A. E, Joseph (Eds.), Restructuring socitues:
lnsights from the social sciences (pp.
Otta"a: Carleto:1 University
Muretnn-Robinsor., A. \2000). 1'aikin' up ra the
1vhile 11•@um: indigenous women and feminism,
l.ncia: l:niversily of Quee:rnland
Ngugi Wa Thiong'o. \1997). Writer> in p11!i1i,s; A
re,engagemenl wi;h isrne5 of litm1ture and
society. Oiford, tK: James C-:-rey. (Original work
pn·~•:sherl 198])
Peters, M.A. (20D3). Classica: poli:kal economy and
the role of universities ir. the new knowledge
~cono::iv. Glo/Jaiization, Societies and Edu.:ation,
1(2), l53-!6!l.
Pidgeon, M., & Hardy, C. (2002). Resrarching 1vit:1
Aboriginal peoples: Practices and prindplts.
Canadian Journal of Natf-,e Education, 2ti(Z),
96-106.
Pihama, L. (199 3 ). 'fungi a te ururua kia t!lpu
whakarirorito te tupu o te lumikeke Unpublished
masrer's thesis, University of Auckland.
Plharr:a, L (1994). Are films dangerous?: A Maori
wo:nan:;• pe:i;pec:ive
• , ne p•umo. If,ecate, _
0:1 TL ?O()'
-,,
239-242.
Pih ama, L (200 I). 1,hei Mauriora: Honouri,ig aur
mices-matta wahine QS a kaupapa Milorf theo-
tl'tir.;/ frame·,vork. l:11published doctoral thesis,
U:::vcrs'ty of Auckland.
Pihama, Cram, & Walke:, S. (2fl02). Creati::r
methodological space: A literature review of
Kaupapa Minni r~eard:. Canadian Journal of
Native Educution, 26\ I), 30-13.
Pritc:iard, S,{Ed.}. (1998).l>;digenous peoples, ,h1t Uni!ed
Nations cmd imma•r right,, lomfo::: Zell l!uob.
Reinharz, S, (1992). l'eminisl methods in s11c1a1
resetm:h. New York: Oxford University Pre;,,s.
Rigney, I.. 11999). lntematcnalization of an .·.,,u,'"'c-
nous :mticolonial cuhural cril:q ue uf research
methodologies. A guide to indigenist research
methodology and its principles. 11/ic,m, SA
foumal of Native American Studies Review, 14(1),
·'
109-121.
Roman, L G,, & Eyre, L (l '197). Dangerous territvries:
Struggfes for difference and equality in educ,tion.
Kew York: Routledge.
Said, E, ( 1978 ). Ori,•ntalfsm. :'.,ondon: Vin1age Boo:.:s.
Saunders, K. (Ed.). (2002). Feminist deveiopmem and
thought: Rethinking modernity, post-colonialism
and represemation. Lon do::. Zed Books.
Si;dgwick, K. (1991). Epistemology of the closet,
New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Shiva, V. (: 993). MorrnculruresoftJiemind. London: Zed
Books.
Simon,;., & Smith, LT. (Eds.). (2001 ),A civillsing mis•
sion? Perceptilms and repres~ntatiom of the
Zealand NatiYe Schools system. Auckland, New
Zealand: A;.;ckland University
Smith, G. H. (1990;. The politics of reforming
Maori education: The transforming poten:lal of
h:~a kaupapa Maori. In H, l.auder & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Towards successful sclw,:tng (?P· 73 89).
Basingstoke: falmer.
Smith, G. H. (1992). Resecm;h issues relrited to Milo1i
education, 1,11ckla11d, New Zealand; .Research Un:t
for Maori Educatior,, The University of AJdland.
Smith, G. H. ( 1994 l. for sale: lndiger:ous language,
knowledge and culture. Polemic: A Journal of tire
University ofSy,iney Law Schoo~ 4(3).
Smith, L T. ( 1991 ). :-apunga i tc ao marama 1,the
search for the world of light): Maori persp~ctives
on research in "'"·""•''J,., T. Linzey & J, Morss
(Eds.), Growing up; The p,11it1cs ofhuman ieamiflg
(pp. 46-55). :\uckl,;::c, New Zealand: Longman
Paul.
Smith, LT. ( 1992). Maori wor::en: Discourses, oro,iect~
and mana wahine, In S, Middleton & A, :1mes
(Eds.), Women a11d edw:atilm in Aoteama 2
(pp. 33-51). Wellington, f\ew Zealand Bridge!
Wi:Jiams Books,
Smi:h, L ':'.(19'19). Decolcmizing nmhodalogies: Resean:h
and indigenous peoples. London: b:c. Books.
Smith, L T. (2000]. Kaupapa Miitlri research. I11
M. Battiste (Ed.), Rl'!laiming indigenous l'oice
and visi,m (pp. a~, .t•v Vancouve;: t:niversitv
ol Bri:ish Columbia Press.

Smith, L. T. (2001 ). Troubling spaces.Journal ofCritica!
Psydroiog:,; 4 175-182.
Smith, L. T., S;nith, G. ll, Boler, M., Kempton, y:L,
Ormond, A., Chueh, H. et (1001). ''Do
guys hatcAuddanders tco 1"Youth: Voidngdiffer•
.:nee from the rural heartland. Journal of Rural
•~tudu:s, 1/J, I 69178.
Sp:vak, G. (1987). In or/ier worlds: in culturai
politics. New York: Methuen,
Sta:::ey, L., & Wisc, S. (I 983 J. Breaking out: Feminist
consciousness ami feminist resear,~. London:
R():Jtledge & Kegan PauL
Ste'::::auer, I!, (2003 ). Thought~ on an indigenous
methodology. Canadir.m Journal of
N<1rive Education, 69-.S I.
Stewart, T. A, (l 997). Inte!lectuaf capitill: 11ie new
weairh of org,mizatiom, New York, Doubleday/
Currency.
Stewart-Harawira, M. [1999, October), Neci-imperialism
the (mi~)approprialion of im.:igemiusness.
Pacific World, 10-15.
Awekotuku, N. (1991). Man..1 wahine Miiori,
Auckland, :,l'ew Zealand: .New Wo:;1en's Press,
Awekotuku, N, ( 1999). !>Him; wumen and research;
Researching o-rselves. Ir: Miiari psyclwliigy:
Res~,m::h and pra.::tice (pp. !Proceedings of
J sympusium s?o:::mrt'd by the Y.aor j and
Psychology Resea,ch Lnit, L;nive:,ity ofWaika:oj.
Hamilton, ;ifew Zealand: University of Waikato,
Tc lknnepe, S, (1993). Issues of respect: RetkctiC'ns
First Katkms s:udents' experiences ln post-
secondary anthropolofy das,rncms. C1madian
foumal of Nafr;e &fi,,catim;, 20, 193-260.
Thomas, G. (2001). The value of scientific engineering
training for Indian communities. In K. James
Sn:ith: Re5ear;;h i ng the Native .M,bri 1111 107
(Ed,), ,v:t1,r1a and Natiw American mmmunir:ies
(Pl}. 149-1.54). :,im:oln: University or Neh:11ska
P:-ess.
Thompson, P. ( 1978). T,~e voice.; of the past. London:
Oxford University Press.
Tierney, W.G.(20001 Undanntedcour:ige:Lifehistcry and
the post::iodern c'iallenge, Ir: Denzin & Y. S.
L'l:wln (Eds,), Handbook of quulitati.:e re,earch
(2nd ed., pp, 537-554), Thousand Oaks,
To:nlins, Jahnke, :!, [ 1997), Towards a :l:eory mana
wahine, He Pukenga Korero: A fo11rru,i of Maori
Studies, 3( I), 27-36,
Trask, E. ,K. (1986 ), Eros and power: Tlie promise
of feminist theory. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylv-,mia Press.
Trask, H,,K. (1993). From a native daughter:
Co!onialism and sovereignty in l!awai'i. Monroe,
ME: Common Courage Press,
Vidich,A, J., & Lyman, S, M. (2000), Qualitative meth•
ods: TI1ei: history in sociology and anthropology,
In N. K. Denzin & Y, S, Lincoln (F.ds, ), Handbook
uf qualitative resean·h (pp. 37-84\. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Warrior, R.A. ( 1995 ). Tribal secrets: Recovering American
lndir:m intc//e,tual :radii/on,. Minneapolis: Univer•
sity of Minnesota Press,
w:: mer,E ( J':19 3). The im1igenaus voice m world
tmlitics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Woma,.k, C. S. (1999). Red on red; Native American
literary separatim1. M::::1eapo!IS! Universitv of
Minne~ota Press.
Worby, G., & Rigney, D. (2002), Approaching ethical
issues: Institutional managemen, of i ndigen(l::s
research, Austra!ian Universities Review, 45(1 ),
24-33,
5
FREEING OURSELVES
FROM NEOCOLONIAL
DOMINATION IN RESEARCH
A Kaupapa Maori Approach
to Creating Knowledge 1
Russell Bishop

One the cha!lenges for Mi!ori rpsearchers . .. has been to rerrir>ve som<~ SDi:ICe
fir,t, some space to convincc- Maori people of the value of rPsearch for Maori; ,ec-
omJ, 10 convince the variou.,. frilgmented but powerful re,earch communities of the
need for greater Maori involvement in research; and third, to develop approaches
and w,1ys of carrying out rP,PaJTh which take into account, wit/Jout being limited by,
the /pgacies of prevmus re,e.uch, and the parameters of both previous and current
approaches. ',Vhat is now rpferred to as Kaupapa MtJ.ori approact;e, to re,earch. 1,
an attPmpt to retrlevici Ulat space and to achiPve those general iiim.-.
-,L, T. Smith U 999, p. 183)

T
his char1te~ seeks to iden:il'y how is,ues of
p<1wer, including initiation, benefits, rep-
resentatkn, legitimation, and acco•Jnt-
ability, are addressed ir: practk:e w1tnm an
indigenous Kaupapa Maori approach in 5·Jch a
way as to promote the self-determination of
:he research participants. In addition, this
ch apter quest ions how such c.onsi..:erations
may affect ,-vester:1-trained and ·positioned
researchers.

Author's :\lnte. : an very grateful lu Lo•Js Heshu.,'u,, l'\crma;i De::z;:1, am: nonna Dey',le for their careful CQl1':de:alior. of ear·
lier draf:s A tlii, chapicr. l l!m also gra!!?ful to SUllar, Sandretto '.Of hJ:r thoughtful a;si,tance in pttpa:ing this cha:;tc:.To tho,~
of my family and friends wl:o have wcrked 1111 this and utlier «><:arch px.jects over the I want to express my r,mtilude.
\;fa le .'l.unga ::law.i. k~utou, e :iaki, e manaaki,

Ill 109
 110 Ill HANDBOOK 01' Ql:A:JTATIVE RESEARCH-CilAJJfER 5
Maori people, along with many other minori
tired peoples, are conce~ned that educational
researchers have been slow :o acknowledge the
importance of culture and cultural diftere;;ces as
key components in successful research ?rll.C:ke
and understandings,As a result, key research issues
power relations, i:1:tiatio:1, benefits, represen:a-
tion, lcgitimizatlo:1, and accountability continue to
addressed in te:-ms the researchers' own cul-
tural agendas, concerns, a;id interests, This chapter
seeks to identJy how such domination ,;an be
addressrd by both Maori and non-!,.,1aori educa-
tional researchers th rough rhei r ronsdou s partici-
?ation within the cultural aspirations, preferences,
and practices of the research participants,
It is important to position this chapter with:n
the growing body of litcralu,e that questions tra-
ditional approaches to :-esearching on/forJwit:1
minor!t:zed peoples by placing the culture
"an ethnic group at the cen:er of the inqu:ry"
(TIiiman, 2002, p. 4). Notablt among these a'Jthor~
are: Fram.::~s Rains, Ju-Ann Archibald, and Donna
Dcyhle (2000), who, in editing and introducbg
a special edtion of the Jmerru,1/ona/ Journal of
Q11afi1afr1c Studies faJucaricm ( QSE) titled
1nn,ugh Our and ir: Our 01v11 Words-Tl1e
Voices of Indigenous Scholars, featured examples
of ':i\merican-lndian/~aliYe Ar:1erican :ntdk'CIU-
alism, culture, .:ulture-based curriculum, and
ind :ge11ous epfatemologies and paradigms"
(Tillman, 2002, p. 5). K_ 1'.<dan ina Lomawaima's
(2000) analysis of the history of power struggles
between acaderr:ic researcher, and those whom
the)· study identified how the hls:ory of scholarly
research (indudillg education) in Native America
"!:as been deeply implicated :n the large, history
of the do:nination and oppression o" Native
An:erkan communities" (p. 14). 011 a positive
note, howevc,, she: identified how the development
o~ new research protocol, by various tribes shows
the way toward :nore respectft:J and responsible
scholarship. Similarly, Verna Kirkness, Carl Urion,
and /o-Anne Archibald in Canada am: their work
wifa tr.e Canadian Journal of Natiw Education
have brought issues of researching with respect to
the fore. ln addition, Donna Deyhle and Karen
(1997) have examined the growth of
self-determination approac~1es among indigenous
peoples of Korth America. Others involved in such
scholars.hip include African American schola,s
(Ladso:i-BiUngs, 1995, 2000; Star:field, l 994;
Till man, 2002) and Chicana and Chicano schola:.
(Goni.alez, 200 I; Moll, I992; Reyes, Scribner, &
Scribner, 1999; Vi:legas & Lucas, 2002) who are
c.i.11:ng for greater attention to power relations and
the role of cult'Jre the research process.
¼bile drawi:ig on the work of these scholars
and others to illustrate some of the arguments in
this chapter, howev,;;r, lhis discussiou of cullumlly
respo:isive research will focus on Maori people's
experiences of research as an example of the wider
argument
11!1 ,\'1.~0RJ PEOPLE'S CONCE;l,NS ABOL''J'
RESEARCH: ISSUES 01' POWER
Des?ite guarantees of :he Treaty of Waitangi,2
the colonizarion of Aotearua/Ne,.vZealand and the
snhsec~1ent
. neocolonia: dominar:cc :na'oritY
' ,
interests in soda! and educational xsea rch have
continued, The result has been the de11eloprnent
of a tradition of research' into Maori people's lives
that addresses concerns ami interests of the pre-
dominantly non-Maori researchers' own making,
as defined and made accountable in terms of the
researchers' own cultural worldview(s),
Researchers in Aotearoa/New Zealand !:ave
developed a tradition of research that has per pet-
uated colonial power imhalances, thereby under-
valuing a:id helitt:ing Maori knowledge and
learning practices and processes h: order to
enhance those of the colonizersc and adherents of
colonial paradigm&. A social pathology xseard:
approach :urn d~veloped in Aotearoa/'.'Jew Zealand
faat has he come implied in aII phases of the
research process: the "inability" of Maori culture
to cope with human pro;ilems and propositions
that Maori culture was and is inferior to that of
the colonizers in :i urnan terms. Furthermore,
such practice:, have perpel'Jated en ideology of
cultural st:?eriority that precludes the develop-
ment of power-sharing processes and the lcgit-
imlzation of diverse cultural epistemologics and
cosmologies.

Furtherr:1ore, traditior.al research has mis•
represented Maori unde::siancings and ways of
k:10wing by simpli:ying. conglomerating, and
commoditylng Maori k1;owledge for "consump-
tion" by the colonizers. These processes have con-
sequently misrepresented _\faori experiences,
thereby denying Maori authentidty and voke.
Such xsearch has displace.: Maori lived experi •
ences and the meanings that these experiences
have with the "aufaoritative" voice of the n:ethod-
ologkal "expert;' appropriating Maori lived expe-
rience in terms defined and dete:-mined by the
''expert:' Moreover, miny misconstrued Mami
cultural practices and meanings are now part of
our everyday myths of Aotearoa/Ne;,; Zealand,
hdieved by tviaori and non-Maori alike, and traci-
tional social and educational research has C0'.1·
tribuied to this siti;atio:1. As a result, 1Iaori people
are deeply concerned about the issue of to whom
researchers are accountable. Who has comrol over
the initiation, procedures, evakat:ons, construc-
tion, ancl distri::mtion of newly def:ned knowl-
edge? Analyses by rr:ysd: (Bishop, 1996, J998b)
and Linda Tuhiwai Smith ( 199<l) have concluded
that control over legitimiwtion ,rnd representation
is maintained within the domain of the colonial
and neorolonial paradigms and tha: locales of ini·
tiation and accountability are situated within
Western cultural :rameworks, t:1us predudir:g
Maori cu!tJral forms and processes of initiation
and accountahUity:
Traditional research epistemologies have
developed methods of :n itiating research and
accessing res,ean;n par:ic: pan:s that are located
within the cultural preferences and praclicc>s of
the Western wor:d, as opposed to the cultural
preferences and practices of Maori people them-
selves. For example, the preoccupation with neu·
trality, objectivity, and dis:a:1ce by educational
researchers hns emphasiz.ed these concepts as cri-
teria for authori cy, rep:e,entation, and account-
ability and, thus,has distanced Maori peop,e frorr.
participation in the construction, validation, and
!egilirr.ization of knowledge. As a result, Maori
people are increasii:gly becoming concerned
about who will di:ecty gain from the research.
T:'t'lditio:ially, research has established an approach
llishop:A Kaupapa Maori Approach III lll
in whkh the research has served to advance the
intere;;ts, concerns, and methods of the researcher
and to locate the benefi:5 of the research at leas!
in part with the researcher, other ocnefits being of
lesser concern.
Table 5.1 summarizes these concerns, noting
that thil'> analysis of Maori people's concerns
about research reveals five crises that affect
indigenous c>€oplcs.
11 lNSIDERS/O1rrsTDERS:
WHo CM, CoND:JCT RESF.ARCH
IN IN:>IGF:~0US SETT!NGS!
The concerns about initiation, benefits, repre•
sen:ation, legitimacy, and accountability raise a
m:.mber of questions about haw research with
Y,aori and indigenous peoples &hould be con-
ducted, bi:::: perhaps initially lt is impo:iant to con··
sider by whom that research should be co11dm:ted.
One answer to :his question might well he to
ta'.,e au essentia: ir.ing positio:1 and suggest that
cultural "insiders" might well undertake resc-arch
in a more sensit:ve and responsive manner than
"outsiders:' As Merriam rt al. (2001) suggest, it
has "commor.ly been a~sunrc that being an
insider neans easy access, the abfaty to ask more
meaningful questions and read non-verbal cues,
and most in: portantly be able to project a more
truthful, authentic understanui ng of the culture
under study" (p. 411). On the other hand, of
course, there are concerns that insiders ,ue
inherently b:ased, or that they are too close to
the culture to ask c;;itical questions.
Whatever the case, such understandings
ass;ime a homogeneity that is far from the reality
of the diversity and complexity tha: characterizes
indigenous peoples' lives and that ignores the
impacts that age, class, gender, educatio::t, and
color, among other variables, might have upor. the
research relutionshlp. Such understandings might
arise even among rese.irchers who might consider
themselves to be "inside,s:' A number of studies
by researchers who had ir.itially considered them-
sdve.s :o be "in.:.iders" (Brayboy & Deyhle, 2000;
112 111 HANDBOOK Of QUALllKflVE RESEAf\CH-CHAPTER 5

Table5.l. Miiori Proplls Concerns About Research Focuses r,n the Lorns of Power Over Issues of
Initia:ion, Benefits, Representation, Legitimacy, and Accountahi::r y Being With the R!'.qearcher

lmtiation 1his concern focuses on how the research pwi;ess begi 11s and whose roncems, interests,
and methods o: approach dete::mine/define the outcomes. Traditio1Ja! ;esearch has
developed m.:thods of initiating :.:search and , researd: partidpants that are
locatc-d within tht cultural mncerns, prefe,ences, and practices of the Western world.
.
Benefits ·:be . ofbenefas ccnce;ns who will diredly gain from the resee.:ch, and whet':er
anyone actually wi[ be disadvantaged. Maori people are inrn:a,ingly becm:1ing ccnce:ned
important pol i:kal aspect because traditional ,cscarch has estaJ\ished an
a;iproach to research in which :he benefits of the research se,ve lo advance the ir.terest&,
concerns, and methods of the resea;l;her and :hat locates the benefits ,,f :he researi;h al
least in part with the researcher, o!hcrs being c1mcern.
l~epres.:ntatiorr Whose rescarc:i constitute;, an adequate depletion of snci11l reality? :'raditional research
has mis,cpresentt'li, that sim?l ified/cor:glomerated and com modified, Miiori
knowledge fur "mnsump:!n:1~ hy the co'.on i1.e:, and denied the authentidl y of Maori
experiences and voice. Such researc~ has displaced Maori lived experiences v,ith the
"authoritative~vnice of :he ''("llper:"voked in terms cefined!dctermined by the "expert."
Furthermore, many mismnstrued Maori rnllural practices and meanings are now part of
our everyday myths of Aotearoal".'rew Zealand, believed bv Maori an<l non•Maori alike.
Iegitima,y This issue concerns what ,r~thority we da::n for our texts, Traditioual ·-~1• has
undervalued and be'.'tt!e.l Miiori knowledi;e and learning p:actices and ,,. ::: orier
tn enhance those o: :he colonizers, a::d adherents nf neocclonial paradigms. Such research
'las developed a social palholog}· research appmach tbn has foc;;sed on the "i11abili1y• of
;\1aori culture to cope with human pmhlem5, and i; 'las proposed that Mao:i culture was
:nferio, to that of the mkmizers in h·~:nan terms. Such practices have perpetuated an
:ceology of cultural superiority that predmles the development of powcr·sharing
prncesses ar:c tr.e 1~gi1imation of di111:rse cul:ural epistemologles and cosmologits.
.4ccoimtability This c1mce:n questions researc::ers' accoL1ntability. ',,\0,o has cm 11 ::ol nve, the inil ialion,
procedures, eval:iations, tex: ronsl:11c::.::ns, and distribution cf newly defined knowledge~
Traditional resean:h has claimed tha: all peopk an inaliena:i:e right to utilize
knilwledge and has maintai::ed that research findings be "'" .,~,.,: in term of criteria
located within the epistemological frarr.ework d traditional resean.f, thus creating locales
of accounta,,:'ty that are situ.;J:<l within Wei.tern cultural frameworks.

Johnson-Bailey, 1999; Merriar:i et 2001; L. T. Howeve,, as Kative Ane,ican scholar Karen

Sr.11th, 1999) attest to this problem. Further, as
Linda Tuhiwai Smith(: 999) argues,even Western-
trained indigenous researchers who are intlrr.ately
i:wolved with corr:munity :nembers typically will
employ research techniques and methodologies
th a: wi II likely :narginallze the co:nmunities' con-
tribution to the investigatio1:. This suggests that
indigenous resea:d1ers will not automatically con-
d1.cct re,earch in a culturally appropriate manner
even when researching their ow:i com :nunities.
Swisher ( 1998) argues, th~ dilemma remains, for
despite developments in research that attempt to
listen to the voices and the stories of the people
under study and present them h: ways "to eucour-
age readers to see through a different lens ...
much research still is presented from an outsider's
perspective" (p. 191). Kevertheless, despite the
problems that indigenom resfaxhcrs might well
face, she argues that American Indian schofars
need to become involved in le.,di ng research

rather than beiug the subjects or consumers of
research. She suggests :hat this involverr:en: will
assist in keeping control over t:le research in the
bands of those involved. She (among o:her
sources) a 1989 ~eport of regior.al dialogues, Our
Vofres, Our Vision: Ameri.:a11 Indians Speak Out for
Rducational Exce/lence, as an example of research
that addressed the sdf-determinal ion of the
people involve<: because from the "conception of
the cia:ogue format to fornrJlation of data and
publication, [ndian people were in charge of and
guided the project; and the voices and cor.cerns of
the people were dearly evident" (p- 192).
Swisher (:998) argues that what is missing
fro:n the pletho:a of books, journals, and articles
produced by non-Indians about Indians is "the
passion from wifain and the aulho,it y to ask new
and different quest:ons based on histo:ies and
experiences as indigenous people" (?, 193).
Furthermore, she argues that the diffe:-ence
involves rr:orc than just diverse ways of know :ng;
it co m:ems "knowing :hal what we think is
grounded in principles of sovereignty and self
determ inatiuu; and that ii has credibility"
(p, 193). In thb way, Swisher is dear that "lnci:m
people also beEeve that they have the answers for
lr:1proving Indian education and feel they must
spe?-< for :nemselves" (p. l92). If we were to
extrapola:e this argument to other indigenous
settir.gs, we could see this as a call for the power
of definition over issues of research, with ini1 ia •
ti,m, benefits, represei:ta:ion, legitimation, and
accOLtntabili:y being with indigenous peoples,
Swisher ( 1998) identifies ai: attinide of "we can
ar.d must do it ourselves;' yet it is also dear that
nonindigemms people must help, but not in the
impositional ways of the past Of course, this
raises the question of just what are the m:w po.si•
tions on offer to nonindigenous researchers-
and to indigenous researchers, for that matter.
Tillman (2002), when con~idering who should
co:iduct researd: i:1 African American commu.:1i-
ties, suggests that it '.s 1101 simply a ;natter of say•
ing that the researcher :nusr :ie African American,
but ~lrlather it is important to co.:1sider whether
the researcher has the cultural knowledge to
accurat,',Y interpre: and validate the experiences
Tfo.lmp: A Kaupapa :\'i,fori Ap?ro.id1 11! 11 J
of African-Americans within the context of the
phenomcnor: under skdy" (p, 4). Margie Maaka,
at the 2003 joint rnn:'rrence of the New Zealand
Association for Research in Education and
Austrdian Association fur Research in Education,
extended this understanding of w:, ~:c nori indige·
nous peoples should be positioned by s:.1:ing that
Maori must be in control of the research agcrnia
and must be the ones who set the parar.1eters;
however, others can pa~ti cipate at the invitatior. of
the incigenous people. In o:her words, it is Maor:
research hy yfaori, for Ylaori wit'! the ielp o:
invited others,
For native sc:1olars, Jacobs-Hi:ey (2002) and
LT. Smith (1999) emphasize the ;,ower of citical
reflexivity. The former states that"critical reflexivity
in both writing and identification as a native
researcher may act to resist charges having
played the 'native card' via a non•crit:cal privileging
of ui:e's insider status" (Jacobs-Huey, 2002, p. 799).
Smifa emphasizes tl1at "at a general level insider
researchers have to have ways of :hinking crit:rnlly
abnut their processes, their relatior.ships and the
quality and richness of their data and ar:alysis_ So
too do outsiders.,~• (Smith, 1999, p, 137).
Researchers such as Narayan (1993), Gr'ffiths
(1998), ar:d Bridges (200 I) explak that it is no
lor:ger useful to think of researchers as insiders
or outsiders; instead, resear.:hers might posi,
tioned "ir. :e:-ms of shifting identifications amid a
field of in :erpenetrating comm unities and power
relations" (Narayan, 1993, P- 671 ). Na:-aya:i pro·
poses that instead of trying to define insider or
o·Jtsider status,
what we must focus our ?.t:ention r,r. is thr quality uf
relations wi·.h r:ie people we to repre:;e:;t in our
tens: are :hey ,i,:;wed ~s mere fodder for profe:;i;ion•
self-sc:ving sta:ements about J gener~lized
Other, or are th~y 11ccepted as s:.:bjccts w:th voice;;,
views, and dilemmas-peo;ile to whom we a,e
horded ,hm:igh riesof redproci;y ... n1993,p.6?2;
This chapter suggests how these concer:u and
aspi~tions might be met by ii:voking a discursive
repositioning of all researchers into those posi-
tions that operationalize self-determi na:ion for
iudigcnm.:s peoples.
114 111 HAKDBOOK Qt:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 5
Out of the discontent with traditional reseaxh
and its disruption of Maori life, an indigenous
approach to research has emerged in Aotearoa/
New Zealand. This approach, termed Ka:.ipapa
Maori research, is challenging the dominance of
the Pakeha worldview in research. Kaupapa Maori
rese&rch emerged from within the w:der ethnic
revita: izatior: rr:ovement tl::at developed in :'.'lew
Zealand following the rapid )/,_frori urhan izatio:i
of the post-World War II period. This revltaliza•
tio;i .:11ovement b'.ossomed in the 1970s and 1980s
with the intensifying of a polit:cal consciousness
among Mao~i corn munities. More recently, in the
late 19!\0s and the early : 990s, thi5 consciousness
has featured the revitalization of Maori cultural
aspirations, preferences. and practices as a philo-
sophical a:id ;>ro(!uctive educational stance,
along wilh a resistance to the hegemony' of the
dominant disrnurse. • rn eEect 1 therefore, Kaupapa
Maori presupposes positions that are committee
lo a c~itical analysis Llf the existing unequal power
relations within the wider New 7.ealand society
that were created with the sigr.ing of the Treaty
of Waitangi in I 840. those structures that work
to oppress Maori people. These include rejec-
tion hegemonlc, be!' ttling ''Maori can't cope"
discourses, together with a commitment to t'ie
power of consc:entization and pol:ticb:ation
through struggle fo~ wider community and social
freedorr:s (C. H. Smith, 1997).
A number of sig:1Jlkant dimensions to
Kaupapa Maori research serve to set it apart from
traditional resean:::i. One main focus of a Kaupapa
Maori approach to research is :he operationaliza-
tion of self-determinatio11 (tinc. rangatiraranga)
by Maori people (B:shop, 1996; Dur:e, 1994,
1995,1998; Pihama, Cram, & Walker, 2002; G. H.
Smith. I997; L. T Smith, 1999), Self-determina•
lion in Durie's (1995) terms "captures a sense of
Maori ownership and active control over tl:e
future" 16). Such a position is oonsistect with
the Treaty ofWaitangi. in which Maori :iec,pleare
able "to determine their own policies, to actively
part idpate in the development ar:d interpretation
of the law, to assume responsibility for their own
af:ai rs and to plan for the needs of future genera
tions" (Durie, 1995, p. 16). In addition, the promo-
tion of self-determination !:as benefits beyo:1d
these aspects. A LO-year study of Maori house-
ho:ds conducted by Durie (: 998) shows that the
development of a secure identity offers Maori
people advantages that may
afford some pmtc'Ction against poor health; i: is
more likely tc be associatrd with a:t:vc educational
parfa:ipAtion and with pos'tive employn:ent pm•
fik'S. The corollary i~ that reduced access to the
Milori rcsm1n:es, and the wider Miw~i wor'.c!, may
be associated with cultural, social and economic
disadvan:age. (pp. :,8 59)
Such an approach challenges locus of
power and control over the research issues o: ini·
tiation, :ienefits, representation, legitimation, and
accountability as outlined above, being loca:ed
in another cultural frame of refaencehvorldview.
Kaupapa Maori therefore, cha]enging the
dominance of :raditional, :ndividualistk restard1
tl:at primarily. at least i:I its present form, benefits
tl:e researchers and thei:- agenda. In contrast,
K;rnpapa Jr,laori research is colledivistic and i,
oriented ~oward benefiting all the resfarch partic-
ipants and their collectively determined agendas,
dcfin ing a:id ac~nowledgi:Jg Maori aspirations
for research, while developing and implementi::ig
Maori theoretical and methodolog:cal preferences
and practices for :-esearch.
Kaupapa Maori is a discourse that nas
emerged from and is legitimized from within the
Maori co1rum:nity. Maori educationalist Graham
Hingangaroa Smith ( I992) describes Kaupapa
Manri as "the philosophy and practke of being
and acting Maori" (p, ' It assumes the taken-for-
gran:~d social, political, historical, i:Jtellectual,
and cultural legitimacy of Maori people, in that it
is an orientatiui; in which "Maori language, cul-
ture, knowledge and values are accepted in their
own right» (p. 13 ). Linda Tnhiwai Smith (1999),
another leading Maori exponent of this approach,
argues that such nami:1g provides a means
wherebv communities of the resear:::1:ed a:1d the
'

resear6ers can "engage ir: a dialogue about
setting directiollli for the priorities, po: ides, and
practkes research for, by, and with Maori"
[p.183).
Or:e fundamental unde:o:.:mding of a Kaupapa
Maori approach to research is that it is the discur-
sive practice that is Kaupapa Maori that posit tons
researchers in such a way as to operationalize self-
determination in terms of agentic positioning and
behavior for research participants. This under-
standing challenges the cssentializing did10tomi-
zation of the insider!outsider c!ebate by offering a
discursive positio:i for f,;;Searchers, irrespective of
ethnicity. Th is positioning occurs because the
cultural aspirations, t:nderstandings, and prac-
tices of Maori people are used both literally ar:d
fig'Jratively to implement and organize the
research process. Fur:her:nore, the assoda:ed
research issues of initia:ion, be:1cfi ts, represen
t• tion, lcg:timization, ar:d accountab:lity are
address.:d and Jndernlood in practice by practi-
tioners of Kaupapa Maori research within the
cultural context of the research participants.
Such understandbgs cr.allenge rrnditional
ways of defining, acce~sing, ar:d constructing
knnwledge abo'Jt indiger:ous peoples ana the
?IDcess of self-crit:que, sometimes termed
digm shifting:'that is used by Western scholars as
a means of"deansing" tl:ought and attaining what
becomes their version of the "tmth:' Indigenous
peoples are challenging this process beca'Jse it
maintains 1.."0nt,ol over ~he research agenda
within the cultural domain of :he researd:ers or
their instituiions.
A Kaupapa M,\ori positior. is predicated on tlce
understanding that l\·iiiori means of accessing,
definir.g, aud protect'.ng know'.edge existed before
Europear: arrival in New Zealand. Such Mao:-i cul-
tu!'al proc(:sse, were protected by :he Treaty of
Waitangi then si:1.Jsequent'.y marginalized; oow-
ever, they have always been legitimate within
Maori cdtural ci&courses.As with other Kau?a?a
Maori initiatives in education.hcalth,and welfarr,
:<aupapa Maori rc,earch practice is, as Irwin
(1994) explains, epistemologically based within
Maori ~'Jltural specificities, preferences, and
Bishop: AKimpapa Maori Approach • 115
practices.' [n Olssen' s (I 993) terms, Maud
initiatives are "epistemologically productive
w:ie:e in rnmtructing a vision ef the wor1d and
positioning ?eo;,le in relation to its dassifir.a-
tions, it takes its sliape from its interrelations with
an infi:Jitely proliferating series of other elemeri:s
within a particular social field" (p.4).
Huwevi:r, this is :rnt to suggcs: that such an
analysis pro:notes an essentialist view of Maori in
which all Maori must act in prescribed ways, for
Maori are just as diverse a people as any
One of the main outcomes of Durie', ( 1998) lon-
giti.:dinal study of Maori families, Te Hoe Kulm
Roa, is the identification of this very diversity
within Miiori peoples. To Pihnma et al. (2002 ), this
means that Kaupapa Maori analysis must take
this diversity of Miiori peop,es into account They
argue that Kaupapa Maori analys :s for
all Maori, "not for select groups or :ndividuals.
Kaupapa Mao:i is not owned by any group, nor
can it he defined in ways that deny Maori people
access to its articJ!a:ion" (p. 8). ln other words,
Kaupapa Maori analysis must benefit Maori
people in prindplr and in practice in such a way
that current realities of :narginalization and
the heritage colonialism and neocolonialism
are addressed,
II ExAMPLl'S (lF C:.rCTURAUY
RESPONSIVE RESEARCH PRACTICES
This analysis is base.:! or: a number of studies
conducted by the autr.or using Kaupapa Maori
research. Tl:e fint study, Collaborative Research
Stories: Whakawharraungcuanga (1996; also see
Bishop, 1998b }, was a collaborative meta-study
of five projects that addressed Maori agendas in
research in order to ascerlllin :he ways in which
a group of researchers were addrcssi ng Maori
people's concerns almut research and what the
researchers' "·"'""'""':" of these projects meant
to them indiv:duaily. rheexperiem::es of the vari-
ous researchers and their ur:derstandings of their
experiences were investigated by co-constructing
collaborative research stories, The objeclive was
l l 6 Ill HAN UROOK OCALITAIIV E RRSEA RCH-CHAPT ER 5
to engage in a process of critical reflection and
builri a discourse based on the formal and infor-
mal meetings tl:a~ were part of each of the
projects in order to connect epistemological ;_;:.ies
tions to indige1:ou5 ways of knowh:g by way of
descriptions of actual research projects. The
meta-study examined how a group researd1ers
addressed the importance of devolving power and
control lo fac research exercise in order to pro•
mote tir:o Rangatiratanga of Maori poople-that
Ls, to act as educational professionals in ways con-
sistent with Article Two of the Treaty of\Vaitangi."
I talked with other reselilrchers who tac accepted
be challenge of being repositior. ed by and within
the ciscursive practice that is Kaupapa Maori.
The meta-study in effect soug;11 to i:westigate
my own position as a researcher within a conjoint
reflectio:1 on shared experie:ices and conjoir.t
construction of • eanings about these µvnori.
ences, a p0$ition where tht stories of tl:e other
research participants merged with my own ro
creatr new ,tories. Such collabomtive stories go
beyond an approach that simply locus rs on the
cooperative sharing of exper'ences and focuses
on connectedness, engage • e:1t, and involvement
with the other research participants w:thin the
cn;tural worldview/discursive practke within
which they function, This study sought to identify
what constitutes this engagemrm and what
i1:1plicarions this mnstitJtion has for promoting
se:f-determinatio:i/agencyfroice in the research
participants by examinbg concepts of participa-
tory and cu!rural cr.msciousness imd comiectedm:ss
within Maori ciscursive practice,
Thr second study, Te Joi Huarewa: leaching
and Learning in 1otal Immersion Miiori Language
Educ,uw,;al Settings (Bishop, Berryma:i, &
Richardson, 2002), sought to identify eflective
teaching and ;earning strategies, effective teach-
ing and lea:-ning n:aterials, anc the ways in which
:eachers assess and monitor the effectiveness of
their teach:ng in Maori-medh.:m reading and
writir.g programs for students aged 5 to 9 years.
Fcllov,ir.g a period of establishing relationships
anc developing a joint agenda for !he research to
icent ify what effective teachers do in their class-
rooms ai:d why they teach ir: a particular mm: n..:r,
the researchers sot:gi1t to operationalize Kaupapa
Maori concerns that the selt:determinalion of the
research part'cipants over issues of repre8enta•
tinr, and leg::imatior: be paramount. T'.1c strategy
consisted of conductjng interviews and dlrecteci
observations, followed by facilitated teacher
rellections on w:rn: had been observed by usir.g
stimulated recall interviews (Calderhead, 1981).
The stimulated recall interviews that foliowed tr.e
observat:0.:1 sessions focused on specif:c intera< ·
:ions observed in the dassmoms. In the .stimulated
:-ecall ir::e~views, the teachers were enco·Jrnged lo
reflect ,pcm what been observed and lu bring
their own se11se-makir:g processes to the discus•
si1ms in order 10 co-construct a "ric'l'' descriptive
picture of their dass:uom practices. In other
words, they were encouraged to reflect upon and
explain why tb:y did what they did, in their own
terms. Through the use of this process, they
explained for •Js that they all placed the culture
of the child at the center of learning re'.ationships
by developing in their classrooms what we later
termed (after Gay, 2000; Villegas & L:.icas, 2002)
a culturally appro,:1riate and responsive ,·otttext for
learning.
The third study, Te Ko1.,hitar1ga: The
Experie!lces uf Yeur 9 and J() Maori Students in
Mainsrream Classrooms (Bishop, Be:-ryman, &
Richardson, 2003), is a work ir:,progress, a
research/ pmfossional development project that is
now entering its third phase o:: implementaf:lm in
12 schools with some 360 teachers. The project
comn:enced in 2UOJ, seeking to address self-
determination of Maori secondary school students
by talking with :hem and other participants in
their ecacatio11 abo:.it just what is involve;,: in :im-
iting and/or imprnving t'ie'r educational achieve-
ment. The project commencec'. with the gatheri1:g
of a r:umber of narratives of students' classroom
experience from a range of engaged anc non•
engaged Maori students det:ned by their
&chools), in five non-structurally :nodified main-
;.1rea:n secondary sciools using the process of
collaborat'.ve storying, This approach is very
sim'lar to that ter:ned testimmtio, :n that it is the
intention of the direct narrator (research partici-
pant) to use an interlocutor (the researcher) to

bring their situation to the attention of an audience
"tu which he or she would r,ormal~· not have access
because of their very conditio:1 of subab:emity
to which the testimonio bears witness" (Beverley,
WOO, p. In this research prnjec:, the students
were able to share their narratives about their
experiences of schooling, so that teachers who
otherwise might not have had access to the narra-
tives could reflect upon them in terms of their
own experiences a,1d u:1derstandings,
It was from these amazing stories that the rest
of this project developed. In their narratives. the
students dearly identified the main influences on
their ed1.:catiomu achievement by articulating the
:mp acts and conseq i.:ences of their living in a
ma:-ginalized space. T'.lat is, they explained how
they were perceived in pathological terms by their
teachers and how this perception has had nega•
tive effects on their lives. In addition, the students
told the research team how teachers, in changing
how they related to and Interacted with Mao:i
,:udents in their dassrooms. could create a
context for lear:1ing wherein Maori stude:its
educational ach'evement conic: l:nprove, again by
pfacir.g the self-deter:nination of Miiori students
at the center of classroom relationships.
Such an approach is consistent with Ryan
(1999), who suggests that a solution to the one-
sidedness of representatio:1s that are promotec
by the dominance of the powerful--in this case,
pathologizing discourses-is to portray events as
was done in the collaborative stories of tr.e Maori
,tudents, in terms of "co:npeting discourses
rather than a& simply the projection inappro•
priate images" (p. 187). He suggests that this
approach, rather than seeking the truth or "real
pictures:' allows for previously marginalizer'. dis-
courses "lo emerge and compete on equai terms
with previously dominant discourses" (p. 187).
On the basis of the suggestions from Year 9 and
Year JO (agei! 14-16) Maori students, the researd1
team deve'.oped an "Effective Teaching Profile:'
Together with other information from r.arratives
of experiences from those parenting the studer.ts,
from the:r principals and their teachers, a:1d from
the l::era:ure, this Effective Teaching Profile has
formed the basis of a professional devclupment
'l:shop: A Kacpapa Miiori Approach 11 117
program that, ,1.-hen implemented with a group of
teachers in four schools. was assoda:ed w:th
:mproved learning, behavior, and attendance out•
comes for Maori students in the classrooms of
those teachers who had been able to participate
fully i:1 the professio!'!al development program
(Bishop, Berryman. et al., 2003 ).
Ill A::mRESSTNG Iss JES OF
SEL?~DET ERM :)lAJIUJ\
Western approaches to operationalizing sclf-
deterrnbatio1: (agentk positioning am:! behavio~)
in others are, according to Noddings (1986) and
fl. Davies (l 990 ), best addressed by those w:10
position :hem,elves with In empowering rela-
tionships. Authors such as Oak:ey (1981 ), Tri?P
(] 98:l ), Burgess (1984), Lather (1986, 1991),
Patton (1990). Dclamo11t ( 1992 ), Eisner ( l 991 ),
Reir.narz (i992), and Spragi;e and Hayes (2000)
suggest that ac1 "empowering" relationship ,o·id
be attained hy deve:opi ng what could be termed
an "en\-.anced research rl'lation,hip;' in which
there occurs a long-term development of mutual
purpose and between the researcher and
the researched. lb facll:ta:e this development
of mutuality, the research must recognize the
need persona: 'nvestment in the form of seI-
disdosure and open:iess. Sp,ague ar:d Hayes
(2000) explai:1 tha: such relations:iips are mutual
Ilo] the cegree to which each 11arty mgotia1es a
balance between co:11 m'tr::,:nt to the other's and :o
one's own jmm:ey of self dcterminat ion. l:i mutua:
relationships each strives lo re.:ognize the other's
unique and changing need:, and abilities, Jand;
takes the other's perspectives and inte~esls inm
a.:counl. [p, 684)
In the practice Kaupapa Maori research,
however, there develops a degree of (nvo1ve:nent
on the part of the researcher, constituted as a way
of know:ng, that is fundamental!~· different from
the concepts of personal investment and collabo•
:-ation suggested by the above aut:mrs. Altlmugh
it appears that "personal investment" is essential,
llll III HANDBOOK Of. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 5
this p::roonal investment is not on terms determined
by the "invtstor:' Instead, the investment is made
on tern:s of mutual understanding and control by
all participants, so that the investment is red pro•
cal and could not he otherwise. l n other words,
the "per~onal investment" b-y the researcher is not
an act hy an individual agent hut instead emerges
out of the conLext within which the research i::;
constituted.
Traditional conceptuali1ations of knowing <lo
not adequately explain this understanding. Elbow
(1986, as cited in Connelly & Clandir. in, 1990)
identifies a different form of reciprocity, one he
terms "connected knowing;' in which the «knower
is attached to the known" (p. 4). In otner words,
there is common understanding and a common
basis for such an understanding. where the con·
cerns, interest.~, and agendas of the researcher
become the concerns, bterests, and agendas of
the re:;e?.rched and vice versa. Hogan (as dted in
Conneliy &: Clandinin, 1990, p. 4) to this as
a "feeling of connectedness." Heshusius (I 994,
2002) transforms th is notion by suggesting the
neeti to move from an aaenated mode of con,
sciousness that sees the knower as separa:e from
the known to a participatory mode of conscious-
ness. Such a mode of consciousness addresses a
fundamenta! reordering of understandiugs of the
relationship "betwee:i self and other (and there-
fore of reality), and indeed between self and the
world, in a manner where such a reordering not
only includes conr:ectedness hut necessitates let•
ting go of the focus on self" (Heshus:us, 1994,
p. 15).
Heshus;:is {1994) identifies this for :n of know-
ing as involving, th a: which Pola,1yi (1966) calls
"tacit knowing;' which Harman calls "compas-
~ionate consdousr:ess" (as cited in Heshusi;is,
1994), and which lierman calls "somatic" or "ho<l ·
ny" knowing (as cited in Heshus,us, I 994).
Barbara Tlr.iyer-Racon (1997) describes a ~ela,
tional epistemology that views "knowledge as
something that is sod ally constructed by embed-
ded, embodied people who are in reiation with
each other" (p. 245). E<tcb ofrhese authors is refer
ring to an embodied way of being and of a know-
ing :ha~ is a mmac(Otmtable, nondescribable way
of knowing_ Heshusius (1994) st:ggests that "the
act of coming to know is not a subjectivity thnt
one can explicitly account for;' but rather it is of a
"direct participatory r:ature one cannot accou:it
for" (p. l7). Heshasius (19%) also suggests that
. ' mode o: ,1insdou51:.,ss ihe aual-
In a particiva1orv .
iry of attenfr,er:es., is characterised by an absence
of the need to separate, distance and to insert pre-
determined thought patterns. m~tlwd~ and 6:,rmu-
las betw1;;en sdf and other. rt is chararn,riscd by an
absence of the need lo be in charge. (p. 627)
tlesh usius ( 1994) idenli::es the ground from
which a participatory mode of knowing emerges
as "the recognition of the deeper kir:ship between
ourselves and ot!ler" (p. 17). This form of know-
i:lg speaks in a very real sense to Maori ways of
knnwing, for the Maori term for mnnecte,!ness
and engagement by kinsr:ip is w}u:maungatanga.
This concept is one of the most fondamclltal
ideas within Maori culture, both as a value and as
a social process.' Wh anaungatangg literally con,
sists of kin rela:iomh;ps between ourselves and
others, and it is constituted in wa}·s determ lned
by the Miiori cultural context.
JI \.VHAKAWl!ANAVNGATANGA AS A
KA[PAPA MAORI RESEAR(H APPROACH
lVhakawhanaungutanga is t!.e process of cs !ah·
lishing whdnau (extended family) re!ationships,
literally by means ofidentifying, through culturai:y
appropriate means, your bodi!y linkage, )'llUt
C11l!agen:ent, 1-our connectedness. and, therefore,
an uns;10ken but implicit r.ommitmenl to o:her
people. For example, a mihimihi (formal rit:.1alized
introductio:1) at a hui (Maori ceremonial gather·
ingl involve:-i sta:ing your own whakapapa in order
lo estab:ish relatior.ships with the hosts/others/vis•
itors. A r.1ihlmihi does nnt identify you in terms of
yoorwork,in terms af your academic rank cir title,
for example. Rather, a mihimihi is a state1:1cnt of
where you are from and of how you can relatec
and connected to these other people and the :and,
in both the past and the present.

!'or Maori people, the process of whaka-
wha11aungatanga identifies how our :dentity
comes from our w:iakapapa and how our whaka-
papa and its associated ,aranga korero (those
srorie~ that explain the '.:)eople ar:ci events of a
whakapapa) li r:k us to all other living and inani-
mate creatures and to the verv earth we inhabit.
' material or nonmaterial (e.g .• know ledge) items
Our mountain, our ,iver, our island are us. We are
part of :hem, and they are part of us. We know
this in a bodily way, more than in a recitation of
names. More than in the actual linking of names,
we know i: because we are related by blood and
body. We are of the same bones ( iwi) and of the
same peop;e (iwi). We are fror.1 the same preg
nandes (!iapu) and of the same subtribe (hap1'.1).
We are of the san:e :amily (whanau), be family·
into which we were born (whanauJ. We were n:ir•
t:1:-ed by the same ;a:1d (whenua), by the same
place-nm (whenua ). In th is way, the language
reminds us that we are part 11f eac't other.
So when Maori people introduce ourselves as
whanaunga (relatives), whether it be to engage in
rese"rch or not, we are introducing part of one to
another part of the same oneness. Knowing who
we are is a somatic acknmvledgr:ient of our ;;011-
nectedness with and commitment to our sur•
rounding..,, hu:nar. a:td nonhuman. For example,
from this positioning it woi.:.id :,e very dif.icu: t to
undertake research in a "nommma:ic:' cistan.:ed
mc.nner. lb in'foke "distance" in a Maori rese-arch
project would be to deny rha: i: is a Maori project.
It would have dl''ferent goals, not Maori goals_
Establishing and maintaining wham:J rela•
tionships, which can be either literal or metaphoric
w::hin the d:scur.sive practice that is Kaupapa
Maori, :s an integral and ongoing ccmstitutive ele•
ment of a Kaupa?a ~laori approach to research.
EstabEshing a research group as if it were an
extended family i, one furm of embodyir:g the
process of wbakawhanaungatanga a& a research
s:rategy.
In a Kaupapa Mao:i approach to research,
research groups constituted as whilnau attempt to
develop relationships and organizations based on
similar prir:ciples to those that order a traditional
or literal whanau. Metge (l 990) ex?lains to
use the term whanau is to identify a series of
Bishop; A Kaupapa M,\ori Approach Ill '. 19
;ighls and responsibilities, commitments and
obEgations, and suppo,ts ~ha: are fundamental
:n the collectivity. These are the tikanga (customs J
of the whanau; warm in1rrprrsonal interaction&,
group so:idarity, shared responsihi!ity for one
another.cheerful cooperat:or. for group encs, cor·
porate respons:'::Jility for group property, and
a:1d issues. These attributes can be summ cd up in
the words aroha :love h: the broadest sense, also
mutuality}, awhi (helpfulness), manaaki (hosp!·
tality), and tiaki (guidance).
The whanau is a location for communica-
tion, for sharing out,omes, and constructing
shared common understandings am: meaning,.
individuals have responsihilitics to care for and to
nur:ure other members of the group, while still
adhering to the kaupapa of the group. The group
will upera:e to avoid singling o;it particular :ndi-
viduals :or commenl and a:tenion aud to avoid
embarrassin" individuals who are nut vet sue-
ceediog within" the groJp. Croup p:nducts '
and
achievemen: frtquently take 1he forr:1 of group
performances. not individual pe,formam:es. tc
:he group typically will beg'.n and end each ses-
with prnycr and alsn will ty pie illy s'.1are food
together. The group wH: make major decisions a:,
a group and then refor those decisions to kauma·
tua (respected elders of either gende:) for
approval, and the grou;, w:11 ses:k to operate with
the l-Up~x1n and encouri1geme• t kaumatua.
This feature acknowledges lhe :nultigc:1erational
const£:ution of a whilnau with associu:£d hierar·
chically determined rights, n'Sponsibilitics, and
obligations. 11
Detcrmbing Benefits: klentifying Line, of
Accountability Using Maori 11-ie:aphor
Determining wl:o benefits from the research
and lo whom the researche:, are a~countable also
can be uncerstood in terms of Maori discursive
pract:ces. W:1a! non·Maori peuple would refor to
a~ ·nanagement or control mechanisms are trndi •
tio:1ally constituted :n a wh!tnau as taonga tuku
iho-literally, those treasures passed down to us
from the ancestors, :hose custo:ns that guice our
l 20 111. HANDllOO;( OF QUALITATIVE R:CSEARCH-CHAPTER 5
behavior. In th is manner, tl:e strnclu,e and
function of a whana a describes and constitutes
the relationship among research participar:ts-
in traddonal research termir:ology, between the
researcher and the ,esearched-within Kaupapa
Miiori resean;h practice. Resean:h thus ca:inol
prrn;ced unless wh an au support :s obta!ned,
unless kaumatua provice guidance, and unless
there is n:oha betweei: the part icba:1ts, ev:
denced by an ove,riding feeling of tole~ance,
hospitality, and respect for others, their asp; -
rations, a11d their preferences and practices. The
research on:.ce,;s is participatory as well as par•
ticip,mt drivm i:1 the sense 1 1:at the concerns,
interests, and preferences of the whilnau are
what guide a:-id drive the research :iroccsses.
The research itself is driven by the participants
in :errns of se:ting the research questions,
ascertaining the likely benefits, outlining the
design of :he ,vork, undertaking the ,,/Ork that
:iad to be done, distributing rewards, ?roviding
access 10 research tlndi:lgs, con:mlling i:ie distri•
bution of the krmwlecge, and deciding to whom
:he re,ear.:her is accountable.
This approach has mi:ch in common wltl: that
described by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) as
participa1ory and colla;,orative action research,
which emerged "more or less deliberately as
furms of resistance to conventional research pr2c-
that were perceived by particular kinds of
pnrticipan;s as ads of colonization" (p. 572). To
Esposito ar.d Murpl:y (2000), participatory action
resrar,h emphasi?.es the political nalu:e of
knowledge production and places a prembm on
self ernai:dpation (p. i80), where
[s)t:d1 re,earch grm,;,s arc typically rn:nprised
of :iofa professionals and ordi::ary peuple, all nf
whom are regarded as authoritative sources of
k:wwloogc. Dy t:1aking minoriti<s the amhurired
reprcs,:nt,t:iv,;;:; of the knowle.:ge producecl their
expc:knces a:1d concerns are brought lo tl:e fore.
fair.: c: the researdL The res~lting i nfocmation is
ap;;lied to rest1l\•lr.g fae pmh!e:ns faey define col•
k:c.lil·c'.y as signifirnllL As a rcsu:t, the integrity of
distinct racial grnu;,~ i, nut annihilated or .~uh-
sumeJ wi:hin dominant narrative, that portray
faem a, p,dpheral member, of soci:ety.(p. 181)
For researchers, this approach means that they
are not in::ormation gatherers, data processors.
and sense-makers of other peo?le's lives; rather,
tl:ey are expected to be able to communicate with
individual, and groups, to participate in appro•
priate cultural processes and practices, arid to
interact in a dialogic manner with the research
participants, Esposito and Murphy (2000) explain
that research "methods are ge-.:ired to offer 0?por
tunities for discussion. Afte: all. information is
not trans• itted between researchers and individ-
uals; instead, ir:for:nation :s cocreated, ... data
are coproduced intersubjectively in a manner that
preserves the cxbten;ial nature o" the in lbrma •
tion» (p, J 82.).
Esposito a:u: Murphy (2000) also suggrst
that such an approacr. may facilitate the devel •
opmenl of th~ kind of research that Lomawaima
[2000) and and Weis (1996) describ,e. a
type in which im'estigators are more attuned to
"locally meaningful expectatio:is and concerns"
(Lomawaima, 2000, p. lS). In addition. t:tey sug-
gest thut researchers become uctively involved in
the solutions and promote the well•being of corn•
munlties, instead of merely using locations as
sites for data collection. As Lomawaima (2000)
sugges,s, res,Ear,:hers should open up lhe
"possibilities for directly :neaningful research-
research that is as informative and useful to tribes
as :1 is to academic profossionals and c.isdplinary
·h
. eones. "'i.?~.·si .
What is crucial to an understanding of what
it means lo he a researcher in a Kaupapa Maori
a;iproacb :s tl:at it is th::ough the development
of a pa,'.ic:palory mode of consciousness that a
researcher becomes part of this process. He or she
does not start from a position outside the group
and then choose to invest or reposition himself or
herself: Rather, the (re)positioning is part of par•
ticipal ion. The researcher can:wt "position" hi:n-
self or herself or "empower" the 01:,er. Instead,
th::1ngh entering ii p;1rticipalury mode of con•
scious:iess, the i:1div idual agent of the "I" of the
researcher is released i.'1 order to er.ter a con·
sdous:ie.~s larger than the self
One example of how whanau prncesses i:l
action affc~, the ;xisitir,n of the researcher is l'.,e

way in whi-:.1 difererit indivkh:als t<1ke on differing
dis cun, ivc ?Osi:ionings withir: fae collective.
These positionings fulfill different functions ori-
ented toward the collabora:ive rnncems, interests,
and benefits of the whanau as a group, rather
t!lan toward tbe benefit uf any one member-a
mrmbtr with a d'st:mced re5earch agenda, for
exanple. Such positionings are constitGted in ways
t:tat are generated by Maori cultural prac:ices a:id
prefor..::ices. For exan:rle, the leadtr of a research
whamm, here termed a whanau of interest to i.:en-
tify it as a metaphoric whanau, will not necessarily
he the researcher. Kaumatua, which is a l'laori•
defmed and -apportioned position {which can be
sii:gular or plural), w.G be the leader. Le"'dership ln
a whinau of interest, however, is not in the ser.se of
making all tht: dec:sions, but instead in the sense of
':Jeing a guide to kawa (,:uiturally ,l.P?TO?riate prtr
cecures) for decision making and a listener to the
voices of all menbers of be whiloau. r:,e kauma•
tua are ;he ro11sensus seekers fur the colledve and
are the procucers of the collaborative voice of fae
members. By developing research within such
existir.g culturally co:1stituted practices, concerns
about voice and age:1cy can be addressed.
This emphasb on ?Ositionings within a gmup
constituted as a whi\nau also adcresses concerns
aboJt accoUlltability, authority, and mntroL A
Maori collective whanau contains a variety of dis·
cursively determir:ed positions, some of wh :ch
are open to the resea,cher and son:e t1f which a:e
uot The extent to which researchers can be posi-
tiom;ri within a whanau of intert>sl is therefore
tied very closely to who they are, often more so
t::Jan lo wna1 they arc. Therefore, positioning is
r.ot simply a r:1a1ter o: the researchers' choice,
because this would further researcher imposition.
That is, researchers are ;mt free to assume any
rositio:1 that they think the whanau of intere,,t
needs in order fo: the wl:~nau to "ur:ction. The
researchers' choice of pos:tions ls genera:ed by
the structure of the w'lamn:: and the customary
ways of behaving constituted within t~e whanau.
The dear i:nplical lor. is that researchers are
required to locate themselves within new "story
lines" that address the contradictory nature o" the
:raditional researcher/researched :elationship.
l:lisho11: AKaupapa Mau:i A?proach 111 121
The :anguage ust:d by researchers workir.g in
Kaupapa Maori co:nexts in resear:h reported by
Bishop ( 1996, l 998b ), for example, ron:ains fae
'.<ey to the new story lines. The metaphors and
imagery these researchers used to explain their
participation ir. the rcst'llfch were those located
within the research partidpants' domains, and
the researchers either were moved or needed to
move to become part of this domain. Researchers
were positioned within the discursive prnc tice, of
Kaupapa Maori by the use or conlextuully consti
luted metaphor withir: the doma:n where others
constitu:cd 1hemselves as agentic. Furthermore,
withir. this domain existed discursive practices
that providlxi the researchers wit:1 positions !hat
enabled thrm to rnrry through their negotiated
li:ies of action whclher they were insiders or ont-
siders. As a result of facse negotiations, :hey had
differing positions and expcc:alions/:asks offered
to them.
From :his analysis, ii can be see11 that th::ough
developing a research g,roup by using Maori cus-
tomary sociopol i tirnl :m:ice,ses, the :1!Search par-
ticipants become members of a res;:arcb whanau
of interest, which, as a metaphork whanau, is a
grm:? constituted in terms understandable and
co:1trollable by· Maori cultural practices. These
whanau of interest determine the research ques-
tion. and the methods of research, and they use
Maori cultural prncesses for adcressing and
acknov,ledging 1be construction and validat:oni
!egitimization o:' know:edge. 1:urtherr:10re, the
whanau of interest develops a collaborative
approach 10 processing and cunstructi:1g meaning/
theorizing about the in:urmation.again hy cu:tur-
ally constituted neans. It is al~u important to rec-
ognize that whana·J of interest are not isolated
groups but rather are constituted and conduct
their endeavors in terms of thr wider c:.dtura'.
aspirations, preferences, and pradces of Maori
cultural revitaliza:im1 within which their projects
are composed.
Spiral Disrnurse
Whanau of inttrest are deYeloped by and use a
Maori cu:tural process in both its literal and its
122 111 HAN"DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RF.SF.ARCH-CHAPTER 5
metaphoric serues. This process is termed here
,piral discourse, a culturally constituted discursive
practice found in many Maori cJltural practices
associated, for example, with hui. A hui generally
commences with a pliwhiri (formal we:come), a
welcome rich in cultural meaning, imagery, and
prac,ices that fulfill the enormously important
task of recognizing tht: relative iapu t spC'dalness;
being with potentiality for power) and m,ma
(power) of t:1e two sides, the hosts and the v:sitors
(Salmond, 1975; Shirres, 1982). Once the fo:-mal
welcome is comple:e and once the par:ic: pants
have been r ituaHy joined together by the process
of the weko ming ceremony, hui participants
move on to tl,e discuss io:i of the matter under
consideration (the ;_aupapa of the hui), This usu•
ally takes place within t:ie meeting house, a place
designated for this very purpose, free of distrac•
tions and interruptions. This :ioi.:se is symboli ·
cally the embodiment of an ancestor, which
further emphasizes :he normality of a somatic
approach to knowing in such a setting and with in
these :>rocesses.
The part:cipant, address the matters under
consideratior., under the guidance of respected
and autho:-itative elders (kaumlltua}, whose pri-
mary function is to provide a:1d :nonitor the cor-
rect s::iiritual and procedural framework wit:iin
which the participants ca:1 discuss the issues
before them. People get a .:hance to adc:ress the
issue without fear of being interrupted. Generally,
the procedi:re is for people to speak one afrer
another, in sequence of kft to r:ght. People get a
cham;e to state anC: restate their meanings, to
revisit their meanings, and to modify, delete, and
adapt their meanings according tu hkanga (cu,.
to:nary practices).
The discourse spirals, i11 '.hat the 0uw of talk
may seem circui:uus and opinions may vary
waver, b ul lbe seeking of a collaboratively con•
slructed 31:ory is central. The controls ove1 pro•
ceedi r:gs a:-e temporal and spiritual, as in aL
Maori cultural 11rnctices, The procedures a:1;
steeped ir: m;;taphoric meanings, richly abst:acl
allusior:s being made c:onstantly to cdtural mes-
sages, stories, events of the past, and aspiration~
for the future. Su ch procedures are time prnve:1
and to the participants are highly effective in
dealing with contemporary issues and concerns
of all kinds.12 The aim of a hui is to reach a con-
senst:s, to arri\'e at a jointly constructed meaning.
This takes time, days :f need be, or sometimes a
series hui will be held in order that the elders
monitoring proceedings can tell whl"n a con-
st,ucted '·voice" has been found,
l!I l.'iITIKJlJ;;G RESEARCH Us:NG .3,'[AOR!
METAPHOR: REJECTING EMPOWER,),11!1\T
Addressing the self.determination of participants
is e:nbcdded within many Maori cultural prac,
tices and understa:idings. for example, during
the proceedings of a hui, one visible manife~ta-
tion ,his reality is seen in the ways that visitors
mike contributions toward the cost of the meet-
ing. This cor.tribution ls termec a ko/rn. ln tbe
past, this koha was often a gift of food to con-
tribute to the running of the hui; nowadays, it is
usually money that is laid dowr. on the grou:1d, by
the last s;.>eake, of the visitors' side, betwee:i the
two groups of people who are coming togc:hcr at
the welcor:iing ceremony, The koha remains an
important ritualized ;:,art of a ce:·emony that gen-
eraEy proceeds without too much trouble. What
mu, I not be forgotten, however, is that the recep•
lion of the :.;uha is i:p to the hosts. The ~oha, as a
gift or an offering of assis:ance toward the co.st
running the hui, goes wib the full n:ana of the
group so offer; ng. lt is placed in a position, auch as
laying it on the ground bet\veen the two groups
coming together, ,o as 10 be able :o be coi:side,ed
·:iy the busts. It is ;rn; of:en given intu the :1ands
the :iosts, but whatever the specific details of the
protocol, the process of" laying down" is a very
powerful recognition of tbe right of others lo sdf-
detcr:n:na!ion, that is, I() dHm.e whe:her to pick it
or no,,
The koha generally precede& the final coming
together of the two sides. The placing of tie koha
comes at a crucial stage in the ceremony, at which
the hosts can refuse lo accept the mana of the vis-
itors, the hosts can display their ultimate contro:
over events, and the hosts can c:ioose w:iether

they want to become one wit!: the marmhiri
(visi:ors) by :he process of the hongi and haruru
(pressing noses and shaking hands). Synbolic:a[y,
with the ko:1a, the hos,s are taking on the kaupapa
of the guests by ;iccepting that which the
manuhiri are brir.ging for debate and mediation.
Overall, however, it is important that the ka'Jpapa
the guests laid down at the hui is now the "pro?•
erl y" of the whole wha:iau, !tis now the task of the
whole whanau to deliberate the issues and to ovm
the problems, concerns, and idea, in a way that
is real and meaningful, the way of whakakotahi-
tanga (developing unity), where all will work for
the bet:erment of :he idea.
By invoking these processes in their metaphoric
sern,e, Kaupapa Maori research is conducted
within discarsive practices of Maori culture.
Figuratively, lay:ng down a ko'la as a means of
initiating research, for example, or of offering
solutions to a problem challenges notions of
empowerment, which is a major concern within
contem?ora:y Western-defined f;;Sc'arch, It also
cha:Jenge:s what constitutes "self" and "ot'ler" in
Western thought. Rather than fig um ti vely saying
"l am giving you poVver" o, "I inknd to empower
you; the laying duwn ofa koha and stepping away
for the ofaers to consider your gift means thal
your mana is Intact, as is theirs, and that you are
acknowledging their power of self-determination.
The three research projects referred to above all
saw the researchers either layicg out their poten-
tial contributions as researchers, or a~king
research participants to explain what has been
observed in tb!lr classrooms or seeking the
meaning t:iat pacticipan:s construct about their
experiences as young people in secondary
schools. In each of these cases, the researchers
indicated that they did not have the powe~ tu
ma;_c sense of fae events or experiences alone
anc., indeed, did not want anything from the rela-
tionship that was not a produc, of the relation-
ship. [:, this way, it is up to :he others to exert
agenq~ to decide if they wish to ''?ick it up~ to
explain the meanings of their own e:qeriences on
their own terms. Vlhatever they do, both sides
have power throughm:: tl:e process. Both sides
have tapu :hat is bei :ig acknowledged.
Bis:iop: A Kaupapa :vfiiori Approach Ill 123
In tt.is sense, researchers in Kaupapa Maori
contexts are repositioned ir: such a way that they
ao longer need to seek to give voice to others, to
empower otl:ers, to emandpcm others, or to refer
to others as. subjugated voices. lns:ead, they are
able to listen to and participate with those tradi·
tionally "o:hered" as constructors of meanings of
their own experiences and agents of knowledge.
Kot wanting anything from the experience for
one's "self" is characteristic of what Sc·:uchre! (as
dted ln Heshus:us, 1994) calls "a llocentric know-
ing." It is only when noth' ng is des:rec for tr.e self,
not even the desire to empower soneone, that
comj>lete atter:tio:1 and participation in "kins.hip"
terms is possible.
In such ways, researchers can participate in a
process that tacilitates the development iu people
of a sense of themselves as agentk and of having
an authoritative voice. This is not a result of tl:e
.L. "~
researrnrr 11 ~ '
illlUWJ r.g,, th'1;; :o happen or "etr.pow-
ering" participants; it is the function of tr.c
cultural cm,text within which the research partic•
ipants arc ?ositioned, r.egotiate, and conduct the
n:search. 1: In effect, the :ultara; context positions
the participants by coost:·ucting the story lines,
and with them the cultural metaphors and
:mages, as well as the "thinking as usual;' the
:alkilanguage through which research partici•
pants are constituted and researcher/researched
re:ationships are organized. Thus, the joint devel•
opment of new story lines is a collaburative effor:.
The researcher and the researched togetl:er
rewrite the constitntive melaphors of the rela-
tionship. What makes it Maori is :hat it is done
using Maori metaphor within a Maori ct:ltural
rnnlext. 1'
Such approaches are essential to move the
po,w:- dynamics of research relatior;ships because,
as was mentioned earlier, differential power rela•
tions among participants, while co:istraed and
understood as collaborative by the researcher,
may still enable researcher con.:erns and interests
to do • inate how under!itandings are constncted.
This can l:appen even within relations con·
structed as reciprocal, if the ::esearch outcome
remains one determi ncd by the researcher as a
data-gathering ex.erci~e (Goldstein, 2000; Tripp,
124 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALlTATlVE RESE.i\RCH-CHAPTER 5
1983). When attempts at developing dialogue
move beyond efforts to gather "data" and move
toward mutual, symmetrkal, dialogic construc-
tion of meaning within appropriate culturally
constituted contexts, as is illustrated in the ihrce
examples introduced earlier, then the voice of the
research partkbants is heard and the:r agency is
facilitated.
Such understandings seeks to address the
selffother relationsl:ip by examinin1:5 how research-
e:-s shift them selvs:s from a "speaking for" posi-
tion to a situalio:i that Michelle Fine (1994)
describes as taking p(,m: "when we ronst~uct texts
collaboratively, self consciously exam: n ing our
relations with/for/despite those who have been
contained .;.s Othe:s, we :nove against, we e:iable
resistance to, Othering" (p. , Fi1:e (1994)
attempt& lo
unravel, critically, the ':Jlurred boundarits in our
relation, and in our texts: to understand the pol:c:-
cal work of our narrative,; to dedp'ier how the Ire•
ditlons of soci,.l .,cience serve to inscribe; and to
imag:ne how our :::an be transformed to
rtsi:;t, sdf-umsciously, act, uf other ii:g. {E'· 5 7)
Fin~ and her colleagJes Lois Weis, Susan
Weseen, and Loonrnun Wong (2000) ;,'tress "that
questions of responsihility-for-wlm:n will, and
should, forever be paramount"(?- 125). Reciprocity
in indigenous research,howevei: is not just a polit-
ical undrrs:anding, an individual act, o: a mat;er
of refming and/or challenging the paradigms
within which researchers work. Instrad, every
worldview within which the researcher beco:nes
immersed holds the key to knowing. For example,
esta:iHshing ,dationships and developing research
whanau by invoking the processes of whakaw-
hanaungatanga cs,al::lishes interconnectedness,
commitment, and engagement, within culturally
constimted research practices, by means of consti•
tutive metaphor frorr. within the discursive prac-
tice of Kaupapa Maori_ It is the use of such
metaphor that reorders the relationship of the
researcher/researched from within, from one
focused on the researcher as "self" am:i on the
researched as "other" to one of a '"'Ommo,1 conscious•
ness of all research partid?ants.
Similar:y, a Kaupapa Maori ap?roach suggests
that concepts of "distance:' "detachment:' and
"seuarJlion:' epistemological and methodolog:cal
conce~n" un whid1 nisear.:hers have spent much
time in the 1ecent past (Acker, Barry, & Esseveld,
1991; Stacey, 199 L; Troyua, i 992, persona: com-
munication), do not characterize these research
relationships in any way. Rather, Kaupapa Maori
research experknces insist :hat the focus on
"self' is blucred and that the focus turns to wha:
Hesl:usius (1994) describes as a sir.iation where
"reality :s no longer understood as t~uth :o be
interpreted but as mutually evolving" (p. 18).
In au operational sense, it is su gg,ested :hat
researchers address the coucerm am! issues of the
pa rticipan:s in ways that are understandable and
able to be contro[ed by the research partidpants
so that these concerns and issues also are, or
become, thus;; of the researchers. I:i other words,
spiral discourse provides a means of c:ffecting a
quaHtative shift in how participants relate to one
am1tl:cr.
Sidor:•dn (2002) 1>uggests that 1.n;d1 under-
standings have major implications for how we
understand the "self" and "invites us to think
about rhe possibilities of a relational self" {p. 96 ),
one in which Honly analysis of specifi: relations
in their interaction ca11 provide a glin:pse of the
meaning of the self" (p. 97). To this end.
Fitzsimons r.nd Smith (2000) describe Kaupapa
Maori philosophy as that which is "rnlll:ngj for a
relational identity th mug:1 an interpretation o"
kinship and genealogy and cur,ent day events,
but not a de-contextualised retreat to a romantic
past" (p. 39).
This reordering what constitutes the
reseaxh relationship, with its implkations and
challenges to the essential enlightenment-
generated self: is not on terms or within under·
standings comtmctec. by the researd:er, however
wel\-i ntentioned contem ;mrary in: pi:lses :o
"empower" the "other" might tie. From an indige-
nous perspec:ive, such impulses are misguided
and perpe1:uate neocolonial ser:rlnwnts. In ot'ler
words, rather than using researcher-determined
criteria for participation in a research process,
whakawha:Jaungatanga uses Maori cultura:
practices, such as those found in hui, to set the
pattern for research reiationshi ps, colki :,ora:ive
s:orying being bt:t one example of this princ:ple
in practice. Whakawhanm.:ngatanga as a research
process uses methods and pri ndples similar to
those used to establish relations h: ps among
Maori people. These principles are lllvoked to
address the means of researd: idtiatio:1, to estab-
lish the research questions, lo fadli:ate parllcipa-
tion in the work of the project, lo addre;;s issues of
representation and accountability, and :o legi:i-
mate the ownersh: p of knowledge that is defined
and created.
Kincheloe and McLaren (2000) demonstrate
haw developments in critical ethnngrapr:y, as one
example, have ::iencfited from such new under-
standings of cul lure and cultura: practices and
processes, used in both literal and figi:rative
scr:ses, to ic\enti:y "possibilities for cultural
tiq ue, that have been opened up by the current
blurring and mixing of disciplinary ger: res-
those :hat empl:asize experier.ce, subje::t!vi:y,
reflexiv:ty and dialogical uncerstanding" (p. 302).
One II:ajor benefit fro:n ,mch analysis is thal
soda! life is ''not viewed as preontologically avail-
able for the researcher to study" (p. 302).
Kincheloe and McLaren su~:,;;c,1t that :his is a
major breakthrough in the domain of critical
t:1eory, w:1ich previously remained rooted in the
Wes tern-based dialec:ic of binary analysis of
oppositional pairings that viewed emancipation
in tenns of emancipati:1g "others" (Kincheloe &
Mclaren, 2000) and, i:1 manv cases, conflated
' :ntcrvicw, as one example, is constn:cted so :hat
economic marginali,.ation with ethr.idty ilnd
gender and otr.er axes of domination (see Bis'.,op
& Glynn, 1999, Chap. 2, for a detailed critique of
this approach in Kew Zealand).
• ADDRESSL'IG ISSUES OF
R.cPRESENTATJON AND L£G!TIMATION:
A NARRXflVE APPROACE
Interviewing as collaborative storying (Bisnop,
1997), as used in the three studies identified
atldresses what Lincoln and IJc:uir.
(l 994 J identify as the twin crises of qualitative
research-repre~entat;on and legitimation. II
does so by suggesting that rather char: there beir:g
distinct stages in the research, from gaining
aca:ss to data gathering to da:a ;irn.:essing, then,
is a process of nmtinua[ y :-evi~itiug the agenda
and the sense-making proce,ses of r.:scarch
participants with:n :he interview. In this way,
meanings a,e negot:ated and co-constracted
bet1¥ecn the resea:ch participants with: n the cul-
tural :'rameworks of the discourses within which
they are positioned. Th:s prucess is captured :>y
the image of a sp:ral. The concept of fae spina: not
only speaks in culti.:rally preferred terms, fem
1
or koru, ' but also indicates tbat the acci.:mulation
is a:ways retlexive. Th is means that the discourse
always returns to the original initiators, where
control lies.
Mishler (:986) and Ryan (1999) explain these
ideas further by suggesting Iha! in order to
construci meaning, it is necessary to appreciate
how meaning is groundec iu, a:1d cun,lruc:ed
tl:roug:, discourse, Discursive practice is mn·
textually, culti.:rnlly, and ind iv iduaily related.
Meanings in discourse are neit!icr s: ngi.:lar nor
fixed. 1e:ms take on "s?~cific and cor,lexLuaHy
groum:ed meanings within and tlniugh the d:s-
course as ir develops and is shaped by speakers''
(Mishler, 1986, p. 65). 1h put it another
"meaning is constructed in the clia:ogue betweer.
ir:clividuals and thr ir:iagc;; and symbols they per
ceive" (Ryan, 1999, p. l l ). A"community of inter··
est" between researchers and participants {ca[
them 1.'mat you will) canno: be created unle::s the
:ntervicwcrs and respondents st:ive to arrive
together at meanings that both can underste nd.
The relevance and appropriateness of questions
and re,1)0nses eme:-ge through and are realized
in the dscourse itself. The standard process of
analysis of interviews abstracts both questions
and responses from this process. By suppressing
the ciscourse and by aS.\uming shared and stan-
dard meanings, thit approach short-circuits the
problem of obtaining meanir:tz (Mishler, 1986).
This analysis sur,ges~s that when interviewing
o:ie of the :nost comn:or:ly used qualitative
methods-there needs to a trade-off between
126 111 IIA:-JDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE Rf:SEARCII-CHAPTER 5
two extremes. 1:,e first position daims "the words
of an intendew are fae most accJrate data and
that the transcript of those words carries tha:
accuracy with negligible loss" (Tripp. 1983,
p. 40). In other words, what people say should be
pre,ented unai:ered and not analyzed in any
way beyond that wh'ch the respondent under•
took. The second position maximizes researcher
interpretation, editorial control, and ownership by
introducing researcher coding and analysis in the
form often referred to as "grour.ded theory" (after
Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This chapter suggests
there i5 a third posi:ion, in which the "coding"
procedure is established anc developed by the
research part'cipants as a prrn;ess of storying a:1d
restoryi ng, that is the co-joint construction of
further meaning withi:1 a sequence of interviews.
In other words, there is an attemp: within the
i::lterview, o: rather, within a series of in-depth,
semistrucured interviews as "conversations» (see
Bishop, 1996, 1997), to actually co-construct a
mutua: understanding by means of sharing expe•
riences and meanings.
The three examples of researc:1 outlined at the
start this chapter af used rese&rch approaches
associa:ed with the process of co!laborat:ve story•
ing so that the research participants were able to
recollect, to reflect on, and to make sense of their
experiences within their ow:1 culturai context
and, i:1 particular, in their own langr.age, hence
being able to position themselves within t:mse
discourses wherein exp:ilnations/me.in :ngs lie,
In s:ich way:;, their interpretations and walyst'¢
becarm: "normal" and "accepted:' as opposed to
those of the researcher bei:lg what is legitimate,
Indeed, when indigenous cultaral ways of
knowing and aspirations in :his case, for self
determination are central to tie creation of the
n,search context, then situation goes beyond
empowerment to one in which sense making, deci-
sion making, and theorizing take place in situa-
tions thal are "normal" to the research participants
rall1er than constn:cted by the researcher, Of course,
the major implication fo, researchers is that they
should be able to participate in :hese sense-
making contexts rather than expecting the research
part:cipa:its to engage in tb,irs, empha.~izing, as
TIiiman (2002, p, 3) suggests, the centrality of
culti::re to the research process and rtthe multi-
dimensional aspects of African-American cul-
tures(s} and the possibili1ies for the resonance
of the cultural knowledge of African-Americans
in educational research" (p.4).
Th is 's not to suggest that only inter,iews as
collaborative stories are able to address Maori
concerns ar:d aspirations for sel f-dc:ermination.
Indeed, Sleeter {2001) has even arg~ed :hat
''quantitative research can be used for liberatory
as well as oppressive ends" (p. 240). My ow:1 expe•
riences when researching within secondary
schools demonstrate that when spiral discourse
occurs "with fall regard fo:: local complexitles,
power rela:ions and previously igno,ed '.ife expe•
riences" (Sleeter,2001. p. 241 ), then powerfi:I out·
comes are possible •Jsing a variety of research
approaches. What is fundamental is not the
approach per se, but ::ather establishing a:id
maln:aining relationships that add::ess the power
of :he par:icipants for self-determ:r:ation.
The considerat'ons above demonstrate the
usefulness of the notion of collaborative storying
as a generic approach, not just as a research
method that speaks of a reordering of f:1e rela-
tions:ii ps between researchers and research
partidpants. Sidorkin (2002) suggests that this
undersranding addresses power imbalances
because "[r]elatiom cannot belong :o one thing:
they are the j,1ir,t property of al least two things''
(p, 91), Scheurkh and Young ( 1997) describe
this as deconstructing research practices th at
arise out of the "social history and culti.:re of the
domir.ant race" and that "reflect and reinforce
that social history and the controlling pos(tion of
that racial group" (p. I 3). Such practices are, a~
a result, epistemologically racist in tha, they
deny the relational cons:ructedness of the world
in order to promote and maintain the hegemony
of one of the supposed partners,
Approaches to Authority and Validity
Many of the problem, identified ~.bove arise
from ;esearchers positioning themselves within
rr:oderni;;t discourses. ft is essential to challenge

modernist discourses, with their concomitant
concen:s regarding validity that are addressei.l by
such strategies as objectivity/sabjectivity, replica•
bilit y:, and external lll<=asures for validity. These
discourses are su pervasive that Miiori/indigenous
researchers may automatically revert to asing such
means of estab:ishing validity fo, their texts, but
;,rnb:emalicaEy so bi:xause these measures of
validity are all positioned/defined w:bin another
woddview. As bell hooks (1993) explah:s, the
Black Power movement in tr.e Cnited Sta:es in the
L960s was int:uenced by the modernist discourses
on race, gender, and class that were current at the
""''"·r'"a result of not addressing thesedlscourses
aud the ways they affected the condition of black
people, issue, such as patriarchy were left unad-
drcssed within the Black I.iberntion move:nent
Unless black people addre~ these i~ues them-
selves, hooks insis:s, others will do so for them, in
ways determined by :he concerns a:id in;erests of
others mther than those that "women of color"
would prefcr.t'' Indeed, Linda Tillman (2002) pro•
motes a culumlly sensitive research ap;,roach for
Afrkar: Americans that focuses on "how African
Ameri ~ans ur:dcrstand and experience fae world"
(p. 4) ar:d tr.at advoca~es ~he use of an appmacr. to
qunlita:lve research wherein "interpretar:ve para
digms offer gr£'3ter possibilities for the use of
alternative framewor~s, co-comtruc:io.:i of muhi·
pie realilif:s and experiences, and knowledge that
can lead to i:np,oved ed11cational opportunities
for African Americans" (p. 5).
Yet historkally, traditional forms o{ nonreflec•
tive !'esearrh conducted within what Lincoln and
Denzin (1994) term as positivist and post•posi-
tivist frames of reference perpetuate problems of
outsiders dcter:nining what is valid for Maori.
This oa:ars by the very process of employing
non-Maori methodological frameworks and
conventions for writing about such research
processes and outcomes. For example, L'ncoln
and Denzin (1994) argue that terms such as "log-
ical, constr·Jct, internal, e:hnographic, and exter-
nal validi:y, text-basec data, triangulation,
tn;stworthiness, credibilitv, groundng, naturalis-
tic indicators, fit, coherence, comprehensiveness.,
plausibHi:y, trutl: and relevance __ . Iare] all
3isl:op: A Kaupapa .'v1aori Ap;miach 111 l 27
at:empts to reauthorize a tex:'s authority in the
post-positivist momcnln (Lincoln & Der:zin, 1994,
p. 579).
These concepts, and the methudolog:ud fn1me-
works witbn whicr. they exi&t, rcp,eser.t attempts
to contextualize the grounding of a text in the
external. empirical world. "They represent efforts
:o de•,e!op a set of transcendent rules and proce•
deres :hat lie octside any specific research project"
(Lincoln & Denzin, I 994, p. 579). These external•
:zed rules are the criteria by which the validity of n
text is then judged. The author of the text is thus
able to present the text 10 :he reader as valid,
replacing the sense making, meaning construction,
and voice of 11':c researched person with t::at of the
n.:seard1er by representing the text as an authorita-
tive re-presentation of the experiences of others
by using a system of researcber-cetermined
and dominated coding and analytici took
Jlallard ( I994 ), referring to Donmoyer' s wori.:,
sugges:s that forr:mlaic research procedures are
ra~ely in fact useful as "prescriptions for practice"
because people use their own knowlec.ge, experi-
ence, feeli:1gs, anc. intuitions "whe:1 putting new
ideas into practice or when working in new set-
tings" (pp. 301 302). Furthermore, personal
knmvledge and personal experience can be see:1
as crucial in the appl:cation of new knowledge
and/or workir.g in i:ew settings. This means that
the application of research findings is filtered
th rough the prior knowledge, feeli r:gs, a:id intu-
itions we already have. Donmoyer (as dted in
Ballard, 1994) proposes that experience com-
pounds, and this compounded .knowledge/expe•
rience, when brought to a new task, provides. for
the occurrence of a11 even more compiex process
of understandings. Experier.ce builds on and
cor:1pou:1ds experience, and, as Ballard suggests,
this is why there is such value placed on col-
leagues with experience in the Pakeha world and
on kau:nati.:a (elders) in the Maori world.
A :elated, ar..d .sorr.ewhat r:10:e complex,
danger of referring to an existing methodology
of par:ic:patiun is that there may be a tendency
to comtruct a set of rules and procedures tl:at
lie outside any one research project £n doing
researchers might ticke control over what constitutes
128 11 HANUBOOK OF Qt:AUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHA!''l'cR:,
legitimacy and validity, that is, what authority is
claimed for the text will be removed from the par
tidpants. With such recipes comes tl:e danger of
outsiders controlling what cor.stitutes reality for
other people.
I: is :mportant ro note, though, tha: the
Kaupapa Maori approach does not suggest that
all knowledge is completely relative. Instead, as
Heshusius ( I996} states;
the self of the knower aod the large, self o( :he
co::imuni: y of inquiry are, from :he very star!.:1g
point, intimatdy wo~en into the very fabric of
which we dai~ as kt:owledg<" and of what we agree
to be the proper ways by which we make know ledge
dai ms. It is to say tha: :he kr:ower a::td the kno,vl\
are one movtme:11. :\1oreover, any inquiry i, an
exrre.ssion of a p.rlkulu other•self relatedness.
(p.6511}
Kaupapa Maori research, based ir. a different
worldv:ew ftom that of the domina:1t discourse,
makes this political s:atement while at the sar:u:
tilr:e rejecting a meaningless relativism by
acknowledging the need to recugnize and address
the ongoing e(iects of racism a;id colonialism in
the wider society,
Kaupapa Maori rejects outside control over
what constitute, th~ text's call for authority and
truth, A Kaupapa fvlaori position promotes wl:at
Lincoln and lJer:zin ( 1994} rerm an episterr.olog-
ical version of valicity, o:1e in which the authority
of the text is "establisned through recourse to a
set of rules concerning knowledge, its production
and representatlor." (p. 578). Such ,m approach to
validity locates :he power within Maori cultural
practices, where what are acceptable and what are
not accepta':J\e research, :ext, and/or processes is
determined ar.c defined by tl:e research commu•
niry itself iI\ reierence to the cl.lltu~al context
within whkh it operates.
As wu:; explained above, Maori people bwe
always t:ad criteria for evaluating whether a
process or a prodl.lct is \'alid for then. 'laonga
tuku iho are lite:-al:y the treasures from the ances•
to,,. The,e treasures ..1re coi lected wisdorr: of
ages, the means that have been established over
a long period of :iine that g·..1ke a:1d monitor
people's lives, :oday and in the :uture. Within
these treasures are the ;neswges o: kawa, ,: tho~e
prim:;iples that, for example, guide the process of
establishing relat:uusl:ips, ¼nakawha:11mngatanga
is not a haphazard prc,ces,s, dec:ded on a:1 ad hoc
basis, but rather is based on time-honoree and
proven principles. How each of faese principies
is addressed in particular circumstances varies
from tribe to tribe and hapu to hapu. Ncverthe,
less, it is important that these pri r.dples are
addressed.
For cxamp'.e, as described earlier, the meeting
of two groups of people at a hui on a ma:ae {cere
monial :11eering place) involves acknowledgmen:
of the tapu of each individual and of each group,
by rne11ns of addre,i;sing and acknowledging the
sacrecness, spedal:1ess, genea'.ogy, and connect·
edr.ess of the guests wi6 the hosts, Mud: time
w:11 be spent establishing this lir:kage, a ,;onnect-
etlm:ss betwee 1: tl:e people involved. How this
acti:ally is done is :he subject of local cus:oms,
wh:ch are the correct ways to address these prb ·
ci :iles of kawa. Tikanga are an ongoing fertile
ground for droa:e, but all partic:;,ants know that
if the kawa is not observed, then the even, 's
"invalid"; It does not have authority.
Just as Maorl practices are ep'.stemo~ogkally
validated within Maori c·Jltural co:1texts, so are
Kaupapa Maori research practices and texts.
Research conducted within a Kaupapa Maori
frat:1e\-\'ork has ·ules establi.;:.hed as tam:ga tuku
iho tha: are protc:tcd and naintained by the tapu
of Maori ci:ltural practices, such as the multiplic-
ity of rituals within the hui and witl:i:i the central
cultural processes of whanau:igatanga, Further•
more, the use of these concepts as constitutive
research metaphors is si.:bject to :he same cullu,•
ally deti:rmined vrucesses of valida~io:i, and t:,e
same rules concernir:g knowledge, its produc•
tioi:. and representation, as are the literal phe•
nomena. T:ierefore, the verification of a text, ,ne
authority of a text, and the quality of its represen-
tation of the experiences and its perS?ective of the
participant& are jadgcd criteria constructed
and constituted withir. the culture.
By using such Maori concepts as whanau, hui,
and whakt1whanaimgaranga as metaphors for the

research process itself, Kaupapa Maori research
invokes and claims aut:1ority for the processes
and for the texts that are produced in terms of the
prindples, prricesses, and practices that govern
such events in their liter al sense. Metaphoric
whar:au are governed by the same principles and
pmcesses th,it govern a literal whanau and, as
such, are unc.erstandable to and controllable by
:\fiiori people. Lit<:?ral whanau have means of
addressing conterdous issues, resolving couLicts,
constructing narratives, telling stories, raising
children, ar:d addressing economic and political
issues, and. contrary to popular non-Maori O?in-
ion, such practices change over time to reflect
changes going on in :he wide: world, Research
whanau-of-ioterest also conduct their delibera-
tions in a whanau style. Kaumatua preside,ofaers
get their say according to wl:o they are, and posi•
tior.s are defined in term, of how the definitions
will benefit the whanau.
Suhjectivities/Object£vities
As was discussed above, an indigenous
Kaupapa Maori approach to research challenges
colonial anc neocolonial discourses that inscribe
" otherness!' Much quantita:ive research has dis-
n:issed, marg:nalized, or mair,talned control ove~
t:ie voice o• others by insistence on the imposition
of researcher-determinec pos:tivist and neoposi-
tivis, evaluative c,ileria, internal and external
validity, reliabil'ty, and objectivity: Nonetheless,
a paradign: shift to qualitative research does not
necessarily obviate th's problem. Much qualita•
tive research has also m.:1intained a colonizing
discourse of the "othc:-" by seeking to hide tl:e
researcher!wri,er 'Jnder a veil of neutrality or of
obje,ti,..ity or subjectivity, a situation in which the
interests, concerr:s, and poweroftl:e reseirchcr to
determine ~he ouocomr of the research :-emain
hidden b the text ( B. Davies & Harre, 1990 ),
Objectivity, "that ;,athology of cognition that
entails silence about the speaker, about IMs or
herl interests and [his or herJ desires, and how
these are social~, situated ar.d stracmrally main-
tained" (Gouldner,as cited in Tripp, 1983, p. 32). is
a denial of identity. Just as idcrdty to Miiori
Bishop: A Kaupapa Maori A;iproach • IZ9
people is tied up with being part of a whanau,
a hapu, and an iwi, in the research relationship,
membership in a metaphoric whantiu of interest
also provides its members with ident'ty and
hence the ability to ?articipale. ln Thayer-Bacon's
( 1997) view, "we develop a sense of'self' through
our relationships with others" (p. 241 ). For Maori
researchers to star;d aside from involvement in
s·Jcr. a sodopoliticnl organi iat ion is to stand aside
from their identity. This would signal the ultimate
viciory of colonization. For non-Maori researchers,
denial of membership the r~search whlkau of
interest 's, similarly, to deny them a means of
iden:ification and hence participation within the
projt:cts. Pnrthermore, for non-Maori researchers
to stand aside from participation in these tem1s
is to promote colonizatior., albeit participation
in ways def:ncd by indigenous peoples may well
pose difficulties for them. \Vhat is certain is that
1;1e:ely shifting one's position within the Western-
dominated research domain ntec not add,ess
c,uestions of interest to Maori people, because
paradigm shifting is real'.y a ce:1cern from
another worldview, Non-;v!aori researchers need
:o seek inclusion on Maori terms, in terms of kin/
metaphoric ki a relationships and obligations-
that is, w:thin Maori-constituted practices and
understa!ldings-in order ~o establish their iden-
tity within research projrcts.
Thi~ does not mean, however, that resea:ch·
ers need to try to control their su·;1j ectiv ities.
Heshusius (1994} sugge~ts that nanaging subjec-
tivity is just as pro blematk for qualitative
researchers as managing objectivity is for the
positivists. E$posito and Mt:rphy {2000) similarly
raise bis problem of the preoccupat'on of :nany
researchers who, while ostensibly locatir.g them-
selves withir. critical race theory, exa:nple,
remain focused ''strictly on subjectivity" and
emp:oy a:ia'.ytic tools "to interpret the di ,cursive
exchanges that, i:1 the em!, siler.ce 6e study
participants ... [because l tl:e investigator's sub-
jectivity replaces the ;::u produced knowledge her
research presumably represents"(?. 180).
This problem is epistemic in that the develop•
merit of objectivity, through borrowing method-
ology from the natural sciences, i:itrocbced the
130 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALIT.'\TJV:2 RESEARCH-CHAPTER 5
concept of distance into the research relationship.
Heshusius (1994) argues :hat the displaccmen:
of "objective positivisn:" by qualitative concerns
about ma:iaging and control:ing subjectivities per·
petuates the fundamental notion that knowing is
posslbJe through constructing and regulating dis-
tance, a belief that pres'Jmes that t'.le knower is
separable from ::he known, a belief that is anath•
ema to many indigenous people's ways of knowing.
Heshusius (1994) suggeslli that the preocc1:cpalim:
with "managing subjectivity" is a "subtle form of
empiricist thought" (p. 16) in that it assumes that :f
one can know subjectivity, then one can control i:.
Intellectualizing "the othe~'s impact on self' per-
petuates the notion distar:ce; validates tb.e
notions orfalse consciousness" in others, emand-
pation as a project, and "othering" as a process; and
rcd;ires the sel:-other relationship to one that is
mechanistic and methodological.
Operatio;ially, Heshusius ( 1994) qucstior:s what
we as researchers do after being confronted with
"subjectivities": ''Does one £!valuate them and try
to mamige and to :I:s:rnin them? And then believe
one has the research process once again under
control?" (p. 15). Both these positions address
"n:eaningful '' epistemolog:cal and methodological
questions of the researcher's own choosing,
Instead, Heshusius sugges:s that researchers need
to address those questions that would address
moral issues, such as "what k'nd of wciety do we
have or a::-e we constructing•" (p. 20). For example,
how can racism be addressed un:ess those who
perpetuate it become awa.::e, through a participa-
tory conscio1:csness, of the lived reality of those who
suffer? How can researchers become aware of
meaning of Maori schooling experiences if they
perpetuate an artificial "distance" and objectify the
''subject;' dealing with issi:es in a manner that is of
!r.terest :o the researchers rather than of concern to
the subjects? The message is that you have to "live"
the context in which schoo'.ing experit=nces occur.
For example, the third study referred to before, Te
Kotahitcmga (Bishop, Berryman, e: al..2003), oom-
me1Jced by providing teachers with testimonio, of
students' experiences as a means of critically refect•
ing on the teachers' prn,itioning in respect to deficit
th:nking and racism.
P,eoccupations witr. managing and contrnl-
ling one's subjectivities also stand in contrast with
Berman's histu:ical ar.alysis, which suggests that
"before the scientific revolution (and presu• ably
the enlightenment) the act of knowing had always
been understood as a form of partid?ation and
enchant:nent" (cited in Hesht.:sius, .994, p, 16).
Berman states that "for n:ost of human h'.sto:-y,
man saw himself as an integral ;,art of it"
(cited in Heshusius, 1994, p. 16 l. The very act of
participation was knowbg. Participation was
direct, somatic (bod:ly ), psychic, spiritual, and
e• otional involvement "The belief that one can
actually distance oneself, and then regulate that
distance in order to come to know r1:as I left us
a!ienated from ead: other, fmn: nature and from
ouf1lelves"(Hcshusius, L994, p, 16).
Heshusius (I 994 l suggests that instead of
addressing distance, researchers need :o acknowl-
edge their participation and attempt to develop a
"partic:patory consciousness:' This rr:eans bccom•
ing involved in a "somatic, non-verbal quality of
atte1Jtion that necessitate& letting gp of the focus of
self'(p. :s). The thrc~ examples o• Kaupapa Maori
research projects ider.tificd earlier demonstrate
that the researchers understand themselves to he
involved so• atically in a group process, a process
whereby the researcher becomes part of a research
wha:iau, :irniting the development of insider/out•
sider dualisms. To he involved somatically mear.s
to be imolved bodily-that is, physically, ethically,
morally, and &p'ritually, r:ot just in one's capacity as
a "researcher" concer:1ed with methodology. Sud;
i:wolvemen: is constituted as a way of knowing
that is fur.damental: v' different from the conce;,ts.
of persona: i:ivestment and collaboration that are
suggested in traditional approae:ies to research.
Although it appears that "personal investment" is
essential, this pe,sonal investment is not on terms
determined by the "itwesto,'.' '.:,stead. :he invest-
:nent is on terms mutually understanda'::ile and
controllable by all part:cipants, so that the invest-
ment is reciprocal anc could not be otherwme. The
"perso:1al investme:it" by the researcher is not an
act by an individual agent but instead emerges our
of the context within whkh the research is
cor.sti~uted.

The process of colonization developed an
alienated and alienating mO(:e of consi::onsness
and, thus, has tried to take a func.i1mental prim::i-
ple of life av,ay from Manri people-that we do
not objectify nature, nor do we subjectify nature.
As we learn our whakapapa, we (earn of our total
:r,tcgration, co:1nec:edness, and cmnmitmen: to
world and the need tu lt:1 go of the focus on
We know tha: there is a way of knowing that
is diffe:i::nl t:lll"'.1 that which was taught to those
color.ized in:o the Wes:..:n: way of t:iough:. We
ki:ow about a way that is born of time, coo nect -
edness, kinship, commitment, and participation.
Figure 3.l. A Means E,aluati:ig R<:Searcher l'ositioning
Bishop: AKaupapa Maori Approach 111 13.
• EPILOGUE: A MEA'lS OF EVALUATING
RESEARCHER Pos.1 noN1NG
Th is chapter :~ as con duded t::at resea,chers and
research participants need a means whereby they
can critically retlecl upon the five issi.:e~ of power
that arc identified in Fig1.:re · Egure 5. 1 pro-
vides a series of critical qucstions that am be usod
by researcr.ers and research partcipants to evalu-
ate power relations. prior to and during research
activity. The outer circle £ hows some of the
rr.etaphors that might const:ti.: le ~ discursive pusi-
tion witbin which :-esearchers car: be posit:oned.
 132 11 HANDBOOK OF Ql'ALITAT[VE RESEARCE-CHAFTER 5

APPENDIX: GLOSSARY OF MAoRr TER:\.1S

aroha love in its broade&l sense; :nutuality

llwhi helpfulness
hapu suhtrihe, usual:y linked to a common ancestor; pregnant
haruru greeting obers by shakii:g hands and performing a hongi
hongi greeting anothtcr persor: hy pressing noses together, to share ,~ c breath
of life
hui ceremor.ial, ritualized meeting
1w1 tribe; bones
kaumt1lm1 respected elder
kaupapa agenda, philosophy
kawa protocol
koha g:ft
man a power
manaaki hospitality, , .1ring
manuhiri guest( s)
Maori indigenous :ieop:e o: Aotearoa/New Zea:and
marae ceremonial meetii:g place
mihimihi ritua:ized self-intmductio:i
Pdkeha New Zealander~ of European desr.ent
ptlwh !ri formal welcome
mranga korero those stories that explain lhe peo:ile and events of a w:iakapapa
tavnga treasures, including physical, soda!. cui mral, and intdlertual
taonga tuku iho :reasures passed down to the present generation from the ancestors
tapu sacred, to be treated with respect, a restriction, a being with potcnt'ality
for power, integrity, specialness
tiaki to look after; guidance
tik,mga customs, values, be'. iefs, and attitudes
tir.o Rangatiratanga self-determination
wh;;kakotahit,mgr1 developing un: ty
whakapapa genealogy
whakawhanaunga/1mga estabEshing relat:onships
whclnau extended family; to be born
wlr,.anaunga relatives
whanaungatanga kin rdatiot:ships

llll }\OTES
1. Tl:'s dlapteri~ b,wed on Bislmp ('.9~8a, 1998b).
2, Two people~ created AotearoalNew Zealand
when, in L!l40, lie-.:tenan,-governor Hob~on and the
thief> of New Zealand signed che Treaty ofWaitangi on
behalf o' the B:itish Crown and the Maori descendants
of ::>le\\' Zealand, The ;'."C'aty is see:1 a~ a charter for
power sharing in The dedsion-tr.aking procts,e~ of
this country and for Maori ceter mination o: t:ieir own
d.:stiny as the im:igenous peopl;; of New Zealand
!Walker. 1990). The historv of Maori and Pikl:ha rela-
tions since the signing of the trea:r h.s :101 been one of
partnership, of two peoples devdopi ng a natior., but
instead one of domination by Pakeha ar:<l marginaliza-
tion of the Mao~i peoplt (llishop, 1991b; ~::non, 1990;
Walker, 1990). lhi, has eceated the myth of 1Jur natio;1
being "one people" wilh eq;:al opport~nities (~lo::cpa,
1975; Sinon, 199(); Walker, 1990). Rcsu'.ts of this (:om
i nation are evident :oday in the lack cf equitable par-
ticipation by Miiori in all p!lsitivc and beneficial
aspect$ of life in New Zeafanc. and by the:: overrepre•
se11,ation in the negative aspe,t~ ( Pm::are, 1988;
Simon, 1990). In education. for fiample, the i;entral
government's sequent:al policies of ass:;nilation, inte•
g:atkm, ;,:nd multiculturalisrr. (Irwin, 1989; Jom'S,
M,Cullm:h, Marshall, Smith, & Smith, 1990) and ·:aha
Maor: (Holmes, Bishop, & Glynn. 1993; G. H. Smifh,
1990), while concerned for fhe welfare n'· Maori peo;:,le,
ef:ettively stress t:1e need for Maori people to subju-
gate their destiny to the needs of the nation state,
whose gnals a~e determined by the Pakehil ma;or:ty.
3. "Traditional" is used here to dem,te 1ha: "tradi-
tion" of research that has grow;: in ;\Jew Zealand as a
result of the dorr:inance of the Western worldview in
research institutions, Maori means of acces~ing, delin.
ing, and prote:ting k:-:owledge, however, existec before
European arrival. Such Macri cultural p~(icesses wen·
protected by the Treity of Wailangi. subs,'quen:lv
marginali7.td, bJt are today legitimized within Mao~i
cubtra: di,curs:vi: practice,
4. Please ,ee t'le !<:ossary of Maori te:'ms for
English translations.
5. The concept <}f hegemony is used here :n the
,ense defined bj• .Michel Foucault (Smar;. 1986). wno
sugge:;ls that hegemony is an ins[diom p~cess that
is acquirec most effectively th rough "practices, tech-
niques, and methods wblch infiltrate minds and bod,
ies, cultural practices which cul~ivate behaviors anc
beliefa, tastes, ce~ires and need~ a$ seeming:v naturally
Bishop: A Kaupapa ~1aori Ap1:1roach • 133
occu:ring qua:i:;es and properties embodied in the
psychic and physical reaEty of :he tuman s;.:bject~
(p.159).
6, I am u.~ing the term "disrnmse" 1~ mean k!::-
guagc in social use nr in action.
7, Irwin (1992a) argues that pr:ur lo the signing of
the Treaty of Waitangi and the color:ization of New
Zealand, there existed a "concplex, vibrant Maori educa-
tion system" that :,ad "Maori development Ias] its
vision, its educational p:'Littsscs and its • easur.iblc out-
comes" (p. 9). P:utrction ,lf this educa::,in svs1em was
guaranteed under Article 'iwo of the Treaty of Waitangi,
Just as Article Three guaraoleed Maori people, as citi-
zens of New Zealand, the right to equitable ecucational
outmmes. This promise had been negated by subse-
quent practice, and the outcome ls the :Jresem educa-
tional c:isi! (L. Davies & Kkholl. 1993; Jones e: al.,
1990), The postw:aty education system that developed
i:i New Zealanci-:hr mis:;ion schools (Bishop, J99Ja),
rhe Native sd!ools {Simon, 1990),ar:d the present main-
stream schools (Irwin, 1992a)-has been unablf ro
"succe»fully validate ma:auranga Maori, leaving it mar·
ginal:sed and in a precarious state~ (Irwin. 1992a, p, 10).
furthermore, while mainstream schocling does nol
serve Maori people well ( L Davies & ;liicho], l993 ), 1hc
Maori si;hooling initiatives of T, Krihanga reo (Ma\lr:
medium presdiools), Kura Kuupapa Manri (1..liori
medium primary s.:hools), Whare Kura (Maori medium
secomfary sdmols}, and \<\'hare Waananga (Maori tt:r•
liary i::stituticms), ~which have devdoperl from wifhin
Maori communities to i:1tervene in Maori language,cul •
tural, educatirmal, socia: and ecornimic crises are suc-
cessful in tire eyes ofthe Maori people"(G. H.Smilh, 1992,
p, !,emphasis added).
8. Article Two of an English transl.don of t:ie
Maori verskm of tbe T:eaty of Wa:tangi states: "The
Quee:1 of England ag::ecs to protect 1he Chlds, :he sub-
tribes and all the peop:c ofNtw Zealand in the unqual-
ified excn:lse of their chieftain,hip over :heir lands,
villages and :ill their treas:.::es. Jlut on the other hand
the Chiefs cf tl:e Cor::ederation and all the Chlefs will
sell land to lhe Queen at a price agreed to by the person
owr:ing it and by the person buying it (the latter being)
appointed by the Queen as her :1urchase agent•
(Kawha:u, as cited in Conscdine & C:,ms~dine. 2001,
F· 236), It is the first p.:'t of thi~ artld!' that has rele•
vance to this argument, that is, the prnmise that Maori
peofJle were guaranteed chie!ly control Jver :!:al which
they trea;;ured.
9. Whanal! ls a pr':miry cnncept (J cubral
preference) tl:at underlies narralives of Kaupapa
134 111 HAND llOOK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 5
Miiori rs:scuch ?rnctice. ·:-his concept contains both
·.-alues (cultural aspirations) ,ind social processes
(cultural pr.ictkes ). The root word nf "whanau" liter
,illy means "family" in its broad, "extended" sense.
Howeve:·, the word "whanau" is increasinglj· being used
in a metaphoric sense (Me:gc, 1990). This generic
concept of whanau ~ubsumes other related concepts:
whanaunga ( rdativ;:s ), wha:iaungatanga ( relation•
ships}, whakawhana1mgatanga (the process of <'Slab•
lishing rclatio:ishi?S ), and whakapapa (li:ernlly, the
:neans of establ'.shiug relatiomhips). (The
"whaka" means "tn mak,3'"; the suffix ":anga" has a
:iaming func:inn.;
, 0, This pC1ses majC1r challenges fur a,sessment in
education ,settings.
; l. It is important to emphasi1.e at this poin: bat
use of Mi!ori rnltural practices (litemJ;y and/or
:neraphor:cally) in rese-.rch might lead those not
:amilfar with Zealar,,.; to qi.:estirn1 how relevant
su,h an a::alysis is to the lived realities of Maori
people :oday. Be.:ausr Maori people today are a Fourth
World nation or mn ions that is, with i:: a larger
entity-it is more a tll;ltter of degree as to who partk-
:pates and when they ;iar:icipate. Therefore, rather
:han being able to quantify whic':i portion of
Maori popdation st'l1 acts in this way. it is :ierhaps
rr:o re realistic to say thal most Maori do at so:ne time.
for some, ii might be oc:y at funerals or we<ldlngs;
others, of cnursc, (albeit a sn:all propcrtior.) live this
w.iy all the time, but ::1creasingly :nore and more
Maori people arc pa:licipaling in (for cxampk; kau•
papa Maori educational iniliulives, an,I lhese ,m: all
mn in .: .\1ilori manner. Tht:s, most people do some-
some all the time, and others not ~o often. Wl:at
is perhaps more critical is :!:at most l\>liuri people are
11ble lo undcrstllnd tht· processts and are able to per•
tidpate. Muc:i is said of :l:e impact of ur::anization on
Maori people and the remcva: of young ?Cople from
their Ir ibal rnuts and wnsequen: decl:ne in Jan•
guage abilities anc cul!·Jral understanc::ngs. It is a
measure the smmg:I: of the whanau (the extended
family) and the stm:glh of geuealogical linkage,,
however, that when Maori pe;iple gathe,, the h:.:i {for.
mal meetings) proress fa usually the one that is used,
almost as a "default setting~ despite more than a cen-
tury colo11i1.atim1. fndeed, it is a measure of t:1e
stre::gth of (~ese cultural practices anc pr:nciples that
they have survived the onslaught o: t'ie last 150 years.
lt i,, tc) these underly: :ig smir:gths that J tum also as
:nsp i ra:io:1 fur developi 11g a11 approac'-, to Maori
~esearch. :11v argument then, is not an attempt to
identif}' practices" or reassemble a rnman:ic
past, but ra:her lo c~amine what might constitute the
emerging field of ?:aupapa ~/.aori research ;n r<'fiere1,c.e
to present Maori cultural practices that are gu:ded by
the mes.sages from the past, Maori, along with many
other indigenous people, are guided by :he principle
of guiida:~cc from the ancesrors. It is not a matter of
studying how people did lhings in the past but more
an ongoing dy1mn6: inte~acrive relationship be:ween
faosc of 'JS alive today as the embodiment of all t~ose
who have gone w-,,,,~.It seems to me that, in practice,
Miio:i cult:iral practke:s are: alive and well and that,
when usftl either Jitcrnlly or mc1Jphoric,1lly, they
enable Maori people t0 undm,tand and rnnt:nl wl:at is
hap:,ening,
12. Emine:;t Maori schohir Rose Pere ( l 99 I l
describes :l:c qualilks of a l:ui as
respect, consideration, patience, and coopera•
rion. Pcop:e :;ced to feel that they have :he
right and the lo e~ press Iheir point of
view. You may noi always with the speak•
ers, but it ls considered bad for:n to imecrupt
their flow oi sp;;ech while t:.ey are sta:iding 011
their feel; one has to wail to make a comment.
People may be as frank as they like about
o:hers at th~ hui, bm usually sta:e their case in
such a way :h.it the pe:,;on being crilidzed mn
s1and up with some dig nil v in his/he, right
o: rep:y. Once everything has been folly dis-
rnssed and the n:embrrs come to son:c form
rnmensus, the hui conc:udes w:th a prayer
a11d the partaking of for:d. (p, 44)
This may appear :o Ix: so::iewhat palrcnizi::g;
however, our experience when conducting Kaupapa
Miicri research is that research participants are often
surprist'll by cur insistence thaL we w:sh :o e:irer into a
dialogue with :hem ,1bout the me~ning they constru.;t
from !heir "",.'""'"' Our experience is that !he tra·
ditional "$peaking for" t ypr of rrst:m:h is so pcrvasive
and <lomiaa:it that pa:i:idpanrs arc ir:itially surprls~d
that :l:ey :11ight have an a:.:thoritalivc voice in
process rather than just being a source of data for an
outside researcher. What are t~uly heartening an'
positive respo:ises we have had fmm partk:pants of ,ill
ages, once they realiled Umt they were al:ile to engage in
a c'alogue.
14. For further details of the use of Maori metaphor,
see Bishop (1996) and Bishop Glynn (I 999).
fu Kew Zea:and, the koru fl?presents gmwth.
nev>' begmn ings, renewal, and hope for t:ie future.

16. Donna Awatere (l 981) :me Kathie Irwin
(1992',) are two Maori femin:st scholars who l:a\·e
t,.ke:1 up this ch;;,llenge 'n AoteamaJh'ew Zealand, ::i a
way thal has dearly del ineared their s:ance as diffurent
from w"lite fem::1lsrns. in operationali:t:ng M.iiori femi-
nisms, thev have ,;:riiii; ued molkrnist :ssues from a
' '
Maori worldvi<:w in Maori Awa:ere critiqued
white modcn::st feminists fur hegernon:cally voicing
Maori feminist cor:cerns as identical to their own,
K;::rhie Irwir:'.s (1992b) critique addressed a queston
that is vexatious to non-Macri modernist feminists:
"Why don't women speak 011 a ma:-ae?" She respomled
with other questions, such as "What do ;nu mear: by
speaki::g? ... Is a karanga not speaking?" and "Who is
defining what speaking is!" She asser:s that rathe, than
taking an esscntfa:is: position, the validity cf a tcx1
written about .",,faori wor:ien ":;peaking" 011 a marne is
understancable on:y in terr:,s of ~he rules establfahed
within Mimri :ulturnl prn.ctkes associated wit:, marae
protoails. In this, she is not only addressing " Maori
issue hut al.o is acdrcssing modernist feminists in
postslruca::~al ti:rr:is of epistemological validity.
17. People often nse the 1cmi kawa to refer to
marae protocols. for example, al the tirr:e of whaiko-
rero (ritua,:zed speechmakir.g), some tribes conduct
this part of the ?owhiri by a tikanga known as paeke,
where all the male speakers of the hosts' side wi:! speak
at one ti r:1e, then turn the marac over to the visitors'
speaker, who then follows. Other trib.~s prefer to follow
a tikanga termed :.it1.:utu, where hosts and ¥;sitorn
.ihcrnate. Some tr:bes welcome visito,s into their
mc·eling house fullowing a h6ngi; others keep the
hongi umil the of U1e welcoming lime. It is dear
the.I these various tikanga are ;m1ctk:es t:iat are correct
in certain tribal or hapu context., but underneath is
the pr-.idicc of tht kawa being handed down from
those who !-:ave gone before, t(mcerning the need to
recog:ii:.:c the tapu of peClple, their mana, thtir wai,ua,
ar:d be mauri of the place and evffits_ Sec Salmond
( 1975) fur a detailed ethnographic ,,tudy.
At.:ker, llarry, & Esseveld, J, (1991 ). ()bj;.'<'.tivily and
truth problems in dclng fem::Jist resi:arch. In
M. Fon ow & J, C,1ok (Eds,). Beyorrd me1/wdology:
Feminist scholarship Q,/ived re,earch (pp. l.B-154).
Bloomingtor:: Ind:ana University Pres,.
Awate~e, IJ_ ( I91\: ). Maori so·,ereigr.t;,: Auckla:id,
New Zealand: Broadsheet.
Bishop: A Kau;,apa Maori App~oa.:h • ;35
Ballard, K. (Ed,), (: 994). Disr.bilitY. family, wh,mau
and sodety. l'alrnersto:l Kort:1, New Zealand:
Dun r..ore !>ress.
Beverley,). (2CIJO). les:::nonio, subaltcrnitv,and narra-
tive authority. In I\, Denzin &: Y, S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qut1litative rem:rrch (2nd ed.,
pp. 555-565). ThoJsand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bishop, R. (: 99 la). He whakawhanaungatanga tfkanga
rua. Establishing .A biculturnl experience.
Unpublished master's thesis, Unin:r,ily of Ota.go,
Dunedin, New Zealand.
Bisho?, R. (l 991 b, December). le ropu mngaiiau
likanga rua: The need for emancipatory research
under ihe c,mtroi of 1he Maori people for the belle r-
m.mt ,if Maori people. Paper prese:1ted at the 13th
Annual New Zealand Association for Research in
fa:ucation, l<nox Co:Jege, llunedin, New Zealand.
Bishop, R. (1996), Co/iabarati->'e research stories:
Whakawanaungat.mga, Palrnerston North, New
Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Bishop. R. (1997). Interviewing <L, co:laborat've storyir:g.
Educational Research and fuspectiw,s, 24( l ), 28-4'/.
Bi.hop. R. (1998a). Examples of cultt.:,ally specific
1eseaich practices: A ::esponse :o Tillman and lopl:'Z.
Qm1ll!atii-e S1udit'.s /11 Education, 11 (3). 419-434.
llishon, R. (: 998b }. freeing oursdve, fmr:: neo-
rolonial domination in rrsrarch: t, Maori apprnach
to rrcaling knowledge. Qualitatin, Studie, in
mtion, 11(21, 199 219.
Bishop, R., Berryman, ]l,t, & Ric:iardson, C. (2002 ), Te :oi
hm1n:wa: Effec:ive teach!r.g and learn:ng in total
in:rnersion Maori l~nguage educatiLJnal setting,.
Cr.nadian Journal ofNatit>e Fduc1rifm, 26( I). 44-6 L
Bishop. R., Berryman, M., & Ricbi!rdson, C (2003).
Jfotahitanga: The cXperimces ofyear 9 and iO Miiori
students in mainstream cla»rooms. Wellington,
New Zealand: Mi.1istry of Education. Retrieved
from v.·ww.n:inedu.govt.nzigoro/tekotahitanga
Bishop, R., & Glt·nn, T. (1999), Cu/lure n1un/s: Changing
power relations in .:ducation. Palmerston i\orth,
New Zealand: DJnmore Press.
Brayboy, B. M., & Depk 1), (2000). lnsider-outs'der:
Rtsearcher, in A:nerican Indian communities.
Thevry Imo Prac•f:i..ce,39(3}, 163-169.
Bridges, D. (1001 ). The ethics of outsider m;earch,
Joumafof Philosap.~yo_(Educatwn, 371-336,
Burgess. R. G. (1984). lll the field: Jlr, introduction to
field rosearcl;, l\"ew York: Fuimer.
Calderhead, J. (1981), Stimulated 1ernll: A r::ethcd for
research on teaching, British Jo!ll'na( oj Educational
-, 'JJI -..:..
n .. c / ogt J;,..,,
r:)JCnO ''l'I..
136 1!1 HANDBOOK Or QUALlTATIVE RESEA::l.CH-CHAPTER 5
Connelly, E M., & Cfandinin, D. J. (1990}. Storie!-
of experience and narrative ir:quiry. Educational
Researcher, i9(5), 2-14.
Consedine, R., & Consedi:ie, J. (2001 ). Healing our
history: 'the chal/mge of the Trea(I' ,if Waittmgi.
Auckland, New Zea'.and: Penguin Books.
Davies I¼. ( 1990). Agency as a fur:n of discursive prac-
t'ce: A dassrnom observed. British Journal of
Sociology ofbducatfon, 11(3), 341-361.
Davies, JJ., & Harre, it ( 1990). Positioning: Thr c'iscur-
sive production of selves. Journal of the Theory of
5o,ial Behaviour, ZO, 43·&5.
Davies, L. & Nicholl, K. (l 993). Te Maori i row !
nJ:ll mahi whakaakoranga: Mii:ari m educal1on.
we:Hngton, 'Jew Zealand: Ministry oi Edocation.
De!ar.iont, S. (1992) Fi;;JdworA u; edw:atilmal seitings·
Met.~ods, pitfalls and persf•ectives. l.ondon: Falr::er.
Devh!e, D.• & Swisher. K. ( 1997). Research i:1 American
indian and Alaska Native edt:cat:on: from assio•
ilation to st:lf-determi::ation. l:1 M. W. Apple
(Ed.). .~.:view of Research in i:.'ducation ( Vol. 22,
pp. 1:3- i94'.. Washing:on, DC: American EduCfl·
dona.I Research Association.
L>urie, M. (1994). \Vhaiolll: Maori health development.
Ac:d,:and, Ne·.-.• Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Durie, M. O995 ). Principle, for the develop,mmt of
Maori policy. Paper p:-esentcd at the ,\,Jaorf Policy
Devclop11:em, lvlaori Policy Developme:;t Confer•
cnrc, Wc,lling1on. Kew Zealiind.
D uric, M.11998). le mami, te imw~natr,nga: The politics
of Milllti selfdeterminatfrm. Auck land, New
Zealand: Oxford University Press.
Eisner, E.W. (1991). Tht enlightened ryi: Qualitative
inquiry and the enh1i.11cement of ed11ca, innal
practire. Ntw York: Teachers Collegt Prtss.
Esposita, L., & Murphy, J. W. (2000 ). Another sts!p in the
stndy of race relations. The Sociological QuW'terly.
41(2), 171-187.
Fine, M. ( 1994). Working the hy?hens: Reinventing tl:e self
and other in c,ualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. LiTh,"O\n (Eds. l, Ha11dbook ofqualtramtt research
[1st ed., pp. 70-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fine, M., & Weis, L (1996). 'Nriting the "wrongs" of
fieldwo:k: Confrur:ting our own rescarchlwr:t: ng
dllem::,a~ in ~rhan ethnogr~phies. Qualirative
Inquiry; 2(3 ),251-274.
Fine, '.\1., Weis, L, Weseen, S., & Wor:g, L (2000}. Fo:
who:n? Qua:itat!ve research, representations,
and social responsi::iilities. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Li m;olri (Eds.), Handbook of qw,iiuuive
r.:uarcl, (2nd ed., p:i. l07-Bl). Thousand Oaks,
Cl'I: Scge.
Fit:zsir::ons, P., & Smi:h, G. H. (WOO). Ph'lomphy and
indigenou! rnltural transfor:nation. Educatirmal
Philusophy ,md 1'/ieory, 32( I), 25-41.
Gay, G. (2000). Cultim1lly respcnsive teaching: Th,wry,
n'Searc/1 and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Gla,er, 3. C., & Strauss, A. L. (I 967). The discavery of'
grmmded thecry: Strategle., f.~r qualitati·;e resea rel!.
Loncun: ½'eidc::feld ar.d 1'icolson.
Goldstein, LS. (WOO). Erhkal dilemmas i11 designing col•
laJura:ivc research: Lessons learned the hard way.
Qualirari.,-., Studies in Educatio11, 13(5), 517-530.
Gonzalez, F. it (2COI J. Hademio que harer-c-.iltivatini;,
a ,vlestiz wurldvicw and academic ac:iieve:nent:
3raiding cultural knowledge into ecucatrma:
research, policy, practice. lmema1iorraJ Jmm,al of
(}ualiumve Studies in Edu,arion, 14(5), 641-656.
G:irfiths, M. [ 1998 ). Edua,tion~i research fi11 s()i:ial Jus•
tice: Getting off the fi:nce. Budtingha r:, UK: Ope:i
:Jniversity Pre~,.
Heshusius, L (1994). i'reeing oun;tlves from objectiv-
ity: Mar.aging subjectivity or turning toward a
partk:patory mode of mnscio;,:snessr Edurntio11a•
Re,eilfcher, 23(3), 15-22.
Hes~usius, L. (1996;. Mod.:s of consciousness ar.d the
self in learning disabilities research: Considering
past and future. In ll. I( Reid, W. P. Hre.,ko, &
H. L Swan;or: (Eds.), Cogniti~t appmache:, to
learning disubililieS (3rd ed., pp. 651-671 ). Austin,
IX:PRO-ED.
Heshusius, L (2002). Mo~e than the (::ierely) ratio:ial:
Imagining inquiry for abmty diversity. An essay
n•sponse to Ji :n Paut Disability. Culture and
Education, 1( 2), 95-118.
Hohepa, I~ (1975). The one peo:ile myth. In M. King
/Ee.), 'leaohurihuri: The world mOVl!'s on;Asper:s ,f
Maoritanga (pp. 98-111). Auckland, \/ew Zealand:
HkksSmidt
Hn::ne,1 H., Bishop, R., & Glynn, T: ! 1993). 1i. mai kia
tu ake: Impart ,1( talrn Maori in O,ago and
;,outniand schocis (Tc Ropu Rangahau Tikariga
Rua Monograph No. 4). Dunedin, 'Jew Zealand:
Department of Educatlor., University of Otagu.
hooks, b. ( 1993 ). Postmodern blackness. Pris,modern
Culmre, I( l;. Retrieved from http:/fmuse,jhu.edu!
joumals{,m1c/:mlex.hlml
lrwio, K. ( 1989 ). Multkulturnl education: the New 7..ealand
response. New Zealm1d Journal of Eiducati,mal
Studit:S, 24{ I), 3~ HI.
Irwin, K, ( 1992a). Maori research meth,,ds and
processes: Au explnratiim and discussion. Paper
presented at the Juint New Zc-,aland Association

fo: Research in Hduca:ion/Australkn Assoc1afam
fu: Researc'i in [cucation Conterence, Geelong,
Australia.
Jrwi n. K. (: 992:i). Tm<lllrds :hmrks of Maor: leminisms.
ln R. Du Plessis (Ed,), feminisr voices: Wiimen';;
studies"·"' ;v• Aotearua/New Zealand (pp. :-2:).
Au::kland, Kew Zedand: Oxford Unive:sity Press.
Irwin, K.(1994). Maori research ::1etlmds and processes'.
An exploration, Sites: A Joumal jor Raaical Perspec•
tives on Culture. 211, 25-43.
Jambs-H:ucy, L (2002). The run:ves are gazing and talk-
ing back: Review the prob,ematics positionalily,
voice anc accounta:iility arr.ong "Native" anthropol-
ogists. American Anthropologist, 104(3 ,, 791-804.
Johns,m•Bailey, J. (1999). The ties that Jind and the
shackles that se,Jarate: Ract>, gender, and
color in a researc'i process. Qualitativi: 'iiudies in
Education, 12(6), 659-670.
!ones, A., McCullocll, G., :Mars~all, L D., Smith, G. II., &
Sr.1ith, LT ( 1990). Myths a,rd realities: Sdwoling
in New Zeal,md. Palmerston North,\/ ew Zealz:id:
Dunmore Press.
Ken:::nis. & Mclaggart, R. (2000). Partkipatory
action research. In N, K. Dcnz:n & Y. S. l.:ncoln
(Eds.), Handbock cfqu.alitatiw• re.;eard1 (2nd ed.,
pp. 567-605 ). l'housar:d Oak&, CA: Sage.
Kincheloe. J. L, & 'vklan:n, P. (20CO}. Rethinking cr:tkal
theory and qualitative rl'Seard:. I:, N. K. Denzin
& Y. 5. :.inrnln (Eds.), Hmi.Jback of qualitative
researd:r (2nd ed., pp. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lacson-3illing,, (;. ( 1995). '!oward a theory o: cultur-
al:y re:ewmt pedagogy. il..merican Educational
Research /ourrial, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Bil:mgs. ti. (200:J). Racializec discou:'SCS and elh·
nk episten:ologies. In N. K. Dmzin & Y. S. Lin.:oln
(Eds.), Handbook of qw,iitative researdi (2::d ed.,
pp. 257-277), Thoi.:sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
La:het, P. (l 986), Research as praxis. Hurvard Educa-
tiomd Review, 56(3), 257-274.
La:hcr, P. {1991 ). Getting smart: Frmiuis! research and
pedag(>gy wit/1/in the postmoder,i. New Yor;;:
Routlcdgr.
Lincoln, Y.S.,& Den,in, K K. ( 1994). Tbe fifth mcmcnl.
In N. K. De:1zin & Y. S. I inco::1 (Eds.), Jf,mdbook
of quali1a1iw research '. Ist ed., pp.
Thm:sand Oaks, CA: !Sage,
Lomawaima, K. T (2000). TrlboJ sovereigns: Refraining
research in American Ind 'an education. llarv~rd
Hducationa! Review 70( Ii, 1
Merrian:, S. 1:1.. ;ohnson-Bailey, J., I.ee, M.-Y., Kee, Y.,
N:seanc, G., & Muhanni,:, M. (2001 ). Power
Bishop; A Kau?apa Maori Approach a 137
pesitiollllity: Negotiating insider/outsider stat:JS
within and across cul1tun:s. lmernational Jm,rnal
of I.ifeltmg Hdm;:ation, 20(5), 405-416.
Metge, J. (1990). Te rito o te ha:akeke: Conceptions of
the WhaarnnL /aumal uf tl.t P.Jiyrwsian Society,
99(1 ), 55-91.
Mish'.er, F-G. ( 1986). Research interviewing: Context iind
narrarive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard t:niversity
P~ess.
Moll, L. C. ( 1992). Bi:ingual rfassronm ,1udies i:::d :om-
m:mil y analysis: Some recent tnends. b:du,atwm;l
Researciier, 21, 20-24.
Namyan, ( 1993). How native is a "native" anthropol-
ogist' ,foierican AnthropiJlogist. 95, 071-686.
Nodding,;, N. (I 986 ). Fidelity in teaching, teacher
education, and nesean:h fu: teaching. Harvard
Educatianal Review, 56(4), 496-5] D.
Oakley, A. (1 ~81). Interviewing wcmen: A ,ontr.;dic,
tior: in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.}, Doing_fi:minist
riisewr:h (pp. 30-6 l ). Londo:i: Routledge.
Olss.:n, (1993, April). H'allermas, past-nwdemism
and the scimce question for education. Paper
presented at the S:aff Semina,, t:niYersr:y of
Otago, Dunedin, ~cw Zeidand.
Patton, ,'It ( 1990). Qiu.1Uuuive evaluation and research
methods (2nd ed.). Nev.bury Park, CA: Sage.
n.
Pere, R. (l 99 Te whekc: A ~e/ebratioti of in.fin/re
wisdom. Gisbor ne, Kew Zealand: Ao l\ko.
Pihama, L., & Walk.:r, S. {2002). Crea;ing
a methodological space: A Ererature review of
Ka:.ipapa M~ori r;:seuch. Canadian Jo,mial ,if
Native Education, 26(: ), 30-43.
Polanyi, M. [ 1966 ). Th~ t<il'it dimensfrm. 7'lew
Doubleday.
Po:11.ire, E. '. 1911!<). Hmmra: Maori standard, of l1eal1h.
Wellington, Zealand: l>epartmtlll of Health.
Rains, F. V, Arch'balc, J.-A., & Dcyhk, D (2000).
lntrodi.:ction: Thrnug:i onr and :n our own
word,. lntemafional /oumai ufQuulitatii·e Stud/,;;
in Ed1m1ticm, 1J(4}, 337 - 342.
Reinhuz, S. (1992). Feminist merhod, in social
research. New Y0rk: Oxford University l':ess.
Reyes, P., Scrihner, )., & Scribner, A. V. (Eds.). ( 1999).
usi:c11s from high-performing llispanic scho:ik
Greater iearning comrmmities. New York: 1i.:achcrs
College
Ryan, /. {1999). Race a11d etlmicit}' in multi-ethnic
schoals: .4 critical ca;;r srudy. Clevt>dun,
Multilingual Matters.
S.1'.mond, A. (I 97 5). Hui: A studr af .Wiiori ceremo-
nial greei ings. Auck land, New Zeal and: Reed &
Methuen.
 a HAlitJFIOOK OF Qt:AUTATTVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 5
Scheurich, J. J, & Young, :vL D. ( 1997). Coloring
epis11:mo:og,es: our research epistemologies
racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4),4-16.
Shirres, :Vt ( 1982 J. Tspu. Jourm,1 rf the Poiym:sian
Society, 9111 ;, n-,,a,
5id,rkir,, A. M. (2002). Learning refati,,ns: f,npure
ed;,caticn, deschooled schools, and dialogue with
evil New Yrd: Peter Lang.
Sirmm, J. A. ( 199()). Tr1e mle cif sdwoling iri Mi:iori•
Pakt ha refations. Unpublished docto~l disser:a·
0
tion,Auckland Vniversi:y,Au;;kland,New Zealand
Sleeter, C. E. (200 I). EJlistemologici diversity in researd:
on preservice teacher p~epuatior, for hi&:orically
underserved children, ln W. G, Sc.:ada (Ed.), &view
of Research in Educ,uion (Vol. 6, pp, 109-250).
Viashington, DC: American Educational Research
Asoodatlon.
Sm,n, B. ( 1986 ). The politic& of tn;th and the i:iroblcms
of hegemony. In D. C. Boy (Ee.), Foucault: A critical
reader (pp.. 57-173). Oxford, \JK: Basil Bfackwell.
SmiLh, G. H, (1990), l\tha .'.11aori: Pake'la caplure. in
J. Codd, R. Harker & R. Na,h {Eds.), i'olitii:nl I.mu:.,
in New Zeaiimc/ edumticn (pp. 183-1
Pa'.:ncrston No~th, J\'ew Zealand: Dunmore Pres,.
Smilh. G. H. .:,;ovembcr). Tcme-nui-a-nmgis
iega,y: l'ropping up the Kaupapa l'r1aori ,is
rcsisum,·e ,md fr1tervemicn. Paper pr~sentcd at
Lhc '.':>lcw Zealand Associ«t:m1 for Rt-seard1 :n
Education/Australian A,Midatiw for Research
:n bd·Jcation Jcint Cnnferi:nce, De,C:,in University;
Australia. Retrieved from www.swi :i.edul .a~!/ruirel
cnnf92/SMIT(i92J84
Smith, G. H. (:997). Kaupapa Maori as mn,sforma-
pmxi,. !;npubli,hed doc:oral dissertation,
U:i iv,rsity of Am:k:and, Auck:and.
Smith, L T. (1999). Decolonizing metl;odologies:
Research and ind(,renous peoples. Lo::don: 7..ed
Books.
Sprague, J.. & Haves, j. (2000). Self-c.etermination ar.d
empowe,ment; A fomini,t stand;min: am,ly,i> of
talk a:,out dis<1bil:ty. ,1111erican fr,urnal of r:ormr:u-
nity Fsy.:hokigy, 28(5), 671
,m.1.cv,J. (1991) Can there be a feminist ethnography?
In S, ll. G1uck & D, Pat,,: (Ed,.), Womens words:
The femirdst practice ofcral history (pp. 111-: 19;.
New York: Routledge.
Sta:1field, J. H. (1994). Ethnic modeling in (J'~alitative
research. In N. K. Jenz:n & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualit,tive research (l st ed.,
pp. 17 5- l 88). Thou5a:1d Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swishe,, K. G, (:998}, W'hy Indian people s;,ould be
the ones to write ahou: l:ldlan ed ucalion, In
A, MihesJah (Ed.J, Na1iv(•s ,md acadrniic.<:
Researching and writing aliout American Indians
(pp. 190-200). Lincoln: l:nivcrsity of Kcbmsk~
Press.
Thayer-Bacon, 8. ( 1'1'17;. The nurturing of a rd11·
tional epis!Cffi()logy. Educatu:ma/ 1nl!Ot)\
239-260.
Tillman, L C (2002), Ct1hurally scn,ifae res~an:h
approaches: An African-American pt."r,yCClivc.
Educaiion,1/ Researcher, 31(9), 3-12.
Tripp, D. IL (l 983 ). C,Hmthornhi:, rnd r:cgoliation:
interview ~.s sc: of creation, Imercha"lge,
14(3!, 32-45.
Villega,, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Edu::ating culmraliy
respon,iVe teachers: l\ c:1herent approach New York:
State J,;niversity of New York Psess.
Walker, R. (1990), ·.v~lll"hai tvriu 111aWu; Stm&,i;le
without en,1. A:;ck:and, New zea:and: Penguin.
6
ETHICS AND POLITICS
IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Clifford G. Christians
T
he Enlightenment mind cl'lstered around
an extraordinary dichotomy. Intellectual
historians usually sum mari1~ t:1is split in
terms of subjectJobject, fact/value, o~ material/
spiritual dualis:ns.A[ three of these are legitimate
interpretations of the cusmology inherited from
Galileo, Descartes, and Newton. None of them,
however, puts the Enlightenment into its sharpest
focus. Its deepest root was a pervasive autonomy.
T:ie cult of human personality preva:led in all its
freedom. Huma:1 beings were declared a law unto
themselves, set loose from every faith that claimed
their alleghmce. Proudly selfconsdous of human
autonomy, the 18th-century mind saw nature a5
an arena of Eni tless possibilities in which the sov•
ereign:y of hur:um personality was demonstrated
by its mastery over the natural order. Release from
nature spawned autor.omous individuals w:10
considered therruelves independent of any author·
ity. The freedom molif was the deepest driving
force, first released by the Renaissam;e and ad1iev·
ing maturity during fhe EnEghtenment,
Obviously, one can reach au!onotn)' by starting
with :he subject/object dualism. In constructing
the Enlighter.ment worldview, the prestigi: of nat-
ural sden;:e played a key role in ,etting people
free. Achievements in mathematics, physics, ar.d
astrono:ny allowed humans to dominate nature,
which formerly had domina:ed them. Sdence
provide.:: um:1istakable evidence that by appiying
reason to nature and to r.uman beings in fairiy
obvious ways, people could live progressive:y
happier lives. Crime and insanity, for example,
no longer neeced repressive theological expla-
nations, but instear. were deemed capable of
mundane empirical solutions,
Likewise, one can get to the autonomous self
by casting the question in terms of a radical
discontinuity ;,etween hard fucts and subjective
values. The Enlightenment did pusi: values to the
f;inge through its disjunction between knowledge
of what is anc what ought to be, and Enlightenment
malerialilirn in all its for:ns isolated reason from
fait:i, and knowledge fron: ;:,elicf. As Robe: rt
Hooi<e insisted in 1663, when he helped found
London's Rovai Socienr, "To improve :he knowl-
' '
edge of natural things, this Society will not med-
dle with Divi:iity, Metaphysics, }:iorals, Politics
and Rhetoric" (Lyons, IY44, p.41 }. With factuality
gaining a stranglehold on the Enlighten:nent
• ind, those regions of human interest t:Jat
inp'.ied oughts, constraints, and imperat'ves
simply ceased to appear, Cer:ainly those who see
the Enlightenmer.t as separating facts and values
Ill 139
140 II HA~DBOOK OP QU:\LlTA':'IVE RESEARCH--CHAPTE:~ 6
huve identified a carci;ial difliculty, Likewise, the
realm of the spirit can easily dissolve into mystery
and intuition. If the spiritual world contaim no
binding force, ii is surrendered ~o speculation
b,- :he divines, many of w:wn: accepted the
Enlightenment belief that the:r pursuit was
ephemera'..
But tl:c Enlightenment'., autonomy doct,i ne
created the greatest rr:ischief. l:ldlvidual sclf-
detcrm ination stands as the centc,piece, bequeatr.-
ing to u~ the ur.iversal proble:n of integrating
human freedom with morn! order. In struggling
wit!: the complexities and conundrums of this
relations:i'.p, the Enligr.tenment, in effect, reti:sed
to sacrifice perso.:ial freedorr:, Even tno:igh the
problem had a pa~ticular urgency in the 18th
century, its response was r:nt rcso'.ution but a
categorical insistence on autonomy. Given lhe
d~spotic political regimes and oppressive ecclesi-
astical systen:s of the period, such an uncompro-
mising stance for freedom al this ji;ncture is
understandable. The Enlightenment began and
ended with the assu:nption that human liberty
01:ght to be cut away from the moral order, never
integrated meaningfully with
; ean• Jacqi.:.es Rousseau \'12.S the most outipO·
ken advocate of this radical freedom. He gave
inte\lecmal subs~ance to free sel f-de,erminatior,
of the human personality as tl:e highest good.
Rousseau is a com?Ecated figure. He refused :o
be co-opted by Desca:tes's rationalism, Newton's
mechanistic cos1:10logy, or Locke's egoist:c ,elves.
He was nol merely content to isolate and tra~ral:ze
freedom, either, at lea~t not in his Discourse on
Inequality or in the ::iorial GQ11triKI, where he
answers Hoh1:ies.
Rous.seau represented the romantic wing oi
the Enlightenment, revolting against its rat ior.al-
ism. He won a wide following well into the 196
cen:ury for advocating immanent and emerger:t
values rather than transcer:cent and given ones.
While admitting that huma:is were finite a:id
li:nited, he nonetheless promoted a freedom of
brrathtaking scoi,e--not just disengagement
from God or the Church, but freedom from cul-
ture and from any authority, Autonomy becmm.:
the core of the human being and the center of the
universe. Rousscatis understanding of eq:.mlit y,
social systems, axiology, and language were
ai:chored in it, He recognized the consec;uences
more astutely :han those comfortable with a
shri;nken negative freedom. The only solution
that he fuu nd tolerable, however, was a noble
h.1:nan nature that enjoyed freedom beneficently
and, therefore, one could presume, lived compati-
bly in some vague sense with a moral order.
a VA:..ue- FRc:E ExPERIMEN J:I\LISM
Typically, debates over the character of the soda!
sciences revolve around the theory and method-
ology of the natural sciences. However, the argu-
mmt here is not how they resemble :rnlural
science, but rather the:r inscription into the dom-
inar: Enlightenrr:ent worldview. In political
theory, the liberal stalf as ii emerged in 17th- and
l8th-,:entury Europe left citizens free to lead their
uwn lives wibout obeisance to the Church or the ieu-
dal order, Psychology, sociology, and e..:onornics-
kr:own as the hi.:.rr:an or moral sciences in the
I8th and 19th centi.:.ries-were co.:iceived as "lib-
eral arts" that opened n:hds and freed the :magi•
nation. As the social sciences and liberal state
emerged and overlapped historically, Enlightenment
thinkers in Euro?e advocated the "facts, skills,
and techniques" o: experimental reasoning to
support :he state and citizenry (Root, 1993,
pp. 14-15).
Consi~tent wit:1 the ?resumed priority of
ind'vidual liberty over the moral order, the basic
institutions of societ)' were designed to ensure
"neJtrality be:wee:i diflerent concept:ons of the
good"(Rool, 1993, ?, 12). The state was prohibited
"from :-,;;quiring or even encouragi:ig citizens to
subscrf::ie tu one religious tradition, form of
family life, or • an ner of personal or artistic
expression over another" ( Root. 199 3, p. 12),
Given the historical circumstances in which
sha~ed conceplions of the gooc. were ro longer
broad and deeply entrenched, :aki ng s'dcs on
moral issi:es a:1d imisting on soda! ideals were
considered counterprodt:ctive. Value neutrality
appeared to be the logical alterrn1tive "for a society

w:iosc mer.ibers practiced many rejgions,
pursued :nany different occupations, and identi-
fied with many different customs and traditions"
(Root, 1993, p. 11 ). The theory and practice of
mainstream social science reflect liberal Enligl:t-
enment philosophy, as do education, sdenre, and
politics. Only a reintegration of autonomy and the
moral order prov ides an allernative paradigm fo:-
the 1mc'al sdence:. today.2
Mlll's Philosophy of Social Science
For John SI uart Mill, "neutraEty is necessary in
order to promote autonomy.... A persor. cannot
be forced to be good, and the state should not die·
tate the kind oflife a citizen should lead; it would
be better fo: dtize:is :o choose badly than fo,
them to be forced by the sta:e to choose well"
(Root, 1993, pp. 12-13). Planning our lives
according to our owr. ideas and purposes is sine
qua non for autonomous being,, in Mill's On
Liberty (185911978): "The free development of
individnality is one of the principal ingredienrs of
human happiness, and quit1: the cbef ir.gredient
of individual and soda! progre!k~" (p. 50; see also
Coplcston, 1966, p. 303, n. 32). This :ieutrality,
based or: the suprc-rr:acy of indivic:Jal autonomy,
is the foundational pr' nciple in Utilitarimtism
(1861/1957) and in A System of logic. Ratio-
cinative and Inductive (1843/ 1893) as well. For
Mill, "the principle of utility demar.c.s that the
individual should enjoy full ff::,erty, except the
liberty :o harm others» (Copleston, 1966, p. 54). In
additio:1 :o bringing dass'.cal utilitarianism to its
max: m 'Jm development and establishing with
Locke the libe:-al state. Mill de'.i:Jeated the fou:i-
dations of inductive inquiry as social scientific
method. In terms of the pr: ndples of empiricism,
he perfected the inductive techniques Francis.
Bacon as a problem-solving methodology to
replace Aristotelian deductive logic.
According to Mill, syllogisrr.s cont :-ibute
nothing new ro human knowledge. If we conclude
thut because "all men are mortal» the Duke of
Wellington is mortal hy virtue of :iis manhood,
then 6.e conclusion does not advance the premise
(see Mill, 1843i 1893. JI, 3, 2, p. l40 ), The crucial
C:1ristians: Ethics and Jolitics a l41
issue is not reorc.ering the conceptual world but
discrimir.ating genuine knowlec.ge from supersti -
tion. In fae pursuit of tmth,generalizing and syn-
thesizing are necessary to advance inductively
from the known tn the unknown. Mill seeks to
establish this function of logic as inference from
the know:1, rather than certifying the rules
lormal consistency in reasoning (Mill, l843/1893,
Bk. 3). Scientific certitule can be approximated
when ::iduc tion is followed rigorously, with
propositions empir:cally derived and the material
of all our knowledge provided by experience:' For
the physical sciences, he estabEshes four modes
of experimental inquiry: agreement, disagree-
me1:t, residues, and the principle of concomitant
variat'ons (MHI, IR43/1893, III, 8, pp. 278-288).
He considers them the only possible methods
of proof for experimentation, as long as one pee•
sumes the re.a.list position that nature is struc•
tured by unifor:n:ties.4
In Book 6 of .4 ~'5tem of Logic, "On the Logic
nf the Moral Sciem:est Mfl (1843/1893) develops
an inductive experimentalism as the sdentific
me,hod for studying "the various pher.omena
which constitute social life" (V1, 6, I, p. 606 ).
Ahh ough he conceived of social science as
explaining human behavior in terms of causal
laws, he warned against the fatalism of full pre•
dicta biEty. "Social :aws are hypothetical, and
statistically-based generalizations by their very
nature admit of exceptions" (Copleston, 1966,
p. IO:; see also Mill, 1843/1893, VI, 5, 1, p. 596).
Empirically confi rmcd i:lstn:mental knowledge
abom :,u:nan bchav'or has greater predictive
power when it deals w1:h collective masses than
when we are dealing with individual agents.
Yii['s positivism is obvious throughout his
work 011 experimen:al inquiry.' Based on the
work of A:.1guste Com7e, he defined matter as the
"perrr:anent possihility of sensation" (Mill, 1865,
p. 198) and believed that nothing else can be said
about metaphysical substances.° With Hume and
Comte, .Mill insisti:d fail.t metaphysical substances
are not real and that only the facts of sense phe-
nomena exist. There are no essences or ulli :nate
reality behind sensations; therefo:e, Mm ( LS65/
1907, 1865) and Comte (1848/1910) argued that
l42 11 HAXDBOOK OF QJ.;A I.ITATIVE RESEARCH--CHAl'lllR 6
social scientists shouk limit themselves to
particular data as a factua. source ou: of whid:
experimentally valid laws can be derived, For
both, this is the only kind ki:owledge that
yields practical benefits (~ill, H:165, p, 242);
fact, society's salvation is contingent upon sud:
scientific knowledge (p. 241 ),7
As with his conseq·.ientialist ethks, Mill's
philosophy of social science is built on a dualism
of means and ends, C:tizens and poiitidans are
responsible for artku;ating ends in a free society,
and science is responsible fur the knt\w-how to
achieve them. Science is amoral, speaking to
c;uestions of means but with no wherewithal or
authority to dictate ends. Me:hods ir: the social
sciences must be disinterested regarding sub-
stance and content, a:1d rigorously limited to the
risks and benefits of possible courses of action,
Protocols for practicing liberal science "should be
presc::iptive, but not morally or politically pre-
,,criptive and shou'.c. direct agair:st bad science
;,ut not bad cond·.1ct" ( Root, 1993, p, 129),
Research canno: he judged !'ight or wrong, only
true or false, "Science is political only in its appli~
cations" (Root, 1993, p. 213). (~ive:1 his democra•
tk liberalism, Mill advocates neutrality "out of
concern for the autonony of the individuals or
groups" social science seeks to serve, It shoulc
"treat them as th'nki:1g, willing, active beings who
bear responsibility for their c:iokes and are free to
choose" their own i:o:1ception of the good life hy
majority :-ule (Root, 1993, p. 19).
Value ;'leutrality in Max \.Veber
W.1en 20th-century mains! rean: social scien-
tists cor:tended that ethics is not their ·,usiness,
they typically invoked Weber's essay~ written
between 1904 and 1917, Given Weber's impor-
ta:ice, methodologically anc theoretically, for
soc:ology and economics, his dist'nction betw~n
political judgments and scientific neutrality is
given canonical status.
'Neber distinguishes between value freedo:n
and va:ue relevance, He recognizes tha, in the dis-
covery phase, "personal, cultural, mora,, or politi-
cal values cannot be eliminated; .. , what soda!
scientists choose to investigate , • , they choose
on the basis of the values" they expect their
research to advance (Root, 1993, p. 3J), But he
i:isists that social science be vr.lue-free in tbe
presentation phase. Findings ougk: not to ex;:iress
any judgments of a :no,ai or political character.
Professors should hang u;, their values along
with their coats as they enter their 1ecture ha:ls.
"An at:itude of moral indifference;' Weber
( I90411949b) writes, "bas no connection with
sckntitk o::ijectivity" (p. 60;. His meaning is dear
from the valur-frcedom/valuf"<rdevancc disti:lc-
tion, For the soda: sciences to be purposeful and
ra:ional, they must serve the "values of relevance:'
TI1e problems o: the so:ia: sciences arc sdcded by
the value relevar.ce of the phenomena trea:ed, , ..
The expression "relevance t,i value;( :·ders simply
to the philosophkal in:erpretation of that specifi-
cally sde::tf:c "in:erest" which determ lnes th,
selection of ll given subjec: matter and pwhlem~ of
er:1pirkal analysis. (We,er, 191711949a, pp. 21-22)
In the social sde:1H:,:s the sti ::iulus to :he pmi:1g ui
scientific problems :s in actuality always given hy
practical "queslior:s,"Hence, the very re;;ognition of
the existence of a scien:::ic problem coincides per-
sonally with the possesslor. of spedfically orientec
mo:ives and values, • , , (Weber, 190411949b, p. 61;
Without the ir.vestii!alor's eV'.iluative ideas, there
would he no princi?le of sdtchon of subicrt m11tter
and 110 meaningfol knowledge of the concrete real-
ity, Without the investigator', conviction regarding
the 5ign ifkance of particular cultural ever)·
attemp: to analyze co:icrete re11l:t y is absolutely
meanir:gle.ss. (Weber, l 904/ I949b, p. 82)
Wher.eas the natural sciences, in Weber's
(19041194\lb, p, 72) view, seek general laws that
govern all empirical phenomena, the social
ences study those realities tha: our values con-
side: significan:, ½'hereas the natural world itself
ir:cicates what reality to investigate, t:ie bfinite
possihilit ies of the social world are ordered in
terms of "the cultural values with which we
approach reality" ( 1904/l949h, p. 78).& However,
even though value relevance directs the social sci-
ences, as with the natural sdroces, Weber conside!'!,

tl:e former value-free. The subject matter in
natural science makes v~lue judgments unneces-
sar}, and social scientists by a conscious decision
can aclude judgments of ''desirability or undesi=-
ability" 5:om their publications and lectures (; 904/
1949h, p. 52). "What is really at issue is the intrinsi-
ca::y s'n:ple denand that the investigator and
teacher should keep unconditionally separate the
establishment of empirical facts ... and his own
political evah.:ations" (Weber, 191711949a, p. 11 ).
Weber's opposition to va:·Je judgmenrs h the
social sciences was driven by practical circum-
stances. Academic freedllm for :'.1e universit:es of
P,u,si a was more !::.Cely if professors Emited their
p;o'."essionaj work :o scientific know-how, ·with
ur.ivers:ty hiring cuntrolkd by politica'. officials,
only if the farnlty refrained from policy commit-
ments and criticism would officials relinquish
their control.
Few of the offices in government or industry
in Gerrr:any were held hy peo!Jle who were wei 1
trained to solve questions of means. Weber
thought that the best way to increase the power
and economic prosperity of Germany was to trait
a new rr.anagerial d.ss learned about mear:s ,md
silent about mes. The mission of the ·.niversity, ;n
Weber's view, should be to offer such training
(Root, 1993, p. 41; see also '\Veber, 1973, pp. 4-11)."
Weber's practical argmnrnt fur value freedo:n
a:1d his apparent limitat'on of '.t to the reporting
phase have made his version of value ne~trality
at;nictive to 21st-century social science. He is not
a positivist such as Comte or a :horoughgoing
e:npiridst in the traditio:1 of Mill. He disavowed
the positivists' overwrought disjunction between
discovery and justification, and he developed no
systematic epistemology comparable to Mill's.
His nationalism was pa,tisan compared :o Mill's
liberal polit:cal philooophy. Nevertheless, Weber's
value :1eulrality reflects Enlightenment autonomy
in a fundamentally si:niiar tashion. In the process
o[ maintaining his distbction betv,ecn value rel·
evance and value freedom, he separates facts from
values and means from e1:ds. He appeals to empir-
ical evidence and logical reasoning rooted in human
rationality. ~The validity of a pracrical imperative
as a norm:• he writes, "and the truth•value of an
Christfans: Elhks and Politics Ill 143
empirical proposition are absolutely heteroge•
neous in character" (Weber, 1904/ l9.;.9b, p. 52). ':.\
systematically correct scientific proof in the social
sciences" may not ·:ie completely attainable, hut
that is most likely 'l.lue to faulty data:' not because
it is ronceptually impossible (l904/1949b, p. 58). n
For Weber, as with Mill, empirical science deals
with questior.s of means, and his warning against
inculcating politiral and moni! values presumes
a means-ends dichotomy (see Weber, 1917/ 1949a,
pp. 18- 19: 1904/ 1949b, p.
As Michael Root (1993) cu:1dm.les, '·John Stua:t
Mill's ad! for neutrality in the social sciences is
based on his b<'lief" that the language of science
"takes cognizance of a phenomenon and e11deavors
to discover laws" (p. 2051. Max Weber likewise
"ta:Ces ,_ for granted that there car: he a language
of sc·i:nc,c-•a collectio;i of truths-that exdudes
all va;ue-judgments., rules, or directions for ,'On-
duct" (Root, l 993, p. 205). ln both cases, sder:tific
knowledge eX:sts for its own sake as morally neu-
tra'.. For both, :ieutrality is desirable "becaJse ques-
tions. of value are r.ot rationally resolvable" and
neutrality in the social sc:enccs is presumed to
contribute ' to poH:lcal and personal autonomy"
(Root, 1993, p. 229). [n Weber's argument for value
:-elevance in s.ndal science, he did not contradict
the larger Enlightenment ideal of scientific neutral-
ity hetweer. competing conceptions of the good.
Utilitarian Ethics
b additior. to its bis-worldly humanis:n,
utilitarian dhics was attractive fur its com?atihil·
ity with scier:tifk thought. It fit the canons. of
rational calculation as they were nourished by the
Enlig:1t,mment's. inte:Iectuai culture.
ln the utilitarian perspective, one val:dated an e:h-
ical !)Osition '::ly ::ard evidence, You count the conse-
quences for hu.:i1an happiness of one or a~.other
course, and }"JU go with the o::e with the r.:ghest
favorable total. What counts as hu:nan happlr.ess
'Nas thought to be sometl::n11, cor:ccptually unpro'J-
lematic, .a scientifically estahlishab:t>: domain of
fac:s. One could abandm: all the metaphysical J~
theologicai factors which made ethical questions
scientifically undecidable. (Tat·lor, 1982, p. 129)
144 1111. HJl,NDBOOK OF QL'ALITATIVE RESE.4.RCH-CHAPTER 6
Utilita:ian ethics replaces metaphysical
distinction:; with the calculation of empirical
quantities. II follows tl:e procedural demand that
if"the ha;:,p:r.ess of each agent counts for or.e •..
the right course of act.:on should be what satisfies
all, or the largest numher possible" (Taylor, 1982,
p. Ult. Autonor:ious reason is the arhiter of
moral disputes.
\'Vith moral reasoning equivalent to calculat-
ing consequences for h'Jman happiness, ut:litari-
anis m :.,esumcs there is "a single consistent
domain of the moral, that there is one set of oon-
side,ations which dekrm:nes what we ought
:nnrally to do:• This "epistemologically-motivated
reduction and homogenfaa:ion of the moral"
r:rnrginalizes the qual :tative languages of adm ira-
tior: and contempt-integrity, healing, liberatior:,
conviction, dishonesty, and self-indulgence. for
~xamplt: (Taylor, 1982, pp. 132-133). ln utilitar-
ian terms, these language, designate subjective
factors that "correspond to nothing in rea:ity••..
They express the way we feel, not the way thh::gs
are"(Taylor, 1982,p. 141). This s'.r:gleconsideration
theory not only den:ands that we maxim'.ze
general happiness but also considers irrelevant
other moral imptratives tha: conflict will:. it, such
as equal dlstrihnti<ln. Or:e-factor models appeal
to t'ie "epistrnmlogical squeamishness" of value•
neutral social science, which "dislikes contrastive
languages;' Moreover, JtiE:arianism appealingly
offers "the prospect of t!xact cakulation of policy
thro;,igh , .. ration,J choice theory" (Taylor, 1982,
p. 143 J, "II portrays al'. moral issues as discrete
problems ame:i.able to largely technical solutions"
(Eubl;!O, ; 98 l. p, 117). However, to its critics, this
kind of exactness represents sem':l!ance of
validity"by leaving out whatever cannot be calcu-
:atcd {Taylor, 1982, p.143). 11
Given the dualism of means and ends in utili-
theory, ,he domain of the good in utilitari-
anism is extrinslc. All faat is worth valuing is a
functio:1 of its consequences. Prima duties
are literal'.y inrnnceivable. Tr.e degree lo whic:i
one's act:ons and st aternenls truly ex1)re:s.s w:,at is
important to someone does not count. Ethical and
political thinking in comequentialist terms legiti-
fates intrinfc valuing out of existence (Taylor,
1982, p. 144). The exteriority ethics is seen to
guarantee the value l!eutrality of experimental
procedures.' 1
a CODES OF ETH:cs
In value-free social sdence, codes of ethics
profess.tor.al ar.d academic associations are the
conver.tio:ul format for moral princip1cs. By the
i 980s, each of major scholarly assodarior.s
had adopted its own code, with an overlapping
emphasis on four gu:celines for directing an
inductive: science of means toward rnajoritarian
ends.
1. Informed consenl. Co:1siste11t with its com-
mitment to individual autonoe1y, social science in
t'.:le Mill and Weber traditio:1 i:1sists that research
subje.,;ts have the right to be informed about the
nat:.ire and consequences of experime:1ts in
which they are involved. Proper respect for
hi:. • an freedom generally induces tv,10 necessary
condition5. First, subjec:s must agree volunta~ily
to participate-that is, wilhout physical or ps~ -
chologkal coercion. Second, their agreeme:1~
must be based on full and open information. "The
Artide s of th c Nu remherg T~ibunal and the
Declaration of Helsinki both slalt: that subjects
must told the duration, methods, possible
risks, and the purpose or a:n: of the experiment"
(Soble, 1978, p. 40; see also Veatch, 1996).
The seJ-ev ident character of this principle
is not disputed in rationalist ethics. Meaningful
application, however, genera:es or.going disputes.
As Punch (i994) observes, "In mud: fieldwork
there see:ns to no way around the predicar:i ent
faat in:'ormed consent-c.ivulging one'5 identity
and resean:h purpose to all and sJndry-will kill
rr:any a project stone dead" (p. 90 ). True to the
privileging of means in a mcans-end5 mode:,
Pu:ich reflec:s the general condusion that codes
of ethics should serve as a g:.i:ccline prior to ;ield-
work but not intrude on fol'. participation. "A
strict applkation of codes" may ''restrain and
restrict" a great deal of'innocuous"and "m111rob-
lematic'' re,earc:1 (p. 90 ).

2, Deception. In emphasizing ir:formed
consent, soda! science codes of erhics uniformly
oppose deception. Even paternalistic argumer:ts
for possible deccptior,_ of criminals, childrer: in
elementary schoo;s, or :he mentally incapacitated
are no longer credible. The ongoing expose of
deceptive practices since Stanley Milgram's
ex;,eriments :iave given this moral principle
spedal status--, deliberate rn:srepresenta:ion is
. of hard-liners
forbidden. Bulmer (' 1982) is t ,r:iical
who cor:cludc with the codes that deception is
~neither ethically justified nor practically :1ec•
essary, nor in the best interest of sociology as
an academic pursi;,it" (p. 217; see a:so Punch,
1994, p. 92),
The straightforward application of this princi·
pie suggests that researchers design different
experi menls free of active decep;io:1. But wit!: eth-
ical oonstrw::-:io:1s exterior lo the scientific enter-
pr;se, no unam·:i:guous application is possible.
Given that the search for knowledge is obligatory
and deception is codified as morally unaaeptahle,
in some situations both criteria cannot be sat:s·
fied. \\'irhin both psychology and medicine, some
lnfor:uation cannot be obtained without at lea,t
deception by omission. T:ie standard resolution
for this dilemma is :o permit a rr:odkum o:' decep-
tion when there are exp:icit utilitarian reasons for
doing so. Opposition to deception in the codes is
de facto redefined in terms: If "the knowl•
edge to be gained from deceptive experiments" is
dearly valuabie to society, it is "only a minor defect
that persons must be deceived in tl:e process"
(Soble, 1978, p. 40).
3. Privacy and confidentiality. Codes of ethics
insist on safeguards to protect people's icentities
and those of the research locations. Cor.fiden•
tiality must be assured as the prim!C'y safeguard
against u:1wanted exposure. All personal data
ought to be se<:ured or co:icealed and made public
only behind a shielc of anonymity. Professional
etiquette uniformly concurs :hat no one deserves
harm or embarrassment as a result insensitive
research practices, "The single most likely source
of harm i:i social science inquiry" is the disdo•
sure of private know ledge considered damaging
Christiar.s: Ethics and Politks lll 145
by experimental subjects (Reiss, 1979, p. see
also Punch, I 994, p. 93).
As Enlightenment autonomy was developed
in philosophical anthropology, a sacred b:u:rr:iost
self became essential to the construction of unique
pen,onhood, Already in John Locke, this private
domain received nonnegotiable statns, Democratic
life was articulated outside these atomistic u:i its,
a secondary do:nain of 11egotiat1:d contracts and
problematic communicat:on. In the logic o: social
science inquiry revolving around the same auton-
omy inscribed in being, invading persons' fragile
but distinctive pr'.vacy is intolerable.
Despite the signature status of privacy pro:ec-
tion, watertight confidentiality has proved to be
impossible. Pseudonyms and disg-Jised locations
often are recognized by Insiders. What researchers
consider innocent is perceived by participants
as misleading or even betrayal. \\1hat appears
neutral on paper is often conflictual in practice.
11\lllen government agencies or educat:Lmal insti-
tutions or health organi1.ations are sl'Jd:ed, what
private µar:s ought not be exposed? And who
is blameworthy aggressive media carry the
research fnrther? Encoding privacy protection is
meaningless when "there is no consensus or una•
nioity on what is public am: private" (Punch,
1994, p. 94).
4. Accuracy. Ensurbg 7hat data a:e accurate
is a cardinal principle in social science code;
as well. Fabrications, fraudulent material;;, o:nis-
sions, and contrivances a~c both nonscientific and
U!1ethical. Data that are internally and externally
valid are the coh, of the realm, cxperi• entally
and morally. In an instr-Jmentalist, value-neutral
soda! science, the definitions entailed by :he pro•
cedJres themselves estabJish the ends by which
they a::e evaluated as moral.
Ill lKST!TtTIO::-lAL REVIEW BOARDS
M a condition of funding, government agencies
in various countries have insisted that review and
moni:oring bodies be established by institutions
engaged in research involving human subjects.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) embody the
146 111 HA '!DROOK OF QL'AJ.JTATIVF. RESRARCH-CHAPT:"R 6
utilitarian agenda in terms of scope, assumptions,
and procedural guidelines.
In 1978, the U.S. Kational Commission for the
Protection of Huma:1 Subjects in Biomedical and
Behavioral Research was established. As a result,
three prtndples, published ir. what became
known as the Beimont Report, wtre developed as
the moral standards for research involving
hu r:1an su'i; ects: respect for persons, benefker.ce,
and justice.
1 Tl:e section on respect fo, persons rcitcr•
ates the codes' demands that subiects e:1tcr the
research voluntarily and with adequate informa-
tion about the experiment's procedures and possi
bie consequences. On r, deeper level, respect
persons incorporates two basic etl:ical ter:ets:
"First, that il:civid:.rnls shodd be :reated as
autonomous ageni:i;, an.: second, that persons with
di:u inished autonor1:y Uhe immature am: inc a•
pacitated] are entitled to protection" (University of
lllino:s at Urbana-Cham?aign, 2003 ),
Under the principle of beneficence,
researchers are enjoined to secure the well-being
of their subjects, Beneficent actiom are under·
stood :r: a double sense as avoiding harm alto-
gether and, if risks are involved for achieving
substar:tial ber.efits, minimizing as much harm as
possible:
In !he case of par1k;ilar proj~cts, im·e~1igatorb and
members of their imtitutions are obli5ed to give
forethought to the maximization of bemdts and
the redm:lion of risks that might occur from the
research invest:gatkm, In :t:c :ase of ~ckntifk
rc..:arch :n 5 .,,,.,.,,member, of the society
ue obliged to recognize th,· longer tenci benefits
and bat may result from the improvement
knowledge and frum the dl:'velopment of novl:'l
medical, psychotherapemic, and social ;irocedu:-es,
(t.:niversi:y o:' t1linoi, at Urhana,Champaign,100.3)
3, The principle of justice i:u,ists on fair .iis
:ribution of both the benefits and rhe burden;, of
research. An injustice occurs when some groups
(e.g., welfare recipients, the institutionalized, or
oarticular etb1:c minorities) are overused as
::esear,h &ubje.:ts because of easy manipulafarn or
their availability, And when research supported by
pu :ilk funds leads to "therapeutic devices and pro-
cedures, justice demands that these not provide
adva:1tages only to those who am afford them"
(l'niver~ity of Ill'nois at Urbana-Champaign,
2003),
1'hese principles reiterate tl:e basic themes
of value-neutral cxperimentalisr.,-individlllll
autonomy, maximum benefits with minimal :-isks,
am.! ethical enili, exterior to scientific means.
The policy procedures based on t:iem re!lec: the
same guidelwes as dominate the codes of ethics:
informed consent, pro:ection of privacy, ar:d non-
decept:on, The authority of IRBs was enhanced ir:
1989 wben Cor.gress passec:. the NIH Revitaliza·
tion Act and formed the Commission on Research
Integrity. The emphasis at that point was or:
the invention, fudging, and distortio:i of data.
Falsification, fabrication, and pfagiarism continue
as federal categories of m:sconrluct, with a new
repmt in 1996 adci:ig warnings against unautho-
rized use of ,'.onfidential idbrmatio:i, omission of
imporront data, anc interforence (that is, physical
damage to the materials of otl:ers).
With IRBs, the legacy of Yi ill, Comte, and
Weber comes iuto its own. Vabc-nrnlral science
:s accountable to ethica: standards through ratio-
:ial procedures controlled by value-neutral aca-
demic imtitutions in the serv ke uf an impartial
government. Consistent with the way a:10nymous
bureaucratic regimes become refined and stream-
lined toward greater efficiency, the regulations
rooted in scientific and medical experiments now
extend to humanis:ic inquiry. Protecting subjects
from physical harm in laboratorla grown to
encompass human :,ehavior, history, and ethnog-
raphy in natural settings. In fonathon Cnurch's
rr:etaphor, "a ':,(omedical pa:-adigm is used like
some threshing machine with eth:10gray:1ic
research the resulting chaff" (2002, p, 2).1"''hereas
'fife 45/ Part 46 of the Code of rederal Regu-
lations (45 CFR 46) designed protocols for
research funded by 17 federai agendes, at prest'nt
most universities have multiple p:·oject agi·ee-
ments that consign all research to a campus lRB
under the terms of CFR 46 (Shope&, 2000,
pp. I

While this bureaucratic expansion has gone on
unremittingly, most IREs have r.ot changed the
composition of their rr:embersh ip. Medical and
behavioral scientists under the aegis of value-free
neutrality continue :o dominate. and the change:,
in procedures generally have stayed within the
biomedical model. Expeiiited review under the
Common Rule, for social research with no r!sk of
physical or psychological harm, depends on
er:jghtened [RB chairs and organizational flexi-
bility. Informed consent, mar.datory before med-
ical experiments, is sirr:ply incongruent with
interpretive research that interacts wit:1 human
beings in their natural settings, rather than ana-
ly;dng human subjects in a laboratory (Shopes,
2000, p. 5).U Despite technical improvements,
"Intellecmal curiosity remains actively discour-
aged by tl:e 1RB. Research project~ musl as&. only
surface questions and r:mst not deviate from a
path appmved by a remote group of people ..••
Of:en the review process seems to he more about
garr:esmanship than anything eise. A better for-
mula for stultifying resear-:1:. could not be imag-
ined" (Jllanch ard, 2002, p. : l ).
In its concep:ual structure, IRB policy is
designed :o produce the best ratio of benefits to
costs. IRBs ostensibly protect the subjects who fall
under the protocols they approve. However, given
the interlocking utilitarian functions of social
science, t:ie acaderr.y, and the state that Mill iden-
tit1cd and promoted, IRBs 1:1 reality protect their
owr. institur'ons rather than subject populations
in society at large (see Vanderpool, 1996, chaps.
2-6). Only if professional associations like the
American Anthropoh, gical Association could
create !heir own best practices for ethnographic
research would IRBs take a significant step in the
right direction. Such ren ova:im:~ are contrary to
the ce:1tralizing homogeneity of dosed syster:1s
such as the IRBs."
Iii TnE CuRREI\T CR:SIS
Mill and Comte, each in his own way, presumed
that experimental socia 1science benefited wc:ety
by uncove~ing facts about the human condition.
Christians: Ethics anc Pol :tics III A7
Dur~hcim Weber believed that a scientific
sl udy of society could help peopl.: come to grips
with "the development of capitalism and the
industrial revo. Jtion" (Jennings & Callahan, 1983,
p. 3). The American Social Science Association
wa~ created in 1865 to link "real elements of the
truth" with "the great social problems of the day"
(Lazarsfold & Reitz, 197 5, p. 1). Th is myth of
beneficence was destroyed with "the revelations
at the Nuremberg trials (!'fcounting the Nazis'
'medical experiments' on concentration camp
inmates) and with the role ofleading scientists in
the Manhattan Project" (Punch, l 994, p. 88 ).
Tl:e criois of confidence multiplied with the
exposure to acti.:al physical harm 'n the Tuskegee
Syphilis Stucy and the Willowbrook Hepatitis
Experiment. In the 1960s, Project Came!ot, a U.S.
Army attempt to use social science to measure
and foreca,t revolutions and :nsurgency, was
bitterly opposed around the wor:d and had to be
canceled. Stanley Milgram's (I 974) deception of
unwitting subjects and Laud Humphreys', (1970,
l 972) deceptive research on homosexuals in a
public toilet, anc later ir: the: r homes, were co:i-
sidered scandalous for psychologka:Jy abusing
resea:ch subjects. Noam Ci:omsky exposed the
compl idty of social scientists with military initia -
tives in Viet1:am.
Vigorous concern for research etl:ics since the
1980s, suppo~t from foundations, and the devel •
opment of cthks codes and IRB apparatus
are credited by their advocates w itb curbing
outiageous abU5es. However, the charges of fraud,
plagiarism, and misrepresentation continue on a
lesser scale, with dilerr:mas, oonundrums, and
cont:-oversies una·:Jated over the mea:1i ng and
appl'cation of ethical guidelines, Entrepreneurial
faculty competing fo~ scarce research dollars are
generally compliant with institutional control, but
lhe vastness of social science activity in uni.ers!-
ties and research entities makes full supervision
impossible.
Underneath ~he pros and cor.s of administer-
ing a respolllif::>le soda: science, thr s>:rm:mral
deficiencies in its epistemology have become
transparent (Jennings, l983, pp. 4- 7). Apositivistic
philosophy of soda: inqui:y insists on neutrality
! 48 11:l HA NDI\OOK OF QUAUTAT:VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 6
,egarding detlnitions of the good, and this
worldview has been discredited. The Enlightenment
:node! setting humar: freedom at odds with the
;noral order is bankrupt Even Weber's weaker
version of contrastive languages rather than
oppositional entities is not up to the task.
Reworking the ethics codes so tn;.t they are more
expEcit and less hortatory will make no funda-
mental difference. Requiring ethics workshops for
graduate Studer.ts and strengthening govern:nent
policy are desirable but of marginal significance.
Refining the IRB process and exhorting IR!!s to
account for the p'.uraJstk nature of academic
research are insuffic'.ent.
ln utilitarianism, moral thinking and exper-
irr:ental procedures are homogenized into a uni-
dimensional model of rational validation.
Ac1to:iomous human beings are dairvoyanl ab,1111
aligning mea.:is and goals, presuming that they
am otiJectify the mechanisms for understanding
themselves and the soda! world surrounding
them lavlor, 1982, 133). This rest1·ictive
'
definition of ethics accounts for some of the
goods we seek, such as rnir.i:nal harm. but those
outside a ut:lity calculus are excluded. "Emotion-
ality and intuition" are relegated "to a secondary
position" in the decision-making process, for
example, and no atte:H ion is paid to an "ethics
of caring" grounded in "concrete pi:.rticularities"
(Denzin, I997, p. see also Ryan, 1995, p. 147).
Tne way power and ideology influence social and
political institutions is largely ignored. U1:der a
rhetorical palina of deliberate choice and the
illusion of autonomous creatfrity, a means-ends
system operates in far:tlamentally its own terms,
This constricted environment no longer
addresses adequately the complicated issues ,ve
face in studying the social world. Celebrity
scientists generate s:atus and prestige-McGeorge
Bundy in the Kenr:edy years, politica: scientist
Henry Kissinger, Daniel Moynihan while in the
Senate, Hu: failure in the War on Poverty,contradic-
tions over welfare, and i:l-fated studies of urban
noi.;.sing have drarr.atizrd the limitations of a utility
calci;Jus that occupies the entire :noral domain. 15
Certainly, level~ of success and failure are open
to dispute even within the social sdence disciplines
them,elvelS. More unsettli:1g and 1'1:eatening to
the empirical 1:1ainstream than &,appointing per•
formance is the recognition that neutrality is not
pluralistic but imperiali stk. Reflecting on past
experience, disinterested research under pre•
sumed conditior.s of value freedom is increas•
ingly seen as de facto reinscribing the agenda in
its ow:i. te:-ms. Empiricism is procec;.mdy com-
mitted to equal reckoning, regardless of how
research si.:bjects nay constitute the substantive
ends of life. But experimentalism is not a r.eutral
meeting ground for all ideas; rather, it is a "fight-
ing creed" that imposes its own ideas 0:1 others
while uncritically assuming the very "superiority
that powers this imposition:'i,, In Foucault's
(I 979, pp. I7U~ 195) rr:ore decisive terms, social
science is a reg;rr:e of power that helps mai r:tain
sucial order by no:-malizing subjects i.:ito cate·
gories designed by political authorities (see Root,
1993,chap, 7).A liberalism of equali:y is :10t neu-
tral but represenlS only one range of ideals, and it
is itself incorr,:;atible with other goods.
'l'his no:icontextual, nons[tuational model 6at
assumes that"a mo::ally neutral, objec:ive ob;irn·er
will get the facts right» ignores ''the situatedness
of powrr relations assoda:ed with gender, sexual
orientation, dass. ethnicity, raci:, aml natio.:iallty,'
It is hierarchical (scientist-subject) and biased
toward patriardly. "lt g:osses the ways in which the
observer-ethnographer is implicated and embed-
ded in the 'ruling apparatus' of fae society and the
culture:' Scientists "carry the mantle" of university•
based .iutl:ority as they ver.ture out in:o "local
community to do research" (De.:i:cin, 1997, p 272;
:;ee also Rya:1, 1995, pp. 144-145).10 There is no
sustained questioning of expertise itself in democ-
ratic s.odeties !hat belong i:1 principle to dtiiens
who do not share this spcda:izec! :,.nowledge (see
E::iben, 1981, p. 120).
Ill FEMINIST COMMUNlTARIANlSM
Social Ethici.
Over the past de;;ade, soda! and femlni,t
ethics have made a radical break with the :ncivid-
ual autonomy and ra:ionalist pre.su:nption of

canor,kal elh:c:s (,ce Koehu, 1998), The social
ethics Agnes Heller (I 988, 1990, 1996, 1999).
Charles Tay'.or (1989, 1991, 1995; Taylor et aL,
1994 ), Carole Paterr:an ( 1985, I9fl!!, 1989), Edith
\.\'ysd:ogrod (1974, 1 1990, 1998), Kwasi
Wiredu (i 996), and Corne! West (1989, 1991,
1993) anc. the feminist ethics of Cami Gilligan
(1982, 1983; Gilligan, \\Tard, & Taylor, 1988), Nel
"loddings (1984, 19119, 1990), Virginia Held (1993),
and Seyla Benhabib ( l 992) are fur.darnentally
reconstructing ethical theory (see Code, 1991).
Ra6er than se-.trching tor neutral principles to
which all parties can appeal. social ethics rests on
a compl"x view of moral judgmen:s as integrating
into an organic whole various perspectives-
everyday experience, beliefs about the good, a:id
feelings of approval and shame-in terms
~uman relations and social structures. This is a
philosoph:cal approach that situates the mo~al
domain within the general purposes of human life
that people share contextually and across cultural,
racial. and historical boundaries. Ideally, it engen•
a new occupational role ar.d normative core
for social sdence research (\,\'hite, 1995).
Carol Gilligan (I 982, 1983; Gilligan et al,
1988) charac:er!zes the temale mol".il voice as an
elh'c of care. This dimension of moral deve:op,
ment is rooted in the primacy of human rela-
tionships, Coopassion and nurrn ranee resolve
~onflicting responsibilities among people, and as
such these standards are totally the opposite of
me:ely avoiding harm.: H In Caring, Ncl Noddings
(:984) rejects outright the "ethics of principle as
amb:guous and unstable" (p, 5), insisting that
hu ma:1 care should play the cei:tral role in moral
decu;ion making. For Julia Wood ( 1994 ), inter-
dependent sense of self" undergirc.s the ethk of
care, whereii1 we ace comforttihle acting indepen-
dently while "acting cooperatively _.. in relation-
ship with others" {pp, 108, : 10), rcminism in
Linda S,ei ner's work critiques the conventions of
imparliality and formaEty in ethics while giving
precision to affect'or., intimacy, nurturing, ega:i•
tarian and col'.aborative processes, and empathy.
Fem'nists' ethical self-consciousness also identi·
fies subtle forms of oppression and imbalance,
and i, Lea;.;:i,:i; us to "address questions about
Chr:stia:is: Ethics and Politics Ill l 49
whose interests are regardec. as ,rorthy of debate"
(Steiner, 1991, p, 158; see also Steiner, 1997).
While sharing in the turn awa}' from an
abstracr ethics of cakulation, Charlene Seigfried
(1996) argues against the Gilligan-Noddings
tradition. Lin kir.g feminism to pragmatism, in
which gender is socially constructed, she contra-
d'.cts «the simplistic equation of women with cart
and nurturance and men with just kc and au Ion•
mnyn (p. 206}. Gende,-based morahies de facto
make one gender subservie:it to another, In her
social ethics, gender is replaced with engender•
i:Jg: ""lb be female or male is :iot to instantiate
an imchangeable nature but to partkipate i:i ar.
ongoing process of negotiatbg cultural expecta-
tions of femininity and masculinity" (p, 206}.
Seigfried challenges us to a social morality in
which raring values are central but contextualized
'n \,ms of relatior.ships and constructed toward
communities with "more autonomy for women
and more connectedr.ess for men" (p. 219).Agnes
Heller and Edith V.'yschogrod are two promising
examples of p;0po:1ents of soda: ethics that meet
Seigfried's challenge while confmmi:!g forth-
rightly today's contingency, rr.ass murder, concep-
tual upheavals in ethics, and hyperreality,
Heller, a for • er stucent oi Georg Lukacs and
a dissident in Hungary, is the Han nc.h Arend:
Professor of Pr:ilosophy al the New School for
Social Research. Her trilogy developing a con tern·
porary theory of social etl:ics (Heller, I 988, 1990,
1996) revolves around what she ca Us one dee: -
sive question: "Good persons exist - how a~e tl:ey
possi':,le?" (1988, p. 7). She disavows an ethics
of :10rm5, ra:es, and ideals externa; to human
beings. Only exceptional acts of respo:isibility
under duress and predicaments, each in their own
way, are "worthy of theoretical interest" ( 1996,
p. 3), ;\ccumulared wiscom, moral meaning from
our own choices of dece:1cy, and the 0:1.going
sumoor.s of the Other together reintroduce love,
hap:iir:ess, syr.1pathy, and beauty into a modern,
nonabsolutist, but principled theory of morals.
In Saints arid Postmoderni,m, Edith \Vyschogrod
(1990) asserts that antiauthori,r struggles are
possible witho,1t a;,,suming C:,at our choices are
vo.11:itary_ She represen:s a social ethics of self
150 Ill HANDBOOK OJ: QlALITATIV:', RESEARCH-C~APTER 6
and O:her in the tradition of Emmanuel Levinas
(see Wyschogmd, 1974), 1' "The other person
opens the venue of ct!: lcs, the place where ethical
existence occurn :' The Otl:er, "the touchstone of
moral existe:ice, i8 not a conceptual anchorage
but a '.ivir:g :orre:' Others fum:tim: "as a critical
solvent." Their existe:1ce carries "compelling
moral weight" (Wyschogrod, 1990, p. xxi). As a
profe.swr of philosophy ar.d religiO'JS thought at
Rice University, with a commitment to moral nar-
rative, \Vyschogrod 'Jrlieves faat one ven uc for
Otherness is the saintly life, defined as one in
"wh:ch compassion the Other, i::re~pective of
cost to thr saint, is :he p:imary trait:' Sai:its put
their own "bocies ar.d material goods at the di&
posal of :he Other... , Not only rlo saints .::onte&I
the practices and beliefs of institu:ions, hut ir: a
rr:ore subtle way they contest the order of narra·
tivity itseJ" ( 1990, pp, xxii-xxiii).
ln addition to the Other-directed across a
broad spectn:m ofbdief systems who have "lived,
suffered. and worked :n actuality;' ,vyschogroc
(l 990, p, 7) examines :iistor(cal narratives for
i[lustrations oft ow the Other's self-:nanifes:at:on
is depicted. Her prima:y concern is the way com•
munities shape shared experience in the face
cataclys:ns and calamities, arguing for historians
who situate therr:se'.ves "in dynamic rclatim1sh:?
to them"(: 998, p. 218). The overridi:1g challenge
for ethics, in '\IVyschogrod's view, is how historians
enter into communities that create and sustai:1
hope i:1 terms of irnmediacy-"a prese:1ce here
and now" but ";1 presence that must be deferred"
to the future ( 1998, p. 248 ). Unless it is tangible
and actionable, hope serves those in control. Hope
that merely projects a future redemptio:1 obscnres
abuses of power and human need in the p,ese::tt
Martin Buber (1958) calls the human relation
a pr:mal notion in his famous lines, "in the begin-
ning is :he relation" (p. 69) and "the relation :s the
cradle of life" (p. 60;. Social relationsl:ips are pre•
eminent. one primary v,ord is the combination
1-Tl:ou" (p. 3), This irreducible phenomenon-
the relational reality, the ln-betwee:1, the reci-
procal bona, the interpersonal-cannot be
decomposed into simpler elements without
destroying it. Given the primacy of relationships,
unless we use our freedom lo help others flourish,
we deny our own we!J.'Jeing.
Rather thar: privileging an abstract rational-
ism, the mo:-al order is positio:1ed dose to the
bone, in the creaturely and corporeal rather than
th: conceptual. ''In this ">ay, ethics ... is as old as
;;reatio:t Being ethical is a primordial movement
in the :ieckoning force of life itself" (Olthuis, 1997,
p•. 41 ). The ethics of Levin as is one example;
The human face's the epip'lany of the nakedmss of
the Other, a vi,itaton, a n:ee:ing, a saying whi(h
comes in t:Je !}assivity of the not :1: 7eatening,
but obligating, My world is n.iplured, my coutenl•
ment in:cr:·upted, l ar:1 a::·cady obligated. lle~e is an
a?J1eal from which then> is no escape, a resp:1:isibil-
ity, a state of being l:o~\'1ge. It is .ooking into the
of foe Othe7 that :weals the call to a respon.
sihilily that is before any beginning, dedsion or
initiative on ;iart (Olthuis, p. 139)
Humar,s are cetlned as communicative beings
w itJ-jn the fabric of eve:-yday life. Thro ugh
cialogic encounter, subjects create :i:'e togethrr
and nurture one anot:1er's moral obligation to it.
Lrvinass ethics presumes and art:culates a radi•
cal ontology of social bebgs in relation {see, e.g,,
Levinas, I 985, 1991).
Moreover, in Levinasian te,ms, wh,n I turr:
to the face of fae Other, I not only see flesl:
blood, but a faird party also arrives-:he whole
humanity. In respor.ding to the Other's ncrd,
a baseli:le is establisl:ed across the human raee.
For Bcr.:-tabib {1992 ), this is ir.teractive universal•
ism.~0 Ou:- universal solidarity is route,: in the
principle that "we have inescapable claims on one
another whicn cannot be rer.ounced except at
cost of our humanity" (Peukert, 1981, p. 11).
A Feminist Communitarian :Vlodel
Femil,ist com:nunitarianism ts Deoi.in's
(1997, pp. 274-287; 2003, pp. 242-258) la';Jel for
the ethical theory to lead us forward at this junc-
tmc.21 This is a nnrmative rr:adel that served as
an antidot{' to individualist utilitarianisn,. It
mmes that th{' comm1:dty is ontologically and
.axiologically pr!or to persons. Hum an identity is

cons,ituted th rough the social rf'al m. We are born
in:o a sodoc.ulmral universe where values, mo:-al
comn:i tments, and exister.tid meanings are
negotiated dialogica'.\y_ Fulfillment ls never
achieved in isolation, bur only through human
bor.di ng at the epicen ;er of social formation.
For communi:arians, the i'.6eralism of Locke
a.:id Mill confuses an aggregate of individual pur-
snits with the co1;1non good. Moral agents need
a context of social commitments and community
ties for assessing what is valuable. What is worth
preserving as a good cannot be self-determined
in isolatiur.. b'..lt can he ascertained only within
specific soda! situations where humar: identity
is nurtured. Tht: oublic sphere is conceivec. as a
mosaic of particular corr.munities, a '.Jluralism of
ethnic ide:1tities and worldvicws !mersecting to
form a social boud but each seriously held and
competitive as well. Rather than pay lip sc>rvice
to the soc:al nature of the self while presuming
a duali~1r: two order~, comn: unitarianism
interlocks personal autonomy wi:h commur:al
well-being. Morally appropriate action inte:ids
comm'..lnity, Common moral values are intrinsic
to a community's ongoing existence and identity,
Therefore, the missior. of social science
research is enabli :ig community life to prosper-
equipping people to come to mutually held con-
clusions, T'.1e aim is not fulsome data per se, but
community transformation, The received view
assumes that research advances society's interests
by feeding our individual capacity tu reason and
make calculated decisions, Researc:i is intended
to be collahorative in its design anti participatory
Jn its execution. Rather than ethics codes in the
files uf academic offices and research reports
prepared for dienls, the participants the:nselves
are given a forum to activate the pol'.s mutually.
In contrast to utilitarian experimentalism, the
substantive conceptions of the guoi.l that drive the
problems reflect the conceptions of the commu-
nl, y rather than the expertise of re.ea;chers or
funding .iger:cies.
fa the feminist communitarian model, partki-
j)ants have a say in how the research should be
conducted and a hand in actually co:1di:cting it,
"including a voice o; hand in deciding which
C:iristians: Rnd PD!itks II l51
problems should be s:udied, what methods
should he used to study them, whether the
ings are valid or acceptable, and how the findings
are to be used or imple• ented" (Root, 1993,
p. 245 ), This research is rooted in "community,
shared gove:nance ... a:1d neighborliness:'Given
iw cooperative mutuality, it serves "the com:nu-
nity h which it is carried out, rather than the
com!T'.u:1ity of knowledge producers and policy,
makers" ( Lincoln, 1995, ?P· 280, 287; see also
Denzin, I 997, p. 275). It finds its genius in the
maxim that "persons are arbitrators of their own
presence in the world" (Denzin, 1989, p. 81 ).
For feminist communitarlans, humans have
the discursive power "to articulate situated moral
rules that are grounded in local community and
group understanding:' Moral reasoning goes
forward because people are "able to share or.e
another's point of view in the social situation:'
Reciprocal care and understanding, rooted in
emotional experience and not h formal cor,sen-
si;s, are the basis on wl:.kb moral dlsconrse i~
possible (Denzin, 1997, p. 277; see also De:12in,
1984, p. 145; Reinharz, 1993).
Multiple moral and social spaces exist within
tht local conmunity, ,md "every moral act is 1:1
contingent accomplishment" measured against
the ideals of a u:iiversal ,espect for the dig:i it y of
every human being regardless of gender, age, race,
or religion (Denzin, 1997, p. 274; see also Benhabib,
199 2, p. 6). ';'hrough a moral order, we resist those
social values that are d ivislve and exclusivlst.
Interpretive Sufficiency
W'thin a feminist conmunitarian model, the
mission of social science research is interpret:ve
suffider.cy. In contrast ro an experimentalis:n of
:nstrumental efficiency, this paradigm seeks to
open up the social world ln all its dynamic
dimensions, The thick notion of sufficier.cy sup-
plants the thinness of the technical, exterior, and
statistically precise received view_ Rather than
rechKing social issues to financial and adminis-
trative prnhh~ms for politicians, social science
research enables people :o come to terms with
their everyday experience themselves.
152 JII HA:-,il)BQOK OF QUALll'.>\T:V le RESEARCH-CHAPTl'R 6
ln:erprctive sufficiency :neans taking seriously
lives that are i()aded with multiple interpretations
and grour:dcd in cultural complexity (Denzin,
1989, pp. 81). Ethnogrnpl:ic acrnunts "should
possess ;hat amount of depth, detail, cm()t 1llnal.
ity, nuance, and coherence :hm will per:11:ra cri:-
ical coru,do·Jsness to furmed by the reader.
Such texts should al,,o exl:ibit representational
acequacy, including the absence of racial, dass,
and gender stereotyping~ (Deazin, 19'17, p. 283;
see also Christfans et al., 1993, pp. : 20-122 ).
From the perspective of a feminist communi•
tarian eth:cs, interretivc d:scourse is authenti-
cally sc1f::icient wt_en it fulfills three conditions:
:t represents multiple voices, enhances :noral cfa-
cerr:n:ent, a:id promotes sodal trausfor:natio:L
Consistent with tne cor:nnunity-based nor:ns
advocated here, the :tK11s is not on ?rofessio:tal
ethics per se but on lhe ge:1eral mnrnlity.12
Multivocal and
Cross-Cultural Representation
Within social and political enfr:ies are multi-
p:e spaces ,hat as ongoing ctmstrucli.m~
of everyd2.y life. The <lialogkal self is situated
and artic:ilated within these <ie,:isi11e coctexts of
gender, race, class. and religion. lt1 ~outrast to
co:1tractarianism, where tacit rni:senl or obEga-
tion is given to the state, ?eoplr make ,md sustain
the promises to one another. Researct. narratives
reflect a community's multiple throngh
which promise kee?ir:g takes place,
In Carole Patemans cormnur1itarian philoso-
phy, sociopolitkal entities are not to be u~1<lcr-
sloo<l first of aa in terms of contracts. Making
promises is one of tile basic ways :n which con-
senting human beings "freely crea:e their own
soda! relationships" (Pateman, 1989, p. 61; see
also Paren:an, 1985, pp. 26-29). We assume an
obEgation by ma'.dnga promise. When individu-
als ?mmise. they are obliged to act accordingly.
llut promises are made not primarily to authori-
ties tl::ough po'.itkal contracts, but to fellmv citizens.
If obligations are ;0oted in pro:n:,es, ,1blig11t:ons
are owed to other colleagues in institutions md to
participants in community practices, Therefore,
only under conditions of participa::ory drmocra,-y
can there ':,e self-assumed moral obligation.
Patemar. understands the nature moral
ag,::1cy. We know ourselves primarily in relation,
and cerivatively as ,h inkers withdrawn from
action. Only by overcomi11g the traditional
dualisms between thinker and agent mir.d and
bocy, reason and wi:I, can we conceive being
as "tne mutuality of personal relationships~
(MacMnrray, 1961a, p. 38). Morn! mmmitme:ils
arise out of aclfor, and return to acjon for their
incarnation and verification. Fron: a dialogical
perspective, pr()rnise kttp:ng through action and
everyday langt:.age is not a su~Jerdlious pursuit,
because our way of being is not :nwa:'rlly gener
atcd but soc;ally derived.
We become f~II ;;u1um1 agents, capable of unte:-
st2.t1di115 ourselves, and hence of delin'ng our id<'r:i-
tity, tl::ough .. , rid: modes of expre,sion we lear::
thmugt <c:.chatge with. others ... ,
My c:iscOVl'l'\llg my owl'. identity doesn't mean
that I wor~ it out in iimlat'rm, out that I oegotiate 't
th rough dialogue, parlly c·,ert, partly inte:11al, with
otherx, My ow11 ident:ty crucially defien,ls on my
dialogical relations w:th others....
In the cJltu re nf rmthen:idtv,
' re:ac ionshi:i,
. are
sce:i as the key loci uf self discovery ano self-
affirmati<J::. (Tuylor e: al., 1994, pp. 34, 36)
If moral bondedness nows horizontaliy and
obl:gahon is reciprocal :n character. the affirming
am: ,asta:ning of promises occur cross-culturally.
But the contemporary ch all e11ge of cultJral
sity has raised the sta£Cs and made easy 6olutim:s
impossble. One of the most urgent and vexing
issues on the ciemocratk agenda at present is r.ot
just the mora. obligation to treat ethn:c difler•
e11ces wit:i fairness, h:11 how to recogn:ze explicit
cul:ural groups politkally.
Communitarianism as the basis fo, elhnk
plurality rejects melting pot homogeneity and
replaces it with the po:itk:s of recognition. The
bask issue is w!1clher de:nonacies are ciscrimi-
natbg a11,e111sc their citizens in an umilh kal man-
ner, when majo: hstitutions fail to occoun: for the
identities of their members (Taylor et al., 1994,
p. 3). In what sense should the spc·cit c cultural

and social foatu:es of Afrkan Americans, Asian
Americans, Native Arr.erkam,, Buddhists, Jews,
the phys:cally disabled, or children public'.y mat-
ter~ S':loJ!d not public institutions insure only
that de:110cratk: citizens share an equal right tu
political liberties and due process without regard
to race, gender, or religion? Bei:eath the ,hetork is
a fundamental philosopl:kal dispute that Taylor
calls the "politics of reoognirion :' As he ?uts ir,
"Non recognition or miscrerognirirn: can in Ilic~
harm, can be a furm o:' oppression, imprisoning
someone in a false, distorted, and redt:ced node of
being. Due recognition is no: just a cour:esy we owe
people. It is a vital :n:nan need" (Taylor et a:., 1994,
p.26). This founda:ior.al issJe regarding the charm:-
te, of cultural identity needs to be resolved for
cultural j)luralism to con:e Lr.to its own. Feminist
commnnitarianism is a non-assimilationist frame-
work in whkh such resolution can occur.
However, liberal proceduralism cannot meet
this vital human need. Emphasizing equal rights
with no particular substantive view of the good
life "gives only a very resrrictec aci:10wledgement
of distinct cultural identities" (Taylor et al., 1994,
p. 52). bsisting on neutrality, and without collec-
tive goals, produces at best personal freedom,
safety, and economic security understood homo-
geneously.As Bunge ( 1996) puts it: ''Contractualism
is a code of behavior for the powerful and the
hard-faose who write contracts, not tl:osc> Ivho
sign on the dotted line" (p. 230 ), Howe,·er, in
promise-based communal formation, the tlour-
is;1ing of partkular cultures, religions, and ethr.ic
groups is the substant:ve goal to which we are
morally committed as human beings.
Norman Demilt (2002) demonstrates how
multicultural re?resentation ought to operate in
the medias construction of the American rac:al
order. An ethnic cinema that honors racial differ-
ence is nol assimilationist, nor does it "celebrate
exceptional blackness" support:ng white \'alues;
and it refuses to ;:iir ":he ethnk o:her agair.st a
mainstream white Amer:ca' as well as. "dark skin
against dar'- skin"(;,. 6). Rather than "a didactic
:ilrr. aesthetic based 011 soda) problerr.s realism"-
o:ie that is ":rapped by the modernist agenda"-
Denzi n follows Hal Foster and bell hooks in
Christians: Ethics and Politics 1111 : 53
arguing for an anti-aesthetic or postmodern
aes:hetic that is cross-disciplinary, oriented to
the vernacular, and denies "the idea of a privi-
leged aesthetic realm" (pp. 11, 180). A "feminist,
Chic.ir.a/o and black performance-based aes-
the,icv creates critical counter-hegemonic race
consciousness" ,ind implements crit'cal race
theory {p.180),
In feminist communitarian terms, this acs•
thetic is simultaneously political and ;;!hical.
Racial difference is imbrk:ated in social theories
and in conceptions of the hu:nan being, of justice,
and of :he common good. lt requires ai: aesthetic
that "in ge:u~rating soda! cr:ticism ... alsu
e:1genders resistance" (Denzin, 2002, p. 181). 11 is
not a "pcotest or integrationist initiative" aimed at
"icforming a white a:1dience of racial injustice;'
but ir.sleac "offers new forms of representation
that create the space for r:ew forms of crit:cal race
consciousness" (p. 182). The overarching stan-
dard made possible by this aesthetic is enhancing
moral agencr, that is, serv:ng as a catalyst for
moral discernment (Chdstia:1s, 2002a, p. 409).
\Vith the starting hypolhe,is that all human
ci:lture~ have sometbing important to say, soc:al
science research recognizes particular cultural
values consistent with universal human dignity
(C~ristians, 1997a, pp. 11-14). Imerprt:~ire suffi-
ciency in its multicultural dimension "locales
persons in a non-competitive, non-hierarchical
relatirmship to the larger moral universe:' Jt helps
perso:;s "imagbe how :hings could be different
in the everyday world. It imagines new forms of
human rransformation and emancipation. Jt
enacts those transformations thro'Jgh dialogue"
(Den,:n, 2002, p, IR l).
Moral Discernment
Societies are err: bodim ent. of bslit utions,
practices, and structures recognized internally
as legitimate. 'Without allegiance to a web of
ordering relatior:s, society becomes, as a matter
of fact, inconceivable. Cor.1munitie& not only
are linguistic entities but also require at lca,I a
minimal moral commit:nent to the rnmn:on
good. Because social entities are moral orders
154 ia EANDB(lOK UF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CIIAl'l'ER 6
and not merely functional arrange:nents, moral
commitment constitutes the self-in•relation, 0·.1r
iden,ity is defir.ed by what we consider good or
worth opposing. Only throi:gh the moral dimen-
sion can we make sense of human agency. As
Mulhall and Swift ( 1996) w,ite:
Develop:ng, mai ntaini::g and articulating [our
mnral in,ui1io11s ar:d reactions: is ~r,: sometl:'~g
huma::s could easily or even conce:vab!y dispense
with.... We ~an no more imagir.e a h~m,m lifo
that fails to address the matter 't., bearings in
moral space tha~, we can i~agi ne one in wiich
d<'velopi ng a se~ ,e of up and down. right and left is
regarced as a:: O}'tionai humar: ta.<k. ... A moral
orientation is inescapable :iecause the questions to
which !he framework provides answers are them•
selves inesrnpable. (pp. 101\-108; see alsfl Taylor,
: 989, 27-29)
A self exists only within "webs of interlocu-
tiun;' and all seJf.inter::m,tation implicitly or
explicitly '·acknowledges be r.ecessarily soda!
origin of anr and all !heir rnncepliuns uf the good
and so of therr.,clves" (Mulhall & Swift, 19%,
pp. 112-l 13). Moral framewnrks ue as fur:da-
mrntal fo, orienting us :n social space as :he need
to establi~h ourselves in ?hysical space, The n:oral
dimension must, therefore, be consicered intri n•
to human beings, no:: a system of rules, norms,
and ideals ext,ernal to society. Moral duty is nur-
tured by the demands of social linkage and not
produced hy ahstract ~heory.
l'he core of a society's common mocality is
pretneoretical agreement. Howeve:, "what counts
as conm,m morality is not only imprecise but
variifole, .. and a difficult practical problem"
(Bok,; 995. p, 99), Morai obligation must be artic•
ulated within the fallible and irresolute voices o:
everyday li:e. Among disagreemer.ts and unce~•
tain,y. we look for criteria and wisdom in settlir.g
disputes and clarifying confusions; and normative
theories of ar: interactive sort can invigorate our
,ommcm mo~al discourse. But generally accepted
theories a,e not necessary for the comrnor: good to
prosper. The common good is not "the complete
morality of every participant ... bu: a sel oi a.gree-
mer.ts among ?eopie who :ypkally hold other, less
widely shared ethical beliefstt (Bok. 1995, p, 99),
Instead of expecting more tbeo::etical coherence
than hi,:ory warrants, Rei:thold Niebuhr inspires
us to work thmugh intvitable social conflicts
while ma:nta\aing "ar: untheoretical Jumble of
agreements" ca.led here :lie com:non good (Barry,
1967, P?· 190-191). Through a rnmmon morality,
we can ap?mximate conse:isus on issues and set·
tie disputes interactively, In Jilrgen J-Iabermas's
(1993) terms, discourse in the public sphere must
be oriented "toward mutua: understanding" while
allowi rig part!cipar:ts "the corr:municative free·
dom to take positions" on c'.aims ro final validity
(p. 66; see also Habermas, 1990).
Com mu11ita,ians challenge researchers to
participate in <1 corr:munity's ongcfag process
of moral ar:iculation. In fact. culture's continued
existence depends on the identification and
defense uf its normat:ve base. Therefore, ethno-
graphic texts must e:1able us "to discover moral
tru:hs about ourselves"; narrath·es ought to
"bring a :noral compa~s intn readers' lives' hy
accounting for things that matter to them
(Denzin, 1997, p. 284 ), feminist romrr: :mitarian·
ism seeks to engender moral reason :ng internally.
Communities are woven together by narratives
that invigorate their wmmon umiennar.ding of
good and ev'l, happiness ar:d reward, the r:ieaning
of life ard death. Recovering and refashioning
moral vocabulary help :o amplify our deepest
humanness. Researchers are not constituted as
eth:cal selves antecedently, but moral discern-
ment unfolds d:alectkaily between researchers
am:: the :-esearchec who collaborate with them.
Our widely shared moral convictio:1s are
developed though 1,nmr<,. within a commu•
nity. ".'hese commu:iit:es, where moral dlscou ,se
is nurtured and shared, are a radical alte:native
to the utilitarian individt:alism of modernity. Bi;:
in feminist communitarianism, -.:mm:mnilies are
entered from the un'versal, The :otal opposite of
an ethics of individual autonor:iy is :,miversal
human soEdarit y. 01,r obligation to Sl.l8tah1 one
a11other define3 our existence. The prim al sacred·
ness of all witho·it exception is the ~earl of the
moral order and the new starting point for our
t111wri?fog (Chr:stiam, '997b, 1998)_

The ratio:iale fur human act:on is reverence for
life on Earth. Living nature rt>produces itse! fas its
' very charartrr. F.:uhedded in the anin:ate world
is the purposiveness of bringing forlh
7herefo,e, within the natural order is a moral
claim on us for its own sake and in ow:i right.
Nurti:ri:tg life has a taker: •for-granted character
nut,;de subjective preferences. Reverence for life
on Earth is a pretheoretial given that makes the
moral order possible. Tl:e sacr~dness of life is no:
an a::istrnct imperative but the grour.d of human
action.;i It is a ?rimmdial gene:ality that under•
Iies reification into ethial principles, an organic
bond that everyor:e shares bescapably. In our
systematic reflection on th is protonorm, we rec-
ognize that it e:itails sue!: basic ethical principles
as rmman dignity a:id nonviolence.
Reverence for life o;i Earth establishes a level
playing floor for cross cultural collalmratiou in
ethics. It repre,ents a universalism from the
grnund up. Various sodeties articu:ate this
protonorm in different terms and i:Justrate it
loca[y, but eyery culture can brbg to the table
this fundan::ental norm for ordering political
re:atior,ships a:id social institutions. We live out
oi:r va:·les in a communit}' sett:ng where the
rr:or2.l life is experienced and a mornl vocabulary
articulated. Such protonorms as reverence for
life can Jt) recovered only locally. l.anguage situ-
ates them in his Lory. The sacredness of life reflects
our common condit:on as a species, but we act on
it th:ough the :mmediate reality of geography,
ethnicity, and ideology. But according to fe:ninist
rommunitarianfam, if we enter this con:mum1l
arena not from ir:dividual decision making bt1t
from a universal commonness, we have the basis
for believing that researchers am: the researched
am collaborate on the moral domain. Researchers
do not :-,r:ng a set of prescrip:ior.s i:ito which
they school their subjects. Instead, they find ways
interactively to bring t!1e sacredlne:,s of life into
own-each culture and all circumstances pro-
vidil:g an abu:1dar.ce o: mea:1ing and application.
How t:i e moral order works itself out ir. com-
mur:ity formation is the issue, not first of all what
researchers consider virtuous. The challenge for
those writing culture is not to limit their moral
Christians: Ethks Politics • tSS
pers;iectives to their own generic ai:d neutral
prir:ciples, hut to engage the same moral space as
tl:e ?eople they study. In this perspective, research
strategies are r.ot assessed first of a:J in terms of
"experimental robustness;' but for their "vitality
and ir. illuminating how we can create
human flourish :nif (Llncoln &: Denzin, 2000,
p. !062).
d Po;:,:ncs o,: Rss1sr11NCE
Ethics b the feminist communitarian mode gen-
erates social criticis •. leads to resistance, and
err:powers tn adion those who are inle:-acting
(see H,i:,ermas, :i:171, pp.J(Jl-317). Thus,a bask
norm for interpretive research is enab:ing the
humane transforma:ion of fae mu: :iple spheres of
community life, sucil as religion, politks, et'mk-
ity, a1~d gender.
From his own dialogic perspective, Paulo
Freire speaks of the need to reinvent the r:ieani ng
of puwer:
Fo: me the principal, :ransformation, the
1ransfom1atie:. of society i.i this part of the .::e:t-
tury demands nut gctl;ng power from i::ose who
hav,:, it today, or mecly l,1 make snme :eforr::s,
;ol!:e cha11ges in it ... The question, from rr.y
poin1 of view, i, not just le :ake power bat lo rein-
vent it T::a: to create a diffcrcm k:nd of power, to
deny :he imweI has as if it were me:aphysks,
bureaucratized, rnti•dernocratic. (quoted ::1 Evans,
Ewans, & Kennedy, I 9~7, p.
Certainly oppressive power ':,locs and n:onop•
olies-economk, technological, and politial-
need 1he s~rutiny of researchers and their
.;:ollaborators. Given Freire's politk:al-institutional
bearing, power for him is a cemral notion in
soda: analysis. But, ii: concert with him, feminist
communita~ian research refuses to deal with
power in cognitive terms or.ly. The issue is how
people car. empower therr.selves instead.
The don:inant understanding of power :s
g:ounded in nonmutuality; it is interventionist
;:mwer, exercised co:npetit!ve:y and seeking con•
:roL In the communitarian a:tcrnative, power is
156 1lll EANDBOOK 01' QUAL'.'rATIVE RESEARCH
relational, characte,ized :,y mutuality rather rhar:
sovereigr:ty. Powrr fro:n this perspective is reci-
procity between two subjects, a relationship not of
dominatio11, but of intimacy and vulr.erabilit}'-
power al(n to that of Akoholics Anor.ymous, in
which surrender to the community enables the
ind:,idual to gain mastery. As understood so
dearly in the indigenous Kaupapa :'vlaori
a::iproach to researd:, ltlhe researcl:er is led :iy the
:nem:ie1·s of the comtm:nity and c.oes not pre-
sume In he a '.e,ider, <'~ to have any power that he
or ~he can rclinqu:sh" (Denzin, 2003, p. 243).
Dialogue is the key element in an emancipa-
:ory strategy that liberates rather than impriso:1s
us in manipU:ation or an,ago.r:istk relationships.
Ahhough the control ve:sion of co:1siders
mutuality weakness, the empowerment mode
maximize., our 'mmanity and thereby banishes
pnwerlessness. ln the re;search process, power :s
i:nmasked aod engaged through solidar:,y as a
resea:chec-researcher team, There is certa:nly
r:o monologk "ass'Jmption that the researche: is
giving the group power" (Denzin, 2003, p. 243 ).
Rather :ban play semantic gan:es with pm,;er,
researc:iers 1:temselves are willing to :narch
aga;ns1 the barricades. As Freire insists, only with
everyone fi!Eng his or her own political space, to
the pnint of civil disobedience as necessary, will
empowerment mean a1:ything revolutionary (see,
e.g., Freire, 1970b, p. 129).
What is nonnegotiable in Freire's theory of
power 's par;:kipation of the oppressed in direct-
ing ,u; :ural formation, If an important social
issue needs resolution, the most vu:nerable will
have '.o lt>ad the way: "Revulutionary praxis can-
not tolerate an absurc dichotomy in whifh the
p::axis of the people is merely that of following the
ldomban: elite's l decisions" (frei :e, 1970a,
p. 120; see also F~eire, 1978, pp, l7ft:).24 Arrogant
polltkians-supported by a of acco'Jn-
tants, lawyc:s, ecor.omists, anc soda! science
rese-.irchers-tri vialize the nonexpert's voice as
lrreleW1:il tu the ·problem 01 its wlulion. On the
contrary, tnmsfurma:ive actiun from the inside
out is impossib:e unless the O?pressed are active
partkipar:ts rather than be:ng a leader's objects of
action. "O:ily power that springs fro:n the weakness
CHAP'l'ER 6
of ,he op;,ressed will be sufficient!)· strong to free
both" (Freire, 1970b, p. 28), 25
In Frei re's ( 1973) terms, the goal is ccmsden:i ··
zation, that is,a critical consciousness that direc:s
the o:1going flow of praxh and reflection in every·
day lite. In a culture of silence, the oppressor's '.an-
guage and way of being are fatalistically acx:eptec
without co:1tradiction. But a conscious•
ness enables !ls to exercise the uniqm:ly hu:nan
capacity of"speakir:g a tmc word" (Prcire, 1970b,
p. 75). Umler conditions of sociopoliriml contrnl,
"the vanquished are dispossessed of their wo,d,
their expressiveness, their culture" {1970b,
p. 34 ). Through conscie:itization, the oppressed
gain their own and collaborate in trans·
forming thei :- culture (l 970a, pp. 21 13 l,
Thexfore, research is not the transmission of
speclali,:ed data but, in style and content, a cata-
:yst for (:ritical consciousness. Without whal
Frei:-e (1970h, p. 47) calls critical con:prehen-
sion of reality" (that the oppressed "grasping
with their minds the truth of their reality"), there
is only acq;i iescence in the stat'J; quo.
The resistar.ce of the empowered is more
productive at the interstices-at the fissures in
social institation.s where authentic action is
poss:ble. Effective rc.sistancc :s nurn; red in the
backyards, the open spaces, aml voluntar}• associ·
at ions, and among neighborhoods, schools, and
interactive settings o: mutual struggle without
elites. Because only nonviolence is morally
acceptable fur sodopolitical change, t::tere is no
other option except an educational one-having
people movements galn their owr: voice, and
nurtui:1g a crilkal nms;:ie:1ce lrmugh dial ngic
means. People-based developn:enl from below is
not merely an end i:1 itself but a fundame:ital
condition of soda] Lunsformation.
II TI<.t.NSFOR!'vll~G THE IRB
Interpretive si:.fficiency as a philosophy of soda!
science fund amentally transforms thf IRB ~ystem
in form and mntent. As with lltBs, it emphas:zrs
relent'.ess accuracy but understands i: as the
researcher's authentic resonance wi;h the context

and tne subject's selt:rdleclion as a moral agent.
ln an :ndigenous Maori approad: to knowledge,
for example, "concrete experience is the criterion
uf meaning and truth'' an.: researchers arc "led
by the membe:-s of the community lo discover
them" (Den~in,2003, p.243). However,hecause the
research-subject relation is reciprocal, tbe IRlfs
invasion of privacy, informed ,onsent, wd decep-
tior: are nonissues. In rnmnmn::arianism, con-
ceptim:s of !he good are shared '-Jy the research
subjects, and res,ear,;;ners collaborate in bringing
these definitions into their own."Partidpants have
a co-equal in how research sl:ould be co:i-
ducted. what should be studied, which methods
should be used, which f: ndings are valid and
acceptable, l:ow the fmdings are :o be implemented,
aad how :he rnnseGuences of sacl1 actions are to
be assessed" (Der.zin, 2003, p. 257).
: nlerpretive sufficiency transce!lds current
regt.:l.ttory system governing research 011 human
subjects. Therefore, it recomme:ids a ?Olicy of
strict ter:itorialis:n fur the !RB ,egime. Given its
historical roots in biomedicine, and with the e>:.plo-
sion in bo:h 1,renctic researdi a:1.d privately funded
biomedical rescan:h, 45 CFR 46 should be confined
to m0dical, biologic.11, ami dink studies, and the
positivist and oostpositivist social science that
is epistemolugically :dentica: to them. Research
methodologies that have broken cown tl:e walls
between subiect, and researchers ought to be
excluded from TRR oversight As Denzin obs<'rves:
Perform;1nce autudhuografl:y, for example. fa;:s
outside :hi~ ;um: model.as du many fom:sofpar-
ticip;!tory action :'c'S!:ar,h, l"l:'flexive cthuogrnphy,
and qualitative :-eseard1 involving tesli::ionies, life
stories, Ufr-hi~hiry inquiry. personal narrative
inquiry, per:onnance autobiography, cor.vcr:satkm
analysis, am: ethlltidrama, In all uf these cases.
subje,:s a'.'id researchers dcvdnp mllaborntive,
1mhlic, pedasog'rnl rdatior:ships. [2003, p. 249)
Because partidpation is voluntary, subjects do
not need "to sign forms indkaling that their
consent is 'intormed:'' , .. (,onfidentiality ill not
an issue, "fur there is nothing to hide or protect:'
Partkipants are not subjected to preapprove,:
procedures, but "acting togeber, researcher, and
Chr'stiar.s: Ethics a:id P(Jlitia; 111 J57
subjects work to produce change i t1 the world"
(Denzin, 2003, pp. 249-250).
Given the different undcrsta ml ings of human
inquiry, the review of rescarc:t protocol, ought
to be given to peers ;n academic departr:ients or
uni:s familiar with these md1odologies. The Oral
History Association, for example, has codified a
set of principles and responsibilities for guiding
in oral history_ These "Evaluation (,uide-
line,;' as they are commonly calle<l, wou:d serve
as the framework for assessing resea,ch practicc. 1'
Ir. her reference to oral l:istory, Linda Sl:opes
,peaks for femir.ist com m:.mitarianism as a
whole:
The current rtgula1ory gnverning research
on h"man su-~jects is sir:1111 1 inco:i;;rucnl wlt:: oral
history interviewing. It l:as been used inappropri-
ately to i:;hibit cdka: inquiry, and it is based on a
det:nition of research far rerr.oved :rnrn 'iisto6cal
practice. :;,for,eove::, his:orians are acuttly aware
:he ethical dirntnsinns of our work and have well·
developed professlonai standards governing O:'JI
histo::v irilerviewin", I would like to see \lra: hi&lorv
' 0 '
,ecogniicd as :ying outside the domain inscribed
hy the Cornmm: Rule. (Sho1les, lOOO, p. ll)
Denzin enriches fet:1inist communitarian
ethk, by integrating it wilh an indigei:ous
research ethic, particularly that of t:1e Kai: papa
Maori (2003, pp. 242-248, 257-258), The char-
ters of various indigenous peoples are rooted in a
participatory mode uf knowing and presume
collective, not individual, rigl:ts.
'l'l:cse rigl:ts include control and nwnershi? of :he
community's cu'.tural prcperty . , , and the rights
of ir.digenom peoples to protect their cu:Lure's m:,1,·
knowledge a!ld its disstmlr.atio11. T".ese char:c:s
embed codes of ethics wJhin this larger pcrspec-
t:ve. They spell out specifically :mw re~e-,m:hers are
to pro:ccl and respect the :ights and ir.tc~eslS
incige::o·.1s ;,ec,ples, using the same prntoco;s th,t
regulate daily moral life in 1:tese cultures. [Dc:u:n,
2003,p,
This collaborative research model ":nakes the
researcher responsible not to a removed disdpl:ne
(or institution), bt:.t :o those he or she studies:'
158 Ill IIANDIIOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-C:!APTER 6
It aligr.s the ethics of research "with a politics of
resistance, hope, and fre,:l'.om" ( Denzin, 200],
p. 251l).
Ill Cm,cLusmN
As Guba ai:d Lincoln (1994) a:gue, the issue,;; in
socia'. science ulti!natel;· n:ust be engaged at the
v,;orldview level. "Questions of method are sec-
ondary to questio:is of paradigm, whkh we
as the bask belief system or worldview that
guides the investigato~. not only ir. dtoices of
met:iod but in ontologically and epistc:nologi-
ci.ly fundamental ways" (p. 105). The ctmv,m·
tional view, with its extri:isic ethics, gives :.is a
truncated and unsophis:icaled paradigm that
needs to be ontologically :ransfom:ed. This his-
:orical overview of theory and practice points to
:he need for an entirely new model of research
ethics in which human action and conceptions of
'.he good are inte:active.
"Sir.ce the n,;ation of ;iernons co:istitutes their
existence as persons, ... mora:Jy right action :s
[one J whkh inte11ds community" (Mac.'vlurray,
!%lb, p, 119), [n feminis: communitarianism,
personal being is cut into the very heart of the
social universe. The conmon good is accessible to
us only in personal fom:; it has ground and
inspiration in a soda! ontology of the human.,;;
"Ontology must be rescued from submersion in
things by being thought out entirely from the
viewpoint of person and thus of Being" (Lotz,
1963, p, 294). "Ontology is truly itself only when it
is personal and persons are truly themselves only
as o:itological" (Lotz, 1963, p. 297).
When rooted in a positivist worldview, expla·
nations of social life are oonsidered incompatible
with fae rer.derings offered by the participants
themselves. In problematics, Engual fom:, and
content, resrarch production presume~ greater
mastery and dearer illumination than the mm
experts who are the targeted beneficiaries.
Protecting and promoting i:1dividual atitor.omy
have been the philoso?hkal rationale for value
neutrality since its origins in Mill. But the inco•
herence in that view of sodal science is m1w
transparent By limiting the active involvemrnt of
rational behgs or jui:ging their self understanding
to be false, emplrkisi models contrac.kt the ideal
of rational beings wbo "d1oose between compet•
ing conceptions of the good" and make chokes
"deservir:g of respect." The verifica-:ion standards
of a:i instrwnentalist system "take away what
neutrality aims t() protec:: a comm·Jnity of free
and equal rational beir:g, legisletir,g their tiwn
prim:ip:es of cu:iduct" (Root, J993, ?· 198 ). The
ancial ontology of feminist communitarianism
escapes this contradiction by reintegrating
human life wifa the moral order.
Ill :NOTES
I. for ,ne,aterdetail xgarding this argument tl:an
I can !)tovid;, in the summary bekiw, sec Chris:ia11s,
Ferre, !'adder (1993, pp.18-32, 41-44).
2. Michael lfout ( 19113) :s unique among philcso-
;ihers of the social sdenre;; in linki::g social science
to ideal, and practices of the libcre: stat~ on the
grounds t:ia: both institutiuru, "attempt to neutral
be;ween competing conceptions ol' the good" (p. xv;.
As he elaborates:
Though liberalism is primarily a theo:y of the
state, its ?rincip:es can be appl'ec to any d
basic institu:ions cf a society; :or one ca:1 argue
that the role of the dir.:c, the corp:muion, be
scholarly assodations, or professions is not to dic-
tate or even recommend tht k':id of lift" a pemm
should ain: a:, Neutrality can serve as a:: ideal for
the operations of :hest iustitutions a~ much ns
it can for the state. Their role, one can argue,
should be to facilitate whatever kine of life a
student, patient, dit>ut, cus1omt>r, or member is
aiming at and i:o: promote one kind of life over
another. \p. 13)
Rori:'s inter?retations of Mill am: Weber are cr:i~:al
:o my own formJlation.
3. Alth.:>ugh commiltcc to what he called
"the logic of the moral sdcncts" in cdineat::ig t:ie
canons or metl:ods for induction, Mi] sh~red with
:ia:ural science a belief ir: the u::iforr:1ity of nature
the presumption tr.at all phenomena arc s,:bj~ct to
cause-and-effect relationships. H'.s five prilKiples of
'ndm.::tion ref'.ect a Nrw10:1ian cosmology.

4. L:tilitarianism in John Stuart J.fill's thought
was essentially an amalgamafain o~ Jeremy Bentham's
greatest happiness principle, David Hume's e:npirkal
philosophy and concept of utility a;; a moral 8()00, a:1d
Auguste Comte's positivist tenets tl:at thir:gs-in-them•
selves au:not be k:iown and knowledge ls restricred
to sensat:ons. In his inlluen:ial A Sysrnm of Logic, Yiill
(1843/l893) typically is characterized as combining
the p:inciples of French ::iosltivism (as developed by
Comte) and British empi:idsm into a single systerr:.
5. For an elaboration of the complex:ties in
positivism ....... including reference to its M:llian connec•
lions-see Lincoln and Gu:ia (: 9!15, pp. ~9-28).
6. Mill's realism is most explidt'.y deve:oped ::i
his Examir,ation of Sir William Hllmiltoni Philosophy
(1865}. Our befa:f in a co::imon external world, in his
view, fa rooted in the fact that our sensations of
physical reality "belong as much to other human or
sentient beings as 10 ourselves" {p. 196; see also
Coplcstan, I966, p. 306, n. 97).
7. Mill (1873/1969) spedfically credits to Comte
:iis use of the inverse de&.ictive or historical me1hod:
"This was an idea entirely new to me when I found it in
Comte; and but for him I might not soon (if ever) have
adved a: ii'' '.p. 126). Mill explidtly follows Comte
in distinguishing 50,:al statics and social dynamics.
He published two essays on Cornie's influence in the
w,~.mn!11ste1 Review, which were reprinted as Augusre
Comte and Positivism (Mill, 186511907; see also Mill,
1873/1969, p.165).
!I. Emile Durkheim is more explicit ar:d
abm:.t camality in both the natural and the social
worlds. Altho'Jgh he argued for sociological over
psychological causes of behaYior and did nol believe
in:er1timi could aiuse action, he unequivocally saw the
task of social science as dis.::overing t~e causal links
between social facts and ;iemmal behavior (see, e.g.,
Durkheim, 1966, pp. 44, 297-306).
9, As one example of the Weber resis:ed,
Root (l pp. 41-42) relers to the appointment of
Ludwig Bernhard to a professorsh';, of econom,c~ at
the U:1iversity Berlin. Though he had no acaderr.ic
credentials, the Ministry of Education gave Bernhard
this position without a faculty vote [ see Weber, 197 3,
pp. 4~30). In Shils's (1949) lernlli, '~>\. mass of particu-
lar, concrete concerns uncerlies [his 1917] ess:av--
his recurre:it effort to penetrate to the postulates of
emnomk thel1ry, his ethical passion for academic
freedom, r:is fervent nationalist political mnv;ctions
and his own perpem a; dema:;d for intellectual
integri:y" (?· v),
Christians: Ethics and Politics a 159
10, The rationale fur the creation of the Soci2.l
Science Research Council in I923 ls multilayered, but
in its attempt to Ii nk academic expertlse with policy
research, as well as in its preference for rigorous soda\
scientific methodo:ogy, the SSRC reflects and imple-
mer.ts Weber.
IL O:ten in professional ethics at p,esent, we
isolate consequentialism from a bll-scale utilitarian-
We give up on the idea of maximizing 1:appi ness,
but 'still 1ry to evah.:ate different courses of action
purely terr:,s of ,heir <:onsequmces, hoping to state
1;wrything worth considering in our consequence·
descriptions." However, even this broad vers:on of
utilitariani=, in '.:'aylor's terms, "s:ill legislates cer-
tain goods out of e-xis:em::e" (Taylor, 1982, p. 144 ). It is
likewise a res:rktive definition of the good that
favors the mode of reasoned calcu:ation and prevents
us from taking seriously all facets of moral and nor-
mative political :htnking (Taylor, 1982), As Yvonna
Lincoln observes, utilitaria:iism's inescapable problem
:s that "in advoc~ling the greatest good for t:ie grea:es:
:,umber, small grnups of people (all mi::orily groups,
for example) experience the politi,al regime o: lhe
'tyranny of the majority:" refers correctly to "liber-
ali!!m's tendency to reinsc:ibe op;iresskm by Yirtue of
the ut[:tarian principll"' (personal commur:katlon,
Feb:uary · 1999).
12, Giver. the nature of positivist inquiry, }er.nings
and Callahan (1983) conclude t:1at only a short list of
ethical questions is considered and, qJcstions
·'tend to merge witb the ,anons of i:ircfessional sc:en:ific
methodology. . . lntdlectual honesty, the ,1!ppression
of pe::sonal bias, careful collection and accurate report•
ing of data, and candid admission of the limits of the
scientific reliability of cr::pirical studies these were
es,rentially the onl)- questions that codd arise. Ami,
since these ethical ~esponsibililles are :mt particula~ly
comroversial (al in princ:ple), it is ::ot surprising
tha! during this period [the L960s] neither tl:ose con•
cerncd with ethics nor social s.::ientists derored much
time to analyzing OI' discussing them" (p. 6),
13. Most biomedical researdl occurs in a labora-
tory. Researchers are obliged to inform participants of
potentia: risk and obla::i co.:isenl before !he research
takes place. Ethnographic research occurs in setting,,
where subjects live, and inforrr:ed consent is a process
of "ongoing interaction between the researcher and
the me:nbers of :he community being studied•...
One n:us1 establish bonds of trust and negotiate
tonsent ... taking place nver weeks or months-not
prior to a structured inte~view" (Church, 2002, p. 3).
160 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALLTATIVE RF.SEARCH-CHAPTER 6
14. For a &odological and epistemological critique
of !Rlls, sec Denzin (2003, pp. 248-257),
15. Taylor {1982) puts it, "The rr:odem dispute
abou: utilitarianism is not abcut whether it occupies
some of the space of moral reas.m. but whether il fills
the whole space:' "Comfort the dy: :1g" is a ;TI oral
imperative in rnn:empo::ary Calcutta, even though "t'le
dying are in an cxtrem:ty that :nakes I•~tihtarian I cal•
cula:icn irrelevant" (p. 134 ).
l6. This restates the well· known objectin:: 10 a
democratic liberalis:11 of individual rig·:1ts:
1.ihrralisrn :s ::ot a. possble n:ee:ing grnu nd for all
..:ulturts, but is the ;iolitical expression of one range
of culnres, ,me quite incompmible with other
ranges. Libernlisr:: can't ac<l ~houldn't ,iaim com-
plete cultmll ncutrallty, Liberalism is aho a fight-
ir.g creell Mul!lcult;1ralism as it is often debated
tocay a lot :o do with the in:posilion of :;1:m1e
cultures 011 othc:rs, and l'l''lh the assumed s,:perior-
ity tha: powers this lmpcsition. Western liberal
societies are though: tu be s~;premely guilty in this
regard, par:ly because of their colonial past, and
par:ly because :helr marginal:zat:on seg-
ment~ of their popula:icns thst stet:i fron: ot",er
cultures. (faylor ,·1 ,1l., 1994, pp. 62-ii.1).
17, Denzin in this l)assage c~edits Smith (l9Sr
p. l 07) with the rnncepl of a "rull ng apparatus:•
: 5, Gi 11 igan's ,eseardl :nethods and rnndusions
have been debated by a diverse rangt: of schnlars. For
this debate and relate<: issucs,sec BrJbeck (1990), Card
[1991), Tong ;1989, ?P· 161-168; 1993, pp" 80-157),
Wood (1994), a::d Seigfried ( 19'.lf:).
19, Levinas (b. 1905) was a profcsso, of philuso•
phy at the Univer,ity of Paris (Nanterre) and head of
the Israelite Normal ~chool in Paris, In Wy;;c:HJgrod's
(1974) terms, .,;ontinues the tradition of r✓.al":in
Bube:· 110d Fram, Rose:iweig" and was ":he f:rst to
introduce Hussrrl's wo::k into .. , the French phenom-
eno:ogical school" (p:i. vii-viii).Althcugh Wyschogmd
:s a $ludent of Heidegger, Hegel,and Husserl (see, e.g.,
Wyschogrod, 1985 )-and engaged Derrida, L)'Olanl,
Foucau:t, and Ilcleuze-her work en cthks appeals
not to trnditio:ial ph 'losophica: discourse but to cnn-
crete expressions of self-Other transactions the
vi$ual arts, liternry narrative, historiography, and the
t:{lr:nalization of death in the news.
20, .vlartha Nussbaum (1993) argues for a version
of virtue ethics in these te,rns, amtemlir.g for a model
rooted in Aristotle 1':at has cross-cul:ural application
without being detached :mm particular forms of soda:
In her model, va,io:1s spheres cf huma:: experi-
ence that are found i:, all rulh:xs ,cprcse:it questions
tn answer and chokes tc ma:<.r-altitudes towa1d the
il: ur 1500d fortune of others, how to t rea, strangers,
managen:enl of property, mntml ov~r bodily appetites,
and so forth. 0~ r ,..,,,,,i,.,n,ces in these areas "fix a
subject for further inquiry" (p. 247}, a::d oi.:, reflection
0:1 each sphere will give u~ a ''thin or nominal defini-
tion" of a virtue relevant to this sphere. On th's bas;:;,
we can talk across ,ul:u,es abmit behavior approprialc
in sphere Nussbaum, 1999 ).
21, Root ( l':193,chap. 1Ol also chooses a communi-
ta,ian altemari,,e to the dominant p,muligm, l n hi&
version, critical theory, partici :1atory ~esear~h, and
femimst social science are three examples of :he com
mllr::tarian approm:h. This ,hapttr offers a m•Jre ,om-
plcx view of am::nunitarianisn: developed in politkal
philosophy and int.:Ueca:al histnry, rath,·r than limit-
ing ii to theory and practkal politics, Among the
philosophical cmmmm:larians [Sandel, 1998; Taior,
1989; Walzer, 1983, 1987), Carole Pa:cnmn (; 9~5, 1989)
fa explicitly feminist, and her promise motif tbrms the
axis the princi?le of mullivocal represe1:tation out·
line,! bdow. In thts chapter\ fe:ninist mr:imunitarian
model, critical theory fa integrated into :r:c tnird ethi-
cal in:perative-empowcrmer:r and resistance.In spite
of that difference in emphasis, I with Root's
( 1993) conclusion; "Critical theories are always critical
for an"
F-
,tkular ,om,nunitv, '
and the values thev• seek to
advance arc the values Df that ,ommur. :ty. In that
respect, critical theories are c-o:nmunitarian. _.. ~or
critkal theoris:s, the stanciard fur ,;;hoo.sini; or accept·
Ing a social theory is the reflective accer•tahility of the
theory by membc:s of the rnmmL:nity whom the
theo::y i~ critkd" ipp. 233-234 ). ror a review of cnm-
munitarian motifs in term, of foucault, see Olssen
(2002).
22, For ao e:aboral ion of interpr,live sufficiency
in terms of m."'l~& reporting, ~ee Christians {2004,
pp.46-55)
23, r;~e sru:redness of as a ?rolonorn: differs
:undan:entally from th~ Enlightenmenl's n:cnocultural
ethical rat'ona;ism, in which u~. ivernal imperatives
were considered obligarory for all nations and eµ,o,;h~.
C11r1csian foundat'onalfa1,1 and Kanfs formalism p~e-
sumcd ::onconti ngent starling points. Universal b1ma;:
solidarity does nol. Nor does it fft•w from Platonism,
that is, the finite partiripating in the infi::ite and receiv-
ing its essence from i: Christians, 1997h, pp, 3-G),
ln '"dditiot: to the sacredn.:ts of Ille as a p:utommn,

!here are other appeals to universals that neither are
Western nor pn,sur:ie a Ncwtcnian ;;usmolug,r; for a
summa~y, $ff Ct:,istians \2002b).
24. Mumality is a cardinal :i:ature the feminist
cnmmunitdrian model ge::crnlly, and the~efore is ,ru·
cial tu :he principle of empowern:ent. For reason,
critical thtorv' is i nsc~ibec! into the t::::tl p:inci:,Je
. Health ,md Hur:ian Services. Retr,evn\ frnm
here, rather than ful:owing Root (see note 18, abt.vc),
alluwir:g it lo sta::d by it~elf a;, an illustration 11f mm•
::1u~'tarianisn1. Root (1993, p. 238) hirr.se'.: observe,;
that critical thcoris:s often fail ta transfer the "'drals
cf expertise'" to their recsearch subjects or giv<' them
::rrle ::; the research design and in:erpretafam.
Without 2. funda• enlal shift tn communita ri,111 inter-
activity, r~earch :n all modes is prone to tl:e distribu-
ti,e fallacy.
25. Becm:se ol his fund,.memal commitment to
dialogue, em;mwering for Freire avoids :he weaknesses
monologic concepts empowerment Jn which
researchers are seen lo free up the weak ·;:: "ortu-
uatc (summarized by Denz::-, [20C3, P?- 242-245I cit-
ing 3:shop. :998}, Although Freire represents a radical
perspc~!ivc, be does not claim, "as :nore radical foeo
ri.sts" do, that "only they the:~ theories can lead"
the researched into freedom (Der. ~in, 2003, p. 246;
;;iting Bishop, 1998).
l.6, Thomas Pug:'si (200 I) ,0J1te11ds that the Ora:
fl',rory Msodation's (OHA) "Evaluatim1 Gui.:elines"
are not incompatible w'th fodcral regulatim1s. However,
arm al experience with IRl!s from oral h i:;loriaits indi·
catt)s their di,juncture in theory and practice.
27. Mkhnel Theunissen (1984) argueb that
Buber's rela:ional self I aml therefore its in
Lev ~a;;, Freire, Heller, Wysclmgrod, and Taylor) :s dis•
tin ct from the subject ivily of C,1:llim::11tal existential-
ism, The subjective sphere of H:,;sscrl and Sartre, for
c,ample, "stands in no relati,,n tu a Thou and is not a
membe• (lf a We" (p. 20; see also p. 276). "Accurding lo
Heidegger the s,·lf tan only come tu itself in a vn:ur:•
tary separation from other selves; aa:nrding to Buber,
it has its being sole:y in the :.:Jatimi" (p. 284}.
ml R:::-FRF.NCES
llarry, B. (1967), /rn,ikc and :he common good. In
A. Quinton (Ed.), Politicalphi/,,.,oph)' (pp.190-191 }.
Oxford, UK: Oicurd Ur.iversity Press.
Be::habib, S. ( 1992). Situ,1ting 1he se{f Gender, rommu-
nitv
, ,md postmGdemism in cor;tem('ll)r{;ry
. ethics.
Cambridge, i..; K: l',1li1y.
Chr:stian,: Ethics and Polilic~ 111 : M
Ilisho;,, R. ( 1996 ). Freeing uUr,dves from nf'll•m:rmial
domination in research: A :v!aori approach 10
creating knowledge. J111erna rional Journal of
Qualitatiw Studies in l:duta1i,m, I/, 199-2 i 9.
Illanchard, M.A. (2D02, January). 5hou!d ,1/1 di;:cipiin,,s
be sul1ert to th,~ Corr.mm1 Ruler Ruman sut,1ecls of
social scierra research. i'and, Departm,'llt of
www.aaup.org1puhlicatio11s/A,.d1."l!1el2(Jl12/02n1/
02mj[tr.hlm
Bok, S. ( 1995 )_ uimmon values. Colt: :nbia: \;n iv.mity
Missouri Pn.>ss.
Flraheck, M. Y.. (Ed,), ( 199()). Who care.;f Theory,
research, (Ind eduratiimal implicaticm,, of tile ethic
of care. !'lew York: Praeger.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (2nd ed., R. G. Smi6.
Trans.). Sew York: Scribner's.
Bulmer, M. ( 1982). The 1:1erit~ and der.:cri:s of covert
padc: ;iant observat io:i. l:i .',,L Bulr::cr (Ed. l,
Socia/ re.search t1hi,s (pp. 21 ). Londor.:
Macmillan,
Bunge, M. (: 996). Hnding philosuplry m wciul Sc1tmce,
New Haven, CT: i'ale l!n:vers:ty Pre.s.
(,ard, C. (Ed,), (1991). fem mist ethics. Lawrence:
;Jnivcrsity ,,f Kam,as Press.
Christians, C. G. ( 1997a). Tb: ethics of being. In C. G,
Christians & M. Trn.lJcr (Eds.), Comnnmicaliotr
ethic, atrd ,1'1i'w:rsal va/1,es 3-23 ). ·1 h8::sand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chr:stians, C. G. ( l 997h ). Social ethics and ma$& n:edia
practire. In J. M. Mak.au & R. C. Arnett (Ed~.l,
Cammun i:atiou ethics /11 an age of diw!rsity
(pp. 187-205). Urbana: University (lf lllimiis
Press.
Christiau:s, C. G. (1998), 71,e ,acrccncss life. Media
Developmen!, 45(2), 3-7.
Christiam, C. G. (2002a), Ethical thco,isis and qualita·
tive research, Qu<11i1ativc Inquiry, 8( I), 407-410.
Christ:ans, C, G, (2002D ). The latest devdo;m1ems
in world ethics. Proceedings: Media pre·
canjerence, cmss,cullurui in a digi1aUzad
(pp, 3-11 ). Gwangju City, Korea: Chonnam
National University.
ChrisEans. C, G. (2004). The ,hanging n<'1vs paradigm:
from objectivity lo inter;:weti11<' suffki~nq. In
S. H. Iorio (Ed.), Qrwlilative researc/1 in journal-
ism: I1king it m the street;· (pp, 41 ··· 56 ). Mahw,d1,
1'J: Lawrence Erlbo·Jm,
C:ri,tians, C. G,, Ferre, J, P., & Fackler, F\ M. \ 1993).
Coad new;: Sr,cia/ elrui·, and the press. New York:
Oxford University Press.
 ;62 II EAN'DBOOK OP QUA!JTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 6
Church, J. 'f. (2002, f,muary). Should all disciplines be
,ubject to the (,ommon Rufer Human subject! of
s~cial sciente rl!Search. Pane:, U. S. Department
of Heakh and Human Services. Retrieved from
www.aaup.org/puhlica:ions/Academe/1002/02mi
02mjftr.him
L. ( 1991 ), What e.11, she know? Feminist theory
and the cotmruaiun of knowledge, Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Universi! y Press,
Comte, A. ( 1910), A general view of pcsifaism (J. H.
Bridges, 7rans,), London: Routle.:!ge. ( Original
work published 1848)
Copleston, F. (1%6). A history of philosoph1: VoL 8.
Modem philosophy: Rentham ta Russell. Garden
City, :XY: Dm.:bleday.
Denzin, N, K, ( 1984 ).On rmderslcmding emoriott Sa11
fr~:idsco: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, S. K. ( 1989), lnterpretl•e biography. New:mry
Park, CA: Sage.
llenzin, X. K. ( l 997), interpretive ethnography:
Ethnographic practices for the 21st century.
Tr.ousa::d Oaks, CA: Sage.
IJenzin, N. K. (2001). Reading race: HQUywood and the
c/nem,1 rndal violence, Tho:isa11d Oaks, CA:
Sage.
De1w.in, K K. (20()3), Performance etlmography:
('ritif;;/ pedagogy and the politics of culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Durk hcim, E. ( 1966}. Suicide: A s,udy afsociology, New
York: Press.
Eu~e11, :. I'. ( 1981 ). Philosophy a:id 1he professions.
I>emacracy, 1'.2), 112-127.
Evans, A, E, Evans, R. A., & Kennedy, W. II. ( L987).
Pedugogies for the non-poor. Marykno:l, NY:
Orb:,.
Foucault. M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth
of th.: prison (A. Sherida:i, Trnns.). Kt•w York:
Randorr. House.
Freire,]'. (l 970a)_ Education as the practice offreedom:
Cultural a,tion for freedom, Ca:n bridge, .MA:
lfarva:-d Educational R~iew/Center for the Study
of Development
Freire, P. ( 1970b ). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Seabury,
Freire, R ( 1973 l. Eduearion for critical cvnsclousness.
New York: S!;abury.
l'reire, P, (1978],P.idagogy in process: The ll"tters cf
liuinea-Bissm,. New York; Seabury.
Gilligan, C. ;1982). In a dif)'errm! voice: Psychologieal
theory ar.d womens development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Universit}'
Gilligan, C. (1983 ), Do the soda] sciences have an
adequa:e theory of moral development! In
N, Haan, R. N. Bellah, P. Rabinow, & WM. Sullivan
(Eds,}, Social science as morn/ inquiry (pp. I),
New York: Columbia University Press,
Gilligan, C, Ward, J, V., & Taylor, J.M. (:988}, .Mappi,rg
lht moral dCJmain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
U:1ivtrsi:y, Graduate School of f;ducation,
Guba, E.G., & Linrolr., Y S. {1994), Competing para•
digms in qualitative research. In N, K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitatii•e
research (pp, 105- L17). Tho'Jsand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Habermas, J. (1971 ), Knowledge and humr:m interests
(j. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beaco:i,
Haberl'.las,). (, 1990}. Mora/ conmuusness and commu,
nicative action (C. ten'iarcit & S. W. Nicholson,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J, (1993). justiftcarian and application:
Remarks 011 discourse ethics (C. Cronin, Trans,).
Can:brldge, MA: MIT Press.
Held, V. (l 993 ). Feminist morality: Tr,msjorming mi•
ture, sodtt)I, and politics, Chicago: Cniversity of
Chicago PreSs.
Heller, A. ( l988 ). General etliirs. Oxford, t:K: B\ackwel
Hdler, A. (1990). A philosophy c( rr.orals. Oxford, JK:
Blackwell.
Heller,A. (l996)_An ethic! of personality. Oxford, UK:
illai.:kwell.
Heller, A. (1999), A theory oj modernity. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell_
Humphre),, L. (l970). Tearoom trnde: Jmpersrma/ sex
in public plac:~. Chicago: Aldine.
Humphreys, L (1972), Out of the closet. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Pren:ice Hall.
Jennings, B. (1983), Interpretive social sc:ence and
policy analysis, In D. Callahan & B. Jer::iings
(Eds, ),Etl,ics, the social scieru:1?$, and policy analy-
(?P· J-35 ). :-Jew York: Plenum.
Jennings, B., & Callahan, D. (1933 February), Social
tl:e poiky-maki11g process. Hastings
Center Re,CJcrt, pp. 3-8.
Koehn, D. ( 1996}. l(ethinkingfeminisl elhics; Care, trust
and empathy. New York: Routledge.
Lazarsfeld, P., & Reitz, J, G. (I 975 ). An introduction to
applied socioiogJ,: New York: Elsevier.
Ltvinas, E. (1985). Ethics and injinity A. Conen,
Trans.). Piltsburgh, PA,; Duquesne University
Press,
Levinas, E. (1991 ). Otherwise than being or beycnd
essence (A. I.ingis, Trans.). Dordrecht, 'Jetherlands:
Kluwer Academe.

L'ncoln, Y S. (1995). Emerging criter;a for quality in
qualitative and interpretive inc,uiry, Qualitative
lnquiry, 1, .:.1 ,,- ,.o,.
Lincoln, Y, & Denzin, t-. [2JOO). lhc sevemr:
mo~ent: Out of the past. Ramib,1,1k of Qua/i,atrni
Research (2nd ed. pp. i047-Hl65). Tlioc:sJnd
Oah,CA:
Li11wln, Y. & Guba, E.G. (1985). t,uwmlistic inquiry.
Bever\ :!ills,
Lotz, J, Jl, (1963 ). Person and ontology. Philosophy
LY' I- 2"
4
·1"'t:utiJ, ,,, 7
Ii "'f'! 71,
Lyons, H, (1944). 111e Royal ::iociely /650-194G.
Cim1bru.lg<:, ;,J K: Care h:idgc Uni\'ersity f'ress.
Mac.l;!ur:ay, J. ( L96la). The form of t.~e personal: Vol. l.
7'iic? selj·i,, agem. Lo;idon: Faber & Faber.
Mac Murray, ]. ( I 961 'i ). The Jorm ,if the personal: 'k>I. 2.
l¾mcm.s ir. relation. l.ondo:i: Fab~r & ~aber.
Milgram, $, ( Ol,edi.ic:ce lo authority, New York:
Har;:,er&Row,
Mi'.I, J. S. (1865), Exmninatim111} Sir Williilm i lamilton's
phifosophy imd ojt.~e principal p.~ilasophital
!frms discussed in writings. Lundon: Longman,
Grem, Rolx;~ts & G1 ccn,
lv'.ill, J S. ( 1893). A .,;ystem of ra,im:i,;ative and
inductive: Reing a ccmr;ectcd view of the ('rinciple<
o/ evidence and the me,lwds of srientilic inv~sti-
i~ci1m (8th ed.), New Y,irk: H~rp,'I &llm!her,;,
(Original work pi:blished 18431
Mill, f, S. (1907), Auguste Ccmle and p~siiivi5m,
Lo:idon: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trub:ier & Cn.
!Original "~•rk p:,ihlished 1&65)
Mi:1, j, S, (1957), U11lit,1ri,mism. lndiam1polis: Bobbs·
11errill. ;Origina: work published 1861)
:Vii!!, !. S. (1969). Ar.tabiugtaphy. Bostm1: Hoaghton
Mif':in. (Orlg'na; wu:kpublished 1873;
Mill, 1- S. ( ;~78), 011 liberty. lmlianapolis: Hackett
(Orig,nal work published 1859)
Mulhall, S., & S\vift,A (1996). liberais and comm1.mi·
Mrlm1s (2nd ed.). Oxfol'd, UK: BlackwdL
Noddings, N. ( 1984). Caring: A.feminim approach ro
,1/ucs a;id morn/ education, Berkeley: U11iversi1y
u: California Press.
Nodtlmgs, N. (1989}. ,vo1ne;; and evil. Berkeley,
University of California Press.
Nodc'ngs, N. (1990). Bthics frorr: :he star.cpoint of
wo::m1. In D, L. Rhodt> (Ed.), Thea,etical
pecii·ll-s on sexual diffenmce (pp. 160 173 ). New
Haven, Cl': Tule University Pres,.
Nussha·~m, M, (1993). Non-relative vir:ues: A:i Ar:s,
to~elian approacb. Ir. M. Nussbaum & A. Sen, 1'he
quail/)! oflife (pp. 242-269), Oirfo:d, UK: Clarend:m.
Christians: Ethiu and Polit ks • 1t>3
Nussbaum, M. (1999l. Sex am.I social justice. New 'iork:
Oxford University
Olsse:i, M. (1002). M':hd Foucault as qthirl' commun'•
ta~ian: :.>i"ference, cnmmu nity, demucra9;
Culnm:il ~)udii'ii-Cnticui Methodalog1es, 2(4),
483-513,
Olthuis, ]. ( I997;. Face-to.face: Ethical ~svmmetrv rlr
' '
the symmetry of mutualit)'! Ir, J. Oltl1i:'.s (f,d.),
Knowing other-wise (pp. 134-164). New York:
Fnnl':am l:ii,er,i:y Press.
l'ateman, C. (1985). Tlie problem of po!iric11! ~1,/igaffoij:
A critique ofliberal theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
l'ateman, C. 11 ~1!8).ne sexual cor,triu·t. Stanfonl, CA:
Stanford University Pres,,.
Pateman, C. ( 19R9J. The disorder of women: Demacracy,
feminism cwd polilie,11 tlteorx, SI ,:iford, CA:
Stanford Unlversil y Press.
Peuker:, H. (1981}. l::1iversal solidarity as the goal of
,:thics. Media Dete!opmeut, 28( 4), I0-12.
P;iglisi, T. (200! ;, IRB review: It hdps 10 know !he
regulatory framework. American Psychalagica,'
Sor/et;, O!lser,er, I(May/111Dt;,
'
Punch, M. (1994). ?ci'tb and elhi•;s in (!i;;ali,a.ive
reseax::. In N, K, Denzin & Y. S. Uncoln [Eds.),
Hcrn.lbook of ~u~liratiw? m,eard1 (pp. 83-97).
TnOliS3ll(l Oaks, CA;
Rdnharz, S. (1993). Sr>ciu; re.ieardi meihud;: Femini,;1
perspeer;ves, New York: 'Elsevier.
Reiss, A. L Ir, ( i 'l79). Goveri::ncutal rtg-:fatfon of
scientific inquiry: Some paradmtical cunse,
quencts. In C. B. Klockars & EW, 0 Coonor (Eds.),
Devumrn and decency: The ethits of resem::h with
human subjects (µp. 61-95). Bev<;r]y Hi[s, CA:
&ge,
Root, .ill, 1. 1993 ). Philosophy ufsaciai science: The
od,, ideals, and politics of social inquiry. Oxfo:d,
Blackwtll.
Ryan, K. ::. (1995). Evaluation e6ics and of
social ;ustke: Contribi:tions from femalt mmal
thinking. In N, K. Der:zir. (Ed.), Stu,Jies in sym,
bollc inuractiM1: A research annual (Vol. 19,
pp. 143-15 I). Grecmvich, , JAL
Sandel, M. J. (1998). Uberalism mu! the limits ofjustice
(2nd ed.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridg<' University
Press.
Scigfr:e,!, C. II. (1996). PragmMism and Ji!mir1ism:
Rewe,wfng t~e socialfal,ri<, Chicago: l:niversity of
Chicago Press.
Shils, E.A. (1949). Foreword. In M, Weber, The me1lmd-
nlogy of the social sdem·,~ (pp. "i-x} New York:
Free Press.
 164 • HANDB001< OF Q~ALIIATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 6
Shop.:s, L. (2000). ln,titutior:a] Review Boards have a
d::!Hng effect on ,1ral history. Ptrspe.t/"1ts onti11e.
Relrieved from www.tl:eaha.org/perspectives/
issues/2000f[}D!l9f0009vir I .din
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic:
A feminist rnciolagy. :loston: ~ortheastern
University Vrei.s.
Soble, A (1978, Octtl:ier). Deception in social scie·nce
res,cm:h: ls infur:ned ,orisem possible? Hasti11gs
Center !/,:port, p:i. 40-46.
Steiner, L ( 1991 J. Feminis; theorizing and co:nmuni•
rnJion ethics. Communication, 12(3), 157-174.
Steiner, L. (1997). A feminist schema fur analysis of
ethical dilemmas. In EL Casmir (Ed.), Ethics i,i
intercu/t!ll'a/ and international anmnunicaticm
(pp. 59 Mt Mahwah, Nf: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taylor, ( 1982 ), diversity oi goods. In A. Sen &
B. Williams (Eds.), Utiiitari,mi,m and /Jeyo11d
(pp. 129-'.44}. Cambriclge, UK: Cambridge
IJnivers'tv• Press .
Taylor, C (1989). Sources of the self: '."he making a(
the modern lde•rtuy. Cam:iricge, 1'.IA: Harvard
l:n ivemty Press.
'lliylor, C. ( 1991 ). The ethics of authet1ticity. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univcr&ity Press.
11iylor, (. I 1995 ). Philo,{)phicai argurmmts. Cambridge,
MA: Ha:-vard Uni~rsity Press,
1l!ylnr, C.. Appfah, K. A.. Haber mas, 7,, Rockefeller,
S, C., Walzer, M., & Wol:, S. (1994). Multirnl-
turafism: Examining !he politic; of recogniticm
(A. Gutr:u:nn, Ed.). Prim:eton, :'!]: Princeton
l:niversil~· Press.
Theunissen, M. (1984). J11e allrer: Studies in th!! social
onrolilgy of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Buber
(C. Mac.um, Trans.). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press,
Tong, R.11989).Femim'sr tlicmght. Boulde~. CO: Westview.
Tnng, R. ( J993). Feminine i;nd feminist e;hfr;. lMrnml,
CA: Wadsworth.
University of I[ inois at Urbana-Champa:gn,
lnstit·.:tional Review Board. (2003, January).
Part !: fundamental pri:1ci;iles for the use of
hu:nan subjects in resear,h. In ilimdbook
itwestigator,; Far the protection afhuman subjects
in rese,irch. t;rbana: Author. ( Available from
www.irb.uiuc,edu J
VandcrpC1r>l, Y. (Ed.), ( 1996 ). Tlie ethics of rtsearch
involving human subjects: facing the 21st centu,y.
Frederic;.:, MD: University Puolish ing Group.
Veatch, R. M. (l 996). From Nurembtrg 1hrough
the 1990s: The priority of autom,my. In :I. ':.
Vanderpool (l'.d.). The etilics of research lrwo/-,--
ing humar. subjects: Facing the 2ls/ ar.:u,y
(p;,. 45-58}. Frederick, '>10: Gniversity Pub'.:shi:ig
Group.
Walzer, :\t ( 1983 ). .\vlirres (!j justice: A defense of
pluraiism and equality. )';ew York: Basic Boob.
Walzer, I.I. ( 19117). Interpreta1im1 aml sorn1J critidsm.
Camb:idge, MA: Harvard Unive~sity Press.
Weber, M. ( l 949a ). The nwaning of ethical neutrality
in sodnlogy :me economics. In M. Wehe,, the
methodology of the social srienas ( E. A. Shi ls &
H. A. Fir.ch. Eds. & Trans., pp. I-47;. :-Jew York:
Free Press. (Original work puh'.:shed 1917)
'Neber, M. (1949b). Objectivity in social science and
social policy: Tn M. We':)er, rite me,hadology o,f tf:e
soriaf sciimres (E. A. Shils & H. A. !'inch, fies. &
Trnns., ;:,p. 50 ll2;. New Y()rk: Pre».
((}rigi~a] work published 1904)
Weber, M. (l 973), Max We&er Dtr univers,fies
(E. A, Shils, Ed. & Trar.s.). Chicago; Univer5ity of
Chicago P,ess.
'II/es;, C. ( 1989). The American evasion ofphi/11.mplry: A
genealogy c:f pwgm,uism. Madison: University o(
Wisconsin P:ess.
Vkst, (1991 ). The ethical dimemian.< of Marxist
though/. :'Jew York: Monthly Review flooks.
We,t, C. (1993). Race matters. Roston: Beacon Prrss.
White, R. (:995). from ethics to public cul
tt:,al trut'i. European fourn,ii of Commwricatiorr.
JO, 441 -41,0.
Wired'J, It (1996). Cultural universals: fi.n Afric,m per•
spective. Bk•oming:on: !ndi.;:ia University Press.
Wood, J. (l 994 ). 141ho Women, care, and culture.
Cartmndale: Southern Illinois University Pre;;.~.
Wysdmgrnd, I:'. (1974). Emmanue! Levfnas: 1/ie prob-
lem of ethical metaph;sks. '.:'h Hague: Mart: ,ms
N'jhoff.
Wyschngrod. ~. ( 1985 ), Spirit in ashes: Hetei; Heidegger,
and marr-made deat/i. Chicag,i: l:n iverslty
Chitai,'O Press.
Wyschogmd, F,, (I 990 ). Scrims and posrmodernism:
Revisfonin.g moral plii/vsophy. Chicagn: 'Jniversi1y
Ch:cago Press.
Wyschngrod. E. (1998 ). An 1Ttl1ics of re:mmrhcring:
History, heternJogy, and the nameless athers.
Chicago: Vniversily of Chicago Pre;s,
7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,H!l½S,h;tlH~,,,,
INSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW BOARDS AND
METHODOLOGICAL
CONSERVATISM
The Challenge to and from
Phenomenological Paradigms
Yvonna S. Lincoln
ualitative research, as exemplified by this
Q Htmdbook, hundreds of other books, and
perhaps thousands of journal articles. has
nol only gained a foothold but bas established
a small stronghold in education and the
and clinical sciences. The number of national and
international conferences, small and large, devoted
to qualitative research and its practitioners has
grown geometrically in recent years, and several
annual conferences are now in their second decade.
As the variety of qualitative methods ::ias
expanded and been refined, paradigms, theoret i-
cal perspective&, and epistemological stances have
been eiaborated (e.g., feminist theory, race/etlmic
studies theories, subaltern and postcolonial ef s-
temologie~. queer theory), and interpretive lens,:s
have been developed (postmodernism, poststruc-
tnralism), increasing r,umbers of practitioners
and would-he praditioners have beer, a:tracted to
tile promise and democratic and pluralistic ethks
of qualitative practices. rhc> indusio'.1ary bent
(}lertens, l 998) and social justice orie1:talion
(see Denzin, Chapter 37, this volume; Lincoln &
Dem in, 2000) of the new sodal science has drawn
a fresh cadre o[ methodologists mn:m itte<l to
seeing social science used for democralic and
liberalizing social purposes.
The resurgence of"high modernism" (Giddens,
1990), however, carries with it a return to some
presumed "golden age" of methodological purity
(and innocence) when broad conser.sus on the
constituent elements of science supposedly
reigned. Voices in the biomedical community
(the Campbell anc Cochrane Collaboratio;1s}
and in the educational research conmunity
bespeak a turn toward «methodological conser
vatism" (Cannella & Lincoln, 2004a, 2004b;
Lincoln & Cannella, 2004a, 2004b).
A recent series of legislative actions and
committee policy changes, howe\<er, may directly
• 165
166 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 7
and indirectly influence paracigmatic and method·
ological issue, in ways unfo,esee:i a scant
dec,1de ago. In mm, qualitative research may be
compromi5c<l or even threatenc<l by the new
r:i.ethodological conservatism behg p,op.igated
ln the name of evidence•b~.sed resea:dt and "sc'en•
tffkally basec educational research:'
Currently, there appear to be four ways w:tich
the work of qualitative researchers and scl:olars
who teach qi:aJtative research pl:ilosophies and
methods is constrained oy the manner w:ikh
new paradigms encounter institutional re\·iew
board (IRB) regulation on camp'J~es: (al increased
scmli ny s·Jrro·.mding research v,·ith b-Jman
suhjcc:s (a response to fa il11res b biomedical
rcsc.irch), (b) new s::rutby of classroom re,earch
and training in qualitative methods involving
human sub; ec:s, (c) ne1v discour!les regarding
what constitutes "evidence•based rese.i:ch;· and
(d) rhe long-tc:-m cffocts of the recent National
Resear,:h Council (NRC, 2002) report on what
should he m1:sidered to be sden:if:c inquiry. After
presenting a brief history of IRBs, I offer below a
sc: of ,uggestions t() help scholars cope with these
constraints in both ,Jualitative research and tnr
leaching of qualitative methods.
1111 A BRIEF HISTORY Of
l:'ISTirU"~·10NAL R::VJEW BOARDS
As I have noted elsewhere, the ''origi:tal impulse to
regulate U.S. sdentifc research fede:,dly followed
World War U and the ~ure• berg trials;' where
testimony regardiag medical a:1d ?Sychological
ex:ieriments performed on priso:iers of w.r and
inr.rntes in the :-.laz: death camps lefc tl:e d,iliiei.:
world reeling with angt.:ish anc horror (Denzin
& Lincoln, i:1 press), :·he Helsinki Agreement was
formt;ated in response to the nightmares uncov-
ered during those trials.
Followir:g closely on the Nuremberg trials,
however, were public revelations a:iout a series of
mtrlical a1:d psychological experiments conducted
in the L'nitc<l S!ates. The puh:ic:ty surrounding
the scandals of the Tuskegee Syphili, S~u<ly, the
Willowhrnok hepatitis experimeub, Project
Ca:nelot in the I9611, (a series of military ar:d Cl A
experin:eals with p,ydmtmpic drugs, im::uding
LSJ, Involving enlisted l:'.S. Ar:ny rccru: :s ), Stan lcy
Milgram's psychological deception studies :nmlv.
i11g deliberately dc:ivcrec. electroshock tortur~,
and the work of social scientists dire;:ted toward
military purposes in Vietnam, particularly ewer!
espionage activit:es, promptec the tederal govern-
men: to undertake reexamination own poli·
and procedures around etllks in human
subjects research. In 1974, the Belmont Report,
which em'::iocied a code for hun:an subjects protcc•
tior.s, was adopted as the standard for overseeing
U.S. Publk Health Service grar.ts and con:racts.
Originally limited to US<:· :n decisions regarding
PHS gra:its, the fc<ler<1I regu:ations anc ethics
1i;.1idelines were ,oon extended to cover all federally
fur.ded research with hu:nan subjects. Eventually,
they came to be applied to all human subjects
research, whether funced or not, under::d:en by
federal grantees, foundation researchers, biomed-
ical rrsearcncrs, and sodal sder.::e and educalional
rrsearchcrs as well.
Although the :ou, broad areas co,ered by
the Hclmont Report (and su b,eque t,t lederal
legislation. includint',, fur example, the Buckley
Amendment)-informed consent, deception, ?r'-
vacy of recmtls, and cm1!1denlia'.ity and protection
of research partici?ants' iden,itics-were a slmag
start for a research ethics rode, the guide:ines as
they are now deployed have failed lo ke.:p pace wi:h
dev1clopmen:s in rc'c~earch melhodolt1gies, parti-
cularly l)llllli:ative an<: artion resean:h melhndn-
logies, with their h:gh emphasis 011 collaborat:oa
betweer: researdters and those researc11_,d, high
levels of interactivi:y, and new ma:1datcs for a
mulated communitarian and democratic ethics in
the tield. In liglu of emergen: epistemologies deeply
rooted in cultural practices but divo,ced from fed·
era: concerns, federal standards for researd: ethics
(as well as newer legislation slldt as the No Cl1i:d
Left Behind Act of 2001) "collice with other lllldcr ~
standings circulating 'n the r1eld of qualitative
research» (Denzin & Lincolr., in ?ress). lr. the face of
this collision, a reexa:nination of t:1c role of 1Riis
\'fa•a-vis tpalilalivc research appc-<1rs t() be critical
at tli is juncture (Denzin & Lincoln, ir: press; see
 Lincoln: IR !ls and Methodological Cot:scrvatism
also in this volume Cheek, Chapter 15: Miller &
Crabtree, Chapter
Ill TEE (HALL~:-IGF.S TO
QuALTTATIVE RESEARCH PosED BY IRBs
---
Im:rea,cd Scrutiny in
Research With Human Subjects
Kew regulations regarding the protection of
human subjects, created largely in response lo
:ragic incidents involving biomedical and drug
testing and in:ormed consent, have acted to limit
or severely constrain what teachers and students
can do as part of classroom training as well as
research (Gillespie, J997}, 'l\vo such incidents-
one death resulting from an experimental proce•
dure in a New York hospital and one from an
experimental drug at John:; Hopkins-were sum-
dent to raise questions regarding whether partic-
ipants in clinical and cxpcrimer.tal trials of drugs
and biomedical procedures receh'<' enough infor-
matio:1, ar.d accurate informatio:i, on informed
consent for:ns to u:iderstand fully the risks
innilved in their research participation, As :i
consequence, any and all researcn with human
s•Jbje:ts. reg,mliess of level of risk, has become
the focus of increased regulation and oversight,
11:J be very dear: Classroom teachers :iavt
always gone to IRBs for approval of class activities
and research training that involves human par-
ticipants outside of class, inc:uding observa;ion
t,n,"t' potential interviewees, and survey respon-
cents, But the arrangements between lRBs and
rl:'seardters in t;:e past were often much less for-
mal than tl:ey are now, and they were assuredly
nol mandated by federal policies and procec.ures.
Tt1da), the question of risk is rarely examined
thoroughly (Gordon, Sugarman, & Kass, 1998) or
tai-en i,ito account in IRB dcl iberations, After cor.-
ducting a series of nationwide hearings with social
scientists, the American Association of University
Profossors (AAUP, 2Ulll} recently conduded that
IRHs are treating the level of risk in research with
human subjects as though it were irrelevant,
althcugh inforn:ation about risk level is dearly vital
11, l o7
to considerations of what harm research is likely to
do, if any: The AAlJP report states that whereas
biomedical and clinical trial research deserves
maximum scrntiny for risk, ma.,y issues in social
science and educational research may need only
expedited review tp, 62). The recen: federal po:icy
di:dsion, announced via the Federal Ree.i,ter, to
,.
remove oral history work frorr: the list of the kines
of projects that must undergo l RB scrutiny is a
tantalizing example of what :nay be a site-by-she
battle around qualitative research :nethods.
An intrigaing sidebar: Many of the inciividuals
tappec. for testi:nony bearJse of their concerns
about new IRB regulations were oral historians
who were worried that their inquiries migh: pro-
voke levels of :-eview not previously e:1countered
in hi,;tory ccparlmenls or historical studies, In a
somewhat stunning :nove, the federal government,
on the recoo:nendation of the National Resea,ch
Council, has simp:y made oral h:story resea,ch
per:mmently exempt from rRB review, im;:H:ting
such little rigor to this work that it is r.ot conside,ed
"social scic:ice" at all, but rather something else.
I will have more to say about this later; fur :1ow,
I simply want to note th<1l this deci,ion, in a:1d of
itself, although :t :1:storians who engage in
oral history research from IRl:l review and there-
fore permits ,he bmadez;t level of academic f1ee-
dor:1 in th.;t resear.:n arena, can be s;;en i!S i:1sultin~
and demeaning to thoSe who do this kine. of work
T:1e most pm:ninenl ef:ect5 of increasec IRB
scrutiny cataloged so far have been the multiple
rere\'lews faculty proposals for qualitalive
research projects and in :he rereviews and denials
of proposed student research (particularly cisser-
tation research) prnjec:s that utiliz.: ac:ion
research and participatory acti1>n research meth-
ods, research in the su:,jects' own settings (c,g,,
high schools), and/or rese-arch that is predon:i-
nantly gt:alitative in nature (although not all
resea:rhers or their ,1udents have this problem;
D. J. Gree:iwood, pemonal communication, 2003 ), 1
I have cited several examples of increased IRll
scrutiny in my own previous work ( Uucoln
& Tierney, 2004), and scholars are collecting
additional examples ev.:ry month around the
country. Qualitative researchers and doctoral
:68 119 HANDBOOK OF QUALITAT:VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 7
students pursuing largdy ethnographic and/or
action research dissertations, however, are not the
only researchers facing si:ch additional scrutiny.
Increased Scrutiny in Qualitative Research
Classroom Training and Course Work
The h'gh-pmfile cases of failed medical proto-
cols and ensuing deaths at two separate teaching
:1ospitals ment:oned earlier have led to renewed
caution on the part of university IRBs a:id the
researchers they serve_ Increased attention to
biomedical research has been accompanied by
increase,; attention to regi;lar course work and
,tadent train'ng. One way in which this sharp-
ened focus has been expressed has been in new
requ:rements s·Jrrounding graduale teachi;1g for
qualitatlve research.
Ir. the past, gra(:uate course work in qualitative
research recuired of a professor little more than an
amicable visit with tr.e IRB on some regular, but
distant, basis-perhaps once every 5 lo 10 years,
unless a cour;;e was radically altered in substance
or presentation. formal procedures were rarely, if
eveL followed, and IRB members were c;uile con-
tent to rec1,ive a complete course ~1llabus outlining
the readir:gs and assignments and de.scribing the
nature of the training students would undertake.
In the past years, li0\'1ever, the relationships
betwren IRBs and professors have been seriously
and profour:dly restructured. Today, professors
who te-.ich qua Iitative methods, and whose assign-
ments require students to nove outside the
classroom and begin practicing observational
and interview skills on their own, are required to
com:,lete the entire IRB protocol. requesting per-
mission even to teach courses in a manner that
permits s:uder:ts to practice the skills they need to
conduct researd: in a trained and ethical way.
'l11e central point o: much of graduate wurk is
to prepare advanced students a:id college-trair:ed
scienl ists and intellec~uals lfi undertake even
more advan.:ed intellectual and scientific explo-
raLion independent their gradua:e ad,,is,,rs--
as is the case in :miversittes and laboratories
around the world. Tie idea that graduate students
may be trained in the ·Jse of nudear reactors, the
application of medical pro,ocols, the techniques
of electron microscopy, or any of the many n~her
techniques they may need tu continue scientific
ei:ploration on the:r own, largely without any IRB
intervention at all, but students must seek IRB
approval to interview professors on campus about
their research in order to become familiar with
interview ledmiques strikes many scholars as
somewhat unreasonable. Although there has been
some explication of the circumstances under
which professors may use students, espedal:y
students in their own classrooms, as research
subjects, particularly when the research concerns
the classroom experience itself (DuBois, 2002;
Hammack, 1997), little guidance is available
ahont what experiena-s students themselws rr.ay
have as part of their formal tra[ning.
I am not referring here to lhe kind of scrutiny
that goes on as a :es;ilt of fae "political cor,ecbu::ss"
battles currently being ,,,aged between the politkal
Right and much of academia based on the perce?•
tion of members of the Rigr.t, or of :he J\ational
Association of Scholars, that Ar.ierican colleges
and universities are indoctrinating students with
lefl-wi:ig ideology (Burri, & Dia.:nond, 1991;
Giroux, 1995). That form of scrutiny and reporting
has far more to do with political agendas aimed at
:imiting academic freedom (Benjamin, Kurland, &
Molotsky, 1985) than it does with research over•
sight. It is, fnrthermore, unofficial and intimidating
in intent. As Giroux ( 1995) points out, ''Many sub-
ordinate groi.:ps argue that the act of knowing is
integrally related to the power of self-deflnition,
which, in part, necessitates :hat more diverse
histor~es and oarrati;,es be included in the currici::-
lum. For many conservatives, :iowever, such indi:-
siveness represents both a call to ;,olitkize the
curriculum and a soda! practke that ?romotes
national disunity and cultu:-al decay" {p. :33).
Although academic freedom is deeply impli ·
cated in this set of arguments and, indeed, is being
represented by political conservatives as a ~casu-
alty of this process" of ?Oliticization and the pre-
sumed lowering of academic standards, the reality
is quite :ikely the reverse. Academic freedom is
under assau:t from the Rights tactics of in:imida-
tion (e.g_, public denunciation, Web sites that !is~
 Lincoln: IRBs and Mcthodolog:cal Lonscrvati,m 1111 169
the names of "ultraliberal" professors, :,ynne
thcney's am:ounced monitoring of specific
professors who do no: support the war in Jraq) and
ongo: r:g nedia assaults on "political correctness"
(D.:v;i:e, 1996; Diamond, 1991; Teller, 1988). In
addition, students and other resident hecklers on
campu sea who shout dowi: unpopular ideas repre-
sent a danger to academic freedom in the fo,m of a
"threat from within;' as Trow ( 1985) aptly puts it.
Kath er, I ar:1 referring in this chr: pter to
sc,utlny that represents increasing activism on the
part of JRtJ structures. For example, when IRR
review reqJi rements we:e extended from public
health research to research involving hurr.an
subjects oncer the National Research Act of
1974, "the original guidelines stated ,imply that
info~med cunsent mui;t be obtained from subjects,
[but] the prese:lt regulations contain a list of six
specific topics which must be disclosed to
subjects" (Gray, 1978, p. 35), The issue of research
rnnduct<:"d within a classroom setting or, more
specificaJ;y, as pa:t of classroom assignments but
not within the classroom or wit!: class members
therr:selves, is a critical one. Hecht (1995) la':iels
this ~ uestiua "\\'hen is it teaching and when is it
resea~ch?" (p. 9), He notes that his own institutior:
acrived at a set of definitions and circunstances
that many other institut irms have nuw adopted:
w;th in the confines a dass ... there ""'"'"'• ~ to
be adec,uatc pr-0,isk:ns for protccling the rights of
~II individual, involved, Whethe, :t happens within
the physical dassroom or outside, both faculty and
srnde'.lts have an arndemi<. responsibility and
obligation to bcha·,,e in certain
Such protcnions, however, are not found wiu,11
a faculty or student actively encour:tcrs individuals
nol en:olled in the class. A:i outsider is n:(Jst likely
unfamiliar wit:1 th.: rcqu:reme:its of the course,
par:kular asoig:mn:n: being accomplished, or :he
pro:crtions availa:ilc through academk cha:1nels.
Further, if the activitv is a research activilY-o::e
' '
where an lsic] sys:cmatic obse,vatiiln or i nte·
rnction i, :nade of human subjects in ,1 ::atural:y
O(CU rr: ng or p11 rp,,sefc:lly manipulated condi ·
tion-lhose lm:nan subjectq be total:y
unaware o' their participation. For theire reasons,
the ... IRB has de:im:d teaching is an ac:ivity tr.at
orn1rs between and amor.g students and teachers.
If :he acLMty is ;o be a re-search activity (as ddincd
above) but is to 12.ke ?lace solely an,ong the
,11Jdents and teachers as part of a recognized
im,tn:diona: process, whcx the studellls and
teachers all know o" the desi!!n and purpose (suth
as through a syllabus m hando·JIJ, activity is
mil wnsidcred researcl: for IRB purposes. If.on the
o:r.er hand, the activity is to involve lndhJ'duals not
stL1denls o, faculty in the course, or is to involve
activities where rhc studem, and/or teachers 11re
unaware their pa~ticipalion (,uch as a faculty
,ysternalically studying their s;i.:aencs r.:spon.~es le
manipulated ccnditio::s) the activ::y would be con-
fide:'l'!d res£arch and suhject tu '.RB and
approval. (?P· 9- '. Ll}
This set of principles-between 1eachers and
students, where the svllabus ~erves as the learn-
'
ing contract, versus between studenh and those
outside the classroom, where participants are
unaware of the specific assign ;nenls, purposes.
and so on-appears ro be the o:ie that guide;,
:nost IRBs reviews of even advanced graduate
dasses in qu c.Etative research today_ Alrhough
qualitative researchers ac,oss the United States
:,aw long engaged with IRHs in disc.issions
the kinds of exercises tha; students IT.av carrv 011:
' '
as part of their c:ass assignments, u:itil recent
years such discussions have been rather infor-
ma:. The paperwork associated with such discus-
sions predoi.:.sly took the form of only class
sylla'::ii, which professors thoroughly disa1s,ed
wi;h ltl.B committee members in arr.icable Hnd
informal conversations pr:or to :eaching their
first classes.
One might argue that, at ieast on some
campuses, the extended I RB rcvie1v that is the
norm todav-often everv ti:ne the same course
' '
is taugh1-l:as a chilling on quali:ative
methods teaching, es;iedally given ;hat no other
courses in methods (e.g., statistics, practice
teaching, medical internships) are subject to such
rigorous oversight. Fur6 er, whereas the whole
o:
issue inadequate protection of human subjects
arose as a result of sorr.e profoundly questionable
medical experiments (such as the Tuskegee
Syphilis Study and the Willowbrook st1:dies ),
ii is difficult to find exam::,les of such egregio;;s
 170 Ill HAKDBOOK OF QUAL:TATIVE RESEAlKH-CHAPTER 7
research conduct in the human or &ocial scie:1 ces.
That is :1-ot to argue that ;;uch is not possible, only
that it has thus far not ha?pened, or is very rare.
Toking the opposite, and equally rrasona::ile,
side of this argument, Howe and Dougherty
(1993) tactfully point out that "a:~hough moral
abo:ninations in soda! research are rare (but con•
s:der Milgram ), ofrter pressures-for :nstance,
pressures to 'publish or per:sh'-are real and
ubiquitous, and one nerd not be a bad perwn to
be tempted to cut ethical comers in response to
them, especially if cutting comers is the nor:11"
{p. 16). Howe and Dougherty go on to arf!ue that
much of qua ii tative research should indeed
be subject to review, for two reasons: the ''open•
ended and intimate" nature of qualitative
research, cspec:ally as it puts researc:1.crs and
research participants into rac:e•to•:ace contact
with each other; and the fact that its open-ended•
ness rrquires that researchers and research
participants negotiate meanings. These charac•
terist:c;s, they suggest, make qualitat:ve research
both more aethically charged and unpredictable
from the O'.Itset" (p. 19).
Although most qualitative researchers wo;ild
strongly agree with Howe and Dougherty's
description,many would also object that too often
the: r research is subject to review by researchers
who know nothing about qualitative res,!arc.t:,
who feel that it is not "good science:' and/ or who
have no special sensitivity to social science
research conducted usir.g qualitative methods.
Some IRBs go out of their way lo ensure that pm
posals for qualitative research are reviewrd by
board • embers who have expertise in nnndini
cal, natural, and field sett:ng~; others make i:o
such efforts. For qualitative researchers, the first
type of re\•iew board rarely presents any problem
for well-desigued, strongly supervised sti:dent
work Vvhe:i the IRB is of the second kind, :iow•
ever, trying to secure approval is frequently a
demnralizi ng endeavor,
New Discourses Around Evidence
IRBs are not always forces for methodological
"purity" or conservatism on campuses, bm they
have been and they can be. When that is the case,
qualitative re searchers may find themselves
subject to an additional set of pressures, as
embodied in the NCR report Scientific Research in
Eductitfon (2002) and :lew discourses emerging
around the topic of what constitutell "scientific
evidence'.'
As long ago as J978, Gray recognized !!lat it is
"desini::ile for research to be considered f,om a
variety viewpoints" (p, 35). Gray was reforring
not only to reoea,ch modes but also to research
audiences, including individuals who themselves
might be considered (at some point) n:search
particip-ants/subjects, and their participation in
de'.iberation& and debates regarding ?:oposed
research projec:s. Althougr: the suggest:or. con-
cerning increased participat:on on the part uf
"community members" (rather than simply other
acade:uic resea:-chers) has not travdrd very far
in many institctior.s (but see Bauer, 2001), the
discourse about modes uf research h~ taker: a
decidedly alarming turn.
The rise of a neocouservati ve and ntxiliberal
discourse (Baez & Slaughter, 2001; Messer-
Davldow, 1993) regarding "political correctness"
o:i ca:npases has been exte11ded anc reco:ifig:ued
!nto a discourse around "~tar.cards' (Giroux,
1995), attaching to the critidsms of Frenrh polit-
kal theories, fe:ninist theories, crit:cal theories,
and gay, race/ethnic, homer, postcolonial, am:
other emerging streams of thought tha: have beer.
so prominent ir: the strident a:tacks or: the "lib-
eral campus" (Parenti, 1995).Although some !:av~
pointed out that it :s a my fa that campuses are
liberal (Bu:ris & Diamond, 1991}, and Parenti
( 1995} has describrd"most co]ege pmtessors and
students ... [as I drearily conventional in their
ideolog;cal proclivities" (p. 20 }, an emphasis on
st1mdtirdsfor research bas arisen from the broader
accusa:ion that multi culturalisr.1 :1a s watered
down standards. The No Child Left Behind Act of
200 I :u:d the more recrnt report of the Nar'm:al
Research Council (2002) on sdrntific research in
education amount to a manifesto conrernir:g the
sta:1dards for "true" scientific research, rsped ally
what should be coruiidered mean 'r:gft:l "evidence"
and what (in the case of No Child Left Beh:ncJ

will be fonded for research and evaluation
purposes.
The NRC {2002} report in particular has sent
shock waves through the educational research
community, supporting as it does "evidence-
based research" anrl randomized controlled
experiments based on dL::tical field trial models.
Although the report does not disa:Jow qualitative
research as a strategy or set of 1;1ethods that • ay
produce evidence fur research purposes. its dear
foc'Js on objectivity and causal connections, as
well as generalizability, indicates a distinctly
11:odemis t and experimental bent that acts to
freeze out inquiry models that take explicit
accoi:nt of alternative epistemo:ogies or the
emergent critiques of contemporary science that
make alternative epistemologies so compelling
and socially trenchant.
Tl:e questions that have been rai,ed regarding
the "IRC (2002) report have less to do with the
"prim.:iples for scientific inquiry" (p. 52} it fays
out than with the report's underlying assump-
tions regarding what constitutes "evidence:• The
report asser:s that two characteristics of scien-
tific inquiry are replication and generalizability
(p, 74), It then takes two examples - Ell'ot
Eis•ner', notion of educational wrmoisseurship
a:1d Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot's qualitative method-
ology for portraiture-and derr.onslrales, using
the NRC's own criteria, why neither of these
well-recognizfd me:hods in educational research
constitutes scientific inquiry (pp_ For the
KRC, evidence is apparently not what is pro-
duced through the processes that Crnnbach and
Suppes (l 969) cescribe in their groundbreaking
work: "The report of a disciplined inquiry has a
texture that displays the raw materials entering
the argument and the logical processes 'Jy which
they were compressed and rearranged to make
fae conclusion credible" (p. 16), Cronbach and
Si::ppes themselves were sufficiently sophisticated
to avoid the particular traps the NRC sets in
limiting what cons:itates evidem:e (primar:ly
quantitative, genera,ed by experimental method,
replicable-never mind that few studies are ever
repl'cated unless they are in high-stakes biomed-
ical or technology-oriented arenas-empirically
Lincc'.n: IRBs am: Methodologkal Conservatism III I71
verifiable). Rather, the NRC's standards concerning
what constitt:tes scientific research are based i:1
the criteria for establishing the rigor of conven-
tional experimental research: internal vrJidity,
external validity {general izab:lit y), replicabihty,
and objectivity. These criteria lrnve been criticized
as inappropriate for phenomenological inquiry
(see Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba,
2000; see also Lincoln & Guba, 1985), anc r.«:e
and ethnic studies theorists, feminist theorists,
and postcolonial and border studies theorists haw
proposed new formulations more appropriate :o
their own inc;uiry concer:-i, as weE as criteria more
meaningfci to the commu:1ities wit!: which they
work (Collins, 2000; Reinban;, :992; Sandoval,
2000; Smith, 1999; S'.anfield & Dennis, 1993).
The claims advanced in the NRC :eport
concerning what constitutes scientific inquiry
function on r:1ultiple levels. First, these claims act
to narrow the range of what is to be consideted
"scientific;' effectively shutting out of th~ scien ·
tific community a wide range of critical and alter•
nate epistemology researchers, By defin;ng
nonexperimentalists as "the Other" and therefore
outsic.ers to tbe commi::nity of scientific research.
the NRC undermines serious ar_d indeed lethal
criticisms of the very practices it proclaims as
''true" science. Philosophers, feminist theorists,
race and ethnic theorists, and alternative pa:a-
digm practitioners have mounted pointed cri-
tiques around two issues regarding the kine of
"scientific ir:quiry" the NRC supports: :ts claims
to knowledge hegemony (Cowen. 1995} and,
indeed, scientific supr~macy; and its claims that
other forms of inquiry. wbilf they may be "schol-
arship" (NRC, 2002, pp. 73-74), are not "science'
because of their inabilit 1· to achieve science's
principal alms of generalizability, disinterested-
ness, objectivity, and replicability. Scholars of all
stripes and political leanings, including such
experimentalists as Lee J. Cronbach himself, have
recognized the inherent shortcomings of con•
ventional scientific inquiry and have rejected the
neomodernist formulation as unachievable and
Hkely impractical in the soda! sphere.
On a second level, the NRC report lends si:pport
to JR Bs in their attemp:S to limit the range of
172 11 HA'-IDBOOK OF QUALITAT'.VE RESEARCH,--CHAPTER 7
acfr,itks that researchers ,:an undertake with
human subjects. As [ have reportrd elsewhere
( :.incnln &T:e,ney, 2004 ), IRBs are rarely favorably
dispos..'<I tow<1:d emergent re5earch methods, par-
adigms, and methodologies (e.g., action research,
partk:patory acti01: ,esearch, constructivist
in.:;:iiries, qu,ditative studies). especially when
these board.~ are constituted prima,ily of hil:d sci-
entists and experincntalists, as :hey have tredi-
tionally heen (ilthough D, J. Greenwood provide,
evidence of l:1e opposite sitt:a:ion; personal c01;1.
mur.icatio1:, 2{)03). In all faimes8, a~ much flf th is
can be blamed on boar<'. mer:1bers' lack of kno.\1-
edge of sud: methocs or their intended usage, as
0.1 scientific "saccrdotalisrn" and a dcsi re to rnain-
:ain a k:nd of secular priesthood of science,
'Whatever the s(,urcc, however, fae effects are the
same. Jast as alternative tpistemologies and quaH·
tative n:ethods are begi:ming to gain a foo:hold in
the social scienct$ am! educali,mal research, the
NRC re;>ort threatens an academic lockout of para•
d:gmatk dissidents a:1d alternative epistemology
practitior:~n. Indeed, some members of the com-
munity strongly supported by :he J\ RC arc suffi-
ciently t:ueatened by alternative ?aradig:n
pract'tione,s to declare: "Theorists of educational
evah:arion such as [here several r.ames are listed,
i:1duding my own I ... have explicitly rejec1ed :his
method l random assignme1:t] _. __ By now, they
have inll,ienced the p~aciice of :nany generations
of young educationa: evabatms and are proba/ily a
major cause of the impoverished current state of
knowledge ,ibout what reform initiatives in
,1merirnn edutatilm have actualfy achieved'' (Cook
& Payne, 2002, pp. 150< 51; emphasis added\.
Although it is unnerving to be blamed for impov-
erishing the "current state uf knowlei:ge" aoout
what works in Amerk~u, edurnt ion, ii i, also
refres:1ing to see an acmission from the "go:d stan-
dard" side of the deba:e that a handful of solid the-
orists have beeo ,espo11sible for such a profound
alteratim: in the scho'.arly landscape,
Th is i:riputafon that certain specific bdividu-
als are ";:irnbably a major cause of the impover-
ished current s!a:e of knowle..ige" does nothing,
however, to open tl:e acaden:y to its pron: isc as a
marketplace of ideas. Quite tl:e op positr: By
defining some social sde:11ists a, pract itloners o:
sdrntific inc, uiry; some as n:erdy schol.irs, and
others as perhaps respo:1sibk· for outright igno•
ranee (Cnok & Payne, 2002 ), the NRC and others
who are vocal in !heir support o" randomized
field tdals (be clinical model for educationa.
research) have a:tempted to re-cceate a dass
system that acts to define some knowledge as
worthy of being utilized to address serious and
weighty issues, such as policy formulation, or 'or
serio;rn parposes such as evaluation funcing,
and other knowledge as oently the purview of
a nonscientific minority whose findings should
not enter into the political fray of po:icy and/or
legislat:ve action. Th:is practitioners of alter-
native paradi~r:i inquiry are o:iliq·,1elr defined as
dilettantes, scholars of no consequence, or, as
one scholar has ace,hkally put !t, "not good
enoug:i to ?lay with thr Big Boys:'
On a third level, the aggrandizement u: the
power to define whe.: should be coi:sidered ,cie:1-
:ific and what should nut lo " rather smaJ: group
of individuals represents precisely the reifkatkm
of a nurr:ber of substantial cr:ticisrr.s of foe prac,
tkes of convenfamal inqu:ry, including r:1aintc•
nance of slat:is, power, and privi legc for a few;
main:cnancc of the stat'Js quo, part:c.llarly with
regard to the coJntcrdaims of knowledges ~:id
ways of knowing faat are outside of the
Eurocentric and freqt:ently patriarchal "Western
c,u:,m"; and a limiting of the {Hversily and £1pen-
ne,s tha: a plurn:istic rndety need., to flourish.
A community of S?ecialized elites is rci nsn ibed
by the public assertion of a s: ngk, tn:e way-:he
~gold star:dard"-of conducting scientific :mJniry.
As Trow ( 1985) describes it, fron: anolher and
more ;:iolitical context:
Memb(>rship in s11,·h communl:i,s is ¥cry com•
fortable and Te'A'arding; it oik1 gives one a sc::sc
of persoiml worth and sccuri: y...• llut t::r good
:eacher and ef:ecli'lc university environment du
Dlll make tile milrc rnrnfortablc, bt1t on the rnn-
:rary, make ii less rnn::ortable ·~, cha'.'.enging
positions that students already l:u:d. And by cJ:a].
lengir:g polihal a::d slldr.'. pieties, higher et!ucil-
tlon a:ways tl:xatcns todisn:pt the communit:es o'
p,utisaos thal live br r'lc:ori.:, slogans, hymbub :i:

unity and a claim ma m,mop()i)' QI'! the lrulh, (p, 64;
em:,hasih ads:cd)
On a fourth level, such dedarations must be
taken seriously because uf their ability, directly
ana indirectly, lo lfmif itiscussiom <m individual
campuses concerning what wmtitutes disciplined
sden;itk 'r:c;u:ry and, therefore, what studies are
approved IRBs and which researchers find that
their academic freedom to engage in significant
research on soda: problerr.s may be curtailed or
abrogated altogether. The KRC report acts as a
kind of political barometer, albeit one that mas-
querades as a disinterested ,me objective "scien-
tific" barume:er, that indicates the extent to which
a given stt:dy may be classified as scientific or
nonscientific and, therefore, even worthy o: IRt!
review. h:deral :'unding (as in the No C!-1ilc Left
Behind Act), or federall>· supported research and
evaluation activities.
0ml history is a case in point. As noted
above, oral histo,y is now classified as some othe~
form of scholarly e:iterprise, so far removed from
science that even though it deals exclusively
with h;imans, it is automatically exempt from IRB
review_ Such c:assification-as sntllcientl)' far
removed fror:i t'1e scientific enterprise that schol •
ars u~i11g this mrthod needn't evcn bothe:- with
IRB review-is apt to make some important
studies (e.g.. the history of reform in a particular
school as rewunted by a former principal, a life
history of practice in the tea.:hing profession, th,
recounting of a scholar's experiences in entering
and navigating tl:e corr:rnu:i:ty of science or acad-
emia, an 1\frican American woman's experie11ces
of growing up h the ,egregated South) fall out-
side tb: purview of mc,rn ingful or critical ~:10wl-
cdgc. "la,row definitions of scienti::c inquiry-
dnd evidenct-serve ultimately to circumscribe
painfully and dar:gerousiy the range of what is
considered useful knowledge a:id, consequently,
to ;lm it the k'.nds of studies snpported by a
range of admin',trative and rnanagrrial struc-
tures, indudi ng IRBs, funding agencies, found a·
tions, and state governments and agencies_ The
long-tt::-rn results are systemic constriction of
academic freedo:n (for individual researd:ers)
L: 1m1'n: urn~ and Methodological Co:iservalism 111 73
(Akker, 2002), a seeping loss of :nst:tutional
autonomy (for institution~ of higher educatior: ),
anc a loss of needel! epistemological pe:11pectives
on ?ersistent social ju,tkt: issues,
Long-Term Effects the NRC Report
The nev, c:.,coursc on "evidence ·:.ased
resea:-d,"-as well as ''evidcncc-ba~ed teaclrir:g"
(Pressley, Duke, & Boling, 2004 l, "evidence based
mecldne; and other arenas where ..,,,.,u,,,n is
considered the "gold s:a:idard"-obscurcs the
larger discourse of what rvidem.:c, wh :ch ev l-
dence. whose evidence, evidence gathered under
what drcumst.:1nces, evide11ce gathtrec for what
uses, and fur whom, shall be considered worth-
while, and thereby usable. No reaso;rnble imlivid-
ual would argue that c'.inical field trials, or
rnndomi1.cd experiments, do not have sound
purposes under some conditions. Double-blind
exper:nents have proven efficacy in testing ?har-
maceutkals, and some kinds of clinica'. lr:als of
medical protocols have proven the effi!ctive:tess of
revolutionary new therapies. Hut such random
ized treatment procedures cons:itnte a fairly
narrow appEcation of scientific :nethod by them.
selves e.g.. Howe, 2004; Popk<:1vitz, 2004; see
also House, Chapter 42, t:1is volume)_ Kever-
theless, :he \JRC (2002) report comes rnther
closer to a "manifesto" on what consl itutes sckn-
tifc truth (Po?kcwitz, 2U04) t::an ii does to a
0
reasoned argu:nent that takes into account :h,·
many varieties of recognized cpiste:nologies and
methodologies abroad in the social sciences
today. The :na1:y levels of uni:xamined assmnp-
t:uns in the NRC report itsel:-it is no misrepre-
sentation to call 1t a mar:ifesto-cast it dcarlv
into the catego:y of an ldeologkal statement. '
'.'.'o take one example, consider the question of
knowledge fer whom, It is dear, on multiple :ead-
ings of the report, that the :',!RC assumes :hat
the major "consumers" of scientific research, parti-
cularly scicn:ifk research in education, are ofaer
scientists and the policy community. Th is as.sump·
tion is true of others as well (Mos,eller & Bomc:i,
2002). Although :: is no doubt trJe that other sci•
enlis,, and academ:c researchers, as well as :,olicv
. '
l 74 Ill HANDBOOK 011 Q:JAU TATrVE RE.SE ARCH-CHAPTER 7
community mem':irrs, are major consumers of
educational and other social science research, it
is nor inappropriate to consider community
members also as users and consumers of research.
With an increasing amount of political and soda!
actio:1 now emanating from local- level agendes
and com:n·J:1::y organizations, it is not unreason•
able to expect that communities themselves
(b:oadly defined as neighborhoods, municipali-
ties, organizations, and other coherent grou;:,s)
will want to have access to inforoation, data,
knowledge, and interpretations regarding their
own circumstances and possibilities for action,
As communities acquire systematic information
about themse:ves, they are empowered to par•
hdpate in designing their own futures and to
take action where it i, meaningful: locally, If
the assumption, however, is that scientific (or
other systematic) social knowledge belongs to the
know:edge•production community alone, then
social action is curtailed in favor of official action,
Democratic partidpatior: in social change, espe•
da]~, social change on behalf of social justice, is
impaired or disco·.1:-aged altoge:her. If method-
ological conservatisn: is not challenged, it ca:1 have
the effect 'J:tder:nining a democratic polity.
The NRC report's focus on "appropriate"
inquiry methods (as opposed to those used by
Eisne~, Lawrence-Lightfoot, and many postmod-
ern theorists, to name some of those whose work
the NRC rejects from lbe i,.tnoply of accep:able
"science"), e5pecially when fo:-tified with legisla
live :n!eul to fund nothing but experi:nental and
random assig:unenl research and evaluation
sti:dies, creates a discourse that seeks to disci..
pline, govern, a:1d regulate (Bloch, 2004) the prac-
tice$ of research as wel1 as the practitioners of
research ( Cannella & Lincoln, 2004a, 2004b;
Lincoln & Cannella, 2004a, 2004b; Lincoln &
Tierney, 2004). Suen conservatism, especially
when repeated and reir:s,:;ribed in the practices
uf local institutional IRBs, disciplines scholars
either by forcing them to use research designs
that are inappropriate to the questions they raise
(a matter of fit: see, for instance, Lincoln & Guba,
1985) or by su bjecring them to multiple reviews
in which they must define and redefine the nature
of the "probltms" proposec, often until the
,esearchers simply give up ar.d abandon those
particular studies,
Methodological conservatism governs by
presc:-ibing a set of practices that are to be con-
sidered norrr:ative and standard, and relegating
all others to subsidiary status, freC:uently with
the threat of dis approvaL Such conservatism also
regulates by ensuring conformity to certain sets
of practices and disconraging nonconformity 1:iy
dismissing some forms of inquiry as "dangerous:'
"unscientific;' or harmfcl to the institution. In one
actual case of which [ am personally aware, :be
chairman of the IRB made it quite dear, when
challenged. that his first responsibility was to pro-
tect the institution from any untoward event. This
is, of course, a complete perversion/inversion of
what human subjects protection laws were cre-
ated to do. Although the institution's reputation
and integrity (as well as its standing with fuJJding
agencies) must be protected, the purposes of the
IRB are :o ensure freedom from ha:m for human
suJ~ eels, to establish the likelihood of beneficence
for a larger group (of simUar research partici-
pants), and to ensure that subjects' rnment lo
participate in tJ-1e research is fully and authenti-
cally informed.
Mea:iwhile, some forms of dismissed or
disapproved research might well be classified as
"innovative , . , or novel nor.valida~ed practices"
(Schaffner, 1997, p. fi) that have the potential to
lead to new insights or theoretically advanced for-
mulations, even by adherents of 'gold standard"
scientific method. The power of this methodolog-
ically consen-ative discourse to interrup: :he pur •
suit of serious social insight cannot and should
not be underestimated, for the discourse itself
encodes a set of political assump:irms regarding
the nature of truth, the kinds of researchers who
are able to deJver this "truth;' ar.d the kinds of
findings that will be admitted into the policy
arena. Conflic:Ing, contradictory, a:ld contested
findings will not gain admission and will :ind few
audiences. The emphasis on causal inference will
short-circuit other forms of expfanatoq• power
and, conseguer:tly, lead ro less, rather than more,
deep unders:anding of social and educational

m lc:'oproccsse,, especially the pmccsses uf
oppression, ir: justice, economic and educational
failnre, and discrimination.
The "quick fix" focus on "what works;' rather
1ha1: on the patient and thoroug.1 work that leads
10 grea:e, unders,anding of what is at work, wnl
ultl mately prove a chimera. "What works" is a
mythical beast, and the seard1 for this beast
leads us farther and farther astray, •.way from
research that addresses ser:ous liberatory aims
with a pc:rpose-driven social ,-,,:E<.e,
II PITTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ON
QUALITATIVE RfsEARCH FROM
.M STHOJ01DGICAL CONSERVATISM
That the rising chorus of opin:ons from c:,;peri-
men:alists and methodological conservatives has
led to serious constraints on co unkrdiscourses is
no: in couht The outcry from the research com
munity has been strong and steady (Cannella &
Encoln, 2004a, 2004h; Lincoln & Cannella, 2004a,
2004b; see also two er.tire issues of Qualitative
b1quiry, vol. :o, nos, I and 2, 2004, for commen·
tary from many segments of the educational
research community}. The stakes art: high, espe-
cially :or qualitative researchers. Further, the
amount influer.ce on lRBs of statements such
as the NRC report is, at presem, unknown. The
largely conservative bent of many local IRBs,
however, particularly in their mistrJst of action
research, participatory act:on r,:,earch, and other
"experience-neat" projects, suggests that method•
ological cmw.:rvi:ism will reestablish itself firmly
on some campuses unless opponents undertak<c
proactive educative i:Jtervention. Some of thls
reeslablishrnen: am already be seen in contextual
rnr:straints that are currently in operarion, as I
descrbe below.
Cons!raint I: Oversight of graduate training. ror
exar:1ple, whereas academics who teac:i slal istkal
research methods are not constrai:ied in how or
what they teach, professors who teach qualitative
research methods now must undergo full IRE
review of the i:- proposed courses. Iimit (probably
Linccln: IRRs and Methodological Conservatism 111 175
correctly) the populations with which students
may work, an('. suhn1it extensive paperwork veri-
fying the stucies to be cione, the studies com-
pleted, and the populations sought both before
and after they teach the ronrses, The slightest
cr,or in protocol can now have the effect of pre·
venting a required g.iaduate-level research prepa-
ration course :rom being taugh: at all. This may
have a somewhat chilling effect on the issues that
students car: raise in their research and on the
kinds of uiscussions that normaay take place in
dassroums around prob:ems that stucier.ts fa.:e in
the com:nunities outside of academia. Two issues
are at stake here. First ls professors' ability to
teach what fl:ey believe 70 be important and/or
critical topic areas fo~ students who will also join
fae academy. Second is the limitation placed on
the nature of st:idies that i.tudents can do, for
example, in school.s, although a large number of
students who go through education doctoral pro-
grams are likely to back into schools, where
they must conduct studies, assessments, testing,
and other forms of research virtually on a daily
basis, lf they do 1:ot receive training :n these are-
nas frorr: tfficher, who are familiar wil:1 ethical
and protocol is~aes, from whon: wi[ they receive
appropriate socialization (Wo:f, Croughan, & Lo,
2002)?
IRB approval processes now also art to li mil
tile kinds of research, as well as the research
methodologies, that students may employ in their
doctoral dissertat:on work The I RBs in some
institu~ions often disapprove newer ~trategies
such as action research, pa ,tkipatory acion
research, and research in, fur exa:nple, a teacher's
own district or school-eve1: when such research
is both desired and approved by the district-level
IRH. ln my own previous work, I have repo~ted on
a number of instances in which student work was
turned down by car:1pus-level IRBs even though
the work was requested by school districts
(Lincoln & Tierney, 2004),
Between federal i:nperatives for how research
projects shodd be designed and IRB scrutiny and
disa?proval of nor.conventiona: forms of inquiry,
qualitative re~t:arch is i::1dergoing radical challenge,
The stark politicization of research and its methods
 176 II HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 7
no doubt poses the gravest threat lo qua! itative
researchers tha, has been seer. in the past half
century:
Concerned resea:chers can 'JSe several strate-
to CO'Jllter this problem, First, they must be
active with their own institutional 1RBs, whether
by communicating with the boards on a regular
basis or by agreeing to serve on them (Cannella,
2004 ), as some of my colleagues have done.
Nothing appears to work so well as servi:tg an
educat:ve function, not only to strdents but to
colleagues as well. Those of us on campuses with
la~ge hare science, engineerlng, and ag,:c'Jlture
complexes freqcent'.y find that [RBs are ciomi-
nated by members from these units, most of
whom kr.ow little about soda! sdenti:ic method,,
processes, and questions, or almal emerging par-
ad[gr:1~ in lne social sciences, Efforts to enhance
board men:bers' awareness of con:peting
digms for scient:tic i:lquiry are virtually always
rewarded with increased sophistication. Active
members whu p:ovide other membe:s with
opport:.irJties to '.earn about alternative episte-
mologies, resear.:h methods, special problems in
international reseaxh, ,me. research with indige-
nous peaples (e.g,, the American Anthropological
AsMicfotion has created a stunning database of
thoughtfui pieces on ethics work wi:h indige-
nous peoples) create IRBs that are educated about
and respo:islve to n:ul:iple frameworks and
multiple me~hods.
Constraint Improper '<!View of faculty researc/1.
Just as IRBs sometimes improperly review tne
proposals o:' students who wish to unde:take
research utilizing newer and more participatory
methodologies-that :s, the urns conduct their
reviews witn inappropriate c,h:eria in mind-
faculty ,esearch is likewise in jeopardy from IRB
members w:10 lack the training or sopl:.istkation
to make appropriate scientific judgments. An
llllCerlying principle of academic freedom is that,
in conducting researd1 wherever they believe the
critical c.uest'ons He, faculty will exercise care,
tnought, and due diligence in se:ecting the research
models and me:hodo:ogies !hey believe will best
answer the critical quest:ons. IRBs, however,
sometimes d:c:ate oilier research strategies that
the researchers who are proposing the work betieve
to be inadequate or :nappropriate. This happened
prior to the publication of the :,.JRC report,
and there is some danger that it will happen with
more frequency now that the NRC ha, created a
discorrse that serves to r,11ulate and govern what
is d~med"scientific~ and what is not
A critical principle of academic freedom is at
stake in this discourse. If academics are no longer
quite as free to utilize the models and metr.odolo-
gies they bcl'eve to be the most efficacious for
answering critical sodal ,cience questions, the:i
a portion of the principle o: academk freedom
has been compromised, Vigilance 011 the part of
concerned researchers, as well a, sDme er:1pi :'cal
studies examining whid: research projects are
approved anc whic11 de:,jec by IRiis from campus
to campus, is r:ecessary to determine ;,hether
this aspect of acadenic freedom is at risk and,
if so, lo wl:al extent
Constraint Threacs w instiruti<mal autonomy.
The extent to whiC:1 the NRC repurl will int1uer:ce
lornl IRBs is rnr:ently unknown and theoretically
unknowable, Certainly, criticisr:i of :he report,
which has issued from :nany quarter,. is not likely
to be da:npe11ed over time, espeda[y as individ-
ua: researchers see their options for conducting
res<"arch :nd acquiring ex.ternal fund:ng limite<l
by both tl:e rcpo:t and the No Child Left Behl:id
legislation. Ir seems likely that on some campuses,
IRBs will use the NRC re::iort to support the kines
of decisions they have made all along-lhal is, to
deny project approval for resea~ch that does not
fit with experimental, quasi-experimental, or
ot.,er conve:itional models.
The NRC repo,t has the potential to politicize
the rRB review orocess further if co!lcerned
resean:hc,s do nothing. ·:'he d isrnurne around
"standards" for rt'search obsn:res the ideological
persuasions of conventional inquiry:, shroudi:ig
ideology as it does in the language of objectivity.
disi:iterest, rafamality, and random assignment
(Lincoln & Carmella, 2004h; Wei:,~tein, 2004).
This discourse con fron;:s liberatory social science
with tl:e j'accuse of "advocacy!' a tactic that

effectively disguises the particular and pernicious
advocacies embedded in terms sucb as rationality
and objectivity and the standpoints of those who
evoke rationality and/or objectivity.
Although It has long been assume..i that JRBs
are strictly, or at least primarily, local oversight
groups, and therefore a part of the local decision
making that accrnes lo instil utions as loci of
knowledge creation, the NRC report jtopardfaes
that traditional institutional autonomv bv "disci•
' '
plining"(in a Foucaulcian sense) what constitutes
acceptable research and, therefore, who has the
right to practice it. Con~quently, whether they
believe it is necessary r:.ow or not, institutions
should give some thought to resisting the
National Research Council's role in dictating
rese-&rd1 methodologies to those responsible
creating knowledge. At a minimum, institutiuns
should be protesting as well as lobbying against
the particularly narrow provisions of the No Child
Left Behind A.ct, which prevents the use of federal
funds fur research that falls outside any but the
r:iost limiting criteria for inquiry.
To the exter,t that IRBs themselves resist the
:JRC's ir.tellectually limited definition of scientific
inquiry, institutions will have leverage in the fight
to protect institutional autonomy. To the extent
:hat IRBs are «captured" by this pinched and
illiberal discursive strategy, institutions will have
lost gror.nd in the battle for autonomy and self-
determination, lndeed, as Neave (1996) observes,
there is "a growing chorus amongst political pa::-
ties, anxious to rally a skeptical electorate to their
flagging programmes, whicb holds academic free-
dom and institutiunal autonomy as examples of
unjustified privilege wielded by the 'producers',
i.e.. by the academic ~.,.,.,,'(p. 263). This descrip-
tio!l mos: assured! y fits with current neocoaserv•
ative efforts to "tame :iberal faculties" and rein in
their presumed power. If institutions peroit this
to happen, they will surrender all pretense ofintel-
lectual freedom for faculty (Verbkskaya, 1996 ).
Cimstraint 4: Inappropriate decision making in the
weighing of risks and benefits. One direct role
IRBs has always been, under current legislat:on,
to weigh the risks and benefits of proposed
Lincoln: IRBs and Methodologial Conservatism a 177
research. Any risk to human research participants
has to be outweighed, or at least counterbalanced,
by potential benefits, not only to participants
bu: also to a number of assumed and projected
audiences (Amdur & l:!ankert, 1997; Howe &
Dougherty, 1993; Oakes, 2002: Olivier, 2002;
Pritchard, 2002; Wagner, 2003; Weijer, 1999). As
noted above, in one case I have reported on previ-
ously, a professor who spoke with his institutional
IRB on behalf of a student's dissertation research
was told in no Ullcertain terms that the IR1l
sought to "protect'' the institutitJn before it pm-
tected the hur:1an participants who were suppos•
ed'.y at risk (Lincoln & Tierney, 2004). Nor were
the board members ashamed or in any way
embarra~sed by this admission. Although it is
su:ely the case that [RBs protect institutions
(from lawsuits, from researchers who conduct
haphazard or sloppy or unethical research)-and
should do so-protection of tl:e institution is
assureed to ht' a by-product of the oversight and
review process, not a prir:111ry goal. The weighing
of risks and benefits is presumed to be directed
toward research subjects and scientific findings.
The intent of the law, one presumes, i:, tu protect
human subjects th::ough this risk assessment
process, not to ensure that the university's gene:-al
counsel has a nice day:
1:rntitutions can use several strategies to
counter this kind of misguided dedsion rr:aking
on the part of IRBs. Clear guidance for !RB
members regarding the law and their roles in the
review proces, from superordinate supervisors
who are themselves well versed in the legal rami-
fications of research activities will hdp. Periodic
training for board rr:embers-perhaps each time
one group exits !RB service and another group
enters-can counter the kind of groupthink that
may lead the:n to believe their role is to a,:t solely
on behalf of the institution. Continuing 1:duca-
tion, perhaps in the fora of workst.O?S each
semester, can help to keep !RB members informed
of their proper roles. Institutions can also help to
prevent IRBs from tilting in favor of iustiti::tional
protectioniso rather than human subject prot.,c-
tion by assuring that 1R1l membe:-ship inc: :ides
balanced numbers of repre~ntative.s from the
17R III HA"IDllOOK OF QUALITAT!VE ilESEARCrl-CHAPTER 7
hard sciences, the soda! sciences, the humanities,
and medical research :inits.
ID1 THE CHALLENGES OF QUAUTATIVE
RESRARCH TO ETHIC., RbGllLXJ'IOKS
At this moment in h:slory, a concatenation
forces kd by th1: "co:1servative cultural logics of
nro-libcralism" (Denzin & Lincoh:, in press)
seeks to shape a definition of inquiry that pre-
dudes n:·Jltiple paradigms, epistemologics, and
theoretical pers';)ectives from the pol icy arenr,.
The constraints on qualitative scholars take sev-
eral form~: constraints on what they r.rny teach
and on what classroom activiries require IRB
review, constraints on the kinds of research :ney
may mnduct, constraints on institntim,al ,.;1ton-
omy, ar:d cons:raii::s related to IRBs' weighing of
risks and benefits, as concerns about protecting
human su :,Jects are s·.ibordi natcd to cor:ccrns
abuul avoiding legal actions against the ir:sti~u-
tion. Tl:ese co:istraints on methodology are inter-
active, aud .1ll coalesce in a context in which
federal hitiativcs a: med at regi,; fatting, governing,
andior disc: pl ining tl:e discourse around "what
works" and definitions of "evidence" and "scicn•
tific inquiry" constiti;~e ge1:uine threats lo acade·
mk freedom, to continued federal funding for
research. to :ree a:td open inquiry, a:id to im:ivid
ual researcher integrity in cetermidng best prac-
tices for pursu: ng research quesl ions.
More i:npor;ant, these conservative discourses
act to stamp out il:q uiry-partkularly, !mt not
exd usively; qi;.a] :tative inquiry-aimed at democ •
~atic action and liberatory, anlioµpre,sive, ,ocial
jcstice-oriented aims. Thev also act to silence
voices th;d have only in the past quarter century
begun to be heard in ar:y great num~1ers-voices
of the poor, of the members of underrepresented
groups, of rhc disa:)\ed, the oppressed, and post•
colonial peoples, among ofhers. For conspiracy
t:1eorists. ii is no large '.cap to see a conncc:ion
brtwi,cn the rise of nonma;o:ity scholarship and
current conservative backlash. Faludi (1991)
has carefollv explicated the back lash that women
experienced wncn their gains in the Job ma:ket
a:td legal 2.rcnas th :'l:atcncd fac status quo. 7he
,o-calkd culture v,.irs, kc by Lynne Cheney and
members of the l\atlonal Association of Scholars,
a:nong others, n:presents a backlash against
challenges to the Eurocentric k110w!c(:gc of the
Western canor: (D'Souza, 1991; Graff, •W2) and
ef:ort, to expand awareness of non-Western liter•
al ures and phi;osoph:es on c.unp~1ses arnunJ the
::iation as a consequence of rap'd globalization_ Yet
ar:other backlash is currently taking place against
the rights achicvrd by nonheterosr:-:ual indili:-
cuals, as illustrated by :he drive 10 "protect
marriage» that has led to a proposal 10 amend the
U.S. Constitution. In light of the startling gains
i::i visibility and stature of altern3tive paradigm
practices and prac:itione'1i in the past decade,
it s:10uld neither surprise nor shock anyone
thar a nacklash is taking plaCT' against qua Ii.
tativc ar:d other alternative mcthooolog;es and
cpiskmolog'es.
The current challenge for ,Ju.ditative resear-
chers is lo work toward legal and pollcy cila:iges
faat reflect the reconfigured relationships of
qualitative re.~earch. These new relafamships are
cooperative, mutual, democratic, open-ended,
communitarian. They are highly inmmpatible
with the asymmetrical power, lnformed mnsen:,
risk-beneficence model of research ethics cur-
rently :n force. Part:cipatory. justice-
orien:ed social science demand, a research ethics
atl'Jned to the postmodern, postfoundational,
poslcolonial, ,md globalized ir:guiry environment
of alternative paradigms.
As :he ground rules for trade, cco:rnmics.
diplomacy, and education shift, so should the
grm:nd rdes for conducting research. As we move
toward a postco:onial,global:led. "McDonaldized"
(Ritzer, 1996), homogenized, rnrporatized 'Worlc
order, there is some da:iger that, for the purposes
of rationalization and in the uar:1 e nf r:mdcm ity,
legislation regarding research ethics wiL become
frozen where it now s:and,;, The system tha1 exists
now in the United States, which is nighly appro-
priate for the decade in wh:ch lt was forged, was
outgrown and inadequate once pheno:nenologi-
cal philosopl:ies began to permeate the inquiry
environment and once c;ualitative researd1ers

re all zec they were dealing wifa far more than a
shift to a separate set of methods (Lincoln &
Guba, 191\9). Reformulated rdationsbps between
researcher and rese-«rchcd, the potential for trad-
ing and sharing roles between them, and t!le
mandate to exercise moral discretion regarding
the purposes ar:d represen:ations of soda!
inquiry (::ne, Weis, Wesee:i, & Wong, 2000)
re.created resea:-ch in the image uf democracy,
care/caring, and soda! justice.
(learly, the curren: system is not attuned to t:1 e
needs, purposes, concerns, or ,clationships r:uw
being gci:crated by postmoder:1 and poststmc-
tura: critical inquiry of a variety of paradigr:is,
perspectives, and models. 11 see:ns unlikely,
even with the rcasscrtim1 of a moderr:ist s,ancc
nn the part of the 'Jationai Research Council, that
partidpalur y, anlihegemonic im;uiry will quidy
go away Its practitioners and theoreticians deeply
int:.iit the com:nunitarian qualities of su::h
inquiry, and, l,aving switched episttmological
cu:nmunities from the academy :o the comn:ur1i•
ties they see thcm!lclV<'S as serving, they will not
n:adily reado?t outmoded standards for researc:1
ethics.
The axiulogical chalknge for this new episle•
mological cor:1munity will be to fir.cl tt:e means
not or. ly to influence their own TRHs (f.r instance,
on how to present argum('nts to o:1e's own !RB,
see Lneek, Chapter 15, \·olume J but also :o
effect a shift in legislat km, policy, and legislative
inten:. Tr.at will be :w task. It will require
activism of a <lifft>renl sort: not in Ihe field, but
rather in the of power, I:1 the cur:-ent neolib-
eral ?inched and conservativt environment, it
seems nearly impossible to begin ,uch a conver-
sation. Nevertheless, q11alitati11e ,eM:archers must
undertake ii, because, as always-whether in
technology, ,ciencc, or social science--practicc
has far outstripped policy and dialogue.
Concer:ted scholars are likely to find that
thoughtfal ai:alysis of the issues,careful stra:egiz-
:ng, ar:d thinking globally while acting locally are
:ht: best strategies for countering these narrow,
illiberal discoi:rses. And local I RBs are good
places to begin a rnun:a[y edu,:ative and liberal-
izi:lg process.
Lincoln: IRBs and Me:hod,iiugkal Consc:v~ tism JI 17':!
li!l NOTE
1. By rere1•iews, I mean multiple :eviews that at1:
conducted as the rcs:i:t of an !;I.B's denial of permis•
sion to conduct proposed research because of what the
IIUI ,eliev,,., to be inappropriate ~ ethodology. In such
a case, the urn te::s the researcher to prn\·ide "addi•
lional clarification;• whi~h :nay range fmm ::,:imarily
trivial changes tn major revisions in the research plans.
JIii R".+,RENCES
A:;.ker, J. (2002 }. Protecting academic freedom \rnrld-
wliie. Academe, 88(3 ), 44-45.
An1d~:r, It J., & l:hmkcrl, E. ( 1997), Continuing l RI!
review when rc:;ca;ch activity is limited to :Ull •
tine fo:Jow-~;:, evaluahcns. IRB: r:rl1ics and
Human Research, 19(1), l~I I.
American As.,ociation of t:nivcrsity Professors. (2001 ).
Protec:ini; human beings: lnstitutonal review
hoards and social science research. Academe,
87(3), 55-67.
B., &: Slaughte:, S. [200 I). Acadmiic freedom and
the federal ;;a·~:ts in the 1990s, The :egitimation
(lf tl:c mn servative entreprentu ri,d sta:e. l" I, C
Smart (Ed.), Hiy,Jier edr1rntim1: Hand/wok ,1j
themy ,wd reseim:h ( Vo:. 16, pp. , l 8 ).
l',;cw York: Agarhon.
Bauer, I'. E. (200 l )•.;. few ,imple 1mths about your
cummuni1y JR 3 members. l RB: E1Jii.:3 ,m,1
ihrnHm Restt{n:h.13( I )i 7-i't
]enjamin, 11., Kurland, J.E., & Y,olotsky, L [ ( 1985). 011
'',r,,-,,,,;,•v in acadern ia" academic frcc,lont
Academe, 71(!'>), 4.
B:o,;h, M. (2!J04).A discourse that disciplines, gowrns,
and regulates: The National Research Council's
report on sd~ntilk research in education.
Qualitariw, Inquiry; 10'. I), 10.
Rurr:s, V.. & Diamond, S. (199 l). Academic freeclmn,
ronspkuous benevolence ar:c:. :he N<1tl:mdl
or
Association Scholars. Criiical Soda!ngy, 18(3),
125-)42.
Canr:ella, G. S. {2004;. Rtgulatory power: C:Jn a ftini-
nist poststrm:turn::~t engage in research over-
sigh:c Qualitative inquiry. llJ, 233- 245.
Car:::dla, G. S., & Lincoln, Y S. (2004a). Dat.grrous
discourses IT: Comprehending and rnunlering the
redeployl1"ent of di,nmrs<!S (and resources) in
the generation of lil:irr2t;,ry inquiry. Quaiiuuive
Jnq;;iry, 10, 165- l 74.
 180 llll HAt-DBOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER i
Cannella, G. & Lincolr., Y. S, (2004b). Epilogue;
Claimi:ig " critical public social
reconceptualizing and redeploying research.
Qu.1ii1a1ive liiquiry, rn. 29ij-309.
Collins, P IL (2000). Blackfim1inist Thought: Knowledge,
consdousness, and the politics of empcrwerment
(2nd edJ. :-lew York; Routledge.
Cook, T. n, & Payne, M. R. (2002). Objecting In t'le
objections to using random as,ignr:;ent in edoca•
tional research. [n F. Mos:eller & R Bor::ch (Eds.),
Evidence matters: Randnmiwd trials in educa•
tion research (pp. '150-• 178). Was'1ington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Cmven, R C. (I 995, Ju~.e 20). Sden:ists rally to qcell
anti•sdence political movements. Chris!ian
.'icience Moniior, p. 13.
Cronbach. L.J, & Suppe,,P. (]969). R,$t!arch for tamor·
rows schools: Dlscipiintd ina,uirv in e,iucation.
New York: Macmillan.
Denzin, N, & Lincn:n, Y. S. I.in press). Preface. In
Y, S. Lincoln & N. K. De::rin (Eds.), lRRHm,i qua!•
irmive researc~. Vl'alnut Creek, CA: Alta~fira.
Devine, P, I', ( 1996).Acad.:mic freedom in the postmod•
ern world.Public Affairs ()uacterly, JG, 185-201,
Diamond, S, (I 991, f'ebruary). Reader!, wri:in', and
re;iressin'. Z Magazine, 4, 44-4!\,
D'Souza, n, (1991), Illiberal educatum; 11;e politic.s of
race and sex en campus, New York; Free Press.
DuBois, J, M. (2002), Wl:en is infor::ied co:::sent appro·
priate in cducafamal r;;:searci:? Regulatory and
ethical lRB: Ethic, and Human Research,
210}. 1-8.
F:dudi, S, ( 1991 ). Backlash: The undec/artd war again.st
l,merican wome11, New Yor;i: Crown.
Fine, M ., Weis, L., We seer., & Wring, L. (2000). For
whom1 Qualitative research, re;iresentations, and
soda! responsibilities. In N. K Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Hmrdbook of qualitatiYe research
(2nd ed., pp. l07-l31 l. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage,
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences cf modernity.
Stanford, CA: Sta:iford Universil y Press.
Gillespie, J. E ( 1997, August). Institutional review
hoards and 1mfrersity studem resean:h learning
Paper presentec a: the 105th
Anr:ual '.vl,:eting of the American Psychological
As,m:iation, Chicago.
G:,llux, H. A. ( 1995). Teaching in of "poH:kal
rnrrect::ess?' Educationai Forum, 50(2), 130-139.
Gcrd()n, V, M., Sugarman, J,, & Ka,s, N. (1998). Toward
a :non: co:,1;ir,cl:ens:,,e approach to pro:ecting
human sub;ects.IRB: Ethics and Human Research.
21J(l), I
Graff, ( 1992).BeJQttd the culture wars; How teadiing
the co11flicts can revitali:u Ameri.:an education
"lew York: W. W, Norton.
Gray, Il. H. (1978, May). Institutional re·1iew boards as
an instrument of assessmem: Research involving
iumum subjects. Paper presented at the U,S.
Cor.:eren,e on the Social Assessmrnt of Science,
University o: Bleldeld, West Germany,
r.uba, F.. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Corr:peting para-
digms ::1 qualitative research. In N, K. Denzin
& Y. S, Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. IOS. l: 7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Hammack, E M, (1997). Ethical issues in teacher
research. Teachers College Record, 99, 247 -265.
Hecht, J, B. (!995, October), The institutional re'liew
board m social science research. Paper p:ese:::ted
at the annual meeting of be Mid, Western
Educatior:al Research Association, Chicago.
Howe, K. R. (2004). A critiq~e of experimentalism.
Qualitative lnq11iry, 10, 42-61.
rfowe, K. ll, & Dougherty, K. (1993 ), Ethics, insti:u-
tional review boards, and the cha::ging face nf
educat'onal res;••..,." Educati,mal Rem1rcha,
22(9), 16-21.
Lincoln, Y. & Cannella, G. S. (2004a), Dangerous
courses: Methodological conservatism and gov
ernrnental regim;;:s of lrutl:. Qualitative Inquiry.
10, 5-14.
Lincoin. Y. S, & Cannella, C. S. (2il04b). Qualitative
research, power,and the radirnl Right. Qualitative
Inquiry. 10, 175-201.
Lincoln, Y. S,, & Denzin, N. K. (2000). The seventh
momem: Out of the pa,1. ln )!. K. Denzin & Y. 5.
Li:icoln (Eds.), Handbaak af qualitat,\-e researd1
(2nd ed., pp.1047-1065). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Lincoln, Y, S., & Guba, E.G. [ 1985). Narrm1/istic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E, (1989). ELhic,: The failure
of positivist scien~, R!?"l'iew ,f 'Higher Eiducati,m,
12,221-240,
1.incoln, Y. & Guba, E.G. (200D ). Paracigmatic con-
troversies, cor:tradictior:s, and emerging conflu-
ences. In N. K, Denzin & Y, S, Lincoln ( E'.tls.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp.163-188), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualilativc
re~,~ar,::i and insti•utinnal :::view board&. Quafitative
l11quir)1 lO, 219-234.
Mertens, D. M. I 1998 ). Research meth,;ds in ,iduta,icm
and psychology: lmegrati11g div~rsity wit/, quami-
tative and qi.aiitative approaches. Thoimmd
Oa:~s, CA: Sage,

.\{esser-Davidow, E, : 1993, Au:,~:nn). Manufacturing
foe attack on liberalized hig'ier education, Sccia/
Text, 36, 40-80,
Mosteller, E, & Boruch, R. (Eds.). (2002), Evidence mat•
,er$: R1mdomizcd trial, education research.
Washir.gton, DC; Brook::ig,s Institution Press.
t>;ational Research r:o·;nciL (2002). Scientifi.: research
in education. Committee rm Scientific Princi?les
for Education Research (R. J. Shavelson &
L Tol'me, Eds.}. Center for Education, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Was:iingtor:, DC: Na:ional Academy Press.
Neave, G, (1996). Academic frredom and univei;ity
autonomy; An abiding cor.cern, H;'gher Education
Poliry, 9, 263-266.
Oa;1..es, ;, M, (2002), Risks and wrongs in soc'al sc'ence
research; An evalua:0J'5 guide lo the !RB, EJ1illua-
tian Review, 26; 443-479_
Olivier, S, (2002). Ethics review of research projects
:r:volving human subjects. Q11esi, 54, 196-204.
Parenti, M. (1995). The mytr. of the liberal campus,
Humanist, 55(5),20-24.
Popkew'tz, T. S. (1004). ls the National Research
Council committee:si report Or'. sden:i!k researcr:
in education scientific? On tr:.:sting the manifesto.
Qualitative lnquir}; 10, 62-78.
Pres~ley, M.• Duke, N. K., & Boling, K C (2004). The
ed·;ca:ional science and scientilkally based
instruction we need: Lessor:s from rea.Jing
research and policym11king. Harvard Ed;;c,uiimai
Revie~;, 74, 30-6 L
Pritchard, LA. (2002), Travelers and trolls: Practitioner
researcl: and institutional review boards. Educa•
tional Researd1er, J 1(3),
Reir:harz. S, ( I 992)_ Femini,1 rnethcds in social
research. New Y,,~k: Oxfurd ;Jn iversily Pr~s,
Ritter, G. ( 1996). The McDcm~idization vJ society (Rev.
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: P·ne Forge.
Sandov;;J, C. (2000). Methodology of the oppressed,
Minneapolis: Univt:-sity of Minnesota Press.
Sdiaffner, K. R (1997). Ethical considerntio:1s in
l:uman investigation involving paradigm sJifts,
Organ ::-ansplantation in the 1990s. lRB: Ethics
and Human Research, 19(6).5 IL
Smith, L. T, (1999). Dm:ifonizing met~odologie;:
Research and indige11ous peoples. Il:mrdin, New
Zealand: t.:niversitt of ()Iago Pres6.
Stanf'eld, J. H,, TI, & Dennis, R. M. (Eds,). (1993).Race
and ethnicity in research methods. \Jrwbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Ll:.coln: IRBs and .Methodological Conservatism 111 1SJ
Te:ler, E, { 1988 ), Freedom of speech and advocacy in
academia: The debate on "Siar Wars:' In L Csorba
i II (Ed,), Academic li.·en.;e: The war on academic
freedom (pp.123-129), Evanston, IL: UCA.
Trow, M, {1985, Si:pten:ber-Octobcr), The threat fror:i
within: Academic freedom and negative evidence.
Change, 17, !l-9, 61 64.
Ve:-bitskaya, LA, ( 1996). Academic freedom and uni-
versity alllonomy: A variety of concepts. !iighw
Eduralion Policy, 9, 289-294.
Wagne,, ltM. (2003),Ethical re,iewof resca:ch involv-
ing human suhjects: W:i.ro and why is IRB review
necessary? Muscle & Nl!Tve, 28, 27-39.
Weijer, C. (1999), Thinking dear'.y about research risk:
Implica:ions of the wor:< of Brnjamin Freedman.
IRE; Ethics anti Hum,m &search. 21(6), I
Weinste::1, W.:. (2004 ). Ranc'omized design and the myth
of certai:: knowlecige: Guinea pig narratives and
cultural critique. Qualitatiw, Inquiry, IO, 246 260.
Wolf. I.. W., Cmughan, M., & Lo, B. (2002), The challenges
cf IRB review and human subjects protections in
practice-based research. Medical Care, 40,
d ADDIIIO:-l'AL RESOURCES
Hammersc\imidt, D. E, ( 1997}. "There :s no substamivc
due process :igh1 to conduct hu:nan-s·Jbjects
m,,ear,:ll":. The saga of the ~1innesota gamma
hydroxybutyrate study. IRB; Ethics and Human
Researdi, 19(3-4), 13-15.
Huer, J. (1991). Tenure for Socrates: A study fn the
betrayal of the American professor. New York:
Bergir: & Garvey.
Pinskei; S. (1998, AJgusl 20;, Politicized academia?
Christian Science Mo,iitor. p. 11.
Rabban, D. (2001}, Aredemic f,eedom, individual
o~ institutional? Academe, 87(6), rn-•,;v.
Rajagopal, 3. (2003). Academic freedom as a human
right: An internationalist pfr,pective, Academe,
119(3), 25-28.
Reill}; P. K. (2001 ). Been there; done that {we've been
there; they've done that). !RB: Ethics and Human
Research, 23(1}, 8-9.
Ru.ssell, [I 993 ). Academic freedom. London:
Routledge,
;Jn iversity of Illinois at Chicago Research El hies ~tudy
G;oup. [2002). "Doing it right-together": Study
groups and research agenda.:,, TRB: Ethics and
Human Re~earch, 24( I), 9-IO.
Part II

PARADIGMS AND
PERSPECTIVES IN
CONTENTION

I
n our introductory -:hapter, following Guba ( J990, p. 17), we defined a paradigm as a
basic se: of beliefs tha: guide action. Paradigms deal with first principles, or ulti-
mates. '.:'hey are human constructions. They define the worldv:f'I" of the resea,cher-
as ·interprettve-brkolcur. Thes.: bcl iefs can never be established in terms of their ultimate
truthfu: ness. Perspecth•es, in contrast. are not as solidified, nor as well unified, as para-
d igns, .1lthm:gh a perspective may share many elements with a paradigrr:-for ex,nr:;,le,
a cnmmon set of methodological assumptions or a particul2.r epistemology.
A paradigm enco:npasse~ four :erms: e6ics (axiology), epistemology, ontology, and
me~:wcology. Hrflics asks, "How will [ b~ as a moral person in the world?" Epistemology
asks "How dn I know the world?'' ''W1iat :s the rcla:innship between the inquirer and the
known?" Every epistc:Tiology, as Cnristiam (Chapter 6, 6.is volume) indicates, implies an
ethical-nrnra'. stance toward the world and fae self of 6e researcher. Ontology raises basic
questions abm:t the nature of reality and the nature of tne human being in the world.
Method<llogy focuse;, un the besl means for acq·,iiring knowledge about the world.
Part II of the Handbook examines the r:1ajor paradigms and perspectives tr.at now
st,ucture and organize qualitative research. ·:·he,e paradigms and perspec:ives are posi-
tivis:n, postpositivtsm, const:-uctivism, and partid patury actio:i frameworks, Alongside
these paradigms are the perspectives of feminism (in its mulhplc forms), critical race
theory. queer theory, and rnltural studies. Each of these perspectives has developed its own
criteria, ass,unptions, and methodological practices. These practices arc then ap?Eed to
disciplined inquiry wi:hin ,hat framework. (Tables 6.1 and in Lincoln and Guba [2000,
pp. 166) outline 1:1,:: major differences between the positivist, postposit:vist, critical
theory, constructivist, and partidpato:-y parariigms.)
\"le have provided a brief discussion of each parnd igr:1 anc. perspective in Cr.apter I;
here we elaborate I hem h somewhat more detail. However, before turning to this dis-
cussion, it important to note three interc:onneclcd evenls. Within the last decade, the
borders and boundary lines between these paradigms and perspectives have begun tn

Ill 183
J&; 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

blur, As Lincoln and Guba observe, the «pedigrees" of various paradigms are themselves
beginning to "interbreed.» However, though the borders have blurred, perceptions of
d!fferenccs between perspectives have hardened, Even as this occurs, the discnnrses
of methodological conservatism, discussed in our Prefa,e and in Chapter I, threaten lo
narrow the range and eflectiveness of qualitative research practices. He:u:e, the title of
th is section, "Paradigms and Perspectives in Co11te11tio11 :•

II MAJOR Issues CoNFRONTlNG ALL PARArnGMS

Lincoln ar.d Guba (2000) suggest that in the present moment, all paradigms must confront
seven basic, critical issues. These involve axiology (ethics and values), accommoda-
:ion and commensurability (can paradigms be fitted into one another?), action (what the
researcher does in the world}, control (who initiates inquiry, who asks questions), foumfa-
:ions of truth (foundationalism vs. anti- ar.d 1:onfoundationalism}, validity (traditional
posit:vist models vs. poststruclt:ral-constrnctionisl criteria), and voice, reflexivity, and
postmodern representation (sing!~ vs. multivoiced),
Each paradigm takes a Jifrexellt stance 011 these topics. Of course, tl:.e positivist aml post-
positivist paracigms provide the backdrop against which these other paradigms and perspec-
tives operate. Lincoln and Guba analyze these two traditions in considerable detail. inC:uding
their reliance on naive ~ealism; their dualistic epistemologies; tr.eir verificational approach to
:nqu'.ry; and their emphasis o:i rel:abiiity, validity, predktion, control, and a building bloC:,
apprnad1 to knowledge, Lin~vb1 and Guba discuss the inabiHty of these panidigms to address
adequately issues surrounding voice, empowermen:, and praxis. They also allude to the fail·
ure to satisfactorily address the theory· and value-laden nature of facts, the interactive nature
of inquiry. and the fact tr.at the same set of "facts" Olli support more than one theory.

Constructivism, Interpretivism, and Hermeneutics

According to Lincoln and Guha,canstrncti'vism adopts a relativist ontology (relativism},
a transactional epistemology. and a hermeneutic, dialecti.;al :nethodology. Users of this
paradigm are oriented to the prodi:ct:or. of reconstructed u::1derstandings of the social
world. The tradition& positivist criteria of inrernal and external validity are replaced by
such terms as trust·,;;orthiness and authenticity, Constructivists value mmsaclio:ml knowl-
edge. Their work overlaps with the seve,al differer.t participatory actior. approaches dls-
c;,issed by Kemmis and Mc'Iaggart (Chapter 23, this volume). Constructivism connects
action to praxis and builds on antifoundational arguments while encouraging experimen-
tal and multivoked texts.

Ill CRITICAL ETH~QGRJ\l'FIY

Douglas Foley and Angela Valenzuela (Chapter 9, this volume) offer a history and analysis
of critical ethnography, giving special attention to nitkal ethnographers wl:o ,fo applied
policy studies and also involve themselves in political movements, They observe that
post 1960s critical ethnographers began advocating cultural critiques of modern society.
These scholars revolted against posit:vism and sought to pursue a politically progressive
 Part :r: Paracigms ancl Per.pcctives in C:,nten:ion 111 185

agenda using multiple standpoint epistemologies. Various approaches were taken up in

this time period, including action anthropology; global, neo Marxist, Marxist fominis:,
and critical eth:iography; and participatory action research.
Their chapter presents two case studies, Foley's career as doing activfa: anthropology,
including his involvement i:1 tl:e Chkar:o civil righ;s movement, and Valenzuela', activities
as an ac:iv:st sociologist working on edi;cational policy studies within the Latina/o iiS:li vist
community in Texas. Foley experimented wit~ an evolvii:g research methodology involv-
ini; cofaiborative relationships, dialogic intervie'lving, community :-eview of what was
wrillen, and the use of an engaging narrative style. Valenzuela was involved directly in
everyday strusgles of Chka:iaio legislators to craft new leg:slation, including calling for
more human:zing assessment measures. She was both researcher ar.d advocate.
In reflexively exploring their own careers as critical ethnographers, Foley and
Valenzuela illustra:e different forms of collabo,ation and different forms of activism. Foley
joined the ideological struggle against scientism. Valenzuela formed a passionate moral
bond with her e:hnic group. She collaborated with her subjects in a derp psycho:ogica: and
political way. Both authors conclude that critical ethnography will truly serve the p·JbEc
only when the acade:ny has been transformed, wh idi would involve, Smith (Chapter 4, this
vo: u:ne) and !3:shop (Chapter 5, this volume} remind cs, em·::i:adng the complex process
of decolonization.

Ill THE FEMINISMS

Virginia Olesen (Cha?ter 10, t:ii& volume) observes that fe:ninist q'.la!itative research, at
the dawn of this new century, is a highly diversified a::id contested site.Already we sec mul-
t: pie articulations of gender, as weU as its enactment in oost-9/ I J spaces. Corr.::ieting mod-
els, on a gto·:ial srale, blur together. But beneath the fray and the debate, there is agree:nent
that feminist lnq uiry in the new millennium is committed to action in the world. Feminists
insist :hat a social justice agenda adc.ress the needs of men and women of color, because
gender, dass, anc. race are intimately inten.:onnecled. Olesen's is an impassioned feminism.
"Rage is not enough:' she exclaims. We need "incisive scho:arship to frame, direct, and har-
r.ess passion in the interests of redressing grievous prob:ems in 6e many areas of women's
health" (p. 236),
In 1994, Olesen identified three major strand$ of feminist inquiry (standpoint episte•
n:ology, empiricist, postmodemism-cultural studies). A decade later, these strands con•
tinue to multiply. There are today separate feminisms associated with specific disciplines;
with the writings of women of color; women prohlematizing \Vhiteness; postcolonial dis-
course: dernlonizing argun:ents of indigenous women; lesbian research and quee~ theo,y;
disabled women; standpoint theory: and postmodern a:id deconstructive theory. This
complexity has made the researcher-participant relationship mo~e comp\icatci:. It
desta·:,:'iized the insider-octsider n:adel of inquiry, Witnin indigenous spaces, it has pro-
daced a call for the decolonization of the academy, This is linked to a deconstruction of
such traditional terms as experience, diffe,e:1ce, and gem:er.
A gendered decolonizing dlscou:-se focuses on the concepts of bias and objectvity,
validity and trustworthiness, voke,aod feminis: ethics. On this last point, Oleser:'s master-
ful .:hapter elaborates the frameworks presented by Smith (C.hapter 4 ), Bishop (Chapter 5),
a:id Christians (Chapter 6) p:esented in !'art I.
186 111 HANDBOOK Of< QUAL:TAIIVE RESEARCH

l!l ~ioRAt Acr:v1sM A:-JD CRJTCAL RACE TnEoRY Sc11otARSH1P

Gloria l.adson•Billings and Jamel Donnor (Chapter II, this volume} move c:itkal :-,.ice
theory directly into !he fields of politics and qualitative inquiry. They advocate an activist.
moral, and ethical epistemology com milled to sociai justice and a revolulionar, habitus.
They foci:, their am;~,sis 011 the meaning of the "call:' ar. epiphanic moment when persons
of color are reminded that they are locked into 3 hierarchical racial structure. The "N word"
cai: be i:1voked at any time to ha 1: a pe,son color: Radalized others occupy liminal
space of alterity in Nh ite society; they are forced to play the role of alter ego :o the ideal self
1

preicribed hy the dominant cultural model. Critical race theory (CRT) "seeks to dedoak the
seemingly r.m:H«:utral. and color-blind ways ... of rnnstrncting and administering rare-
based appraisals ... of the law, administrative policy. electoral politics ... political dis-
.:ou :se [and educat:on. in t:SA" (Parker, Deyhle, Villenas, & Nebeker, 1998, p. 5). Crit:ca:
race theory uses m·.1lt:ple inter?retive rr:ethodologies-stories, plays, performances.
Critical race theory enacts an ethnic and ethical epistemology, arguing that ways nf know-
ing and heing are sha?ed by m:e's standpoi:it, or position in the wurld. This stand]Juiut
undoes the cultural, ethical, and epistemolog:cal fog:c (and racism) of the Eurncen:rk,
Enlightenment paradigm. At the same time. it contests positiv 1sr:i's hegemoaic control over
what is ar.d what is not acceptab:e research. Thus do they criticize the Na:ional Research
Counci:'s repor: on 5demif:c Research in Education (Shavelson & Towne, 2003 ).
Drawing on recent work by African A:nerican, Asian Pacific Islander, Asian American,
Latina/o, and Native Ameiican scholars, Ladso:1-Billings and Donnor int:odu-:e the co:icepts
of multiple or dou:ile consciousr.ess, mestiza consciousuess, am:: triba'. secrets. The analysis of
these terms allows them to show how the dominant caltural paradigms have produced
tured, rnci11lized identities and cxper 1cnces of {~xclusion 1hr ninority scholars. American
society, they observe. has been conslrnctcd as a nation of white people whose politics and cul-
lure are designed to ,erve the interests of whites. Critical r«c" theorists experimer.t with mul-
tiple :nrerpretive s:rategies,:anging from storytelling to autoethnography, case studies, textual
and narrative analyses, traditional t:eldwork, and, most i:nportant, rollaborative, action-based
inquiries a1:d studies of race,gem:'.er, law, educatiou, am: racial oppression in daily life.
Using the mnstmd nf "political race:' they call for street-level cmss-ractHI cm1l'lim;,
ar:d alliance,, involving grassroots workers seeking lo invigorate democracy. Com1ectiom
with the 11 'p-hop gc:ieration are central to this project. Political ra,c rnlargcs the critical
race project It is not color•blind, It proposes muhitextured political strategics that go
beyond traditional legal or eco:10m:c sollltions to issues of racial justice. ladsm:. Billings
and Dom:or show, dmwinl;! frm:1 Patricia Hill C',ullins, how "political" race embod:es a non·
violent visionary pragmatisn: that is "actualized in the hearts aud minds of ordinary
people" (p. 292). For this :o hap?en, the academy :nust change; it must embrace the prin·
dples of decolonization outli:led by Smith and llisl:op. A reconstn:ctcd university will
become a horr:e for radalized others, a place where indigenous, liberating, empowering
pedagogies have become cornmonplm:c. in such a place, I.adson·Billi1:gs ,rnd Donnor
argue, a new version of the call will he answerec.

1111 CRITICAL T:!EORY

Multiple critical theories, a:nong them Marxist and mm-Marxist models, 110w circulate
wit'lin the discoucSes of qua:itative research (see Kincheloe and McLaren, Cha;ner 12, this
 Part II: Pa:adigms Perspectives i:: Contenlion II 1&7

volume), In Lincoln and G·Jbas framework, this paradigm, in its many formulations,
artku:ates an ontology based on his:orical realism, an ep:sterndogy that is transactional,
f and a methodology that is both dialogic and dialectical. Kincheloe and McLaren trace the
history of crilical reseaxh (and Marxist theory), from the Frankfurt School through more
recent transformations in poststructural, postmodern, feminist, critica. pedagogy, and
cultural studies theory:
They outline a critical theory, what they call critical humility, an evolving c:iticality for
the new millenr.ium, beginning with the assumptimi that the societies of the West are not
unproblematically democratic and free, Their version of critical theory rejects economic
determini~m and focuses on the media, culture, language, power, desire, critical enlighten-
ment, and critical emam::ipation. T:ieif fra:nework embraces a critical hermeneutics. They
read inst:umental rationality as one of the most repressive features of contemporary
society. Building on Dewey and Gramsd, they present a critica'., pragmatic approach
to texts and :heir relationships to lived experience. This leads to a "resistance" version of
critical theory, a version connected to critical ethnography, and partisan, critical inquiry
committed to social criticism. Critkal theorists, as bricoleurs, seek to produce practical,
pragmatic knowledge, a bricolage that is cultural and structural, judged by ils degree of
his:orical situatedness and its ability to produce praxis, or action,
This chapter, like Olesen's and tadson-Bi11ings aud Donnor's, is a call to arms. Getting
mad no longer is enough. We must learn how to act in the world in -..-ays that allow us to
expose the workings of an invisible empire that has given us yet another Gulf War and
another e.:onomic agenda tha: leaves even more childrtn behind.

Iii CU1Tt.:RAL Sn:mEs

Cultural studies canr.ot be contained within a single framework. There are multiple cultural
studies projects, including those connected t11 the Birmingham school and to the work of
Stuart Hall and his associates (see Hall, 1996 .l. Cul:ural studies research is historkallv' self,
reflective, critical, interdisciplinary, conversant with high theory, and focused on the global
and tlie local; it takes into account historical, political, economic, cultural, ar.d everyday
discourses, It focuses on questions of community, identity, agency, and change (Grossberg
& Pollock, 1998},
In its generic form, .:ult::ira! studies involves an examination of how the history people
live is produced by struct·.ires that have beer. handed down from the past. Each version
of cultural studies is joined by a threefold concern with cultural texts, lived experience,
and the articulated relationship between texts arni everyday life. Within the cultural text
tradition, some sdtolars examine the mass media and popular culture as sites where
history, ideology, and subjective experiences come together. These scholars produce crhkal
ethnographies of the audience in relation to par-::icufar historical moments. Other scholars
read texts as sites where hegemonic meanings are produced, distributed, and consumed,
Within the ethnographic tradition, there is a postmodern concern for the social text and its
production,
The open•ended nature of the cultural studies project Leads to a perpetua! resistance
against attempts to impose a single detbition over the entire project There are critical-
Marxist, constructionist. and postpositivist paradigmatic strands within the formation,
as well as err.ergent feminist and ethnic models. Scholars within the cultural studies
project are drawn to historical realism and re:ativism as their ontology, to transactional
188 Ill HANDBOOK (F QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

epistemologies, and to dialogic methodologies, while rema:ning committed to a historical

and struc:ural framework that ls action o~ier.ted.
Pada Saukko (Chapter 13, ;his volume) outlines a crilkal ma:er:alist, :iermencutic,
poslstrnctural.contextualist ci.tltJral studies project. Drawing on her own researc:1 on test•
ing for genetic thrombophilia, she outlines a :nethodological program in cultural studies
:hat is defii:ed by its ir:terest in lived, discursive, and contextual di:nensim:s of reality.
Weaving back a::td forth ':Jetween culti:raEst and realist agendas, she identiEes three key
methodological currents or strands in cultural studie:; to.lay: hermeneutic,, poslslruc•
tunilisn:, and contextualism. She 1:-,mslales these three dimensions into three validities
(contextual, dialogic, self-reflexive), focused, respectively, on his1orica: reality, authentic'ty,
and deconstruction, Tbese strands yield critical analyses of postindustrialism, globaliza•
tion, neoliberalism, postcolor.ialism, and tl:e recen: trend toward the corporatization of
'Jnivers:ties, a trend that threatens to erase cultural studies.
Contextualism and contextual validity move hack a:id for:h in lime, from !he particu-
hlr and the situational to the gene:-.11 and the historical. It shows how instance of a
?henomenon is em:iedded in its historical space, a space markcc by politics, culture, and
biography. In moving back and forth in time, the researcher situates a subject's projects
:n ~ime and space. Dialogic validity gm'Jnds i11te:1m,tation in lived reality, Self-reflexive
validily analyi.es how social discourses shape or mediate experience,
Sauklw's contextualism confronts the hard, lived loc.11 facts ofl:fo in a global economy.
Discursively, her project shows bow fae ;ea! is mediated by systems of discourse, which a:::e
themselves em::iedded in socially mediated realities. Thns does she move back and forth
between the local and the glob.ii, the cultural and the real, the personal and the politkaL
The disciplir,ary boundarlt>s that dt'fine ailtural s:udies keep shifting, and there is
no agreed upon standard genealogy of its emergence as a serious academic discipline.
Xonetheless, there are certain prevailing tendencies, induding feminist ur.derstandings of
:he politics of the everyday ar.d th£: p£:rsonal; disp'Jtes between proponents of lextualism,
e:hnography, and ac.toethnography; and mnti:lued debares surmun&ng the dreams of
mmierr: citizenship,

Iii CRITICAL Hui..'ANtsM ANU QuEER T11EORY

Crittca! race theory brought race and the concept of a con::;,lex racial subject squarely into
qualitative inquiry. It rel;lained for queer 6eory to do the same; :tamely, to question and
deconst:uct the concept of a unif:ed sexual (and racialized; subject Ken ?lummer
(Chapter 14, this volume l takes queer theory in a new direction. He writes from his own
biography as a postgay humanist. a so,t of femini,t, a linle queer, a cril[rnl 'mmanisl who
wan ls to move mi. He thinks th at in the postmodern r:10m rnt certain terms, J;;.;e famif:y,
and much of ou:- research methodology language are obsolete, He cal ls them zo:nbie cate-
gories. They are no lor:ger needed. They a:e dead,
With the arrivaJ o" queer 6eory, the social sciences are in a new This is the age
of pos:modcrn fragmentation, glohalizatlon, pos:humanism. T'iis is a time for new
research styles, styles that take r.p the reflexive queer, polypr.onic, narrative, ethical tcrn.
Plunmers critical humanism, with its emphasis on symbolic illteractionisn:, pragmatisn:,
democratk thinking. storytelling. moral progress, a11d soda! j'Jsdce, enters this space, It is
 Part JI: Paradigms an,I PctS()CClives ;n Comention 111, 189

committed to reducing human suffering, to an ethics of care and compassion, a politics of

respect, and the inpcrtance of trust
His queer theory is radkaL It encourages !'le pcstmode;J1ization of sexual ,uid gender
studies. It (!ernnstr;1ct~ all au: ventior.al ca:egor ies of sexuality and gender. It is transgreS·
sive, got be, and romantic lt challenges the heterosexuallhomosex ual binary: the dev:ance
paracigm is abanduned. His qaeer methodology takes the textual tum seriously and
endorses subversive ethoographies, scavenger methodologies, ethnog!'llph:c perfon:iam:es,
and quee:ed case stud:es.
By troubling the place of the hon:o/1:e:erosexu d binary in everyday life, queer l:ieory
has created spaces for multip.e dismurses nn tr:msger.dercd, bisexual, lesbian, and gay
subj ec::s. This means tha: researchers must examine how any sodal arena is structured,
;iart by this homo/ hetero didmtorr.y. They must ask how epistemology of the closet is
cen:ral to :he sexual and material pri1ct:,ces of everyday life. Queer throry challenges this
epistcmo:ogy, just as ii deconstructs the notion of unified subjects. Queerness becomes a
topic and a resource for investigating the way grm:? boundaries are created, negotiated,
a;1d changcd. lmtiL:ior.al anc historical analyses arc central to this project, for they shed
lighl on how the self and identities are embedded in ir1stitc1tional and cultu:.il practices.

The re:;ea:ehcr•as-inlerpretiw-Jr:colcnr cannot afford to he a stranger to any of the par•

adig ms a:id persprct ives disctJs~ed in Part II of :he Handbook. The researcher must under•
stand the ha8lc ethical. outolugical, epistemological, and n:e;hodological a~su :nptions of
cacb, amt be able lo engage them in dialogue, The differences between paradigms and per•
spcdves have significant am: important i1nplicahom; al the practical, material, ,;;veryday
level. The bbr,ing of para,1igm l'ifforences is l:kcly to continue as long as proponents con·
ti:mc to cnme loHelher to discuss their d;fferencc, wnile seeking to build on those areas
where :hey are in agreement.
It is also dear that there is no single "tmth." All trnths are partial and im:omplele. There
will be no single .:onventiunal pacadigm, as Linmln ond Guha (2000} argue, to which all
social scientists might ascribe. We occupy a hislm ical moment marked by multivocality,
contested meaning;s, parndigrrn,fa controversies, and new textual forns. This is an age of
em,mcipafam, f:-eedom frorr: the co:ifine6 of a single regime truth, emancipation from
the world in one color.

Iii REH:Rt;.;CES
Gmssberg,L, & Pollock, n (19'l8). Ed:t,,rial staterner:t Cul,ural S111dies, 12(2), 114.
E.{: \190). The alternative paracigm dialog. In E.Guba (Ed.), Thepcm1digm dialog(pp. 17-30).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, S. (1996), Gra::1sd's rele~a:icc for lhe study nf race and ethnicity. In D. Morley &
K-H. (hen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Cti!ica/ diafr1gue1 ii: c11itum! srndiis (pp. 411-444}. Lond<ln:
Ro~1tledge.
Lincoln,':'. S., & Gub,1, E. ( 2000). Paradigm:11ic cent roversies, mntradictions. and e1m::')!i1lJl. contlu-
em::es. In N. K. llen1.in & Y. S. Lincoln {Eds.), Handbook of qwiiirative research (2nd ed.,
pp. l 63-188 ). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
90 'II HANDBOOK OF QUALITATrVE RESEARCH

Olesen, V: (1994), Fe1;1i:iisms and m;Jdels of qualitative research, In :\l. K. Der.zin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 158-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parker, L., Deyhle, D., Villenas, S,, & "lebeke,, K. C. ( 1998). Guest editor's introduction: Critical race
theory and qualitative studies in education. Qualitative Srudie..; in Education, 11, 5-6.
Shmlson, R., & Towne, L, (Eds.), (2003). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
8
PARADIGMATIC
CONTROVERSIES,
CONTRADICTIONS, AND
EMERGING CONFLUENCES
Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln
I n otr chapter for the first edirio:i of :he
Handbook ofQualitative Research, we foc'.lsed
on the contemion among various research
paradigms for legitimacy and intellectual and par•
adigma:ic hegemony (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ). Tht:
postmodern para(\igms that we discussed (post•
modernist c:-ifo:al theory and cm1structivism)'
were i:l contention with the received ptisitiv ist and
postpositivist paradigr:is for legitimacy, and w:th
one anofaer for intelkcrna Ilegitimacy. In t!le more
than 10 years that have elapsed since that chapter
was publisr.ed. substantial changes have occurred
in the landscape of sodal scientific inquiry.
O:i the matter of legitimacy, we observe that
readers familiar with the lite:ature on methods
and pa,adigms rellect a h:gh interest in ontologies
and epbtemulogies tha: differ sharply from those
umlergirdi:lg convent:onal soda! science. Second,
even those established professionals trained in
quanti:ative social science (including the two of us)
""'lint to more about quall:ative approaches,
because new p,ung professionals being mentored
in graduate schools are asking serious questior.s
abo;11 and look:ng 'hr guidance in ,:palitatively
oriented studies and d;ssertations. Third, the
nun:ber of qualitative texts,research papers, work•
shops, and training r:iale,i,!ls has exploded,
Indeed, it wollld be diffimlt to mis, the dislind
tur:i of the social sciences toward mo~e ;nterpre-
tive, postmodern, and criticalist practices ar:d the-
orizing (Bloland, 1989, 1995). nonpositivist
orientation has created a con:en (surround) in
wh:ch virt t:ally no study can go unchallenged by
prupunen:s of contending paradigms. Further, it is
obvious tbt the :iumher of praciitior:ers of new•
pan1digm inquiry isgruwing daily. Theri: can be no
question t'tat the lt>git:macy of postmodern para
digms is well established and a: least equal to the
legitimacy of received and coi:ve:itional pa;ad:gn:s
{Denzin & Lincoln. 1994).
On the matter of hegemor.y, or si:premacy,
among postmodern paradig:ns, it is dear that
Geertz's (1988, 1993} prophecy about the "blur
ring uf genres" is rapidly being fulfilled. fnquirv
methodology can no longer he treated as a set
of universally applicable rules or abstractions.
Methodology :s :nevitahly interwoven with and
emerges frorr: the nature of pa,:icular disciplines
1111 !91
192 11 IIANDl:IOOK QUALHXIIVERESEARCH-CHAPTER8
(such as sociology and psychology) and particular
perspectives (st:ch as Marxism, fcmin:st theory,
and qurrr theory). So, for ir:stan ce, we can read
feminist critical theorists such as Olesen (2000)
or (Jueer l:leo:ists such a$ Gamson ( 2000 ), or
we can follow a::gurr:ents about teachers as
researchers (Kincheloe, 199 L) while we under•
star:d the secondary text lo be :eacher en:;:,o,,er·
ment and democratization of schuoling p:'llctices.
Indeed, the various paradigms are beginnir:g to
"interbreed" such that two theorists previoasly
thought to be in irreconcilable conflic: may now
a;>pear, u:1der a d:fforent theo:etical rnbric, to be
informing one anothe:'s arguments. A personal
example is our own work, which has been ieavily
influenced by action research pmc,itioners and
postmodcr:1 theori~ts. Consequent:y, to
argue that it is paradigms th at arc ir: cor:tention
is probably useful tha:1 to probe where and
how paradigms exh:bit cor: nuence ,me where and
how they exhibit differences, controversies, and
contradictior:s.
Jill :.lAJOR ISSUES CON:'RONl'INC
Au, PARADIGMS
In our ,hap:er in the first edition of this
Handbook, we presented two tables that surnma
rized our positions, first, on the axfooa:k nature
of paradigms (the paradigms we co11sidered at
that time were positivism, postpositivism, critical
theory, and constncth,fam; Guba & L:m:oln,
1994, p. I09, 1ablc 6.1); ar:d second, on t:ie issues
we believed were most fundamental to diffcrenti•
ating :he four par.;digms (p. 112, lable 6.2). These
tables are reproduced here as a way of reminc -
ing our readers of our p:evious statements, The
axiorr:s dd1ned the ontolog:cal, epistemological,
and :nethodological bases for bo:h established
and emergent paradigms; these are shown here
in ·1a·,1c 8.1. The issues most often in contention
that we examined were inquiry aim, nature of
knowledge, :he way knowledge is accumulated,
goodness !rigor and validity) or quality crfreria,
values, ethics, voice, training, accommocation,
aml hege:nony; thse an: shown in Ti;b:e 8,2, An
exan:ination of these two tables wil: rcncqm1int
the reader with our original Handbook treatment;
more detailed information is, of course, available
in our original chapter.
Since publi<.'ation of that chapter, at least one
set of author;;, John Hemn and Peter Reason, have
elaborated on our tables to include the participa-
tory/cooperaf ive paradigm (Heron, 1996; Heron &
R<!'&sm:, 1997, ?P• 289-290 ), Thus, :n addition to
the paradigms of positivism, postpositivism,
critical theory, am] const~uctivism, we add the
participatory paradigm ir. the present chapter
(bis is an excellent example, we rr.ight .1dd, of
the hermt'ner: :ic elaboration so embedded in our
own view, cor.structivism}.
Our aim :, e:-e is to extend tl:e analysis :ur:her
by building on Heron and Reason's additions and
by rearr:mging the issues to reflect current
rbought The issues we have dlosen Jr.elude o'Jr
orig:na: formulations and the additions,
sions, and amp:ifica:iLJns made by Heron and
Reason (]997), and we have also chosen what we
believe to be the issues most important today. We
should note that imp(Jrtam means seve:-al thi:1gs
to us. An important topic may he m:e that i,
widely debated (or even hotly ,::ontes:cd )-val'd •
ity is one such issue. An important issue may be
one that bespeaks a new awareness (an issue such
c.s rcmg11ilio;1 of tl1e role of va:aes).An important
issue may be one that ilhrntrates the influence of
one paradig:n on another (such as the influence
of feminist, ,Ktion research, ..Titical theory, and
participatory model8 on researcher conceptions
of action wi:hin and with the community in
which research is carried out). Or may be
important because new or extended theorel:cal
and/or field-oriented treatme:its for them are
newly availahle-voice ar:d reflexivity are two
such issues.
Table 8,3 reprises t:lc original ·:-.ihlc 6.: bm
adds the axioms of the par:idpatory paradigm
proposed by Hrron and Reaso:1. (1997). Table 8.4
deals with seven issues and represents an update
of selected :ssues first presented in the old Table
6.2. "Voice" in the 1994 version of Table 6,2
has heen renamed "inquirer posturr :• anci we
have inse:1ed a :.::defined "voice" in the current
 Table8.1.

fltm &iti',ism Postpositirism Critic11l T1u:my et al u,1utrurtivi 5m

Ontology Na1v~ rtali8m •rear'

rrelity bnt apprehendi:ile
0
Critic.ii ~,1!1&111- rcal" reality but
oDly imperfectly and
probabili!itically apprehendible
Histori£.il reafum-vir1U1I reality Rdativism-lo.:al and specifir
$haped by 5ocial, political, cukunl, com;t:rucb::d and
economic. ethnic, and gcoder values; co-cooitructcd realitit:1
crystallized Ol'CT time

Epi:.temology Duali~tfobjectivist; findings Modified d·uelis--Johj«ti~ist; critical Tranu.ctional/subjc,tvist; Vlllue- Tnll.'lactional/subjectivbt:

tiue m,dition/community; finding, mediated findings created flndingi;
probably true

Methodology Expcrime:'nta 1/ Modified expcriuu:n:al/ Uia.logicfdialectical Hc:rmcm:utical/diakctica!

manipulative; verification manipula1i,e; crilkal mulliplism;
of hypothe~e~; chidly falsification ofhypothc!ic:d; may
quandtati~ m('thod5 include qualitative melhmis

II
 8.2. on
11
- . ~- -- ~

/um PrJsitivi.im P(lStp ,;,sirivis m Critical Th~ory et at Con$/ructil'ism

Inquiry aim Explonation: prri:lidnn and conrml Critique and trnnsfonnation: Understanding;
restitution and emancipation reconstruction
Nature of Verified hypotheses Nonfal.ified hypo;heses that Strncturallhi~torical insights Individual or collective
kno'\\1edgc estabh5hed as facts are probablt facts or laws re.:onstructions ma'.,!~cin,;
orlaW!! around mnsen~us
Knowlcdg~ Accretion "building blocks" adding tu ''edifice of know:~-dgi:"; Historical rrvisiooism; !l(Rt'l'ametion Moce intormed and
accumulation generalizations and cause effect linkages by similarity ~ophi~ti0tted n-,;ons: ructions;
vicarious apcriencc
·--·--·- --
Gomln~bs or Conventional bc!lchmarks of"rigor": interna: and cxterna'. Hi~lori.~l situattdness; erosion ul Irunworthincss and
qualily criteri~ validity, reliability, and oojcctivity ignouna: md mis.ipprchcnsiun; anthmticity, including cir:ilyst
act:cm stimulus bacton
V.ilucs b.:cl:od.:d-inflomce denied lncluded-formaliTC Induded formative
Ethic~ fuJrinsk; till toward deception Intrinsic: moral tik townrd revelation lntrin.sk: process till towlird
i:nebti1>n; special prol,l~mi

l'olce "IX\interestcd sdenfrst" as informer of decision makers, policy "I:-ansformativt intcllcctuai» as "Passionate participant'' ,i
mako:s, and change agents adv1Jcale and activi~t facilitator of multivoice
reconstrncticm
Training Technkal and Technical; quan:itativr and Rcwdali:z.ation; qualitative and quantitati \IC; history; values of al:ruism,
quantiutivc: qualitative; s11bst11nti~c t:.eorics empu,,erment, and liberation
substantive thrnrie~
Accommudation Comrnen;;urahle lncom mensurahle wi:h previous two
Hcg~mony Ill control of publication, fonding, prornoti01:, and tenure S.:eking recognition and in11ut; ofkring challenges to p,edeccssor
paradigms, iiigncd ,.-ith postcolooial aspir~tions
 Table
·-

time

in
true
findings tru;:

findings
in

c,mtext

II a. Fntries In this t<llulilll a1< based on Heron and il<'ason

-
;:)'.;
 Tuble Paradigm Po.!itions on Selrctcd l&~s-Updatt:d
------------------------··-·-·--
•
of V,".l'ified
knowledge arc
as
-~· - ·--
to in

similarity

pmpo~ilional, and
and to to world in
of human

Ethic.~ tilt
toward
Inquirer posture as

-- ·---
quantitative quantitative;
empowerment
in

-------------
.i. Entnes u'i th,s roJumrt arr ha.std on Uemn arHj Rt"a-.tm , ,rrn,,irmnr t{w "ethfr~" and '"'v.:ih.u:,"
 Guba & Uuccln: Controversies, Con:radictions, Confluences II l 97
"!able In all cases except "inquirer posture:· the
entri<'S for the pa:ticipatory paradigm are those
proposed by Heron and Reason; in the one case
not covered by them, we have added a notation
that we believe captures their inter.tion.
V{e make no attemp7 here to reprise the mater-
ial w~[ discussed in our earlier Hcmdbook chapter.
Instead, we focus solely on the issues in Table 8.5;
axiology; accommodation and comme:;surability;
actim:; control; foundations of trut:, and know:-
ecge; val:dity; and voke, reflexivity, and postmod·
em textual representatior.. We believe these seven
issues to be tl,e rr:ost importan: ;;t this time.
Whi!e we ":ie:ieve these issues to be the most
wnkr:tious. we also believe they create the intel·
lectual, theoretical, and practical space for dia-
logue, rnnsensus, and cor,fluence to occur: There
is grea: potentia: for interweaving of v:ewpoints,
for the incorporatioo of multiple perspectives,
and for horrowing, or bricolage, where borrowing
seems useful, richness enhancing, nr t:ieoreticall y
heuristic. For instar:ce, even though we are our-
sel•;es social cons:n:ctivistsiconslructionists, our
.;all to adon embedded in the authenticity crite•
ri,; we elaborated in Fourth Gerieratim; Evaliuition
(Guh.i & Ur.min, 1989) reflects strongly the bent
to action embodied in critical theorists' per,pec
t: ves. And although Heron and Reason have elah•
orated a model they call the caaperarive paradigm,
careful reading of their proposal reveals a form
of inquiry that is posl-postpositive, postmodern,
and critic,lllst in orienta:ion. As a result, the
reader familiar with several theoretical and para·
digmatic strands of research will find that echoes
of many streams of th01:ght come togeth~r in the
extended table. \\'hat this 07eans is that the cate-
gories, as Laurel Richardson (personal corr:muni-
cation, September ' 1998) has pointed out, "are
:luid, indeed what should be a cr,:egory keeps
altering, enlarging;' She notes that ''even as :we]
write, the boundaries between the pa:-,idigms are
shifting:' This is the paradigmatic equivalent of
the Geertzian "blurring of genres" to which we
referred earlie,.
Our own position is that of the constrJc:ionist
camp, loosely defined, We do not believe that
criter:a for j L;dging either "reality" or validity are
absolutist (BnuJ:ey & Schaefer, 1998 l; rather, they
are derived from community consensus regarding
what is "real;' what is useful, and what has mcar.•
:ng (especially meaning for actior: and farther
steps), We believe that a gooc.ly portion of sodaJ
;ihenomer.a consists of the meani:ig-making
activities of groups and individuals around those
phenomena, The meaning-making activit;es
themselves are of central i:lterest 10 social con·
.structim::istsiconstructivists, si • ply because ii :s
the meaning-making/sense-making/ a:tr:butional
activities that shape action (or ir.action}, Tl:c
meaning• making activities therr:selves am be
changed w:1e:i they are four.cl to be incomplete,
faulty (e.g., discriminatory, oppressive, or non·
liberatory), or :nalfurmed {created from data that
caa be shown to he false).
We have tried, 1111-1,,-,er_ to im:orpora:e per·
s;iectives :rom uther major nonposi:ivist para-
digms. This is not a complete summation; space
constraints ?revem that 'What we 'wpe to do in
th:s chapter is to acquaint readers with the larger
currents, arguments, dialogues, and provocative
writings a:id theoriz'ng. fae bdter to see perhaps
what we ourse:ves do not even yet see: where and
when confluence is possible, where constructive
rapprochement might be r.egot!ated, where voices
are beginning to aC:,kve some harmony.
• AXlOLOGY
Earlier, we placed values on the table as an ''issue~
on w'iich positivists or phenomenologists might
have a "posture'' {Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 19':14;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985), Fortunately, we reserved
for ourselves the right to either get smarter or just
change our minds. We did both, Now, we suspect
(although Table ll.5 does 1101 yet reflect it) that
"axiology" should be grouped with "basic beliefs:'
In Naturalistic Inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), we
covered some of the ways in which values feed
into the inc_uiry process: choice of the p:.1blem,
d::oice of paradigm to guide the proble:n, choice
of theoretical framework, ~l:oice of major data•
gathetlng and data analytic methods, choke of
context, treatment of values already resident
II Table Critical

is touuunsu
an in is inlrinsicaUy va1uao1e.
an ill ,~ an in
is
Incommensurable with positivist with m111S1rt1n1VL\iL Cl"lll<'.ali:!t,
participa,ory approache$, e1pedally as in

Adion Fmmd In:crtwined with validi17; inquiry often incomplek withom action on
part of ~rticip~nts; consLruClivi$t fonnulati<m mandate! training in
therefore a cm.1nciplltion political .ic:ion if puticipanrs do not undcatand political
anticipated
for; social
tran,forrnafam,
particularly toward
morecquit:
justice, is end aoal
in ri,,,carch,,r Often resides in I lo varym!( <!e_gre·es
"traiufurmative
intellectual"; in new
,c,:onstrui.:tions.
returns lo rnmm1:nitv
to
founJations social n1 t1 n11 •
 Issue

between

Oil
and

an extended

maybe formulas" or

111
-::g
 200 111 HA'l::>f!OOK OP QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHA:>l'JiR 8
withi:1 the context, and choke of formal( s} for
presenting findings. We believed tl:ose were
strong enough :easons to argue for the inclusion
of values as a major point of deyart1m: between
positivist, i::onventiona! modes of inquiry and
inlerpretive :orm, of inqu:ry.
Asecond "reading" of the burgeoning literature
and subsequent retl:inking of our own rationale
have led us tfl conclude that the iss:.te is mt:ch
larger than we first conceived. If we had it to do all
over again, we would make values or, more rnr•
rectly, axiology (the branch of philosophy dealing
with ethics, aesthetics, and religion) a part of the
bask foundational philosophical dimensions o;
paradigm proposaL Doing so would, in 01.:.r opin-
ion, begin :o help us see the enbeddedness of
ethics within, no: externa: to, paradigms (see. for
insta1m:,C!11istians,2000) and would contribute to
the consideration of and dialogue about the role of
spirituality in human inqu:ry. Arguably, axiology
has ,een "defined out of'· scien:ific inquiry fur no
larger a reason than that it also cor.ccr:is "religion:'
But defining"religion"broadlyto encompass spiri·
ti:ality would r:mve constructiv:sts c'.oser to partk-
ipa:ive i:lq:.tirers a:id would move eitkal theorists
closer lo bo:h (owing lo their concerr. with [bera-
lfrm from oppression and freeing of the h1man
spirit, both profoundly spiritual concerr.s ). The
cxpansio:1 of basic to include axio:ogy, then,
is one way of adtteving greater confluence ~mong
the various inlerpretivist inqu:ry models. This is
the place, for example, where Peter Reason's pro-
lot:nd concer:i.~ with "sacred science" anti human
foncl:oning find legit'mi:cy; i: is a place wl:ere
Laurel Richardson's "sacred spaces" become
autho,itative sites for human inquiry; it is a
place-or the place-where :he spiritual mcels
sod al bq..iiry. a~ Reasun (1993 ), and later Lineal 11
and Denzin (1994}, proposed some years earEer.
1l!l AlC(lMMODATIOI\ Al\[)
CO\fMENSURABIL!.l Y
Positivists and postpositivists alike s:ill occasion•
a:Jy argue ?aradigms are, in some ways,
commensurable; that is, they can retrofitted to
each other :n ways that make the simultaru.·ous
practice of both possible. We have argued tbat
at the paradigmat1 c. or philosophkal, h:ve:, co1;1•
mcnsurahility hetween positivii.t and postposi-
tivist worldviews is not possible, but that within
ead: paradigm, mixed methodologies (strategics}
may make perfectly good sense (Guba & Lincoln,
l981, 1982, 1989, 1994; Uncoln & Guba, 1985).So,
for instance, in EJectiw E·;afumimr we argued:
'J he 1;uiding in,1ui ry ;ia:adigm most appmpria,c·
:() resfti:::sive evaluation is, , , tl:e naturalistic. phc-
:iomenologica:, or ethr.ograph:c ?a~adigm, It will be
seen that qt:ali:ative 10:hn!ques ar.: typically most
a;ipmpriate m suppr::t :his approach. There arc
times. Jmwever, when the is,;ucs and rnnccms vo:ced
by audlen,es ri:<,Juire informatio:i that :s bcSI ger.er-
ated by ir,ore conventional mefaods, cspcda]y q:.:a:i-
tirative mclhods., , , In such case,, the responsive
co1:v..,.111ional eval1lalor will 110, snrink from the
appropriateappEcatio::.(Guba& Lincoln, 1981, p. 36)
As we tried lo make dear, the "argumer.t" aris-
ing in the sL1cial sciences was nor about m,zlhod,
although many critics of the new naturalistic,
<:thnographic, phenomenological, and/or case
study approaches assumed ii was, 2 As late as : 99B,
Weiss could be found ro daim that "some evalua·
tio:1 theorists, notably Guba and Lincoln (I 989),
hold that it is impossible to combine qualitative
and quantitative approaches responsibly with in un
eva:uation" (::,, 26!1 ). even tho:.tgr. we stated early
on b Fourth Creneration Evaluati(m ( J 989) that
those dai• s, rnn;;erns, and issues that have tt(lt
been resolved become the advance organ:zcrs for
in'rlrmation collection by the evaluator.... The
infarmali,m may be qu,mtitati·;e or qualiiuliwi.
Respons've eva\:Jation does ::ot ml,: oul quar.lila-
modes, as is mistakenly believed by many, but
deals w'th whatever information i,, responsive 10
the 1..nresolved claim, rn:1cccn,c,fasu.,. (p.43)
We had also stro:igly asserted earlier, in Narur-
alistic Inquiry (1985), that
qualitative method~ are stre.~sed within
naturalist'c paradgrn Mt because the paradigm is
anliqnanttative bu: beca:ise ,palitative methods
 Guba & Lincoln: Con:nr,crs:cs, Cot11radkt:ms, Coi::luences • 201
co • e :norc easily t-0 the :1urr.a11-as-instrumet1t. The
reader sl11mld particularly 1wte the ab.1ence af an
,:mriquamitali1,e stance, pr<:Lisdy :iccause the natu.
rahst:c and convcril:ona! paradigo, ,m: so ofte11-
mista:.:enly-c,;-.i,11ed wit'i the qualitative and
quam:tative ;:mrndlgms, re,?ec'.ively. Indeed, there
are many oppommilies,f;ir th;: rw/uralistic itmwiga-
tor tll utilil.e quanllta!ive data-prububly more rJum
are appreciated. (pp. J98-199; empha,is added)
Havbg demonstrated tba:. we were not ther.
(an(! art: r.ot now) talking a·:mut an ao:iquantita-
tive pos:ure or the exdusivity of methods, but
rather about the philosophies of whkh parad:gms
are constr;icted, we can ask the question again
regarding commensur2bility: Are paradigms com-
mensi:rable? Is it possible :n h'.end e:emenls of one
paradigm into another, so that o:1e is engaging in
research ,ha: represents the best of both world-
viewsr The a:1swer, frum our perspective, has to be
a cautious yes. This is especially so if the models
(paradigms) sha:e axiomatic eleme:11s that are
similar, or that resonate strongly between them.
So, for instance, positivism and JJOstpositivism
are dearly comn:eosurable. ln the san:e vein, ele-
ments of i11terpreriviniposnnoden1 critkal lh~ory,
construc:iv's: and participative i:1quiry, tit com•
fortably together. CommensurabiHty is an issue
only when researd1cr~ want to "pkk and choose-·
among tl:e ax,oms of positivist and inter;:,retivist
models, because the axioms are contradictory and
mi:::ually exclusive.
D Tm: (At:. 10 ACTION
0:1e of the c'.earest ways in which the parndig·
:natk controvcrsi~, can be dcmons:rated is to
compare the po.,itivist and postpositiv:st adher-
rnts. who view action as a form of contam ir.ation
nf research results and processes, and the il!ter•
prctlvists, who see actior: on research results as a
meaningful and important outcome of i:Jquiry
proce-,ses, Posi:iv:st adherents beli<"ve action to
be eilher a form of advocacy or a form of subjec-
tivity, e::hcr or both of which undermir.e the aim
of objcctivit y. Critical theorists, on the other hand,
have always admcated varying degrees of social
action, from the overlum:ng of ,pecilk unjust
practices to radical trar.sfor mation of enlirt
societies. The call for .ic:ion-whether in terms of
internal transformation, such as riddir.g oneself
of false consciousness, or of external social trans•
formarion-d ifferentiates between pos i liv i~ t
and postmodern critkalist theoriits (including
feminist and quel:'r theorists). The sharpest shift.
however, has been Jn the constrm:dvist and par-
tic:patory pher.omenologkal :nodels, where a
step beyond interpretation and Verste!ien, or
unden;taadiug, tuw.i:·d social action is probably
one of the nost coacepti.;aUy :ntcrestir.g of the
shifts \Lincoln, 1997. 199Sa, 1998b) Rl~ some
:heorists, the sh:ft towa:c action came '11
response to widespread nonutilization of evalua-
tion findings ar:d the desire to create forms of
evaluation that would attract champio:ts who
rn ight follow through oo recommendations with
meaningful action plans (Guba & Lincoln, 198:,
1989), Forothers,embracing action came as Joth
a political and an ethical commi,mellt (sec, for
instance, Curr & Kemmis, I986; Cl:r isti ans, 2000;
Greenwood & Levin, 2000; Schratz & Walker,
1995; Tierney, 2000 ).
Whatever the source of the problem to which
ir.qui:e~s were responding, the shift toward
connec:ing research, policy ar.alysis, evaluat:or.,
and/or social deconstruction (e.g., decor.struction
of the pal riarchal forms of opprcss:on in soda!
3trt:clures. which is the project informing r.mch
feminist theorizing, or deconst,uctior. of 1he
homop:u1hia embedded in ptblic policies} with
action has come to characteriz.e much new·para-
digm inquiry work, both at the theuretkal and at
the practice and praxis-oriented levels. Action has
become a ma_inr contmversy that limns the ongo•
ing debates an:ong practitioners u' 6e various
paradigms. The mar.date for sodal action, espe-
cially action designed and createci by and for
rese',m:h part idpants wth the aic. a:1d coop-
eration of researchers, can be most sharply
delineat!"d between positivist!postpositivist and
aew-paradigm inquirers. Mar.y positivist and
postposit;vist '.nquirers still consider "action"
the domain of communities o:her tha:1 resear-
chers and research partidpants: those of policy
202 11 HANDBOOK Of Qt'ALITATiVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8
personnel, legislacors, and civic and political
officials. Hard-line foundatfor:alists presume that
the taint of acdon will interfere with, or even
negate, the objectivity that is a {presumed) char-
acteristic of rigorous scientific method inquiry.
Ill CONTROL
--------~-.... ,.,..,,,_, ________
Another controversy that has tended to become
problematic centers on rontrol of the study: Who
initiates? Vv'ho determine& salient questions' Who
determines what constitutes findings? Vvbo deter•
mines how data will be oollected? Who determines
in what forms the findings will be made public, if
at a!H \Vho determines what :-epresentations will
be made of participants in the research? Let us be
very dear: The issue of control is deeply embedded
in the questions of voice, reflexivity, and issues of
postmoderr. textual representation, whiC:1 we shall
take up later, but only for new-paradigm inquirers.
Fo: more rnnventional inquirers, the issue of con-
trol is effectively walled off from voice, reftex:vity,
and issues of textual representation, because each
of those issues in some way threateru. claims to
rigor (particularly objectivity and validity). For
new-paradigm inquirers who have seen the preem-
inent paradigm issues of ontology and epistemol-
ogy effectively foldetl into one ano~'ler, and who
have watched as methodology and axiology logi-
cally folded into one another (Lincoln, 1995, 1997),
control of an inquiry seems far less problematic,
except insofar as inquirers seek to obtain partid-
pams' genuine participation {see, for instance,
Guba & Lincoln, 1981, on contracting and attempts
to get some stakeholding groups to do more than
stand by wnile an evaluation is in progress).
Critical theorists, especially those who work in
community organizbg programs, are painfully
aware of :he necessity fur members of the commu-
nity, or research participants, to take control of
their futures. Constructivists desire participants to
take an increasingly active role in nominating
questions of interest for any inquiry and in design•
outlets fur findings to be shared more widely
within and outside the community. Partkipatory
inquirers understand action controlled by the local
context members to be the aim of inquiry within a
community: For none of these paradigmatic adher-
ents is control an [ssue or advocacy, a somewhat
deceptive term usually used as a code within a
larger metanarrative to attack an inquiry's rigor,
objectivity. or fairness. Rather, for new-paradigm
researchers control is a means of fostering emanci-
pation, democracy, and community empower-
ment, and of redressing power imbalances such
that those who were previously marginalized now
achieve voice (Merten:,, l998) or "human flourish-
ing" (Heron &: Reason, 1997). Control as a con-
troversy is an excellent place to observe the
phenomenon that we have always termed "Catholic
questions directed to a Methodist audience'.' We
use this description-given to us by a workshop
partidpant in the early l 980s-to refer to the
ongoing problem illegitimate questions: ques-
tions that have no meaning beca:ise the frames of
reference are those for which they were never
intended. (We could as well call these "Hindu ques-
tions to a Muslim;' to give another sense of how
paradigms, or overarching philosophies-or
theologies-· are incommensurable, and how ques-
tions in one framework make little, if any, sense in
another.) Paradigmatic formulations inte:-act such
that control becomes inextricably inter Iwined with
mandates fur objectivity. Objectivity derives from
the Enlightenment prescription for knowledge of
the physical world, which is postulated to be sepa-
rate and distinct from those who would know
(Polkinghorne, 1989 J. But if knowledge of the
social (as opposed to the physical) wurld resides in
meaning-making mechanisms of the social, :nen-
tal, and linguistic worlds that individuals inhabit,
then knowledge cannot be separate from the
knower, but rather is roo~ed in his or :ier mental or
linguistic designations of that world (Polkinghorne,
1989; Salner, 1989).
• FOUNDATIONS OF Tm.:TH AND
KNOWLEDGE IN PARADIGMS
Whether or not the wurld has a "real" existence
outside of human experience of that world is an
open question. For modernist (i.e., E:1lightenment,
 Guba & Lincoln: Contmver,sies, Contradiction~, Confluences Ill 203
scientific method, conventional, positivist) research-
ers, most assuredly there is a "real" reality "out
there;' apart from the flawed r.uman apprehen•
slon of it Further, 6ar reality can he approached
(approximated) on'.y througl: :he utilization of
methocis that prevent human ;;on:amination ofits
apprehension or mmp:ehension, For foum:atitm·
alists in the empiricist traditim:, :he foundations
of scientific truth and knowledge about reality
reside in rigorous application of testing phenom
ena against a tem?late as much devoid of human
hias, mi ,perception, and other "idols" (Francis
Bacon, citec in Polkinghorne, 1989) as instru,
mentally possible, As Polkinghor ne ( 1989) makes
c:ear:
The icea that t:ie ohjedive realm is independen: of
the knower's subjective experier:ces of it can be
found in Des,;;artes's t:ual substance fr,eory, •mth illl
di; tine lion be:ween the objective and subjective
the sp:i:ting of reality subject
and object reilms, what can he known "objectively"
is unly the object:ve reahn, True knowledge is lim•
ited lo t:ie objects and :he re:ationships between
them tha! in the realm of time and space,
llum,m conscio·Jsness, whi,h is snhjert've, is not
accessible to science, and thus nm truly knowable.
{p.23)
Now, templates truth and knowledge can be
defined ln a variety of ways-as the end product
of rational processes, as the resu:r of experiential
sensing, as the result of empirical observation,
and others, In all cases, however, the referent is :he
physical or empirical world: rational engagemer.t
with it, experience of it, emp'rical observation of
it Realists, who work on the assumption that
there :s a "~e,C' world "out there:' may in individ,
ual cases also be foundationaHsts, taking the view
that all of these ways of defining are rooted in
phenor::iena existing outside the human mir:d.
Although we can :hink about tl:em, experience
them, or observe the:n, they are nevertheless
transcenc!ent,reforred to but beyond direct appre
her.sio:i, Realism is an onto'.ogkal question,
whereas foundatiooalism is a er: terial question,
Somr fou:idationalists argue tha: real phemimena
necessarily imply certain final, ultimate criteria
•
for testing them as truthfal (although we may
have great difficulty in determining what those
criteria are); nonfour.datinnalist~ tenc to argue
that tr.ere are r.o such ultimate criteria, only those
that we can agree upon at a .:;ertuin time and
nnder certain conditions, roundational criteria
are discovered; nonfoundat:onal criteria are
negotiated. It is the case, however, that m,~st real-
ists are also foundationalists, and n::any nonfoun-
dationalists or anlifoundahona!isls are relativists.
An ontological formulation that connects
realism and foundationalism within the sa;ne
"collapse" of categories that characterizes the
ontologkal-epistemologkal collapse is or.e t:iat
exhibits good fit with the other assunptions
constructivism. That state of affairs s'Jits new-
paradigm inqu i::ers welL Critical theorists.
constructivists, and participatory/cooperative
inquirers take their primary field of interest to be
precisely that subjective and intersubjecthre soda;
knowledge and the active co:1strm:tion and cocre-
ation of such knowledge by hm:1 an agents that is
produced by ht:man consciousness. R1rt'1cr, nrw-
parad:gm inquirers take :o tl:e social knowledge
field with zest, in for:ned by a varie:y of social,
intellecmal, and theoretical explonitions, These
theoretical excursions include Saussi;rian ling·Jis-
tic theorv, which views all rdalienships between
words and what those words signify as the func-
tion of an in:e!'llal relationship withil: some lin-
guistic system; literary theory's decm:structive
contributions, which seek to disconnect texts from
any essentialist or tran&cenden:al meaning and
resituate them within both author and reader his-
toric.ii and social contexts (Hutcheon, I 989;
Leitch, 1996); ferr:inist (Acdelson, 1993; Alpern,
Antler, Perry, & Scobie, I991; Babbitt, 1993;
Harding, 1993), race and ethnic (Koudo, 1990,
1997; Trinh, 199: ), and queer theorizing (Garnson,
2000), which seeks to uncover and explore variet'es
of oppression and historical colonizing between
dominant and subaltern genders, identities, races,
and social wo~lds; the postmodern histo:-ical
rr:oment (Michael, 1996), which prohlematizes
t::uth as partial, identity as fluid, language as an
unclear referent system, and method a:id criteria
as potentially coercive (Ellis & Bochner, 1996); and
204 11 HANDBOOK OF Ql:AUTI\TTVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER il
crit:calist theories of social change {Carspecken,
1996; Schratz & Walker, :995). The realization of
tht richness of the me:ital, sudal, psycr:ological,
a:id linguistic world.~ that individuals am: social
g,oups create and constantly re-create and cocre
ate gives rise, the mi:ids of new-paradigm
postmodern and posrstructu:-al inquirers, to end-
lessly fertile fields of inquiry rigidy walled off
from conventional inquirers, Unfettered from the
pursuit of :nmscer.drntal scientific truth, inquir-
ers are now free to resituate themselves within
texts, to reconstruct their relationships with
research part:dpants ir: '.ess cons.tri<:ted fashions,
and to create re-presentations (Tierney&: Un coin,
J 9':17) that grapple openly with problems of
in~cription, rcinscription, mctanarratives, and
other rheto;:ical devices that obscure the extent
to which huma:i. 2ction is locally and ter.1porally
shaped. The processes of uncovering forms of
ir.scr: ;-1tion and the rhetoric of meta:iarratives
arf g,mealogical-"expos Iingj the origins of the
view tl:at have become sedimenretl and accepted
us truths" ( Pol kinghorne. 1989, p, emphasis
addcd)-or anhaeological (Foucault, l97l;
Schc'Jrid1, 1997).
N,;w-paradigm inquirers engage the founda-
tional controve~sy in quite different ways. Critical
theorists, particularly critical ,hcorists more
posirivist in orientatior., who lean towarc Marxian
interpretations, tend tow.ird fou:1darional per-
spectives, with an important ci fferenQ.;:, Rather
than locating foundational truth and knowledge
some external reality "out there:• such critical
tl:corfats tend to locate the foundations of truth in
specific historical, econorn ic, racial, and social
infras:ri:ctures of oppression, injustice, and ;nur
ginalization. Knowcrs are r:ot portrayed as sepa-
rate from some objective reality, but may be cast
as 1:naware actors in sudl historical reali:ies
(rtfalsc consciousness") or as m,h,te of historical
forms uf oppression, but unable or unwilling,
because of conflic:s, lo act on those histor'cal
forms to alter specific conditions ln this historical
mnment ("divic:ed co:isciousness"), Thns the
"foundation" for c~itical theorists is a duaiity:
social critique tied in turn to raised consciousness
of ;he possibiE,y of positive and libe;ating social
change. Social critique n:ay exist apart fron:
social change, but both are necessary for critical·
is: perspectives,
Constructivists, on the o6er hand, tend
toward the ant1foundationai (Lincoln, i 995,
1998b; 5'hwandt, i 996). Antifoundational is the
term use.; lo <ler.ote a refusal to adopt any per-
manent, unvarying (or "foundational") standards
by whidl truth can be universally known. l\.s one
of us has a:-gued, truth-and any agreement
regarding what is valid knowledge-arises from
the relationship between members of some stake-
holding community (Lincoln, !995), Agreements
about truth :nay be the subject of community
negotiations regarcing what will be accepted as
truth (although there are dJficulties wdi Iha!
formulation as well: Guba & Lincoln, 19891, Or
agreements may eventuate as the resi:lt of a dia-
logue that moves arguments about tru:h claims
or validity past the warring camps of objectivity
anc rela:ivity toward "<1 communal test of validity
through ,he argumentation of ~he partidpa:1ts in
a discourse" (Bernstein, 1983; Polkii:ghorne,
1989; Schwandt, 1996). This "comr:rnnicative and
prag:natic rnncept" of validity ( Rorty, J979 j is
never fixed or :mvarying. Rather, ii is created by
means of a community narrative, itsrlf subject to
the temporal and historical conditions that gave
rise to t~e community. Schwandt (1989) has 2lso
argued that these discourses, or cornmu:1ity
narratives, cr.n and should be oounded by r:iornl
considerations, a premise groandcd in the cmar:·
cipatory narratives of the critical theorists, the
philosophical prngmatism of Ror:y, !he demo-
crat k: focts o:' constructivist inquiry; and the
"human f.ouri,.;hing" goals of participatory ar:d
cooperative inqi;iry.
The controversies around foundationalism
(and, to a lesser exten':,essentia:ism) are not likely
to be resolved thrm::gh dialogue between ?ara-
digm adherents, The likeiier event is that the
"postmoderr: turn' (Best &Kel:ner, 1997), with its
emphasis <m the soda1 construction of social
reality, fluid as opposed to fixed identities of the
self, and the partiality of ali truths, will simply
overta,;e modernist as,mmptions of an objective
reality, as indeed, to some eim,:it, it has already
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, f,mtradictions, Conflm.'llcci, 11 205
done in the physical sciences. We might predict
:hat, if nut in our l'fe:imes, at some later t:me the
dualist idea an objective reality s ubomed by
Jmited human subjective realities will seem as
quaint as flat earth 1heor:es du to us today.
111 VALIDITY: Ar- EXTENDED AGENllA
~owhere can the conversation about paradigm
difforences be n:ore fedle than in the extended
co:itroversy about validity ( Howe & Ei ,enh.irt,
1990; Kvale, 1989, 1994; Ryan, (,reene, Lincoln,
Math 'sor1, & Mer:en s, 1998; Scheur ich, 1994,
1996 ). Validity is not like ubjec: ivity. There are
fairly strong theoretical, philosophical, and prag·
matk rationales fo, examining the concept of
objec7ivity and finding :: 'v'lanting. Even within
positivist frameworks it is viewed as concept·Ja:ly
flawed. Bat validity is a mori;: irr':ating construct,
one neither ellsily disrn:ssed no~ :eadily config-
ured by new-paradigm ?ractitionrrs (E:1er,tvedt,
I989; Tschudi, 1989). Validity cannot be dis•
rr.issed simply because it points to a question th<1t
ha~ to be ,rnswered in or:e way or another: Are
fa::se findings su5dently authentic (isomorphic
to some reality. trustworthy, relateu to the way
others construct their sod al worlds) that I may
trm;t myself in acting on their implications: More
to the point, would I foel snffidcntly secure abo·Jt
these findings to construct social po!icy ur legis•
latio:1 based on them! Al the same ti me, radical
reconfigurations of validity leave researchers with
multiple. sometimes coofliding, mandates for what
constitutes :igorous researd1.
One of the issues around va:idity is the cor:fla ·
tion between method and interpretat '.on. The
postmodern :urn suggests that no method can
deliver on ultimate :ruth, and in fact "suspects all
methods;' tl:e more so the larger their claims lo
delivering on truth ( Richardson, I994 ), Thus,
although one might argue that some methods are
more ,uited than others for conducting research
on human construction of social realities (Lincoln
& Guba, I985 ), no one would argue that a
methoci-or co:kction of rr:rthods is the myal
road tu ullin:ate knowledge, In new•paradigm
inquiry, however, it is not merely method that
promises to deliver on some set of local or co.1text-
grour.ded lru;hs, it is a:so the processes of
interpretation. Thu, we have tll'O argwnents pro•
ceeding simultaneously. The first, borrowed fmm
pos:tivism, argues fo~ a '.<ind of rigor in the app;i.
cation of method, whereas the seconc argues for
both a commu:1ity consent ar:d a torn: of rigor-
defensible reasoning, plausible alongside some
other reality that is known to author and reader-
in ast-rf:,ing salience to one interpretatior: over
anoth.:r and for framing ar:d bounding an inter•
pretive study itself. Prior to our understanding
that there were. indeed, two forrr.s of r:gor, we
assembled a set of methodological ;;riteria, largely
borrowed from an earlier generalim: o: tl1oughtfo;
anthropo:ogical and sociological methodological
theorists. Those methodological criteria are still
useful for a variet)' reasons, not the least
which is that they ensure 11:at such issues as pro•
longed engagement and persiste;"It ob~ervation are
attended to with some seriousness.
It is the second kind of rigllr, lmw;;ver, that has
receive!! the 1:1ost attention in recent writngs: Arr
WI!' interpretively ,igorou .~ Cin our cocrec7ed con•
st ructions he trus:ed to provide some pun:!1ase
on some importa:it human phenomenon?
Hun:an phenomena are themse:ves the subject
controversy. Classical social scientists would
lik.e to see "human phenomena" limited to t'.1ose
social experiences from which (sde:1tific) gener·
aHzations may be drawn. \lew•paradigm inq_uir·
ers, however, are increasingly concerned with the
single experience, the ir:dividual crisis, the
epiphany or moment of discovery. with that most
powerful of all th rears to conventional objeclivity,
feeling and emotion, Social scientists concerned
with the expansion of what count as social data
rely increasingly on the experiential, the embod-
ied, tl:e emot:ve qualities of h:iman experience
that rontrihnte the narrUs:ive qualil y to a
Sociologists such as Ellis and Bilchner (2000) and
Richardson (2000) and psychologists such as
Mld1elle Fine (sre Fine,Weis,Weseca,& Wong,2000)
concern themselves with various forms of auto-
ethnography and personal experience methods,
both to overcome the abstractions of a social
 Wo 1111 HANDBOOK OF QUAJJTA7IVE RESEARCH······· CHAPTER 8
science far gone wi:h quantitative descriptions of
h'Jman life am:: to captt:re those elements tnat
rn a..ke lite conflictual, moving, problematic.
For purposes of this discussion, we believe the
adoption of the most radical definitions of soda!
science is appro:;:iriate, because :he paradig:natk
controversies are often taking plact: at the edges
of those conversations. Those edges are where :he
bordtr work is occurring, and, accordingly, they
are the places that show the most promise for pm•
jccting where qualitative methods will he in the
near and far fumrc.
VY1lither and 'Whether Criteria
At those edges, seve rn I rnnversations are
occurr' ng around validity. The first-and most
radical-:s a conversation opened by Schwandt
( 1996), who suggests thac We say "farev,ell to cri-
tc:iology," or the "regi.:lative norms for removing
doubt and ~ellling dis?utes abo:1t what is correct
or incor::ect, true or (p. 59 ), wh 'ch have ere•
ated a virtual cult around criteria. Sch,randt does
not, howevrr, himself say farewell to criteria
rorever; rather, he :esituates social inquiry, with
other contemporary philosophical pragmatists,
with in a framework t'rnt transforms professional
social inquiry into a form of practical ph:losophy,
characterized by "aesthetic, pruder,:ial and mo~al
consideratior.s as well as more conventionally
entifk ones" (p, 68 ). \'Vhen social inquiry becomes
the practice of a form of practical phi:osophy-a
deep questioning about how we shall get on i:1 :he
world and what we coace: ve to be the potentials
and lim:ts of human knowledge and function•
ing-then we have some prdminary ur.drr·
s:anding of wha: entire:y different criteria might
be for judging social inquiry.
Schwandt (1996) proposes three such criteria.
First, he argues, we should search for a soda!
inquiry that "generate [sJ knowledge that comple-
ments or supplements rather than displac[ir:g] lay
probing of social problems:' a form of knowledge
for which we do no: yet have the crmtent, but from
which we might seek ro ur.derstand the aims of
pmctio: :rom a variety of perspect:ves, or with liif.
forent lenses, Second, he propuses a "social inquiry
as practical ph il oso:,:ihy" :hat has as its aim
"e:ihandng or c·Jltiva:ing rritica( 'nte:iigence in
parties to the research encounter;' critical inkl ·
ligem:e being defined as •·the capacity to e:1gage
in moral cr:dque:• And tbalty, he proposes a third
way in which we rr:ight ji.:.dge social i:iquiry
as practical phUosDphy: We might make judgments
about the sociai ir:quirer-as-practical-philosopher.
He or might he "evaluated on the success to
which his or her reports of the inquiry enable the
training or calibration ofhu:nan judgment" (p, 69)
or"the capacity for practical wisdo:n" (p. 70),
Schwandt is not alo:ie, h(Twever, in wishing to
say "farewell to criteriology:' at least as it has ':ieen
previously con,eived. S,heurid1 (1997) makes a
similar plea, in the saf'.1e vein, Smith (:993)
also argues that validity, if it is to sn rvive at all,
must be radically reform·.1la1ed J it is ever to serve
phenomenological rese',m:h well (see also Smith
& Deemer, :1000 ).
At issue here is not whether.we shall have
teria, or whose criteria we as a scientific commu-
nity might adopt, bi:.: rather what the nature of
social inquiry ought to be, whether it ought tn
underl!o a transfonnat'on, ar.d what might be the
basis for criteria within a projected transforf'.1a-
tion. Schwandt (1989; also personal communi·
cation, August 21, 1998) is quite dear that both
t:1e transformation and the criteria are rooted in
dialogic efforts, These diafogic elfons are quite
dearly themselves forms of "moral discourse."
Through the specific connections of :he dialngic,
the idea of practical wisdom, and :noml c.is-
courses, much of Schwandt's wor~ can be seen
to be related lo, and reBective of, critical theorist
and participatory paradigms, as well as construc-
tivism, although Sd:wandt speci:ka'.ly denies
the rel a~ivily of truth. [For a more so;,histkatec
explication and critique of forms of construe•
tivism, hermenei.:tics, a:1d imerpre:ivism, see
Scnwanci:, 2000. In that chapter, Schwandt spells
out di:;t:nctions t>ctween realists aud nomcalis:s,
and between foumlationalists and nonfounda·
tionalists., far more c:early than it is possible for 'JS
to do in tnis chapter.)
To return to tl:e central question embedded in
validity: How do we ~now w:ic:i we have specific
 (;u·Ja & Lincoln: Controversies, Cor:tra,lkt:o'.".s, Co11£u1:11ces 111
social inc_uiries that are faitrJul enough to some
huma:i constn:ction that we may feel in
acting or. :hem, or, more im?ortant, that members
of the community in whkh the research is con•
ducted may on their3 To tr.at questio:i, tr.ere
is r:o final answer. There are, however, several
isettss11ms of what we might use to make bo:h
professional and lay judgments regarding any
piece of work. It is to tl:ose versions of validity
that we now lur:L
Validity as Authenticity
Perhaps fae first nor:foundational criteria were
those we deve'.oped in response to a chalienge by
John K. Soith (see Smith & DFemer, 2000). In
those crite:ia, we aue:npted to locate criteria for
judgi11g the processes and outcomes of r.aturalistic
or constructivist inquiries (rathrr than the appli•
c<1tion of methods; see Guba & Lincoln. 1989).
We described five potential outcomes of a soda[
constructionist inquiry (evaluation is one form of
disciplined inquiry: see Gu ha & Linmln, 198 I),
each grounded in con.:ems specific to the para·
' proposed (see,for instance,Sechrest, 1993).
dig:n we had tried to c.escribt> and construct, and
apart fro!'.1 any concerns carried over from the
positivist :egacy. The criteria were ir:stead rooted
in the axioms and assumptions of the construe•
hvist paradigm, :nsofar as we could ext:apolate
a1:d infer them.
Those authemicity criteria-so called beamse
we believed them to be hallmarks of authentic,
trustworthy, rigorous, or "valid" constr·Jctivist or
phenomenological :nqulry-were fairness, onto•
logical asJ!henticity, educative authenticity,
catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity
(Guba & Lincoln, 1989, pp. 245-251). Fairness v,115
thought to be a quality ofhal.ance; that is, all sta.::e-
holder views, perspectives, claims, concerns, and
voices should be apparent in the tex:_ Omission
of stakeholder or partici?anl voi::es reflects. we
believe, a form of bias. This bias, hoW<'Ver, was and
is not related directly to the concerns of objectivity
1 that flow from positivist ir:qni:y and that are
ref:ective of inquirer blindness or subjec:ivity:
1
Rather, tnis fairness was defined by deliberate
at:empts to prevent marginalization, to act
'
207
affirmatively with ,,,,,,,,rt to inch:sion, ar.d to act
with energy to ensure that all voices in the ir:quiry
effor: had a chance to he represented in any texts
ar.d to havr thei, stories treated fairly and with
balance.
Oruological arid educative uuthenticiry were
designated as c:iteria for determining a raised
l<!vel of awarenes~, in the instance, by indi-
vidual research par:idpants and. in the second, by
:ndividuals about :hose who surround them or
with whom they come into con:act for some social
or organizational purpose. Although we failed to
see it at that particular historical moment (1989),
there is 1:0 reason these crite..'ia can:101 be-at
this point i:l time, with many miles under our
theoretic and practice feet-reflective also of
Schwandt's ( 1996) "critical intelligence:' or capac.
ity to engage in moral critique. In fact, the au then·
tidty criteria we originally proposed had strong
moral and ethical overtones, a point lo which we
later returned foi instance, Ur.coin, 1995,
l998a, 1998b). It was a point to which our critics
strongly objected before we were sufficiently self·
aware to realize the :mplications of what we had
Catalytic and ta,·tical authenticities refer \fl :he
ability of a give:! inqu:ry to prorr::it, first, action
on the part of research participants and, second,
fae involvement of the researcherfevaluator in
training partkipants in specific forms of social
and political actio:1 if participants cesire such
tra(ni ng. It is here that constructivist inquiry
practice begins to resemble forms of r•,t, r" 1
orist action, action research, or participative or
cooperative inquiry, each of whicr: is predicated
0:1 creating the capac::y 'n ~esearch pi!ftidpants
for positive social cha:ige and :orms of emand;,a•
tory community act ion. It is a:so at this specific
point that pract:tioi:ers of positivist and postpos-
itivist social inquiry are the most critical, because
any action on the part of the inquirer is thoug..,1 to
destabilize objectivity and introduce subjectivity,
resulting in bias, The prob'.em u: subjectivity and
bias has a :ong theoretical histmy, and ti: is chapter
is ,imply too brief for us to enter into the various
formulations that eithe:- take accuun: of subje<:-
tivity or posit it as a positive learning experience,
 2D8 111 Hl\;,,if}BOOK O? Ql:ALITATIVI' llF$EARCH-C:-IAPTER 8
practical, embodied, gendered, and emo:ive. For
purposes of this discussion, it is enough to say
that we are persuaded that obj cctivit y :s a
,r:imera: a mytho:ogical creature that never
c:dstec, save in :he imagi1:atim:s of those who
belitve that knowing can be sepa,atec from :ne
knower.
Validity as Rcsisttmce, Validity as
Poststructural Transgression
Laurel Richardso1: ( 1994, :997) llas prO?OSe<:
another form validity, a deli':>erntely "t,ansgres-
sive" form, the cry.;taliine. In writing experimental
(i.e., nonauthoritative, nonposit:vis:) tel(!s, particu-
larly poer:1s and play,, Richardson ( I997) has
soi;ght to "prohlematize reliability, validity and
tru:h" (p. 165) in an effort to create m::w relatio:i-
ships: to be, ;t'!ie.irch partk:pants, to her 'WOrk, to
other women, to herne:t: She says that t;lll1Sgress!ve
forms perm;! a wcial scic:1tist to '\::onjure a different
kind of social science ... Iwhich] means (hanging
one's relationship to one's work, how one knows alld
tells ,lbout the sociological" (p. 166 ). In order to see
"how t:ansgression looks and how it is nec-
essary to "fine and deploy methods that allow us :o
uncover tlie hidden assumptions and life-denying
repress;oris of sociology; resee/refeel sociology.
Reseeing and retelling arc inseparable" (p. 167),
The way to achievr s·Jch validity is by examin-
ing the properties of a ays:al in a r:1etapnoric
se:ise. Here we ?resent an extended quotatio:i to
give some flavor of how such validity might be
described and deployed:
I p:opose that rhc a:ntral imaginary for "validity"
for postmodernist texts is not the triangle-a
r:gid, 'ii::ec, :wo-din:en.donal cu:ccL Rather
central imagioary is the crystal, which rombi nt>s
sy:;:metr}· and substance wi!h an infinite va:iety
of shai;ies. sul:,stam:es, t,ansmutati<ms. nmltidi-
rnensimiallties, and angles of approach. Crystals
grew, change, al:er, h;:: a:e nut a:imrphous.
Crystals are pris1:1s thal n:flccl txternalities and
refr:.ct within themselve.s, creating .:ifferent colors,
patter::s, ""'"''"'·"""O off in c:!forent directions.
Whal we see crpends upon our angle of repose.
N11t t:rangulaticr., crysta!li,~tion. In pos:modernist
m:xed-gen re texts, we have moved from p!a,:e
geo:netrr to ,ig!1t lheo,y, where light can be both
waves and ;,articles. Crystallization, without
n,c,u1c. deconst:-ucts the tuditfo::a: idea of
"~al'dity" '.we l:cw there is no singk truth, we
see how texts va11aa'te themselves J; and crys:al
lizafam provides us w'th a deepci:cc, complex,
thoroughly partial 1::idersta11di11g of :he topic.
Paradoxka:ly, we know more Jnd <lou bt what we
(Richardson, 1997, ?- 92)
The metaphoric "solid object" (crys:alitcxt),
whkh can be turned many ways, w:1ich reflects
and refracts ligh: (ligl:thml:iple mean-
ing), through which we can see both ",\>ave" (light
wave/hmnar. currc:its) and ";iartide" (!ight tis
"chunk,~ of e11crgy/e:eme1,ts of trtth, fo{'Jing,
connection, processes of the research that "tlow"
together) is an attractive metaphor for validity.
The properties of the crystal-as-meta ;:>hor help
wri:ers and readers alike ,ee the interweaving
nf processes in tl:e r~earch: discovery, seeing,
telling, storying, re-presentation.
Other «Transgressive" Validil ies
Lan rel R:chardson is not alone i:1 uilling for
forms of validity that are "transgress've" and
dis::uptive of the status qao. Patti Lather (1993)
"an incitement to di,coum,;' the pu::posc of
wh'ch is "to rupture ,<alidity as a ::egime of truth,
to displace historicai inscription ... via a dis-
pcr~ion, cirrnlation and p::oli:'eration of counter-
pracl:ces of au6ority that take th c crisis of
representation into aa:ount" (p. 674). In add:tior:
to catalytic valic.ity (Lather, I986}. l.at:ier (I 993)
poses validity as simulacralironic validity;
Lyotardian para[ogylneopragmati. 11aiidit;-, a form
of validity that "fosted sI hc1crogendty, refusing
disclosure" ( p. 679); Derridean rigor!rhizomalic
vulidity,a forn: of behaving "via relay, circuit, mi::-
ti pie openings" ( p. 680 ); and voiupruous/situated
·1u/idi1y, which ''emhodi es a situated, part' al tenta-
tivenes~" and "brings ethics and cpis:ein,,!1)gy
together ... via practices of engagemer.t am.: seJt:
reflexivity" (p. 686 ). Together, form a way of
interrupting, disrupting, and transforming"pure"
presence' into a disturbing, fl uic, partial, and
 Guba & t:::ml11: Co:moversies, Contradictions, (onfiuences 111 209
problematk presence~-a poslslruclu.ral and
decidecly pos:modern form of discourse theory,
hence texli:al :-cvdalion,
Validity as an Ethical Relationship
As Latl:er ( \'l93) points out, postslruclural
for:ns for validi:ies "bring ethics and epistemology
together'' (p. 686); indeed, .l!i Parker Pal mer (1987)
also 1:0,es, "every way of knowing contains its
mvn rr:oml tntjectory" (p, Peshkin reflects on
Noddings's ( 1984) observation that ~the search for
justificahon often carries us farthe: and farther
from the heart of morality" (p. HIS; ,po:ec in
Peshkir:, 199'.\ :>, 24). Tl:e way in ;,;ilich we k.1ow is
most as.•-rJredly tied up with both what we kr:ow and
our relationships wirli. 011r research participants.
Acmrdingly, une of us worked or. try: ng to under-
stand the ways in which the ethical lnterscds buth
the interpersonal ar,d L'ie epistemologica: (as a form
of authentic o:- valid knowing; lincoln, 1995), The
xsult was the first set of understandings about
emergii:g criteria for quality that were also rooted
in the epi 5temology/elhics m:J,US, Seven new stan-
dards were derived from that seaxh: positionality, or
standpoint, judgmer:ts; specific: discourse corr::nu-
nities and re,earch sites as arbiters of quality; voice,
or the extent to which a text has the ,;uality of
polyvocality; critical subjectivity (or what might be
termed intense ,elf-reflexki:.y); reciprocity, or t'le
extent to which the research relationship berome,
reciprocal rather than hirrarc:ikal; sacredness. or
the profound regard for hOV1' sc1ew:s: can land does)
contribute to human flourishing; am.: s:1aring ,he
perquisites of privilege that accrue to our positions
as academics w(th univereity positions, Each of
these standards was extracted from a boc.y of
researdl, often from disdplir.es as d:sparate as
n,anagemenl, philosophy, and women's s:udics
(Lincoln, 1995).
111 VrncE, REFLEXIVITY, AND PosTMODER'l
TtXTUft.l. REPR1:SENTAT:Ot>:
Texts hc.ve to do a more work these days
than t:1ey usec to. Even as they are ,barged by
postlilructuralist& and postmodernists to ,erlec,
upon their representational practices, representa•
llor.al practices themselves become more prnh·
lematic, Three of the most e:igaging, '.:iut painful,
issues are th,, p~oblem of voice, the status of
rcfexivi:y, ar:d the pmblemat:cs of postmod•
er:1/poststructural textual representation, espe·
dally as those problematics are c.isplayed in the
shift towa~d narrative and literary for:ns that
dfrec~ly a:1d openly dea: wd1 hurr:an emotion.
Voice
Voice is a multilayered problem, simply
because : t has con:e tu mean many things to
ferent researchers. In fo,mer ecas, the ody appro-
p~iate ''volce" was the "voice from nowhere"-the
"pure presence·, of representation, a, Lather terms
i:, researchers became • ore conscious of
the abstracted realit;es their texts crea:ed, they
became simultaneously more conscious of having
readers "hear" their inforr..anls-per• itting
readers tor.ear the exact words (and,occasionaUy,
the paraEnguistk caes, lb, ;apse,, pauses, stops,
starts, refom1ulations) the informants. Today
can mean, especially in more part icipa-
tory forms of re.search, not only having a real
researcher-and a researcher's vo:cc-in the
lex t, but also letting research participants spea'.!:
for themsel ve::;, either in text form or through
plays, forums, "town mee~ing;;:' or other oral and
performan..:e-oriented media or communica1io:1
forms c.esigned hy research participants them•
selves, Performance texts, in particular, give an
emot:onal immediacv to the voices of researchers
'
aod research participants far beyond their uwn
sites ar:d locales (see McCall, 2000). Hosanna
Hertz ( ! 997) describes voice as
a struggle 10 figure cut how to p::esent the autho:'s
self while ,imullaneously writing !r.e responden:s'
accounts and representing their selves. Voice has
multiple dimensior.s: Fi ~t, there is lhe voice of the
author, Semnd, :here is prescntatio:: of th,,
voice~ of one's r..-spondents wit::in :he lex:. A ·hird
dirnens;,rn appears when :he is the su hiert of
the inquiry... , Voice is authors eiqress them -
seh-es wi:hin an cthnog:a;ihv. (.PP· xi-x:;)
 2'.0 111 :fANDBOOK OF QUAUTATIV£ RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8
But i<nowing how to exp:ess ourselves gues far
beyond the comn:onsense understanding of
"cYpressing ourselves:' Generations of etl:nogra-
phers trained in the "cooled-Lmt, stripped-dow:1
rhetoric" of positivist im;uiry ( Firestone, 1987)
fir.cl it diffk·.ilt, if not nearly impossible, to
"locate" themselves deliberately and squarely
witbin their texts (even though, as Geertl [: 988 J
has de:rwnstrated finally and without doubt, be
authorial voice is ;--arely genuinely absent, or even
hidden). 1 Specific textual experir,ie:itation can
;,e[p; that is, composing ethnographic work into
various literary forms-the poetry a:id plays of
Laurel Richardson are good examples-can help
a researche~ lo overcome the tendency to write in
the distanced and abstracted voice of t:w diser:1-
bodied "f;' But suc:1 writi:ig exercises are ha:rl
work. This is also work that is em bedded in the
practices of reflexivity a!ld narrativity, without
which achieving a voke (partial) tru:h is
irr:?ossible.
Reflexivity
Reflexivity is the process of reflecthg critically
on the seJ as researcher, fae "l:uman as h:stru-
ment'' (G:.iba & Lir:rnh:. 198: ). lt is, we woulc
asser:, the critical subjectivity discussed early oil
in Re<1son and Rowan's edited volmr..e Human
Inquiry (198 l). It is a conscious experiencing of
the self as both inquirer and respondent, as
teacher and learner, as the one corning to know
the self within the processes of reseaxh itself.
Reflexivity forces us to ,on~e to terms not only
with our choke of research prrhlem and with
those with whom we er:gage in the resean;h
process, but with our selves and with the r:mltiple
identities that represent the f:uid self in the
research set:ing (Akoff & Potter, 1993}. Shulamit
Reinharz ( 1997), for ~xam ple, argues that we not
only" bring the sdf to the field ... [we also] create
the self in the fieid" (p, 3). She suggeMs that
although we a[ have many selves we bring with
us, t:iose selves fall into three categories: research-
based se:ves, brought selves (the selves th at
historically, socially, and personally create our
s:andpoints), and situationally created selves
(p. Each of those selves cor.ies into play in the
research setting and consequently has a disti nc·
t;ve voice. Renexivity as well as :he poststruc•
ti:ral and postmodern ser:sibili :ies concer:ii ng
quality in qualitative rei,earch ······· demam:s that WI'.'
interrogatt each of ou, selves regarding the ways
in which resra:ch efforts are shaped and stagec
around the binaries, contradictions, and para-
doxes that form our own lives. We must question
our selves, too, regarding how those binaries and
paradoxe, shape not only the identities cailed
forth the field and la:er in the discovery
processes of wril:ng, but a!so onr interactions
w':h responcents, i:i who we become to them in
the process of bernming :o ourselves. Someone
nnce characterizrd qualitative research as the
twin p:ocesses of "writing up" (field noteij) and
"writing down" (the narrative). But Clancinin and
Connelly ( 1994) have made clear ;hat this bitex-
;ual reading of the ?rocesses of quaiitati ve
research is far too simplistic. In fac:. many texts
are created in the process engaging in field-
work. As Rkhardson (I 994, 1997, 2000; see also
Ricbardscm & St Pierre, Chapter 38, tl:is volur,ie)
makes dear. writing is not merely the transcrib-
ing of some reality. Rather, writing-of all the
texts, notes, presentations, and possJb:ities-is
also a process o: discovery: discovery of the
su 1:iJ ect (and someti • es of the problem itself)
and discovery of the self.
There is good news and bac news with the
most contemporary of formulations. T:1e good
news is that the r,:1 ultiple selves-ourselves and
our respondents-of postmodern inquiries
may give rise to more dynamic, problematic,
open-ended, and compleY •or11;s of writing and
representation. The bad news is that the multiple
selves we create and encounter give rise to more
dy:iamk:, problematic, open-ended, and comp 1ex
fo:-ms of writing and representa~ion.
Pnstmodern Textual Representations
There are two dangers inherent in the conven•
tional texts. of sdentlfic method; that they may
lead us to believe tl:e world is rather simpler than
it is, a,1d that they may reinscribe enduring forms
 Guba & Lincoln: Controve~sies, Contradido:1;;, C:»:ill:.;enccs !I 211
of histor:ra I oppression. Put another way, we are
confronted with a crisis of aut'1ority (which tells
us the wnrld is"this way" when perhaps it is some
other way, or ma11y other ways) and a c:-isis of rep·
:-csentatio:1 (which serves to silence those whose
lives we appropriate fo~ our social sde:1ces, and
whkh :nay a~so serve subtly lo re-create this
world, ratb:r than ~o:ne other, perhaps more
complex, hut just one). (atheriae ::;t;mpson
(1988) has obse:ved:
Like every grea: word, "represcnlationls» is ;:i stew.
A s,;rambled menu. it serves up scv,e:a, meanings
at un,;e. a representation ca:: be an image-
visual, verbal, 0:: aural. ... A representaton can
also a narrative, a seq.,;ern:e of images and
ideas .... 01, a representatim: can be rh: prodnct of
ideology, Lat vast scheme for showing forth the
world and justifying its deali::gs. (p. 223)
One way to confro:H the dangerous illusions
(and their um:erlying ideo'.ogies) that ;exts may
foster is through the creation of new texts that
bn;:ak boundaries; that move from the center to
th<: margins to comment on and decenter the cen-
ter; that rorgo dosed, btnnded worlds for those
more open-ended and less couve:iicntly encom-
passed; that transgress tl:c boundaries of conven-
tional social science; and to create a
soda! sdenre a':mut human life rather than an
subjects.
Experiments with how to do this pro•
duced. "~''"" texts" (Marcus & Escher, 1986).
\lessy lexls are not typographic :1ightmares
(although they may be typugraphkally nonlin-
ear); rather, they are tex:s that seek to break the
·:.inary betweell science and li:erature, to portray
the contradiction and truth of human experience,
to break the rules i::i the service showing. even
partially, how real human beings cope with both
the eternal verities of human existence and the
dailr ir ritatior:s am: tragedies of living that exis•
tence. Postmodern representations search uul and
ex?eriment with narratives that expand the range
of understanding, voice, and storied variations
in hi.:1:1an e.:,aJerience. As muci as they are social
scicntis :s, inquirers also become storytellers,
poets, and playwrights. experimenliog with
persoral narratives, first-?erson accounts,reflexivr
inrermg,dons, and decunstruction of the forms of
:yranny embedded in represe:itationa I practices
Richardson, 2000; Tierney & Lincoln, 1997).
Representation may he arguably :he most
open-ended of the controversies surrounding
phenomenological research today, for no other
reasons than that the ideas of what constituks
legitimate inqu:ry are expanding and, at the same
time, the for ms uf narrative, cramatic, and rhctor,
ical struct'Jre are far from being either explored
ur e.:tploited fully. 1l1;cause, too, each lnquiry, each
inquirer, bri:1g5 a anique perspective to our
w1derstanding, the possi"Jilities for variation and
explmatio:i are Emited only by the number
those e:1gaged in inquiry a:1d the realms of social
and intrapersor.al life that become in:,erestiru,
to rcscarchtrs. The only thing that can be said for
certain about postmodern re?resentational prac·
tices is that they will proliferate as forms ard they
will seek, and demand much of, audiences, many
of wJom :nay be outside the scho'arly and aca•
demic wor:d. In fact, some forms of :nquirv mav
' '
never show up in the acadrrr: k worlr., because
tl:ei, purpo~ will be use in the imn:eciate con-
text, for the consumption, re:lection, and use of
ir:dige:rnus audiences. Those that are produced
for sd:o:a:ly audiences will, howeve,, continue to
be untidy, experime:nal, and driven by the need to
communicate social worlds that !-.ave remained
p:ivate and "no:iscientifkn until now.
JIil A GLJMPSR OF THE f 0TURR
The issues raised in this chapter are by no means
:he only ones i;nder discuss:on for the near and
far future. But they are wme of the critical ones,
and discussion, dialogue, and eve:i controversies
a::i: bound to continue as practitioners of the
various new and emergent paradigms rontinue
ei:her to look for commur. g,ound or to fkd ways
in which to distinguish their forms of bquiry
from others.
Some time ago, we expressed our hope that
practitioners of both p{)l,itivwt a:1d new-paradigm
forms of inquiry mig'lt find some way of resolving
 212 • HA'.'{DBOOK OF QUAlllATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8
their differences, such that all soc:al sde:itists
could work within a common discourse-,md
perhaps ever: several traditions once again.
!n retrospect, such a resolution appears highly
u:ilikely and would probably even be less than
useful. This is not, however, because neither posi-
tivists nor phenomenologists will budge an im;:h
(although that, too, is unlikely). Rather, it is
becalise, in the postmodern moment, and in the
wake of poststructuralisrn, the assumption that
there is no sir:gle "trutb"-tbat all truths are hut
partial truths; that the slippage between signifier
and signified in linguistic and textual terms
creates re presentatior:s that arl' only and always
shadows of ;:he ac:ual people, events, and places;
lhal identities are fluid :-ather than fixed-leads
us ineluctably toward the insight that there w:11
be no single "conventiur:al" paradigm to which a.I
social scientists might ascribe ir: some commor:
terms and with mutual ur:cerstanding. Ratl:er,
we stand at the th~eshold of a history marked by
multivocality, contested mean:ngs, paradigmatic
controversies, ind new textual forms.At some dis•
lance down this conjectural path, when its history
is written, we will find :his has beer: the era of
emancipation: emancipation from what Hannah
Arendt calls "1he coerciveness of Trudi~ emanci-
pation from !:.earing only the voices of Wes:em
&irope, e:nancipation from genera1ions of silence,
and emancipation from seeing the wo~ld in one
color.
We may also :,e entering an age of greater spir•
:tuality within research efforts. The emphasis on
inquiry that reflects ecological values, on inqu: ry
that respects commu:1al forms of living that are
r:ot Western, on inquiry ir:volving intense reftex-
iviry regarding how our inquiries are shaped
by our own historica: and gendered locations, ~nd
on inquiry into "human flourisl:ing; as Heron
and Reason ( 1997) call it, may yet reintegrate the
sacred with the secular io ways that promote free-
dom and self-determination. Egon Brunswik.
the organizational theorist, wrote of "ti.:d" a:1d
*untied» variables-variable& that are linked, or
dearly :10t linked, with other varia!>les-when
studying human lorms of organization. We may
be in a per!od of exploring the ways in which our
inquiries arc both t:ed and untied, as a means of
findir:g where our i:lterests cross and where we
can hoth be and prorr.ote others' being, as whole
b-Jman beings.
l'll No'.:'ES
L are sewral verslor:s cri:bil :heory,
indudingdasskal critical thea;y, which is mos1 closely
refuted tel neo Ma.xis: theory; ;m~1110,itivfat formula•
lions. which divorce them,elves from Marxist thmry
but are positivist in their ::1sistcncc o:: ccnventkmal
rigor criteria; and postmodernist, pas:stm:r~:111ist, ,:;r
constn:ctivis: oriented v.irieties. See, for instanc<", Far
0987), Carr Ken::nis 11986), and Lather (1'l91).
See a;,;;, Ke~m is and McTaggarl (200C} and Kincheloe
and !>1cLaren (2000).
2. For a dearer unders1anding of how methods
came :o star.din for paradigms, or how m:r initisl (and,
we thought, ,1uife C:ca:) pos:tions came to be miscon-
strued, se.: Lan,y (1993) or, even more curremly. Weiss
(1998, ew p.2681.
3. For ei;:amplc, compare this chapter w:,h, say, rhe
work of R:chardson (200()) and Ellis and llod:::er
(WOO), where the aullwrial are dear, per,ona:,
voca:, and iuterior, inlerncting $Ubjectivities, Although
some colleagues lrnvc surprh;ed u,, by corr~crly identi-
fyi lliJ which d:apters each us has writ1e:n in given
bocks, ne\·er:hele~s. tht> ,ayle of th is chaprc: more
,fosdy approximates the more disron-:ed forms of"real-
ist" wril::1g Ihm ii the ::11 ima!e, perstind "fcdin!l
\lo bo:row a phrase b,m S1 uds Terkcl) of other
diaplcrs. Vuices alsn arise as a !unction of t:ie material
being wveml. The 111;,terial we diose as most impo~
tant for 11:is cl1apte: seemed to demand a less personal
tone, ;,ro:rnbly because there appears to be mm± more
''conlcntion" than calm dialogue conccr:jng these
issues.Thc"cool»tone like:y stems fro:n our psyc::dog•
ical rcspm:se to trying to cr:ate a quieter spare for dis•
cussion around ccntroversial issi;es. What ~an we say?
Addelson, K, P. (1993 ). Knowersidoers and their moral
proble1ns. I:: L. Akoi: & E. Potte, (Eds.), feminist
epistemo/ogi<:£ (pp. 265~ 294), 'lew York; Routledge.
A:roff, L., & Po:tcr, E. [Eds,). (l 993) Feminist episte•
mo/ogies. New York: Koutledge.
.
,.
G:.:ba & Lincoln: Controversies, Co:itradic:ions, Confluences Ill 213
Alpern, S., Antler, J,, Perry, E. I,, & Scobie, L\.V. (Ecs.).
(1992). Thtt cha/!enge of feminist bfograp.~y:
Writing rite lwes of modem American wome•r,
Urbana: :Jniversity of Illinois Press.
Babbitt, S. (1993 ), Feminis:n and objective interests:
The ro:e of transformation experien,es in ratio.
nal deliberation. l:l L. Akoff & E. Potter iEds,),
Feminist episiemologies (pp. 245-264). New York:
Rou:ledge,
Bernstein, R. J. (1983}. Beyor,d o/JJectivi,m and refa:,
,ivi;m: Science, hermeneutics, arid pmxiii, Ox:c:d:
Blackwell.
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (! 997). The postmade,>1 u.rn.
"lew York: Guilford.
Blolat:d, H, (l 989). 1-1 igl:er education and high anxiety:
Objec:ivisrr., relat:-,ism, and irony. Journal of
Higher Education, 60, 519-543.
Bloland, H. (i995}. Postmodernism and higher cdllca•
tion. Journal of Higlrer Education, 66, 52 l-559.
Bradley, J., & Schaefer, K. (1998). The uses and misuses
of data and models. Th(msand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carr, W, L, & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critital:
Eiducatioo, knowie:lge and action research, Lendon:
Fi1!1::er.
Carspecken,?. F. ( 1996). Critical etfmograpf,,y in educa•
tional re;;earril: A theoretical mu! practical guide,
New York: Rou1ledge.
C~.,istians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and polltks in qualita•
liw research. In N. K. Denzin &: Y. S. tincnln
(Eds.;, H~ndbook of qua/itati·;e resi•,11rh [2nd ed.,
pp. 133-155 ), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F, M. (:994), Persnnal
experience methods. In N. K. Denr.in &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds. I, Handl;ock of qualit111ive
research (pp, 413-427). Thousa::cl Oails, CA: Sage.
Denzin, ,I\'. K., & Lincoln, Y. S, (Eds.). ( 1994). Handbook
ofqua/itariv, r.":Search. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
fllis, C., & Bcchner, A. P. (Eds,). (1996 ). Composing
ethnography; Alternative forms of qualitati'1e
writing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Ellis, C., & Bodmer. A. I>. (2000). Autnethnography,
?ersonal narrative, reflex: vity: Researd1er as
subje.:t In N. I( Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Hamlbook of qualitative research (2nd etl.,
pp. 733-768}. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5nerstvedl, R. (1989 ), The problem of validity in socfal
~dc::cc. lr. S. Kvale (Ed.;, Issues ,ifvalidity in qua!
itative research {pp. 135-173;. Lund, Sweden:
Studer:Ltteratur,
Fay. I\. 11987). Critical soda! science. Ithaca, 'Ji': Cornell
IJnive~s'ty Press.
Finl\ M., Wei.,, L, Wem:m, S., & Wong. L. (2000), For
whom! Qualitative research, represenlat ions,
and social responsi::i:lities, ; n N. K. Denzin &
Y. S, Lincnln [Eds.), Handbook of qw;/iratil-e
research {2nd ed .. pp.107-131 ). Thous,md Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Firestone, W. (: 987 ), .'leaning in me:hod: lh< rhdoric
of quamitative and qualitative re,earc':, Edurn-
tioua/ Re!iearch,~ 16(7), lll-21.
Foucau:t, M, (1971), The order of things: Ar. arrhaeoi-
ogy of the human scimces. New York: Pantheon.
Gamsun, J, (2000). Sexualities, queer :heory, and q~al•
itative research. In IS, K. Denzin & Y. S. Linco:n
(Eds.),H!ll1dbook o(qua!iraave research (2nd ed.,
pp.347-36.5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa,ge,
Gee:1z, C ( 1988 l. Works aml live:: The anlhrapotoi ist as
author. Cambridge: Polity.
Geertz, C. 0993). focal knowledge: Further em,ys i11
i•rterpretive anthropology. London: Fo:itana.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M, (2000). Reconstructing
the relatioru,;hi?8 between universities and society
through aclicn research. In N, '<. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitati';e
research (2nd ed., pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G.,& Lincoln, Y. S, ( 1'lfl: ). li(fectiw1 evaiuati,m:
lmpwving the u,,cfulness of evaiuarfon res,i!t5
thrm,gh respomwe ci•rd natucalfsric ,1pproaches.
San Francisco: Jossey-Ba,,.
Guba, E. <:., & _.im:oln, Y. S. (: 9~2 ). lipistemologiral am!
methodological bases fur natura'.ist:c inquiry.
Educational Commun icaiions and Technofogy
Journal, 31, 233-252
G"ba, E, li,, & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth ge~erat:m,
ev;;;iuati01i Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E, G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing
paradigms in qualitative research.:n N. K. Denzir:
& r. S, Lincoln (Eds.), Ham:llwok ()f q11alitatr1e
re.,earch (pp. I05- I: 7), Tho-~,and Oaks. CA:
Sage.
Harding, S, ( 1993 ). Rethinking standpoint epist~mol-
ogy: What is -~rung objectivity''? In L. Akoff &
E, Potter (Eds.}, Ferr:inisr episremologies '.pp. 4'l-
82). New York: Rout'.edge.
Heron, I. (1996). Cooperative inquiry: H.esearch imo rhe
human condition. London: Sage.
Heron, J., &: Reaso:1. P. (1997), A partidpatory inqui,y
paradigrr.. Qualitaiiw Inquiry, J, :l. 74- 294,
Hertz, R. [ 1997 ), In~roduction: Retlexivit}' and voi~e. In
R. Hertz (Ed.), Rej/,-:xiviry and mice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
 214 D HANllROOK OF QUALITATlVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8
Howe, K, & Eisenha~t, M. (1990 ). Standards for
qualitative (and quar:ti:ative) research: A prolcgo·
meuon. E'ducaricnal Resean:htr, 19(4), 2-9.
Hutchmn, L ( I 91\9). The poUrirs of postmodemism.
New l'ork: Routledge.
Kemmis, & McTaggart, R. (2UOO). Participatory
ad:on ,,.,,_, .,,·, In N. K Dcmir: & Y. S. Li::coln
[Eds.), Huml/;o,,/,; Q/ qualitative research ed.,
pp. Tiousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kincheloe, j. L. ( 1991). Te,icher5 as researchers:
Qualitatii·r inquiry as a path lo empowerment.
London: Fahner.
Kircheloe, J. L,,& McLaren, P, (2000). 3.ethinking cri:ical
:heory and qwlitativc rcse,m:h. Int,.;, K. Denzin &
Y. S. L~coln (Eds.;, Handbook ofqualitative researJi
(2:id ed, pp, 279-313). Thousalld Oak.,, CA: Sage.
Kondo, J, K. (1~90). Crafting Ptrw~r, gender.
and dimn1rses of idemily iu u J:;panese workplace.
G:k;igo: :Jniversil r of Chicago Press.
Kondo. D, K. (1997}. Ahow Jaa: Performing met in
fasf:ion ,md theater. :-.Jew York: Routledge.
S. (Fa). (1989). !siue, cf validity fo qu11/ita1ivc
research. Lund, Sweden: Stodentlittcratur.
Kvale, S, (l 994, A?ril;. Validation as communin1/ion
and action. Paper pre.enteci at !he annuJ: meet
ing of the American Educational ReseJr, ~
A,sc1cia1ion, :-lei, Orlear:s.
La:-,cy, D. F. ( 1993). Q;,alit,uive research m edumti,m: An
hwodu.:tion :o the majr.r trndftions. :'lew York:
Longman.
l.ather, P ( 1986). lssues uf validity in openly ideologi•
cal research: Between a rrn;k and a sof: :ilace.
Ini,m:/r~nge, l 7( •l), 63-84,
l.z.t:Jer, P. (I 99 I). Getting smart: re111m,1s1 research and
pedagogy wffJili11 the postm,;derr.. "lew Ynrk:
R,r.;tkdge.
:.ather, I' (1')93). Fertile ,>bsessio:,: Validity after po~t-
structmalism. Sociological Quarterly. 34, 673-693.
Leitch, V. B. (1996). Pn,tmodern: Lm:al gfohai
flows. Albar:y: State :Jniversity of New York
Lincoln. Y. S. [1995). Emerging c:ilcria for quality in
qualitative and i nt1;:pretive research. Qualitarive
lnquir), l •.:.1 . , ''""·
Lincoln, i'. S. [ 1997;. \Vhat rnnsrit ;:tes qnali:y in interpre•
tivc research? In C: K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & JJ J,
Leu (lhls.J, ftrquiries in literacy: 1'heary and practice
(pp.54-6~). t'hicago: :'!atonal Reading Conference,
Lincoln. Y. S. i 1998a). The ethks of leaching qualitative
re:rec:-di. Quaiita1iw, Inquiry, 4, 17.
Lim.:oln, Y. S. (. 998b ). From understanding to action:
New im?eratives. new crileria, new methods for
lnrerprelive researchers. Theory and Researtlr in
Sofia! Educat1011, 16(1 ), 12-19.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (; 994 ). T':e fifth momeot
In K K Denzin & i', S. Lincoln ,'1andlm1Jk
of qualitative rl!searc/r (p:i. 575-586), Thousand
Oak,,CA:
Uncoln, Y. & Cuba, E. 1;. ( 1985). N,miraiisric i11,1uiry.
Beverly Hifis, CA: Sagi',
Mareus, -~ fis:her, M. M. I. ( 198('). Anthropology
a, cu/rural crifique: .'In experimental mom,m!
in ti1e imman sciences. ChicJJlO; \;r. :ver~1ty of
Chicago Pres5
McCall, M. >1. (2000). Performance etl:mig,aphy:
A brief history and w:m, advice. In N. K. l)cnz::;
& Y. S. Linmln ' H,mdbno.~ o( q:uiii1ati·1e
n,search :2nd ed., pp. 421-433). Thm:sand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. ( l ')9il ). Nesearch merhods in education a.d
psychology: frnegrating div,mity wuh quantitative
and qunfitative methods. '.:'housand Oaks, CA:
.Y'.idiad, .'It C. (I 996). Feminism amJ the postmod,•m
impul>.:: Post-Warid War lificlion. Albany: Sta,e
Univer~ity ()f New York Press.
;;Jodding,, N". ( 191!4). C,iring: i,, feminine aPJiroa,h lo
ethics and moral ed11c,1tion. Berkeley: Uni~:'liity
of California Press.
Olese:, V L (2000 ). Fe:,1inisms and qualitative resear,h
at and i1ito the millennium. In ::-1. K. Dcni:in &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds,), Himdbuok of qualitative
reser;;rch ed., pp. .,-,,.,., ,. 'l'lmusa1 :d Oak,,
CA:
Palmer, P. f. (1967, Scplcmber-October). (ommur.iry,
c11ntlkt, 11:1d ·.wys or km,wing. r:lumJ;e. 19, .w-· l:>.
Pesh,r:n, A. (1993). Thr goodness of qualitative
research, Educational Re:earcher, 24-30.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (I 989). Cha:iging cmrversatio~:i
abcut human scicn~.:. In S. Kvale {Ed.), Js,ues vf
i-alidiiy in 11uafirativr research (pp. 13 46}. lund,
Sweden; Stude11Uillcrnlur.
Rea,cn P. (1993 J. Sacred u:ie:-ience an c sacred
sdence.]oumal ofManagcmem fnquiry. 2, l0-27.
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. ;Eds.). (: 981 ). lium,m inquiry.
Lo:;cu:1: John Wil~
""'"'k, S. (I 9')7), Who am l? The fur a variet v
of selv~~ in field ln R. Hem tEd,), Rtif1exivily
and !'aice {pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richs:'dson, L (1994). 1.-Vriting: A method of inquiry. ,n
N. K. D~nzin & v. S. Unco:,1 (l'ds.), Hand/;ook of
quaiitative research ( pp, 516-529}. Thotts:1::c
O~ks,CA:
.....
Gu 'Ji & Lincol:-.: Con!:oversies, Con:radictions, Confluences Ill 2: 5
Rkna:dson, L. (1997), Fields of ,!'lay: Constructing
au academic iijc, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Rkhi•,:lson, L 12000;, \\',iring: A method of inquiry,
In N. K. ll<'uzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed,,), Ha1:d/mok
of qualitmiw rcs,,ari:h (2nd ed., pp, 923-948),
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
lfort y, R, ( Phifosophy a11d the mirror ,if nature,
Prince:on, NJ: l'rim:e:m1 University Press,
Rya::, K, Greene, I, :,i11coin, Y, S,, Matbsoo, S,, &
Mertens, 11 ( 1998). Adva::Lagcs and challenges of
usinJ? indus'vc e11allllltion approad1es in evalua-
tion practice. American Journal fi~aluatum, 19,
122.
Salncr, M, ( 1989), Validty in human sc:ence
rcscan:h, In S, Kval e (Ed,}, Issues of v:1/idity in
qualitat1ve reuarch (pp, 47-72). tund, Sweden:
Stude11tlittcrn1ur,
Scheurkl1, J, J, \ 1994;, Pcb::y archaeology. Journal
l:dutational Policy, 9,
Scheurich, J. J, (: 996). Validity, /r:rmiu!ioryq/ !,,umal
Qualililfive StudieJ in Educatio.~, 9, 49 60,
oci,,-:JCn J, f, ( I997),Research me,hod in 11'w po,tmmJ-
ern, London: Falmer,
Schrntz, M,, & Wa\k;;r, It [I 995), Re5twrh as social
clrar:g,,: N"w oppommilies for qualitative research.
New York: Ro;:fedgc,
Schwandt, T. A, c·, 989 ), Jkcapt,;ring rr.1:;ral discourse
,n evaluation, td1,ralforwi !tc,e,udier, 18(8),
11-16, 34.
S~hwandt, T. A, ( l '196). Farewel: to criteri,:101:,y,
Qualitati,·e Inquiry, 2, 58-72,
Sd1wandt, ·1: A. (2000). Three cpistemologirnl stances for
1pdi1ativc incnisy; lnterpretivi~nL hcrmcntutk5,
and ,odal con,truct:oni~m. In X, I<, Denzin & Y, S,
l .incrfr: (E:h. ), Hmuilxwk of ~u11li111til'e "''"""'"~
ed., pp. 189 213 ), Thousmid Oaks, CA:
Scch rest, L ( I993 ). Proxnim e·H1/uarion.· A p!um/;stic
mterprise. San Frrnc ism: Jossey-Bass,
S:11i:h, J. K, (1993),After the Jemis,;' of empiru:i,m: Tlw
p~bl,m1 ~fjudging social and e,iuc1Jtimu11 inquiry
'ior;,mtid, NJ: Able);,
Smith, J, & Deemer K, (2000 J, The nmblen: of
criteria in tb, age of relativism, ; n K, K. Denzin
& Y. S. Linccln (Ecs,;. flamitwok of qualituliw
r<',,,,ur,:~ (2nd ,'Cl., Pfl, 877-R'io ). Thou~and Oak:;,
CA: Sage,
Stimpso:i, C R, (1988). Kancy !<raga:. wears 8 ha1:
fen:::; ism and cultural consensus, Critical
Inquiry, 14, 2.Z:i-2:43,
·:iemey, W, G, (200() J, Undaunted courage: Life history
n:1d the postmodern challenge, I;; IC IJenzin &
Y. S. l.lncoln !Eds,), liamJbook af qualitative
r,,.,,,,,,,,;, (i::,i ,,,J., pp. "n " Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage,
Tierney, Vi, G., & Linco:n, Y, S, (Eds.). (:997). ,'lepre.,m•
ta/ icm and the text: Re-framing the narrative
Aibany: 5:ate U:::versity o:New York Press,
Trinh, 'L M. ( 1991;, When the 1rw9'! waxes mi:
Represmtaticm, giimfor and cultural p,,iiti~s.
r,; rw York: RoutlEcgc.
Ts.hue:, I' (1989). lb g"a:i:ative aml quantitative
rnetho,<s re<r.:.ire <lifforcn! approaches to valid-
ity? In S, Kvale (Ed.),Jm1e, of 1•a!idity fri ~uaiit,i
rii•e re.;,,an:r. (pp. 109- 134). Lund, Sweden:
;-,t.:t'.ent:i:teratur.
Wciss,C. IL(1998J, Emluati,m :2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, J,.'1: Prentice Eall,
9
CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY
The Politics of c·o/laboration
Douglas Foley and Angela Valenzuela
Iii lN'JRff>UCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to l:ighlight differ•
ences b-:tween «critical etr.nograp:iers" who do
academic cultural critic :ies, who write applied
policy studles, and wlm involve themselves
directly in political movements. we sha] see,
not all critical ethnographers are po:itically
active, Nor do all produce knowledge that is both
universalistk/6eoreticru and local/practicaL Nor
do all L1Se reflexive, collaborative resea:ch mcth•
ods, The rubrk of critical ethnography glosses
o\•er many important differ~ncl:'& between practi-
tioners, After characterizing recent trends i:J
contemporary critical ethnography, we po:tn1y
our owr. ethnographk practice, w:iich in some
ways represents a continaum. Or, one end, Foley
does academic''cultual ;;ritiq ues" and struggles to
be more co[aborative and politically invulved. On
the other end, Valenzm,;a does academic cultu,al
cri:iques bu; :s much more directly i11volved in
pt;b]c policy processes. We !:ope ou:- reflections
will encourage others to expl'.o,e and pub; ish more
about t:,eir collaborative methodological and
;m'.itical ?ractices.
Some Recent Trends in Critical Ethnography
In the I960s, ~critical eth:mgrapby" (Car~pecken,
1996) often was based on dassic Marxism or
neo-Mar:dst critical theory, As new race, gender,
sexual identity, am:. postcolon:al soda! move
mcnt~ emerged, the philosophkal basis fo, critical
et:mography expanded greatly (Foley, Levinson, &
Hurtig, 2001; Levinson & HoJaad, :996; Villenas
& Foley, 2002 ). These li~crature reviews under·
srore the growing disenchantment with the posi,
tivist notion of an objectiYe soda! >e,,1;c,:: tl:at
proc.:ices value-free ethnog:11ph ies. Post-19&1s
crihrnl ell:nographer:s began advooiting "c-.1ltural
critiques~ of modem society and its institutions
(Maxus, 1998; Marcus & Fischer, 19!!6). Crl:kal
ethnograp:iers not only rejected positivism
but also worked tl:e divide hetween the powerfal
and the powerle.,s. Most ethnographic culu.:ral cri-
tiques s:udied ruling groups and ruling ideologies
and/or the sen:iments an..: strnggles of various
oppressed peoples. Most were cecply commit:ed
to rcseard, that p,omotcs an egalitarian society.
Most hoped to produce both universalistic theo-
retical know:edge and local p:actica! knowledge,
II 217
 218 im HANDBOOK OF QUAUTATJVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 9
As th editors of this handbook have pointed
out, quaiitative :esearch has become the site of
philosophical and n:ethodologirnl revolt against
posit'vism. This acade:nk remit is "poli:ical" in
the sense that it seeks to transform the knowledr,c
production of the academy. We have both parlki-
pated in this revolt, which edm:ational philO$Opher
Thomas Schwandt (2.000) aptly cha,acterizes as
having interpretive, hermeneutic, and construe·
tivist alternatives. Were Schwandt to dassify
our e:hnographk p,actke, :'1e would uo:e that we
have greater af!:nities with hermener::k and nco-
Marxist critical theorists than with postr.1odern
m:1structi11istll. In ar: earlier article, Poley (2002)
advocated ut::izing the full owing comp Iementary
reflexive prnctkes: cunfessional, theoretical, :nter ·
textual, ceconstmctive, Ex;ilicdir:g these
types of reflexlvi:y is bryond this chapter, but it is
importa1:t to note that he situated reflexive prac-
tices in a feminist pe7spec:ive of scie:ice.
Donna Haraway 0988) am! Sandra Hardi:J.g
(l 998) share similar co:icepts of science that
al!ow politically progressive critical ethnogra-
phers to make strong knowledge claims. Harding's
discussion of ",ta:1dpuint theory" and Haraway's
11otio:1 of"situa:ed knawlo::!ge" are so well knowi:
that there is lilllc need to elaborate here. Suffice
it to say that many critical ethnographers have
replaced the grand po~itivist vision of speaking
from a universalistic, objective standpoint with a
more modest notion of speak:ng from a bistorl•
cally anc culturally situated standpoint. Speaking
from a his~orkally specific s1and,:,oint acknowl •
edges the impossibility of what Haraway aptly
calls the "god trick" of Sj)eaking from ar. omnipo•
tent standpo·nt. Cri:ical ethnographers are mere
cultJre-bound mortals speaking from very par-
tkular mce, class, gender, and sexual identity
locations, Because all standpoi:its represent par-
tici:!ar interests end positions ir. a h:erarchkal
society, tb,y are "ideological" in the sense that
they are partia'..
Orn:t an ethnographer abandons the positivist
fallacy that research techniques can produce a
detached, objective standpoint, it makes little sense
to ignore more intuitive o, subjective ,vays ofk:iow•
ing Hence, contemporary critical ethnographers
are beg: nnir:g to use multiple <'pisce:nologies,
Th<'y often value int:uspection, memory work,
autobiography, and even .:reams as importa:it
ways of knowing, The new, n:ore reflexive critical
tthnogra;iher explores the :ntense self-other
interaction that usually marks fieldwork ar:d
mediates the production ethnographic narra-
1ives. In the current experimental momem (Denzi:1
& Uncob, 2000), the roac to greater object:v:ty
goes through the ethnographer', critical rc:1,ec-
tions on her subjectivity and i:itersubjective rela-
tionships. For most critical e:hnographers, in a
da&s society narko::! b}' class, racial, am: st>xaal
cor:flkt, no producers of know:edge are innocent
or po:itically neutral,
Dne o" the early, forceful exponents of this
prrspective was existentialist socio:ogist Jack
Douglas ( 1976). He urgo::! social science research-
er, to abandon the ideal of g7and throrizing and
·Jniversalistic knowledge production, He pr<'·
ferrec an "investigative" posture that aggressively
studied social and ;iolitical problems. Tapping
into muckraking "new journalism" (T. Wolfe,
1974), Douglas also advocated operating mvertlv
tn expose corrupt bureaucra:s or hate group lead•
ers. He argued that in a politically corrupt, con·
t:k:t-fiUed society, any neans r:sed to "get the
story" was jus;iffable if il exposed harmfal public
practices.
Meanwhile, other anthropologists ir: the
post-l 960s era callo::! for "reinventing" the field
(Hymes, 1972), "sti:dj•ing up" (Nader, 19%}, and
studying "people wifaout history" ( E. Wolfe,
1982). ['Or the first time, and:ropolog:sts began
serioi;.sly studying imperialism, class and racial
oppression, and social movements, They began to
OCC!l[}Y the same methodological and ideological
terrair: occupio::! by the earlier mmmunit}' socio!•
ogists who studied social class inequality. Vidkh
and Lyman (2000) note that urban sociologists
such as 1he Lynds (Lyne, 1956) and native
Amer'canist anthropolog:sts of the 1920s and
1930s were writing positive port:-aits of margina).
ized and s:igma:ized social, cultural, and cccupa-
tiona: groups. Through the post-World Wa, II
year,, C. Wright Mills ( 1959) 1ed the way with a
series of studies :he nationa; power

eE:es. These early sodological studies of dass
inequalities ar:d elites were even n:ore crltkal
than :he Chicago school of ur'Jan soc:ology. Most
of the pre-World Wa: II "critical ethnographers"
broke ciecisively with the posit:vist idea of value-
free ethnographies.
One a:1thropologist who is often forgotten in
histories of critical ethnography is Sol Tax, After
doing a classic ethnography of Guatemalan mar-
kets (Tax, 1963), he became disenchanted with the
academic, strucl ural-functionalist ethnography
of the l 94iJs and I950s. In the late 1940s, he created
a field school on the Mesquaki settlement in my
hometown of Tama, Iowa (Foley, 1999). It was to be
;he test:ng ground for a new kind of an:hropology,
lax advocated that "action anthropologists" be
mudi more collaborative and produce research
that the reseaxh subjects felt would resolve com-
munity problems, Bennett (1996) characterized
Tax's orientali01: as moteci in American p:-agma-
tism's liberal, practical notion of science. Conse-
quently. Tax disting·Ji5hed his approach fro:n
academic anthropology and ''applied anthropol-
ogy" in severa'. important ways,
f[rst, action anthropologists we:-e to operate
withottt the spor.sorship o: government bu :-eau-
cracies or private nongovernmental organizatim:s
(NGO's). They were to find independer.t fonding
ar.d work more directly with and for the people
they were studying, Seco;1d, Tax acgued that
because actio:i anlh ropologists became accepted
insiders, they were pos[tioned to coll,;rt better
data on soda: change and acculturntion than were
detad1ed scientific ethnographers. Consec,uently,
action anthropologists would help the commu-
nity while they wrote trustworthy ethnugraphies.
In effect, Tax er.visioned a social science rhat c~
ated knowledge that ,'ll!S as practical and r;seful as
it was theoretic<1'. ar:d universal. For him, aca •
dem ic social scientists had produced a false
notion of science and knowledge that privileged
the theoretical over applied, practical knowledge.
Regrettahly, Tax's action anthropology project
on the Mesquaki settlement promised more than
it delivered (Foley, 1999). It produced fcw lasting
d1anges in the comn:unily anc. even less high-
quality etlu:1ugraphy: Moreover, the Seid of academic
Foley & Valenzuela: Cdt'rnl Ethnographr 1111 219
anthropology r.ever really embraced 'fax's action
anthropulogy. l.¾evertheless, a forrr.e, srJdent
(Rubinstein, 1986 l argues that Tax .Lnticipated
much of post- l960s anthro?ology, He contends
that Tax's notion of "action anrhropolo!!V~ has
become widely practiced in contemporary
anthropology; Af.:er reviewir.g many con:empo
rary studies of American culture, Foley and
Moss (2001) would beg to differ. The continental
phi:osop:iies of post-Marxism, postmodemism,
and fe:ninism have had a rr:uc'l greater i:npact on
American anth:opology than has philosophical
pragmatism. Space does not permit a recapitula-
tion of :hat review, but the work of Berkeley soci-
ologist Mic:,ael l!urawoy (1991, 2000) illustrates
:1kely the "new» critical ethnography. or what
Marcus and Fischer ( ~ 986) call "the anthropology
of cultural critiques:' Burawoy and his stude:1ts
try to make the public aware of social inequalities
and injustices as they revise the conventional wis-
dom of reigr:ing academic theories, Because
Burawoy explicitly advocates revising and gener-
ating social theory, his cu!:ura; critiques retain
the bask goal of producing universal, scientific
knowledge. That makes hi~ studies p:.iblishable in
the journals of various academic disciplines. The
same holds true for :nany other neo-Marxist and
W:arx:st feminist c~itical ethnographers
i1md:.:in, ;wo I; Fine & Weis, 1998; Susser, 2001;
Zavella.1987;.
\fost o: tl:ese cultural critics break decisive:y
with fae positivist notion of value-free, scientific
studies. On the other hauci, most retain a <m,.,u
notio:1 of the author as expert and thus stil: oper-
a:e in the field much like ea~lier scientific ethnog•
raphe:s, Thefr ethnographic practices are not
particularly repre.~enlative of the new post•
modern experime:ital moment ir. ethnography
(Denzin, 1997). T:ie r.ew cr:tica'. ethnographers
usually set the research agenda, collec: the dara,
and wr:te the acco!lnt wi:h relatively lit:le input
from subjects. They are not always i:!cEned ro
work the self-other h;-phen re::lexively and to
invite their research subjects to co-construct
their eth:10graph ic accounts. Characterizing the
methodological and political prnctkes of contem•
porary c~itical ethnographers '.s, however, risky
220 D HANDBOOK OF Qt:AUTATrYE RESE1\ RCE CHAPTER 9
business. For whatever :eason, many do nut
report extensively on the extent of their political
and metbodologkal cullabozal ions. Fine an<l
Weis's (1998; study of the urban poor is,:iowever,
somewhat of ar: exception. Their formal etl:nog-
raphy and subsequent refl<;{:tions on field n:eth•
ods (Fine & Weis, 2000; Fine, Weis, We.seen, &
Wong, 2000) try to g:ve some idea how rollabora-
tive they were politically anc methocologically.
The current crop of critical efanographers
seems to be foci:sing more on dra:natic pubik
issues, an\ bey are f:ndir:g ways tu reach wider
audiences. Peggy Sanday (1976) was an early
advornte of anthropological researc'l that t~uly
served the ?ublic interest Her recent work ( 1990,
1996) on campus date rape, as well a~ her involve-
ment and coverage of rape trials, is a case in poi nl.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes's (1992; sc1eper-t1c:i;pes
& Sargent,1998) sti:dy of chilc welfare is,1Jes and
Third World organ harvesting also is exemplary.
Finally, our rnlieague at Rice University, Linda
McNeil (2000), has forcefully cr':iqued mar.v of
the political right's edm:atio:1al 11crn11n1abi)ity
schemes in Texas. She also worked tirelessly
with local teachers and cor.1munity educational
leaders to reform these educational
a1:d has appearec on m,:ional TV s::iows such as
60 Minute,, 1n~1easingly, anthropologists interested
in policy studies are advocatbg a more politi•
dzed trpe of pulicy studies (Km:e & Mason, 2001;
Levinson & Sutton, 200'.; Okongwi: & Mencher,
2000). These surveys of the field and a recent
School ofAme~ican Research conference 0:1 crit:-
cal ethnogra?hY (Marcus, I999) describe a host
of new politically relevant cultural critiques in
sue~ areas as corporate agriculture, environmer:-
tal pollution, pharrr;aceutkai du:nping. tra:tsna-
tio:ia: labor migration, the pi:blishing mcustry,
crberspace hackers, the AIDS crises, media and
legal system demo:iiza:ion, and cr'minal ization of
urban street '.ife and informal economies based
on drugs, sex, and cultural :ebellion.
Space docs not permit an extensive review of
the new, more political ?Qlicy-oriented ethnogra-
phies, hut the old labels of "critical ethnography"
and "cultural critkJues"may no longer captu::e :he
new diversity. The number of social scientists
who are crit;quing questionable :egal, medical,
educationa:, nedia, and corporate practices seerr:s
lo be exploding, More important, tl1es,; new crit :cal
ethnographers are begi:ming to write more acces-
sible, less ia:gon-filled accounts, A few nave also
,rn"''''n over" into the pt:b!ic sphere am: have
appeared as "experts" 011 tal;.: and t1ews shows.
T:iey have found new ways to bring :heir i11vestiga-
1:o:1s to the public through opinion makers such
as Opraa Winfrey, Larry King, and Ted Koppel,
Meanwhile, they have quietly provided reporters
wilh expert tes!imo:1y fur their journalistic
exposes. Others become ;:iolicy advisers to
politicians, and they dh:ctly :nfluem~ legislatim:.
The final type of critical ethnographer is a dis•
tbct minority o" ac:ivists who are deeply involved
in progressive social movc:ments and community-
based reforms. In the field of educational research,
Kemmis am: McTaggart (2000) label such activi
ties "participatory action research (PAR):' PAR
researchers of:en base their approach or, the phi-
losophy of Latin American social activists Paulo
Fri ere and Pa'.s-Borda. PAR resear.:hers have
strong affinities with the :nore activist-ork:itcd
appl icd anthropologists I Eddy & Part ridge,
1987), They often play the role of democratk
facilitator and conscio,sness-miser, or "cultural
broke:" between powerfd institutions and the
disenfranchised citizens. An:hropology has pro-
duced a few acliv ists who are eveu 1:mre collabo-
rative methodologically and politically than are
most ?AR ~ft ion rese-archers, F0, examplr, ir. the
early 1970s, anthropologist Carol Talbert, who
joh:ed the American Indian Movement (AIM)
activists at Wounded Knee, gave an America:1
Anthropological Association presentation about
her role as a "pen for hire for AIM." le this par-
tirula: case, she sought to doct:ment the Fl\J's
dub:ous actior:s to prop 1;? an anti-AIM !action
attd ir:dict various AIM me:nbers fo, crimes :hey
may not have committed. Talbert cxcmp:ifics
a much more direct for:n of political collabo-
ration. She joined lhe social movement anc
up much of her academic autonomy am;
authorily to be an ir:dependent cultural critic.
She researched and wrote what :he ;novement
needed.

Anolher anthropologist, Charles Valentine
(1968}, joined Africa!'. American community
action groups that conductec st;,idics of landlords
and poEce ·.,rutality, anc f:iat initiated rent
strikes, At an Ar:1erican 1\nthropologica: Associa-
tion ;m~eting in tne early I 970s, Valentine and
,ev,cr«, African An:rrican community memhers
drnmalized the difference betv,een 6emsdves
and academic anthropologists, T:1ey f.atly refused
to p:esent their findi11gs lo fellow anthropologists.
Their in:ent was to convey contempt for the polit•
ical:y ineffectual nature of much academic
anthmpological researc'.1, in response, the discus-
sant, Margaret Jv'.ead, expressed her anger that a
fellow anthropologist would distrust a field that
:1aci labored to help the dow ntmdden, Her rather
patronizing commentary set off a lively debate
;;bout tr.e poEtical udlity/fotiE:y of anthropolo•
gical cesearch,
Although Valentine (l 968) produced a classic
published c:-itique of the culture of poverty con-
strue!. 1,'c suspect that many "activist anlh ro-
po logistsn who became deeply invo1ved in local
political , trugg:cs have stopped writing academic
books and a:-tide,. Contrar)' to right-wing propa-
ganda thai taese "radicals* are taking over aca-
demia, our more politically active colleagues oflen
either fail to get tenure or simply leave the acad-
emy altogether. whatever rea~,m, they appar •
er.riv have heen una;>]e to find a wav to combine
' '
their academic and po:itkal work, Unfortunately,
we know precious little atiout wb,:e these
"pushed ouf activis:s go, To our knowledge, r:o
one has bo:hered lo te[ their storie,. A-:r they
teaching in community colleges? Are l:iey writing
ar:ides for lonil newspaper.,? Or have tl:ey sue•
cuu:bed to poli:kal disillusionment?
Despite sucn losses, as p,evim:sly no:ed,
the number of politically act:ve anthropologists
ard sodologlsts appears rn be g:owing, The
Department of Anth:npology at the University
of Texas is an excellent case in ,10int, The depar,,
ment now prides itself in ideological. cultural,
arid f!ender diversity, as we;[ as a strong "activist
anthropology" orientation, Se,,eral of ou, col-
leagues seem to fom,d the formu:a for
balancing academic and political For
Foley & Valeozuela: Crit'cal Ethnography 111 221
example, Charlie Hale has v.orked extensively in
the la:id rigl:ts struggles of Nicarag1;.an indige-
nous g."Oups. He recruits and trains indigenous
Ylayan amhmpologists who actively work for
these social movements and write high!)' criticcJ
accounts Mayan ethrmlngy. He and his students
have dor.e very specific research that aids their
clients in legal cases, where he has been i;a,led
upon to testify as an expert witness,
Another VT colleague, Ted Gordon, is a long-
time activist among I.he African Creo;e popula-
tions of l\iicaragua, ;,ike Hale, Gordon works
directly with etl:nk political movements, and
his highly su,cess:ul African Diaspora program
trair:ed many African American and
Afro-Carihbear. anlhropoiogists, other UT
colleague,, Mar:ha Menchaca, director of the
borderla:1ds program, and Richard Flores,
direclu: of ~he folklore prog;llm, have trained a
number of activis: Latina/o studer.ts, !vlenchaca
has participated directly in legal research on
racism and voter redistricting legi,:atfon as well.
Plores (2002) has written a strong critiC,'JC nf
Texas's 1:1os, ;,acred cultur.11 icon, the Alamo. Our
politicaily active UT culleagues have al'. published
scholarly, a,ademk culrural cr'.tiques (Gordon,
1997; Hale, 199'1; h;rnch11ca, 2002 ). Ncverthele&,,
Hale (n,d,) distances :iis own ethnographic prac-
tice from the Marcus and Fischer (1986) notion
uf cult:mll critiques, He co:1tends that ton m,my
of the r.ew cultural critics place gri:ater emphasis
on creating a ..safe acacemic ma,n-" and publish
ing than on community service and political
act iv hnn. In contrast, a gee ;iindy "activist anthro•
pologist» is :nore irn:o'ved in local politica'. ;:;trug•
gles, and, like Sol 'Jax, Hale claims th.at sus:h
involve men! t1roduces better ethuograph ies,
It woulrl seem that progressive social scientists
have gained a fonthold iu the academy and
created 11 space for themselves, The browning,
queering, and gendering of the academy a11d the
social sciences surely is at wmk here, People of
color, women, gays, and working-class academics
are slowly rep'adng apper-middle-class, white,
male gentleman scholars, Furthermore, the er:ie,-
gence of the imerdfaciplh:• ry field of critical cul-
tural studies has created many new journals and
222 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITAT:VE RESEARCH-CHAPT:'R 9
spedal series in universitr· presses. A n:arket for
more critical, investigative ethnograph ies :hat
expose relations of power and exploitation dearly
has evolved. But these developments have their
limits.
from a prn!essional survival point of view, the
idea of a safe space from which to publish makes
considerable sense. It :s no secre~ that Division
I research institutions are "pi.:blish or perish" meat
grinders. You either publish articles in the refer•
journals of your field-and books if your
department is a "book department'"-or you get
fired. The rub for many cril:cal ethnographers
is that their scholarship must be ?Oiitical ia an
academically as;.ceptabk :naaner. Consequently,
many progressive acadeir.ks spenc most of their
time writing and publishing cultural critiques
that satisfy the demands uf the academy a:id their
peers. This observation is not intended to dimin-
ish the exceptiunal quality of r:urny cultJral cri
tiques (Foley & Moss, 20(11 ). Rather, ii is meant to
:1ighlight the institutional pn'ssures that many
acfrvist academics U:i fortuaately, there are
few accounts of how the 21 s:-century knowledge
produc,ion industry is changing. Mos: critical
ethnographers, our UT colleagues included, rare:y
chron ide the psychological and mo:ietary price
that they pay for :heir political activism. As we
shall see in the following case studies, we have
both experienced enough pressures political
correctness lo warn Jledg:ing «critical e::hnogra-
phenl" what they too may face,
Case Study l: A Cultural Critic
in Search of Collaborative :rlethods
Being someone who has written several
cultural critiques {f<oley, 1990, 1995), J generally
agree with Hale's asse.<1sment that such studies
often are not particularly collaborative ur directly
political. When I left the anti-Vietnam War move•
ment for academia, I found it a hostile envirm:-
ment for activist social scientists. I have wrl:ten
about my troubled acaptation to academia
elsewhere (Foley, 2000). P'.lt simply, in :970 !he
University of Texas was a preny conservative
place, George I. Saachez, a noted lhicano scholar,
was the only colleague who encouraged me to
do activist research. Like many young scholars
with progressive poli:kal views, I had to make a
nunber of agoaizing compromises. It was the
Vietnam war years, which made publishing my
dissertatlon on American :ieocolonialism in me
Ph :l ippi nes difficult. Consequently, I followed
5anche1's advice and begaa st:idying coloniaJsm
and racism in nearby South Texas. 1'here I was, a
former Studer.t for Democratic Society (SDS)
activist, wondering whether I was a sold-out aca-
demic. Political correctness pressures came ::rom
:mth side, of the Amerlca:1 racial divide. Many
white faculty saw little point to political activism,
and many Chican11/o facult; distrus:ed gr!ngo
social scientists who wanted lo join the movi-
mento, Moreover, being the fi:-s~ ethnographer in a
college of edc1rntion f::Jed with unrepentant posi-
tivists, it was difficult lo gamer high merit evalua-
tions. It seemed as though I would have to produce
twice as rr:uch as my apolitical colleagues to sur-
vive professionally. 1 felt compelled to cut down
o=i time-consuming political activities so I could
produce more publications, ar:d that pattern of
adaptation has dogged me throughout my career.
But old political habits die hard, and being
a critical ethnographer invo: ves much more than
simp'.y writing good cultural critiques. It also
involves fighting for institutional reforms, for
exam?le, recrui:iag fucalty and mentoring
students who have experienced class, race, rnd
gender disuimination. During that era, battling
posit:vism wa;, also a form of po'itirnl struggle.
More important, however, we found a ffw ways to
be directly :nvo:ved in the Chicano civil rights
movement that we were studying (Foley, 1990;
Foley with Mota, Post, & Lozano, 1989). Our
research team, which included Brazilian Clarice
Mota and loca: Cl:icano lg=iacio Lozano, lived in
lhe barrio, and we frequently voiced (1'.Ir op: nions
to local Raza l:nida Party leaders regard! ng their
political stra:egies and tactics (Foley, 1999). We
also encouragec many local Chicano/a youth to
go ·::ieyo:id their high school education. Finally,
when La Raza Unida's director of the health care
study quit, l went to work for the party and wrote
up its research fi:idings.

Nevertheless, our research :earn also tried
to maintain a degree of detachment and neutral-
ity; We wanted to produce a balanced ethnography
that spanned the racial divide and included Anglo
perspectives as well. We used all the classic meth-
ods of gooc ethnography, including participant
o:,servat:on, :nterviews, and inforn:ant work,
in order to write a complex, rich po:tra it of rare
relations and the Chicano movemer.: inside
anc outside sdmuls, ln lhe end, writing a critical
t>ti:nograp'.1y that valorized the Chicano move-
ment's efforts became more important than any
direct local polilkal work As the proJect evolved,
I ~atirma!ized my relative lack of political action
with a .;uhura: critique argument \'Ve were giving
110:ce to lhe voke;ess Chicana and Chicano
masses, thus raising the consciousness of the
nation regard: ng inequality in South Texas. If what
I wrote rr.ade a few Chicano/ as he pmud of their
moverr.ent, or made a few Anglos quest:ur. their
racial attitudes, then my cultural critic;ue was
having-to use Patti Lather's (199 l) apt phrase-
a "catalytic [Le-, politkal J effect:' In addition, th1:
historical ethnography I wrnte would have the
"profess:or.al effect" of getting tenure for m<' and
keeping bread on the fan:ily table.
Because we approached the res,ean::1 task in
a rather traditiona: manner, there was very little
effort to involve local people iri the resear-::h
pro,ess itself. We set the research agenda and
wrote the ethnography that we deemed ir:1por-
;an1- Being the lead author, I theorized fae data
and told the s:ory I wanted to telt Nevertheless, it
is important to underscore oome kev wavs t;i at we
' '
tried to make O'Jr cultural critique more collabo-
rative than arr rr.ost "scient: tk" andlor critica:
e:hnographies. First, like most good ethnogra-
phers, we deve:oped a set of ir.timate, trusting
relationships with several highly knowledgeable
key community residents, These relationships
helped us develop an "insider's" perspective
on local life_ Ar times, these relationships evolved
into friendships, and some local residents became
our "anthropological cunfidar:ts" or "collabora-
tors," Th~y helped us focus and correct our under•
standing of local events and relationships. We
often shared our interpretations with these locals,
Fo:ey & Valem:uela: Critical Ethnography Ill 2B
and as the relationsl::ips developed, we shared
more of our mut:ml biographies, 'I point here is
that good cultural critiques usually are :nsed on a
number of intimate, "collaborative" relations with
research st:bjects.
St>cond, we used a conversational or dialogic
st ylc of interviewing, which encouraged the
subiects to par:icipate more, We interviewed in a
very :nfor mal manner, and at times we s'.1arcd
more personal in:onnation about m::rselves thar:
do cor.venlional inte:-viewers. When these free-
flowing conversations we:e tra nscri':ied, they
often were shared with the responden:s, That pro-
vided key info:mants w::h the opportur:ity to see
how their own speech objectified and represented
then:_ If they die not like their selfreprcse1:ta-
tio11s, they were free to edit their comments. This,
of course, led some in!ormants to censor their
negative remarks, but sharing the interviews
clea:-ly enhanced local confidence in our inten-
tions to be fair. !n short, a mure open-ended, -:011-
vcrsational interv:cwing style generated more
engaged personal narratives and more candid
opinions. a also tended :o hul'.1anize the inter-
viewer a:1d diminish :ier power and co:itrol of the
:nterview prore~s-
Third, we had a number of community
members review our ethnographic manuscript
:ie:ore publication. Very few anthropologists
were doing this sort of collaboration with their
research subjects in the mid-1970s. I have elabo-
rated elsewhere (~oley, wi:h Mota et aL, 1989) just
how valuable and ethical this :ne:hodologkal
procedure is, :t allows us to correct a r.u:nber of
interprctat:ons and representations,
Later, I used the sa:ne community review tech-
nique in a study of my hometow:1 (Foley, 1995),
and it added an important collaborative dimen•
to m:r cultural critique, Although :his so:-t
of collaboration doe;; not relinquish authorial
authority, it does add a great deal of :-e'lexivity to
the data collection a:1d representatior:al process_
When local actors criticized our represent,dons
as slanted or partial, we made a serious efort to
better cormbo:-ate our intcrpreta!io:1s. We also
manged the tone and tried to nuanre the port,.iyals
of several events ar:d individuals, We took ~erlously
 224 111 HANDBOOK OF QOA LITATlVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 9
what our local readers critkfaed, but we did not
give them complete control over what we wrote.
We created a dialogic, negotia:ed process that
gav~ them some input ir.to what we wrote, but in
the end I wrote what I deemed :mportant, In ret-
rospect, we ddinitely amer:ded the classic not'on
of the detached, all-knowing ethnographic scien-
tist, but not entirely.
Finally, I sought to write our e:hnog::aphy in
a much mure accessi Ille, engaging ethnogra ?hie
narrative style. Very early in my career, I came to
see the ci:Jtural and lint1,uistic gap hel ween the
anthropological observer and his subject as elitist
and politically unprogress:ve. Over the years, it
becar:1e dear that rr:any of my t:nderg:"aduates
could not understand fully the e:hnographies
we a;;sigm:d them to :-ead. For political reasons,
I came to em brace the ideal th~: ordinary people
must be able to read and ui:d~n;taml my ethnog-
raphy How can academics possibly serve the
peo?le they wrile about if their subjects cannot
11 nderstar:d they write?
It now seems obvions that acaden:ics have to
!i h,mitc themselves frorr: the pedantic, technical
discourse of their cliscip'.ines if they hope to write
useful stor:~s. Methodologkally, writing better is
absolutely crucial fur creating a kind of linguistic
reciprocity between the research subjects and
the researcher, This is an imporlam, often unac
knowlrdged form of "collaboration" that leads to
more politkal;y useful ,ritical etlu10graphie8,
Unfortunately, no young scholar who has been
thoroughly socialized in an academic PhD pro•
gram can accomplish this easilj', At every turn,
disse~tatiun co:nmittec members, journal editors,
and fellow students/colleagues will press a young
schola::- to retain a pedant'.c, technical, academic,
slor}'lelling stylr, One's personal identity and pro-
fessio1:al success seem to depend upon master-
ing this peculiar form of self-ex?ressior., Recen:
experimentation with :nixe.: genres like autoethnog•
raphies has O?e;1ed up some space in the acad-
emy, but ;he technica:. tl:eory-C:riven academic
ethnography remains the standard toward which
young scholars mus: aspire, The senior scr:o]a;S
who control the :nachinery of academic produc-
tion and p:-omotim1 maintain a tight grip on the
conventiom of social scientific writing. This
surely will be the last bastion to fall, J ever it does.
In the meantime, the social sciences remain a
rather e:itist, "high culture" fonn of social
commentary,
To sum t.:p, we opened up the process of
producing ethnograph;es through the following
mea;[s: a dialogk style of interviewing; intimate,
highly personal informant relations; a mmmu
nity review of tl:e manuscript; and writing in
ordinary language. These practices, ar:d many
more being invented as we speak, make field-
work-and telling stories about one's field-
wor,:-more op('n, more collaborative, and
h'erarchkal in characler, We tried to break signif•
icantly with the attitudes and practices uf posi
tivistk scientific ethnography and scientific
realism (Marcus & Cushman, 1982). t,;evertheless,
we fell far short of the ethical and polit:cal stan·
dard that Maori scholar Ur:da Tuhiwai Smith
(1999) advocates, She urges non-Maori scholars
to collaborate with the tribal elders, who help
scho:ars define what they research rnd review
what they write. In the Mesquaki study ( Foley,
1995), I worked wit!': tribal leaders and the tribal
council, but the tribal el des neither set mr
research agenda nor monitored my fieldwork. I
also acknowledged tr:eir way of knowing througl:
dreams and vision quests, but I made no atten:?tS
to utilize those epistemologies, I :-etained more
authorial authority than I wou'.rl have un de: the
Maori community review process, Ultimately, I
wrote the story I wan!e{l :LJ w:ite-wilh, however,
a good deal of input from key informan:s and
from the community review. As we shall sec, I was
not as diredy involved in commi;nity politkai
processes as my coauthor hllll been,
The mos: politically active form of action
anthropology emphas:zes direct involvement in
political moveme:1ts, court cases, and ·"'''"'''"'"
organizing activities such a~ rent strikes, Other
.oolicv-t\rknted
' soda: scientists "work witr:in the
syste:n" and write prizewi1mi ng cultural critiques
as well as actively shape the public policy process.
Accordingly, what follows is Angela Valenzuela's
account of how she blends academic research and
po:itkal commitment ir. a unique way,
....
Case Study 2: An ':Activist Sociologistn
and Her Legislative Involvemenc
! write to impart my craft-at least with
respect to a certain ki:!d of research in which 1
am currently involved. T'lat is, 1 condi.;.ct"regular''
ethnographic research-most'.y in schools--
using standard qualitative techniques in an
attempt to generate better theoxtkal frameworks
through wl:ich to both Jnderstand social prob•
le:ns and promote the development of just po!icit'll
and practk:es in schools. The accoun: that follows,
however, reveals how my general intere.st in poli-
tics has evolvec into a res,ean:h approach that
may be termed either "tile e:hnography of public
policy" or the "pubEc ethnography of goliq-:' 1
1 am a third-l!eneration Ma:can American
from West Texas reared in a com mur:ity where the
race and class lines between Ang'.os and Mexican
Americans wex sharply drawn for the greater
part of the last century. I am also a p:'.'Oduct of the
Texas puhl:c school system. I thus have a firsthand
sense of its strer.g~hs and limitations with respect
to the U.S.•Mexica:1 communitv. r write primarilv
' '
from my current vantage ;:,oint as a member {)f
the faculty at the Unive::sity of Texas at Austin
who is involved in the affairs of the La!: no
community at vario1,:s levels. As an academic, I
currently lco:d a tenured, joint ap?ointmen; in
two colleges, Education and Liberal A~ts, al the
University of Texas. In tile Coilege of Education,
my appointment is in the Departmer.t of
Curriculum a:1d Instruction (C & I), anc in
liberal Arts, it is in the r~nter for Mexican
A:nerkan Studies (CMAS), I see myself as sittt•
ated withi:1 a tradition of activi~t-scholarship
previously undertaken by Chicano faculty a: the
Unive!"S':y of Texas at Austin tha: includes lhe
work of Arnerico Paredes, George L Sanchez, anc
Carlos Castaneda.
Lii<e my colleague Doug Foley, I, too, have
endured a prolonged and painful s:rugg:e to find
my voice and write in a broadly accessible style.
However, unlike my colleague, I have lo:ig felt a
special sense of responsibility tlu,t comes pre•
cisely from my social and political location as a
member of a cor.imunity lacking in status,
Foley &: Valenzuela: Critical Ethnography 11 225
and representation at all levels, Acquiring my
voice thus has been inscpacable from my cou:nm-
nity's broader agenda to also hea::d, and in so
doing, to acquire power and poErical representa-
tion. Moreover, my profound desire to write to,
and for, :ny community is what has e1:rnuraged
me to persist.
I sometimes conte:nplate how, unlike my
Anglo academic colleagues, 1 have probably been
"more liberated"to pursue ot:ler rhetmical a\•enues
le both writing and speech. More poi:!tedly, as a
minoritv fenale scholar, I alwavs suspected th_at
' '
no matter what or how I wrote, I would never
qdte reap the same privileges and status within
the academic hierarchy. The experiences of other
minority academics taugr.t me that bo:h acquir·
ing tec:ire and the goal of institutional valida•
tion and legitimacy, generally, are risky pursuits
that frequently are characterized by uncer:ainty
and struggle regardless of one's chosen research
approach. Consequently, and desp:te the risks
involved, soon after gracuating fro1:1 a positivistic,
quantita:ive Sociology Department at Stanford
University, I decided to follow :ny heart and
develop a more :ium,mislk, qualitative research
approach, I did so within the context of my first
job, a tenure track position in the Department
of Sociology at Rke Universit}' in Houston, Texas,
It is relevant to :mte that to date, I am the only
Mexican American female professor ever to have
been hlre<l for a tenure-track facui1y position at
Rke.
·10 best explain my craft, I must first s: :uate
myse:f within my academic/scholarly community
and within the broader Latina/o activist commu•
nity in Texas, What n:y personal account reveals
is the importance of my insider stat1,:s within
the Latino community, coupled with my desire tu
use research lo addft'lls the inequities of political
and policymaking processes. A:7hough I am less
reflexive :han some experimental ethnographers
(Denzin, 1997), r am collaborative in the first
sense that we outline. That is, I have always devel •
oped intimate, tn:st:ng relationship5 with collab•
orators, \.\lith respect to the second sense of
collaboratioo, wherein coornunity members
review my man'Jscr!pts hefore publicatim:, this
226 Ill l!AJ\ l)J:IOOK OF QCALITAIIVI' RESEARCH-CI [AJYLER 9
has proven ~omewhar problematic. The process
of "s:udying up" and exposing how elites wield
power in my community makes tbs kind o: col•
!aooration either impossible or lim:,ed (espedally
see Valenzuela, 2004a, 2004b J. Although I du share
my legislative work with se:ect tali na/o leader·
ship, legislators, a:id Stale Board of Education
members, [ nevertteless preserve a great deal of
authorial authority. To best explain my current
status and position in the legislature, my xscarch
hu.ckgmund in Houston, Texas, must first be taken
into account
While working at Rice University; l conducted
a case study o( a local high school that culminated
in my book Subtracti,e Schooling; US. -Mexican
Youth and rhe Politics of Carfng(Valenz:iela, 1999).
S;,a:rning a 3·)'ear time period, I generated a
ground-level ethnography that eitaminec. the
assimilation experiences of high school youth
and how :hcse, in turn, related to achievement
and school orientations. Because l wanted the
sh.:dy to <1ppeal directly :o the La:ino community
in Houston, J incorporated :111 historical perspec-
and wrote in a language that made it aa:essib:e
to thtm. I sh0t::d adc, however.- that mv' des're to he
tenured led me to invest a great deal in becoming
a"real scholar"withil! the academy. Comblr.ed with
my Stanford-based "prograr:uning" to develop
theory, my acaccmic ?ast had proven tc be a
constra:nt of sorts. ro:- cxa:nple, my deductive-
nomologkal interest in assimilation kept r.1e from
seeing, for an extended amou:it o• time, how caring
theory could fit into a:1 argument about assi rnila·
tion (see Valenzaela, 1999, Apper.dix). It also kept
me from seeing-at least to the dtgree that I now
see it-how the testing system itself subtntcts
resources from stude:1ts (see Valenzuela, 2000).
My fieldwork on Subtractive Schooling never-
theless provided me with an in-de?th perspec-
fr,e on loci and district ?Olicies and politics.
I attendee various chucehes, fr~q uented park,,
purchased goods and services, exercised, and
attended nnmeroas functions in :he community
surmunding the school that I studied. Th:s expe·
ricnce further provided n:e with firsthand experi-
ences concerning the freque1:~ly challenging
conditions of urban life for working-class,
Mcxican-o~igi:i people !iv ing in Houston at ttat
ti:ne. rn short through my research, I became a
trusted member of Ho·Js:on's inner-city Latino
comm t:nity.
While h Houston, I also was a fo-.mdhg
member and chair of the l.atino Education Policy
Committee (LEPC). Tl:c Ll:PC was co;nposed
of researchers, parents, clergy, and community
activ ish, When the fonrn::r U.S. Secretary
Education, Rodney Paige, was superintendent,
tlie LEPC fought district battles pertaining to :he
reprcsentatlon of rr:inorlties in the district's mag-
net school programs, as well as another regarding
certain Houston l:1dependent School District
(HISD) board members decisions to curtail :he
bilingm.l education program in tie &st~icl. These
activit:es b:uught me into contact wi6 a rather
large array of individuals indudi ng League of
United Latin American Cit:zens (I.ULA() ie'&der-
ship and council members, council rr.er.1bers,
scr.ool boa rd members, and state ,enators ar:d
rep:esenta:ives, :ncluding State Rep:esentative
Dora Olivo ([)-Rosenberg), with whum I later
worked,
T':mmgh my work as mt associate 'N 1th th;:
Rice University Center for Education, my network
also in duder, large numbers of HDlllilon·area
researchers, teachers, administrators, school
personnel, and board members. l myself was a
board mem :,er of :he follmving organizations:
Annenherg Fm.~ndation, Teach for America, and
the Inter-Ethnic Forum. Hecai.:.se of my personal
rdat;omhip wi!h Lee Jlrown, I even participated
on hi, transition team 'Nhen 1:e became Hous,on's
tb,: A:'rican Amerirnn mayor. Jespite my :nulti-
plc political con:mitments in Houston-which
always were part of my larger goal of getting to
know the city from multiple perspectives-my
professional life amti:med, primarily thro1,:g:1 my
involvement in :>rofessiona: associations Hke the
American Socio:ogical Association, 6e American
Educatior.al Research Association, and ,he
National A,sucialiun :or Chicana and Chic,mo
St1,:dies.
lv'.y fam'ly situation also is an lrnportar:t
part of my current role as a "partki?atory action
researcher" in the 'lexas state legisl~ture. My

husband, Emilio Zamora, is a Texas his~orian,
award-winning author, and community activist,
w:th n:y return to Texas fron: California, I inher-
ited bis Houston and Texas m:tvmri<, pe11:1il!ing
a smooth and quick transition into d:e Houston
Latbo community, Marriage to an academic in a
related 5.eld also has meant a co:1tinuous tlow of
intellectual and political ide2s. We :1ave two
children, 8 and l Land in 1998, our family
won "ramily of the Year" for Huustun's 16 of
September celebration (markiug Mexico's acquisi-
tion of independence from S;n1in in I!'!! 0). City
offidals he'.d a banq-1et in our honor, and our storv'
'
,1ppeared as a:i insert in the dty's only majo:
news:iaper; :he Houston Chronicle. Ot:r picture
was postec on all of the Metro buses throug:wut
the week uf feMivilies. II is not ar: overstatement
to suggest that at least for a time, the Zamora-
Valenzuela fam.C.y became a virtual household
name in the Houston Latino con:munity.
F:um my standpoint as an activist sociologist,
this kh::d of activity and notoriety had both an
upside am! a dow:1i;ide. Unfurtunately, matters
soured for me at Rice Cr:ivcrsity, and I enccd up
f:ling a daim ?.gainM my employer with the r.qual
Employn:e1,t Opportunity Commissio:1, alleging
gencer and national orig:ns ci,crimination. After
a protracted struggle witll my employer, we
arrived at a mutually agreed upon and am:cable
settleme:11. Notwithstanding :hfa momrnt of per
S<mal and familial strife, my research approach
sure:y faciEtated my deeper involvement in com-
munity political processes, The payoff for me was
the community's generous support throughout
my tenure review in the form of letters, meetings
w:tn university officials, and p'.lhlk recognition
LJf our comributior:s to Houston's La:ino com:nu-
nity. In the end, these relationships wi:h key polit ·
ical p:ayers helped me both to produce my critical
ethnography ar.d to expose the harmful aspects of
cur:ent educational pol icie:;.
During my final year in Houston in 1999, Al
Ka1Jfman, lead counse: of the Mexican Amerkar.
Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEf,},
called on me to testify in a foderal suit against the
TeiG,S Education Agency ai:d the State Board of
Education. The plaintiff's rnse argued that the
l'ul,y & Valenzuela: Critical Ethnography Ill 217
state's testing syste:TI discciminated against them,
All were either Lati:iola or African A:nerkan.
Thev' all had obtainec the nccessarv. credits fur
graduatio:1 but were denied diplomas because of
thri r inability to pass the high-stakes standard-
iied test Of all stude:its who fail the state exam
statewide, 87% are either lati:m/o or Africau
Am,dcan, During the trial, I was able :o brir:g
my own data on immip,rant achievement to bear
on foe questions at hand Valem:uela, 1999,
2(100).
U:1.for:unately, MALDEI' won the argument
that ninorities are clisproporlionately affected by
the .c.,.1H~ svst:em but lost the case because
the judge decided that the harm against the plain-
tiffs did not reach a "constitutional level" (G/
Forum et al. v. 11:xas Edi.cational Agency et al.,
2noo). That is, due p:ucess alleged! y was foUowec
in tl:e development the test and also by allow-
ing students multiple opportunities to take it (see
Valenzuela, 2004b ). The MAU}[!' case was trans-
formative oecause it situated me in the center
of crucial state• and national-level policy debates
and political activ:ties, l wa, handed the file for
the state, which acquainte<l rne with the policies,
evidence, and jusU'icatious for the ,late's test'ng
syste:11. This information helped me :o sec
new ways that the state reproduced ec ucational
inequaEties while cleverly obscuring them (espe-
cially see McNeil & Va.~enzuela, 200 I). My earlier
researcn presentet! a bottom-up ?C:-llpective, hut
participatio:i in trial helped me develop a
more comprehensive, policy-based, Mp-down
analysis as well ( Valenzuela, 2002, 2004a, 2004b),
After a year of commuting from Housrnn to
Austin ia 1999, during which Emilio secured
employ:Tient in the School of Informatini: at UT,
my family eventually relocated to Austin in the
sum:ner of 2000. My wo,k in the legislature began
abnost immediately upon my arroval wl,en State
Represenra:ivc IJo:a O:ivo asked mc to te,tify
on the state's testing ~ystem, My Houston net•
work thus followed rn,, providing me w::h n:ht-
tivcly easy entrec into the Aus:in lawmaking
community.
My interest i:i ;:iolky v,1as further abetted by the
C.MAS position fu: which I was hi ,ed. That is, my
228 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH~CHAJY'.'ER 9
duties induded '.eachlr:glower· and upper-division
courses in public policy, which many CMAS
students must take in order to major in Mexka:i
Ame, ican Studies (the rest pursue a culturai
studies concentration), This position forced me ro
retool and lrarn more about Texas government,
stanites, history, and the policymaking process.
UiJon complet:ng their policy studies courses,
many of our CMAS students pursue interns~ips
at the state capitol for which they simultaneously
earn colh:ge credit. My Mexkan American Studies
students, in turn, have taught :ne a grrat deal and
pmv:ded mr with information that l fold into my
writings on educational policy.
At the graduate level, I also offer a course on
policy titled l.atino Education Policy in Texas, Tne
course is cross-listed witr. the Lyooon B. Johnsoo
(Lil J) School of Public Affairs. I offer it during
every other year when the legislature is in ses..~ion,
and my students, some of whorr: are former CJ\.lAS
undergraduatrs, typically are policy studies
majors fro:n either the LBJ schooi or the College of
Education.
Torlny, I hold the following community-based
posts; Education Committee Chair for 1:1e Texas
League of C:tited Latin American Citizens
(LULAC), the nation's oldest Latino civil rights
organization; member of an Austin LULAC coun-
cil called Legislative LULAC; member of the
Legislative Committee for the Texas Association
fo: Bilingual Education (1:4.BE); a,1d member of
tl:e newly revived La Raza l'nida working eriuca
tlm: group, All of the,se activities :-eflect my cur-
rent position as an advocate for Latina/o }'O:Jth in
the legislature, My legislative activities include
advising representatives and senators on diffe:ent
Jdnds of legisla~ion in the areas of assessment,
limited English profic:ent youth, hilingi;al edu-
cation, school vouchers, and school finance. My
most intense work has been with State Represen-
tative Olivo, wit:O whom l have worked for two
biennial legis;ariw sessions to craft and promote
legislation in the area of llSSessme;1t (for a review
of this wurk, see Valenzue:a, 2004h, 2000),
l'rior to Austin, my research and poiicy
work-particularly through the Latino Education
Policy Commit~ee-were somewhat separate
tasks. That is, my role was one of bringing n1y
expertise to bear on certain issues. lu time, my
p:ofes,ional role has evolved fro:n beirg an
ethnographer in the classic sense to being a direct
advocate tor char:ge. This redefin irion of my role
as a researcher grew primarily out of a process
that began t\'ith a deeply felt icentification
with the political assoda:ions-such as LULAC,
MALDER TABE., and the lnlen.,iltural Develo;Jment
Research Association (IDRA)-that advocate on
behalf of the U.S. •Mexican community.
Vlhe:iever I testified in committee hearings at
the state capitol, I fo:Jnd myself generating field
notes from all of my experiences. Then I discov-
ered a virtual gold mine of audio archives of com-
mittee hearings (at :he legislature's Web site,
www.capitoLstate.tx.us). "data" Iha: are used
more by attorneys and legislative staff than
researchers, These discoveries. dovetailed neatly
with r.1y rr.ore general inten,st in informing my
community of the politics and process of policy
making.
My preforem:e alwa7, was (and is) to be the
person who merely chronicled and anaiyzed the
unfolding oflegislation, My experiences the capi ·
tol, however, have taught me that a r:umber of pol-
icy aceas, such as as.sess:nent and accountability.are
woefully underresearcbed. t:pon !using the fede:al
MAI.DEi' trial, the Chicar:D caucus members antic-
ipated that an appeal would not likely fare well in
the conservat:ve Fift~ Cir,;t:i! Court Cor:sequentJy,
,he struggle for a more just assessment system
would shift back to the state legislature, where most
edocadonal policies originate.
In Fall, 2000, upun moving 10 Austin, J had
hoped to chmnidr just such an effort, but I soon
realize!: that both majority and minority advo-
cates were operationally defining: equity as equ,1i
access to mandated testing. That is, the legislative
concerns that predominated centered around
which students were gelling wh kh tests rather
than whether a numbers-based, single-nc1mber
acrountab'lity systct:1 is a Jfawed des:gn (Mc1'eil
& Valenzuda, 2001; Yaienwela, 2004b), This
impoverished definition of equity mea1:t that no
one was initial:ng progressive legislation on the
uses of assessment

In light of this vacuum in leadership, ~ down
loaded the accountahiliw law and revised it from
a single-indicator system based on test scores lo a
multiple-indicator system based on tcs~ scores,
grades, a:id teacher recommendations, In tl:is
revised version, multiple !mikators were to figure
into all retention, promotion, and graduiltion
decisions, Much :ike the admissions processes in
most Texas colleges and univers'tie,, multiple
indicators help compensate for pf,or test scores.
Moreover, because 2ssessment drives currkulam,
i.:se of multiple indicators would minimi:1,e the
teaching to the test, the narrowing of curricula,
and tl:e further marginalizing of students that
Linda McNeil and I ohserved to be :he case
Houston's inner·dty schools (for a more elabo-
rate discussion, see McNeil & Valenzuela, 200:;
Valenzuela, 2002).
In November, 2000, I shared the new language
of my ilmultiple indicators" idi:a with MALDEF
attorneys Al Kauffman and Jae Sanchez, who then
,;:011verted it into legalese, They walked the halls of
the capitol searching for a bill sponsor, of
the Anglo represcatatives on the Co:n:nittee 011
Public Education in the House wanted to carry
the leg:s:ation. Only Representative Dora O:ivo,
a former teacher who was knowledgeable about
the abuse, of the testing system, w·as willing to
sponsor it,
I sti[ reme:nber the sense of relief I felt on the
day that we focnd our bill's sponsor. Al Kauffmar:,
lead MALDEF attorney and honorary ,\,lexican,
e-n:ailed me witn these woix:s: "On the real difi-
cult issues, solam@nte la gente trabaja nm nr:m1tros
y para nosotros ;only our people work with and
for usj:'' His sincere expression of solidach:y and
struggle still touches me deeply !oday.
With his use of Spanish and his reference to
"our people; Al Kauffman gave voice to both our
struggle for power and also how polky oaking is
radalized independently of the merits of the leg-
islation that we, as minorities, bring to fae table.
Although our proposa: for just assessment prac-
tices p:omised to benefit all chilc.ren regardless of
rnce, what seemed to matter more in the eyes of
the re•uctanr legislatms was who was bringing it
to their atteotio:i rather than wllar the proposal
roley & Valer.iuela: Crll'ca, E!hnography 111 229
contained. I suspect that if our team both had
been Anglo and had not been assodated with
either c'vil rigl:ts or the MALDEF court case, our
proposal would have been :-eceived differently.
However much they '.nform poEcy work, it is
impossible to regret suC:, circur:1stances. They
refer to obstacles over which we have no control.
Our strategy has thus been to mobilize our
constih:ents, continue worldng with our white
allies-· many of the:n sdmlars such as Professors
Linda McNeil at Rice University and Walt Haney
at Boston University-and educate legislators.
r.ewspape, columnists, and the lay publk to begin
considering how !he state's approach to account·
abiE ty marginalizes either students, the rnrricu-
lum, or both, With the recent, high-profile exposes
of fraadulent accounlin11 of dropouts in the
Hm:stoo lndependent School District by the
New wrk Times, coupled with argi;ments of l:ow
sudt practices are encouraged by de~ign (Schemo
2003a, 2003b; Winerip, 2003 }, we already have
achieved a modicum of sua:ess,
Looking back, it was my fa:niliarity with
discm1rse and rhetorical analys:s that helped me
decipher how state legislators u,ed the slippery
term "accountability:' }ly i;nderstandlng of their
rhetoric P.nd logic led me to argc.ments for
new ocruuntability prnctices that were ir.crcmen-
taL The idea was to stbt:y alter, not dis:mmtle, the
existing accou:itability st~uctare. To this end, we
contended that bec.iuse accountab:lity is a large
and complex system. it re;;uires a more complex
form of assessme:it. For evaluating students
for high-stakes decisions (promotion, retention,
and graduation), the state :1eeds an assessment
system premised on n:ultiple meas·.tres rather
than a sbgle. narrow measure based on students'
te,,: scores. From a rhetorical standpoint. we
framed our proposed legislation in la:iguage and
justi5cation that was both log,cal aod less threat
ening 10 the larger poli~kal edifice of accountabil-
(see Valer.zuela, 2004b ).
Initially, I thoug:it my authority to advocate
si:ch an approach before legislative caucas
meobers came from prior research in schools,
from n:y status as a university profossor. from my
state- and r:ational level connections, and from
 231} !Ill HANDIJOOK 01' QC.4.LJ'li'.TIVR RESEARC 1 1-CHAPTl::lt 9
being a citizen and having children in the public
school system. Yet none of :hese factors woulc
have bee:1 sufficie:it to rnnvi nee l!:'.g:s:ators to
rethink the con(t;>pl uf ,Krnunlability and, 'n SQ
doing, to consider our proposaJserious:y. [n eel ro-
spect. it mattered :hat I am cfo,dy idcntifia: with
the Mex:can commur:ity and that l am diredy
involved in :he recurrent struggles of Chicana/o
legislators to ddic, craft helpful legislat:on or
weigh in oi: legislation that is not help fut
Moreover, I showed how deeply I was moved by
tne tragedy of tn:fa:mess in the assessment of
fh:ldre1: of <.1Jlor; as well a~ for all children gener-
all1: Additionally, my dcmo:1strnted interest and
involvement in issues extending heyond assess•
ment (e.g., legislative issue-:, pertai oi ng ro Etglisl:
language learr.crs) manifestec my commitrr.ent
to rhe Latina/o commtmity, gene:ally, while
shielding me h1:n the criticism often hea?ed
upon university academics that their involvement
is typicaJy l:rr.ited am: se>lf-serving ii: m1,ure.
Withc}U: these cnn:;al i ngrecients of identi!lcg-
rio:t, direcl act ion. and a principled com m:tment
to l:te community, my ;>lea for a mor,· humane
multiple assessment approact: would have laded
morn] and ethical force. At first, i resenkd the
d r<::t:rr.slance, th ;it pkced me ir. this position. I
si:nply wanred 10 study the reform and :1ot to be
6e person who was pivotal in achieving it In
tin:e, however, I came to see how my knowledge
and e.x ?ertise could oe us~d for mcaning:ul
change and also to ap;:m;date the value of fast•
hand experienct: and sk:lls assodated with the
kgislative process. Th's by now lo:ig-term collab-
oration with Chkat1a/o political leaders is what
?ushed mt'. to c,mduct a deeper, critical analysis
of the state's schoo: syste:n, Immersed in tf:c leg
islative process, I came to se;: how the 'Jexas Edu-
cation Agency's o:ficial rhetor:c and the sanitized
test :-esul!.> provided to the media obscured bllth
the n:ate:ial conditions of schooling and the
slates pcrported mi$Sion to e<luca:e all students
e<iuitably and thereby dose the achievemen: gap.
The other side of rny collabo,ation with state
legislators is an cq ually intense collaboration with
my graduate stad,mts, To date, al: o: the doctora'.
,1:1;dents with whon: I work directly a,c engaged
in educction ::'loJicv' research. Our rnll1'.ctive efforts
"
pu.,h me '.o t'leo~'ze, eilplain, and represen: our
observations of ~he kgislature and legisla'.on- in
new ways.
The dual role that I now play as both
resrarcher and advocate amstitutes a major nreak
with my or:gbal training as a &ocial scicnti,t. I
!:ave follnd a way of doing social science that goes
beyond die ins:pid, apolitical positivism that I
barned in graduate school, At this porn:, it gives
me cnormoi:s personal satisfaction to cont:nuc
using :ny ;,riv:leged status as a scholar to suppmt
and promote a ~ocial ;LJstice agenca. Moreover,
bci ng a TtjaHa and Mexican A;11erican femai e
sc:iolar imbues this calling with a specl al sense of
urgency and purpo,e.
Til CONCLJSJON
We bave tried to raise some issues and make some
ciis1indo11s that w:11 :nove self-prodaimed "c~:ti-
cal ethnographes" to interrogite their current
elhnogrn?h k: prnctice. By cor. :ms ling our own
ethnographic ~nd political practices, we <l is,:;ov-
ered a:i interesting difference that helps clarify
the notion of col:ahorn '. ion. 011 one !:and, Foley
has spent bis career writing cultural critiques o:'
An:criam capitalism and its schools, hut he l:as
spent considerably 11:ss time ia direct political
involvement In lieu of joining va;ious progres-
sive :xiiitkal struggles, he joined the ideological
struggle against positivism an(: sdentism, Like
;na11y prog:essive academks, this allowed him
to survi,:e ;,rofessionally but 1eft him longing
for more di reel po:itkal involvement as a 'c;tizen
anthropologist"
In fais regard, he ad:nircs the passionate
and direct pol it:ca! involvement of h:s co[cague,
Angela Vakn,ueia. She feels a deep moral bor:J lo
her ethnic group, and she works tire:ess:y for its
betterment as an exprrt witness, researcher, and
adviser to various Chicana/o legislators. She also
mentors many of her students along this pa:h.
When Valenzaeia responded somewl:at apologet-
ically about being less «rdlexivt?'' than l arr:, that
mirrore(I for me how my notion of"collaboration"

has s:iifted over the yeurs, In some ways, I have
become "the effect" of the powerful postmodern
experimentalist discourse in anthmpology. This
made it harder for me to see that the following
notio:is of collaboratio:i-deccntering the a1.1thor,
ceconst~u.;;ting theory, polyphonic texts, dialogic
interviewing, and eve:i comr.rnnity review of the
texts-are no more fonrlamental than Valenzuela's
notion of "collaboration;"
On the surface. she and her award-winning
et!: nography do no! seem to i:1eet the post•
:imde~n ideals of reflexivity and a coproluced
m.rrativc. She does r.01 deploy the eJtpe:imental
et::mogmphy discourse rhet.orkally to make he;
text more authoritative. Moreover, this chapter is
first at tern?tat portraying the eth ical-polit:cal
ground of ethnographic practice. Earlier, she
recounted huw she is Iinked to the Chicar.o poHt•
ical r:rnvernent and its efforts to LHd.u,:,;; sodety.
Priv11tdy, she talks about having a "~piritual" con-
nect ion w:th her resea~ch subjects~many of
whore are polil ical allies. They share a common
hi~torical memory of bdng a radalizo::l, stigma·
tizec people. When s:u: participates in the strug·
gle, she feels affirmed a:1d empower~d, and she
experiences a shared sense of fate. The;;c fee:ing,
compel her to write caring am: though :fu I
portraits of her people.
In effect, Valenzuela identit:es and colla:lorates
with her .~uhjects ln a deep psychological and
politica: way. ·:·here is a sense of being c:amales
(brothr:'llf sisters) and Ctlmaradas (comrades). In
return, they expect her to be what Antonio
Gram:1ci (I 971) would ca:J one of their "organic
illlellectuals:' She has made it through a racist
economic and educ.ibmal systerr., She now has
tl:e academic credentials and the writing skill, to
be among a select rommur.ity of erperrs, authors,
and persons who, to use Gayatri Spivak's (I 988;
apt phrase, "strategically essentialize" the'.r strug-
gle. In the end, they may refuse many of the col-
lahomtive methodological practices advocated ii:
expc,imental, postmodern ethnography. Th is is
not to that one notio:1 of rnllaborat:on is
superior to the other, but it is dear that "native?' or
insider ethnographers r:, ay have to march to the
beat of a different drummer. Mh ical commitments
Foley & Valenzuela: Critical Ethnography Ill 231
to their subjects/po:itkal allies may con:?el there
lo be collaborative in more spir::ual and less
procedural, methodological ways, Our differer:ces
s1:ggest that there are a number 0t ways of beir:g
collaborafa,•t, Each erhnogra?her ultimatc:ly
develops hb or he: own notions collaboration,
posi tionality, and authorship.
Vale:izuela's accou m of how her direct involve·
ment in th.: legislative process led her to a greater
nnderstandi ng is a ringi:lg endorsemcn: fo~ Hale's
not:on of activist a:nhropology. Resean:hcrs w:m
are involved directly :n the political process are
in a better position to understand and theorize
about social change. This being true, the academy
must find many more ways to reward "citizen•
sd:olars" who are both assisting local commu•
nities and pmdud:1g more deeply gro:.mded
research studies. Unfortunately, the academy still
r:iainly rewards scholars who produce universalis•
tic "theoretical knowledge:• The r;ili ng academic
elite of most discipline, still devalues the produc •
tio:1 of local, politically useful, "applied knowl-
edge." As a result, many p:ngressive scholars may
rr:inimize or even !'.ice their attempts to prodi:ce
the kir:d of practical knowledge needed to trans-
form local communiti<;S and institutional policies,
At different points in :1 istory, the academy
has punished progressive scholars for being too
active politicany: There are signs chat the cour.try
is pn:sently moving toward a new era of
M~Ca,thyism under the '::ian:1er of figh:ing terror•
ism. J\otwit:istand: ng t'le presence of Mexican
American Studies centers and othe:: safe space,
that offer protection th:ough a connection to co:11•
munity, the so-called safe space created by post
I 960s cultural critics in the academy could
disappear rather quickly if political lines harden.
Consequently, it is with some urge:i cy that we
exhort our academic peers to valo,ize am: share
more openly the ?Olitical dimensions of their
fieldwork. There are undoub:edly po~itkal ri!.k,,
but what other choice is there for so-called pu~,1 ic
intellectnals who live in an e:npl re with enough
bombs to destroy the world?
Perha;,s future sci:o:ars who live in a more
humane society and world will look back 011 this
little post- I960s openir:g of''crltk:111 e:lmography"
 232 111 HANDJiOOK OF QUALITATIVERESEARCH-CIIAPTER 9
with a b:! of wonder. What our generation is
doir.g may seem a little Iike the medical science
of leeches or chemotherapy-a modest begin-
11i;1g at best. On a substantive level, we see many
pror:1isi:lg new varieties of critical ethnography.
We have suggested many ways to question our
notions of purpose, positionality, collaboration.
and writing styles, Transforming the acaderr:k
knowledge pmductim: i:ldustry obviously requires
much more than c::iallenging the ideology of pos.•
itivism and s6m:ism. We also need to cha1:ge tl:e
way academic publishing ls o:ganized and con•
trolled, and the way promotion am: tenure for
publication and public service is awarded. We also
must continue to open up the acade:ny ~o under-
represented groups so that they, tno, may con-
tribute to scholarship. Critical ethnography that
em b:aces the public interest tnJy wii; flower
when we can transform acaderr:ia.
Ill NOTRS
I. Angela v~:enzucla wishes to thank her col-
lcag ue, Bill Blad,, for his suggestioo of the laner term.
2. Pcrwnal communicat'cn in 2001 to Angela
Valenzuela during the first weeks of the legi~lative
ses~ion.
Ill REFERENCES
Bennett, J. W, ( 1996), Applied and action anthrcpology:
Ideological and c,,:;ceptual aspects. Current
A11tlimpoiogy,
Brodkin, K. f2CO: ). Di1•ersit, in anthropological theory:
In I. Susser & t Patterson (Eds.), Cultural diver-
sity iri 1/te Uri/Jed (pp, 368--387). Oxforci,
;J K: Blackwell.
llurnwoy, :.'., [ 1991 ), 1:'t.~nograpl;y 1mb1nmd, Berkeley:
University of California Press,
Burawoy, M. (2000}, Globe;/ etrmography: forces,
com11Mions, and imagiriati,ms in a pcstmo,tern
world. Berkeley: l:niversity or Gilifo:1lia
C11rspecken, P. (1996 ). Crilical ethnogrophy in edurn-
tional researth: A theoretirn/ ~nd practical guide.
iondon: Routledge.
Denzin. K K. (1997). Tnterpretive ethnography;
Ethnogr/Jphir pra,cttces rhe 21st century.
Newbury Park, CA: Sar,r.
Denzin, N. K., & Li::coln, Y, S. fEds.), !21l00}. 1-fcmd/Jook
of qualitative resccm::fi (2nd ed,i, 'frousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Douglas, f- ( 1976). lmtesligative social researdt Beverly
Hill, CA: Sage.
Eddy, R, & Partridge, W (Eds.). ( I 987). Applied muhro•
palogy in America (2nd ed.). 'lew York: Columbia
University Press.
Fine, M , & Weis, L. (1998). The unknowr, city: Live,
of poQr ari.1 working class young adultt Bos:on:
Beacon,
Fine, M., & Weis, L (2000). S1Jeed humps: A studerit•
friendly guide to qualitative research. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fine, M.. Weis, L., Weseer., S., & Wong, L. (2GOOJ.
For whom: Qualiretive re;eardi, representations,
and social responsi:i:::ties. I:1 :i. K. Der.zin & Y. S.
Lincoln (lids.), Hand/J()ok of qualitati:ve rcsea.rr:ii
{2nd ed,,pp, 107-133). Thonsand Oak,, CA: Sage.
F:ores, R. (2002). R1m1embering the AlanM: MemDr},
modernity the master symbol. Austin:
t:ni'ICrsity ofTexa.s Press,
Foley, D, ( 1990). Leamirig :af•ifafist culture; l>eep in the
heurt of 1eja~. Philadelphia: University of
Pcnnsy.vania
foley, D, (1995). The heartland chronicles, P::iiadelphiic
Univ er sil y of Pennsylvania Press.
Folry, D. ( 1999 l. The Fox project: A reappraisal. Cummt
Anthropology, 40;2 ), 17:- I '.II.
foky, D. (2000, Spring). Studying the politics of Raza
LJnida fK,litics: Reflections of a white a1Jthro-
pologis:, Rejk>:iones: New Vircc!for;s in Mexican
American Studfe,, 51-81.
Poley, D, (2002). Critical ethnography: reflexive
:urn. lnternalimial Joumaf of Qualitative Studies
in Educ11tfon, 15(4),469-491.
Poley, D., l .evinson, B., & Hurt'g, ). ( 200 Ij.
Anthropology goes :::side: rhe new educationa:
ethncgrapt:v of tt:micity and gender. Ir:
W. Secada (Ed.), Revie-.v of research in educa!ion
(pp, 37-99). Washington, DC: American Educa•
tional Resea:ch Association Publications,
l'o:ey, D,, & Moss, K. (2001 ). Studying Ame:ican cnl•
tura: diversity: Some non-essentiaiiiing pcrspc'C·
tives. In I. Sus;er & T. Patterson :E<ls. ), Te,u:hing
cultural di~ersity (J;JL 1:10-152). London:
HlackwclL
Foley, D., with Mota, C., Post, D•• & Lozanr>, 1. (1~119).
Frmn peones to politicos: l1as., and ethnicity m ,1
S(•utr: 1exas town, 1900-1.987. Austin: University
,,f TcXi!s Press.
T
GI Forum et aL v,lcKas Ed;icational Age;1cy et al.,87 F.
Supp, 667 (W,D, 2000},
Gonion, E, T, ( 1997), Disparate diasp,m1s: I,ierrtiry ami
politi;:s in an l,frfr:,m•Nicarnguan .:ammrmity.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gramsci, A, (I 971), ,vl,ectinm fem the prison note-
boo,~s, )lew York: Ir.ternational Publishers,
Hale, C. R, ( 1994 ). Resis!ance and contradiction: Miskiw
Imffam arid the Nirnmgumr sum, 18li4-l987,
Stanford, CA: S:anfom ::Jniversitv
Hale, C. R (n,d,). lkti:vist n;search versu; :::ultural cri·
tiques: C;mtradiction! Ill every rum, Unpu';)::shec
paper, Depar:ment of Anthropology, University of
Texas, Austin,
Hamway, D. (1988). Sima:ed knowledges: The sckno:
,; uestior: in feminism as a site of discourse on the
?::ivilege partial perspective, Fernini,I Smdic;,
14, 575-599.
Harding, S. (1998), Is science rnulticu!tural? Post-
colonia/isms, feminism,, and epistemology,
Bloorr.'::gron: Indiana University Press,
Hymes, U. (Ed.). (1972), Reinventing ,mtim1pology,
New ~brk: V:::tage,
Kan,>, & Ma~on, T (2001 ), AmS and criminal jus·
ti.:e./rnmml Review of Anthropology, 30, 457-479,
Kemmis, & McTaggart, R, (2000}, Partidpatnry
action :ese~rch. !11 'J, K, :Jenzin & Y, S. E:1coln
(Eds,), Handbook of qualitativ,• rese,,rch (2nd ed.,
pp 567-606 ), Thousand Oaks, Ct Sage,
Lather, P. ( 1991 J, Gui/mg smart feminist research
pedagagy within the pDst-modem, New York:
Routledge,
Levinson, ll., & Holland, D. (I 996 ). The culiural pm-
du,ti:J:1 of 6e educated perso::: An introd·~ction,
In ll. Levinson, D, Folei,~ & D. Holla::cs (Eds,), Tlie
rnltumf production of the educated person: Critical
etlmogr<,ph fe:, of schoo!fng ,md loml practice
i ?P· ' Alhany: State University of Ne-1,; York
Press,
Levinso::, B,, & Sutton, M, (Eds,}, (200: ). Policy as
practice: Towards a comparati1;e sacio/ogirnl
analysis of educational policy. Wesl!Jo:t, CT:
A::,!cx,
Lynd, R, (:956). Middletown: A study of American
wllure ed,), New York: Haceourt 3:ace.
MarGs, G, ( 1998). P:tlmogruplry thrm,gh thick and th!.~.
P:inctton, :-rj: Princeton U::: vcrsity Press,
Marcus, G. (Ed,), (I 999). Critical anthropology now:
llnexpect~d contexts, shifring rimstitmmdes,
duinging agendas, Snnrn Fe, KM: School cf
American Research Press,
Foley & Vale::zuela: Crifa:al E:hnography lit 233
Marcus, G,, & Cushman, fl. ( 1982), Ethnographies a~
ttKts, Annual Rr·11ew of Anthropology, 11, 25· 69.
Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. (198ii), Anthropology tu
mltuwl critique: tin exper1mentaf moment in the
inmum scietrccs, Chicago: Univers:ty of Chica,:c
Mc;'/e[, L {2000), Contradictions ,!f school reform:
Educatiom;l ,1ms ofstandardized ,esting. New York:
R,mtledge,
McNeil, L.. & Valen,c:ela, A, (20D l), harm fol
impact of the TAAS system of testing in
Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. l n
M, Komhaber & G. Orfield (Eds,), Raising stan-
dard.; or raising lJmTiersr Inequality and high
stakes testing ir. public edurn'ior. (pp, 127-: 50).
New York: Century foundatio::.
Menchaca, M. (2002), Recovering history, constructing
race: fl,t Indian, black ami white roots ofMexican
Americans. Aus:in: University o: Texas Press,
Mills, C, W, (19 59). The sociological imaginatfo11.
New York: Oxfo;d University Press.
Nader, L [1996), Naked scie1ice: ,411thropologfcal
inquiry into boundaries, powei; and know/edge,
New York: Rou:lcdge,
Oi<ong;,", F., & Men(her, J, P. (200fl). The anthropo:ogy
of rub::c policy; Sl::::ting terrains. Annual Review
oflmt/impciogy, 29, lfl7 124,
R·~bi nstei 11, R. ( l9116). Refle.::fams on action anthropol-
ogy: Some devclop:nental dynamics of an amhro·
pologkal tradition. Human Organ iunian, 5,
270-282.
Sanday, P. ll (1976),Anthropo!ogy and the public imer-
e,7: Fieldwork and iheory. New York: Academic
Pr.:ss.
Sanday, P. R, (1990), Fraternity gang rape; brother,
hood ,mdprivikge vtl campus, New York: ;'Jew York
U:1:versity Pre;.s.
Sanday, P. R. (1996). A woman scorned: l\cquaintance
rape 011 rria[ New York: Dou bledav,
Schema, D. j. (2003a, August 28), For HcrJ1Jton schools,
college claims exceed reality. New rork Times,
Ret6ived Augus: 28, 2003, from w;vw,nylime,,,cnm
Schemri, D. I. (2003b, ;uly l 1), Questions on dat~ d,iud
luster of F.miston sd:ouls, New \iirk
'<etrieved July I I, 2003, from www.nytimes.com
Scheper Hughes, N. (1992), Death wilhvut weeping:
The ·1iolence of everyday liji: in Bmzii. llerkeler:
University o: Califor:::a Press,
Scheper,Hughes, N., & Sargent, C. ( Eds.), ( I998 ), Sma11
wars: The cultural polirics cf childhood, Rerkelcy:
University of California Press.
 11 HAN:>BOOK OP QUAUTATTVE RESEARCH-CHAP:ER 9
Schwandt, T, A, '.2000), Three epi~temologkal stances for
qualitalivr :::qulry: :nierpretivism, hermeneutics,
and soda! const,u,:kmism. Ir: N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln '.Eds.). Handbook of qi;alitative researc/1
(2nd ed., Ptt 37-84}. Thou~and Oaks, CA: Sage,
Smith, LT. (1999).Dem/onizit;g methodologies: Research
and indigenou:; peoples, London: Zed Books.
Spivak, G. [1988 J, o,fwr worlds: F.ssays in culturai poll-
New York: Methuen.
Susser, L {2001 ). Poverty and homelessness in US
cities, I:: I. & T. Patterson (Eds.), Cultural
diversity in the Untied Stales (pp,
Oxford, UK: Black well,
Tax, S. (1963 ). Penny capitalism: it Guatemalan Indian
~fstury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valent:ne, C. ( 1968;, Culti,re and paverty: A critique
and t·a,1.1ter-propasa/;, Chicago: cn;versity of
C:h:cago Press.
Vale::zuda, ( Subfractii'e schooling: US. -
Mexiuin youth and thi, politics of caring. Albany-
Slate 'Jni,.:rsity of New York Press.
va:cnz.:cla,A (200C }, The significance of the TAA Stest
for l'vlexican immigrant and Mexicar: Amerk.n
a,loles,ents: A case study, l'fapunic Journal of the
Belrnvioral Sc:ie•rc.r;, 22(4), 524-539.
Valcnz:.iela. A. /2002), Hish•stakes le>1:ng and U.S,-
Mcx:can youth ::: The case for multiple
mn:pensatory criteria in assessment Harmrd
Juuriu:;I of Hispanic Policy 14, 97-L6,
Valenzuela, A, (200,;a). Accountability :he privati-
1.atinn agenda. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving
d:1/dren behind: Why Texa,-s!yle accouma&ility
fails laUrw youth (;:,p. 26J,-2'17 Albany:
u~ :vers'ty of New !'\irk Press,
Vai enzuela, (2004:J J. The anounlabilil y debate
in Texas: Continuing the conversation. In
A. Valeruc.;da (Ed. J, Leaving children behind: Why
Texas-style uccounta/Jiriry fails Lalino youth
(pp. l-32). Albany: State University of !Sew York
Press.
Vidkh, A. J., & Lyr::an, S. (2000), Qualitative me:hoc:s:
Their histmy in scdology and anthmpnlngy.
Jn N. K Denzin&: Y, S. Lincoln (Eds.), lla11dl,r,.,k,
of qua/ita ,ive research (2nd ed ,, pp. 3 7-84 ),
Thousand Oaks, CA: SJge.
Vi.icnas, & Foley; 0, (2002). C:hicano/La:inn critical
ethnography nf education: Rn:drrl,mds cul,ural
pmductions from La Fro::tcra. ln R. R. Valencia
(Ed.), Chicano sclwoifailure 1md succeJJs: Past, prcs-
en~ atid future (2r:c ed., pp. 195-216). London:
Rintledge falmer.
Winerip, M. (2003, August 13 ). The "zero dropout" mir•
ade: Alas! Alack! ATexas :all ta le, New Ycrk Times.
Retrieved A:.:gusr l 3, 2003, fmrr: www.:iy1lmcs
.com
Wolfe, 2, (1982), FJtrope and people 11ri,ho11t history.
Berkeley: [nive:-5i!y of Cfllifornia Press,
Wcdfe, T. (1974). The til:'N journ4/ism. New York:
!iarpe, and Row,
Zavel:a, e (1987;, 'Mm-1er1, work, and Jumi!y irr thr
Chicano community, lt::aca, NY: Cornell Univc:-5i!y
Press.
10
EARLY MILLENNIAL FEMINIST
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Challenges and Contours
Virginia Olesen

The only comwnt in today's world is change.

-Braidutti \20Cl0, p. l 062)

A
short time into the ":iew mille:mium" (to
llse a limited, Westernized term), chang•
ing themes suffuse feminist qualitative
research. These themes challenge feminist work
where,er done, bearing on the very artin::ation of
gender, its enactment, and the problems which
inhere thereto: ecoriomic stagnation that slows
growth in Westernized societies and impedes
progress in ceveloping countries; the potential
for war and termrism of whatever scope; altering
relatior:s;1 ips among major nation-states, with
consequence~ for isolation and new coaJi:ions;
and !he unceasing! y rapid development of elec•
tronic com1;1unication which melts borders,
transfers resources, and alters identities. Within
some sociejes, both Eastern and Western, ronser-
vativism grows or resurges, with subs:antial
potent:al to shape womens and men's lives. kl
Evelyn !ilakano Glenn has noted, "If one accepts
gender as a variable, then one must ack:1owledge
that it is never fixed, bul continually constituted
and reconsti:uted" (2002, p. 8).
Feminism a:1d feminist qualitativt> rest>arch
remain highly diversified, enormously dynamic,
and thoroughly challenging. Contending models
of thought divergent methodological and
analytka: approaches eompete, once clear theo-
retical differll'nces (.see Fee, :983) :ilur, and

Author's N<lte, l::dsive crlrkisms fmm ~mman Den1Jn, Yvonne Lincoln, l'alricia C,»JJ:lh, Y,:_t,dle fine, Y.eaghaa Morris,
ai:d '(en tc Espirilo enliam:,d the qua'.ity of this dta;,trr. I'm !]«ltefo'. 10 !'lem all as well as lo Jcdl!h Lorber for ~enemas
,haring of f,mioiiit resea:ch on the Sociologi>ts 'Nomcn in Sodety e-mail Ii>!; to El'zabe::> Allen :o: her rru-tcr ;,f frm,nist,
critic JI, a~d poslstmcturnl policy anal~srs; and le Adele Clarke fur continuing, stimulating fen:nis! dialogue,

11
11
THE MORAL ACTIVIST
ROLE OF CRITICAL RACE
THEORY SCHOLARSHIP
Gloria Ladson-Billings and Jamel Donnor
It doE!Sn't miltf€r who vou Jrt', or !iow high you ri,e. One day you will get your calf.
The qucs//011 f, how will you wsrximif
T
he epigraph that opens this chapte, ror:1es
from a colleague and friend who serves as a
tor administrator at a major university. His
use of the term "your call" is his referen(e to what in
.11Jrican American vernacalar would be known as
being callee the"N-word~ Ra:hcr tban focus on the
controvernr over the term ar:d its appropriateness
(see Kennedy,20()2), this chapter looks more s:>ecir-
ically at the meaning of the "call" and 11:e ways it
sho:ild mohil:7.c scholars of color' and othe:; wl:o
share con:mitments to equity, sod~ justice, and
human liberation. This friend was referring to the
way Africa1: Americans almost never are permitted
to b,eak out of the prism (and prison) of race tha:
has been imposed hy a racially roded and con-
straining society. Clearly, thili same hierarchy and
?=er dynam'c operates for all people of color,
women, the poor, and othc>r ":11arginals?'1 The call is
-African Amoric<11 University
St,nior Ad IT' in: ,trator
that nommt at which, regardlt.'Ss of one's stature
a:1d/or acc01:1plishments, race (ar.d other categories
of o:herness) is recruited to remind one that 'Je or
she still rer:iair:s locked in the racii!l eonstrudon.
Belov,, we provide eximples from popular ,ukure,
and each of tl:e authors demonst:-ates how the "calf
is mob[ized to maintain the pmve, dynamic and
'iierarch ica: racial structures of sode:y.
'rhe first example cor.u:s from tlir 1995 mur
der trial ot O,ei:thal )mes Simpson, mnre com-
monly known as 0. J. Sir:1pson. S:mpson was an
American hem. He was revered for r.is exploits
on the: :ootball field at the University of Souther:t
(a:iforn ia, ar.d with the professional fool ball
franchises in Buffalo and San Francisco, tm1ph,d
with his good looks and 'arlicula:eness:" The
latter two qualities allowed Simpson to tur:i his
postcompetition into a successful ,ports
Ill 279
280 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 11
bmadcasting career and a mediocre but profitable
acting ::arecr. Simpson moved comfortably in the
world of mooey and power-tl:e white world. He
was said to be someone who "transcended race»
(Roediger, 2002 ), which is a code expression for
those people of color that whites claim they no
longer think of as people of color. Michael Jordan
and Colin Powell also are considered in this vei:i.
They are, according to Dyson (1993 ), "symbolic
figures who embodied social possibilities of
soc:ess denied t-0 other people oi color" [p. 67).
Some might argue that S'mpson cid not get a
"call;' that he was a murdrrer who got the Olltoriety
and degradation he deserved, while also getting
away with a heinous crime. Our point:, not to argue
Simpsods guilt or innocence (and fror:1 where w1;
stand, he indeed looks guilty), but rather to
describe his devolution from white to black the
midst of the legal spectacle. Simpson learned
quickly that the honorary white status accorded to
him by larger society was :entative and
ephemeral. Some might argue that anyone charged
wit'! murder would receive the sane treatment, but
,;nnsider 6at Ray Carruth, a !llational Font':iall
League player who was convicted of a murder-for-
h':e of his pregnant girlfriend, was regarded as "just
another black hoodlum:' His actions barely caused
a collective raised eydirow in the larger society. We
argne that Sim;isons cr'mes are not only the mur-
de: llfNicole Brown and Ron Goodman but the
perceived "betrayal" of whia: tru;;t.
Simpson wen: from cor.ceprually whi:e to
conceptually black (King, 1995)-·fror.i a "Fresh
Prince of Brer:twood" to the "Pariah of Portrero
Hi:I" (the San Francisco community in which he
grew up}. One of the weekly newsmagazines
admitted to "colorizing" Simpson's polke mug
shot on its cover, resulting in a more sieister look.
We pe:reive that edi'.oria'. dedsio:i as a symbol of
Simpson's ..return to black:' He no longer Iran·
scended race. He was just another N-word who
was daogerous, sinister, and unworthy of hon-
orary white statu, 0. J. Simpson rec,~iv,~ his call,
Of ,ourse, the biza,re and circus-:ike drcum-
star.ces of the Simpson trial make it an outlier
example of receiv:ng a call Therefore, we •JSe more
pe,sonal examples that better sitnate this argument
in our everyday life eKperiences. Ladson-Billings
( 1998b) describes her experience of being invited
to a :najor university to be a speaker in the distin-
guished scholars lecture series. After the speech, she
returned to her hotel and decided to nnwind :n the
hotel's co:icierge floor 101:nge. Dressed i11 business
attire and reading the newspaper, she noticed a
white man who popped his head in :he door. «what
time are y'all serving?" he asked, Because sl:e was
the only person the lounge, it was that he
was addressing Ladson Billings. S:ie polite,y but
firm:y replied, ..I don't know what time they are
serving. I'm here as a guest:' Red-faced and clearly
embarrassed, the man quietly lt>ft. One migl:t arg11e
that he made a s'mple mis:ake. Perhaps hr wm:ld
have asked the same question of anyone who was
sitting in !lie lounge. 11:e-,ertheless, the :noment
reminded Ladson-Billings :hat rm nrat:er wha: her
s(holarly rep·Jtation, at any time she could
be snapped 'lm:k into the constraining racial
paradigm, complete with all the limitations such
desigr:ations carry.
Donnor asserts that one o: his many calls
came when he served as an instructor for a "diver-
s:ty" class that enrolled only white, middle-dass
teachers. Because this was a graduate course,
Donnor expected the students to adhere to the
r:gors of a master's-level class, After assigning
homework following the first class meeting,
Don11or was (hallenged by one of the few male
studer.ts about the amoum of homework. When
Donnor told the student that he expected students
to complete the assignment, the inquirer
responded, "It ain't guing lo happen," Al the next
class meeting. the program's site coordinator,
a white woman, arrived at the class, ostensibly
to share some p:ogram informatior: with the
students. However, as she addressed the sturlents,
she began to talk to them about modifications in
assignments and contacting her if they had issues
and concerns regarding the cou:se.
The issue with the student's .:oe1plaint about
the volume of work is a common one in a society
that regnlarly rejects h::tellectual pursuits,
However, gradt:ale students :ypically exercise
some level of courtesy and skill in negotiating the
amount of work they are willing (or able) to do,
 Ladson-Billings & Oom:or: The Moral Activist Role 111 28 I
The b,ata.11 re:nark that "it ain't going to happer"
may reflect the certainly with w:1kh the student
approached the racial power dynamic. As a white
male appruachiug ar. African American male, thi,
student :mderstood that he could challenge
Dor:nor's credentials and abilities, More point·
edly. the experience wi:h the site coordinator
underscored the fact that although Donnor was
hired to teach the course, authority flowed to the
wh:te woman. Sti:dents co·Jld essentially discoi:nt
Donnor whe:iever he did anything tl:ey disagreed
with, Both incidents servt' as powerful rt>minders
fo:- Dor.nor that despite his academic credentials
and experien~e, his racial identity always serves
as a n: itigaling factor in determining his author•
ity ar.d legitimaq:
Receiving a call is a regular reminde: of
the liminal space of alterily ('Nynter, 1992) tha:
racialized others oa::upy, But it is important not to
regard the Err.in al space solely as a place of eegra-
da:ion and disadvantage, Wyn1er ( I 992) assures
us that this place of alterity offers a perspective
ac vantage whereby those excluded from the ,;en-
ter (of social, cuh:ural, political, and economic
activity) experience ~wide-angk" vision. This
perspective advantage is not due lo an inherei:t
raciallc:iltural difference but instead is the resu'.t
of the dialectk:al nature of constructed otherness
that prescribes the '.iminal status of people of
color as beyond the normative boundary the or
co:iception of Self/Other (King, 1995),
In the previous iteration of this chapter,
Ladson-Billings (2000)4 cited King (1995), who
argued that the epistemic project that scholars of
color ar.d their allies must unde::ake is c11ore than
simply adding multiple pe,spectives or"pivoting"
the center. Sllch scholars occupy a liminal posi •
tion whose persuective is one of a'.terity. This lim ·
inal position or point of alterity that we inhabit
auempts to transcend an "either/or" ep:stemol-
ogy, Alterity is not a d:.ialistic position such that
there are multiple o: equally partial standpoints
that are either valid or inexurab:y ranked hierar-
chically, Recognizing the alterity perspe,;tive does
not essentialize other perspectives such as black-
ness, lndian-ness, Asian-ness, or Latino-ness as
homogenizing reverse epistemics (West, 1990}.
Ethiopian anthropologist As maron legesse
(1973) asserts that lhe liminal group is foatwhich
is fo:-cibly constrained 10 play 1ht: :ole of alter ego
:o tht> ideal sdf prescrf:iec by fae dcmina:n cul-
:ural modeL This dominant model s~:s 'JP pre•
scri,vti,,e rules and canor.s for regulating thought
and action in the society. Tl:us, the "issue is a:,out
the 'nature of hnman knowing' of the social real-
ity, in a model of which the knower is already a
socialized subject" (Wynle~, '. 992, p. 26),
The systcn:-mnservitg mai 11,trea::1 pcrS?C,:ives
of order (or well-established sctolur.!1if!)
:herefurc dasJ: with the challenges • ade from the
perspectives of allerily... , 11:ir, ii is !he !ask of
esta hlisr:ed scholarship to r;g[)rously :nair:tain
thrne prescriptions which are cm teat to the ordds
existmre, (Wynter, 1992, p, 27)
This focus on the ways of the dornir:ant order
is important :n helping us explore the ways ,Lich
ar: order dislorts the rcali:ie, of the Other in an
effort to maintain power relations th al con Iirrne to
d:sadv,mtage those who arc excluded from tha:
ordc~. As Wynter ( 1')92) so eloquently argues, tl:is
Hm:nal perspective is lhe condition of the domi-
nant order's self-definition tl:al "can empowe~
us to free ourselves from the 'catrgorie, :md
prescriptlons' of our specific order and from 'ts
'generalized horizon of understanding'" ;p,
In this iteration of the han<::>ook, we n:ovc
from solely describing the epistemological
terrain (botli domina1:t and :iminal) to advocal-
i:ig the kinds of moral and ethical re,ponsibili:ies
V'arlous epistemologies embody, We do this in
r.ope; of mohiEzing scholarship tna: will take a
stance on behalf of huma:i liberation. The subse-
que:11 sect;ons this cl:apter examine the ;:m~i •
tin., of i:itellecuals as constr'.lctors of c:hkal
epistemolugies, 1he discursive and material Ii ri: its
of liberal ideology, new templates for ethical
action. moving from research lo ac:ivism, 1l'co1:
structing the inteEect, and the search for a revolu-
tionary habitus.
We admit at the outset thal !his is an arnbitiom,
proje.:t anc. that we are likely to fall shor: of ot:r
stated goals, However, because a task is :iard does
282 Ill HAKOBOOK Of Ql:AUTATl\'E RESEARCH-CHAPTER::
not imply 6at we should m,I undertake ii.
Simi 1ar:y, De,rric,k Bell (1992) argued that even
tl:rmgh racis:n was a perm a ner:I fix:u re of
American life, we must still straggle aga1nst it.
Our success will not necessarilv come in the form
of a tightly mm!ructed sch;larly treatise but
rather :11 the form of scores of other communitv,
student, and scholar activists who continue ~r
take up this ;:ause rather t l:an n:erely wailing for
"the
!il lNTELL£CT:JAL l\tlARGINALS
AS CONS~RUCTORS OF
ETHICAi. EPISTEMQ:,QGIES
Tlie special fu.1c1ior. the Negro
1m1ellectua I Is a culwraf one,
s'1ou!d. . . the stultii}'!llg h!ight of
the commerci,,ffy depr£J ved .vilite mid·
d!e cla ,, who h;;s pnimm•d the ,twnurai
roots o( the Ame,ic ,lfl ethos and traM-
forrr,ed Ifie i\merican oeoo/e mto a
11a1ion or i!lleJlecwal do!'~- ·
-Hamid i1967/1984, p. 455)
We would he rerrnss J we did not acknowledge
the inc,ooible volume uf work bat scholars of
color have produced that we a.~ ethical
epistemoloi.;;ies. C:early, in a chapter of :his length,
it is impo,sible t.1 do ju;ti<'.c to all (or even most)
of th is ¼<1r d:. Thus, we will attemp: to rr.ake this
«review of t1ie Ii:erntu re' nion, a grand tour
(Spradley, 1979) to outline the contours of the
foundation on which we are buOding. We start our
fcur:dational wa,k with a look al W.E.B. DuBois's
(190311953 J construe: of «double consciousness'.'
wi;b wl:kh l:e ""~ '"'" that the African American
feels l:is twn-ness. , . two souls, two
thoughts, two ut1rcconcikd strivi:tgs" (p,
David Levering l.ewis (1993, p. 28 I l addressed
the importance of DuBo:s's conct.-ption stating:
II wat, a revolutic::a ry co:icepL It was nut just revo-
1:i!knary: the concept of the divided seJ was pro
foundly mystical, for DuBois .rlves:ed this Lfouble
cor1sc;,ommess with J cJpadty to see incomparably
farther a:id deeper. The African A:nericm: . .
pi>sSe&sd U1e gift of"semml sigh! i:; U1i, Americau
world:' an intuitive :acuity r:iaoling him/her to see
and say things about Amcican society that pos•
sessed heightened moral validity.
Ladson-Billir.gs (2000) argued that DuBois',
work had an importa:it synchronic aspcc:t in that
he raised the issues of double coru;ciousness prior
to the fomation of the Frar:kfurt School, out of
whic'1 critical theories emerged. Coincidentally,
D·JBois had studied at the University of :lerlin in
the late lllOOs, yet h:s name is never mentioned in
the same context as those of :Vlax Ho:'kheimcr,
Theodor Adorno, and Herber: Marcuse, DuBois
remains a "Negro" intellect,al concerned with
the ";l!egrJ' problem, but it wa, in Germanv that
DuBois recognized the ,ace problems i~ the
Americas, Africa, a:1d As:a, as weJ as the political
develo?men: of Europe, as !:,ei :1g one problem
that was part of a shared ideology. Th:s was the
period of his lifo tha: united his sudies ofhistorv,
economics, and politics into a sdentific .ipproad,
of social research,
DuBois's no:ion of double consciousness
applies not only to African Ame::cans but to atl
peopie who are constructed outside thedominan:
paradigrr:. Alt:mugh DuBois refers to a double
conscio1.JS1Jess, we kr.ow that our se:1se of ic.eatity
may evoke mu:tiple consciousness, and it is
important to rtad our discussi011 u' m:iltiple
consdousr:ess as a description of complex phenom-
ena that impose essentiaiized roncepts o: "bfack-
"' » "I_,a t'.na. 1·o-nr,,:,,s;
n e.>s, - ·'' H;.,'-1s:a11
• A' • cncun-ness,
. ..
or "Nath'<.' Arr:erican-ness" on s;,ecific individnals
or groups.>
111 additior. to DuBois's conotption of double
cor.sdousness, we rely on Anza:dua's (I967) per-
spective that identities are fractured r:ot only by
gender, class, race, reiig,ion, and sexuality, :>Ut also
by gengrapnk realities such as living along the
ll.S, -Mexico ·:,o~der, in urban spaces, or on govcm·
ment -created l:1dian :.:servatlons. Ar.zaldtlas work
continues a long intellectual history of Chkana.s/os
(see Acuna, 1972; Almaguer; 1974: Ralderra:na,
1962: Gomez-Quino:1es, 1977; Mirande &
Enriquez, 1979; Padilla, 1987; Paz, 1961) and
-·
--
Ladson Bsllings & :Jmmor: The Mc,al Advist Role 111 283
extends what Delgado Bernal (1998) calls a
Chicana fem'.nist episten:ology. This work includes
writers such as A:arcon (1990}, Castillo (1995),
ar.d de la Torre and Pesquera (1993) to illustrate
tne intersections of race, dass, ar.d gender.
Our reliance on these scholars is no! lo assume
a unified Latino/a (or even Chicano/a) subject.
Obo]er (l 995) challer.ges the amalgama:ioo of
Spanish speakers i:l :he Western Hemisphere
under the f'.tbrk "Hispanic." The Hispanic la:,el
belies the problem inhc:ent in attempts lo create
a ·Jnihu}' consciousness from one that is much
more complex and multiple than imagioed or
constmc:ed. Acco,dmg to Oboler:
Insofar as the ethnk: Hispanic homogenizes
the varied social and political experiences of 23
m'llion peo?k of d::ferent races, classes, lar:guages,
and national orig:ns, gei:ders, and religions., it is
perhaps ~Ill s,1 su,prisiug that the ::nean:ags and
uses of the term have become the subject of cebate
in the soda.I sciences, gover:imcnt agencies. ar.d
11:uc:i ofsociety at large. :1995. :l. 3)
Oboler's ( 1995) argument is e:iarted in a scene
in Rebecca Gilman's (2000) play Spinning into
Butter. In one scene, a college student is told that
he is eligible for a "mi:1ority" fellowsl1ip. When the
student objects to :he term "minority;• the dean
informs him that he can designate hi:nself as
"Hispanic:' He becomes more offer:ded at t!lat
term, and when the dean asks him how he woull
like to identify hinsel( ht' says, "'.ewyorican?' The
dea:1 then suggests that he list "Pue:to Rican:' hut
the student explains to her faat he is not Puerto
Rican. u: have never been lo Puerto Rico and i
would be as Jost as any American tourist there."
They co11tin·Je to argue over what label or category
is appropriate, The dean cannot understand that a
kfy feat11re of self-.:!etermination lies in the ability
to oame oneself. Tie failure of the dean to recognize
)lewyorican as an idenHty does not de-legitimate
i:, except in her mainstream wwld, which not
irisignificantly controls the resources that the
student needs to be successful at the college.
American lnc.ians grapple with sirr.ilar
questions o:· what £t means lo be Indian. Despite
rnovemer.ts toward "Pan-Indlanismfl (Hertzberg,
1971), the cultures of Amer:can lnd:ans are both
broad and diverse.Almough we warn against es sen•
tializing American Jr.dians, we do not want to min•
imlze the way the federal government's a,ter:ipt to
"civilize" and de-triblllize Indian childre1: through
boarding schools helped va:ious groups of lndiaos
realize that they shared a number of cummon pmb-
lems and experiences (Sn:pp, 1995}. Lomawaima
( 1995) stated that "since the federal governmem
turned attention to the 'problem' of civilizing
Indians, its overt goal has been to educate Indians
:o be non-Indians" (p. 33Z}.
Much of the double consciousness that Indians
face revolves around issues of tribal sovereignty.
Aloss of sovereign! y is amplified by lour methods
of disenfranchisement e.xperienced by many
American Jodia:1s (Lomawaima, 1995). Those fo:ir
rr:ethods faduded relocation by colonial authori•
ties (e.g., to missions or reserva:ions), ,1 s:ematk
eradkatioo of the native language, religious
conversioo (to Christianity}, and restructi:ring o:
economies towarc sedentary ag:iculture, small-
scale craft industry, and ge:1dcred labor.
Warrior (1995) asks whether or not an investi-
gation of early Ame:ican Indian writers can have
a s:gnificant impac, on the way contemporary
~ative intellectuals develop ~ritical studies. He
urges caution understanding the scholarship of
Fourth World formu\at[oi:s such as those of Ward
Churchill and M. Annette Jaimes because it tends
to he esse111ializi11g i:1 Its call for understanding
American Indian culture as a part of a global con•
sciousness shared by all indigenous people in aE
periods of his:ory. Warrior's work is a call for
"inrellectual sovereignty" (p. 87)-a position
from the tyranny and oppression of the dominant
discourse.
Despite the atterr.pts to eradka:e an Incian
idemity, the ma[r.s:rearr. continues to err.brace a
"romantic" notio:i of the Indian, In Eyre's (1998)
adaptation of $1:erman Alexie's (1993) Tlie Lane
Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, which
became the film Smoke Signals, we see an excellent
example of this, The character Victor tells his trav-
eling compa:1ion Thomas that is not Indian
enough. Playing on the p:-evailing stereotypes that
284 • HANDBOOK OF QUAUTAT!VF. Rl'SEARCH-OIAPTER: l
wh: tes 'lave about Indians, Victor inst~ucls
Thomas to be "r:10:-e stoic:' to a[ow his hair to flow
freely, anc. lo get rid of his bu:toned-down look.
We see the humor in th's scene because we recog-
nize the ways we want Indians to appear to satisfy
our prernnce:ved notions of"Indian-ness;'
Among Asian Pac:fic Islanders, there are
1~otions of m.i::iplr co:isdousne.ss. Lowe ( 1996)
expresses 6is in terms of"heterogeneity, hybrid-
ity, and multiplicity" (p. 60), She points out tha:
The articulation cif an "A,ian American k:cntity" as
an organizing 11:10] has provided unit>· t:ial enables
diverse Asian groups to understand unequal dr-
,:;u1rn,tances and hit;tories as beinl! rdalcJ. The
huilc:::g of "A,ian A1mrican culture" is crucial lo
this effort, for it articulates and empower, lhe
diverse Asian origin commur::ty ,1.,a v·istheinsti-
tutions ~:,d a:iparatuse~ that exckde and marginal•
ize it Yet to the exten: that Asian American culture
fixes Asian A:11erican identity and suppresses
diffcrem:es-cf national nrigi 11, generation, gender,
sexuality, dass-it p;ll'tkular dangers: not
only it underest' mate differences and
hy'J~idit ies among Asiar.s, but it may inadvertently
s:.pport the racis; discourse that rnnstrncts A,fa::s
as a hornogenous group •. , (pp. 70 7IJ
Espiritu (1992) aim reminds us that "Asian
American" as an identity category came imo
being ·within ~he past 30 rears. Prior to that limt,
:nost members of the Asian-descent immigrant
popu,at'on "considered themselves culturally and
politically distinct" (p. 19 ). Indeed, lhe historical
enmity that existed between and among various
Asian gro u?S made it difficult for groups to tnm-
seend their nation al allegiances to see themselves
as one unified group. In addi:ion, the growing
antl-Asian sentlrnen:s 'Nith which the v<arious
Asian immigrant groups were facec in the United
States caused specific groups to «di,asrndate
themselves from the targeted group so as not to
be mistaken for n:en:bcrs of it and suffer any
pos~iKe negative consequences" (p. 20 ).
Trinh :,..nnh-ha (1989} ar:d :V::ohanty ( I99 l)
offer postmndem analyses o: Asian An:erican-
ness that challenge any unitary definitions of
''Asian American." Rather than cons1ruc1 a
mythkal solidarity, their work examines the ways
that Asian-ness ls represented in the dominant
imagination. One of the most vivid examples of
the distorted, imagined Asian shows up in the
work of David Ucnry llwang, whose play
M. Butterfly demonslrated how a constellation of
cha:-acteristks size, terr:pera;nellt, subm:ssi,e-
ne~s allowed a French armed services officer to
intimately mistake a man for a woman.
Lowe ( i 996) rem:nds us tha! "~he grouping
:i\sian American' is not a natural or cate•
gory; it is a socially constr:icted unity, a sitnation-
ally specific posi:ion assumed for poh:ical
reaso:is" (p. 82 ). Bur it coexists with a "dynamic
fluctuation and :1e1eroge11eity of Asian American
culture .. :' (p. 68).
Wha~ each of these groups (i.e., African
American~, Native Americans, Latir:os, and As:an
Amerkans) has :n common is the experience vf
a radalized identity. Each g:nup is composed of
myriad other nation al a nc ancestral origins, but
the domi:lant ideo:ogy of the Euro-American
epistemology forced them into an essential·
ized and totaliied unit that is perceived to have
little or no internal varia:ion. However, at the
same moment, members of these groups have
used these unitary racialized labels for political
and cultural ;,urposes. Identification with the
racialized labe:s means an acknowledgment of
some of the common CX?eriences that group
members have h11d as outsiders and others.
Along with this notion of doub:e-con;cious-
ness that we argue pervades the experience of
racialized identities, we believe it is imperative
to include another theoretical axis-that of
postcolonialism. Whereas doJble comdousr:s;ss
S?eaks to the .struggle for ider:tities, postcolonial
ism speaks to the collectivt' project of the modern
world that was in no way prepared for the decolo·
nized to talk baci and "act up," As West ( 19911)
asserts, decolonization took on both "impetuous
ferocity and moral outrage" {p. 25). Frantz F,mon
( 1968) best dcscrib~s rhis n:ovement:
De,olonizatior:, which ~et; m~t :o change lhc order
of the world, is ;1hviously a program of .::omple!e
disorder.... Decolo:iizafam is the meeting of 1wc
 Ladson-llillings &: Donnor: T:ie Mora, Activist Role Ill 285
forces, opposed In ead1 otlicr by lhcir very nature,
wbicb in owe thdr originality to sort
sabs:anll::fo!lion which resul:s from and is 11our-
i~hed JY fac siluatio11 the ;;ulonics, Ir. decofo-
11izati0n, there is t~erefore :he need a complete
calling in qucsrion of the colonial siti:atitm, (f'-
l'anon I: 994) helped us 'Jnderslan.i the
dynamks of colonialism and why demlonizatki:1
had to be the major project of tl:e oppressed:
Colonial dominati()n, because it is total and tends
to ovcr-si1:1p!ify, very soon man~ge; lo disru:11 'n
sl1ect.1rnlar fashion tl:e cultural of a ronquerd
people, This cultural ,i":>litmllion is made possibl<'
by the negation <lf national re-.ility, by ~.ew legal
rdat ions int mduu:Ll b)' u,,upying power, hy the
bani~l:ment of the natives their c,stoms to
ou:lying d'strkts by cnlor:'al soc:ety, by expruvria-
tiun, anc by the systematic enslaving of men and
women,(p.45)
Postcolonial tl:eory serves as a rnm:cl ive to
our pendta:ll for casting lhesc issi:es inlo a
strktl y U, S. ooi:tex:t It helps us sec the vmrldw:de
oppression agairst the and the ability of
dominant groups to the tcr:ns of being
am: non-being, of civilized and oncivili1.ed, of
developed and undeveloped, of human and non•
huma:1. Bnt even as we attempt to incor;xmm: :he
term "postrnlor:ial" into our u;1de:::sta:1ding of
critical race theory, we are remi1:d~I of the Jim its
of such terminology to fully ex ?lain conditions llf
hie:a:cby, hegcr:iony; racism, sexism, and unequal
power relations, As ,\:kClintock (1994} asserts,
"'post-colonialism' (like postmodemism} is
u:1evenly developec_ globall}: ... Car. most of the
world's countries be said, in any meaningfu: or
theorcl ically rigurou;. ,ense, to share a single
'common p2,1; (}I single common 'condition;
called 'the ?Ost -rnlonial mndi tinn,' m 'post-
colonia'.ity'" (p. 294F ~ndeed, McCliritock (i 994)
reminds us that "the term 'post-colonialism' is, in
many cases, pren:aturely cele::;,Jtory, Jrdand may,
at a pi~ch, be 'post-colonial; but for the inhabi-
tants British-occupied Northern Irelan.::, no: to
mentinn the Pales:iniai: in:iabitants of the Israel'
Occupied Territories and :he West Bank, there
may he mithing 'post' about colonial:sm at
aT'(p, 294). As L:nda Iuhiwai Smith (1998)
· th"}, Ief·_yeI'"
• - "Pos t ... I1a,e
q,1n1rs, ,
ll!l "ls-NEss"V l'RStrs "Us-:sJEss":
THE DISCURSIVE AND fv1A'J':C,RIAL
LIMITS Oi LIBERAL I DEOl1JGY
To the extem that we interpret our experi-
Pnce /rom v,ithin the ma.,t,>r narrative, we
minforce our own subordination Whether
/pooplc of color/ can coum.-,, raci~m mav
depend fir,J/ly, on our ability to claim
ident!i'ies outside the ma,t,,r narrative,
Lls;i Ikemoto (1995, pp. 312-31
In the previous scctirn1, we addresst:rl axes of
moral and ethical episle:11ology on which much of
the work of scholars of color rests (i.e., doubl.;
consdousoess, sovereignty. :iybricity, he:emgme-
ity, postcolon'alism ). Ir. this sec1 ion. we point
towa,d 1he problems of dichotomy provoked
current ?<-1litirnl a11d socia: rhetoric,
After the S,ptcmber 11, 200 I, terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Ceuler, :he Pentagon, and a
plane that crashed in Pen 11sylva11ia, George W,
Bu.,~h addressed t:ie r.ation (and ostensibly the
world), letting the audience know that there were
but two choices-·lo be w:th ..us" or wid1 the "ter-
rorists:· Those dichoton:ous choices were not
111:arly as simple as Bush suggested, For one th 'ng,
who is the "Lili"? ls tl:e "us" the Un:ted States,
regardless of the situar io:1 and drcumsl,mce? h
tile "us" the United ::.talcs even w:1~n it oppresses
you! Is the "us" thr supporters of :h~ t:.S. Pa:riol
A.:ts I and II? Second, who an: the te~rorists?
Clearly, we are not confused about a:-Qaeda or the
Taliban, but does obje<:ting to C,S, foreign policy
place us in league with them? If we stand in soli-
darity wifa the Palestinian people, are with "with
the !er:urists" 7 If we acknowlecge the legitimacy
of the claims of the Nortl:er:1 Ireland Ca thoIi cs,
have we lost m;r claim on b<:ing a part of"us"? 111
the of this sharp dividing line, :nany liberals
chose Grorge W, Busr:'s ·•u~,"'
286 11 HANDBOOK OF QL"AUTATIVE RESEARCli-CHAPTER II
Choosing this unified "us" is not unlike Lipsitz's
(1998) argument :hat the United States has been
constructed as a nation of while people whose
?Ublk policy, polilks, and culture are designed to
serve the inte:esls of whites, Such a construction
serves to maintain white privilege and justif)' the,
subordination of anyone outside this racial
r:ation. Thus, even in the reportiog of war cas1iaJ•
ties, we E,:the nu:nber of Americans (reac: white,
even if this is not the ac1ual case) killed while
ignoring the number of "the enemy" who are
killed. What is important here is that whiteness is
not attached to phenotype hut to rather a soda!
,:onstruction of who is worthy of inclusion in the
cirde of whiteness. The enemy is never white. His
identity is subsumed in a nationality or ideology
that car. oe defined as antithetical to whiteness
(e.g., Nazis. fascists, communists, ll(uslims),
In one of her dasses. Ladson-Billings used to
show students a videotape of the Rodney King
beating and, followi:tg the viewi:Jg, distributed
copies of blind editorials about the beating, She
then asked the studen:s to determine the rmlitical
perspec:ive of the writers. Without benefit of
newspaper mastheads or authors· names, many of
the studer.ts struggled to locate the write,s' ideo,
logical views, Predictably, :be students divided
the editorials into "liberal" and "conservative:' No
s!Udents identified moderate, radical, or reac-
lionary perspectives, Their failure to see a brnade;
ideological continuum is ir.dicative of tl:e polar
ization am:! dichotomization of our disruurses.
\Ve make a specific assumption about where
the discursive battles must be fought We do not
engage rhe conservative ideology because we take
for granted its antagonism toward tlie we
We understand that conservative rhetoric
has no space for discussions of ethical episte-
mo!ogles, cou ble consciousness, hybridity, or
postco:onialism, Our battle is witll libernls wl:u
presume the moral high ground and who have
situated themselves as "saviors" of the O?pressed
while simultaneously maintaining their whi:e
skin privilege (Mdntosh, 1988),
A wonderful literary example of the moral vai:-
uum in ctrrem liberal discourse appears in a
novel by Bebe Moore Campbell (l 995), Your Blues
Ain't Like Mine. The novel is a fictionalized
account of the horrible Emmett TIii murder of the
1950s, Instead of focus:ng solely on :he victim's
family and perspective, the author provides mul·
tiple perspectives, inciuding that of the perpetra-
tors, the various families, and the :ownspeuple.
One character, Gayton, ;, a classic white liberal.
He is :'rom a privileged family and is afraid to
,ruly relinquish his access to that privilege.
Therefore, altltough Clayton tries to "help"varioas
black characters, at t:ie end of the novel, when he
discovers :hat he is related to one of the black
characters, he adamantly refuses to s:iare his
inheritance with her. Clayton's ;;iehavior is a
metaphor for wnite liberalism. It is p:-epared 70 go
only so
A real-life example of this moral vacuum was
exemplitled in the Clinton presidency. We are not
referring to his personal transgress ions and
sexual exploits bur rather his retreat from tl:e
pnlihcal left by packaging himself as a ".:..iew
Derm1crn1;• which can only be described as an
«Old Moderate Republ ican"-t hbk :ile:son
Rockefeller, George Romney, or Lowell Wekker,
The actual CUmon presidency record indicates,
according to columnist Steve Perry (1996), 6at
!he] ... co-opted the great middle while leaving
liberals with no place to go' (p. 2). Randall
Kennedy (200 I) suggests:
For all Clin:on's rn::ch-expressed mnc,rn about
social justice in general and racial J.1stice in partic-
ular, his programs, policies, and gestures have done
painfully little le help those whom P:-ofessor
William Julius Wilson calls "the truly disat:van-
:aged"-in:poverished people, d'sproportionately
colored, who are locked away in pestilent and crime
:iddcn :nner or forgo:ten rura: or small-town
wastelands, people who are bereft of money, :rain-
ing, ski:ls, or educaticr, needed lo escape their
p::ght 'frue, Clinton :iad to cor.tend with a reac•
tionary, Repuhlican-led Congress for much of his
presidency. But, even befo:e the Gingri6ian delu11e
of 1994 he ha<l made it plain that his sympathies lay
predominantly wilh "the :11iddle dass:' For those
below it, he offered chastising lecll::es lhat legiti-
mated essentially conservative notions tha:
the predicamen: of tht poor results ?rimarily
 Ladson-Billings & [)or.:mr: The Moral Act:vist Role lll 287
from their cm:d·.ict and :mt from the deformative
deprivations imposed on them by a grievouly
unfair social order :hat is in :arge part a dess hier-
archy and in smaller ?art a ptgmentocracy.
Progressive columnisl Malik Mia!: (1999)
arglles that Clintnn's ease and fellow feeling witr:t
African Americans shnnlc 1101 be interpreted as
solidarity with the cause of African American or
ot:ter people suffering oppression:
\<1;'1:iJe :t is tme flinton plays the sax and is xight at
:iome visiting a Black church, his real policies h11ve
done :!lore damage to the Black co:llmunitv than
any ;1residenr since the victory of civil rights move-
ment ::i the 1960s....
011 the issue ~f families and wclfa~ he's ended
1m1grams that, wh.k i:;adequat~ ;iroviced son:e
relief fur the poorest sections of the population.
lronical:y, ':iimn, Reagan and Bu61,-wl:o all
promised tu end wel(are-i;ouJdn't get it done.
Cli:iton not only did ii l:m1 claimed it as a great
accomplishment of his frst term ii'. office. , ..
He iiushed :hrough Congress a crir:ie hill that
reitricts civ ii liberties and makes it easier to
im?usc the dea:h penalty. ...
The s1:011g support ((J° Africa:; ,\rner:cans J for
Clbton :s thus seer. as "using common sense" and
doing what's best for the future vf vur children, mui::h
more thz:1 haYing big illusim1s ii: Clinton and :he
"new" Democrats, The new midd:e-class layers in
tl:ese crn,:muni:ies also prmide new potential voters
and supporters for the two main parties of t::e rich,
Like Campbell's ( 1995) fictional character,
Claytor:, Bill Clinto:1 was prepared to go only so far
:n his support of people of color. His libc:al cre-
dentials relied on superficial and symbolic ac1s
(e.g,, associating with blacks, attending black
churches, playing the saxophone); thus, in t'iose
areas where people of ,olor were most hurting
(e.g., he-alth, education, wel:are), he was unwilling
to spend political capital. Such a retreat from lib,
era] ideals representec a more severe moral foiling
than afternoon trysts wifa a White House intern.
With ;he George W, Bush admin:stration,
people of coior and poor people are faced with a
more pressing co:icem-the legidmacy of their
being. Rather than argue over whether or not they
are "with us'' or «w:th the :erro~'sts:· we trilst
constantly assert that we are rather than reflect a
solidarity with an overarchin!:', "us'' i:,at actively
oppresses. Al tr.is writing, we are watching a
movement in California to prohibit the state frorn
collectir:g data that identify people hy racial cate•
gories (California Proposition 54 ), Passage of this
propnsitioa would mean that the ,tale would not
be able lo :-eport about the disparities that exist
between whites and people of color in ,d:ool
achievement, incarcerahon, income levels, hea;th
ronrer:is, and other social an,i civic concerr.s.
Tht.s, this so,called color-blind :neasure effrc-
tively erases the races whiie mai:itaining the
soda!, political, economic, and cultural s:a1us
quo. The significance of this proposition is lost in
the media circus of the California trJbernatorfal
recall and cas: o: characters seeking to be gover-
1:.or of the 11:osl populuus (and one o:' the most
diverse} state, in the nat'tm.
At the sa:ne moment that the sucie:y seeks lo
erase and ignore the Otr.cr, it maintains a curious
desire to consurr.e and co-opt i:. The appru?ria-
tion of cultural forms fron: communities of cu:or
is not ,eally flattery; it is a twisted cmbcacc that
si:nu;taneously repels tr_e Other, The complexity
of this re:ationship allows white people, as perfo,.
ma:ice artist Roger Guenveu, Smith ('late, 2003,
p. 5) suggests, lo love black music and hate biack
peopie. The mainstream rnmmunity des?ises rap
music for its violence, rr:isogynJ, and racial rpi-
thets but spends millions of dollars to produce
and consume it Thi:' mainstream decries i[egal
imm:gration from Jv::exko and Central America
while refusing to acknowledge its own complicity
in maintair:ing i1:n'.ligr:mts' presence th:uugh its
demand for artificially price-der,ressed procucc,
domestic service, and the mF iad jo hs tbt
':Americans" refuse to do. The r:min,tream fights
what it sees as the «overrcpresentation" of Asian.
descent people in certain industries or high-
status universities but cultivates fct'shes over
"Oriental" artifacts-martial arts, feng shi:.i,
sushi, an<i "docile," "pe:ile" womer.. The mail,,
strean: remained silence wr:ile the indigenous
population was massacred and l'.isplaced onto
reservations but now runs eagerly to participat~
288 11. HA'.\DBOOK OF QUALIT/fflVl' ll P--SEA lKH-CHAPTER : •
in sweat lodges and powwows. Such fascination
does nothing to libera7e and enrich the Other.
Instead, they remain un the margins and are con
venienlly exploited for the }'Olitical, economic,
social, and cultural 'len eflt of t.,e do7ninanl
group. We are not a part of the "us" or "the terror•
We are the struggling to exist-to just "he:'
a NEw TEMl'LATEs Fon ETmcALAcT10N
The past h,;;tory of b1ofogy h,1s shown
ihilt pro•grt•.~s f, equalfy lr.hibi1ea by an
an li-in tellL·c ttifil b()lfr,n-i and a ptHt+,l
atomistic r<·duc/mni:;m,
-,crn•;t Mayr 11976)
l:i his book Ethical Ambitfon, legal scholar
Derrick Bell (21l02) addrrsscs a q:iestion tbat
p:ague~ rrnny sdmlars of color: "How can I sue•
ceed withm:t selling my soul?" He argues that the
,:; ,alities of passion, risk, courage, inspi ,at ion,
fa id:, humil'ty, and ;,)Ve are the keys to success
that maintain or,e's irttegrity anc digr:ity. lie
contends that schola,s must consider these as
standards of behavior in bo:h scholars'.1ip and
relationships, Gear;y, this is a di:ferenl set of sla:i-
dards th~n those the academy ty;iically applies tu
research and sdi<llarship. Rut how well have the
us·Jal s!a:1{\a rci, served communities of color?
rmm I 9.'2 tn 1972, 399 poor blacksharecroripers in
'.facon Ccr,:nty, -\lahar:ia were denied trea:ment :cir
syphilis and dece:v,:c by p'lysidam the United
Mates Public Heall:; Service. As part of the
Ti:skegee Sn•hilis Sti:dy. designed to document the
natural histor1· of t:i,' disease, tl:ese rrer. .-ere told
that theywwc being heated for"badblo{1d,"l11 fuct,
government officials wcr.t to extre,:,e lengths lo
Ihat 11:<)' rc,:r: vrd no therary from ani'
sour,;e. reported bv the New Yark Times on 26
J:.:h· 1972, t:ic Tuskegee Syphil: s St·~dy was rcv,::.ilc:d
~s ":h., lo:1g,·s: 110:1therapeutk experimcnl on
ht: man bcini;s in 1::e::lical hisrory." (Tuskegee
Syph::i, Study Lcgac)' Committee, 19%)
The Health ~ews Network (2000; www.health
new:mrt.corn) detail~ 11 lor.g list of unethical and
egregitlus ads performed in :he name of science.
For example, i:1 1940, 400 prisoners b Chicago
were infected with ma:aria to study the effects of
new and experimer.tal drugs to combat the dis•
ease. In 1945, Project Paperdip was initiated by the
U.S, Slate Department, Army intelligence, and :he
CIA : n recruit Kazi sci~nt ists ,ind offer then
irnn:unity and secret idet1tities in ex,hange for
work on top secret governrner.t projects in the
United States. In 1947, the CIA began a study of
L'iD as a potential weapon for use by U5, intelli •
gencc. In this study, human subjects (both civilian
and military) were used wit!: anc without their
knowledge, In I950, the Navy sp;ayed a cloud
of bacteria over San Francisco to dctermi:1e how
susceptible a U.S. di y would be lo biological
attack. In 1955, the CIA released a bacteria over
lll.mpa Bay, Florida, that !lad been withdrawn fror:1
the Army's biological warfare arsenal to deter:nine
its ability to infect human populations with bio•
logical age:1ts. 1958. the Army Cher:1ical Welfare
Laboratories tested LSD on 95 volunteers to deter-
mine its effect on i:ttelligence,ln 1965, prisoners al
the Holrnesb·Jrg Slate Prison in Ph iladelpl:ia were
subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chrmiral com•
pound of Agen: Orange used in Vietr:am, In I 990,
nore :han 1,500 6-:no11tl:-old bleck and Latino
babies in Los Angeles 1vere given an '·experi men•
tal" measles vac,:me that had never been :icensed
use :n the United States. The Centers for
Disease Control later admitted that the parent,
were :tever in5:mned that their babies were re~eiv-
ing an experimental vardne,
Although 11:csc cxa:np:es in thr life scier.ces
are extreme, i: is irr.?(Jrtimt to recogn:ze that
soda! sc'cnces have a:n:ost always tried to mi• k
the so•called hard sciences. \'Ile have accepted
their paradigms and elevated their of know-
ing even when "hard scientists" lhcmsdves chal-
lenge them (Kuhn, 1962 ). The standa:-ils tl:at
reqnire research to be ''objective:· precise, accu-
rate, generalizable, and rt>plkuble do i::ul simulta-
neo·Jsly produce moral an<l efaical research and
scholarship, The current calls for ",dentilica:ly
'.'lased" and "evidence•based" research in educa-
tion from the United States Depart :nent of
Education :!iave provoked an interesli ng response
 Ladson-Billings & Donnor: The Mo~al Act:v!s: Role
from the education research communky
(Sruwelson & Towne, 2003).
The National Research Council Report
Scitr.liffr Research in Ed1iwtion (Shavelson &
Towne, 2003) outlines what it terms a "set of fun-
damental principles., :or "a healthy community of
researchers" (p. 2). These principles include:
L Pose aigi::fkarit questions that can be investi•
gated en:plrlca:ty.
2. Link :i:aearch :o relevant faeory.
3. I:se mctl:ods :bat pm11 it direct invest:gatlon of
the questi,m.
4. Provide a coherer:t and explk:t chain of
reasoning.
5. Replicate anc. generalize 2c;oss studies.
6. Disclose research to enmurage pmfossfonal
scrnlirty and critique. (pp. 3-5)
On their face, these seem to be "reasonable"
principles around which the "scientific" commu•
nity can rmilesce. Al :hough it is beyo:id the scope
of this chapter :o do a thorough 1·1eview of the NRC
repor:, we do want lo po:nt out sume of :he prob•
!ems sucn thinking provokes, particularly in fae
realm of e:hks a;1d :no,al activism. The fast pr:n·
dple suggeslS that we "pose significan: questions
that can be investigated empirically;' We canno,
~eca11 the last :ime a res,e:m:her asserted that he or
she was investigatl ng sonething "i.:tsignificanf'
Scho lam research that which ir.terests them, and
no one would suggest that they are interested in
insignificant things. More important, this prind•
pie assumes the supremacy of empirical work.
Without taking our discussion loo far into the
philosophka:, we assert that what constitutes "the
empirical" is cultu~a[y coded. For example, many
years ago, a researcher from a prestigious univer•
sity was colledr:g data in an r.rban dassmom.
I'.le researcher reported on :he apparent chaos
and disorder of the classroom and described her
observa':ion oi some students openly snort:ng
drugs in the back o: the classroom. Later, a
graduate student who knew tile school and the
cor:1muni1y talked with some of the students
a 289
and learned that the strnients knew tha~ the
researchers expected them to be "dangerous;'
"uncontro]able;' and "frightening." Determined
to meet :he researcher's expectations, the studenlS
gathered up the chalk dust from the blackboard
ledge and began treating it like a powdered drug.
What the researcher actually saw were s:udcnts
who de::ided to fool a resea:cher. This may have
been empirical work, but dearly it was wrong.
£n a less extreme exa1rr_me,an anthropology of
education professor regularly displayed a set of
photographic slides to his class and requl ~ed
students to describe the contents of each slide. In
one slice, a photo of a farmhouse in a small
German village, there is a huge pile of rnan:.ire (at
least one full story high) in front of the house. Not
one student out of a lecture section of about !00
note<'. the manure pile. Even if one might argue
that i: 1vas dlfficult to determhle what !twas in the
slide, not one student noted that there was a "pile
of some:hi:ig" sitti:lg in front of the :armhouse.
Our point here is that our ability to access the
empirical is culturally determined and always
sha:>ed ·.iv moral and political concerns.
" '
Popkewltz (20011 argues thal the ~ RC report
rests on a nun:ber of asst:rnplions that rll:pose the
writers' misunderstanding of scientilk lllqwry.
These assumptions iriclude:
(I J ·: r:ere is ,. unity of founca;ional ass1Jm:itio,r_s
that cross all the na:ural and social sciences. Th's
1:nity involves: (2) t:ie i1:1pmtance of ngorm:s
methods and design moc.els; (J) the cumulat:ve,
sequential development cf kr.owlecge; (4) sc·e·::ce
ls based <Jr. infem:tial reasoning, (5} the empirical
t~sting and devdop:nent o" knowledge. Finally. the
assumptions provide the expertise of whal g<Jver:1-
ment neeis-.showinj! what wmks. This last point
is important as 11:.: Report has a dual function. It is
to o·.Jtline a ,cience of education and ro pro?[}Se
how government can inte,vem:: in the development
ofa ,-«i.cc serves policy reforms. (pp. 2-3)
Popkewi,z (2003) is elrgant in his rebuttal of
NRC report, and we are lin:iled in our ability
to ex?end S?a<:e to offer additional critique.
However, our task is to pcint oat that with all the
emphasis or. "scientific principles:• the NRC
290 111 tL'.ND!JOOK OF QUALITA:'JVE RESl'.ARCH-CEAl''2l::R II
report foils tn indude the morn Iand ethical adion
in which scholars must engage. ls it enough to fol-
low protocols for huma:1 subject~? That sets a very
minimalist stardard that is likely to continue the
same r:ioral and eth 'cal abw,es. For example, in a
recent Naliona: ?ublic Radio broadcast of All
Thing, Considered (Mann, 2003) titled "New York
Weighs Lead-Paint Laws;' the reporter iadicatec
that researchers wrre testing children for thr
levels of lead in their blood. Although there was
amserisus that many of the children had elevated
levels of lead, the researchers rejected the recom-
r:iendation that the levels of in the buildini:;
be tested. This second, more efficient method
would a[ow for das., a.clion o:i !he rarl of the
building .:eside.:us, bt:t the researchers rhose to
persist in exam:ning individuals. Rather than
raise be moral ba.: by insisting that it is unsafe to
live in buildir.gs with leac-bascd pai • t and to test
t!'!e buildings for that paint, individuals (many
who are poor and diser;franchised) are respo:rni-
b!c for coming fortr: to be tested. One oight argue
that the rcsean:hers are ab:ding by fae stanlards
of sdenlific inquiry; however, these ,tandards are
not indusivt> of the morn! anc ethical action that
n:ust be ta:{en.
Ir. additior: to Bell's (2002) call for ethical
bel:avior in theacadem);Guhier and 'Jbrxs {2C02)
a, ii""" tha: it is important :o move past the
curre;11 racial discourses because such discourses
inva.:iably keep us !ocked ;n race•power hierar•
chies that depend o::i a winner-take·all conclu-
sion. Instead, Guinier and Torres (21102) give
birth to a new construct "political race» that
relies on lmilciing cross-racial coalitions and
alliances that invo:ve grassroots workers who
strive to remake the terms of participation and
irvigoratc derr:ocracy. Their wor~ points to the
coalition of African Amerkalls and Latinos who
devised the 10% decision to address inequity in
Texils highc: education. This decision means that
a[ students in the ,tale of Texas who graduate in
the top I[)% of their dass are eiigible for admis•
sion a: the two flagship Texas universities-
University of Texas at Austin and lcxas A&M,
We wouJc also point to the work of the modern
civil rights movement oi the : 960s and the
anti-a par6cid work in South Africa. In bol h
:nstanccs, we saw broad co alit ions people
wor~ing for hurr:an liberation and justice. The
aim such work is not merely to remedy
racial injustice but rather to enlarge demo•
cra!ic pmjec: to inch1de many r:iore partki;:,ants.
ln the case oi the United States, the c: vii rights
movement became a template for addressing
a number of umlemocralic pra,tkes against
wome:i, la:migrants, gays and :esliians, the dis-
abled, and linguistic :ni noritks. The point of
moral and etl:ical activism is not to se,;u re privi-
for one's own group; it is to make democ-
racy a rea:ity for increasing numbers of groups
and individuals. Such work permits us lo look at
multiple a.xl!s of difference and take these inter
sections ser:ously_
h Miner's Canary, Gu:nier and Torres {2002)
point out that our typical respor:se to inequity is
to feel sorry for the individuals bi:1 igno,e tl:e
structure tl:at produces such inequity. We wo;ild
preier to prepare fae dispossessed and disenfran-
chised lo better fit i:l a corrupt system rather
thar. rethink the whole system. fnslead of ignor•
bgradal differences, as the color·blind approach
suggests, po:itical racr urges us to u::iderstand
the ways that race and power btertwinr at every
k.rd of the society at1d to fu:thcr understand
only t:irough cro:ss•n1<::a1 coalitions can
we expose fae embedded hierarchies of privi-
lege and destroy them ( www.mi11erscanary
.org/abuut.shtml, retrieved December I, 2003 ).
G11i11ier and Torres (2002) call this 1:uliun uf
en:ist'.ng race to resist power "l101itical race." It
requires diagnosing systemic injustice and orga•
nizing to resist it.
Pofaka: race challenges the social anc cco•
nom ic consequences of race :n a "third way"
(WW\¥,minerscanary.org/aboJtsht:nl) that pro-
poses a mu:ti:extured poll:kal strate,!!y rather
than the traditional legal solutions to the issues of
racial Just k;e. The aufaors nrgue that "political
r..ce dramat:cdly transforms tl:e use of race 'rom
a signifier of ir:dividual culpability and prejudice
to an c-arly warning sign of larger injustices"
(lbid.) When they speak of political, they are
not referring to conventional e;ectoral politics.
1
Ladson-Billings & Donr,nr: The Moral Activi.t Role II 291
Rat her, :heir notion of political race cballe:igcs
social activists and critical scholars to rethink
what winning means and if w:nning in a corrupt
system car. ever be gooc cnongh. lnstcacl, tbeir
focus 's on the power of change through collective
action and l:ow such action can change (aml chal-
leng" l us a II to work in new ways.
We seek a mdhodology ar.d a theory that, as
Gayatri Spivak ( I990) argues, :tot merety
reversal of roles in a hierarchy, but rather dis•
placement of taken for granlt:d norms around
une..;.ua; binaries (e.g., male-female, public•
private, white-non-white, Rble-disablcd, native•
foreign). We see such possibility in Critical Ra,;;e
Theory (C1T), and we point oul that CRT is nut
lim:tcd to the old notions of race, Rather, CRT is
a new a:ialytic rubric for cons!dering difference
and inequity using tn-Jlt:ple metl:odologks-
story. voicr, metaphor, a:talogy, critical social
science, fen:inism, and pos:modemism. So
ceral is ou, r,iaction to the wnrd "race" that many
scholars and consumers of scho'ar;y Iitera:ure
cam:01 see beyond the word to ap;m,riate the
value of CRT for making sense of uur current
social condition, We would argue th~,: scholars
such as Trinh :VIi:1h-ha, Robert Aller. Warrior,
Gloria Anrald1fa, fan Haney Lopez, Rk:1ard
Delgaco, :isa Lnwe, David Pa!umbo-liu, Gayalri
Spivak, Cl:andra Mohanty, and Patricia mil
CoUlns all prod'Jce a kine of CRT. Tllcy are nol
bogged down with labt>ls or dogmatic constraints;
rather, they are creatively and rass'onately engag-
i:1g new visions of sc'mfan,hip to do work that
ultimately will serve peo?le and lead to :.uman
l:~eration,
Thus, we argue that the work of critical schol·
ars (from any variel)' of perspectives) is :101
merely tll try to replicatt' the work previmts
scholars in a cookie c,tter fashion but rather
:o break :1ew epistemological, methodolog:cil,
social activist. and rr.oral ground. We do not need
Derrick Bell, Lani Guin;er, or Gerald Tor~es
c'.ones. We !let:c scholars to take up their causes
Ialong with causes they identify for t:iemselves)
and creatively engage them, We look to them
bcc.mse oi their departire from the scholarly
n:ainstream, not to mak~ the:n i<lols.
Ill MOVIN(' FROM RESEARCH TO
ACTl\'ISM-STRl'ET-1 EV EL
RESEARC:I IN 1VORY TOWERS
Cnnflici •···· thc> rm.I 1,vor!d ki:id, I mean
can he bloody, misguided, and wholly
lragh:, It behooves us alway, to lfY ro
,md,irstand how and why bloodshed
break,; au• a, it does. Bui the very nam1•
tives and sto,r!es we tel! our,dves and
other ,, f;prwanis, in an c,ffori lo
exp/am, understand, excuse, arid assign
respomi/)Jfily for conilic11 may aim be, in
il sens<', tile souru, of Ille verv violence
w,c, abhor.
-,.,,c, lkernotn (1995, p. 31J)
Eariier in this chapter, we referenced Harold
Cruse and The Crisis of the Negro Jr,tellectual
(L967/l9ll4), and indeed we recognize that the:
Cruse identifies is a crisis fur all intell1:,1u•
als of culor. C,use's poial that "\\'hile Negm intel-
lectuals are bU11y trying to inteqm,t the r.a:ure of
the black world ar.d aspirations to tl:c wh:tes,
tr.ey should, in fact, be defining their own mies
as imdlectuals within both worlds" (p. is
applicable to a'.I scholars of color. ':\ovelfats such
as To:ii Morrison (19!!'/ ), Shawn Wotg ( 1995 ),
Ana Castillo (1994), Shen:1ar. Alcxie ( 1993), and
Jhumpa Lahiri (1999) deftly accoc1plish what
Cr·Jse asks. They sit cor:ifortably within the walls
o: the academy ~:1d on the street co:·nern, barrios.
and reservat:ons of the people, They are "culturnl
brokers" who understand t'ie :ieed to be "in"
the academy (or mainstrean:) but not "o'" the
academy.
In the foreword to Cruse's :look, Aller. and
W'lson (] 984 J sum.'l!arize the central tasks tbal thili
book outlines for "wou)d,he intellectuals"(;:,, v);
L To familiarize thenu.e!v;;, with :heir ()W!l
leclual antecsdcms and with pr,;:1il"'··' ?Olitical
and culturd movement,;
2. To analvze the bases for th., penculum
swings belween :he two poles of integration and
[hlackJ naliooalism, and try to synthesize them
into a si11gl.: and consistelll analysis;
292 JIii HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER II
3. ".'o :dentifv dearlv' the political, economic, and
;
cultural requishes fur black advancement in
order to meld them into a slng:e politics of
progre;;sive black ,;ul:ure. This pro.:ess req·Jm:ll
greater attention both to Afro-American popu•
lar e,llture and :o the macroeconomic, struc•
tural contexr of modern capilalism in which
gr,,up cullure either flourishes or at:uphies;
4. To t1:Cog11ize the unique:1ei:;s o[ American con·
c:tions and to insist that or.e incorporate this
t::::quene;is when studying numbers : through
3 abo;ee,
Des?ite Cruse's (1967/1984) foci.is on African
Americans am: their experiences in the 1.;nited
States, it is dear to us that such work is 'mportant
for any marginalized group. All scholars of color
must know the intellectual antecedents of their
,ulturnl, ethnic, or rad al group. This is i:npurtaul
for comba:ing :he persisten: ideology of white
supremacy that denigrates the intellec:ual contri-
butions of others. All scholars of color must look
to the epistemological underpinnings and leglti •
macy of their cultures and cdturnl ways of know•
ing. They must face the tensions that emerge in
their communi:ies betweer: assimilation into the
C.S. mainstream and the creation of separate
and distinct cultural locations. For example, the
construction of Asian Americans as articulated
previously by Lowe ( L996) and Espiritu (1992)
are powerful examples of :he synlht::!i.s Cruse
speaks ot: All scholars of color need to acknowl-
edge the salience of popular culture in shaping
our research and scholarly agendas, for it is in the
popular tr.at our theories and methodologies
become living, breathing entities.
'11,artin Luther King, Jr. had a theory about
"nonviolence" that came from his study of Gandhi
and Dietrich Bonhodier. but the theory was
actualized in the hearts ami minds ordinary
people-Fannie Lou Hamer, Esau Jenkins,
Sep:ima Clark, and many others. So great is the
desire for survival a:id liberation that it Iran•
scends geopoH:ical boundaries, languages, and
cultures. The modern civil rights. movement in
the United States was replayed in China's
Tiananmen Square, in the cities and townships of
South Africa, and in liberatio:i struggl~ be world
over. 1n each i:i.stance, the power of the popular
brings music, art, and energy to the struggle.
Ordinary people become the "street-level bureau-
crats" {Lipsky, 1983) who translate theory into
practice. However, we want to be dear that we are
not suggestii:g that such "stn:::e:-level bureaucrats"
begir~ to behave as functionaries of :he state and
thereby become the new power brokers. Rather,
we are suggesting a new vision of Llpsky's (1983)
concept in which people from the com:nunity
represe.:it a new fo:m o: leadership that is
unafraid of shared power and real dei:rncracy.
But scholars who take on the challenge of
moral and ethical activist work cannot rely solely
or. others to make sense of their work and trans•
:ate it into usable form. Patricia Hill Collins (1998}
speaks of a "visionary pragmatism" (p, 188) that
may be helpful in the development of more polit·
ically and socially engaged scholarship. She uses
this term to characterize tl:e pe:spective of the
working-class women of her childhood:
The Black womer. on rr:y block possessed a"visio:i·
ary pragmatis:n" emphasized the necessity
linking car::1g, theoretical vision with informed,
practical struggle, A creative tension links vision-
ary thinking and practical action.Any soda! theory
that becomes too out of touch with everyday pe,,ple
and the::- lives, especially o;ipressed people, is of
little use to bem. The functionality and net just the
logical ro::sistt:'ncy of visionary thinking dcttr•
mines irs worth.At the same time, being :oo pracli-
cal, looking on:y lo the here and now-esp~'Cially
if present ~onditions seemingly offer little :mp,e-
can be debilitating, (p. 188)
Scholars must aloo engage new form, of schol·
arship that make translations of their work 1;1ore
seamless. Guinie: and Torres (2002) speak to us
of "political race" as a new conception we can
embrace. Castillo (l 994) offers magical realism as
a rubric for Chicano coalescence. Lowe (1996) has
taken up notions of hybridity, heterogeneity, and
multiplicity to name the materiai co:itradictfons
that characterize immigrant groups-particu:arly
Asian-descent immigrants-who are rout[nely
lumped together and homogen:zed into a unitary
 l.adsoi:. B:llir:gs & Jc:mor: The Moral Act1v1s1 Role Ill 293
and bounded category. Espiritu (2003) helps JS
link the studv' of race anc elhnicit"! to the studv, of
imperialism so 1ha1 we c.m better u:iderstand
trarisnationai and diaspor:c Jives. Similarly, Ung
{: 999) warn, of the growing threat of global capi•
tal that destabilizes notio:is of cultural unity
and/or allegiance. Instead, the overwhelming
power of multinational corporations creates eco-
:iomk cleavages that force people, rega~less of
,heir :adal, cultural, and et::rnic locations, to ch.ase
jobs and compete against each ofrler to subsist.
Promising scholarship that may d'srupt the
fixed rntegories that whiteness has instantiated
appears in work by Pr.1shad (2002 ), who exam•
ines the cross-racial and interracial connections
that refiect the reality of our histories ai:d current
conditions. Prasharl {2002) argues that instead of
the polllrized notions of either "color-b:indness"
or a prlmordia: "multiculturalism;' what we seek
is a "po:yculturalism;' a term he borrows from
Robin D. G. Kelley (1999), who a,g:ies that ;;so-
called n:i:m:t· ra,ce children are r.ot tr.e only ones
with a claim to muhip:e heritages. A[ of us, and I
mean AI.I. of us. are the inheritors of European,
African, Kative· American, and even Asian pasts,
even if we ,ari't exactly trace our hloodlbes to all
of these cont:nents" (p. 6). Kelley (1999) further
argues that our various cultures "have never bee:1
easily idei:ti:iabfo, ~ecure in their ·:)01111daries, or
dear to all people who live in or outside our skin.
We were • ulti-ethnic and polycdtural from the
get-go" (p. 6). This challenge lo notions of ethnic
purity moves us away from the fut:le chase for
"authenticity" and trou hies the reificatioi: eth-
r:ic and racial categories. We begin to understand,
as politkal activ:st Rev: Al Sharp:or: has said, that
"all my ski.:1 folks, ain't my kin folks;' Just because
people look like us by no means implies that they
have o:.ir bes: interests at heart.
Al the sired level, we must acknowlec!.ge
the power of :,ip-hop cultuce. 11 is importarit
that we distinguish our acknowledgment
from the negatives that corporate interests
promulgate-violence, radsrr:, misogyny, and
crass consumerism-from hip-hop as a vehicle
for cross-racial, cross-cultural, and international
coalitions. Organi iations such as .I:'. Puente
Acade:ny for Peace and ,u,""'•'- in :he Williamsb.irg
sectior. of Broo'.dyn, Sew Yo,k, and the Urban
Think Tank irrstit:.1te (www. t:rbanThinkTank
.org) provide a more democratic and politically
progressive discourse. The Urban Think Tank
Instit:.1te argues that the hip-1:op gt'fleration "has
becm:1e more politically sophistka1ed , . . Iand
needs I a space whereby 1m1ss:oots th i11kers,
activists, and artists cm cor:-ie together, discuss
relewnt issues, devise strategies, an{! ;hen artk•
ulate their analysis to the public and to po:ky
makers" ( see Yvonne Bynoe on the Urban
Think Tank Web site). Such organizat:m:s have
corollaries in the earlier wotk of Myles Horton
( 1990; Horton & Freire, 1990), Paulo Freire
(1970 ), Septima Clark (wifa Brown, 1990 ), Marcus
Ga,vey's Universal Negro Improvement As~otia-
tion (Prashad, 2002), and the Boggs Center
( Boggs, I971). II also resembles the worldwide
:iberation movements we have seen i11 India,
South China, Buizil, Zimbabwe, and most
everywhere i:1 the wo:-ld wl1 ere people have
orsanized to resist oppression and drnni1m:io:i.
The hip hop movement reminds us of stir-
rings oi the youth and young adults in the- mod-
em civil movement When it became dear
that the older, n:ore conservative leadershi? was
unwilling to make a space lir young peopie in the
movement, we began to see a new form of libera•
tion work. Instead of a:tem?ting to assimilate and
assert our rights as Americans, young people
began ro as.se:1 tl:eir rights to a distinct ide1:tity in
whicr. being an A1:1erican may have been consti-
t:.1ti\-e of this identity butit was not the all-e:1mm
passing identity. !lip-hop's wide appea:, across
geopolitical and et:J.r.ic 'lonnda,:es i. we found
hip-hop We:i sites in Latvia, R:issia, Italy. t1nd
Japa:i) makes it a potent force for mobilizing
young people worldwide. Unfortunately, most
seholars (and, for tnat matter, most adults) have
o:
narrow views hip hop." They sec it merely as
rap music and "gangsta" culture. However, tiie
power of hip hop is in diff.1se-ness, It encom•
passes art, music, dance, and self-presentation.
Although much of the r.tedfa attention 'las
focused on :io:orious personalities such as 3iggie
Smalls, Smmp Dogg, R Diddy, 50-Cent, ~elly, and
294 II HANDBOOK OFQUA:.ITAl!Vli RESEARCH-CHAPTER 11
others, :here is a core group of hip-hop artists
whose major purpose was to provide soda! com-
n,cnlary and awaken a sornnambulant generation
of young people from their drng, alcohol, and
materialistic addictions, Some of these artists
sought to cor:tcxtua!ize the present conditions of
the African Amerkan and other marginalized
rnrnm unities of color and call for action bv rnak •
'
ing hiswrical lin;.,s to ideas (e.g., Black Power),
soda: movemen:s (e.g., cultural 1:ationa'.i~m),
and po!itical figures (e.g., Makol:n X, Che
Guevara), The nee<l for this ;i:ind of wo:k is not
t:nlike the call of :-;gugi wa Tl:iongo (1991 ), who
argned, in s,leaking of the emrrging independe:1t
African nations, t~1at we needed 11 radkaliy demo-
cra:ic proposal for the production of art, litera•
1ure, anc cdture based on our political praxis.
Lookir:g at the L.S, scene, Dyiion ( 1993) argues:
!le,,ides being the m,1s1 powerful fonn of lllack
m-.1sical elpresslon today; rap music pmjects a style
of self into :he world that ge:er ates fo~m• of cul
tu ral rl:sistrncc and transforms the .1gly terrab of
ghetto e11istence :nto a scaring portrait nflife as i:
m'.lst he lived by mi::kms of mkeless p,mp'.e. For
that reasnn alone, rap deserves atte:1tim1 and
should be taken seriously, (p, 15)
Counted 11mong these visionary hip-hop lead-
er," are Grandmaster Flas'i, Publk En erny, Run-
DMC, The Fugees, Lauryn Hill, KRS-1, Diggable
?'.,meb. Arrested Devdopmer.t, the Roots, Mos
Det; Cor.1mon, Erykah Badu, the whole host of
\Juyorkan poets, and the organic intellectuals
that pmduce YO Magiizine i.:i the San Francisco
Bay area. These are the people who have tbe ears
(and l:ea,H and minds) o:' young people, Jt is
among this group that new forms of scholarship
that :ake up mora: and ethical positions will be
forged. Sdmlars who choose to ignore the tren -
char:t pleas of the hip-hop generation will find
themselves increas: ngly o·.i.t of touch and irrele•
vant to the everyday Jves of people engaged it1 the
cal!llc of social jus:ice.
A number of scholars have n~ade connections
with the hip-hop generation: Miguel Algarin, with
!tis ties to both the academy anc. the Nuyorican
Poei's Cate; Corne! West and Mkhaei Erk Dyson,
with their fuce-to-fac~ conversat:ons with the
hip-hop generation; and bell hooks, with her
revolutionary black feminism. The late poet Junc
Jorda 11, 1hni Mnr ri,011, Pahlo N,!ruda, Carlos
Bulosan, John Okada, Diego Rivera, Leslie
Marmon Sil:i:o, Sherman Alexie, and others have
deployed their art to speak across the generations.
Social scientists must sin:ilarly situate them•
selves to play a mo:e active and prog:essivc role in
the fight for equity and social justice, Their work
1:1ust transcend uarmw disciplina~y boundaries
if it is to hal'e any ilr:pact on people who reside
in subaltern sites or even on policy makers,
Unfortunately, far too many academics spend their
time talking to ead1 othrr in the netherworld of
the academy. We write in obscure journa:s and
publish books i:l languages that do not translate to
the lives and experiences of real people. We argue
not !or the seeming "simplicity"' of the political
right, but fur the releva:icy m:d the power nf t:ie
popular.
Ill RECONSTRUCTION OF THF.
WoRK or THE INIEL:..Ec:
Don'I push me, cau~c rm ch,f! to the
edg@ I'm tr;ing nm w lo;,, my hPad.
It's like ,, jungle me
sometime,, if ma.kf's
wonder How f kt:t:p frum 110:ni: und1,;1r.
-from The Mess..ige, by
Gra"lcm,Mter Flash
It is typical for institutional :-ecommendatinns
to call for a "transformal ion" of rnme kind. In this
case, were we to suggest that the academy needed
to be transformed, we imagine tha: many would
agree. However, transformation :mpEes a change
that emanates from an existing base. Clark Kent
transformed h: mself into Superman, but under
neath :he blue tights, he was sti:J Clark Kent Britt
Reid tnmsformed himself :ntu the Green Hor:iet,
bl!I underr,eath the mask ht was s:ill Brit: Reid.
Captain john Reid's bmthe, Dan transforI'.led
himself into the Lone Ranger, but under that pow·
der blue, skintight outfit and mask l:e was still
Dan Reid. What we are urging is the e;;;_uivalcnt of
 Lmlsor: ·Blllir:gs & Donnor: The J;,foral Activi;t Role 111 ~95
having Jin: my Olsen, Kato, and 'Jor:to assume :he
leadership and implement the plan,
Reco:i,truction um:es after the destrnct;on
of what was. The Union Army did not attempt
to massage the South into a new economy after
the U.S. Ctvil War. The Cuban fu.,yolution was not
Fidel Castro's attempt to ada;it tl:e Battista
regime. The r..ew South A'rka is not trying to
orga:1ize a 11ew furm of apadu:id with black
domina1:ce, Rathe;, these are instances where we
see the ~ntire destruction the old in an attempt
to make something new. So it may have to be with
the academy in order for it to be responsive to the
needs of everyday people.
The student movement at San Francisco State
Co'lege (Prashad, 2002) :-evolutlon:zed not only
that local campus but also campuses across the
country. It formed :he basis for the development
of what Wy:ller (1992) called "new studies" in
black, Latino, Asian, and Native American studies.
It provided a template for women's studies, gay
and lesbian studies, and disability studies_ It
reconfigured knowledge from s:atic, fixed disci-
pH nes with the perception of cumu~ative infor-
mation, to a realization of the dynamic and
overlapping nature of k:towledge and a more fluid
sense of epistemology and me:hodology. But even
with the strides n:ade by these new ,tlldies, faey
stiE represent a very small crack in the solid,
almost frozen traditions of the aniversity, Indeed,
fae more careerist interests have made a more
indelible imprint on colleges and unlversities in
the United States. Jnstead of seeing colleges and
i:niversities as the site of liberal education and
free th inking, increasing numbers of young
people (and their parents} see the university as a
job trair.ing ::acilit;: Courses and prog:-ams of
study in hotel and restaurant management, crim ·
inal jus:ice, and sports management,' while rep·
resenting legitimate job and career choices, are
less likely to promote overall university goals of
educating people to engage with knowledge and
crit:cal thinking across a wide variety of i!isd•
plines and traditions.
A reconstructed university would displace
much of the credentialing function of the current
system and organize itself around principles of
intellectnal enr:chrn ent, social justice, social
betterment, and equity, S:uden:s would see the
university as a vehicle for public service, not
merely personal adva:l(:ement. Students would
study various courses and programs of study in au
attempt to i:nprove both their minds and the con•
dition of :ife in the communitv, '
society,
. and the
vmrld, Such a program has little o~ no chance of
success in our curren: sociopolitical atmosphere.
Although colleges and universities are legitimately
categorized as nonprofit entities, they do have fis-
cal responsibililies- Currently, those fiscal respon·
sibilities an: directed to continued employment of
elites, sc.pplying a well-prepared labor and
increasing endowments. In a reconstructed uni•
versity, the fiscal responsibility would be directed
toward commi:nity development and improving
the socioeconomic irfrastri:cture.
Areconstructed university would have a differ-
ent kind of reward system in which teaching and
service were true equal; to research ;n:d scholar-
ship. Perhaps these components would be more
seamlessly wedded and more tightly related.
E..,cellcnce would be ;udged by quality efforts in all
areas. Admission to such a university would
involve more complex sianda:ds being app; icd in
evaluating potential students. Inste;id of exam in•
ing strict grade pobt averages, rankings,
standardized test scores, and intlated resumes;
colleges and universities could begin to select
stuce:tts for rr.eir ability to contribute to tbe body
politic that will be formed on a particular campus.
Democracy is a compl:cated system of govern•
ment,and i: requires an educated citizenry to par-
ticipate actively in it By educated, we are referring
not merely to holding degrees and credentials, but
lo knowing enough to, as Freire (I 970) insists,
"read the word ar.d the world;' We recognize the
need for "organ:c intellectuals" ,o to help i:s as
credentialed intellect1;als do the re'c<m,t ruelive
work. We find it interesting (and paradoxical) that
educatior. at the two ends of the continuum (pre•
collegiate and adult education) seem to be more
progressive and proact've (al least from the point
of view of the literature they produce and respo:1d
to). Colleges and universities seem lo function
as ir,cu bato'.li fur tht soon-to-be (or wannabe I
296 Ill HA'.:'IDl:lOOK 01' QUALITA'flVE RESEARCH-CHAPTEi 11
guardians the stains quo. Too many of our
college and university s:udents want :o assume a
place in the current society without using their
collegiate years as an q1portun i:y to consider how
the society couk be d: fferent and how it could be
:nore just.
Among precollegiate educators, Grace Boggs
(1971) has developed a "new system of education"
that n:akes a radical break from the current svstei n
Ihat is designed to «prepare the great ma; ority' [of
citizens: for labor and to advance a few out of tr.eir
r"nks to join the elite ir govc,ning" (p, 32), Hoggs's
(197 l j vision is for a "new system of education that
will have as its means and its ends the development
of the great masses peop:e to govern over them-
selves and w administer over thing/' (p.32). Buggs's
svstem of educatiun calls for an education 6at
must do the following:
• Be :1ased m1 a rhi.osophy of history-::: onk-r
tu real ire his o ~ her !1ighes: poll~111ial cis :,
human heing, every young person must be
given a profound and co:i1::1ui::g se;ise (a) of
his cir her own life as an integral pa:t of t'ie con•
tinning evolution the l:u r::an species; and
(b) of the unique capacity of human beings to
shape and create reallty in arcordance with mn-
sdm:s purposes and p:ans;
• Include prnduct:vc ac:lvily-pmdurtive a:tiviry~
in whkh individu,ds choo~e a task par:ici-
pate b its ,:xcrn:ion from be15im1ing to end,
re:naim be r::ost dfc,;:ivc and rap:d rne:ms to
in:ernalile lhc rcla:ions'l:p between cause and
effecl, bctw,xn and result, between pt::-
poses (ends) and p:ogrllms (r:ieans),an internal-
ization which is necessary to rational behavior,
cre.it:vc thinking, an{: n;;;ponsible activity;
• Include living strugglcs-e\·ery yonng person
must be expanding nppmtunities to soke
the problems of his IsicI physical ,,ocial
cnv ironmcn!, thereby developing the political
and technical skills which are urgently needed
to transform the inst it:~tions as well as
the physical environments of our ,;ommunities
and dties:
• Include a wide va:ie:y of re;;onrce~ and enriron-
mcnts--in n:.:, complex world, ecurutio:: :ntJst
btc wnscioLL,ly t•rgan ized lo lake place not only
in schools and :mt only usi11g k.i;;her~ and
technolor,y, hut also a mu:ri p:'ciry ;1hysical
and social env:ron r..ents (e.g., the co" n1cyside,
the d:y, the sea. fuctorias. offices. other coun-
tries, olhe: cultures J;
• lnd·~de develop:rient in bodily selt-k:10wl,:dge
am: well-heing-im;reased scientitk and te,h-
11ologka: knowledge ::ecessitates ::iore active
partidpation by lay people and a grea:er focus
011 preventive medicine. Stude:11s must learn
rmw to live healt1v lives and work to ,eve:st' the
devas:ating ·,ealth co:'dit!ons ill poor and
working class comrr.unilies;
• Include dearly cefined goals--&lu,ation mu,1
move away from a,:ii,:ving more rr:alcrial goods
and/or fitting people into ,he ;:xist:::g um:qu,d
st~u,t·~:·e.Education's prJmary purpose ::1usl b.::
governing, (pp. 33-36)
Early scholars in adult education (Freire, 1970;
M. Horton, : 990; M. Horton & Fre:re, 1990)
um::ers tood the need to develop education
imbued wit!: social purpose and groJndcd in
grass roots, popular orgao i:dr:g movements.
Althmtgh there are a nL1mber o:· such examples,
because of space limitations we will focus on the
Highlander Folk SchooL 1\imce tiortun (198:1)
documents the school's his:ory and points our
that its relationship with social movemen:s is the
key tu unden;landing both the strength and
the Emitations of its adult education program.
The two-social movement ano ac,Jlt educa-
tion-form a symbiotic relationship. Myles
Horton (1990 J himself si.:ggests;
It is only in a 11:cvement that an ide,1 h oflcn ma,lc
simple c::ough and dire:! enough thal is ce.n spr~ad
r.ipidly. .. , \Ve ca:mol create movements, so :: we
want to be a put of a rnovcmer.l when it curnts, we
lo gc: oursel,cs into a position-by working
with o,ganitations lhat with ,trudural
cha:1gc-to on the inside of that mm:emen:
when ii come,, instead of on the out.,ide trying to
gel accepted. (p. l t4J
Highlander always saw itself 11s p:.irt of the
larger goals of social movements while sinmltar:e-
oi:.sly ":naintaini:Jg a critical ancl cha[enging
voice wit:1in" (Heaney,1995, p. 57}. Highlander
based its work on two major components-an
 Ladson· Fl ill i ng5 & Donnor:
education grounded in the fireal and realizable
stmggles of peo?le for democratic control ove,
their '.ives" (Heaney, 1995, p. 57) and the need lo
challenge people to consider the present and the
future simulta:ieously as they move toward social
change.
The Citizenship Schools (which functioned
be;ween 1953 ar:d L961), one of Highlander's pro·
grams, wex designec to help Af~ican American
citizens of :nc deep South to become literate and
protest for their rights. According to Horton
( 1990), "you can't read and write yoLLrsdf into
freedom. Yot: [have I to fight for that and you
[have) to do it as part of a group, not as an indi-
vidual" (p. 104]. The Citi1,enship Schools are a far
c:y fro:n ci:rrent acult lit<"rncy ar:d vocational
programs :hat haw no political r.ommitment and
encourage individual and simple so'.utions to
major social problems (Hear:ey, 1995 ).
We are skeptical of tl:e academy'~ ability tu
reconstruct itself because of the complicity of its
intcllcc:uals with the ~urrent social order. Th;is,
we agree with Foucault (1977), who insists:
Intel:ectuals are no longer needed by the masses
to gain knowledge: the r:ia~st;;l know perfectly
wdl. without illusion; they know far bener than
1he intellectual ar:d they are ,;ertainly capa'Jlc of
expressing themselves. Bui there exist, ;; sy,lcm of
power which b:ocks, prohib:ts, and invalidates this
discourse and this knowledge, a power not only
found in manifest authority of censorship, hut one
lhal p:ufcundly and subtly ;,ene:rares an e::tire
sodttal network. IntellN:tuals are them selves
agents o: this """'"m of power-the idea of t:ieir
responsibility for 'hmsdous::ess" ami C;somrse
forms r,art of :he system. (p. 207)
Ill CONCLUDING Tr:Ot:Gtrts: Ii,;
SEARCH Ol' RF.VOI.rTJOKARY HABITCS
won as possible hP Jlhf· whiie man!
wiii td1 me 1/Ja t ft is no, enough to lry to
b@ wh1!r:, but that a ,vhite tot,1/ity mus1 bs:'
achieved.
Fr,mlz F,mun (19l:lbl
Moral Activist Role n 297
Our previous section suggests an al:nost
nfailistk despair abut:: the role of the intellectual
ir: leading us :oward more just and equitable soci•
eties. Actually, we ?ninL to the limits of :he aca•
derr:y and sJggest that committed i:1tellectuals
must move into spaces beyond the academy to
?arlicipale in real change. lndeec, si;ch a move
may mean that academics tak<" on less prorr:immt
roles in orcer to listen and learn from peopl<"
actively engaged in soda! change. Tims, we speak
to an audience who is willing to search fo, a revo-
:;.itionary habit us,
Bourd:eu (1990) brought us the concept of
:rnbi~us, which he vai!uely defines as a systi::n of
dura hie, trtnsposable dispositions, ~I ructured
strnctures ?redisposed to functio:i as structuring
a,
str;.ictures, that is, principles which generate il!ld
crgani,e practices and rep~esentations that can he
objedivdy adapted to 6eir outcomes without pre-
supposing a consci::i::s aiming ai o, an express
mastery of the o;:,eration~ 1m:e~sary in orcer to
attain r'wm. Obje-:1:vely "regulated" a:id "regular"
withmit being In ~ny way the produc1 of obedience
to mies, lhey can be ;,;t,::ectivdy orchestrated
without being the :m,du;.;t oi the u1gani2ir.g actio11
o• a conductur. (p. :U)
Thus, according to Pal c.mbo- L: u ( 1993), "ir.di-
viduals are inclined to act in certain ways g:ven
their implicit uncerstanding of, their 'feel for: the
field" (p. 6), The habitus "expresses first result
of ar. organizing action witb a :w~an ing dose tu
that of words .surh as ,,tncture: it also cesignates
a way of being, a habitual state (espeda:Jy of
the body) and, in particular, a disposition, a ten-
dency, propensity, or indinatinn" (Bourdieu, 1977,
p. 214). This \l,mrk provides as with both "fie flex-
ibility of what might olberwise be thought of as a
s~rictly determinative structure (the field) and th1c
ambiguity of a predisposed but not mandated
agency (ha:iitus) [and J signal llourdieu's desire to
go beyom1 the usual hinary categories of exter-
nal/interr:al, consc:ous/um:onscious, determin•
ismifree agency" (Palumbo-L:;.i, l'J93, p. 7).
Our call for a revolutionary habitus recognizes
that the "field" (Bourdieu, 1990} in which acade
mks currently function constrains the social (and
 Ill HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 11
intellectual) agency that might move us toward
social justice and human liberation. As Palumbo-
Liu (1993) points out, a field is
a par,icular grid of re'.ations tl:a! governs specific
areas of social life (economics, culture, edu<:.,tion,
politics,etc.): individuals do not act freely lo achieve
their goals and the creation of dispositiora must 'Je
un,ierstooJ within histmically spedfic formations
of ficlds; each 'l~ld had its own rules and prowmls
!~at ope:: specific social positions for different
agents. Yet this is not a static model: t'le field in :urn
is modified according t(l the manm,r in whkh those
:ms1'.toJJs are occupied a::d mobilized, (p. 6)
Thus, despite notions of academic freedom
ar.d tenure, professors vrork within a field that
:nay delimit and confine political activity and
v:ews unpopular with univet'llity administrators,
slate and nationa'. lef!islators, and policy makers.
Subtle and not so subtle sanctions have tb: power
to shape how individuals' habi:uses conform to
the field. We must imagine new fields ar.d new
habituses that constitute a new vision of what
it means to do academic work. According to
Palumbo Liu ( I 993 ), ''The habitus we might
imagine for social agents has not yet become
l::abituated to pos:modern globalized culture tha:
continues lo be reshaped .:lli we ~peak, The field of
cultr:re must now be understood to accor.1.modate
both dominant and emerge:it social groups who
differently and significantly inflect the consump-
tion and produ..:tion of an increasingly global and
hybrid culture» {p. 8).
Perhaps our notion of a revolutionary babitus
might better be realized through Espiritu's (2003}
powerful conceptualization of "home:• in whi6
,here is a keen a"',m::ness of the way radalized
immigrar:ts "from previously colonized nations
are not exdnsively formed as racial minorities
with! n the United States but also as colonized
nationais while in their 'homeland' --one tha: is
deeply affected by U.S. influences and modes
sod al organization" (;;. I). Espiritu (2003) points
out that the :iotion of home is not merely a
physical place but is also ''a concept and desire-a
place that immigrants visit through tht imagir:a-
tion" (p. IO). We assert that even those long•ter~
:acialited residents of the United States (e.g.,
African Americans, American Indians, Latinos)
have experienced (and continue to experience}
colonial oppression (Ladson-Billings, 1998a).
\\lhat Espiritu (2003) offers is a way to think
about the permeable nature of concepts like race,
culture, ethnicity, gender, and ability. Rather than
become fixated on who is included and who is
excluded, we need to oonsider the way that we are
all border dwe]ern who negotiate and renegotiate
multiple places and spaces.According to Mahn:ud
(cited in Espiritu, 2003), "immigrants call into
question implicit assumptions about 'fixed
identities, unproblematic nationhood, invisible
sove,e:gnty, ethnic homogeneity, and exclusive
citizenship"' {p, 209),
Thus, fae challenge of those of us in the aca-
derr:y is not how to make those outside the acad-
emy more like us, but rather to recognize the
"outside the academy' identities that we must
recruit for ourselves in order to be more effective
researchers on behalf of people who can make use
of our skills and abili :ies. We must lea:11 to be "at
home» on the street corners and in the barrios,
churches, mosques, kitchens, porches, and stoops
of people and comm'J:iities, so that our work n:ore
accurately re[ects their concerns and interests.
Our challenge ls to ::enounce our paternalistic ten-
dencies and sympathetic leanings to move toward
an empathic, etbcal, and moral scholarship t:lat
propels us to a place where we are p:-epared to
forcefully and courageously answer "the call:'
Ill NOTES
l. We an: w;ing the lf~m "ol cok1r" lo refor le
all f)eople who are raced and milside the cons:rudon
ofw:iiteness (Haney Lopez, 1998).
2. Paulo Frei::e (1970) insists that "that the
oppressed are not 'marginals; are not men living
'oucside' society. They have always been 'inside' -
inside the structure that made 1hem 'beings' for
others" (p.
3. ':,\rticulate" is a term seemingly reserved for
African A::iericar.s and is seen by African Americans
as a w.iy to suggest lhat one s;ieaks better th,,:: wou:d
be expected of"your kind;'
 Ladson-Billings & D,,r:::m:
4. We arc res111ting at le::gth portions ofLadson-
Rillings's (2000) disrnssim: 0:1 alterity and liminaliry
that appeared in the se1.vnd edition of tl::s handbook.
5, Wt' remind the reader that we are aware of the
dile:n ma u,:::g rndalized categories and thal the
boundaries between and a,nong various racial, ethnic,
and cultural groups are morr per • ea·Jte and more
complex than the categories imply.
6. Mac Arthu, Fc:Jow and ciYil rights leader
Bernice Jo:1nson Reagon asserts that rm one l:as the
r:ght to tell the next generation what their freedo::i
songs should be {Moyers, 1991).
7. We are aware that we are not acknowledging
all of the artist, in this trmlit:en,
8. We want lo be dear that we do :mt disparage
these career choices; however, we question whe:her
they ,epresent what is meant by "liberal arts."
9. Ir.creasing:y, studer.ts seeking admission to
selective colleges and univenities participate in
extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, dubs. the arts)
and volun1eer efforts not because of interest,, com•
:nit:nents but rathe:· because such participation may
give them an advantage over uthcr applica11ts.
I0. We use this !er• to describe tbose grassroots
:ienple whose inte:!e;;tual power convicts and per-
;mades the masses of people :o irnres1iga1e and rxplnre
new ideas for human liberation. TI1t late He1rik
C:ar:S (~ew York}, Clarence Kailin, (Madison, WI), and
6e late James Boggs ar:c his wife Grace Lee Boggs
(Detroit) arc examples of orgar::c intcllec;i.:als.
lll REFERENCES
Acuna, R. ( 1972]. Occupied America: The Chicano strug-
gle toward li~cra!ion. New York: Canfield Press.
Alarcon, ).I. (: 99G). Chicana fen::::ism: In the trncks of
"the" native woman. Cu/rural Srudies, 4, 248-256.
Alcxie, S. (1993). The lone R,u1ger ar.d Tcnto fistfight in
heaven. Kew 'i:'.:1:k: Atlantic Monthly P:e,5.
Allen, B., & Wilson, E, ). (1984). Foreword. In H. Crus£,
Tile crrsi, of the Negro imellecrua1 (pp. i-vi).
New York: Quill.
Almaguer, 'L [1974). Historical notes on (',hkano
oppression: The dialectics of racial and class dom•
inalion in 1'k,rth America.Jl.z1/an, 5{1-2), 27-56,
Anzaldua, G. (198 7). Border/,:md,Aa fror.tera: The new
mestiza. San Francisco: Ante Lute Pn:ss.
Bakfor::ama, F. F.. C Irr defense of La Raza: 1he
Los Angeles Mexican cmw.ifate a11d the Mexu:an
'
Morn: Activist Role lll 299
community, 1929-1936, Tncson: l,;nive,sity or
Arizona
Bell, D. (1992}: Alces at t!:e bottom of t~e we!/: The
permanence of rarism, N<.'w York: Bask 3m,ks.
Bell, D. {2002).E!llical ambirim:. New York: llloomsbury.
Raggs, r.. L {: 971 ). Education to govem [Pm:phlct].
Detroi:: AIJ·Afric;m Peopls:'s Union.
Rourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice.
C.ambridge:, t.:K Cambridge U11ivernity
Bourdieu, P. (1990j. The logic of 1m;,:ti," [R. Nie,,
Tram;.]. Stanfo:d, CA: Stanford University f'rcss.
Campbell, B. M. [ l 995 l. Your blues ain't like mine.
New York: llallantinc.
Castillo, A. ( 1994 l. So far from Gad. l\'rw Yo7k: Plume.
• J J
Castillo, A. ( 1995 ). M,,m1rre of the dreamer~: Essays an
Xicanisima. New York: ?lume.
Clark, S. {with Brown, ed.). '.1990). ,"I.early fram
within: A first pe,son narrative, Tre11t,m, NJ: Africa
World Press.
Collins, P. H. ( 1998). Hglrtfng word;;: Black womw a,;d
t,~e search for ju,tice. Minneapo::s: U:iive:-,ity of
Y,' ~.~.esota Press.
Cn:sc, IL ( 1984 ). Tlie crisis of thr: Ne.gr.1 ir;t.'llectual.
New York: Quill. (Original work pn11: ished 1967)
dda Torre, A,, & Pesquera, tl. (Eds.). C ,%,ilditig
ivi1h <1ur hands: Neiv directit•ns i,; Cilirn,w studfrs.
Berkeley: l:niversity or C"lifomia Press.
Delgado Be,nal, D. U998J. Using a Chicana femini~:
epist:mology in educational rcseard1. liarv,ml
Educatfrmal Review, 68, 555-582.
IJuBois, W.EJ:l. (l 953). '/'he souls aJ black folks.
Kew Yo,k: Fawcett (Original work pu::ilis\;L'tl 1903}
Dyson,M.K (1993).Rejlecting Black: Afrinm Amerfr,m
cultural trl!icism. Mi rm eapnlis: Uni verslty of
Mirmeaota ?res,.
Espiritu, Y. L. {1992 ), Asia:'l Anwricim par1et!wici17:
Bridging institutions an:./ id,mtities. Phi:adelphia:
Temple Univcrs:ty
Espirito, Y. L. (2003), Home bound· Filipino American
/iveii aero» culiures, rnmrmmiries, and caunfrie,,
Berkeley: Universi: y of Califo7nia Press.
Eyre, C, (Director]. (1998). Smoke sigua!s (Motion
picture). Los Jl.:ij!des: M: ,arr ax.
Fa.non, r. (1968). 1'ht wretched f>f rile earth. N,~ York:
Grove.
Fanon, F. (191\6). Black ,kilt white mash l.omhm:
Pluto Press.
Fanon, F. (1994), On national culture Ir: P, ',\/Tam, &
L. Chrisma:i (Eds.), Coloniaf di.,course aud post•
calonia/ t!1eory (pp. 36-52), Ktw York: Colu:::bia
University Press.
300 lll HANDBOOK Or QUALITATIV?, RESEARCH-CHAPTER 11
Foucault, M, (1 language, counter memory,
practice, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univef'l.ity Press,
Freire, f' ( 1970 }, Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York:
Contimmm,
Gilma::, R. (200C), Spinning into butter. Woodstoc~, IL:
Dramatic PuhHshing.
Gomer. Quinones, J. (1977). (b culture, Revisffl
01ica110 Riqucna, 5(2 ), 35-53.
Guin'er, & Torres, G, (2002 ), Miners canary: Enlisr ing
r11,e, resisting pcwer, transforming democracy.
Carn ;,ridge, MA: Harvard Unive:,ity Press,
:ianey Lopez,!, (1998), Whit~ by law: The f11gai con;tnic·
tion of race, New York: New Yt>rk Universil y
tlealth News Network, (2000), A nisMry oJ secret
human e.xperimentalion. Ret;ieved December 28,
2C04, from www.skyh ighway,com/~chemtrails
911 /docs/human_expe,ime;.ts,html
Heaney, T. [1995), When ad·;lt education stood for
democracy, Adult Edw::ati1,m Quar.erly, ·HO),
51-59,
Hertzberg, It W. (1971 ). The searrh for ,m ltmerican
fodi.m identity, Syracuse, NY; Syracuse Uni,ersity
Press.
Eorton. A. (1989). The Highiander Folk School: A
history irs major program,, 19:J2-I96I.
-,.'.):'Of!!<.'Iyn1- "V"'
·" .: u1rl 5(1:n,
Horror:, ~1,, with Kohl, H., & Kohl, J. (199•). rl1e long
ha11J: 1".n auwbiography. New York: Dmiblec.ay.
Horlon, Y.,, & Freire, P; (1990), lti! rtud:e the road hy
wufkir1g.· Hmv.7sa1ions on edua1tion and .wcial
change. Philacelphia: Temple Uni.erni:y Press,
Ike::iolo, L (1995), Traces of :na5:er narrati,e in
the Afr:can Anu,ricall/ Korean American
rn::flkt: How we mnstructed "Lm; Angeles;' In
R, Delgado (Ed.), Critic11l race theory: The <'Ill·
ting edge (pp, ,:,v~•-,:,D Philadelphia: Temple
Un iversitv Press,
Kelky,R,D,G, ( 1999).Peoplcinme.Co!or/ines, 1(3),5-7.
Kt::::iedy, It (2001, February), lhe tri~1mph cf robust
tokenism, rile Atlantic online, Retrieved lrom
http:/ i www, the aI la nl ic,com/ i ss,te s/2 00 I {021
kennedy,htm
""- -,•• v R, (2002),Nfgger: 1'he strarrgecareerafa trou,
hfrsome word, New York: Pantheon,
Kinii, J. E, (1995). Culture centered knowlecge: Black
stuc.:e~, cc rricubm transformation, and social
a r•n11 In J,
0
Bank, & e, M. Banks (Eds,),
Hand/wok of research 1m rnultic11ltun1/ education
(pp. 265-290), l\ew York: Mac:111llan,
Kuhn, T. (1962), Tile structure of s,ientyic revulutioris,
Chicago: Univer;,itv of Chicago Press,
Ladson,Bil 1ings, G, ( 1998a), From S-Owrto to the South
Bmnx: African Americans :ind mlonfal education
the United Slates, In C. A. Torres & 'l: Mit:c~ell
(Eds,}, Sociology r>J edu,alfon: Emerging persprt·
tives (pp. 247-264),Albany: SUNY Press,
Ladson-Billings, G, (: 998b), Jusl what ;, crilical race
theory and 'A-hat is it doing in a field Ii ke
education! Ir;terr.alional faurnai of Qualitative
Studies in fiducaiion, Jl, 7-24.
Ladson, 3:llings. G, (2000). Racidli:zed discourses and
ethnic episterr:ologies. In ~. Denzin & Y Lin col r.
(Eds.l, lfandbnak a( qualitative research {2nd rd,,
pp, 257-277), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Lahiri, J, (1999), Interpreter of me.ladies, Bos:on:
Houghton Mifflin,
Legesse, A, (1973), Gada: 11m,e uppnuIC/;es to the study
nf,m Afrit'cm satiety, New York: l'~ee Pres.s,
Lewis, D, L. (1993). WE,B, OuBo.is: Biogmphy of a race
(186819!9), New York: llenry Holt
tipsi!i, G. (1998), 1'he possessir~ investment in wltite•
ness: How white people profitfrom idenrity politics.
Philadelphia: Temple University P:ess,
Upsky, M, (]983), Street-level b,m:aucrais, New Yori<.:
Russell Foumfalion,
Lomawaima, K, T, ( 1995 ), Educating Native Americans,
In J, A. Banks & C, M. Banks (fafa,J, H,md~ook, cf
research en multi.:ultural education (pp, 331 ~347),
New i)l:k: MacmiLm.
Lowe, L ( !9%). Immigrant a,t,: On Asi,m·American ::u/,
luraL politics. Dn:fom1, NC: Duke U::: vcrsit y l'~ess.
Mann, ll, (2003, (ktol:er 6), :'lew York weigh, lead, paint
law~ fRadio broadcast:, All Things Cormdcrrd,
Wa,bin~tm:, DC: National Public Radio,
Mayr, E, (1976 ), Evolution and Jhe diversity of life,
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press .
.llcClintock, A. (1994), The angel of progress: Pirfu:is
of the term "11ost·co:011ia[ism:' Jn P. Willfa::is &
L Chrisman (Eds.), Col,mial discourse and
post-mlnriial thc'Ory :pp. 291-304}. l\ew York:
Columbia [niversiry Press.
Mcintosh, P. (1988), White pri·1ilege arid male privilcg,~:
A pe:rso111li c,cwunt of coming to see correspcm
deuces thmugh work in women's studies (Vrorking
Paper 189), WeJ:es!cy, MA: Wellesley C,,:leg1;:
Center for Rese.irch on Women,
Miah, M, (I 99S ), Race polit;cs: lllack voters and
''hrothd' Clinton. ,tgaf•r,t tl1c Current, Retrieved
trom htrr,:ffsolidarity.:gc.org/atc/78Miah,html
Minh-ha, I (:989;, m1m,m, narrative, other: Writing
posl:olcmia/ity amt /emir.ism llloorr:it:gto:::
Indiana University
 Ladson-Rilli::g.~ & Donnor: The Mcml Acti ,:st Role • JO:
Mirande, A,, & Enriquez, E. (1979). ta Chicmw: The
Mexic.1rz American woman. Chicago: Universi·, y of
Chicago Press.
Mohanty, C. r (:9~ I). Under wester:: Fer:iinist
scholarship and C()lo:::,11 discourses. In T.
:vlohamy,A. Rus,o,& L Torres (fals,), Third World
wcmien and the politics ofJ,eminism (pp. :,()-80).
Bloomington: l::c:ana University Pre,s,
Morri,on, T. i 1987). lkiuved, York: Vintage 3ooks,
Moyern, ll. (Prodm:er), & F'ellell, G, (fkectn:). (1991,
Eiebrua:·y ). The songs ,m:free: Illltm'iew wit/; Bemice
J;,hnson Reagon [Videc recordi:ig). l'rin.:eton, N;:
Films for the Humanities & Sdtno.:s,
O':io:er, S. (1995). Ftlmic lives ethnic labels
Minneapolis: University of M'.::nesota Press,
Ong, A. ( l'l99). Flexible citizenship: The ,,u!tura1 logics
of tramnari,maliry. Jk:eigh, ~C: Duke University
Press,
Padilla, E 11987), Lalin., ethnic am,;dousne;s. :-lotre
Dame, IN: :-lotrc D<l:-:le L:nivcrsilr Pres,.
Palumbo-Un, IJ, (1993). [ntroduction: Unha::;:tuatcd
habituses. In D. Palumbo-Uu & H. U, Gumbrechl
(Eds,), Streams of mltural ,:apitai: Tnai,national
cuilural studies (pp. 1-21 ), Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Paz, 0. {I% 1). The labyrinth vf wlitmie: lift and
tJumght in Mexico. '.'ltw York: J!.;1ndo:;1 H(r:.se,
Perry, S. ( 1996, May /J;il C/imo11'., politics of
meaning, Retrieved from ww.cilyp.i.ges.coml
databank117!808/artide2724,asp
Popkew il;:;, I'. (1003:, ls 1he National Research ,N.. :""'
Committt£s report on scie~,tifk rcs~a rch in edu-
cation scie::tifk 1 On trusting t':~ manifesto.
Qiwlitative Inquiry, 10( I), 62 78.
Prashad, V (2002). !::·1cryl;ody was Kung Fu fighting:
t\jra Asian ccmrwctwns ,md ,/;e myth of cultural
purity. 'Sew York: Be.con,
Roecige:, D. ;)002 ), Col()red lflrite: 1r.1nscending the
mci~I pust, Jlerlre'.ey: University of California PreSc~.
Shavdson, 3.., & Towne, L. (Eds.), (2G03), Srilmtifi.:
researdt in education. Washington, DC: )lariomtl
Academies Pre&s,
Smith,L l '. 1998).Decoivnidng rrm}wdologies: Research
und mdigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Snipp, C Y., ( l 995 ). American I nc:ian studies. Tn
J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), !ftmdbo,1k
vf research 011 multicultural educatfrm (pp. 245-
258 ). York: Marmillan.
Spivak, G. C. (1990), Explanation and culture:
Margin.;::a. In R, rerguson, 11/., (ievcr, & T. T.
.Minh-:ia (Eds,), Out there; Uarginaliza:fon and
contemp,m1ry cultures !pp. <:ambridge,
.MA: MIT Press,
J. {1979). The ethnogr,,phic interview,
New York; Holt, Rinehar: 1k Winston.
'fate, G. (2003). Introduction: Nigs R · or how
3\ackfolks became fotish object~. In G, (Ed.},
1",erything but rhe burden: Whal white people are
,aking from Blad; culture ( pp. 1-14). New 'iork:
l!rnadway Bo;,1ks,
Tu~kcg..:e Sy ph Study Legacy Committee.
; I996, May 2(,). final rcpotl. Washingtor:, DC:
Author.
wa Thiongo, N. (1991 ). Decol,mising the miml Nairooi:
Heinemann Ke:iya.
Warrior, R. A. (1995). Tribal SL"Crets: Recovering 11.merium
India11 imrlle.:tmu tradiiiom. Minneapdis: !Jnive:sity
of ,\1inncsota P,ess,
West. C. (1900), The new cultural polit'cs of differ-
em:e, In R. Feri;~•on, M, Gever, & l. 'C Minh-ha
{Eds.), Out there; Marginaliza!frm awl co11tem·
porary cultures (pp. 19-36). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Wong, 5. ( I9'J5 ). American kn,ies. Kew Sin::on &
Schu~:er.
\.Vynter, 5. ( l 992). Do 11ot rail u, ''negros"; How ''malticul-
fural" texrboak!: perpetuate racism, San Frnnci:,co;
Aspire Bookli,
 12
RETHINKING
CRITICAL THEORY AND
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Joe L. Kincheloe and Peter lv1cLaren
Ill OuR Imosn;cRAT!C
lNTERPRETATIO:l OF CRITICAL
THEORY I\ND CRITICAL Rl'SEARCII
Over the past 25 years of our i_:ivolvement in
I critical theory and critical research, we have been
l asked by humired, of people to explain more
p,edsely what critic.;! theory is. We find that
q'Jestion difficult to answer ',ecause (a) there are
many critical theories, not just one; (b) the criti-
cal tradition is always changing and evolving; and
(c) critical theory attempts to avo:d too muc::i
specificity, as there is roo:n for disagreemer.t
among critical theorists, To lay out a set of fixed
d:aracteristlcs of the position is co:itrary to the
desire of such theorists to avoid the production of
blueprint, of sociopolitkal and epistemological
beliefs. Given these disclaimers, we will now
attempt to provide one idiosyncratic "take" on the
nature of er itical theory and cr:tical research in
l the first decade of :he 21 s: century. Please note
that this is merely our subjective analysis and ;hat
there are manv brillia:n critical theorists who
l '
will find many problems with our pronounce•
ments. ln this spirit, we tender a description of an
I 111 303
I
ever-evolving ;:riticality, a reconceptualiied critical
theory that was critiqued and overha:Jled by the
"post-discourses" of the last qua::ter of the 20:h
century and has been further extended in the first
years of the 2 L~1 ce:nury (Bauman, 1995; Carlson
& Apple, 1998; (ollins, 1995; Giroux, 1997;
Kellner, 1995; Peters, Lankshear, & Olssen, 2003;
Roman & Eyre, 1997: Steinberg & Kincheloe,
1998; \Veil & Kinc.lieloe, 2003 ).
In !his contell't, a recon.:eptualized critical tl:rory
questior.s the assumption that sodelies such as the
United States, Canada, Australia, ::-Jew Zealand, and
the natio:1s in the European Union, for example,
are unproblematically democra:ic and free, Over
the :Wt!: century, especially after the early I%Os,
individuals in these societies were acculturated to
feel comfortable in relations of do• ination and
subordination rather than tqt:ality and bdepen
dence, Given the social and tec:molog'cal changes
of the last half of the century that led to new forms
of information production and access, critical theo-
rists argued that qi:estions of self-direction and
democratic egalitarianism should be ~eassessed.
In this context, critical researchers informed by the
"pog:-discoursa" (e.g., postmodern, critlcal femi-
nism, poststructuralism) came to understand that
..,04 JI 1-!ANDOOOK 01' QUALCATIVE ~ES?.ARCH-CHAP-:-ER
iudiv iduals' view of 11:emselv...'8 and the world were
ever: rr:ore influenced by social and his:orical forces
than previously bcl icvecl Given the changi:lg soc:al
and ir:formational co:iditions of late 20th-century
and early 21st -cenUf}' media saturated Western
cul~ure, critical theorists have needec new ways
of researching and analyzing the constn:ctior: of
individual, (Agger, 1992; Flossner & Otto, 19'l8;
HJ nchev, 1998; Lei,tvr:a, Woocrum, & Shcrblom,
' '
1996; Quail, Razzano, & Skalli, 2004; Skall:, Z004;
R Smith & WexJer, i 995; Stinker; 1998; \.\.'esson &
Weaver, 21XH )..
Partisan Research in a
"Neutral" Academic Culture
Tn the space available !:ere, it is impossible
to do ; ust ice tu all of the critical traditions
that have drawn ir:spi ra :ion from Man; Kant;
Hegel; We'Jer; the r,ankfort School theorists;
Continental social theorists such as Foucault.
Haber:nas, and Derrida; Lat[n American :hinkers
such as Paulo Freire; French fer:tinists such
as Irigaray, Kristeva, and Cixous; or Russian
sociolinguists such as Bakhtin and Vygotsky-
:nost of whom regularly fir:d their way into the
::eference list!i of cmitcn:?orary critical resear-
chers. Today there are crit:calist schools in man)'
fields, ar:d even a superficial discussion of the
most prom iner.t of these sd':ools would demar:d
much more ~pace thau we have available.
The fact that numerous books have been writ-
tc:1 about the often-virulent disagreements among
members of the Frankfurt School only heightens
ou: concern with the "packaging" of the different
crlticalist schools. Critical theory should not be
tre,,:ec as a universal grammar of revolutionary
thnughtnh;ectitied and reduced to discrete fonnu-
:ak pronouncer:1e:1ts or strategies. Obviously, in
:>resenting our idiosyncratic version of a 1econ-
ceplualized critical theory or an evolving criti-
cality, we !:ave defined the critical tradition very
broadly for the purpose of generating understand-
ing; as we asserted earlie:, this will trou':ile many
,.,Titical researchers. In this move, v1e decided to
focus on the underlying comm0t1ality a:nong crit-
ical schools of thought, at the cost of focusing on
differences.. Thi,, of course, :s alway, risky bt:sines.,
in terms of suggesting a false unity or consensus
w'.1ere none exists, but such concerns are unavoic-
able in a survev cha :>ter such as tl:is.
• 4
We a~e defining a crit icalist a\ a researcher or
theorist who attempts to use her or '"'Ork as a
form of social or cultural ,ritkism and wlm accepts
certain bask assumptions: that all thought is fun-
dar:tentally mediated by power relations that are
socii. and historically ;;unstiluted; tha: facts can
never be isolated from the domain of val t.:es or
removed from so:ne forr:1 of ideological :nscrip-
:ion; that the relationship bc::wecn .;oncepl and
object and between signifier and sign:fiec is never
stable or fixed and is often mediated br the soda!
:-elations of capitalist production and consumptio:1;
cha! language i::; cent::al to the formation of subjec-
tivity (consdo'.ls and unconscious aw,1reness):
that certain grou;:is in any society and particular
soc:eEes are privileged over obcrs and. although
fae reasons for this privileging ma)' vary widely,
i1e oppression that characterizes contemporary
sode:ies is most forcefu:Jy reproduced w'.'len
subordinate, a..:ccp: their soda! 11ta::.is as naturr.:,
ne,cssaq,; or inevitable; that oppression has many
and that focusing 011 only one at the expense
of others (e.g., class oppression versus racism)
often elides the interconnections among them; and,
finally, that rr.ainstream research practices are
erally; although n:osl often unwittingly, implica:ed
i11 the repmducli<m of systems of duss, race, and
gender o;lprcssion (K::1chcloe & Steinb<'rg, 1997).
Ir. today's climate of blurred cisciphnary
gen res, it is nol ur.common to find literary theo-
risrs i:oing anthropology and anthropo'.ogists
writing about literary theory, political scientist;;
trying their baud at ethnomelhocologkal analy-
sis, or philosophers doing Laca:1 ia:1 film cri ti-
cism. All these inter-/cross-disdplinary moves are
exan: :1les of wl:at Norman Denzin a:id Yvonna
Un min (2000) have referred to as bricolage-a
k;;y inr. ovation, we argue, in an evolvbg criticality.
We wi:: explore this dynamic in relation to critical
rese,trch later i:1 this 1..:1,,;m:1. We offer this obser-
vation abot:~ h'.urred genres no: as an excuse tr, he
wantonly eclectic in our treatment of the critical
tradition but to make the po: n: that any attemp1~
 K':id1doe & Mc:..arcn: Ret':ilnking Theory and R~sc,m:h 111 305
to delineate critical theory as discrete .~chools
of analysis ·will :,:ii rn capture the evolving hybrid-
lty cr.demic to contemporary cr:tical analysis
(Kbcheloe. 200la; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004).
;{eaders fam 'Har with :he critkalist traditions
will recognize essential17 :our different "emer-
gent"' sehools of soda! inquiry i11 th is chapter: the
:1eu-Marxist tradition of er: :kal theory assori,
ated most closely with the work of HorKhe:mer,
Adorno. and Ya reuse; :he genealogical writings
of Michel Foucault; the pract:res of po$t,truc-
turalist deconstruction associated with Derrida;
and postmodernist cu~rer.:s associated w:th
Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Ebert, and (Jtf'.ers. In
m1r •1iew, critical eth:1ography has been intk-
enced by al: thts~ prrspectivcs in ci:ferent ways
and to different degree5. Fro:11 c~itical theory,
researchers inherit a forceful ~riticism of the po,-
itivist concep:iun of science and instrumental
ratio:ia:ity, especially in Adomo's idea of negative
dialectics, which posits an unstable refatiunship
of contradktio:1 benveen concepts and objects;
from [}errida, restarcher, are given a means for
deconstructing objective :mth, or what is reforred
to irn "the metaphysics of presence:'
For Derrida, the meaninJJ of a word is ,;;on-
stantly deferred because the word can have mean-
only i:1 relation to its dderence from other
words within a given systi:m oflang,uage, Foucault
invites. :esearchrrs to explore the ways ir. which
Jiscourses are implicated in relations of power
and how puwer and knowledge serve as dia~ecti-
cally reinitiating practkei; that regulate what is
cunsidercd reasonable and true. We have cha:--ac-
terized much of the work influenced by :hese
writers as the "ludic" and "resist,mce" postmod •
ernist theoretical perspect:ves. Critical research
ca:i be u:1ders:ood bes: in the context of the
empowerment of individuals. lnqui~ y that aspi~es
to the name "critk:alM must he connected to an
attempt to confront the inj t:.stice of a particular
socie:y or public sphere within the society.
Research thus be com es a transformative er.deavc)r
unembarrassed b), the label"poEtical" and unafraid
to consummate a relationship with emancipatory
cnnsciousnes~. Whereas traditional researchers
cling to the guardrnil nf neutrality, eitical
rei,carchers freq ucnt'.y announce th:ir partisanship
in tl:e struggle for a better world (Grh:berg, 2003;
Horn, 20011: Kincheloe, 200 Ib).
The work of Braiilian educator Paulo Freire
is instrJ,;;t:ve i:J relation to cor:struci:ing research
that contributes to the struggl" :or a be:1:er world,
The research of both authors of tr.is ch.~pter has
been inlh:enced profoundly by the work of Freire
(1970, I972, 1978, I983 )_ Always concerned with
human suffering and the pedagogical and knowl-
edge work that hel?ed expose th~ genesis of it
Freire modeled critical research throughout hi,
career. l n his writings ahont research, Freire rnain-
taint'.d th,ll there arc no traditionally deEneri
objects of his research-he insisted on invol\·ing.
as par:ners in the research pmces,, the people he
studied as subjects. He immersed himseJ in thdr
ways of thinking and modes of perception, en emir
aging them all along tu begin thinking about their
own tninking. Everyone involved in Freire's critical
resear;;h, not just the reseatchc:. joined i.:1 the
process of investigation, examination, critkism,
and rei:1vcstigation-cveryone lee.med to sec
more critically, think at a more critical lcvr:. and to
reeogr:ize the fo:ces that subtly shape thei:- llves.
Whereas traditional researchers ,ce their task
as the description, interpretation, or reanimation
ofa slice of reality,critical 1;.;.,~'"''- often regard
their work as a first step towa~d forms of political
action that can redress the injus:kes found in :he
field site or constructed in the very act of resca:l:h
itself. Ho~kheimer (1972) pt::s it si,:ccindly wher.
he argues critka: theory and research are
never satisfied w::h merely increasi:1g knowledge
(;,ee also Agger, I 99B; Andersen. 1989; Britzrnan.
199:: Giroux, 19!!3, 1988, 1997, Kincheloe, 199 L
2003c: Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1993; Quanrz, 1992;
Sr.or, 1996; Villaverde & Ki:1chcloe, 1998). Reaearc:1
in the critical traditim: tak~~ the form of self:
conscious critidsm-self-consdous in the se:ise
that researchers t:y to become aware of the ideo•
logical imperatives and t.pistemo:ogical presup:xi•
sitio:is :ha: inform thei:' rci;earch ?.s l'!Cll as thei~
own SL:bjectivc, intersubjective, and normative
relerence claims. Thus, critical researche,s ente,
into an investigation with their assun, ptions on
the tab:e, so no one is confused concer:i: ng the
 306 111 HA!l;DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER·
epis'.erm1logical and politiml haggage they bring
with them to rhe researc'i site.
l'pon detailed analysis, critical researchers
may change these assumptions. S:imubs for
c:iange may come from the critkal researchers'
re.:ognition that such assumptions are not leading
to emar.cipa tory act ions. The source of thi.;;
emancipatory act ion involves the researchers'
abili ,y to expose the contradictions of the world
a:ipearances accepted by the dominar.t culture
as nalura! a:id inviolable (Ci :oux, 1983, I988,
1997; McLaren, 1992, 1997; San Juan, 1992; Z:zek,
l 990). Such appearances may, critica! researchers
contend, conoeal social relationsl:ips of incq nal-
ity, injt:stice, and exploitation. For insta:ice, if we
view the violence we find in classrooms r.ot as
random or isolated incidents created by abe:nmt
individuals willfully stepping out ofline in accor•
dance with a par:icular form of social pathology,
but as possible narratives of transgrelision and
resi.sta nee, then this ;;odd indicate that :he upol it-
ical unconscious" lurking beneath the surfa.:e of
everyday classroom life is not unreiated to prac•
ticcs of race, dass, ,md ger.der oppression but
rather intimately connected to them.
l!l Ai- EvoLv:NG CRITICALITY
In this con;~xt, it is irr.;;,o:-tant to note that we
ur:derstand a soc:al theory as a map or a guide to
the sockll ,,h,e•e In a research context, it does not
deterr.1ine how we see the world but helps u&
devise quesl:or:s a:id strategies for exploring it
A critical social theory is concerned in particular
with issues of power and justice and the ways that
the ecomrnl)'; matts:rs of race, das~, am: ger:der;
ideologies; discourses; education; relig:on and
other social instltntlons; ar:d cultural dynan: ics
;nteract to construct a social system (Beek-
Gern sheim, But] er, & Puigvert, 2003; Flecha,
Gomez, & Puigvert, 2003 ). Thus, in this con:ext we
seek to provide a view· of an evolvi11g criticality or
a reconceptnalizcd critical lheory. Critical theory
is never stalk; it is always evolving, changing in
light of both new theoretical ins:g:1ts and new
problems and social circumstances.
The list of concepts elucidating our articulation
of critical theory indicates a criticality informed
by a varlet yof discourses emecging after the work
of the Frankfurt School. ~ndeed, some of the theo-
retical disco:.irses, while referring to themselves
as critical, directly call into question some of
the work of Horkheimer, Adorno, anc li:arccse.
Thus, diverse theoretical traditions have infor-
med our understanding of criticality ar:d have
demanded understanding of diverse forms of
oppression indud:ng class. race, gender, sexua;,
cullural, religious, colonial, and ability-rela:ed
concerns. Tile evolv:ng notion of criticality we
present is informed by, while critiquing, the
post-discourses-for example, postmoderr.ism.
posts:rncturali.sm, and postrnlonialism. In this
context, critical theorists become detectives of
new theoretical insights, perpetually searching for
new· and interconnected ways of understanding
power ar.d oppression and the ways they s:1ape
everyday life and human experience.
1n this wntext, criticality and the research it
supports are always evolving, always encounter-
ing new ways to irritate dominant forms of power,
to provide more evocative and compelling
in.'lights. Operating in this way, an evolving criti •
caHty is always vulnerable to exclusion from the
domain of approved modes o: research. The
for:ns of social change it supports always posi-
tion it in some places as an outs'dc:-, an awkward
detective always interested in uncovering :;oda!
strnctnres, discourses, ideologies, aiic epbk-
:nologies that prop up both the stat'JS quo a:id a
variety of forms of privilege. In ;he epistemologi•
cal domain, white, male, class eli:ist, helerosexist,
i:nperial, and colonial privilege often operates by
asserting the power to claim objectivity and neu•
trality. Indeed, the owners of sucb privilege ofren
own the "frauch ise" on reason and rationality.
Pmponenrs of an evolving criticality possess a
var'ety of tools to expose such oppressive power
politics. Si:ct proponents assert that critical
theory is well-served by drawing upor. n11rr:e•
ous liberatory disco·1rses and includir:g diverse
groups of marginalized peoples and ~he:r allies in
the nonbierarchical aggregation of critical ana-
lysts (Bello, 2003; Clark, 2002; Humphr'cs, 1997).
 Kincheloe & McLaren: Rethinking Theo,y and Research • 307
In the present era, emcrgir.g forms of neocolo-
nialism ar.d :,ea-imperialism :n the United States
move critical theorists to examine the ways
America:1 power oper;des under the cover of
establishing democracies all aver the world,
Admcates of an evolving criticality argue-as we
<lo in 1mm, detail later ir: ,hi~ chapter-that such
neocolonial power must be exposed so it can
be opposed in the United States and around the
world. The An:erican Empire's justification in the
name of freedom for undermining democrat:cally
elected governments from Iran ( Kincbeloe. 2004 ),
Chile, Nicaragua, and Venewefa to Liberia (when
itll real purpose :s ,o acq:Jire gen;mlitical advan-
fur future military assaults, economic lever
in international markets, and access to
natural res1>urces) must be exposed by critical·
ists for what it ls~a ~ank irr.perialist sham
(McLaren, 200Ja, 2003b; McLaren Jaramillo,
2002; McLaren & Marti:1, 2003), Critical
researchers need to view their wor'.< :n the context
of '.iving and wor~ing in a nation-state wlth the
m(lst powerful miUtary·industrial complex in
history that is shamefully i;sing the terrorist
attacks of September l l to advance r, mthless
imperialist a~enda fueled by capita:ist accumula·
tion by :11ear:s of the rule of force (McLaren &
Farahmandpur, 2003).
Chor:, skv (2003 ), instance, has accused the
U.S. goverr.ment of the "supceme crir;ie~ of pre•
ventive war (in the case of its invasion uf Iraq, the
use of military force to destroy an invented or
imagir:etl threat) of the type was condemned
at Nu,embu :-g. Others, like his tor la n Arthur
Schlesinger (cited in Chomsky, 2003), have
likened the invasion of lraq to Japan's ''day of
infamy;' th at i~, to the policy that imperial Japar.
empluyed at the time of Pearl Harbor. David G.
Smith (2003) argues that such imperial dynamics
are supported by particular episten:ologica:
i,rms. The United States is an epistemological
e11:?ire based on a notion of truth :hat under•
mines tbe knowledges pmduced by those outside
the good graces a:1d benevo;en, authority of the
er:-ipire. Thas. in the 21st ce:1tury,critical theorists
must develop sophisticated ways to address :mt
only the ha1le materi,J relations of class rule
linked lo the mode and relations of capitalist
production ami imperialist conquest (whether
through direct military intervention or indirectly
through the creation of client states) J:Jt also :he
epistemologkai vfolence that helps discipline ,;he
world, Smith refers to this violence as a form
"information w~.rfare" th at spreads deliberate
falsehoods about cou:1tries such as Iraq and [ra;i,
U.S. corporate and governmental agents become
more sophist'cated in the use of such e?isto-
weaponry wit!: every day that passes.
Obviously, an evolving crilicality docs not
promiscuously choose rheoret:cal discourncs to
add to tr.e bricolage of critical theories. It is highly
sa~pkious-as we detail later-of lheories that
fail :o understand tr:.c malevolent workings of
power, that fail to critique rhe blinder.;; of
Eurocentrism, that cultivate an elitism of insiders
and outsiders, anc that fail to discern a global
syMe:n of inequity supported by diverse forms of
ideo'.ogy and violence. It is i;ninterestcc in any
theory-no matter !:ow fashionable-that does
not directly address the needs of vict: ms of
oppression and the suffering they must endure.
The foLowing is an elastic, ever·evolving set of
concepts included in our evolving notion of criti·
calit y. With theoretical innovations and shifting
zeitgeists, they evolve, The points that are deemed
most hr. pommt in one time period pale in rela-
tion to cifferent poir.ts in a new era.
Critical Enlightenment. In this context, critical
theory analyzes competing power imere,ts
belwc!:'ri groups and individuals within a
society-identifying wl:o gains and who loses in
S?ecifk situations, Privileged groups, critkalists
argue, often have an interc'st in support'ng the
status quo to protect their advantages; tl;e
dvnamics
, of such efforts often become a central
focus of critical research. Such studies of p~ivilege
often revolve around issues of race, dass, gender,
and sexuality (Allison, 1998; V Carter, 199!!;
HoweL '. 998; Kii:cheloe & Stei1,berg, 1997;
Kinche:oe, Steinberg, Rodriguez, & Chennault,
l 998; McLaren, 1997; Rodriguez & Villaverde,
2000; Sleeter & McLaren, : 995), In this car.text,
to critical enlightenrr.en: is to uncover the
308 111 HAI-DROOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER :2
winners and losers in particular social arrange•
ments and :he processes by which ~uc:i power
plays operate (Cary, 1996; Dei, Kammanchery, &
Karurnanc~ery-Luik, 2004; Fehr, 199 3; King, 1996;
Pruyn, 1994; Wexler, 1996a).
Critin,l Emancipatum. Those who seek emam:i
pation attem?t to gain the power to control the:r
own lives in solidarity with a Justice-oriented
community. Here, critical research attempts to
expose the fo,crs that prevent individuals and
groups from s~aping the decis:ons that cn::cially
a:fect their lives. In :his way, greater degrees of
au:onomy and human agency can be achieved.
In the first decade of the 21st century, we are
cautim:s in our ·Jse the term "emandpation»
because, as many critics have pointed out, no one
:s ever completely emancipated from :he socio·
political context :hat has produced him or her.
Conc·.irrently, many have used the te:n1 "emanci·
patlon" to signal the freedom an abstract indi-
vidual gains by gaining access to Western
reason-:hat is. becoming reasonable. Our use of
"emancipaticm" in an evo:ving criticaE:y rejects
any use of the term i:1 this context. In addition,
many have righ:l>· questioned the arrogance that
may accompany efforts to emancipate "others."
These are important caveats and must be care•
fall y taken into account by critical researchers.
Thus, as critical inc_uirers who search for those
forces that i:isidi Olisly shape who we are, we
re5pect those who re.ach dlferent conclusions in
their ~rsonal journeys (Butler, : 998; Canne[a,
1997; Kc:iogg, l 998; Knobel, 1999; Str:i nberg &
Kincheloe, 1998; Weil, 1998 ).
The N.ejec1frm of Economic Determinism. A caveat
of a reconceplualized critical theory involves the
insistence that the traditio:1 does not accept the
orthodox N:a:xist notio:1 that "base» determines
"si..pers trueture"-meanm& · tl1at e;.vmim1c
· fac-
tors dictate the nature of all other aspects of
human existence. Critical theorists :mderstand
in the 21st century that there are multiple forms
of power, including the aforementioned racial,
gender, and sexual axes of domination. In issuing
this caveat, however, a rcconcep!Ualized critical
theory in no way attempts to argue that economk
factors are unimportan: in the shaping of every-
day life. Economic factors can never be separated
from other axes of oppression (Aronowitz &
DiFazio, 1994; Carlson, 1997; Gabbard, 1995; Gee,
Hull, & Lankshear, 1996; Gibsor., 1986; Kbcheloe,
I 995, l 999; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999; Martin
& Sd1t:.man, 1996), Mechanistic forruulutio:1s of
economic determinism are often misreadings of
tile work of Marx. McLaren's work, fir ir.stance,
does not re,ect the base/su::;erstrnclu:-e model
' '
tour aiurt, but o:1Jy undialectical forrr.ulations o:
it (See Mclaren & Farahr:1andpur, 200 I),
The Critique of Instrumental or ledmiwl
R.ationaiity. A recoc1ceptualized critical theory
sees inslmmcntalltechnkal rationality as one of
the most oppressive features of contemporary
society. St:.ch a form of "hyper-reason'' involves
an obsession with means i:l preference tn ends.
Critical :heorlsts daim that instrumental/technical
rationality is more interested in method and effi-
ciency than in purpose_ It delimits its topics to
"how tob instead of "why should?' In a research
context, critical theo~ists claim that many ratio·
nalistic scholars become so obsessed with issues
of technique, procedure, and correct r:m:hod that
they forget the humanistic purpose of the
research acl. I:'lstrun~en:al!technical rationality
often separates fact from value in its obsession
with «propern method, losing in the process
an understanding of tl:e value C:li):c,:s always
involved in the product:on of so called facts
(Alfino, CapJt(I, & \'Vynyard, 1998; Giroux, 1997;
Hinchey, 1998; Kincheloe, 1993; McLaren, 1998;
Ri:zer, 1993; Stalla":Jrass, 1996; M. Weinstein,
1998).
The Concept of Immanence. Critical theory is
always concerned with what could be, what is
immanent in various ways of thinking and per-
ceiving_ Thus, c,itical theory should always move
beyond contemplative realc1 to concrete social
reform. In the spirit of Paulo Freire, our nut:011 of
an evolving critical theory possesses imrr:anence
as it imagines new ways to ease human suffering
ar:d produce psychological health (A.M,A. r'reire,
 Kinc':eloe &: Mclaren: Rr1hinking Theory and Research 11 3'J9
200 I; Slater, Fain, & Rossano, 2002). Critical
immar.ence helps us get beyond egocentrism and
ethnocentrism and work to bni1d new forms of
relationship with diverse peoples. Leila ViUaverce
(2003) extends this ;mint about immanence when
she rr:aint:ains 7hat critical theory r.elps U.5 "retain
a vision of the not In the work of the
Frankfurt Sdrnol critical theory and the
hermeneutics of Hans•Georg Gadamer (1989) we
find this concern with immanence. Gadamer
argues that we must be more cautious in our
efforts to determine "what is" benmse it ;mlds
suc:1 dra:natic consequences for how we engage
"what ough: w ·:ie:' Ir: Gadamer's view, :he process
of understanding ir.volves interpredng meaning
and applying the concepts gained :o the historical
moment :hat races us, ,'bus, immanence in the
context of qi:alitative research involves the us,;: of
human wisdom in the process of b,inging about
a bette: and more just world, less sufferi:lg, and
r.iore individual fulfillment. With this no:ion
mind, critical theorists critique researchers whose
ocholarly work operates to adapt individuals to
the world as it is, ln :he t:ontext of immanence,
critical researchers are pmfouncly rnr.cemed
with who we are, how we got this way, and where
we might go from here (Weil & Kincheloe, 2003 ),
A Reconceptua!ized Critical Theory of Power:
fiegemony. Our conception of a reconceptualized
critical theory is intensely concerned with thl'
need to understand the various and complex ways
that power operates 10 dominate and shape con•
sdousness, Power, critical 6eo:ists :iave learned,
i~ an extremely ambiguous topic that demands
detailed stucy and analysis, A consensus seems to
he emerging among criticalists that power is a
basic wnstituent of human existence that works
to shape the oppressive and productive na lure of
the human tradition. Indeed, we are all empow
ered and we are all unempowered, in that we all
possrss abilities and we are all limited in the
attempt to nse our abilities, Because of limited
space, we wi:1 here on critical theory's tradi•
tio;ial concern with the oppressive aspects of
power, although we understand that an impor•
tant .1spect of crifcal research fornses on the
prodac:ive s.«,Prt< of power-its ab:lity to
empower, to establish a cr:tical ceoocracy, to
engage marginalized people in the rethinking of
their sodopolitkal role (Apple, 1996; Fiske, 1993;
A,M,A. Freire, 2000; Giroux, 1997; Macedo, 1994;
Nicholson & Seidman, 1995). In the context of
oppressive ?OWer and its abilily to produce
inequalities and hurr:an suffering, Antonio
Gramsci's notion of hegemony is central to crit'cal
research, Gramsd understood t:1at dom inanl
power ill the 20th century was not always exer•
ci sed simply by physical force but also was
expressed through social psychological attempts
to wi:l people's consent to domination through
cultural institutions such as the media, the
schools, the family, and the diurch, Gramsdan
hegemony recognizes that tl:e winning of popular
consent is a very complex process and mast be
researched carefnlly on a case•by•case basis,
Stmlents and researc'1e:1S of power, educators,
sodologi,.;ts, all of us are hegemonized as our field
of knowledge and i:nderstanding is st::uctured by
a limited exposnre to competing definitions of the
sociopo'. itkal wurld, The hegemonic field, with its
bounded sociopsychologka: hor'zons, garr.ers
consent to an inequitable power matrix-a sel of
soda] relations that are legitimated ':iy their
depiction as natural and inevitable. In thls con•
text, c:itkal researchers note that hegemonic con•
sent is never corr. ?le,ely established, as it is always
contested by various groups with different agen-
das (Grossberg, 1997; Lull, 1995; McLaren, l995a,
1995h; McLaren, Hammer, Reilly, & Sholle, 1995;
West, 1993). We note here that Gmmsci famously
understood Marx's concept of laws of tendency as
Implying a new immanence and a new conception
necessity a:id freedom that cannot be grasped
within a mechanistic mndel of determination
(Bensaid, 2002),
A Reconceptualized Crirical Theory of Power:
Ideology, Critical theoris,s understand that the
formation of hegemony cannot be separated from
the productior: of ideology, If hegemony is the
larger effort of the pow~rful to win the consent of
their "subordinates:' then ideological hegemony
invol ,es the cultural fonns, the meanings, the
 310 D K".NDBOOK OF Ql:M.'TATIVE RESEARCH-CH,\PTER 12
rituals. and the representations that produce
consent to ::ie status quo and i:idividuals' par:k-
ular places w:,hin it. Ideology vis-a-vis hegemony
moves critical inqi:i rers beyond explanations of
domination that have used terms such as "propa-
ganda'' to describe th ways media, political, edu-
cational, and other sodocultura: productions
coerdvelv manipu:ate citizens lo adopt oppressive
meanings. A reconceptualized critical research
endorses a much more s:.ibtle, ambiguoi;s, and
situat:oca[y specific form of domination that
refuses the propaganda model's assm'1ption th a~
people a:e passive, easily manipulated victims,
Researchers operating v,ith an awa:I:ness of this
hegemonic ideology m:de,stand that dominant
ideological p:11ctices and d isrn1:rsrs shape our
vision of reality (lemke, 1995, 1998), Thus, our
not:on of hegemonic ideology is a critical form
of epistemological am~tructi vism buoved hy a
nuanced understanding of power's complicity in
the oonstr:.1ctions peop:e make of fae world and
their role i11 it ( Kincheloe, 1998). Such an aware-
ness correct, earlier delineations of ideology
as a monolithic, unidirectional entity that was
imposed on individuals by a secret cohort of
ruling-da.s.5 czars. Understanding domination in
the context of concurrent struggles among difler-
c:1t c,a,sse,s, racial ai:d gender groups, and sectors
of capital, critical researchers of :ceology explore
the ways such compel:tion engages different
visions, interests, and agendas in a variety of
social locales-vem:es previously thought to he
outside the domain of ideo,ogical struggle
(Brosio, I994; Steir.berg, 2001}.
A Reconcepttuilized CriticaI Theory of Power:
Li11guistic/Disc11ni11e Power. Critical researchers
have com;;; to understand that language is not a
mirror of society. :: is a:1 unstable social practice
whose meaning shifts, depending u?on the con-
text in w:iich it :s used. Cuntrary to previous
understandings, crit:cal researchers appreciate the
fact that ;ar,guage ls not a neutral and objective
conduit of descrlption of the "real world:' Rather,
:rom a critical perspective, linguistic descrl?tions
are :mt simply about the work but serve to con•
stru c, ii. ,•lith these linguistic notions in mind,
criticallsts begin to study the way language in the
form of discourses serves as a form of regulation
and domination. Discursive practices are deEned
,is a set of tacit rules that regulate what can and
cannot be said, wl:o can spei< with the blessings
of authority and who must :isten, wl:o~e soda:
cons:ructions are valid am! whose are errooenus
and unimportant In an educational context, for
example, legitimated discourses of power insidi-
ously tell educators what books may be read by
students, what ir:strnctional methods may be uti-
lh:ed, and what belief systems and views of success
may be taught In all forms of research, discursive
power validates particular research strategies,
nar:ative format~, a:id modes of representation.
]n this context, power discourses undermine th1e
mult'pk mea:1ings of '.,mguage, establishing one
correct reid:ng that implant~ a particJ!~r hege-
monlc/ideologica'. 11:essage into the consdoi:sness
of the reader. This 's a process often refeir~d tu as
the attempt tu impose dis~urs:ve dusu,e. Critical
researche:s interested in the conslructio:1 of
consdousr.ess are very attentive to these powc:-
uynarnics, Engaging and q;iestioni11g tl:e US('
value of pa:ticular :heories of power is centra; to
our notion of ar: evolving criticality (Blades, J997;
Gee, 1996; Lemke, 1993; McWilliam & Taylor,
1996; Morgan, 1996; Stein'ierg, 2001 ).
Fornsmg on the Relationihips Among Cullum,
Power. and Domination. In the last decades of the
21lth century; culture took on a new importance in
the critka1effo~I to unde::stand power and domi-
nation. Cri:ical researchers have argued that cul-
turt> has to be viewed as a domain of struggle
where the production and transmission of knowl-
edge is always a conte,!al p,ncess (G:roux, 1997;
Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997; McLaren, l 997:
Steinberg Kincheloe, 1997), l)ominant and sub-
ordinate cultures deploy differing systems of
meaning tiased on the forms of knowledge
duced in their cultural domain. Popular culture,
witb TV, movies, video game,, computers,
music, dance, other productions, plays an
incrcasi:1gly inport• nt role 'n c,itical research
on power and domination. Cultural studies, of
cot:rse, occupies an ever-cxpa:iding role ir: this
 K::icheloe & Mc~rcn: Rethir.king 11ieory and Researcl1 111 311
mntext, as iL examines not only popular culture
but also the :adt rules that guide culmral produc ·
ton. Arguing that the development of mass nedia
has changed the way the c·Jlture operates, cultural
studies researchers maintai::J that cultural episte-
mologics ir: the firnt decade of the 2 Ist century
are different from those of only a few deoules ago.
New forms of culture and cJ\ :ural dombation .l.re
produced as the disth:ction between the xal and
simulated :s blurrec. :bis blurring effect of
hyperreality constructs a social vertigo character-
ized by a loss of touch with traditional notions of
time, comr:iunity, self, and history. New structures
of cultural space and t: me generated by bombard-
ing electronic images from local, nalional, a:1d
'nternat io:1al spaces shake our pcn;or:al sense of
place, This proliferation of signs and images
:ions as a mechar:ism of control in contemporary
Western societies. The key :o S'Jcces!.ful counter-
;1egen:: onk cultural research involves (a) the
abmty to link the production uf representations,
images, and signs of hyperreality to power :n the
political economy a:1d (b) the capacity, once this.
linkage is ex posed and des.::ribcd, to delineate the
highly mmplex effects of the reception of these
images and on individi.:.als located at vari-
ous race, class, gender, and sex·Jal coordinates
in the web of reality (R. C,.arter, 2003; Cary, 2003;
l'erguson & Golding, I 997; Ga,nha:n, . 997;
Grn,sberg, 1995; ta..:ksou & Russo, 2002; Joyrich,
1996; O'Riley, 2003; Rose & Kin..:heloc, 2U03;
Sanders-Bustle, 2003; Steinberg, 1997:1, 1997b;
:'hon:as, l 997; 'vl.'exler, 2000 ).
The Centrality offnterprcf(ltio11: Critical Herm,mcu-
One of the most important aspects. of a critical
theory-informed qualitative research involves
the often-neglected domuin of the interpretation of
information. The critical hermeneutic tradition
(Grondin, 1994; Gross & Keith,1997; Rosen, 19!\7;
Vat1:Do, 1994) holds that in c;ualitative research,
there is only interpretdon, no :natter how vocifor-
ously many researchers :nay a:sgue that the facls
speak for themselves. The hermeneutic act of
interpretation involves, in its most elemental ar!:c-
ulation, making sense of what has bfen ohsrrved
in a way that communica:es understar:ding. Kot
only is all research merely an act of :nt<:rprctation,
but, hermeneutics contends, perception itself is an
act of interpretation. Thus, the qucs: for under-
standing is a fundamental feature of 1::mnrn exis
tence, as encounter with the u:1familia, always
demands the atten1pt to make meaning, tu make
sense. The same, however, is also the n1se with the
familiar, Jr.deed, as in the sti:dy of comr.10n;y
known texts, we come to fine that sometimes the
familiar may be seen ,rn the most strange. Thus, it
should not be sur:,rising even the so-callee.
objec:ive writings of cualitative research are int:er-
pretatior.s, not value-free d!:!lcriptions (Deniin,
1994; Gallagl:er, 1992; ra:ttine, 1998; Mayers, 2001;
D. G. Smith, :999). Learning from :he hermene·Jtk
tradition and the postr:rnde:n critique, critical
researchers have beg:m to reexamine textual
claims to authority. '.'lo prb:ine intt"l'prctatim:
exists-indeed, no mefhodoloi:,,y, social or edu-
cational theory, or d:scursive form can dai m a
privileged position that enables the production of
authoritative k:iowledge, Researchers must always
spea..{/ write about the world in tem:s of somcthi:11:,
else h1 1he world, "in relatlo:1 to .. :• As rrr,1tures
of the ,,orld, we a:-e or:ented to it in a way tha:
prevents us from grounding our theories and per-
spectives outoidc it. The critical hern:e r:eutics
that grormds critical ,;ualJative research moves
more in the direction of a rmrmalive hermeneutics
in that it :-aises quest'o:1.s ahout the p'..lrposes
and procedures of in:erprctation. 1n its crl1ka!
theory-drivci: context, the purpose ofhermencuti-
rnl analysis is lo develop a form of ci:JL!ral criti-
cism revealing power d)•namics witl:i n social and
ci::mral te~:ts, Qualitative researchers fa:niliar with
critical hermenet:.~ics build bridges betwec11 reader
and text, text and its producer, historical conten
and present, and one partk:r:1ar social ci:cu:n-
sta:ice and amitl:er. Accomplishing such inter-
pretive tasks is difficult, and researchers situa!ed
in normative hermeneulics push ethnographers,
historic.as, sc:n ioticians, Eterary er itics, and
content analysts to trace the bridge-bnilding
processes employed hy successfi:. interpxtations
of knowledge prod·Jct:on and cultt:.re (Gallagher,
1992; Kellner, 1995; Kogler, 1996; Rapko, 19':!8).
Grounded by this hcrmeue:itkal bridge building,
 a J:ANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH --CH fl. PIER 12
er itica: researchers in a hermeneutkal drde
(a process of analysis in whid1 interpreters see:.. the
historical and soc:al dynamics that shape textual
interpretation) engage iii the back •and-forth of
studying parts in relation to the whole and the
w:io!e in relation to parts, Deploying such
a methudulugy, critical researchers can produce
profou:id insights that lead :o transfo:-mative
action (Berger, 1995; Cary, 1996; Clough, 1998;
Coben,1998; Gadarner, 1989; Goodson, . 997;
Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; Miller & Hodge, 1998;
Mullen, L999; Peters &Lankshear, 1994).
The Role of Culrural Pedag()gJ' in Critical Theary
Cultural production often can be thought of as a
fo:m of educatior:, as it generates knowledge,
shapes values, ar.d constructs identity. rrom our
perspect've, sL:cl: a framing can help critical
researchers make sense of the world of don:ination
aud oppression as they work to bring about a more
just, democratic, and egalitarian society. In reeem
yea,s, this educational dynamic has been refer:eci
to as cultural ?edagogy (l:lerry, 1998; Glru JX, 1997;
Kincheloe, 1995; McLarer:, I 997; Pailliotet, I998;
Semali, 199!!; Soto, l 998). "Periagogy" is a useful
ler:n that traditionally bas been u,ed to re:er only
to teach Ing aid ,..:hooling. By usi:ig the term
tural pedagogr,' we are specifically referring to the
ways particular cultural agents produce particular
hcgcrr.o:iic w.1ys of seeing. In our critical inter-
pret:ve context, our notion of cultural pedagogy
asserts faat the new "educators" in the clectroni•
cally wired contempor.i:y era are :hose who pos
sess the financial reso~rces to use mass mcc_ia.
T:its corporate•domi:ia,ed pedagogical process
has worked so well that few complain about it in
the Erst decade of the 21st rentury-such infor•
mational polil ics doesn't make the evening news.
Can we imagine ano:her institution in contempo-
rary society ga 1ning the pedagogical power that
corporat:ons now assen over information and sig•
nification systems? What if the Unuch of Christ
was sufficiently pmverful to run pedagogical "com•
mercia!s" every few minutes or: TV and radio tout·
lng the necessity for everyone to accept that
denomination's faith? Replayed s.:enes of Jews,
MlL~lir:io, Hindus, Catholics, and Methodists being
condemned to 'leJI if they rejected the official
pedagogy (the true doctrine) woi:.:d greet North
Americans a,1d :heir children 7 days a week. There
is little doubt that many people would be outraged
and would organize for political action. Western
societies have lo some degree rapitulated to this
corporate pedagogical threat to democracy, pas-
sively watching an elite gain greater cunlrol over
the political system arid political consciousness
via a sophisticated cuJtura: pedagogy. Critical
researcl:ers are intent on exposing the specifics of
this prncess (Deetz, :993; Drummond,
Kincheloe, 2002; Molnar, 1996; Ffeil, 1995; Rose &
Kinc"ieloe, 2003; Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1997).
l!I. CIUTJCAL RESEARCH
AND CtT11:RAL STUDllcS
Cultural s:udies is an :nterdiscipli:ia;y, transdisd•
plinary, and sometimes counterdisdplinary f:eld
that functions w::hin the dynar:1ics of cornpetir.g
definit:orn; of culture. [r:!ike traditional lmmanis•
tk studies, cultural studies q~estions the equa·
tion of culture with high culture; instead, cU:mral
studies asserts that myriad expressions of n:'.tural
prociuct'or: should be a.1.a:yzed in relation to other
caltural dynam;cs and social and historical struv
lures. Such a position commits rnltural studies
to a potpourri of artistic, religious, political,
economic, and commur:icative activities. In this
cor:text, it is impor:ant to note that although
cu:mral studies i,; a~sociated with the study of
popular culture, it is not pr;marily about pop·Jlar
culture. The interests of cultural st1,;d ies are much
broader and generally tend to involve the produc•
:ion and nature of the rules of indusivity and
exclusivity faat guide academic evaluation-in
particular; the way these rules shape and are
shaped by relations of power. The rules that guide
academic evah:.ation are inseparable from the
rnles of knowledge production and research.
Thus, cultural studies provides a disciplinary cri•
tique tha:: ho'.ds many implications {Abercrombie,
IYY4; Ferguson & Golding, 1997; Grossberg, 1995;
Hall & du Gay, 1996; Kincheloe, 2002; McLarc:i,
l 995.a; Oherhardt, 200 I; Wood,,>ard, 1997).
 K!::cheloe & McLaren: Refainklng Theory an<l Research Ill 313
One of 11:e most important of theoretical
production ln the histO;J' of critical researc:1
has been the Centre for Contempornry Cuhura,
Studies (CCCS) at tne University of Birm;ngham,
Attempting to con :iect critical theory with the
particularity of everyday experience, the CCf,S
re~earchers have argued that all experience is
vulnerable to ideological inscription. At the same
time, they have li'.aintaim:d that theo::izing outside
everyday experience resalt, tn formal and deter•
ministic faeory. An excellent representative of
the CCCS's pcrspective5 is Pai.;i Willis, whose
Leaming to Labour: How W.1rking Class Kids Get
Working fobs ,,ras published in 7 years
after Colin l.acey\ Hightowri Grammar (1970),
Reriefining :be nature of ethn()grapl:ic research in
a critical manner, Learning Jo l,alwur in,pired a
spate of cri:ical stud:es: Davi<! Robins and Philip
Cohen's Knuckle Sandwiih: Growing Up in the
Workilig•C1£1ss City in 1978, Pau; Corrigan's
Schooling the Sma,;h Street Kids in : 979, and Dick
Hebdige's Subculture: The Meaning of Sty/,: in
1979, A'.so following Willis's work were critical
feminist studies, including an anthology titled
Wome11 l'i,ke lsme (Women'. Studies Group, : 978 )_
In 1985, Christbe Griffin published 1}pica! Girls?,
the first extended femi:1ist stucy produced by the
CCCS. Conceived as a :-i:sponse to Willis's J,earnirig
w labour, Typical Girls? analyies adolescent
female consciousness as it is .::onstructed in a
world of patriarchy, Through their recognition of
patriarchy as a major disdpiinary ;echnology h
the production sub; ectivil y, Griffin and the
members of the CCCS gcncer study g~oup moved
critical research in a multicultural direction.
ln addition to the examir.ation of class, gender
and racial ar.alyses are begir.ning to gab in
importance (Qmmtz, 1992). Postst:m:1uralism
frames power not simply as one aspect of a
society but aJl the basis of society. Thus, patria::chy
is not simply one isolated force among marry with
which women must co:ttend; patriarchy informs
all aspects of the social and e~ectively shapes
women's lives (see also Douglas, 1994; Finde:-s,
1997; Fine, Powell, 'W;;is, & Wong. 1997; Fran-
kenberg, l 9'l3; Franz & Stewart, 1994; Shor.at &
Stam. :994). Corne! West (l993J pushes critical
research even fur:her into the r:rnllicultural
domain as he focuses critical ,mention on women,
the Third World, and race. Adop:ing :hcoretica!
advances in neo-.Marxist postco 1on'.al:st criticism
and cultural studies, he is able to shed greater light
on t!-ie workings of power in everyday life.
In th is context, Lad isl au~ ::iemali and Joe
Kincheloe, in What Is Imiigenous Knowledge
Voices from t.~e Academy (I 9991, explore the
power of indigenous knowledge as a resource for
critical attempts to bri:ig about sodul change,
Cr:~ical researchers, they a~gue, should analyzt'
such knowledges in order to understand emo-
tiuns, sensitivities, and epister.10\ogie.s that :nove
in ways unimagined by many Western knowledge
producers. In thi~ postcolonially infurrr:ed con-
text, Semali and Kincheloe employ con~rns
raised by indigenous kno,,.,tedge to cha]enge 6.e
academy, its "r:ormal science:' and its accepted
notions of certified information. Moving the con•
versation about crltkal re sea rd: in new <lirec tions,
these authors understar:d the conceptual insepa-
rability valuing indige:ious knowledge, devel-
oping postcolonial forms of resistance, academk
reiorn:, the teco,i,.;eptualization of research and
interpretation, and the struggle for soda! justice.
In Sclrnoling as a Ritual Performance, Peter
Mclan:n ( 1999) integrates poststructn::alisl,
postcolon:a\ist, and Marxist theory with t:ie pro-
jects of cultural studies, critical pedagogy, and
critical ethnography. He grounds his theoretical
analysis in the poststructu:alist claim that ~he
connection of signifier a:1d signified is arbitrary
yet shaped by historical, cultural, a:1d economic
foxes, The primary cultural narrative that defines
school life is the resistance by students to the
school's atten:pts to marginalize their street cul·
~nre and strce: knowledge. McLaren analyzes
the school as a cult·Jral site where symbolic capl•
ta! is struggled over in the form of ritual dra•
mas, Sclwo/il'lg as 11 Ritual Performance adopts
the position that res~arc'.1ers are unable to grasp
themselves or others ir.trospectively 'll"ithoul
social mediation through their positionaldes
with rt:spect lo race, class, gender, and other con-
figcrntions. The viscera:, bodily forms of knowl
edge, and the rhythm~ and ge.~rnres of the street
314 111 HAKDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 12
cultu~e of the students, are distinguished from the
formal abstract knowledge of classroom instruc•
tion. The teachers regard knowledge as it is con•
stn:cted informally outside the c;ilture of school
instruction as threatening to the m:iversalist and
decidedly Eurocentric ideal of high culture that
forms the ba::.is uf the school curriculmn.
As critical researchers pursue the reconceptual •
ization of critical theory pushed by its synergistic
relationship with cultural s:udies, postmodernism,
and post.structuralism, they are confronted with
the ?()St-discourses' redefinition of critical notions
of democracy in terms of mi::tiplicity and dif·
ference. Traditional notions of mmmunitv often
privllege unity over diversity in the name of
Enlightenment value.~. Poststructuralists in general
and poststructuralist feminists in particular see
this comn:un itarian dream as politically disabling
::iecause of the suppression of race, class, and gen•
der differem;es and !he exclusion of subaltern
voices and marginalized grui:ps w:1om commu!1 ity
members are loath to engage. Wnat begins to
emerge in this instar.ce is the move:nent of femi-
nist theoretical co:1cerns to t'te center of critical
theory. Indeed, after the feminist critique, critical
:heory car. never return to a paradigm inquiry
in whkh the concept of soda! dass is antiseptically
privileged and exalted as the master concept in the
Holy Trinity of race, class, and gender.
A critical theory reconceptuahzed by post·
structuralism and fe:ninism promotes a politics of
difftrence that refuses to par:iologize or exotidze
the Ober. fo this context, co• munities are more
prone lo revitalization and revivification (Wexler,
1996b, 1997); peripheralized groups in rhe thrall
a condescending Eurocentric gaze are able to
edge closer to the borders of respect, and ~dassi"
fled" objects of resea,ch potentially acquire the
characteristics of subjecthood. Kathleen Weiler's
Women Teaching for Change: Gel'!der, Class, and
Po·;;er (1988) serves as a good example of critical
re.search framed by femi:list theory. Weiler shows
not only huw femin :st theory can extend crifical
researc.:i but a:so how the cor:cepl of emandpa
tfon can he remnceptualized in light of a femln:s!
epistemology. [n th is context, we dearly obsen•e
the way our notion of an evo: vbg criticality
operates. Criticalists inform :10ststrJcturalist.~ and
reminists, w:10 in tum critique and extend the
subject matter and fae approach of more lrad1 ·
tional forms of critical reseaxh. Though not
al ways without contention, such a p:ucess is in the
long•term interests of a vibrant critical theory that
continues to ;natter in the wor:d (Aronowitz &
Giroux, I99 I; Behar & Gordon, 1995; Bersani,
1995; Brents & Monson, 1998; lkitzmar., 1995;
Christian-Smith & Keelor, 1999; Clattcrbaugh,
1997; Clough, 1994; Cooper, 1994; Hedley, 1994;
fo:mson, 1996; Kelly, 1996; King & Mitcl:ell, 1995;
Lugor:es, I 987; Maher & letreai;::, 1994; Mormw,
1991; Rand, I 995; Scott, I 992; Sedgwick. 1995;
Steinberg, t997b; I. Young, :990).
In the last few years, Nom:an Der:zin (21JU3) has
i:litia:ed a major tr:m in cultural studies with his
notion of a perfor:native ethnography. As a critical
and emancipatory discourse, a performative cul-
tural studies connec:s Giroux's, McLaren's, and
Kincheloe's articulations of critical pedagogy wit!::
r:ew ways of writing and performing cultural poli-
Denzin carefully argues that performan:e•
based human disc:pJnes can catalyze democra:ic
social change. Moving like the coyote :rickster,
De:1zir. proposes a cultural studies of ac:ion tl:at
decenter& rnbjectivity as it ques:ions the status q·Jo.
Defining perfor:nance as an "act of inttrve:ition, a
method of resistance, a forn:: c::iticism, a way of
revealing agency" (p. 9), De:1zin shapts his notion
of performativity in the spiri: of He:1ry Giroux',
(2003) work in cultura: studies and critical peda·
gogy. Performance i:1 cultural studies becomes
public pedagogy when it employs the a1,;sthe:k and
perforrnative in :he effurt to portray the interac-
tions. co!lnecting politics, institutions, and experi·
ence. Thus, performance for Denzin becomes a
form of human agency that brings individuals
together with culture in an enacted manner.
Den zin's importan: ideas intersec: with Peter
Reason and William Torberts (200 I) concept of thr
action turn. In the action tum, Reason anc 'forbcrt
reconceptuali:!.e the nature and purpose of social
science_ Because :mman ':)e'ngs, they tell us,
are all participating actors 111 the world, :he
pose of inc;ui ry is not simply or even prin:arily
tn contribute to the fund of know:edge a field,
tti decn:1struct taken-tor-granted realities, or even
 Ki:icheloe & McLaren: Reth inking Theory and Research Ill 3I5
to develop emancipatcry theory, but rather to forge
a more direct link hct1vecr. i n:ellectual knowlecge
and mcment•t<l•moment personal and social
aclion, so that inquiry contributes directly to the
1ourishing of h;;:nan persons, rommunities,
and the ecosystems of which they are part. (,i. 2}
In this context, we find an interse<;tion
'.Je:ween Denzin';; performativity and the snift to
action frorr. social science's e1:1phasis on abstract
knowledge. In both articulations, the focus of
social research is critical, as it focuses on the
improvement of the human condition, commu•
uity development, and the strengthen:ng of the
ecosystems in whicn people a:id co:nmunities
operate. In this S?irit, Denzin, in Peiformative
Ethnography (2003 ), uses racism as an example
of a problem t:ta: can be addrt>ssec by a critical
performative social science. Connecting his work
to the research of W.E.B. DuBois and bell hooks,
Denzin seeks to write and perform cult:.iral
dynamics around race in innovative ways. In fafa
contex:, positions political acts as pedagogical
and performative. ln this way, the researcher
opens fresh ver:ues for democra.tk citizenship
and t:-ansfonr:ative dialogue. In light of the racial
violence of the contemporary era, Denzin applies
his performative ethnography to he'.p us imagine
alternative soda: realities, new rr:odes o: discourse,
and ~resh experiences in schools, workpla.:es,
wilderness areas, and other public. spaces.
T:ius, Denzin pushes cultural studies and its
attendant criticality that moves from texti;al
ethnography to a perfor:native autoethnograpby,
while connecting it to critical pedagogy's concept
of making the poli!kal more pedagogica: and
rhe pedagogical more political. Critical in the way
it confronts mainstream ways of knowing and
representing the world, Denzin's perfurmativity
is better tailored to engage postcolonial and sub-
a'. :em cultural practices. In addi :ion to rnnnect •
ing to the action Iurn in research documented by
Reason and Torbert, Denzin's performativity also
connects to Hamberto Mautai:,rana and P;--,;1ndsco
Varela's Santiago school of Enac:ivis.:n in cognitive
theory. If performance ethnography and cultural
studies highlig'lt immed:acy and involvement,
then Enactivisms cor,cern with the importance of
enacting cognilio11 in the comp lex ity and
complications of lived experience can possibly syn-
ergi2e o·Jr insights into the realm of performance.
With the help of the social, pedagogical, political,
and cogr:itive theories, critical researchers begin
to understa:id that the social wo~ld may be rr:o~e
complex than we have been ~aught Denzin's per·
formativity helps us get closer to this complexi:y.
T'.1is i:iteraction connecting performance
ethnography, the action tu:n, and ;;;nactivis:n
moves critical researchers :o explore their work
in relation to recent inquiry abou: our evolving
view of the human mind. Looking at tl:e concep:
of mind from biological, psychological, a:id social
perspectives, Enactivists begin the reparation
process necessitated by the Western :ationa.Hstic
abslJ'actio:i, reduction. and fragmentation of the
world. When Enactivism is added to our notion
of an evolving criticality, we emerge with a pow-
erful grounding for a reconceptualization of the
research act. Kincheloe and Steinberg ( l 993,
1996, 1999) and nu:nerous other cognitive theo-
rists have argued, in t:1e spirit of Lev Vygotsky,
over the last two decades, that cognition and
the knowledge it produces arc socially situated
activities take place :n concrete historical
si:uations (Kind1eloe, 2003b), Varela adds to this
description, arguing that ii is in the particular
historical circumstance that we real 'ze who we are
and what we can become. Indeed, we realize our
cognitive capabilities in the specific concrete
cumstance while concurrently gaining the power
to irr.agi r:e what capabilities we can develop.
As criticalists engage l)enzin's perfor:nativity,
the a.ct ion tum, and Enact ivist principles of
systemic seli-organization (autopoiesis ), critical
reseaxh moves into a new zone of emergent
complexity. In this context, when advocates uf
a critical form irn:;uiry use the term "trans·
formal:ve ac:ion:' they gain a deeper sense of
what this might mean using the enactivist concept
of readiness-for-action. Knowledge must be
enacted-understood at the level of huoan
beings' affect a;1d intellect In a critical rnntext, the
k."l.owledge we procuce must be enacted in light
our individuai and collective struggles. With
,rJt this dimension, the research ac: becomes a
rather abstract ente~prise. Nuthing r.ew emerges,
3:6 \I. HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTE:l 12
as knowledges and concepts are merely produced
rather than related to one another and enacted
(performed) in the wor'.d. In this rnacted mntext,
Denzin argues, cultural studies develops a new
way of encountering the cosmos. Epistemological
notions of perfo,mance and performativily enter
into a dynamic tension between doing and the
done, tr.e s<lying and the saic. In this productive
tension, distance and detachment are overcome
in the act of perforn:ing. Improvisation, a ke)•
dymu:ik h: all these intersecting discourses of
t1;quiry, const;11ct, the n:omen: where resistance
emerges, where the doing and the done r:1erge.
:11 Ibis per formative, action-oriented moment,
criticalists escape the cor:finc,; oi the stale debate
between ;:msitivist empiridsm and poMmodern
inrerptetivism. A new dawn breaks for our evolv-
ing criticality and research in cultural studies, as
researchers study themselves in rdation tu uther:s
in fae effort to prudace a practical fo,m of knowl-
edge represented in an action-orien:ed, per"'orma-
tive manner.A new performa:ive, action-orier:tec,
and E.nactivist -informed paradigm helps critica:
researchers develop r.cw ways of inqu:ring
in action-based everyday in:c~actinns and live.!
processes. These interactions and processes are
always "sensuous anc contingent:• Der:zin notes.
11; order for an eth1:ographer or crdt ural stuilies
researcher to cepresent such dy nam ks, new
modes of research are necessary. By definition, the
per:ormative ethnography that Denzin offers shat•
lers the tex~ual conventions traditionat:y have
operated to represent lived exper:ences. Critkal
ethnography <lnd cultural studies will never be
same after performativity and the ?articipatory
epistemology on whk:1 it is bas1:d explode the
bound.iries of acceptable research practice.
Ill CRITICAL RESEARCH
E'ICOIJNTl'RS THE BRICOLAGE
t:sing the concept of brko:age, as articulated by
the editors of this handbook, :forman Denzin and
Yvonna Lincoln, Joe Kincheloe develops the
notion as an extensior: of tbe concept of evolving
c:lticallty developed in ~his chapter. Lincoln and
Denzin use the term in the spirit of Claude
Levi-Str.mss (1966) and his leng:hy dscus,iun of
it i:l The Savage Mind. The French word brirnleur
describes a handv:nan or handvwoman who
. '
makes use of the tools available to complete a task
( Harpe~, 1987). Some mnnotat io:1s of the term
involve trickery and cun:, ing and remind me of
the chicanery of Hermes, ir. ?articular his ambi-
guity concerning the n:essagcs of the gods. If
hermeneu:ics ca:ne to connote the ambiguity and
slipperiness of textual meaning, then bricolage
can also imply the fictive and imaginative ele
ments of the presentation cf all for:nal research.
Indeed, as cultural studies of science have :r:di-
catctl, all scientific inquiry is jer~y-rigged to a
degn:."e; sdcr:cc, as we a:J know by m1w, is not
nrarly as dean, simple, and procedural as sc.ien-
tists woi;:d have us believe. Maybe this is an
admis~io:1 that many in our ffo:d would wish lo
keep ii: ,he dosrt.
In the fl :-st decade the 21st century, brko·
lage typically is understood to iuvolve fae proce.ss
of err:p'.oying these methodolog'rnl strategies
as they arc needec: in the unfolding context of the
n.'liearch siluati nn. While this ir::erdisciplinary
feature is centra: to ar.y :1otion of the b~icolage,
crit:ca! qualitative researdlers must go beyond
this cynamic Pw,hing to a m:w concep:ual ter-
rain, si:ch an edectic process raises numerous
issues that researchers must deal with in order to
maintain beoretic:al coherence and epister:mlogi•
cal innovation, Such muhidiscipb:a:ity demands
a new levd of research self-mnsdou~ncss and
awareness of the numerous contexts in which any
researcher is operating. As one labors to e:,;po,e
tbe various structures that covertly shape our
ow::i and other scholars' research narratives, the
bricolage highEg:1ts !he rdaliunship bt:lween a
researcher's ways of seeing a!ld the sodal location
of his or l:e person al history. Appreciating
research as a power-driven act, the critkal
rcscarcher-as-bricoleur abandons the guest for
son:e naI\:e concept of realism, focusing ir.stead
on the clarification of his or her position h: the
web uf :ea:ity and the social lo.:ations other
researchers and the ways they shape the produc
tion and imerpretation of '.mowledge.
 Kincheloe & McLa:en: Rethinking T:irory mJ Rese-,m:h 11 3I7
ln this context, brkoleurs move into the
domain of complexity. The bricolage oJt of
respect for the complexity of rhe lived world and
the comp] lcatim:s of power. l:1dccd, it is grounded
on an epistemology of complexity. One dimension
of this comp:exil y cau be illus !rated by the
tionship between research and the domain of
,ocial theo1 y. All observations of the work are
shaped either consciously or uncor:sdous:y by
.
social theorv-such ,heorv, .:,rovides the frame-
work that higl:jghts or erases might be
observed. Throry ha mode:nist empiricist mode
is a way understanding th111 operates without
va:fation in every context vs:1.""'"'"' theory is a cul-
lllral and linguistic artifact, its interprctat:m: of
the object of its observation (s inseparable from
the h'storical dynamics that have sha?ed it The
task of the ':iricoleur is to a:tack this cor:iplexity,
uncovering the 'nv'.,ible artifacts of power and
culture, and don:menting t:1e narnre of their
iulker:ce on :101 only their own works but on
scholarship in general. In this process, bricolcnrs
act upon the concept that theory is not an expla~
natior: of nature-ii is mo~e an explanatior: of
our relation to nature.
In its hard '.abors the domain of co:nplcx':y,
the brkolage views research methoc:s actively
rather than passively, 1r;ean:1:g that we actively
cons:rtct our re,;earch methods from the tools al
hand ra?her than pass:vely receivinr, tl:e ''correct:•
u;1iver;ally applka:ile :nethodologies. Avoidbg
J;1odes of reRsoning that come from certif:ec:
processes of logical analysis, brirnleurs also sh,cr
dear of preexisting guidclir.es and checklists
cevelopect outside the specilic demands the
inquiry at hand. In its embrace of complexity, the
b:-icolage constructs a far more active role for
h:imans both in shaping reality and in creating
:he research processes and narratives :hat repre-
sent it. Such an active agency rejects determi nis•
tic views of soda! reality that assume the eftects
of particular social, politkal, cconomk:, and edu-
s:ational processes. the same time and in the
same conceptual context. this be'.ie: in active
human agrncy refoses standardized modes of
knowlrdge production (Bresler & Ardich vi:i,
2002; Dahlbom, 1998; Mathie & Greene 2002;
McLeod, 2000; St:lfe & Selfe, I 994; T. Young &
Yarbrough, 199 3).
Some uf the best \York in the stud}' of social
complexity is now tak; ng place in the qualitalive
inquiry of numerous fields including sociology.
cultc.ral studies, anb1opology, literary studies,
:na,keting, geography, media stud ics, informat-
'.cs, library studies, 1''0men's studies, various rth-
:1ic studies, education, a:id 1: nrsing. Denzin a:id
Lincoln (2000) are acutely aware of th.:se dynam•
ics and refer tu them in the context of their celin
eation uf the brkolage. Yvonna Lincoln (2001 ), in
:1er response to Kinc::ieloe's development of the
brlcolage, r:-1a:ntains that the mot.t importrmt
border work betv,ce:1 disciplines ls taking place
in fominism and r<1ce-elhnic studies.
In many ways, there is a form of instrumental
reason, of rational irrationality, in the use of pa,·
sive, ex:ernal, monological research methods. In
the a;;;ive bricol.1ge, we bring ou~ understanding
of the research context togetl:er with nur previous
experience with research methods. Using these
knowledges, we linker b the l.evi-Straussian
sensr with our research methods in fidd-tiased
and interp:etivc contexts. This tinkering is a high-
level cognitive pmcess il:vulving cor.strnction and
reconstruction, rontei.:ma 1diagnosis, negotiation,
and readjustrr.er.t. Researchers' interactions with
the o':,jects of their inquiries, bricoleurs under-
stand, are always complicatcc!, mercurial, unpre-
dictable, and, of course, compkx, SL1ch conditions
negate the pract:ce of planlllllg research s:rategies
iu advance. In b:u of such rationalization of the
process, brirnleurs ente~ into the research act a~
metl:odotogica: negotiators. Always respecting
the demands of the task at hand, the bricolage,
as concep:ualized here, resist.~ its placement in
concrete as it promotes elasticity Critical
resean;;1cr, are belier in for i:1ed as to the :iower of
the bricolage 'n light of Yvonna Lincoln's (200 l)
dclineation of two types of brimlcurs: those who
(a) are committed to resea:d: eclecticis:n, allow-
ir:g circurr:stance to shape melhud, employed,
and (h) want to engage in the genealogy/archeol-
ogy of the disciplines with some grander purposc-
iI~ mind. My purpose en:ails both of Lincoln's
11nicula7io11s t1f the role of the hrimlcur.
 318 11 HAKDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RE31:ARCH-CHAPTER
Researcl: me:hod in the bricolage is a concept
that receives more respect than '.n more rationat-
i.stic articulations of the term. The rationalistic
artkulatio:i of method subverts the deconstruc-
tion of wide varieties of unanalyzed assumptions
embedded !n passive methods. Bricoleurs, in tbe:r
apprec:at'on of the complexity tbe research
process, view rnsearch method as involv!ng far
more than ?rocecJre. ]n this mode of ana1ysls,
bricoleurs come to understand research method
as also a tedmolog y nf jll~tification, mean:ng a
way of defer:ding what we assert we know and the
process by which we know it Thas, the education
o: critical researchers demands that everyone
tiike a step hack frorr: the pmcess of learning
research n:ethods. Such a step back allows us a
conceptual distance that produces a er: tkill con-
sciousness. Such a cunscious:iess :l!fuses the pas-
sive acceptance nf externally impo.sed research
methods that tac:tly certify modes justifying
knowledges that are decontextualized, reduction-
istic, a:id in,-: rihed by dominant modes of power
(Oenxin & Lincoln, 2000; Fenwick, 2000; foster,
l 997; McLeod, 2000).
Ir: its critical concern for just social change, the
bricolage seeks insight from the n:argins of
Weste:·n societies and the knowledge ai:d ways of
knowing of non Western peoples. Sud: insight
helps brkoleurs reshape and sophisticate social
theory, research methods, and interpretive strate-
as they discerr. new topics to be rcseard:ed.
Th:s confron:ation with difference so basic to t:ie
concept of the bricolage enables resea:'chers to
prodi:ce new forms of knowledge that inform pol-
icy dcrisi ons and poE tical action in generaL In
gaining this h:sight from the margins, bricoleurs
display once again the blurred boundary between
the hermenei::ical search for understanding and
the critical concern with social change for social
justice. Kincheloe has taken seriously Pe:e:
McLaren':. (200:; importa!lt concern-offered in
his response to Kincheloe', (200 Ia} firs: dehn-
ea:ion his conception of the bricolage-that
merely focusing on the production of meanings
may nol lead to "resisting and transformir:g the
ex;sti:ig conditioos of exploitation" (Mc La:en,
2001, p. 702). In response, Kincheloe mai n,ained
that in the cri:ka: herme:ieutical dirr:ension of
the bricolage, the act of understanding powe, and
it/i effects is merely one part-albeit an insepara-
ble part-of counterhegemonic action. Not only
are the two orientations not in conflict, they are
synergistic (De Vault, I996; Lut~ Kendall, & Jor.c:s,
1997; Soto, 2000; Steinbe:g, 200 I).
To cor.tribute to soda! transformatior.,
bricoleurs seek to better understand both the
forces of do:nination that affect the Jives of indi-
viduals fror.1 race, class, gender, sexual, ethnic.
and religious backgrounds outside of dominant
culture( s) and the worl dv:ews of such diverse
peoples. In this context, brkoleurs a:ternpt to
remove knowledge production and its bene5ts
from the control of elite groups. Such control con-
sis:en:ly operates to reinfo::ce elite privilege while
pushing marginalized groups farther away :rom
the center of dominant power. Rejecting this no::-
maliied stale of affairn, bricoleur~ cummit their
knowledge wnrk to helping address the ideologi-
cal and ir.for:n ational needs of margiaalized
groups and :ndividuals. As detect:ves of subju-
gated insight, briooleurs eagerly learn from labor
s:ruggles, women's margina1ization, the "doub'.e
consciousness" of the rn.;:aily oppressed, and
insurrections agains: colonialism (Kincheloe &
Steinberg, 1993; Kincheloe,Steinberg, & Hinchey,
1999; L Young & Yarbrough, 1993), In this way,
the bricolage hopes lo contribute to an evolving
cciticality:
Thus, the brkolage is decicated to a fo:-m of
rigor that is coiwersaut wilh numerous modes of
meaning-making and knowledge production-
modes that originate ii: diverse social locations.
These alternative modes of reasoning and
researching always consider t;1e relationships, the
:'l:'sonances, and the disjunctions between formal
and rationalistic modes of Western epistemology
and ontology and different cultnrnl, phiiosophi-
cal, paradigmalk, and subjugated expressions, In
these latter expressions, bricoleurs ofie:i uncover
ways of accessing a concept without resorting to a
amventional validated se: of ;,irespedfied proce-
dures that provide the distance of obiectivity
(Thaye:-Bacon, 2003 ), Tl:is not ion or distance
fails to take into account the rigor of the
 Kincheloe & McLaren: Rethinkin!! Theory and Research II 11,
herrncneutical understa:1ding D: the way mea:1ing
is preinsc:-ibed in the act of being in the world, the
research process, and cbje,ts of research. This
absence of hcrmeneutical awarrnes, undermines
the researcher';; quest fur a thick description ar:d
nmlribules to the production of reduced under•
standings of the cor:ip'.exity of social life (Paulson,
1995; Selfe Selfe, I994 ).
The multiple perspectives deUver~d by the
concept of difference pmvide brirnleurs with
many benefits. Confrontation with ci fforence
heip:: us to sec anew, lo move toward the light of
epip'.1any. A basic dimension of an evolving criti•
cahty involves a comfort wi6 the existence of
illtemative ways of analyiin g and producing
knowledge. TiliS is why it's so impor:u:1I for a his-
torlar:, for example. to develop an understanding
of phenomenology and hermeneu:ics. lt is why
it is so important for a social researcher from
New York City to understand form~ of indiger:ous
African knowledge product ion. The incongru;tics
between such cultural n:odes of inquiry are quite
valuable, for wit:., in the tension, of d: fferem:e rest
insights into multiple dimensions of the research
act. Such insights move us to new !eve 1s of m,der·
standing of the subjects, pur;:ioses, and nature of
inquiry (B·Jrbules & Beck, 1999; Mayers, 200!;
Senlali & Ki!'.cheloe, 1999; W:llinsky, 200 I).
Difference in f:ie bricolage pushes us into the
hermeneutic circle as we a!c! induced to deal with
parts in their diversi:y in relation to the whole,
Difference may involve culture, class, language,
discipline, epister.m,ogy, cosmology, ad infini-
tum. Bricoleurs cse one dimension of the~e
mu:tiple diversities to explore o:hers, to generate
qt:estions previously unimagined.As we examine
these mt:ltipk perspectives, we attend to which
m:es are validated am: which ones have been
c.ismissed. Studybg sud1 differences, we 1:>egi tl
to understand how dominant power D,l<:rates to
exdude and certi:y particular forms of knowledgr
:iroductinn and why. In the criticality of the brico•
this locus on ?OWer and difference always
ieads us to ar. awarrness of the rr:'.lhiple din:en•
sions of the social. Paulo Freire (1970 l referred to
this as the need for p~ri:eivir;g social structures
and social syste:ns that u:1derm ine equal access
to resources and power, As bricoleurs answer such
ques~ions, we gain new appreciations ot the way
power tacitly shapes what we know a:1d how we
come lo know it.
The Bricolage, a Complex
Ontology, and Critical
A cen:ral dimension of the brico:age that
holds p:ofound implications for critical research
is the notion o( a critica'. or.tololi,y (Kir.cheloe.
2003a}. As bricoleurs p:e?are to explore that
which is not readily apparent to the eth:1ographic
eye. that realm o[ complexity in kr.owledge pro•
duction tr.at insists on initiating a umver,atiun
about what it is that quaiitative researchers are
observing anc ir:te:preting in the world, this clar·
Jicalkm of a comp:ex ontology is needed. This
conversa:ion is esvedally important because it
:iasn't generally taken place. Briroleurs maintain
that this obje:;t of i11quir)' is onto'.ogically com-
plex in that it can't be described a, an e:icap•
sulated entity. Ju this more open view, rhe objec:
of in{juiry is always a part of many contexts and
processes; it is culturally inscribed amI histor:·
cally situated. The complex view of the object
of inquiry accot:nts for :he historical effor:s to
interpret i:s meaninf! in the world and how
such efforts continue to define its social, cultural,
political, j.)syd1ological, and educational effects.
In the dmna'n of the qualitative research
process, for example, this ontological comple,YIY
under:nines traditional notions of triangulation.
Because in•process (processual) nature, inter-
researcher reliability becomes far more difficult to
achieve. l:'rocess•sensitive scholars watch the world
flow by like a river in which the exac conter:ts of
the water are never the same, l:leca·.tse all observers
view an object of inquiry fror:i their own vantage
points in the web of reality, no por:rait of a social
phenomenon is ever exaclly the same as ar.o,her.
Because all physical, social, cultu:al, psychological,
and educational dynamics are connected 'n a
larger fabric. researchers will produce different
descriptions of an object of inquiry deper.di:ig m:
what part of the fabric they have focused on-
what ::ia:I of the river they have see:1, :he more
 320 111 :l:ANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER :2
unaware observers are of this type of complexity;
tlie more reductionistic the knowledge they ?ID-
ci:ce about ii. Brkoleurs attempt to understand
this fabric and the processes that shape it in as
thick a way as possible (Blommaert, 1997),
The des:gn and me!:10ds used to analyze this
social fabric cannot be separated from tl:e way
reality is construed, Thus, ontology and epi~k-
mology are :inked inextricably in ways that shape
the task of t:1e resea:-cher. The bricoleur must
understand faese features in the p1:rsuit of rigor.
Adeep intcrdisdplina:-ity is; ustified by an under
sta:1ding of the com?lex:ty of the object of
inquiry and the demands such complications
place on the research act. A:, parts of complex
systems and intricate processes, objects of
inquiry are far loo mercurial to he viewed by a
single way of seeing or as a snaps:1ot of a pa:-ticu•
lar p"te:iomenon at a specific moment in time.
A deep interdisciplinarity seeks to modify the
disciplines and the view of reseaxh brought to
the negotiating table constructed by the bricolage.
Everyone :eaves the :able infrmned by the dla-
logue in a way that idiosync~atkally influei:ces
the research methods they su bsequcntly employ.
Tr.e ?Oint of the interaction is not standardized
agreement as to some reductionistic notion of
"the proper interdisciplir:ary researd1 method"
but awareness of the d: verse tools in the
researcher's toolbox. The form such deep interdis-
dplinarity may take is shaped by the object of
inquiry in questio:i. Th;;s, in the bricolage the
wntext in which research takes place always
affects the nature of the deep interdisdplir:arity
employed. In the spirit of the dialec:tk of disci;,E-
narity, the ways these contel(t-driven articulations
of interdisdplinarlty are constructed must be
exan:J ned in light of the power litera,y previou.ly
mentioned (Blornmacrt, 1997; Friedman, 1998;
Pryse, 1998; Qnintero & Rummel, 2003; T. Young
& Yarbrough, 1993).
In social research, the relationship between
individuals and thei, contex:s is a central
dynamic ro he investigated. This relationship is a
key ontological and epistemological concern of
the bricolage; it i, a cmmection that srmpe,; the
identities of human bel:1gs and the nature of the
coi:1plex social fabric. Thus, brkoleurs use multiple
methods to ar:alr7.e the multidimensionality of
this type of connec:ion. The ways bricoleurs
er.gage in this process of putting together the
pieces of the relationship may provide a differ
ent interpretation of its meaning and eftects.
Recognizing the comp:ex ontolog;cal importm1ce
or relationsr.ips alters the :iasic foundations of the
research act and knowkdge production process.
Thin reductionistic descriptions of iso;a :ed
things-in-them~dves are r:o longer sufficient in
critka: research (Foster, 1997; 2.ammito, 1996 ).
',\'hat the bricolage is deal'ng with in this
context is a double ontu;ogy of complexity: first,
the complexity of objects of inqciry and their
being-in-the-world: seeond, the nati:re of the
social construction of humi1n subjectivity, the
production of human "being:' Such understand-
ings open a new era of soda! research where the
process of becoming human agen:, is appreciated
with a new level of sophistication. The cor:1plex
feedback ,oop ht-tween an unstable social struc-
ture and the individual can he charted in a way
that grants human bei11gs insight into the :neans
hy w;,kh power operates ar:c the democratic
process is subverted. In tbis complex or:tologkal
view, brkoleurs understand that social structures
do not determine individ:rnl subjecdvity but
constrain it in rer.1arkably intricate ways. The
bricolage is acutely interested in develop:ng and
employing a variety of strategies lo help specify
these ways subjectivity is shaped.
The recognitions that emerge from such a
:nultipersptctival process get ana: ysls beyond
the deterninism of reductionistic notions
macrosocial structures. The intent of a usable
social or educa:ional research is subverted i:1 this
reductionistic context, as humar. agency Is erased
by the "laws·' of society. Structures do i:ot simply
"exist" as objective er.tities whose influence ca:,
be pred:cted or "nut exist" with :10 influence over
the cosmos of human affairs. Here fractals enter
tl:e stage with their loosely stn:clured character-
of ir,egular sl:a pe-fractal structu~es.
While not determinin;; humai: hehavior, for
example, fractal struc:ures possess sufficient
orcer to affect other systems and entities within
 Kincheloe & Mclaren: Rtthinking Tl:eory an.l Rese-,mf 111 321
their env: ron ment Such ,truct ures are never
stable or universally present in some uniform
manifestation (Varenne, 1996; T, Young &
Yarhmugh, 1993). T:1e more we study such
dynamics, the more diversity of expre~sion we
find. Taking this ontological and epistemological
diversity into acco:.ml, bricole:.irs understand
there are numerous dimens:ons ta the bricolage
(Denzin & L:ncoln, 2000). As with a[ aspects of
the bricolage, no description is fixed and final,
and all features of the bricolagc cmm: with an
elastic clause.
II. CRr:·1cAL RESEARUi tN A
GwBALIZID, PRIVATIZED WORLD
A critical postrr.odern research requires
researchers lo construe, their percept:0:1 of :hr
world anew, not .iust in random wavs but ii: a man-
'
ncr that undermines what appears ;1atural, 6at
oporu to question what a?pears obv:ous (Sla;ig'lter,
1989). Oppo,,itional and insurgent researchers as
maieutic agents m'Jst not con:use th1:ir ,~'"'""A,
efforts with the textual suavities of an avant-garde
academic posturing fr1 which they are awarded the
sineet:re of representatio:i for the oppressed with•
out actually haviog to return to those ,;;orking das.'I
cornr.1uniti1:s where their studies took place,
Rather, they need to locate their work in a trans-
formative praxis that leads to the alleviation of
sufferi:ig and the overcoming of oppression.
Rejectbg the arrogant reading of metropolitan
critics and their imperial mandates governing
research, inn:.rgent researchers ask questions
aboi:it how what is has come to be, whose interests
are served by particular institutional arrange-
ments, and where our own frames of reference
come from. Facts are no longer simply "what
the truth of beliefs is not simply testable by thefr
correspondence rn these facts. Tn engage in
research grounded on an evolving criticality is to
take part in a process of critica: world-making,
guided by the shadowed outline o: a dream of a
world less concitioned by misery, suffering, and
the politics of deceit. It in short, a pragmatics of
hope in an age of cynical reaso;1, The obstacles
that critical resear,;h has yet to overcone terms
of a frontal assault against the ravages of global
capitalism, the new American Empire and its
devastation of the global working class, has led
McLaren to a more sustai :ied and sympathetic
engagement with Marx and the /1,:'.a:-xis: tradition.
One significant area of concern that has been
a<ldressed in the recent Marxist work of McLaren
and Scatamburlo-D'AnnibaJe (2004) and Antonia
Darder and Rodolfo lorres (2004) is that of crit-
kal pedagogy anc its intersection with crit:cal
multiculturalism, especially with resptcl to the
influence that critical race theory has had on
recent ;,,ork in these interconnected domabs.
Darder anc Torres (2004) point to the fact that
much of the work within critical race theory is
grounded in the popular intersectiona:ity argu
ment o[ the post-structuralist and post-:nodemist
era that stipula:es that rare, class. gender, and
sexual orientation should all receive equal ath:n-
tion in understandi:lg tl:e social order and the
institut:o:is and ideologies tha; constibte it That
is, various oppressions are to he engaged with
equal weight as one ascribes pluralized sensibili-
ties to any political projec: that t':ieorizes about
inequalities (2004).
Th:s reduces capitalist exp:oitation ar.d rela-
lion& of capitalis: production to one ,et rela-
tions, among others, that syslematkally denies the
totality of capitalism that is constitutive of the
process of radalized class relations, This is not :o
argue that the pen:icious ideology of racism is not
integra: to the process of capitalist accun:ulation
but, as Darder and Torres argue, it is to antisepti-
cally separate politics and economics as cistinct
spheres of power or ensembles o: social relations,
Rather than focus or. race, or raced identity (Le.,
shared phenol ypkal trails or cultural attributes),
Darder and Torres make the case concentrating
t:.?on the ic.1.:ology of racism and radalized class
re;at:om within a larger materialist 1:r:de:1,,anding
of tlte world, thereby bringing the analysis of polit •
economy to the center of the debate.
In a similar fasl:ior,, Mclaren and Srntambur'.o-
D'Annibale (200{,) argue that the sepa:ation of
the economic and be pu!itical within cur:-ent
condbutions of rnulticultu.:alism premised on
 322 ill 1-!ANDB{)OK OF QUAUTATIVE RESEAR(H-CHAPTER
:dentity politics has had the effed of repladng a
historical materialist class analysis with a cultural
analysis of class. As a result, many critical race
theorists as we!! as post-Marxists writing in the
realm of culti:ral studes have also stripped tl:e
idea of class of precisely that e'.emei:t which, for
Marx. made it radical-namely its statu~ as a
universal form of exploitation whose abolition
required (and was 2lso cc:itral to) the abo:ition of
all manifestations of op;:,ression (Marx, 1978,
p. 60). With regard to this isrne, Kovel (2002) is
particularly insigh,ful, for he expHdtly addresses
an issue that continues to vex the Left-namely
the priority given to different categories of what
he ralls "domicath·e splitting"-those categor:es
of gender, dass, race, e:hnk and national exclu-
sion, and so on,
Kovel arg;ies that we need to ask the question
of priority with resp,xt to wh,d He notes that if
we mean priority with respect to time, then the
category gender woald have priority because
there are traces of ger.der oppress t(l'.l in all other
forms of oppression, ]f we wex to prio:itize i:1
terms (Jf exi:tential signilkance, Kovel suggests
th2t we would have to depend on the immediate
h:storical forces that bear down ot distinct
groi.:?S of people-he offerti examples of Jews in
1930s Germany who suffered from bruta' forms
of ar.:i-Serr:itism and Palestinians today who
expe~ience anti-Arab rac:srr: under lsraeh domi·
nation, The question of what has ?nlitical priority,
however, would depend on which tra:isformation
of relations of oppression are practically more
urgent, and while this would certainly depend
upon the preceding categories, it would also
depend on the fashior. in which all the forces
ac~ing in a concrete situation are depluyed,
As to the question of which split sets into
motior. aH the others, the priority would have to
be given to da:ss :,ecause class relations entail the
s:ate as an instru:nent of enforcement and cor;•
tml, anc it is the state that shapes and organizes
the splits that appear in human ecosyste:ns. Tlrns,
is both logically ar.d historically distinct
frorr: other forms of cxclL:sion (hence, we should
not talk of "class ism" 10 go along wilt "sex:sm"
and "rac:sm;' and "spedes•ism"), This is, firs I of
all, because class is ar: essentially huma:i-n:adc
category, wi :bout root in even a mystified bio' •
ogy. \\'e cannot imagine a lu:man world without
gender distinctions~-although we can imagine a
world without domination by gender. llut a world
without class is eminently :maginable-indeed,
such was the human world for the great major-
ity of our ,pecies's :ime 0:1 earth, during all of
which considerable fuss was mace over gender,
Historically, the difference arises becau,e '\:lass"
signifies one side of a larger figure :hat inc'. ~ides a
state apparatus ·whose conquest, and regulations
create races and shape gender relatior:s. Thus.
there wil; ~le no true ,esolution of racism so long
as class sodet y stands, inasmuch as a racially
oppressed society implies the activities of a class·
defendi:ig state, Nor .:an gender i:iequaE ty be
enacted away so long as dass society, wi:h its
state, ('.emands the super-exploitatio:i of womrn's
labor (Kovel, 2002).
Bil RETHJNK:NG (:,Ass
AND CLASS CONSCJOUSN'ESS
Recen:ly, McLaren and Scatamburlo D' Annibale
(2004) have reexamined soe1e of the ethnograpl:k
and conceptual work of Paul Willis ( l':1'17, 1978,
2000; Willis, Jones, Cannan, & Hurd, 1990) in an
attempt to rethi:ik a research agt,nda involving the
participation of wurk.ing-da,s subje,;ts anc con•
stituendes. We believe that ethnographic models
of research such as tboiie developed by Willis
would best serve the interests of the working class
if they .::oald be accompanied by a larger strategy
for socialist transformatior., one tr:at proceeds
from an assessment of ~he objective •a,"mrs and
capabilities la:cnt in the curre:it conditions of
class stn:ggle. McLaren :md Scatamburlo-
D'Annibale :na:ntain that the worldwide social
movement against anticorporatc globilitation, as
well <1s the ;mti-irnpcrialist/antiwar movements
preceding and following the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
have provided new contexts (nostly th:ough left•
wing indeper.dent publications and resources on
the 1r.trmet) for enablh:g various publics (and
nun-publics beyond the inst::utions that serve
 Kir.cl1eloe & McLamt: Ret':::1:S:ing ·:11e1:ry and Research
majority groups} 10 become more critically llternte
about the relationship between current wor kl
cve:1t,, global capitalism, and imperiaEsm. l~r
many researchers and ed~catrm; on the left, :his
will requb:: a socialist "education" of working-
class conscious ncss, Tb,, in tum, means chal-
lenging the mcdia:ed social forms in which we
Eve and learn to labor,
One way of scrn:inizing the production
of everyday mean:ngs S<1 that they are less likely
to provide ballast to ca?i:alist social re!at:ons is ;o
stt:dy working-class consciousness, Hertel!
Oilman {197 i, 1993, 2003) has developed a sys•
tematk approach to dialectics that can he brought
to bear un the study of working-class conscious,
ncss. Sud1 an approach is in need of se~iuus con-
sideration by progressive researchers, esp~chilly
because nost current studies of working-class
consciousn es, have been derived from non·
Marxist approaches. OLmau (1993) advises that
class consciousness is mJd: more rhan individual
consciousness writ la:-ge, The subje<:t of dass
cor.sciousness is, after all, class. Viewing cllm,
cor.sdousness from :he perspec: iv,, of the labor
theory of ,·ah:e an,;! the materialist concep:ion of
history, as undertaken in Oll:nan's accoi:nt, stipa·
!ates that we view class in the context of the over
all integrated fu:ictions of capital and wage labor.
A: :hough peo,:.,le car. o:rtainly be seen :'rom
the function.1list perspective as embodiments
of sm:ia>e,or.omic functior.s, we need to expand
this v'ew and understand the subjective dimen•
sions of class ctnd class comcioosness. Oilman
follows Marx's advke in recomrr.endi ng that in
defin: ng "class" or any other important notion, we
begin from the whole and proceed to :hi:: part (see
also Ilyenkov, 1977, 1982a, 19!12h). According to
McLaren and Scatamburlo-lJ' An:1ibale (2004),
class must he CLmceived as a wmplex social rela-
tion in the context of Marx's dialectical approach
to social life, (T'lis dis.:us,ion is based on
McLaren aml Scatamburlo-D'Annibale :20041),
It :s important in this regard to see dass as a
:unction (from the perspcct've o: the p:ace of a
function within the system), as a group (qualities
that a,e attributed to people such as race and gen-
der), and as a co:nplex relatior. (that is, as the
1111 323
abstrac~ed uumnon clement in the sodal relation-
ship of alienated individuals). A c:ass involves,
therefore, the alienated quality of the social life of
individuals who fonction in a certain way within
the systen:. The salient fe;iturcs of class-alien-
ated social :elation, place/function, and gmup-
are all mul ually dependent.
Class as function relates to the objective :nt~r-
es~s of workers; da,,s as grrmp relates to their sub-
jective i:iterests, Subjective interests refer to what
workers actually believe to be in their owr: best
imerests. Those practices that serve the wo,kern
in their fu n,;tion as wage laborers refer to their
objective interests, Oilman summarizes c:ass
consciousness as
one's identity and intcrC$IS tsub,iective and ubje:live)
as membe;s of a class, so::i.:thing o: the dynamics
of capitalism unc0,e1cd by ::Vian; :.at least enough
to grasp obje:ti,e inter.:s·.s), the broad ot:t:':ic, o:
the dass struggle and where one fit~ into it, feelings
of solidarity toward one', own c:ass a:·,c of rational
hos:i'.'t y low.1 cd opposition dasses (i 11 contrast to
the feelings of mumal i~,diffcrcnce and hmer class
mmpetihon th,n accnmpnny ,1lirnatio11 ), and 1hc
vision of a mort> r.@moca:k and egalitarian sock! y
that is not only possible bu1 :l:at one can he'.p bring
ahouL (1993, p. 155)
Oilman underscores importa."ltly the notion that
explaining class conscio·Jsne~s stip1Jlates seeking
what is not present in the thinkil:g uf work.en, r.S
well as what is present. It is an understanding that
is "app.:-opriate to the objectii.:e chl\racter of a class
and ib obje..:tivc in:crc~ts" (1993, p, ISS), Ent in
addition to the objective aspect of dass conscious
ncss, we must i:1clude the subjec:ive aspect of class
cor:scioJsness, which OIiman descr:bes as "the con•
sdousness of the group of people in a dass in so far
as their u:iderstandi:lg of who they arc and i,hat
must be cone develops :mm its economistk begin~
nings toward the consciousness that is appropria:e
to 6eir class situation" (:993, p, 155), Bt:t what is
different between this subjective consciousness and
the actual coi:sciousncss of eadt individual in the
group? OIiman write, that sub~ective consciousness
is different from :.lie act'Jal co:1sdousr.rss of rhe
individual iu the group in the following three ways:
 111 HANIJBOOK OF QUA UTA'::JVE RESEA RCH-(HAPTER 12
; lJ It is a g,oup cotiscio:isness, a way of thi11king
and a lhought conten:, that develops through the
individuals in the group interacting wi:h each ,,ther
and with oppusing groupb in situatio:i~ that are
peculiar to the dass; ii is a co115do:i,ness thm
ha.~ its ma'n point of r~ference in the situation
and objective i nteresls of a dass, viewed fa nction
altv, and not in !he d.:dared subicctive interests
' '
of clas5 memhers ( the imp:i:ed
ness referred tc above ::as been given a ,ole here in
the thinking of :-ea] people); and (3) it is in
essence a process, a mavement from whereve: a
J,roup begins ir: its consciousness of itse:: to !he
ronscivL1s11ess appro?:iate to it$ situation. In other
words, the process of hemming dass conscious is
not external to what it is but rnlher a: center of
whal it is a11 about (199 3, p, 155)
Ctas.s consciousness is therefore something
that OIiman describes as "a kir:d of'group think,' a
cul!ect:ve, interact'w approach to recog:i:ling,
labeling, corr. ing to under,tand, and acting upon
the parficular world dass members have in com•
mo11" (1993, p. 1 Class consdousnes.s is differ•
c-nt from individual consciousness in the sense of
' havini; its main point of reference in ;he si:ua-
tiou of 6c class and not in the already recogn 'zoo
interests of individuals" ( 1993, p. 157). Class con-
sciousness is somethine1, that exists "in potential"
in the ,ease that it represc,rs "the appropriate
cor.sciousness of people ir. that position, the con•
sdousness :hat maximizes their chances of realiz·
:ng dass interests, ;nduchg structuml change
where such change is required to secure other
in7erests" ( 1993, p. 157). Oilman stresses that class
consciousness "exists in potential;' bat is, "r:ass
consciousness is a cor:sciousness waiting to
happen"(] 993, p. 187). It is important here not lo
mistake class consciousness as some kind of
"abstract potential'' becat:$e it is "rooted in a s:~u-
ation unfolding before our very eyes, long before
understancbg of real people catches up with it"
(I 993, p. 157). Class co:iscionsnes.s, then, is not
sonething tha: is fixed or permanent but ;s
always in motion. The very s.itt::atedness of the
class cst.ablisi1es its gual-1 t is always Jn the
process of becom:ng itself, if we understand
the notion of pro-:ess cialcctically. Consequently,
we :ieed to examine class from the perspective of
Marx's philosophy of inter.:1al relation&, as that
"wl:ich treats the rel a:ions in which anything
stands as essential parts of wl:at it is, so that a
significant cl:ange in any of these relations regis·
ters as e oJaH:ative change in the system of which
it is a part" (Oil ma:i, 2003, p. 8 5).
• Fon:sJ:-JG ON CR!TJCAL ETHNOGRAPHY
As c~itical researchers attempt to g~t behind :he
curtain, to :nove beyond assimilated experience,
to expose the way 1deoiogy constrains the desire
for self-direction, and to confront the way power
reproduces itself in the corstruclio11 of human
consciousness, they employ a plethora of research
methoclologies. ln this context, Patti Lather ( 1991,
1993) extends our positio:i wi~:i notion of
catalytic validity. Catalytic validity points to the
degree to which research moves those I; studies to
understand the world and the way it is shaped
in order for them to transform it. Noncritical
researchers who operate within an empiricist
framework will pe,haps find catalytic validity to
be a slra:ige concept. Re&earch that possesses
catalytic validity will not only display the reality•
altering impact of the inquiry process; ii will al~o
direct this impact so ,':la: those under study will
gain self-uncerstanding and ,elf-direction.
Theory that falls unc.er the rubric of po,tcolo-
nialism (see McLaren, 1999; Semali & Kincheloe,
1999) involves importanc debates ove: the know-
ing sGbject and ob.iect of a:ialysis. Such works
have initiated importar:t new modes of analysis,
especially in relation lo questions of imperialism,
colonia:ism, and neocolonialism. Recent attempts
by critical researchers to move beyond the objec·
tifying and imperialist gaze associated with the
Western anthro;ioiogical t,adition (which
the image of the so-called informant from the
colonizing perspective of the knowir.g ,u1Jj ect ),
although !audatory and well-intentioned, are
not without their shortcomings ( Bourdieu &
\Vacqmmt, 1992). As Fuchs {l993) has su pre•
sciently observed, serious limitations ;ilague
recent effo::ls to develop a more re:'lective
 Kmcheloe & McLaren: Rethinking Theory and Research
approach to ethnographic writing. Ihe challenge
here can be summarized ln the following ques-
tions: How does :he knowing subject come to
know the Other? How ca:i researchers respect 6e
perspective of the Other and invite the Other to
speak (Abdullah & Stringe,, 1999: Ashcroft,
Griffiths,& Tiffin, 1995; Brock-Utne, 1996; Goldie,
1995; Macedo, 1994; Myrsiade~ & Myrsiades,
1998; Pieterse & Parekh, 1995; Prakash &: Este,a,
1998; Rains, 1998; Scheurkh & Your:g, 1997;
Semali & Kincheloe, 1999; Viergever, 1999)?
Although recent cor:fessional modes of ethno-
graphic writing attempt to treat so-called infor-
mants as "participants" ir: an attempt m avoid the
objectificR:ion of the Other (usually referrlng to
the relationship between Western anthropolo-
gists and non-Western c'Jlture), there is a risk that
uncovering colonial and postcolonial structures
of domination may, ir fact, unir.te:1tionall y vali-
date and consolic.ate such structures as well as
reassert liberal values thro'Jgh a type of covert
ethnocentrism. F'Jchs ( I993) warns that the
attempt to subject ,csearchers to the same
approach to which other societies are subjected
could lead to an " 'other:ng' of one's own world"
(p. LOS). Such an attempt often fails to question
existing ethnograpnk methodologies and there-
fore unwittingly extends their validity and applic
ability while further obiectifying the world of
the researcher. Michel Foucault's app:oach to
lhfa dilemma is to "detadl" social theory from the
e?1stemo'.ogy of his own culture by critidzing
the traditional philosophy of reflection. However,
Foucault falls into the trap of ontologizing his
own methodological argumentation and erasing
the notion of prior understanding that is linked
to the idea of an "inside" view (Fuchs, 1993).Louis
Dumont fares somewhat better by arguing that
cultural texts need to hr viewed sil!lultaneously
frorr: :he inside and from the outside.
However, in trying lo a:firm a "redpmcal inter-
pretation of va:ious societies among themselves"
(Fuchs, 1993, p, 113) through identifying both
transindivid·Jal structures of consciousr.ess and
trnnssubjective social struc:ures, Dumont aspires
to a universal framework for the comparative
analysis of societies. W~ereas Foucault and
11! 325
Dumont allempt to ":ranscend the categorical
foundations of their ow:i world" (Fuchs, 1993,
p. 118) by refusing to include themselves in the
process of objectification, Pierre llourdieu inte-
grates himself a8 a social actor into the social field
under analysis. Hourdieu .ichievrs surh inte-
gration by "epistemologizing the ethnological
content of his own presuppositions" (Fuchs,
1993, p. 121}. But the self-ob;ectification of the
observer (anthropo!ogist) is not unproblemaiic.
Fuchs (1993) notes, afte: Bourdieu, that the chief
difficulty is ''forgetting the difference between the
theoretical and the practical relationship with the
world and of imposing on the object the theoreti-
cal relationship one :naintains with itn (p. 120}.
Bourdieu's approach to re-search does not fully
_,.,,,w"hecoming, to a certain extent, a "confirma-
tion of objectivism;'but at least there is an earnest
attempt by the researc':ie: to reflect on the prernn-
ditions of his or her own self-understanding-an
attempt lo engage in an "ethr:ograpby llf ethnog-
raphers" (p. 122).
Po~t:nodcrn cthnogc<aphy often intersects-to
varying degrees-with the com..:erns of postco'.o-
nialist ~esearchers. but :he cegree to which it fully
addresses issues of exploitation and the social
relations of capitalist exploitation remains ques-
:ionable. Postmoder:i ethnography and we are
:hinking here of works S'JCh as Paul Rabinow's
Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco ( 1977), Janes
Boon's Other Tribes, Other Scribes (I 982 ), and
~ichael Taussig's Shamanism, Colonialism, and
the Wild Man (1987)-shares the conviction
articulated by Marc Manganaro (1990) that «no
anthropology is apolitical, removed from ideology
ar:d hence from the capaci:y to be affected by or,
as crucially, to effect soc:al fonnations. The ques-
tion ought not to he if an anthropological text is
politicai, hut rather, what kind of sociopolitical
affiliations are tied lo particular ar:thropological
texts" (p. 35).
Judith Newton and Jud:th Stacey ( 1992-1993)
note that the current pos tmocern textual
experimentation of ethnography credits the
"post -colonial predicament of culture as the
opportunity for anthropology to rehvent itself'
(p. 56). Modernist ethnography, according to
 326 11 H,\\IDflOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
these authors, \:unstruckd authoritative cultural
accounts that served, however inadverteritly, r.ot
only to establish tile authority of the Westerr.
ethnographer over others but also to sus
ta:n Western ,uthority over colonial cultures"
\p, 56). Tl:ey argue (following James Clifford) that
ethnographers can and should try to escape the
1ecur::e11t allegorical genre of colonial etl:nogra-
phy-the pastoral, a nostalgic, redemptive text
that preserves a prim:tive culture on the brink of
ex:inction fo: the historical ~ecnrd of its Western
rnnquerors. T":te narrative stracture of this
"salvage text" portrays the native culture as a
coherent, auther.:ic, and larr:enmhly ''evading
past;• wr:ereas its corr;,Iex, inauthentic, Western
sua:esso:-s represent :uture (p, 56),
Postmodi;m ethnographic writing faces the
challenge of moving beyond simply the reanima-
tion of :ocal experience, ar: uncrit:cal ce:ehration
of ci;,:tural difference (induding figi;ra] differenti-
ations wilhin :he elh:mgrapher's own culture),
and the employmcn1 of a framework that espouses
un iver,al vah.:es and a global role for :nrerpre-
tivist anth:-opology (:Silvtrman, 1990). What we
have described as resista nee postmodernism can
help qualitative resea:c:iers challc:1ge dominar:t
Western research practices ,hat are underwritten
by a foumlation;,_ epistemology and a ciaim to
universally valid knowk.:ge at tl:e expense of
,ubjugated k:u:iwledges (Peters, 1993 ). The
choice is r:ut one between modernism and post•
modernism, hut one of whether or :1ot to challenge
the pres11ppositions that inform the normaEzing
judgments one :nai<es as a researcher.
Vincent Crapanzano (I 990 l warns that "tl:e
anthropoiogist can assun:e neither the Orphic
lyre nor the crown of thorns, although I amfe~s lo
hear salvatio:iht echoes'" fn his desire to protect
his people (p. 30 I).
Connor ( I ':192) de&cribes the work of James
Clifford, wt:ich shares an atfirdry with ethno-
graphic work associated with Georgt:s Batailk,
Michel Lerris, and the Col :cge ce Sociologic, as
not simply the "writing of culture"but :ather"the
interior disruption uf categories of art am: cult~re
rnrrespo:1d1lng] to a radicallr &alogk for~ of
ethnographic writi:1g, wh.k:1 takes place across
and between cultures" (p, 251). l1ifford (1992)
describes his owr: work as an attempt "to multiply
the hands and discomses involved in 'writing
culture' ... :mt :u assert a naivt de1:iocracy of
plural authorship, hut to loosen at least somewhat
the monulogica, co:itrol of fae executive writer/
anthropologist and :o open for dscussion
e:hnography's hierarchy a1:d negotiation of dis-
coi.:rses in power-charged, i:.m:'G'Jal sit·Ja:ilms"
(p. 100), Citing the work of Marcus and Escher
(1986), Clifford warns against mocernist etlu:o-
graphic practices of"represcntational essentiali,-
iug" anc "metony:nic freezing" in w hkh one
aspect of a groJp's life is :aken to rep:-esent the
group as a whole; instead, CJ:ffurd uges forms of
multilocale ethnograp:1; to reflect tr:e "tmnsna
tional poiitkal, eronomic and cultural forces that
:rave,se anc constitute local or regional worlds"
(p. ][)2 ), Rathe: thar: culture being fixed ir.to
reifiec tcx tual portraits, it needs to be better
understood as displaccrn em, Ira nspla:itatior:,
disruption, positionality, and difference,
Although er itical ethnography allows, in a way
mm,entiona! ethnography does :iot, for the rela-
tionship of lf:ieration a:id history, and although
its herme:ieutical task is to call into question the
social and cul:ural conditioning of hJman activ-
ity and the prevailing sociopolitkal strudu:-cs,
we do not claim that this is enough to restructure
the soc:al s:r,:em. But i: is certainly, in our view,
a r.ecessarr beginning, We follow Patricia Ticineto
Clough (1992 I in arguing that "realist narrntivity
has allowed empirical social ,dcnce to he the
plrdorn a:1d horizon of social cri:idsrr:~ (p. 135).
Ethnography needs to be analyzed critically :mt
o:1ly i:1 terms of its field methods but also as read-
ing and writh1g practices_ Dara collection must
give way to "rereadings of representations in every
fo;ni" (p, In the narrative construc:ioo of
:ts authority as empirical science, ethnography
needs to face 1he unconscious processes upu:1
which 't justifies its canonical formulations,
processes that often ir:volvc the disavowal of
oedipal or authoria_ desire and the reductiun
of differences :o binary opposl!ious. Wi:hin
these 1nocesses of b:na:-y reductio:i, the male
ethnogrnpher ', most often privileged as the
 Kincheloe & :V::cLaren: Rethinking theory
gua:-clio.n of"'the factual representation of empirical
pos: tivitlesn (Clough, 1992, p. 9J.
Iii N'EW QUFSTTON~ CONCERNING
VALIDITY IN C;u:·1c\L ETHi'iOGRAPHY
CritkP.l research traditions have arrived at the
point where tl:ey recogr.lze ,h.;.: claims to truth
are aiways di&Cursively situated and implicated in
relations of ?OWer. Yet, unlike some dairr:s rr:ade
within "ludk" strands of postmodtrn ist research,
w,;; do not :;uggest that because we cannot know
truth absolutely, trutl: 1:an simply be equated
with an effect of power. We say this because truth
involves regulative rules that mm,t he met for
some statements to be more meaningful than
others. Otherwise, truth becomes meanir.gles,
and, i: faat is the case, liheratory praxis has no
purpose other than to wir. for the sake of win-
11i :1g. As Phi. Carspecken (l99J, 1999) remarks,
every time we act, in !'Very ins:• :Ke of our beb;v-
ior, we presuppose some normative or universal
rehition tn tru ;h. r;uth is internally related to
meaning in a pragmatic way throagh normative
refe::enccd claims intcrsubjective reforencec
claims, subjective reference,! daims, and tr.e way
we deictk~Hy ground or anchor meaning :n our
daily Iives. Carspecken exp:a' ns that researchers
arc able to artk:date the normative evaluative
daims of other. when they begin to see them in
Lhc same way as their participants :JY livir:g inside
,he cultural and oiscursivr positionaliries tha1
inform such claims.
Cla itns to universality must be recognized in
each particular nonnative claim, arid q·Jcstfons
mus; be raised about whether such norms repre•
sent the entix group. \\'hen the limited dai m
of un:versality is seen to be contradictory to the
practices under observation, power relations
become visible. What is ,rndal here, a,:-:ording to
Carspecken, is that researchers recognize where
they ar~ located ideologically in the normative
and identity claims of others and at the same time
be honest about their owr; s:.ibjeclive referenced
c'.ains and not let normative evaluat:ve claims
interfere with what tl:ey obse:vc. Critirnl research
Research Ill 327
continues to problematize normative and
u:1iversal dains in a way that does not perrr:it
them to he analyzed outside a politics of repre-
sentation, d:vorced from the material conditions
in wl:id: they are produced, or outside a concern
with the co:isti:ution of the subject in the very
acts of reading and writing.
In his book Critical Ethnogr,,ph.y Ed1,airi<mal
Research (1996), Carspecken addresses the issue
of critical epistemology, a;1 understanding of the
relationship between power and thought, and
power am: truth c:aims. In a short exposition
of what is "critical" to er it:cal epistemology, he
deb·Jnks facile forms of soda! constructivism and
offers a deft criticism of mainstream epistc:nolo-
by way of Continental phenorner.o~ogy, post•
structuralism, and postmodernist social theory,
mainly the work of Edmund Husserl and Jacques
Derrida. Carspecken makes short work of facile
forms nf mnstruclivi&t thought, purporting that
wha: we see is strongly influenced by what we
already valui;; and that criticalisl res.:arch simply
indulge~ it ,elf :n the "correct" political values. for
instance, some constrm::t:vists aqme tha~ all 11:al
criticalists need 10 do is to ''bias" their work the
direction of social justke.
This form of co:1structiv:st thought is 1101
viable, according to Carspecken, because :r is
plainly ocular-centric; that 's, it depends upon
visual percc?tion to for:n the basis of :heory:
Rather than rely on pexepua: metaphors foum:
in mainstream ethnographk accou:ns, critical
ethrwgrn pl:y, in contrast, should empbisize
communicative experiences and structures as well
as cultural typJkations. Carspecken argues that
critical etJ1:10graphy needs to differentiate among
or.tolog:cal categories (Le., subjective, o;:,jective.
r,ormative-eva:uative) rathe, than adopt the
posilior. of '·multiple realities" defended by many
constructivists. He adopts a principled position
that research value orientations should not deter
:nine research findings. as n:ucb as th is is possi-
ble. Rather, critical ethnographers should employ
a critical epistemology; that is, they ~hould 'Jphold
epistemologica: principles that apply to all
researchers. ln fecundating this daim, Carspecken
rehabilitarcs critical ethnography from many of
 328 111 HAN'DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER '
:he misper<:eptions of its critics who believe that it
ignores questions of validity.
To construct a socially critica; epistemology,
critical ethnographers need to understand holistic
modes of human experience and their relatio!l-
ship to cmnmunicative ,tmctu::e&. Preliminary
stages of th is process that Carspecken artkulates
include examining reseax:1er bias and discover-
ing researcher value orientations. Followir:g stages
include compiling the primary record through
the collection of monological data, preliminary
reconstructive analysis, dialogical data generacion,
discovering social systems relations, and using
systems relations to explain findings. Anthony
Gidden:;', wurk k1rms the basis of Carspecken's
approad1 to systems analy;is. Accompanying
cussions of each of the complex Carspecke•
develops are brilliantly articulated approaches to
horizm:tal ar,d vertica: validit)' recor:structions
and pragmatic horizons of analysis, I• order to
help link theory to practice, Carspecken uses data
fro:u his study of an inner-city Houston elemen-
tary school program that is charged with helpir:g
students learn conflict management skills.
Another impressive feature is Carspecken's
exposition and anal)'Sis of communicative acts,
especially his discussion of meaning as em':mdi-
ment and understanding as imersubjective, not
objective or subjective, Carspecken works from a
view of intersubjectivity that combines Hegel,
Mead, Ha':Jermas, and 'laylor, He recommends that
crilkal ethnographers record body language ca:e•
fully ':iernase the meaning of an action Is not in the
language, it is rather in the action and the actor's
bodily states, In Carsped<en's view, subjectivity is
derivative from intersubjectivity (as is objectivity),
and intersubjectivity involves the dialogical consti-
tution of 11:e "feeling !Jody;' Finally, C.ar!lpecken
stresses the importance of macro-level social
theories, environmental condition.~, sociaJy struc-
tured ways of meeting needs and desirei,, erects
of ci:irnml commodities on students, economic
exploitation, and political and culti:ral conditions
of action. Much of Carspecken's ins:,iration for
approach to validity claims is taken frorr:
Habermas's theory of communicative action.
Carspccken reads Habermas as grasping the
prelingu:stic fou:idations oi lang·Jage and
intersuhjectivity, making language Se(Ondary to
the concep: of intersubjeclivity.
Yet Carnpecken departs from a srr kt
Habermasian view of action by bringing in an
expressive/praxis model roughly consistent with
Charles Taylor's work. Although Ha bermas and
Taylor frequently argue against each other's posi•
tions, Carspecken puts t:iem together in a con-
y incing manner. Taylor's emphasis on holistic
• odes of i: nderstanding and the act constitution
that Carspecken employs make it possible lo link
the theory of co;nmunicative rationality to work
on en".bodied meaning and the metaphoric basis
of rr.eaningful action. It a:so provides a :neans for
synthesizing Giddens's ideas on part/whole rela-
tio:1s, vir:ual strucl 11 re, and act constitution with
communicative rationali:y. This is anotlter way ill
which Carspecker:'s work differs from Habermas
and yet remains consi~tent with his theory and
1he internal link between meaning and validity_
I'll RECENl INNOVATIONS
IN CR:TTCAL ETHNOGRAPJIV
In acdition to Carspecken's brilllam insights
into critkally grounded etlmography, the late
1990s witnessed a proliferation of deconstructive
approaches as we'.l as reflexive approaches (this
discussion is based on Trueba and McLaren
[2000 I), In her important book Fiction, ~t' Femin/51
Ethnography ( I994J, Kamala Visweswara:1 main
tains !hat re:lexive eth:mg~aphy, like :iormative
eth:iogra?hY, rests on the "declarative mode" of
impartir:g k11owledge to a reader whose identity is
audmred in a shared discourse.
Dernnstructive e6nography, in contrast,
enacts tl:e "ir:terroi:,rative mode" through a cons tau I
delerral or a refusal to explain or in:erpret Within
deconstructive ethnography, the identity of the
reader with a unified su·::iiecl of enunciation is dis
couraged. Whereas reflexive ethnography tru1in-
tains tl:at the elhi:ographer is not separate from
the object of i:westigation, the ethnographer is still
viewed as a 'Jnified subject of knowledge that can
make htTmer.eutic efforts to establish identification
 Kincheloe & McLaren: Rethinking T:ieory and Researd·. II 329
between the observer and the observed (as in
moderr.ist lnteqiretive traditio:1s). DeconstrJctive
ethnography, in contrast, often disrupts such
identification in favor of articulating a fractured,
destabilized, multiply positioned subjectivity (as
in pos:modernist interpretive tradil ions). Whereas
reflexive ethnography questions its own authority,
deconstructive ethnugraphy forfeits its autho:ity.
Both approaches 10 crit:cal ethnography can
be used to uncover the dinging Eurocentric
authority er.tployed by ethnographers in the study
of Latino/a populations. The goal of both these
approaches is critkalist in nature; that is, to free
tho object of analysis from the tyranny of fixed,
unassailable categories and m rethink subjecliv ity
itself as a permanently unc:o,ed, always partial,
narrative e:1gagement wit!: text and context Suc:1
an approach ca:i help tl:e elbnogra::iher to caut:or.
agains7 the damaging depictions propagated by
Anglo observers about "1exican immigrants. As
Ruth Behar (1993) notes, dassieal sociological
.1nd ethr.ographic accou:its of the Mexican and
Yieidean American family, stereotypes similar to
:hose surrnur:ding tl:e black family perpetuated
images of the autr.oritarian, oversexed, and macho
husband a:1d the meek and subrr:issive wife snr·
rounded by children who adore their good and
suffering mother. These stereotypes have come
under stror,g critique in the las: few years, partic-
ularly by Chicar.a critics, who have sought to go
beyond the various "deficienq· theories" that con-
tinue to mark tbe discussion of African American
and Latinoia family life (p. 276).
The conceptior, of culture advanced by criti-
cal ethnographers generally unpacks culture as
a complex circuit of production that Ind udes
myriad dialectically reinitiating and mutual ,y
informing sets of activities such as routines,
rituals, action conditions, systems of intelligibility
and mear.i:lg-making, conven:ions of interpreta•
tion, systems relations,and conditions both exter-
nal and internal to the ~ocial actor (Carspeckfn,
1996), In her ethnographic study A Space on the
Side ofthe Road ( 1996), Kathleen Stewart cogently
illustrates the ambivalent character of culture,
as we!: as Its fluicitr and ungraspable rnultila y-
eredness, when she rema:ks:
Culture, as It is seen through its productive forms
and means of mediatiun, is no:, ihen, reducible to a
body of social value and belief or a c:~ct pre•
cipitant of lived experie::ce lr. the world but grows
jnto a space 0:1 :he side of :he road w:1ere stories
we'ghtd with sociality u1ke on a life of their own.
We "sec" it ... only by building up m:.:ltt:ayered
narratives of thr poetic :n the everyday life of
thing~. We rcpresrnt it only by roaming fam: ~::c
texted genre: :o anolher-rolllllnlk, r,;alist. his'.ori•
cal, fantastic, sociological, surreal. There :, no :'inal
textual sclution, no way uf 1eso[vjng ,he dialogi:
of the 'nterpre:erlinterpreted or subject/object
through effurts to "place'' ourselves in the :ert, or to
represent "the fieldwork experiem:e," or to gather ·~p
the wices of the other a;; if they could speak for
rhem~elvcs. (p. 210)
According to E. San Juan ( I 996), a renewed
unrirrstanding of culture-as both discursive
and material-becomes the linchpin for any
emancipatoq, polilics. San Juan writes that the
idea of cul:me as social processes ar.c practices
that are thoroughly grounded in material sncial
n:lalions-in the systems of maintenance (eco•
no:nics). dcci, ion (politic.~), learning and com-
munication (culture), and generation and
1::.irture (the domain of social reproductlon)-
must be the grounding principle, or paradigm if
you like, of any progressive and err.an;;ipatory
approach (p. li7; G:esson, 1995). Rejecting the
characteriza':ion of anthropologists as eitl:er
"adaptationalists" (e.g., Marvin Harris) or
"ideatior.alists" (e.g., cognitivists, Levi Straussian
structuralists, Schneiderian sy1r.bolists, Geertzlan
i nterpretivists ), E, Valentine Daniel remarks in his
recent ethnography Charred Lullabies: Chapters
in an Anthrapo!ogy of Violence (1996) that culturl'
is "no longer something out there to be discov-
ered, descr'bed, and explained, but rnther some-
thing imo whi:h the etl:nographer, as interpreter,
enter! s]" (p. 198 t Culture, in other words, is
cocreated by the anthropologist and informant
through conversation. Yet even this semeiosic
conceptuaEzation cdture is not without
problems. ,A,,, Daniel himself notes, even if one con-
side,s oneself to be a 'culture rnmaking processu-
alist;' in contrast to a 'culture-finding essentialist:'
 330 Ill HA>IDBOOK OF QLIALITATTVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 12
one still r:as to recognize that one is working withi :i
a logocentric tradition that, to a greater or lesser
extent, p:iv ileges worc.s ovl!r actions.
Critical ethnography has benefitec from this
new understancing of culture and from the new
hybridic ?OSsibilities for cultural critique that
have been opened up by the current blurring
and mixing of disciplinary genres-:huse that
empha.~i,e experience, subjectivity, refl<::zivity,
and dialogical understar:ding, The advar.tagc
that follows such perspectives is that soc:al life is
not viewed as preontologkally available for lhe
researcher to study. II abo fo[ows that there is no
pe:-s?ective unspoiled by ideology from whic:1 to
sti:dy social lifo :n an a:itiseptically objective way.
\'\'hat is important to note is the stress rlaced
on the idculogkal situatedness of ar.y desc,iptive
or socioanlllyt:c acrnu:1t of social life. C,itical
ethnographers such as John and Jean Comaroff
(: 992) have made sign:fkant cor:rrihntions to
ou:- understanding of the W!lys iu which power is
entailed in culture, leading to practices of domi-
nat:on and explo:tation that have become natu
ralized in cvcryda y so dal life. According to
Co:naroff and Comaroff, hegemony refers to "that
crder llf signs and ;:iractices, rela:ions and distinc-
tio:is, images and epistemologies-drawn fro:n a
historically situated cultural field-that come to
be taken-for-granted as the natural and received
shape of the world and everything that inhabits
(p. 23;. These axiomatic and yet ineffable
ciscourses anc. practkes that are presumplive:y
shared becoc1e "ideo:ogical" precisely when their
i:Jternal contradictions are revealed, uncovered,
and viewed as a:bitrary and negotiable. Ideology,
then, refer, lo a highly articulated worldview,
master narrative, discursive regime, or organizing
scherr.e fur collective symbolic production, ·:i1e
dom;nan: ideology is the expression of the domi-
nant sodai group.
Following this line of argnment, hegemony "is
nonnegotiable and 11:erefore beyond direct argu-
ment;' whereas ide(Jlogy "is more susceptible to
being perceived as a matter of inimical opinion
and interest and therefore is open to rnntestation"
(Comaroff &: Comarof:, 1992, p. 2·1 }. Ideologies
become tl:e expressio:1s of sped'ic groups,
whereas 'legem ony refers to conventions and
constructs th at are shared and naturalized
throughout a political comm·.mi!y. Hegemony
wo:ks both through silences and th rough I't'peti-
tion in naturalizing the dominant worldview.
-!'here also may exist opposi:ional ideologies
among subordinate or subaltern gro·Jps-
wl:ether well formed or ,oosely articulated-that
break free of hegemony. In this way, hegemony is
never total or complete; it is ahvays porous.
J11 CRHtCAL RESEARCH, 9/ l l,
A'<D THE Eri:tlRT To MAKE
SENSE 01' THE AMERJCAN
EMPIRE THE 2lsr CEKTURY
The don:inam power of these economic dynamics
has been reinforced by post-YI~: military moves
by the l:nited States. Cri:ica: researchers cannot
escape the profound imp Ii cations of these
geopolitical, economic, social, cultural, and epis-
temological issues for the future of knowledge
production and d isl ribution. An evolving critical-
ity is keenly aware of these power dyna:nics and
.
the way' thev embed themselves in a:l dimensions
of the issues examir.ed here. In this context, it is
essential that critical researchers 'WOrk to expose
these c.isturbing dynamics to both academic and
general ai:diences. In many ways, 9/ 11 was a pm-
found shock to millions of Americans who obtain
their news and worldviews from the mains:ream,
corporately owned meo:!ia and their umierstanc-
ing o: American international relations :rom what
is taugl:t in most secondary schools and in many
colleges and universitiei.. Such individuals are
heard frequently <in caJi,.in talk radio and TV
shows expressing the beiief that America is loved
int:ernatior:ally because ii is richer, more mo,al,
and more magnanir:rnus than other nations. l:1
this mind-set, t11ose who resist the Uni!ed States
hate its freedom for reasons never~ ui te spec:fied.
These Americans, the primary vict'ms of a right-
wing corpo:-ate-government produced misec '.lca-
tion (Kincheloe&: Steinberg, 2004 ), have not been
ir.fo,med by their news so\lrces of the societies
 Kincheloe & Md,aren: Re:hinkir.g Theory and Research Ill 331
that :iave her:i undermined by cove:-t U,S,
military operations and ffS. eco:m:nic po~icies
(Parenti, 2002), Many dn not believr, for example,
the description of the human effects of AP.1e:ican
sanctions on Iraq between the first and second
Gulf Wars. [ndeed, the hurtful activities of the
American Empire are invis:ble to many of the
empire's subjects in the United States itself.
The comp'.exity of the relariooship between
the West (the United States in particular) and
the Islamic world demands that we be very care•
ful in laying out :he argument we are making
about this cu'.:ural pedagogy, this miseducation,
The activities of the Americ:an Empire have not
been the only forces at work creating an islamisl
extremism that violentlv• defies the sacred teach-
ing of the religion. But American misdeeds have
played an important rnle in the process, A new
critical orientation toward knowledge production
and research basec on an appredatlon of diffo~-
encc can help fac United States redress some of its
past and present policies toward the diverse
Islamic world, Although these polick>S have been
i:lvisible to many Americans, they are visible to
the rest of the world-the Islamic world in par-
ticular. Ignoring the history of t':te empire,
Kenneth Weinstein (2002) writes in 6e Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation's (2002) Si!ptember II:
What Our C,,ildren Need to Know that the Left
"admits" that differei:ces exist between cultures
but paradoxically downplays their \·iolent basis
through rel ati visrr. and multiculturalism. Uviews
,ultural diversity and national differences as n:at -
ters of taste, arguing that the greatest crime of all
is judgmentalism. Weinstein concludes t:iis para-
graph by arguir:g that Americans a~e just too nice
and, as such, are na'ive to the ~hreats posed by
many groups arounc the wor:d.
The Fordham Foundation's September 11:
What Our Children Need to Know (2002) is right•
wing educato: Chr.,ter Finn's epistle to the nation
about the incompetence of U.S. educators. l'he
report's list of contributors is a virtual who's who
of the theorists of the 21 s:-century Amerkar.
Empire, including the wife of Vke President Dici<
Cheney, Lynne Cheney, as well as William Bennett.
Critical researchers should be aware of the politics
of know'.edge operating in this well financed
discreditation of thoughtful educa,ors, As Finn
puts it, he had to act because so much "nonsense"
was being put out by tl:e educat:onal establish•
ment What Finn describes as nonsense can be
read as scho~arship attempting to provide per-
spective on the long his:ur y of Western-Islamic
relat:ons. Finn's use of"so mucn'in relation to this
"nonsense" is crass exaggeration, Most materia1s
published about 9/11 for educators were rather
innocuous pleas for helping children ceal with the
ai:xiety produced by the attacks. Little elerr.entary
or secondary school material devoted to histori •
cizing or contextualizing ,he Islamic world and its
relation with the West appeared in the first 2 years
a:ter the tragic events of 9/ 11 .
Kenneth Weinstein and many other Fordham
,r.ithors set up a dassk straw man argument in
this context. The Left that is portrayed by them
eq•Jates difference with a moral relativism that
is unable to (ondemn the inhumane activities of
particu:ar groups. Implicit ~hroughout September
JJ: What Our Children Need 10 Know is the notion
that this fictional Americar. l.efl does not con-
demn al-Qaeda and crimes against humanity,
It is the type of dis:ortion that equated opposition
to the second Gulf War with support for Saddarr.
Hussein's Iraqi regine. How can tl::ese malron
tents oppose America, the Fordhao authors ask.
Their America is a new empire that constantly
denies its imperial &mensions. The new empire
is not like empires in previous historical eras th at
overtly boasted of conquest and the taking of
colonieS. The 21st cer.tury is the era of the post•
modern empire that speaks of its mo:al duty to
unselfishly libernte nations and return power to
the people. Empire leaders speak free markets,
the rights of the people, and the domino theory of
democracy. The fle'l'I' American Empire employs
public relations peo?Je to po:-tr.iy it as the pur•
veyor of freedom around the world. When its a..:ts
of liberntion and restoration of democracy elicit
protest and retaliatior:, its leaders express shock
and disbelief that such henevoleJtt actions could
arouse such "irratio:ial" responses.
In loe Kind1eloe's chapter on Iran in The Mis-
education of the "West; Constructirig ls/am (2004 ),he
 111 r:AhTlllOOK OF QUAUTATIVE RE!:>!'ARCH-CHAl'rl;R, 12
explores the inabifoy of American leaders to
understand impact of empire building in tr.e
Persian <3ulf on the p!iych<'s of those p.:rsoi:ally
affocted by such activities. Indeed, the American
public was ignorant of cover! U.S. operations that
overt11rew the democratica.!y elected gover:1m.:-nt
of Cran oo a totalitarian regime more sympathetic
to the crass needs of the Ac:1erican Empire could he
installed, The citizens of Iran and other peoples
arour:d the Muslim world, however, were acutely
aware of this imperial action and tin: contempt
for Musl'ms it im pl :ed, i'.'hen this was combir.ed
with a p,ethora of oilier LS. politic2:, n::ilita:y, and
economic initiatives in the region, their view of
America was less than positi•~. h the rnse of Iraq
in the sewnd Gulf \Var, ,\merican leaders simply
disregarded the views of natior.s around the world,
~he Muslim world in particular, as they expressed
their opposition to the American invasion. History
was erased as Saddam Hussein was viewed in a
psychologica: context as a r:iad:nan, References to
t'nes when the t:nited States supported the mad-
man were ddeted from memory The empire, thus,
co;ild do wha:evrr i: wanted, rcgardlei;s of
impacr on the Iraqi people or the perceptions of
others (irrational others) around the world. An
e?isl.:mologkal na'ivctc-the belief :hat dominant
American ways of seeing both itself and the world
ax rational and obje,tive am! that di:fering per-
spectives are irrational-permeate the official
inforn,ation of the empire (Ahui<hittala, 2004;
Kell:ier, 2004; Progler, 2004; Steinberg, 2004). As
John Agresto (2002) writes in :hr fordham report:
It :s not very hdp:ul to nnderstand other cultures
and outlooks not unde:stand oi.:~ own country
and :t hab tried to achieve, What is it :hat has
brought tens of m]ions nf immigrant, to America,
not lo bomb ii, l,ul :o bet:er its future and their
own' V,h.t is it about the prnmi,e of libe:ty
and eq:ial trca:ment, ofla(}(lr that benefit, you and
your ll<'igr. bor, open field :or your en:erprise,
ambition, cetermin,,tion and pluck? T.7 mit tll l;J,ik
a/ Americ:i through the lens ofyour ovn ideol:,g:; or
poliiici:d preference 1ml see 11,i:; it real!; is. Try, per•
haps, to see the Am.,,-io:; mosr Arnerk~n see, That
ran :ie a fine a::tidole to smJgness m:ademic
sdf-righteousnes~. (emphasis ours}
Studying the Fordham fuuncation's ways of
looking at and teaching abo~t America with its era-
sures of:, istary deployed in the very name of a call
~n teach history, 'WC are disturbed. When thb is
combined with an a::ialysis of media represcnta ·
tions of fae nat:o:is war against :crrorlsm and ~he
second Gulf War in Iraq, we gain some soberbg
insights into America's fi.;:ure. The inability or
refnsal of many Americans, especially those in
power, to sec the problematic activities of 11:e
"invisible" empire does not portend peace in the
world in the com:r:g years. Th.:- way knowledge is
produced and transmitted in the United States :iy a
corporatized media and ar: increasingly corpora-
tized/vrivatized
. cdi. ,ational svstem
'
is one of the
central political issues of O'Jr time. Yet, b the main-
slrearr. political and educational cor:versatious
it is not e\'en on the radar. A central task of critical
researchers n:usl involve put:ing the'lr politics of
knowledge on the public agenda. The power litera-
cies and the concern with social change delineared
in our discussion of critical theoretical research
have never Jeen more important to the world.
Ill REd.'RDfCES
Ahcullah, J,, & Strioge, E (1999)" Indigenous knowl-
edge, indigenous le".1rning, indigenous :-escarch,
In L Semali & J, L K:::cheloe (Eds,), What is
f•rdigc1;011s krwwiedge? 'voices from the acaderny.
Bristol, PA: falmer,
1\bercmmhie, N. ( I994), Aut:orily and consumer
soci<'ty. To R. Keat, N, Whiteley, & A,,crcromhie
( Eds.), The authority of t/,e consumer. ."few York:
Routledge"
Abukhattala, I. (2004 ), The new bogeyman under :he
b.:d: Image forma:ion of Islam :n the Weste:n
sdioo. curriculum and media. In j, L Kir.cheloe &
S,R.Sleinbcrg (F.ds.), The misetiucatiorr ofthe West:
Constructing !slant New York: Grerm,ood.
Aggcr, It ( 19921, Tiu, discourse cf domination· From
thr Frankfurt ,chool fc1 postmodrrnism. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern Universi:y Press.
Agger, Ii. (1~98). Critical social 1/ieories; .4n introduc·
lio,;, Bol!ldcr, CO: Wc.~tview,
Agrc,to, J, (2002 ), Lessa:1~ of :he Pre2:nbk. In Thomas
H. Pordha::i "oundo:io:i, &ptemhtr 1i: l·Vhat our
d, ifdrun ro know, Retrieved from www
 Kincheloe & McLaren: Rethioki ng Thmry and Research 111 333
.dexcellence.netli11s: it·~te/publicationl?ublication
.cf:n?id=6S#743
Alfino, M., G.!puto, J., & Wynyard, R, (Eds.). (1996).
MtD(urntdization reYisite,i; Critiml essay, cu
con:mmer and c11/tarr. Westport, CT: Pracgtr.
Allison, C. ( l99i<). Okie namni,·es: Agency and
w:ii:eness. 111 J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg,
t,;. M. Rodrig1in, & R. E. Cltennault (Eds.), While
reign: Deplo;ing whitemiss !~ America. New York:
St. .',1ar:in's.
Ande~en, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in educa,
tion: Orig:ns, curnrnt sta :us, and :icw rlircctions.
Review uf Ed!lcalional Ri:seard1, 5.9, 249-:UU.
Apple, M. ( 1995), Cultural politi.-s and education.
Ncw York: Te-a~hers College Press.
Aronowi:z, S., & DiFazio, W. (1994). The joblt'Ss (urure.
Minneapolis: Ur:'versi!y of Minnesota Press.
Aronowitz, & Giroux, Ii. (1991). Postmouem fdu-
catfrm: Politics, culturt, and social
Mi:mcapolis: Un iverfiity u[ Minnesota Press.
Asl:crnfl, B., Griffiths, G,, &Tiffin, fl. (Eds,). (1995). The
pvsi-wlmlia! st1uiies re,uier, New York: Routlulgt.
.Bau man, Z. ( I \195 ). L(fi: in fragments: Essays in post-
modern morali1y, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
llc,k-Gemsheim, E., Butler, J., & Puigver:, L. (2003;.
Wcmen ~ml serial mmsforrn,itlmi. New Yor;i.:
Peter Lang.
Behar, R. ( 199 3)_ Tra11s/a1ed wwu:m: Crossing the bo,,.Jer
wi,h Esper-.inza':; !lory. Boston: :le.icon.
Hchar, R,,& (i()rdon, D.A. (F,di;,i. ( '.995). Womer: writing
mlture. Berkeley: University of California Pre;;s.
Sclfo, W, ( 2C03). The crisis of the globalist project and
the new eamum:cs of George W. Bush, New I.a bar
Forum. Retrieved from www.g1ubalpolicy.org/
g:obali ;/econ/20U3/0 71 o,ello.httn
3ens;1id, n (2.002). Marx for our times: Adventures ami
misadvenr<,;res of a critique (l:. Elliot, Trans,).
London: Ver:;o.
llerger, A. A. ( 1995 ). Cuirurni critid,m: A primer of key
cm1cep/s, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Berry, K. (1998;, ''forluring :he imagination of resis-
tance: Young as c~eators of knowledge.
In }. L, Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.),
l'm1utiiorized 11,e1iuui,: Stratexirs j'or critical
1eadiing. New "<irk: Routledg('.
ISersani, L (.995}. tovi::g men. In M. llerger, B. Wallis,
& S. Watson (Eds. I, Comtrucring masrnli•1ity,
NeW York: Rout:edge.
Blades, (1997). Procedures power and curriculum
c!umge: fuuc,mlt ami 1h1 quest far p,mibiliii,:s in
sm·nce edurntion. New York: Peter l.ang.
lllonunaert, J. (1997}. Workshoppfng: Nme .. ,m profes
sim1ai vision fo discourse. Retrieved from hltp:i/
afrkana _ nig.ac. :iei,<1xts/research- publkations/
pu':ilkatio:1s_on· line/works'iopping.htni
l!,ion, J. A. (1982). Other tribes, other Symbolic
anthrcpQ/Qgy in the wmpar:itive study of ,uilurts,
liiswries, religions, arid :ext.,. Cambridge, (K:
uimbridge University Press.
Boim::,eu, P., &Wacquaat, L (1992). Au illvitafion to
reflexite scciclo,'?]. Chkagu: Universi?y nf Chicago
Press.
B~nts, B., & Monson, M. (I 99!\). Whitewashing the
,t:ip: The cons:ructi()n of whiteness in I.a,
In J. L Kincheloe,S. R. Steinberg, N. ~1. Rodriguez,
& R. E. C"iennault (Eds.), 1.Ylrite 11;igrr: Dcplo)·il,g
whiterre,<s in America. l\ew Yo:k: St, Martin's,
Bresln, L, & Ardid:vili, A. {Eds.). (2002), Re.~earch in
international education: Experience, theory. and
prartiee. Ntw York: Peter Lang.
Britzman, D. (1991 ). Practice make.; prattlce: A critical
;1wdyoflearnirig tc teach Albany: Stak tniversity
of l\ew York Press.
Britzmar., l), (1995 ). \-li'hat i,; thi, tl:':ig ,all,:d love?
Taboo: 1'/U: Jc•,,rn~/ af Cullan: and Eciurntior;, f.
Bro,k-[:ne, B. l i996), Reliability and validity in
qualitative resear,'1 wi:hitt Africa. Irirematinna/
Re1•iew af Edurntion, 42, 60:.-62 L
Bros 10, R, {L 994}. The mdical democratic critique
capitalist education. Kew Yo:k: Peter Lang.
Burbules, I\., & B~ck. (1999). Crifa:al thinking
and citical pedagogy: Rekt:<ms, differerices, and
1in::•ts. In l Popkewit,; & L remllcr (Eds,;, Critical
thwries in education. New rork: Rout:edge_
Butler, M, ( 1998). Negotiating plaa:: The importa:ice
of children's r.:alities. 1n 5. ll Steir.btrg & J. L
Kim:heloe (Eds.), Studer,,; as rcsear-J1ers: Creating
classrooms that matter. London: 'fay:or & Francis.
Canne:Ja, Ci. [ I 997). Deconsiructing tarly c~i!dhood
ed11catiow Socilll justice; and revolution. New York:
Peter Lang.
Carl,on, n. (1997). Te,;chers In crisis, New Yiirk: Routledge.
Cnrlson,D., & Apple,.M. (Eds.), (1998),Poweilknowledgel
pedagog)': The meaning r,J dcmaaatir ~duca1i1m
in unseltling times. lloulder, CU: Westvicw.
Carspccken, E F. ( 1993). Puwe,; tmrh, and method:
Outline for a critical method,;/ogy. Ur.puhli.shed
manuscript, Indiana University.
Carnpecken, P. F. (: 996). Critical e1h11ography ir,
tiona/ n'SL'1m:h: A tl,eoretica! und practical gmde.
Kew York: R::.-.:tledg~.
 11 HAN"DBOOK OF Ql:AL'.TATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 12
Ca:specLrn, P. F. (1999). Four scenes for po,ing the
question of meaning ,md ot.~er essays in critical
phifosophy and critical methodology, ~ew York:
Peter Lang.
C,rter, R_ (20m;. Visual li:eracy: Critical thinking with
the visual image. :n D. Weil & J. KinchC:ct (Eds.),
Critim/ thinking and learnir17,; Att encyclopedia for
parents and ,eachers. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Carter, V. (1998), Cnmputer-assisted rads:'.'!: 1bwa:tl
an understanding of cyber-whiteness. In l- L
Kincheloe, S, R. Stein':Jerg, ~- M. Rodriguez, &
R. ~- Chc11nat1lt (Ed,.j, \'it1ite reign: Deploying
whiteness i11 America,, New York: St. Martin's.
Cary. R. ( 1996).1.Q. as commodity: The "new" ecor:om-
of in:elligencc. J;: J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg,
& A. ll Gre~son m (Ed!i.), Measured lies: 1ne bel!
curve examiried. New York: St :-.1artin's.
Cary, (2003). An and aesthetics. In ll Weil &
;, Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical thinking and learning:
An encydopediafor parent.< and teachers, Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Chtm1sky, 'I. (2003, August II), Prcvcn:ive war ":he
supreme- cr[me'.' Z11e1. Retrieved from www.imag
.orgtcontent/,howartickcfrn?SeclionlD~40&ltc
m!D"'4030
Christian Smith, L, & Keel or, K S. ( I 999). Everyday
knowledge and women ofthe academy: UN common
truth$, Bould::r, CO: Westvie..~.
C:ar,.;, L (2002). Critical theory 11.~d cm:structivism.
111eo1y anJ mtilwds for the teens and the new
me,l:a @ home projecl. Retrieved from www.
co lorado.ec:L:/.iff; rnalism/ me m/ cm r-,rit-lheorv,
.htm
C:aneroough, K. ( 1997). Contemporary perspectives on
masculiniry: Men, wmnen, mu:! pofitic$ in modem
society. Bn:;:der, CO: WGniew.
Cl if:crd, J. (1992 J. Traveling cultures. In L Grossberg,
C. Nc:son, & P.A. Trek:i:er Cu/tumi s1udi£s.
New Yo:k: Routledge.
Clough, P 1: (1992). The end(s) of ethnogruphy: From
realism to .m::ial er iticism. ~ewbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Clough, P. l ( l 994;, Feminist th aught: Desire, powc'r and
academic discmme. Cambr:dge, MA: Blackwell.
Clough, i' 'I'. ( 1998), Tire end;s) of elhnography: Prom
realism to social crfJ'ici:i·m (2nd ed.). ~ew Yor:.::
Pete:- La:ig.
Coben, D, (199S). Radio,/ heroes: Gramsci, Freire ar,d
tht' politics of,1dult education, New York: Garland.
Collins, J. ( 1995).Architecture1 of excess: Culmmi life in
the information age. J:,;ew York: Routledge.
Comaroff, l-, & Coma:'Off, J, (:992), Ethnography and
th1i his111ric1I imagination. Boulder, CO: Weslview.
Conr:or, S, (l '192). Theory and cultural vaiue.
Cac:bridge, .V.A: Blackwell.
Cooper, D. I 1994 ), Productive, relational, and e:v,;ry•
where? Conceptualizing power and resistance
with:n F'oucauldiar. fo:n:nism, Sociology,
43:.-454.
Corrigan, le (: 979), Sc/waling the Smash Street Kids.
London: Ylacmillan,
Crapanzano, V. ( l 990). Afte:word. In M, Mang.i:iarc
(Ed.), l.Jodernist amhropalogy: From J'le!dwork ta
text. P:inctton, NJ: P:inceton University P:e,s.
llablborn, B. (1998), Going ta the future. Retrieved from
http :f/www. viktoria .i:1fmr:atik.gu.se! ~maxfbo/
paper~.hlml
Dank:, E. V: (:996), Charred /.;ilahl/!$: Chapter~ in an
anthropology of l'ivience, l'rincelon, :-JJ: Princeton
University Press.
Darder, A., & Torres, R. (2004). A,fter race: Racism after
mulricuituralism. New York: Ktw York l:11iversi1y
Press,
DeLissovoy, N., & McLaren, P. (2003). Educational
"accountability" and v'olence of capital: A
Marxia;; reading, Joumal aJ Educaticm Policy, 18,
131-143,
Deetz, S. A. (1993, May). Corporations, thf' media,
imiustry, and saliety; E,hical imperativi!'S 1111d
respcnsibilities. f'aper presented at the annual
met'ting of the Inte:-nationai Communication
Association, Washington. DC
Dei, G., Kar:.imanchery, L, & Kar;imanrh~ry-I:~ik, K.
(2004), Playi11g the race card: Exposing white
power and priyflege. New York: Peter Lang.
Denzin, K. ( 1994 ). The art and politics of imerpreta ·
;ion. Jn N, K. Denzin & Y, S. Lincoir: (Eds.],
Ha11d/Jook of qualitative •·esean:h, ".'housand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1003), Performat1ve ethnography;
Critical pedagogy and tile pa!uic, ,rf cu!/ ure.
T':ou5and Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K.,& Lincoln. Y. S. (2000). lnt,oduction: T'ie
discipline and ;i:aclicc of qualitative research.
I:: Deniin &: Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.}, H,mdboak
oftmaiilalwe
, , resear.:Ji (2nd ed.). Thou~and Oak,,,
(A: Sage.
DcVa:,il,, M. (19%). ]alking back to sociology:
Di,tinctive contributions of fem: ;::st mcthodol•
ogy. Amuuil Jle11i1~ ofS'.!.:ralligy, 22, 29-50.
Douglas, S. (1994). Where rite girls are.· Growint up
Ji:male in the mass media. New Yo,k: Times Books.
 Kinchelru: & McLaren: 1ethinking Theory and Re!,earch Ill
Drummnnd, L. (19%).Ameriarn drewmlime: A c:,lturol
analysis of popular movies 1111d their inipiicariims
fQr a science afhumanity Lanha:n, MD Uttlrfield
Ad3ms.
Fehr, [). ( 1993). Dugs playing am:is; Power/mikers
prejudice in educatfori, art. ,md cu/lure. New Ycrk:
Prter Lar.g.
Fe::wkk, T. ( 2000 ). Expuientia! !earni1ig ir. adult
cation; A mmpwative Jrume work. Retrieved fnim
wv,rw,ualberla.c~/ ~tfenwid:Jext/aeq.htm
l'ergL:son, M., & f.olding, R (Eds.). (1997). Cufr11ra!
studies in ,,uest1'on. London: Sage.
r111ue:s, M, (1997). Jr,st Hidden literacies and
in jwm>r high New York: 'li>achers College
Press.
Fine, Y .• ?owdl, L C., Weis, I... & Wong, L. M, [Eds.).
('.997). Off 11-hlie: Readings on race, power und
socieiy. New York: Routledge.
J. (1993 ). Power works, pmver plays. Nrw York
Flecha, R, Gomez, )., & Puigvert, L. (Eds.). (2003).
Contemporcrry :mcio/ogkal theor'I New York: Peter
Lang.
Flossner, G., & Ono, 'fl. (Eds.). (:998). Towards more
1fenwrracy in social serl!i,.es: Mvdeis of culture and
welfare. New York: de Gruyter.
Ford~am founditio::. (2002). September J l: What
our children need to know. Retri;;ve<l www
.eciexce]en,c.nel/i 11stitutcipublication/pu'llication
,dm?idcvS
Foster, R. ( 1997;. Addressing epistcmo!og'r a:.d pm.:ti-
cal issues in n:ultimethod res,·arch: A pmccdure
for co::ccp! ual lriangulation. Advances m Nursing
Fducation, 20(2), 1-12.
Frankenberg, R. (I 993 ), While womm, r11ce matters:
The social nmstructi!m of whitem,rs. Minneapolis:
Univer;ity of Minnesota P:ess.
Franz, & S:ewart, (F.d;. ). ( · Women creating
lives Boulder. CO: Westview.
Freire, A. M.A. (2000). Foreword. In P. McLaren, Che
Guevara, PttQ!o Freire, and the pedagogy of revolu-
/iar,. Houlder, CO: Rowman and Litllefie:d.
Freire, A. \1. A. (2001). Chrorrid.es of !ow: My !ife with
Paulo Frdre. ~ew York: Peter Lang.
1-'reire,?. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New Yo:k:
Herder a11d Herder.
Freire, I'. ( 1972). Research meth()ds. Paper presented to
a se:rn nar in Studies in Adult Edl](ation, Dar-es-
Salaam, Tanzar.:il.
Freire. P. '. I ~78). Educmfon for critical 1w,.,cim.1sness.
New York: Seabury.
Freire, P. ( 1985). The politics afed1m,lion:Culture, vower,
and iiberation. Sout'i Hadley, MA: Bergin & Gan-ey.
F:iedma::, S. (:998). ([nter;i::iscip'.inarity and the
question of the women's studies Ph.D. Femini,;t
Studies, 301-nii.
f.icru, M. (l~gJ). rewrsal of 1hr ethnological
perspective: Attempts at objectifying one's m,m
cultural horizon. Dumont, fo11ca11\t, 3ourdieu?
The,'/$ Ele~en, 34, IO?-125.
Gabbard. n. (1995 ). NAFTA, GATT, and Go~!& 20(~):
Reading the political culture :{ post -industrial
America. Taboo: The Journal af Culture ,md
Education, 2, 184-199.
Gadar::er, H.-G. (: 989). Truth and meth.:id (2nd rev.
ed.) (J, Wei11sheimcr & IJ. G. l,larshall, Eds. &
Trans.), New York: Crossroad.
Gallagher, S. (19Y2). Hermemrnti,s and edurarfo11.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Can:ham, N. ( 1997). Poli:kal econQmy and the pniclice
of cultural studies. In M. Fergus,)n & P. Golding
(Eds.), C:ultura! ;!udies in q11estion. London: Sage.
J. (1996}. Social linguist;cs and literacies: Ideciogy
in discourses (2nd ed.). Lendon: Taylor & l'ra::cis.
]., Hull, G., & 1.ankshear, (1996). The new work
order: iM1i,u! the lm;guage of /he new ca11ita!c,m.
lfouldcr, CO: Westview.
liibson, R. (l 98a). Critic,il thecry and educailon.
London: H11dder & Stoug".ton.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and r,,sistance in edu;;mion:
A pedagogy for rhe opposiiion. South Hadley,
.Bergin & G~r·v~v
Giroux, B. (1988). Critical theory and the politics of
~J'.lure and voice: Rethinking the d:scoursr oi
ed·Jcational research. In R. Sherman & R. Webb
(Ecs.), Qualitati~e re.,,•1111:h In educatir:m; Pocus
and m,1/wds. "few York: Falmer.
Giroux, H. (1992). Rorder crosiings: Cultural workers
and t'1e poiitics ofeducation. New York: Rour:edge.
Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politic$ of hope:
Theorr culture, and schaoling. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Giroux, H. (200, )_ The abi.!.ridom:d genm:nfon:
Democracy bqcnd the culture of fe,ir, New York:
Palgrave.
Goldie, 'I: (1995). Th: representatio:: of the indigeue.
In fl. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, & E. Tiffin (Eds.), The
post-,n/omal studies readfl'. Kew Ya,k: R{:utledge.
Goodson, I. (l 997). The clia>rgirig curriculum; Studies
ir. social construc!ion. New York: Peter Lang,
Cress.m, A. !1995). The recovery of raa: i11 Amerim.
Xirmeapnlis: University of Minnesota Press.
 Ill HA~DBOOK OF OUA:,ITATI VE RESEARCH-C:fAPIER 12
Griff:::. C. ( l 985 ). 7'ypirnl girl,? Young women from
school lo the fob market. :,on,ion: Rmuledge &
Kegan Paul.
Grinberg, r (2003 ). Only facts? In D. Weil & J. L
Kincheloe (Eds. I, Critical thinking and learni1Jg:
,In emyc/ope,'iia for pa1'tl!ts and teachen
Wesq•ort, CT: Greenwood.
Cmndin, J. (l994). l!!!rodactfr:m to philcsoplrica/ i,erme•
neutb (J. W,·i::sheime; Trans.). New Haven, CT:
Yale Gnivcrsity Press.
Gmss,A., & Keith, W. (Eds.). (1997} .RJ1etorical hermeneu•
li.K Innmticm and inrerpretatitm in the- age af science.
Albany: Stole Un ive~lty of Nt':iv 'rhrk Press.
(irossbe:g, L. ( 1993). What's in a na:;ie (one more limc)1
Ta/100: 1'he Jounia! of Cuiture and Educatitm, 1,
Gm~sberg, L ( I9'i7). Bringing ii all back home: E.ssi.ys
on culiural studies, Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Hall, S., &du Gay, P. ( Eds.). ( 1996). Questions ofrulmral
utem ity. Lrnidon: Sage.
Harper, D. (1987). Working kiwwiedge: Skill and rnm-
mwrity in a small shop. C:1kagQ: University Qf
Chicago P~ess,
He:idigc, U. (]979). Subcuiture: The meamng of ~tyle.
Lon:.:on: Me:h·~en.
He,::ey• .'.1:1. (I 994 ), The presentation of gendered
contlkt in popular movies: Affective stereotypes,
rnltural smtiments, and mens ::ioliv.;itio::. Sex
RDles, 740.
:finche~; P. (1998). Findingfree,iom in !he ckifsrnmn: A
practical ir1lroducti011 to critical lheory. New York:
l'eler tang.
;lorkhei mer, M. ( B72 l. Critical theory. New York:
Seabury.
Hom, R. lr.000). 1huher talk; A post•fimnul inquiiy
i~trc educari,mal change. N'ew York: Peter Lang.
Howell. S. (1998). The learning mganization:
Reproduction whitt:ness. In J. L Kincheloe,
5. R. Steinberg, N. M. Rodriguez. & R. E. Chennault
{Eds.), Whit.c reign: Deploying whitnres4 in
ltmfri.:a :-:!cw York: St Marlln's.
E.umphrie,, B. (1997). from cr:tka: though, to ema:id-
patory action: Co::t:-adie1ory resea1ch goals? Sorn1•
iogim! F/.ese,.rch Online, 2( I). Rell ieved from www
.socresonlir;e.org.ukisocresonlinei2/ 1/3.html
llyenko11, E. V. (1977). Diaiecllmi logic: Essays on its
histflr;I and thear)t Moscow: P!Og:ces~.
llyenkov. E. V: 1 ,o.cai. The dialectics of the o.bstraet and
the ,:oncrete in Marx's Capita/ (S. Syrovatkin,
rrans.). Moscow: P~ogress.
Ilyenkov. I'. V. (1982b ). Lei;uu.it diulectics i:md the
metaphysics of positivism. Londor.: New Park
Pn.Jlicadons.
Ja6,snn, S.. & Rt:sso,A. po02 ). Ta/~ing buck 12nd acting
out: Women negotiating th~ media across cultures.
!>Jew York: Pe!er Lang.
Jardine, (1998). 1o dwell with a bm.md/ess he,1rt:
in curric,i/um theory, herrm,neutic5, and the
ecological imagination. New York: P~tcr Lang.
Johnson, C. (19%). Does capitalis:;i really nred p:mi
archy? Snmc old issue, rcconside::cd. Worn.ms
Studies lmerm,tional f-,mim, 19, 193-202.
Joyrk~, L. (19%). Reviewing re,eption; Tele, isfvn, 1
gender, and postmodern rnlture. lllmm::~.gton:
Indiana :rnivernity Press.
Ke:Jner, D. ( 1995). Media i:u!rure: Cu/i;;rr,i studies, ,ifen-
til)I, and politics between the maderr. and t~e past
modern. New J\1rk: Roulledge.
Kellner, D. (2004). September I I, terrur wa!; and blow·
back. In I. L Kind;elne & S. It Steinberg (Eds.),
The misl!'d1,catiori of the m•st: Canstructir;g Islam.
New York: Greenwood.
Kellogg, D. ( 1998 ). Exploring c:itkal distance in science
educalion: Students researching the implications
l,chnological embeddedness. In S. R Steinbe:-g
& f. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Smdems a, 1<!51!:!lrrhers:
Creating classrooms that matter. l1mc'on: Falrnrr.
Kdly, L. (I 996). Wben tl:e speaking profit
Reflection on the cl:alle::ges of ceveloping
:cminis: pe,spectves on abu.se and violence by
women, In M. Hester. L. Xell}; & J. Radfo:d (Eds.J,
Women, via/encr, and male power, Bristol, PA:
Open l:niverslry Press.
Kind:eloe, J. L. (199 I). 1eachers a., researclwrs: Qualitutivr
paths to e'llpowermrmt. Lrndon: Fah::cr.
Kincheloe, J. I.. (:993}. 1bward ,1 crirical politic, of
teacher thinking; Map,i:,ing 1!111 postrn{)dert1.
MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Kind:eloe, J. L (1995 j. Toil and tro~/,ic: Good work.
smart workers, and the ir;tegrarion of academic
and vocationr1/ education. New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1998). Cr't'<:al research ::: science
education. In B. F:aser & K. Tobin (Eds.),
htrernallimal hamfbook of ,cience education
(Pr. 2). BDst()n: Kluwer.
Kinchel::,e, f. (1999). How do we tell the workersr The
,ociveronomicfoundatfon, of ~,ork and vm:qrio1,a/
education. Bodder, CO: Westvkw.
Kinchdoe, J. (2001a). Describing hri;;o:age:
Conccptualiz'ng a new rigor in qualitative
research. Qualitative biquiry, 7(6), 679-69;:.,
 I( i r.dieloe
Kincheloe, I. (200J'Jl. Geuing beyond t/1e facts:
Teaching socia! studie,/1,ocial ,;,,,n,.e< in the
twerrtyfrst century (J nd ed.). New York: Peter
Lang.
KL,cheloc,J. L(2002). The sign aj'the burger: McDonald~
and the culture of power, t'hiladelphia: Temple
University Pre.s.
Kincheloe, J, (2003a). Crltkal ontology: Vision& uf
stlfhood a::ci rnrricci'.urr:. JCT: Journal of Curri-
culum Theorizing, 19(1), 47-64,
Kincheloe, T. ( 2003b;, Imo the great wide open:
lntrodui;;ing critical thinking. in D. Weil &
J. Kincheloe t Eds..), Criticlll thinking and !earr.ing;
An encyclopedia for parents and teachers.
Westport, C7: Greenwood.
Kincheloe, J. L (2003c). Teachers as researchers:
Qualitative paths to tmpQWerm,1;lt (2nd ed.).
London: Faln:er.
Kincheloe, J. (2004). 1:an and American mlseduca-
tion: Coven1ps, distortions, and omi~sions. In
J. Kin..:he:oe & S. Stein':'.!erg (Eds.), The misedu·
wt ion of the West: Constructing rs/am. New York:
Greenwood.
Kincheloe, 1., & Berry, K. (2ll04 ). Rigour and complexity
in educaiiont,l resrarrh: Conceptualizing the br{co-
lage. London: Oprn Unb:ersity Press.
Kincheloe, J. L, & Steinberg, S. R. (1993). A tentative
description of pos,.formal thinking: The c~itkal
confrontation with cognitive :he<Jry. 1:/a, ~ard
Rducational ReYiew. 296-320,
Kincheloe,).,& Steinberg, S. R. (1996). \/\'ho said it can'!
;,appe:i here? In J. Ki nche:oe, S. Steinberg, & A. D.
Gresson JU [Eds.), Measured lies; The bell curwi
examined. New York: St. Marlin's.
Kir:cheloe, ]. L, & Steinberg, S. R. (I 997). Cliimgi11g
multiculturalism: New times, new ,·urriculum,
London: Oper. Universi:y Press.
Kincheloe,;. L.. &: Steinberg, 3. R. ( 1999). Pulitiu-, intel,
Ugence, and t!:e classroom: Postformal teaching.
J, Kincheloe, S. S:einberg, &- L. Villaverde
(Eds.}, Rethinking intelligence: Confrrmti>1g psy,
chologicaJ am1mpiions about te,,.:hing and learn•
ing, 1','ew Yo:-k: Rcutledge.
Kincheloe, J. L. & Steinberg, S. R. (Eds.). (2004). The
miseducaticm of the West: Constructing Islam.
New York: Greenwood.
Kincheloe, J. J.., Steinberg, S. R., & Hinchey. P. (Eds.),
(1999), The post{orma/ reader: Cogniricm and
edurntiim. New York: Fahner.
Kincheloe, J, 1.., Steinberg, S. R., Rodriguez., K M., &
Chennault, It E. (Eds.}. {1998). White reign:
& lvlcLaren: Ret'iinking Theory and Research Ill 337
Deploying whilene,s in Amerita. New York:
St Martin's.
Klng, J. ( 1996). Bad luck, bad blood, bad faith:
Ideological hegemony and the oppre:xs;ve la11•
guage of:1oodoo social science. In I.:. Kincheloe,
S, R. Steinberg, & A, IJ. Gresson II I (Eds.),
Measured lies: Tl,e &ell cw·ve examined. New York:
St. Martin's.
King, J., & Mitchell, C. (l 995), Black mothers to sons.
New York: Peter Lang.
Knobel. M. (1999). Everyday literadrs"· Stud,'llts, dis-
course, and social practice. New York: Peter Lang.
Kogler, H. (l 996). 'fhe power of dialogue: Cri1irnl
lrnrmeneurics after Gadi;mer and Foucault.
C~n:bridge, ~A: ~HT Press.
Kovd, J. (2002), The enemy of Mture: Tire end of capi-
ta!ism or the end of th,1 world? to::don: Zed Boo'.<s.
Lacey, C. ( 1970). Higf1tow11 Gmmmar: The school as a
social system. London: Routledge & Keg1111 Paul.
Lather, l' (199 I;. Getting smart: Feminist research and
pedagogy wirrJin t.~e postmodern. New York:
Routledge.
Lather, P. (1993), Fertile obsession: Valic'ty after post•
struct·~~allsm. Sodoiogiwl Qu~rter!y, .34, 673-693.
Leistyna, P., Woodrum, A., & Shcr':ilom, S. (1996).
Brea.kii1zfree; Tiu: transjimnative po•41er of critical
pe,iagogy. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Ec:urational
Review,
Lemke, J. (1993 }, Discourse, dynamics, and social
change. Cultural Dynamics. r., 243 ··· 275.
l.emke, ]. (l 995 }. Textual politics: Discowrse and social
dynamics. London: 'faylo, & Franci~.
Len:ke, J. (I 998). Analyzin5 1•crhal data: Prinr:ples,
methods, and problems, ln Ii F:aser & K. ·;bbin
i;Eds.), International handbook of scief!ce educa•
tion (Pt. 2). Boston: Kluwer.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The !avage mind. Chicago;
University of Chicago Press.
Lincob. Y. (WO l). An eme:-ging new bricoleur;
Pro:nises and possibilities-a reaction to Joe
Kincheloe's "Descri:Jlng the brlcolcur'.' Q11alitati ve
Inquiry, 7{ 6), 693-696.
Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, "world"-:raveling.
and loving per;;eption. Hyfillia, 19.
Lull, f. (J995 J. Media, comm1111icatio,;, culture: A global
approach. New York: Columbia l:nivcrsity Press.
Luiz, K, Kendall. J., & Jones, K. (: 997). Expa::c::ig the
praxis debate: Contributions to clinical inquiry.
Advance, in Nur;ing Sci,•r.ce, 20( 2), 23-31.
Macedo. D. (1994). Litemcfos ofpower; What Americ,:ms
are not allowed to know. Bu.,:der, CO: Westview,
 JI HANJNOOK OF QUALITATfVE RESEARCH-Cl!AP'J'ER ·
Maher, F,, & Tetrc-aull, l-1. (1994;. Tlie femiriisl cl,,ss-
room: An iook at ho"' professors and
stud.mis are tr,msfcrming higher education far a
diverse s,}dety. Nc>w 'fork: Basic Books,
Manganaro, M. (1990). Textual play, power, and
culrJ!r!l crib; Ile: An o:ientation to moder:::st
anthropology. In M. Manganaro (Ed.), Modernist
anllrrc•pology: From Jieldw1:wk to text. Prin.:elon,
Kf: Princeton Universi:r
Marais, G, E., & Fischer, Y. .M. J. ( 1966). Ar1thropology as
cultural critique: An experimentql momenl in 11,e
imman <r,;,nn?< Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Y.ar,[n, H,, & Schuman, H. C Tlte glob,11 traJ•:
Glob11iiwtion and the assa11it on democracy 1md
prospcritp. New Ynr;z: 7.ed Books.
Mar:<, (197&). Economic and ilhilosophil'al Illll:it:-
scripls of 1844. ln The Marx-Eng,'ls readrr (2nd
ed., ll C. Tucker, Ed,), New :hk: Vv. W. Nnrt,,n.
Mathie, A., & Greene, J. (20C2). Hono,ing difference
and dialogue in i r:ternaticnal cdu~ation and
di:ve:op • ent: Mil.:ed-method fran:ewo:ks for
research. [n L. Bresler & A. Ardichvili (J!ds. ),
Research in internmional edur111io11: lixpcrimce,
theory, and practice. Sew York: Pw:r Lang.
r
Mayers, M. (200I Street .hd.1 1.md strcctsrapei:
l'anlumd!ing, politics, and propluxi,'5. New York:
Pete, La::g.
i\kLare11, P. (1992), Collisions wi:h othe:ness:
"Traveling" theo:-y, post-colonial critici~m, and the
pnlitics of <thnograpl::c practice-the mission of
t':e woundec ethnograp::er. Jntemational Joumuf
of Q11olitariv,, Studies in Education, 5, 77-92.
McLaren, P. (1995a ). Cri1ical pr:dap,og)' and predatory
cu/nm,: Oppo.1itirmJ:Ji politics in a pcstmodcrn era.
'lew York: Rou::L-dgc.
McLaren, P, (1995b I. Li{ein
' "
sdwo!s (3rd ed,), New York:
Lrnigma:',
Mcl.aren, P, (1997). Ri.·<colu,ion,1ry m11ftic-.;/turniism:
Pedagogies of Jrn,ent for lhe nrw miiicnnium,
)kH York: Routledge.
Md.aren, P. ( I998 ). Revolutionary pedagogy in :iost-
revolutiona ty :imcs: Rethinking the ~"·'"'"'
economy of crit:cal education. Ed1m.iti,mal
Theory, 48, 431-462.
McLaren, P. (1999). Sdwolmg as a r1t1111f p~rj,1rm,;11a:
Toward II p,•litica! ea:mcmy ofcdi,cational symbols
arid g;.,,tures ;3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Rowtr.an &
Littlefield.
!vlcl.a:'en, P. (200 I). Briddayers and br:rolrurs: A Marxist
adcendum. Q11a!i1ative Inquiry, 7( 6;, 700-705.
M;;Laren, P. (2002). Ma'.'X:st revolutionary prnxi,: A
curriculum (lf transgression, Jo1.1nrn/ of Currl-
n.:/um lriquiry fnta Curriculum and I11struction,
3(3 ), 36-41.
~1claren, l~ (2003a). Critic.;! pedagogy in the of
neoliheral globalization: Notes from histnry's
underside. Democracy and Nature, 9( I), 65-90.
Yd.arc:1, I' :200Jb). The dia'.ec:ics of terrorism: A
Manist re,ponst to Septe::ibcr 11 (Part ~wo:
Unveiling the Past, Evading th~ Present). lulwral
.'itudiesiCritical Method,1l,,gies 3(: ), I 03-132.
McLa:e11, P., & fo:-.i.lm:an<lpur, R. (2001 ). 'fl:e global
i,atitm of capitalism and lhe new imperialism:
Notes towards a revolulioni1ry critical pedagogy.
Ti,e Review of Educalian, Pedagogy & Culfura!
Mudies, 23(3;, 271-315.
McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2003). Critica:
11cdagogv at gm11nd wm: Renew'ng the educa-
tior:al af!er 9-11. In Ga.Jbard & Saltman
(Eds.}, Education as e11jiJrce1111mt: The mi/irariza-
!ion and rorporutization scltools. New Yor~:
Rout:edge.
McLaren, P., Hil::1m,,r, Reilly, S., & Sl10lle, D, ( J995).
Relhinking media !itemcy; A critical pedagogy
r::pre.;en/alwtt. New York: Peter Lang.
Mc:.arm, P., & Jar,imillo, K (2002). Critical pedagogy
as organizalion.i: p:11xis: Challenging the demise
of d,i: sodcty in a ti r::e of permanent war,
Edutativnal Foundatfons, 16i4 ),
McLaren, R, & iYlllrtin, G. (2003, Summer). The "big lie"
rnac':ine devot1ring America, Soci,1lW Future
Reriew,pp.
McLaren, 11, & !katamburlo-D'A:mibale, V. (2004). P,ml
½ illis, c:ass ,;onsciousness, ar:d
critical pcdagugy:
'loward a socialist f:::ure. In K. Dolby iii
G. Dimitriadis with P Willis (Eds.), leamirig to
labur ir, new time,. New York: Rou t:cdgeFalmer.
McLeod,/. (2000, June). QuaiilatiYe research as hrico-
Pape, presen:ed at the annual conference of
the ,,.,, 1v for Psychotherapy Resca:ch, Chkag<1.
0
~cWilliam, & Toylor, P. (Eds.). (:996;. J>edagogy,
tecl11wlogJ; a11(/ !he body. New York: Peter lang.
Y:iller, & Hodge, L (1996). Phenomenology,
hermen;;11tic.i, mid riarrati·.,e ,;na~ysis: Same
imfini.;hed methodologit.'al busmess. L:npubli~hed
manuscrip:, Loyola Uni\'crsity, Chicago.
Molnar, A. ( 1996), Giving kids the buslness: TIie com-
merdaliwfion of Amer/ell's schools. l:!11ulder, CO:
\i\fes:v;ew,
Morga11, W. (19\16 ). Personal training; Disi:r:urses ot
(self) :ash:oi1ing. In E. McWilliam & P. Taylor
 Kinc::eloe & .½cLare~,: Rethinking Theory .:::c Research II 339
!Eds.), Padagog}\ tcdmo/ogy, and ,he bndy.
New York: Peter Lang.
Morrow. R. (J 991). Critical theory, Gramsd and
culmrn 1 srndies: From structuralis::1 te p<~,:-
stmcturaHsrn. I11 P. \'Vexfor i Ed.), Criiirn! theory
n1J1.: New York: Fa\mer.
Mu.Jen, C (1999). Whi;eneSo, cnck& and ink-stains:
Making cultural identity wit': Euroamerican pre•
service lem:hers. k P. Diamo::d &C.Mu:Jen (Eds.),
The postmodern educatOT: Arts-band inquiries arid
teadrnr dev.r!opm,mt. New York: Peter Lang.
Myrsiades, K., & Myrsiade~. L (Eds.l. (1998). Race ing
.
representatum: "rmc.:,
. Im,ory,
.' an~A s.:xua.rry.
I'
:.anham, MD: Rowma:: & Li:tlcfald.
'Kcw:o::, J., & S,a0:y, '.. (1992-l993). Learning m,t
to curse, or, feminist predica1::ents in cultural
cr:t:d$:n by meu: Our movie cate with Jame~
Clif:ord and Stephen (;reenblatt. Cuirnral <:riri,1ue,
23, 51 -ll2.
Nicho:son, L J., & Scid:nan, S. (Eds.). ( 1995). Social post-
modernism: Beyond id,mtity politics. Few York:
Cambridge U::'versity Pcess.
Oberhardt, S. (2001 ). Frame, within frumes: The art
museum as cultural 1.rtifact. New York: Pe:er Lang.
Oilman, Fl. (1971 ). l,limali,m: Marx's conception of
m,;m in capira/i:,1 society. New York: Cambridge
University P:ess.
Ol!::ian, B, ( 1993 J. Dialectical investigatio111. Kew Yo:k:
Routledge.
O[:nan, B. (2003). Marxism, this :ale of 1wo d:ies.
Science & Sode!}I 67( l ), 80-86.
O'il.il,y, I' (2003). 1ethnolagy, cu/tut'!, and socfoeco-
mm1ics: A rhizoanalysis of edurntiona! discourses.
Nt'W York: Peter Lang.
Pailliotel, A. (I 998 ). Deep ,1iewi11g: A critical look at
1·i,ual texts. In ). L K:;icheioe &. S. R. Steinberg
(fak ), Unauthori:zed metlwds: Straiegies for cri!i-
ccii teaching. New York: Routledge.
Parenti, M. (2002), The tem:,rism trap: Septembtr 1!
aml bqomi. San Francisco: City Lighlli Books.
Paulson, R ( 1995). Mappir.g knowledge perspec:tve, in
s:udies of educational change. In?. W, Cookson, Jr.,
& 11. Schneider (Eds.), Trans/in-ming schools. ;llc1•,
York: Carland.
Peters, M. ( 1993 J. A_i;ainst Pi11.~id.haut's la defaite de i<1
per.see: Culture, postmodemism and edi,catimi.
Unpublished manuscrip:, t:nivcrsity of Glasgow.
Peters. M., & bmkshear, C. (1994). Education and
hermeneutics: A Freirean i::rerpre:atton. In
P. fl'cl.aren & C. Lat:kshear (Eds.). P(,/ifics vi
iiberati,m: Paths from freire. :-Jew York; R1:r.itledge.
Peters, M., Lankshcar, C., & Olsi,en, M. [Eds.}. (200:l).
Crinrnl tlreury am1 the human amdition. '/ew \brk:
Peter Lang.
I' foil, R (l 995 ). White gu_y,: S,udies in posutwdern
domination and differem:e. New York: Verso.
Pieterse, J., & Parekh, 3. (1995). S!:::ting imJginaries:
Decolonization, in1cr11al decclnnization, pos:coln-
nial'ty, In J. Pic:erse & 3. Pa:ekh (Eds.}, The dewl-
onizatfon cf imaginal ion: Culture, l,:r;owfedge, and
power. At:antic Highlands, J\'J; Zed.
Prakash, M., & E,m:va, G. (I 998). Escapir;g t'ducat,011:
Lii•ing us teaming within grassraots cultures.
New York: Peter Lang.
Progler, Y. (2004). Schooled :o order: Educ~tion and
the making of moderr. Egypt : n J. Kinc:celoc &
S. Steinberg (Eds.), The misrducatifm of the West;
Constructing !slam. New York: Greenwood.
Pruyn, M. {1994 ). Becoming subjects lhruugh critical
practice: How students in Jn eleme:itary dass-
rciom ,.:ritically read and wrote their world.
Jnternaticmai /oumal ofEducation.al Reform, 3(1 ),
:17-50.
Pr 1-,e, M. (l<i'lil). Critk2! intcrdiscipJin3ri1v, women's
studies, and c,oss•rnlturnl ins'ght. N\.VSi\
Journal, IG( I), l -11.
Qi.:ail, C. B., Ra1.7>!M, I<. A., & Skalli, :.. U. [2004 ).
1ell me more: Re,~ ir.king duytime tulk sho11>.
:-Jew Ycrk: Peter _,mg.
Quantz, R. A. ( 1992}. On critical ethnography
(wi:h s,,me uostmoJern considerations). I::
M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Mi:l,oy. & J. Preissle (Eds.),
The lumdboak ofq,u1litative research i11 educ<1tiott.
New Yor:<:: Academic Press.
Quintero, E.. & Rommel, M. K. (2003). Becomin.g a
tead:er in the 11eiv society: Brbtging comttiuniti"''
,rnd classroom, 111gether. New Yori<, Peter Lang.
Rabinow, P. (1977). Rejlecliuris on fieldwork in Marocco.
llerkeley: U11 iYersity of Ca:Jornia Press.
Rains, I'. i1993), ls the benign really har:nlessl
Decons:rncting some ":ienign" ma:1]fostafams o:
opcrnlionalized white privilege. I:i J. I.. Kincheloe,
S. R. Steinberg, N. M. Rodriguez,&: R. F.. Chennault
( E<ls. ), W:~ fte reig11: Depitlyi11g whiteness in
America. Ntw York: St Martin's.
Rand, l'. (1995). Barbie's ,1u<'er acti!»ories, Durham,
t,;C: Duke University Press.
Rapko, J. : I9'18). Review of Tl:e power of di1,,log,.1e:
Critirn! hermeneutics after Gadamer mid Foucault.
Criticism, 40( 1;, tl3- 1311.
Reason, P., & Torbert, W. R. (2001). Toward a
transformational sc:ence: A forrher look at the
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITA:flVE RESEARCH
;;cientific :nerits of action rei,earch. Concepts and
1rar~jarmation,, 6(1 ), 1-37.
Rit:rer, G. (1993). The McDanaldization of soder;,:
T-:ousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Robins, D., & Cohen, P. (:978). Knuckle sandwich:
Growing up in rhe worldng-dass tfry. Harmm1ds-
worth, UK: Penguin.
Rodriguez, N. M., & Villaverde, L (2000). !Jismamling
w.~ite privilege. New York: Peter Lang.
Roman, L., & Eyre, L (Eds.), (1997). Dangerous territo-
ries: Struggle, for difference ,md equality itt educa-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Rose, K,.& Kincheloe, U2003).Art, culture, and educa-
tion: Artjill teadm1g in a fractured land,cape.
Kew York: Peter Lang.
Rnsen, S. ( 1987). Hermeneutics as politics. ;;Jew York:
Oxford TJniversity Press.
San Juan,&, Jr. ( 1992 ). Articu!atirms of.tmwcr in ethnic
and racial studies in tire Vnitcd States, Atlantic
Highlands, ~J: Humanities Press,
San Juan. E., J,. (1996). Mediatfrm.s; F>vm a Filipino
perspectfw. Pasig City, l'hilipp::ie,: A::vil,
Sanders· Bustle, L (2UOJ ). Jrnc.ge, inquiry, and mm~fi1r•
malive practice: Engaging leart1er$ in creative and
critical inquiry through visual representation.
New Yo:k: Peter Lang.
Scheurkh, J. J., & Young, M. (1997). Colo,ing e;ilste·
mologles:Arc our rcs,~an:hepistemologief rac:iilly
biased! Etlucatumal Researcher, 26( 4), 4-16.
Scott. J. 'W. ( 1992). Rm,-rience. rn J. Butler & J. W. &ot:
(Eds.), I'emini,,s theorize the poliiicaL New York:
Rou1:.:dgc.
Sedgwick, E. (L995 ). Gos\ 3oy George, you must be
awfully secure ir: }'OU r masculinity! In M. Berge~.
B. Wallis, & S. Watson (Eds.), Constructing mas•
culinitJr; New York: Routledge.
' ~
Selfe,C. L., & Selle, R. J., Jr. (1994). The poliiics of the
int~rface: Power and its exm:i,e in ele,tronic con-
tact zones. Relrievi:d frorr; v.·ww.::u.mtu.!!duf-
cysclfe/tuts/polilics.html
Semali, L {1998 ). S:ill era~ after all of these
Teaching critic;] media literacy. In ]. L Ki116doe
& S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), lJnauthorized
methods: Strategiesfor rritica/ teaching. New Y1JT;;.;
Rom:edge.
Sen:ali, L, & Kincheloe, f. L. (19'l9). Whai is indige·
nous knowledge? Voices from the amdemy. Nrw
York: Palmer.
Snohat, E., & Stam, R. (I 994). Unthinkinl! Eurocenlrism;
Mul1iculturaiism and ihe media. New fork:
Routledge.
CHAPTER.
Sr:or, I. (1996). When students have power: ."11:goriaririg
authority in a critical pedagogy Chicago: Univer·
s:ty of Chicago Press.
Silverman, E, K. [ I 990). Clifford Geerlz: 1hwards a more
understanding? [n C. Tilley C,d. ), Reading
material cu/lure. C~mbridgt:, MA: »lackwell.
Skal\i, L. (2004). Lovi:::g Muslim women with a
vengeance: The West, women, anc fundamenta: •
In J. L Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.l,
The rni,educarion of the West: Cons1rue1ing Islt1m.
New York: Greenwood.
Slater, J., Fain, & Rresat:o, C. (2002). The Freirean
legacy: Educating for socialjustice. New York: Peter
Lang.
Sla•~ghter, R. (1989). Cultural rrconstrw;tion in the
post-modern world. Journal of C,;rriculum
SWdies, J, 25.:i-270.
Sleeter, C., & McLaren, I' (Eds.). ( 1995). Mu/tiro/tttral
~duca1io11, critical pedagogy,. and the politics of
d;ffmmce. Albany: State University of New Tork
Press.
Smith, il ,: 1999). Pedagon: ll111miisdpiin11ry Essays in
!he Human :ki,m01:s, Pedugogy. and Culture.
New York: Peter :.ang.
Smith, D. G. (2003). On enfrauden i ng the publk spherc,
:he futility of empire and the future of kr.owledgc
afkr"Amerka:· Policy Futures in Education, 1(3;,
488-503.
Smith, It, & Wexler, P. (Eds.l. 11995). After post•
modernism: Rducation, poli1 ics, a11d identity.
London: Fahner.
Soto, L. (1998). B:li:::gual edu~ation in America:
:n search of equi:y and social j;;stice. In I. L
Kincheloe & 5. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Uriaiithorized
metltods: Strategiesfor cl'itictJi teaching. !\lew York:
Routledge.
:fo:o, .•. (Ed.). (2000). The politics of 1~rfy chi!dhrrnd
educarion. Kew Yo:k: Pttc, Lang.
Stallabrass, J. (:996}. Gargantua: Manufactured ma;s
culture, London: Verso.
Steinberg, S. R. (1997a). The bitch w::o has every
th:ng, !Ji S. R. S!einbcrg & J. L. Kincheltle (!eds.),
KirrJerrn/rure: Tile corporate construction of
childhood. BouWu, CO: Westview.
S::inberg, S. (i 997b ). Kinderculture: cultural
stuc:es of childhood. In N. Denzin (Ed.J, Ciiit11ral
studies: :t research vo/1,me. G:-ee11wich, JA I.
Steinberg, S. (Ed.). (200 l ). Multilintercultural cGm-ersa-
tions. New York: Pe:er Lang.
Steinberg, S. R. (2004). Desert min,trels: Hollywooo's
c:.;,ric-Jum of Arabs am: MUlilim.s. In J. I.. Kincheloe
 Kincheloe & McLaren: :l.ethinking Tneory and Research 11 341
& S. R. St~inherg (Eds.), The misedw:ulfrm cf
West: C.msrructing Jsi.,m, New Y,,rk: Greenwood.
Ste\ nherg, S. R., & Kin:heloe, J. L ( Eds. J. (l 997).
Kimlercu!ture: Carpomie c.mstructions of child-
hood. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Stei t:berg, S. R., & Kinchdoe, J. :.. (Eds.). ( I 998),
Students a;; researchers: Creating dasmJoms c/iat
m.Uter. London: 'lliylor & Francis.
Stewart, K. (I 99ol. A s1iaa an r/ie side of the road:
r:u!tural poe,ics in an 'hther" America. Prim:elon,
NJ: Princc:on Universi1y Press,
Slinker, IL (1998), Welfare, democracy, llnd scc1al
work. in G. Flosser & H. Otlo (Rd,. i, 'li:rwards m,1re
denwcmcy in s1,>rial ,en-ices: M1,>de/.s of culrure and
welfare. New York: de Gruyter.
Tausi;ig, ~!. '. I'-187). Shamanism, cofor.ialism, WJd ,he
wfl,-i man: A study it, terror and healing. Chicago;
J.:niver.it)' o:'Ch'cago Prc~s.
Thayer-Hamn, B. (2003). Relational "(e),r.>fatemofogies:
Kew York: Peter Lang.
Thomas, ~- (l 997). )om immce and ideology in
tnral st:.:d:es, In M. flergusot1 & P, <:iok.:::ig (Eds.),
Cultural studfos in question. London: Sage.
'frucba, E. & M,L,mn, P, (2000). Critical ethuogra•
pby for the study of immigrants. In E, T, Trueb~ &
L. I. lfar;olome (Eds.), lmmigram in sNm:h
of educatwna/ tljuily Boulder, CO: Rowman &
Liitlefield.
Vrn:nne, H, (: 996 ). The sod al foc1ing of education:
Durkhe'::1",; legacy. Joumal oj Cumcu/;mi Studies,
Vat:imo, G. (1994 ). Beyimd i11te•pretati,m: Tile rm:anfng
of hem1e,;eut1es fiir p~ i!ascphy. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Pr-:ss.
Viergever, M. ( 1999). lndiger.ous knowledge: An inter·
o:e:a1 ion of views from indige::ous peoples,
In L. Semali & J. L. Kincheloe /Eds.), Whal i.:
indiger,ous knaw1,idge» from ,Ile arndemy.
Bristol, PA: FaImer.
Villaverde, L (2003). Developing rniriculum am:
critical pedllgogy. In J. Kincheloe & D. Weil (F.ds.),
Critirni thinking and learning: An e11cyciopedit1.
Wes:po:t, CT; G:eenwood.
Villaverde, L., & Kinc::doe, J. L (1998). Engaging
students as resear:hers: Researching and teach-
ing Thanksgiving ::: the elementar 1· classroom.
In :i. It Stci nberg & J. L. Kin,he!Qe (Ed,.). Studer.ts
as researdiers: Creating cla,.:mwms that mauer.
Lnndon: F,I mer,
ViS'\\'a~wuran, K. (1994). Fi,ti,m, cffeminist etimograplry.
Minneapo::s: Univers'ty of Minnesota Press.
Weil, D, t 199,g ). Towards a crit1rnl mufrirnltural literacy:
Theory and pr1ctice for eduCtltitm far liber~tfon.
New York: Peter l.ar.g.
Wdl, n., & Kinchdoe,J. (F,c,.). 12003). Critical thinking
and learning: A11 en:yclt,pedia for parents and
te,;chers. West?ort, CT: Greenwood.
Weiler, K, [: 988;, Women teaching far duwge: <iender,
class, and powe1; South Hadley, MA: Bergin &
Gar\'ey.
ne;;mc:;;, K, (2002).Figblingcomp:acency. In Thomas
B, Fordham Foundatior., September 11: l'l'/iar our
children ueed to /wow. Retrieved www.edex
celle~,ce.net/ 'nst: tu te/pub lirntfon/?U h: teat io 11
.cfm?id=65#764
Weinstein, M, ( 1998 ). l?.abM world: Education, pQpu!ar
culture, and science. New York: Peter Lang,
W~sso::, I.,, & 1Neaver, J. 1. 2001 J. Admin:stratio:i-
Ed;;catio::al standards: Using the lens of post·
mocern thi::i:ng 10 examine the role of the
school adminb:ra:o:. rn J. Kinc::doc & D. Wei
:uls.), Standards and sdl()oimg in the Uni1ed
S1a1e,: An cnrydopcdia (3 vols.), Santa Barbara,
CA:ABCCLIO.
West, ( 1993). Race rmmers. Boston: Beawn,
Wexler, I'. (1996a). Crilirnl wdul psydm!ogy. New York:
Prier l.ang.
Wex:cr, P. (19%b ), rfo!y spark,: Social tkeor;; eauc,lfion,
and religion. New Yo:k: Martins.
Wexler, I~ l '. 997, U<;mber ). Social research in eduta,ion:
Etlmography being. Pa;,er pre~entcd at the
lnternarional t:anfo:-cnce on the Cni,ure of
Schooling, Ealle, German)'.
Wexler, P. (2000}, The m}'stical mri,cJv· Revitali2<.tio11
in culture. theory, and edurntb11, Boulder, CO:
Weslview.
Willinsky,;, (2001), Rais:ng be standard, for cemo•
cratic education: Research and evaLation as
public knowledge. ln 1- Kincheloe & IJ Weil
( Eds. l, Stand,mis ami 1rhoollng in the United
States: An encyclopedia (3 vols.). Santa Barham,
CA: ABC-CLIO.
Willis P. I'. ( 1977). learning to labour: How working
cfass kids get worki11g dass jobs. Fambom:.:gh, lJK:
Saxon House.
Willls, P. ( 1978). !'tojane rnh11re. l.ondon: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Willis, P., Jones, S., Cannan, ,., & Hurd, G. (1990).
Common culture. .Milton Keynes, Ope::
University
Will:s, P. (200:l). The etlmographic imaginatfo,:;,
Ca:nbridge, UK: Po:tty.
342 11 HA~OBOOK OF QUA:ITATIVE RESEARCH--GlAPTER 12
Wo:::en's Stud .e~ Group. Centre for Contempo7llry
Cultural Studie&. ( I978), Women taii:e issue: ilspects
ef ·,iromen\: s11hordinatio11, Londo:1: Hulchi11>11n,
with Ce:ure fur Contemporary Cultural Studies,
Gniversiry of Birmingham.
Woodward, K. (Ed.). (1997). identity ,rnd difference.
l,ondon: S<1ge.
Yo.::,1,, r. (1990). The ideal of community and the
rolitks of difference. !n L ]. Nkhofaon (Ed.},
Feminismlpostmodemism. !\few York: R,l'Jtledge.
Young, T.. &Yarbrough. J. (1993). ReinYenting sociology:
:\1is.ions and methods for postmod;,m sociology
(Transforming Sodo'ogy Series, I54). Red Feather
ln.~tin:te. Rerritved from www.ettxt.org/Politics{
l'rngressive.Sodolog'stsiau:hors/Young. l'RJ
re':ive::ti ng-sodology
Zammito, J. (1996). Histvr icism, meta history, und
/;istorical practice: The histvridzativn of the his-
torical subject. Retrieved from http://cohesim1
.rke.ecuihmr:anitie:s/ cscicon ferences.cf:,1?doc_ i
d=378
Zizek, S. ( 1990). The su/:/ime object of ideofogy. Lom:cn:
Verso.
13
------------------------~:Wu«<•tttV
METHODOLOGIES
FOR CULTURAL STUDIES
An Integrative Approach
Paula Saukko
I n this chapter, I discuss the characteristic
me:hodological approaches of cultural stud-
ies and how recent intellectual and historical
developments have modified them. J also propose
ar: integralive methodological framework that
interlaces the different philosophical and method-
ological commitments of the paradigm, By doing
this, I hope to point beyond debates that have
underp:nned cultural studies since its inception
over whefaer the focus of research should be
culture, people, or the real-" or :exts, audiences,
or pmdw::tion in communication studies (e.g.,
Ferguson & Golding, 1997; Grossberg, 1998;
McGuigan, 1997; McRobbie, 1997).
The distinctive feature of roltt:ral stucies i, the
way ir. which it combines a hermeneutic focus on
lived realities, a (posr)structJralist critical :maly•
sis of discou:-ses that mediate our experier,ces and
realities, and ii contextualist/reaHst investigation
of historical, social, and political structues of
Author's Note. 'l'he supp,irl of ::ie Ecmm:nk ai:d Social Scier.ce Research Cocnd: (F.SRCJ is gra1efully admcwlecged. This work
forms pmt of :he researcl: program OIi (icnomks l11 S•xiety IEgenis). The anthor woald abm Hkt 10 ::1ank Perni Ala,uula:·i and
Sorman Denzir, for cmr:menls.
power. This creat:vc combining of different
approaches has accounted for the productivity·
and popularity of cultural studies since the golder,
years of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary
Cu:tural Studies in tl:e l 970s. However, i~ also has
restdted in philosophical and political tensions,
The hermenec.:ic interest in lived realities runs
!mo a contradiction with the poststruct'Jralist
in:erest in critical analysis of discourses, posing
the q,1estion: How can one be true to livec exper[.
ences and, at the same time, rritidze discourses
that form the ve::y stuff out of whkh our lived rea:-
ities are made~ Ft:rthermore, hermeneutics and
poststructuralism explore the Eved and political
dimensions of realities in the plural. On the con-
tra:-y, contextua !ism is always wedded to an
implicit or explicit realism or the idea that ~ocial
structure, of power constit.ite the bottom line or
the reality against which the meaning and
liveness of discourses and experirnces should be
Ill 343
 344 111 HANDBOOK OF Qt:A:JTA'I!Vli RESEARCH---CHAPTER B
Table 13.1. Three Valldities r,r MethodoloJJical Programs ln Cul1tm1l S:udies ir. all Integrated
l'ramework

Contextual Validity IJiulagic Validity Self-Reflexive V1lidity

Contextual dimension
Dialogic dimension
Seif:reflexi1•e dimension
Social reality
tocal repe1cussiorn;
of soc:,;J proccs,;es
Research ~hapes wdal
pmce,ses or re.ilil y
Local realities in Resead1 shapes "real~
social am:ext social proce~ses
.
tocal realities Lo-:al aw,1re11ess of
svcial ,haping of reality
Local realities are Social shaping of
scdally shaped reality

evaluated. These frictio:is between difterer:t
n:efaodological approacht,s s:n;ctt:red d:e chap•
tcrs on cultma: stud:cs in the previous ecitions of
the Handbook of Qualitative Research, addrcssi ng
the long-standing jux:aposil:on of research 0:1
production and c(l:1;,urr:::,tio11 in 1r:cdia studies
(Fiske, 1994 J and discussing n: altiperspectival
research Ifrow & J,forr's, 2000).
Jr, the spirit of contribut: ng to a handbook on
methoco:ogy, and following in the footsteps of
pioneers slich as Lincolr_ and Guba (I 985, : 994)
.and Lather (1993;, l intend that this chapter will
start to n'ake sense 11:e :hree rr:ethodological
currer:ts in cultural studies by translating them
into three "validities." In trnditional social
research-speak., validity refers to various mea-
sc.res that aim :o guarantee tr.e "truthfuln~s~" of
research or that attempt lo rnsure that research
accurntely ai:d objectively describes reality. ·:he
three n:odes of inquiry in cultural stud:es, how•
ever, O?e1: distinctive perspel1ives on reality or
define truth difforcnt:y. The hermeneutic ir:ipulse
in rnlturai studies evaluates the vah,c of research
in ter:ns of how sensitive it is to tne Iived realitie&
of its informants (Lincoln & Gu 'la, 1 1994 ).
7hc posts trucruraEst bent in the paradigm
assesses research in terms of how efficiently it
exposes lht: pulilics emhL-cided in the di,courses
through which we construct and perceive realities
(Latl:er, I 9Y3J. The .::on:exlua: and realist rom-
mite1ent of cultura'. stt:dies most closely mirror$
the traditio:1a: criteria for validity ir: thz: it evalu-
ates how acrura:ely or truthfr.lly research makes
sense of the historkal and social reality.
In th: s chapter, I propose an integrative and
multidimensional framework combi:ling fae
hermeneu:k or dialogic, poststructuralist or sell-
reflexive, and contextual validll:es that form the
methodo:oglcal hasi s of rnl!J ral studies. : do not
argue that :hesc diffr:e:1 l validities are united by
a common xforence to truth. However, nor do
1 argae that rhey refer to different truths. ltistead,
I explo:e hew the three validities interlace one
another, so that ea6 validi:y or researd1 program
i, rer: de red n: ultidirr:ensiona I by thr oth('r two
(sec Table 13.1). For example, contextualist analy-
sis of social slruclures and processes rr:ay forns
on what these struct:Jres "are:• Such analysis
wU be enriched, however, by paying attent:or. to
the way in whi,;h these social processes may be
expericn..:cd very differently ir: particular local
contexts (dialogism). It also wil: benefit from
thinking through how the research itself, for its
small or big :iart, influences the prouisses it is
stucying (self-reflexivity).
The proposed methodological :rarr:ework
bi;ilds on long-term tradition of doing empir-
:cal research in cultural studies, while also push-
it in new di rec ti ons. The days are gone when
soda! rcsearci could speak from the top-down
or ivory-tower position of autonomy and objec-
t'vism. Gone also are tne days when cultural
studies cmild speak from the bottom-i.;?, roman-
tic/populist position of "the margin:• Current
theories, Such as acto~-nctwork theory (Latour,
1993, also Haaway, 1997), as well as institutlonal
presn,es to attain external fonding and produce
more and more monetary, social. am:; intellectual

"outcomes;• view scholarship in less vertical and
more horiw:1tal tern:s. Research is viewed as
being not above or below hut in the middle, as one
among many actors that 'orges connections
between dif:erent institutio;1s, people, and things,
creating, fomenting, and balling social processes.
The integrated but n:ultidirr.ensional metr.od
ological fmmework hopes to offer both a survival
kit and a critical toolbox in this ::irave new world,
helping to make sense of what it is, how \t affects
diffon:nt ?eoples, and what oc:r role is in it.
II. METEOJJOLOGICAL HISTO~IES
Before discu,sing the three valid; des and their
dim cnslom in more detail, I wi'.l revisit the
history o"' cultural stucics as a means of ground·
Ing the current approaches. Skart Hall ( l982)
analyzed in a classic article, cultural studies
as a paradigm carved itself a space :n the early
1970s, between and bt:yond !ight-wing positivist
fum:tionalisrr. and left wing Marxist politka;
economy. It did this by innovatively combining
hermeneul ics, structuralism, and New Leftism
(Ha 11, I980), and ;hese three philosophical/
poli:ica'. curren:s shaped and continue to shape
emp:rical im,u:ry in the paradigm (on the early
works, see Gurevitch, Woo:Jacott, llenr:e:t, &
Curran, 1982; Ha], Hobson, Lowe, & Willis, 1980).
lwo early landmark studies in cultural studies,
Paul Willis's £,eaming to Labour (1977) and Janice
Radway's Readirrg tht Romance (1984), highlig,.1t
the both fruitful and ?roblematic nature of this
multir:1ethodological approad1. Both Willis and
Radway empathetically st1:died the everyday life
of a su:)Ordinated group. Willis investigated the
misbehavio, of wori<.ing-dass schoo:·:mys, and
Radway ana lyzec. fantasies nf middle-class
wm::te:1 involving a relationship with a nurturing
man that drive these women to read romances-
On the surface, these popular activities may
appear to he of little importar.ce or even silly.
However, Willis ar.d Radway argue :hat they
address important, "real" structural inequalities,
namelyworkingdass children's alienation within
the middle-class school-culture and women's
Saukko: Methodologies lor Cultural SludJes Ill 345
dissatisfact'on with intimate rdationships
structured by patr:archy: 1':,e authors, however,
conclude that despite faeir creative and resistant
:1a tme, these activities do not trans:orm the
structures of power they address. Lnstead, they
er:d up consolidating the struc: ures, as underper
formance at schoo: leads working-dass boys to
blue-collar jobs a:1 d the seductive powers of
romance novelet,es ho:d women under the spell
of an imaginary nurturing or tr:ie love.
The methodological innovative:1css of these
early works lies in their ability to take seriously a
popular, often ignored, practice, such as disobedi•
ence at school or reading of romance literature, lry-
ing tu understand its significance from fae point of
view uf the people involved as well as against fae
backdrop of the wider social context. However, this
srrength also constitutes the Achilles' heel the
methodology. Willis a:1d Radway argue that the
misbehaving working-c'.ass boys and romance·
reading women resist real strucl ures of power
(alienating ed'Jcation, pa:rfarchy), yet they posit
that this resistance is ~imaginarr,' in that it gives
people a sense of power or pleasu:"C but does lit,!e
to transform or gender stru::tures. Tr.ese
uncer:ying dis:inctions, however, raise the ques-
tion of how :u separate wheat from chaff or real
from imaginary resistance.'
As .,u ·'""' con::mentators (Ang, 1996; Marcus,
1986) have noted, what counts as the "real:'
against which the per sc interesting popular acts
are to be evalua,ed, reflects the authors' preferred
theoretical frameworks, namely Marxist labor
theory and feminism. This highlights a constitu-
tive tension between a hermeneutic interest in
subordinated experiences/realities and the New
Leftist project of eval ua:ing their relevance
against tile socia: context or "system." Three
decades after his dassic study, Willis (2000)
defends his reading of the sc:ioolboys' culture
througr. theory, stating that field material needs
to be bro'Jght to "forcible contact with outside
concepts" in order to locate it as part of a wider
whole (p. xi}. The question, however, remains how
to forge the micro and the macro in a way that
does not reduce the local experiei:crs to p;0ps fo,
social theorks,
346 11 HANDBOOK Of Ql:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 13
When these canonical pieces are examined
from a contemporary perspective, they come
across as lodged in a decidedly modern and vert: •
cal imaginary of ''foL:cndations"-struc:uring
theories, such as the Marxist base/superstructure
model, the Freudian theory of the unconscious,
and the idea of genes as the blueprint ofli fo. All
these theories refo:- to a deep or hidden layer of
reality t'lat is excavated or b:uught to light by
scic:ice in order to provide the final explanation
(structures of labor, the unconscious, DNA) of
sode:ies, people, or life.
What is interesting about Wi;Jis's and Radway's
works is that they compare and cm:trast experi-
ences in d[fferent sites. These innovative con•
tras:s, however, are interpreted in vertical or
hi era rd: ical terms, so that one (the factory, inti-
mate relations) is more "real;' whereas the other
one ( che school, ro:nance readi:lg) is less so.
However, one also can .iuxtapose multiple sites
and social processes [1: a more horizontal manner
that does not necessa rlly privilege one p:ocess
over another but highlights !:ow they interact and
interrupt each other (see Marcus, 1998). Maybe
having to do with her spa:ial field of geography,
Doreen Massey ( 1994) has, like Willis, examined
the marginalizatiun of working-class men while
drawing attention to the contradictions of the
process. Exp:oring the aftermath of the B::itish
Miners' Strike, she notes that the benefits of
go,ernmenl regeneration progrcm, wem to the
wh:es of the former miners.After a long history of
domestic servitude, these women offered the per•
feet labor pool for the new industries that wanted
a «flexible" and nor: ·unionized labor force that
was willing to take up te:nporary and part-time
jobs for low pay. Looking at the formation of :hese
new labor markers fro:n several perspectives
(how it marginalizd men yet allowed women to
gain a level of economk independence, even if
within a controversial ecor:omic config:mnion)
highlights the multidmensionality of the process
instead ofinterpreting it as simply a loss or a vic-
tory. Exploring several perspectives in an open
fashion may enrich systemic analyses by focusing
attention on developments that do not fit the inl•
tial fnm:ework, sud: a.s Marxist labor theory, and
perhaps also pave the way for more inclusive and
multidimensional political responses.
• CONTEXITAL VALIDITY
Willis's and Radway's studies are examples of cul.
tr.ral stuc.ies research t:, a~ emphasize the social
context, providing a convenient bridge to start a
discussion on the contexti:al validity in cultural
studies. The contextual dimension of research
refers to an analysis of social and historical
processes, and the worth or validity of the pmiect
depends on how thoroughly and defensibly or
correctly tl:is has been done. Few cultu,al s:udies
projects embark ori a major analysis of social,
political, or econmn ic pmces~es. Such analyses
usually involve an examination of large se:s of
statisdcal data and documents. Many cultural
studies projects, however, maie reference to
social struc~ures and processes, such as labor
structure5 or, • ore recently. globalization or
neoliberalism (e.g., Rose, 1999; Tomli:iwn, 1999).
Therefore, relating to and assessing contextual
development, may be seer. as a prerequisite for
doing high-qualil y rnhural st'Jdies. I also argue
in th is section that not only does cultural studies
brnefit from contextualization but co:1tex:ual
analysis also benefits fro:n being aware, in the
dialogk spirit, of local realities that may challenge
general analyses as well as bdr.g self-reflexively
conscious of the political nature of its analysis.
To discuss the contextual apprnach, I bwe
chosen to focus on a body of work that does not
faJ: within cu::ural studies but is a prime example
of an ambitious, realist analysis of contemporary
global reality widely used by scholars lr. :he field:
Manuel Castells's highly acdain:ed trilogy on the
;nforaation society ( Castells, 1996, 1997, 1998 j.
Castells's oeuvre is based on a :brmidable amount
of statistical and other data on social, technologi-
cal, and economic developments in different parts
of the world. Drawing on the data, he states tl:at
tl:e world increasingly has been split into the
sphere of The Net and the spl:ere of The Self. The
Net en:erges fro:n flows,such as Internet com mu•
nication m:d financial tra:1sactions as well as the

globally mobi'.e ma:iagerial elite. that operate
beyond or above particular places, Castells argues
that this spac.: of flows begins to live a life of
own, as hap,.e:is in places li:C,.e New York or Mexico
City, where the loca: elite is connected lo global
fina :icial and o,her networks and disconnected
from lm:al mar~imtlized people (Caste:Is, 1996,
p, 404 ). Most people, however, do not inhabit the
ur.grnunded Ne: but are caught ln places. In this
sphere of The Sell~ Castells argues, people con•
struct new identities and social movements !hat
could challenge the elusive and elitist ter:dencies
of the global 1'"et Castells distinguishes faree
k:nds of identities and :noven:ents. A "legitimiz-
ing" identity validates dominant institutions, an
example being trade unionists who bargain with
,he welfa:e state. A "resistant" iden:ity reacts to
globalization by isolating in:o a cornmur.ity of
':>elievers, rangir:g fro:n Islamic fundamentalists
and American patriots to Mexican Zapatistas on
the Yucatan peninsula. A "project" identity, such
a:; a feminist or envitonf;lentalist ider.tity, 0:1 the
co1:trary, reaches o;itward to connect with other
people and issues and, therefore, acwrci ng to
Castells, has the potential :o provide a counter-
force ~o the global ::-Jet (Castells, l997).
Casteliss description of resistant identity
appears prophetic against the backdrop of the
Septe:nber I I, 200 l, attacks on the 'Norld Trade
Center and the Pen:agon, Those attacks seen: to
epitomize tl:r reser.tful ar,d futile violence of a
«resistant" social movement that ins read of
paving the way for soda! transforma:ion, sparked
a massive military retaliation against an entire
region. This prophetic or critical insight of
.
Ca,tells's amllv,;s however, troub'ed bv, his
:clentless dichoto:ni,.ing categories, suc:i as I':le
:-.let/The Self, resistant/project, reactive/proactive,
history/futr.re, inwarii•looking/01::ward,Jooking,
disconnected/connected (also Friedmann, 2000;
Wa:ermann, 1999 ). Des?ite Castells';; imderstand-
ing or analytic,li attitud,; toward the resistant
movements, his polarizing logic underlines the
prevailing idea tl:at these groups are simply mis-
guideci, dangerous, and wrong, :hereby fueling
the kind of social d:v'sion and mist:1lst that ir.
other ways he is trying to acdress critically, This
Saukko: Methodologies for Cultural Studies • 347
highlights the methodologkal ·:,Hnd spot of the
realism that Castells represf:its, ;n its belief that
through an 11r.alysis of: for exa.:nple, statistics, it
can describe how the world "really is;' it is r:ot able
to reflect critically on the political nature of the
categories ii creates to excavate the "truth" out of
these data,
-ihe political natue and implications of
Castells's com:eptual frameworis become par:ku-
larly dear when co:masting them to Ien Ang's
(2U0 I) ana'. ysis of another "resistant" movement,
namely Pauline Hanson's right-wing populism
and Patomllki's (2003) critica: comn:en: on
Castells's eulogiz.ation of the Finnish model of
combining a free-market information society and
social equality (Castells & H:manen, 2002 ),
Drawing OD Castells', analysis, Ang locates the
roots of Hl!llsonism in the white working dasfs
loss cultural and economic: privilege amid the
processes of a glohalizing economy and tra:1sna-
tional migration. She also notes the xenophobia
embedded in the movement's rallying against
being "sv.'llmped by Asians" and the futility of its
strategy as it further disinvcsts its supporters from
fae contemporary economic and symbolic hard
currencv, of multicultural ease and tlexibililV,'
However, ha:fway throug.1 the essay, Ang shifts
gears and begins to critically on her own
position as a female intellectual of Asian origin
who migrated to Australia in the 1990s when the
New Labour, neoliberal government of Paul
Keating was rebrancing the continem as a "multi,
cultural Australia in Asia;" Ang interrogates how
her e:ithus'a~m with the inclusive reinterpretation
of Australian na :ionality implicitly supports the
harsh ciscourse on economic rnstructuring and
conpetition for the Asian market that wants to
transform Australia into fnture,oriented nation
w':tich is not just capable of change but actively
desires change, tur:iing ;1ccessity into opportunity
in ti mes of altered economic and geopolitical
cumstanc<'s'' (2001, p, s55). Castells invites radkal
cultural studies intellectuals :o feel that in their
outward-directedness they are "in the right;• in
relation to both global forces of capitalism and the
selt~enclosed fundamentalists, On the contrary,
Ang suggests that intellectuals should critically
 II HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 13
r<>flccr on tl:eir cultural and po:itkal frames of
rcfi:rem:e that may be complicit with the new
global "survival of the fittest;' in which Hanson':rs
are the lose:s.
P.itomaki (2003) chaEenges Castells's analyti-
cal framework from a rather different perspective.
He refers to Castells's (f11stells & Himanen, 2002)
work :hat frames my own country of orig:n,
Fh:!and, as an exemplar of the successful corn-
bir:i:1g of a free-rhar~et information economy-
epitomized by Nokia mobile-phones and Linux
opco-sou!'ce software-and social equality.
Palomaki argue, that Castells's interpretation of
the mutual comp at :bi:ity of Finland's aggressive
liberalization and transformation into informa
lion economy during the 1990s, or. 01:e hand, and
social cq ual:ty, on the other, is an "optical illu ·
sion '.' l\o~lng that Castells uses old statistics on
income equality to nake his point, Pa:omaki
sta:e.s :ha! his analysis is misguiding, as it
neg:ects the rapid steepen:ng of social disparities
in Finlar.d during 1990s, precisely when the
country took the lea? toward liberalization and
information society. Thi:s, Pato:naki's com men:
illustrates tile danger tnat a strong commitmer.1
to a particular !heory may carry the analyst away,
to see what he or she wants to see in t'le data (that
a liberal informatim: economy is the only solufam
but that it c:an be harnessed to social equality).
lo draw a preliminarr condusio:1, Castells',
work is a brilliant example meticulous and
extraordinarily broad analysis of a social and
global transformation, ider.tifying it from an
enormous material of pivotal tencencies. As such,
it is a great exemplar of contextual valic.ity and
how to do a re:narkahle job in making sense of
soda! realit v. However, the works by Ang and
Palomaki highlight that contextual analysis would
benefit from the dialogic principle of being sensi •
live to local realities. As illustrated by the
Australian Hansonites and the Finnish vers:on of
an infornation ;;:conomy, paying dose attention to
these local cases might complicate the conceptual
framework, c.rawfng attrntion to complexities
,md incongruencies that do not fit the model.
Fi;rthermore,Ang and ?atoma:..i also draw atten-
tion to 1he need to be self-reflexively aware of the
politica: mmmitments embrdded in the concepts
and categories that drive or,e's work Castells is
deeply co:nmittec to the disti:lction between the
Net and the Self and thut the way forward is to
give the '.'let a r:umane face (in the shape of the
environmentalist and feminist movements or
the Finnish model economy). This commitment
makes hin~ hlind to tl:.e way in which his pro"
nouncements may breed the kind of in:oleram;e
and hostility (against various peoples branded
"fund.1.mentalists'') he laments and to the pos-
sibility that h:s socioeconomic analysis may
legitimate the nega:ive underpinnings of the new
ecomm:y he criticize~.
• DtALOGTC VALIDITY
Taking loca: realities seriously is tl:e start'ng poi :11
for the second, dialoi:;k, validity or researd: pm
gram in cultural studies, Dialogic vaHd ity has its
root~ in the classical ethnographic and hermeneu-
tic pro;cct of capturing"the native's point of view"
or, to quot.: £mnislaw l\falinowski, "to realize his
vision of hi, world" (Malinowski, l 922/l 961, p.
see also Alasuu:ari, 1998, PP- 61-66}. Classic
ethnugra?hy, however, believed that it was possfole
for research to con:prehend the interna; universe
of info,mants objectively, or through the rigorn:is
use of a me:hod, such as participant observation.
More recent interpretations of the hcrmeneut:c
principle of understanding local realities view
research in more interactive terms, 11s happening
in the dialogic belweeu the Self o" the
researcher and the Other work: the person
being researched (e,g., Buber, 1970; Maso, 2001 ).
On the dialogic end of the henneneutic contin-
uum, :-esearch participants are involved in the pro-
ject or capturing or constructing their reality as
coworkers, involved in designing, executing, t1nd
reporlir,g on the study, in sor.-ie cases even sharing
authorsh:p (Lincoln, 1995). The dialog;c intere,t
in Other worlds also la>·& significant emphasis or:
emotional and embodied forms of knowledge am:
understar.ding, understood to he neglected :iy
rationalistic "facts" -focused scientific research
Denzin, 1997).

An out.standing example of dialogic work
that aims to understand a deddedly different or
hard to co:nprehend world is Faye Ginsburg's
(1989/1998) ethnography 011 prnlifo and pro-
choice women. Af,e, her fielcwork, Ginsburg's
aim beca:ne to communicate the ''countedntu-
itivc" fact that prolife women, pcr.;eived as foes of
femir.ism, saw themse:ws ml defending female
values of .;are, nurtr:rance, and selflessness
agai n~t violent masculir:e competitiveness and
materialism (Ginsburg, 1997). O:ie of her infor-
ma • ts, Karen, explained that abortion has
become accepted because materialist and i:1di-
vidualist society does not value caring, and that
"housewives don't mean n:ach beca·Jse we do fae
carir.g and mothering kbds of th: ngs which are
not impnrtanl" {G:nsburg, J989/199d, p. 185),
Thus, rather than fit Karen and her likes into an
overarchbg social tneory, Ginsburg aimed to
compnihend how prnlife women defir.e tl:e world
and their place bit, and she allowed ~ha: view to
trouble presuppositions about tnese women, Sti[,
Ginsburg also provided another angle on abortior.
and described how the pmchoice wome1: saw
their rev,ard coming when women who have come
to the clinic thank them for making a differem:e in
their life and bci ng «so warm, ,md so caring and
so non•Judger:, ental" (?· ~55 ).
The extraordir-ary feature of Ginsburg's work
on these two ways of expcriend:ig foma.e caring
is tha: it enables the reader to relate to the c<m-
tras~ing realities of both of tl:ese grot:ps of women
and to ;;ornpreltend them, even if no: necessar·
ii y acccpti ng then::. Furthermore, Gi:1sbuqi, also
reat:hes ounrard from these infrrr.ate feelings, stat-
ing that they reflect the way in wl:ich the women's
lives are shaped by the d;st:nction between private
care and public freedom that still stmctured thr
American suciely in the late 2Uth century. In mak-
ing the two nearly incomprehensibly dif:erent
worldviews comprehrnsible, as well as pointing
our how they bolh address same-gendered struc-
tures of inequality, Ginsburg gestures :oward
poli1ical dialogues that woulc acknowledge
both dl fferences and points of rommon interest
between the two groups. In her a:tempt to imagine
ways to bridge different worlds, Ginsbutg con:es
Saukko; Methodokigif!\ for Culturnl Studies 1111 349
dos.: to Ang's visions of forging tentat:ve dialug:.ies
with the Hanson st:_;;portcrs.
Ginsburg's ethnographic work is exemplary in
its intimate depth, social breadth, and ba:anced
nuance. However, julil as in research on social con•
text resc,1rch on lived experiences :s sometimes
oblivious of other dimei:sions of life and reality.
The literature in my cur rent an::, o: research,
genetic testing, is rife with description~ of in1e:rne
intirr:ate experiences that are strangely :acking
in terms of critical social analysis. For cxan:ple,
Smith, Michie, Stephenson, and Quarrel (2002)
have used interpretative phenomenological analy·
sis to make sense of the way ln which people who
have ~elat'ves with Huntington's disease perceive
their ris;c and make decisions about takir.g a
predictive tes:. Huntington's disease is a genetic
neurodegenerative d:sorder that will lead to dete-
riomtion of the person's mental a:id physical
capacities and ?remature death in mid-Ek It is
a dominant!y inherited condition: A person with
one parent with Hu:ttington's has a 50':Vo chance of
being afflicted, Smith et aL set out to gcr a "holis,
tic'' understanding of the "knife edge predica-
ment" fadng people who are deciding whd1er tn
take the rest rhev, recount how one of their infor-
mants., Linda, psyched herself up for bad r.ews and
rat:onalized that, even if he~ remit were negative. it
would affect one of her chilcren: "Even if you say
for J 00 :iercent it's gonna miss me, it's gonna cop
for one uf mine or both of mine, I says so how do
you think that makes me feel!" (Smifa et aL 2002,
p. 135). Smith et al. succinctly capture the feel of
such tough .:ecis:ons-you can a:m ost hear Linda
speaki:1g in her rolling and thick working-class
British accent However, eve:1 J the iiescription
stays true to the texture of the experience, it ends
up fixated on percept ions (and misundecstand-
ir.g) of clbical, probabilistic risk estimates.
Smith et al. set out to resusdtate a warm, ::lesh-
and-blood, and emotional lived experience that
has been ignorrd by mainstrram mfd'dne,
However, when doing it, they reaffirmed the ,d-
entist's dislinclion between real, probabilistic risk
estimates and perceptio:1s of ther:1, endi:ig up
exploring how these "mrts feel" (Wynne, 2001 ),
This fixation on clinical risk underlbes the
350 111 HANDBOOK OF QL'ALl'rATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 13
aecessity to underpin the dialogk aim to capture
the experience of the Other with a self-reflexive
awareness that bo~h our unden;tanding of other
people as we[ a5 their understanding of them•
selves is mediated by social discourses, Wi::hout
this self-reflexive understanding, research may
end up moving in a circle, where ~he starting
point of research is a common social discourse
(dinkai :isk) and the study then lends (motional
or existential support to this romrr:on sense,
dwelling in its intensity (Atkinson & Silverman,
1997). There are no "cracks" in this story that
would allow for a :nomenl of critical reflection
on these new identities and discourses formed
around "risk" Furthermore, the analys:s seems as
if it floats in a timeless and olaceless emotioria:
intensitv, where not on:v the mediated nature but
' '
also t:ie soc:al context or contextual dimension of
the experience fall out of the picture, Jn the analy-
sis of predictive testing for Huntington's disease,
the social r.imitkations of genetic testing-such
as how it interacts with other social regimes,
including the contemporary, contradictory social
ar:d political discourse emp:1asizing taking
"responsibility" of, o, ennancing, one's self,
health, and life (see Novas & Rose, 2000)-are
entirely absent in the picture. Dialogic research
sees itself seeking to give vo~ to exper:ences that
have been neglected by mainstream society, 1f the
methodological framework does nt1t leave space
for the experiences to address fae discourses and
social contexts that shape them, the experiences
cannot speak about or hack to the social struc-
tures that neglected them in the first place,
Cr:tkal reflection o:i how social discourses and
prc"es;ses shape 11r :nedia:e how we exper:ence
our selves and our environment is, ;,erhaps, the
:nos: promine:it feature of cultt:ral studies.
Analyses of popular media texts-such as the
romances studied by Radway--am: :10w they
shape the way we understand our selves are the
t,a demark of cultural studies res earc!1. Se:f
reflexive awareness of :nedia:ion, thus, is t'le most
cha:-acte,istic criterion for good or va:id research
in the paradig:n.
Most critically reflexive research in cultural
studies, including Radway's work, is "ohjectivist:
or marked by r'ie scho!ar's detached sere :iny of a
body of texts or talk in terms of the socia I dis
courses that undervin them. The trouble with
objectivist analyses is that :hey may end np for.
getful of the discourses that gi:ide the anaiysis
itself, as happens in Radway', srndy, which ?TO-
nounces women as falling shor: ofbecomi ng fo!ly
fledged feminists.
V.'hen l initiated my research on women who,
like myself, had been anorexic, I was aggravated or
insulted by objectivist analyses-bo:h psyduatrk
(e.fv, Bruch, 1978) and fe • inist Bordo,
1993}-t'>iat exam:ned the way in which women
who slanted were influenced by soc:~J discourses,
such as beauty ideals. I felt that these diagnostic
analyses oversimplified anorexia and ti:elro the
notion that ,u:o~exic won:en are dis-ordered, or
incapable of reliably assessing their thoughts or
actions. r:,us, when I interviewed won ten who had
had anorexia, I asked them to tell about the:r expe•
riencc with the condi:ion, which i:levitably led to
a discussion of beauty and gender norms. as well
as to tell me what they thought of the diagnostic
notior:s of a:mrexia. By doing this, l wanted lo
avoid diagnosing the women, from '.he n·Jtside, in
tem:s of identifying discourse, that informed their
self~ understa:iding. I rather Vlllnted to invite them
to "do" poststrncturalism with me. from the inside,
on both the discoi;.rses that informed their sta,ving
and the discourses that informed their diagnosis.
The respo:1se that I got was varied. An
American woman,Jeanne, s:ated th.it her starving
was informed by the" Reagan years, when wor:1e:i
were supposed to have it all. be extremely success-
fu'. in all realms a:id be extremely thin and gond
looking:' The attempt to live up to this ideal led
her lo exercisr to :he extreme, work in popular
campus bars, and nse the mo:1q she earned to
buy clothing to "show off" her thin body, She a:so
was an excellent student who wo;1ld spend Iler
nights in the undergraduate lounge, v:here she
wouid "smoke, and sn:oke, and smoke and drink
diet sodas and just ~tudy into the night:' In a

si:nilar fashion, a Finnish 11,mman, Taru, associates
her sta:ving with having danced ballet. For 15
years, since the age of 5. she did e\'erything she
co'Jld to bemme a professional dancer: strong,
light, and flawless. To achieve this, she put herself
through an excrnc;ating regime of exercises, long
s~ays abroac., crossing half of Finland to attend
lessons, and assuaging her :mnge:- by nibbling on
rice and Tabasco sauce, whic'i "made her stomach
feel warm:'
Despite be similarities of their experier.ce of
anorexia, Jeanne and Taru assessed the diagnostic
discourses on the condition rather differently,
Reflecting on her years of starving and the diag-
nostic notions of eating disorders, Jeanne noted
that she was a rela1ively typical middle-class
anorexic. She concluded that she is "!!or proud"
for having had anorexia, which with hir.dsight
seemed "just so self-indulgent:' Rather c.ifferently,
Taru was sharply critical of notions of anorexia,
t1Qting :hat they were similar to stories she
encountered when dancing ballet and reading fit-
ness and sports magazines, which frame women
as always "weaker" than men. She concluded that
she did not want to analvze the causes of her
•
anorexia too much, as she was afraid it just
"reveals more weaknesses and abnormalities:"
Both of the women's stories bear witness to the
way in which their starving was informed by the
competitive individualist ideal of stre:igth and
success. Looking back to it, Jean:1e defined her
quest fur strength as both self-destructive and
self-indulgent. Somewhat differen:ly, Taru .::riti-
dzed the diagnostic discourses of anorexia tl:iat
define women's pursuit of srrength as merely
I pathological, noting that it simply added to the
1 discourses that define women as too weak in mind
and body, which informs the anorexk:'s "ierce
starving to overcome her shortcomings in the first
place. Making sense of these similarities and dif•
teren.::es, I resorted to an e-mail that I received
from a third woman, Eleanora, who commented
on an article that I had written (Saukko, 2000),
based partly on her interview. She wr01e :hat she
did not ~ecognize herself in the description of a
lonely and pained child, noting that it fueled the
notion of anorexic women as mere victims and
Saukko: Methodologies for Cultural Stud its II 3, l
did not acknowledge that they car: also be strong.
In the same e-mail, she added that the pursuit of
strength also can be limiting ar.d that !:er decision
to follow her lover to a foreign country had side·
tracked her adamant career orientation but also
made her more happy, eve:1 if also insec'Jre. \'\'hat
the stories of Jeanne, Taru, and Eleanora tell a':lout
is the merciless jucgment that the cultural, highly
gendered discourse on streogth passes on these
women. This normadve discourse leaves little
space for the kind of ambivalence communicated
by Eleanora's personal story, which contemplates
on how self-determination may eoable women, or
peop:e in general, to ahead in their Jves but
that it may also limit their lives, eve11 if alternative
paths are not without their problems.
Methodologk-ally speaking, paying attention
to social discourses, such as the individualist dis•
course on strength, allows us lo illuminate deep•
seated belief systems t:rnx guide nur thouglits and
actions and shape our societies. However, if done
in an objectivist manner, these analyses r.1ay end
up passing on problematic cultural diagnoses
based on uninterrogated cultural assumptions.
T:iis happens. liu example, when anorexic wo • en
are diagnosed as being sub: ugated by cultura!
ideals strength and self,control ar.d, in the
same breath, defined as weak and out of control,
afflnning the same norms of strength and con-
trol. Opening this critical reflexive bite to other
views benefits from being complemented with a
diitogic dimension or sensitivity to local critiques
of discourses. The rarely stated but usually
assumed presumption in poststructuralism is
that «lay" people are blind to social discourses
that guide them and that critical analysis of medi-
ation can be executed only by an expert. However,
the idea that only experts can analyze expert dis-
courses may render the analysis moving in a cir•
de, as there is no way for critica: ot::side insight to
break into the cycle, This is particularly true when
analyzing people like anorex:cs, w !:use critical
comments on their diagnosis or treatment have
been all loo e-asily dismissed as defiance or symp·
tomalic of their dis-order.
A more concrete or contextual dimension
of self-reflexivity calls attention to the "real"
 352 Ill EAK:'IBOOK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
impl:cations our researdi ha~ for the ceality we are
studying. '!his refers back to Foucar:'.t's argument
with Derrida, in which Foucault ( 1979) noted that
the dismurse on r:udness did :-wt sin:ply symlmli-
cally affirm the Enlightem:1ent notion of rational-
ity (that stood in op,msition to the definit!on of
irrationaE:y or madme1:) but also conc:·etdy
locked the mad in institutions, rippit1g from
the;n any basic human righ:s. Wben initiating my
research on anorexia, I deliherately did not want to
study anorexic women in a treatment context, as
1 wanted In cTitically analy,e diagnostic practices.
However, looking back to it, l have had second
thm:ghts a:iout this dedsiou. Eve11 though my work
has been adopted by sdmla:-s and teachers working
in psychology, I foe] :t would have had more of an
impact <m the treatment of anorexia if I had
directly e.,gaged with the therapeutic 'nslitution.
;his question of whether research should
he ''in" or «o;Jt" of :he institJtional conlext it is
addressing has been discussed at :ength in cul-
tural studies, particularly in the so-called poEcy
debates in the 1990,. Tony Bennett (1998 l started
these debates by sugges;ing that cultm.1l studies
as a paradigm shonld get engaged in policy mak•
ing and advice, arguing that it would the
discipline more politically effective as well as
acknowledge C,e fact that, despirc claims of
au!or:omy, research alwaJlS legitimates political
arrangements. such as the liberal humanism of
the libera: state. BcnneU's snggcslior: was met
with criticism ill some circles. The crhidsr:1 drew
parnlle:s between his approach and so-ca1,ec
administrative communication research in post•
war America that was funded by government and
incust:y and concent:-ated on polling and 11:ar,
keting research and against which cultural and
cr:tical communication studies defined itself
(Hardt, 1992). Tomaselli (1996) noted that the
usefulness of the policy approach dependec. on
the context, anc that working for the South
African governmrnt during apartheid ::-na:y have
been cou.:1terproduc:ive, whereas collaborn:ion
wi:h the new state was a different case.
The British Minister of Education, Charles
Clarke, recently refueled the policy debate by
stating that he does not "mind there being some
n1edievalists around for ornamental purposes, but
there is no reason for the state to pay fo~ them:' He
later clarified that he wanl!xl to underline the task
of British universities to deal with challenges
posed "global change" lo natio:iai economy
and society ("Devil's Advocate lgnitl's Row:' 2003,
;,. 2). What this means can be exemplified by the
fact that during Clarke's reign in off:ce, ihe leg
endary Department of Cultural Studies at :he
Birmingham t:niversity was "restructure.::" out of
ex.ister:ce in the sun:mer of 2002, In this situation,
there does not seem to exist a choice to be outs:de
lr.e S'l&tcm or du resenn:h that is not externaEv
' '
funded. and socially or economica:ly "relevant:'
This, howeve:-, not mean that critical inquiry
has had its dav, but it does fort-e scholars in the
'
field to rethink seJ ref:exivity. The introspective
interrogating of fae disrnurses that impinge on
other people's or 011 one's own self• understanding
no longer is sufficient. \.Vhat is called for is an out-
ward.directed exploration of what kinds of con-
crete realities our research, for its big nr smaH part,
helps to ere-ale (Hamway, 1997). This returns rhis
chapter back full circle to contextual validity, ur
the !:COO to assess research in terms of hnw well it
is 2.hle lo make sense of gritty soda 1aml historica1
pmces~es a1:d the role it p1ays in those processes.
Ill CoNCLLSJUN
Perhaps, in a way that was syr:1ptomatic of the
newest of new time~ (Hall & Jarqu,'S, 1989) in cul-
tura: studies, abnut a year ago I decided to change
gears in my academk career. I left communication
studies and moved into soda\ sdenflk research
on genomic,, l thought gcnomks as an area was
intellectually interesting, socially relevant, and
timely, and, i.:1 a utUtarian fashion, probably a
:ie:ter her to get ft:nding than reading media texts.
The first surprise in my new iob came when
I had to wa:t for 6 months tc get a go-a head
from the local ethics board for my study. In the
aftermath of sever-a\ scandals, induding the so-
called Bristol case-where tissue samples from
children, who had died in cardiac ,r:rgcry, were
kept and used for research withom permission

over a long pe,iod of time-the governance of
ethics in medical research in the Uni :~d Kingdom
has become part of a lo:1g-winded, :nultistage
bureaucratic procedure. While wai:ing to study
"real" people, I began following a virtua'. dis cu S·
sion grm;p. The g:uup tbat I was reaci ng was for
people with a relatively low "polygenic" S'Jsr:epri·
bili:y to develoµing deep vein thrombosis (as
opposed to more familiar monogenk or deter•
ministic genetic diseases, such as Hur.tington's).
Wheu I contact<!d the moderator and the hema-
·"'·'"""" working with the group about the study
1 was contemplati:ig, they :o'.d Cl€ they were :n
the p:-ocess of es:,iJlishing an organization for
patients, in collaboration w: th Ille Centers for
Disease Conrml in Atlanta. T'ley stated that my
research on the group might serve the patient
informa~ion projec~ they were planning. One of
the first priorities of the newly formed group was
to negotiate a reduced price from la Rod:e for a
much ine that wou:d allow home testing of blood·
coagulation levels (to save people numerous trips
to clinks). Or. the !is:, people also expressed
lmpe; faa: the new organi1,ation would lobby for
the House to pass the bill, approved by :he Senate,
that would ban i:lsurance cor:1panies and employ-
e:-s from discriminating against peop:c based on
genetic irJormation.
Rabinow (l'l96) has made sense of these new
:social sensibilities and modes of action with his
term "binsociality" (as opposed to :he old sociobi-
ology), whkh refers to the ways in whkh people
with shared genetic characteristics form identi·
tics and projects around them, They may form
patient organiiations that use virtual and real
modes of commun icatio:i a:id organization to
forge connections between themselves, regulatory
booics, medical practitioners and scientists,
pharmaceutical campani es, and cultural studies
scholars to produce often•contradic:ory pol'rica'.
pmiects (abo Heath, Koch, Ley,& Montova, 1999).
T'lis current simation '.s significantly different
from :hat of the early part 20th century,
when geneticists Jame, V. )!eel and Victor
Jli'.cKuskk based the:r research on the indigenous
people in Amazonia and the old L1rder Amis:1.
They ½'Ould go to these com :-nunities a:1d harves-:
Saukko: Metl:odologics for Cultural Studie1, 11 353
indigenous knowledge, plant and human DNA,
family trees, fan:ily photographs, and stories
{Lin dee, 2003; Santos, 2003). As Lindec has aptly
noted, the rna:e:ial that McKuskk collected con-
sisted of very different kir:ds of knowledges, beiug
like a "patchwork quilt, pullrc! tugether from mul-
tiple fabrics" (Llndee, 2003, p. 50). Yt:t the hete:-o-
geneity of these knowledges was rendered
invisible in t:ie final product of genetic knowledge
that gives the appearance of pure, objective
science. "chose doys of free harvesting, however.
are gone, Kowadays, indigenous people and people
with genetic conditior:s or si:sceptibilitics do not
necessarily simply lend themselves ta be im•esti·
gated but want to negot'ate the collaboration.
As a consequence, research can no longer
ret:-eat to the space of appa'.1::nt a1.;,onomy and
objectivity and make statement~ about the social
system, peop:e, or natu:e. But :1eithcr can rescard:
n:r:der people with genetic conditions targets of
their own romantic projection:; about lhc"rnargin:·
Instead, the researcher, like peop~e wit:, their
newly fou:id biosocialiLy, is caught in a messie~ ar.d
:nore horizontal network, !iJTgi ng ar:d negotiating
between social and ,:ultu:-ol researc'.1, rr.edical
research and practice, pol icy, patients, cor::ipanies,
and fJ:1ding bodies, and poss:bly being funded
·::iy government research councils, health care
pmvide:"S, companies, or the patient organizatior:s.
In ~his scenario, the old distinction ·:ietween
the system and the people blurs.This refers lo the
intersec:ions between contcxrua: and dialogic
validities in "fable L3. L Thus, systerr:s are compre-
hensible only through their lor.:al implications or
manifestations, such as the rnundane need for
reasonably priced home testing machines, which
mar complicate or confound grm;d systemic
pronouncements about the goodness or badness
of our "genomic future" (on oppos::e views, see
Depart:nent of Health. 2003; GeneWa!ch/t.; K,
2002). Yet, similarly, the local needs are intelliglb\c
only w ithln the system. These r:1 ight include the
emerging u~e of genomic knowlecge to p::event
common illnesses, which has costs and ')er:efits
for the people usir:g preventive tests ar:d drugs,
the health care and insurance system, and the
companies producing lbe test machines,
 354 11 HAND!!OOK OF Ql:AUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 13
The other sidr of the equation, the relationship
betl,recn the peopie and the system, seems equally
indistinguishable. This refers to the intersection
between dialogk and sel f-refleDve validities in
Table 13.L The local people or realities or bioso-
cialiry tl:at we s:udy do not e;,;:ist-anymore than
"genes" do-in «nature" or in a socially untouched
state of authecttidty, but are instead formed by the
genomic configuratio:1 or system, further• ore,
local people cannot be presumed to be "dupes"
or m:aware of their relat:onship with the wider
system. On the contrary, they actively engage
with it, forming alliances, inserting pressure on,
and bargaining with o:her social organizations,
including cultural studies :-esearch proiects,
to ad~·ance their interests, such as bette1 and
affon!able care.
Furthermore, we can observe a collapse of the
distinctions that have forrr.ed the cornerstones of
many of the metbodologicul debates in cul ;ural
st:idics between the r~earcher and the research
ohj ectfsubject and virtual and real. This refers
to the intersection of the self-reflexive and con.
textual validities ir: Table 13.L Reseaxl: on, for
example, social implications of genomks cannot
assume to be neutral, as it forms part of fr1e busy
network of actors who shape policy, regulations,
treatment practices, scientific and funding
prio,itics, and everyday lives. The inf:uences
exerted by the different constituencies within this
nrtwork-culrnral stud:es and genomic resea:ch,
people with tbe genetic susceptibilities, policy
m,::<ers, companies, and so un-are also botn
symbolic and real or "• aterial/se:11 !otic," to quote
Haraway ( 1997). They not only represem people,
genes, -isk, cures, prevention, costs, and benefits
bJt also forge them in rnnrrete terms, givbg rise
to pa:ikular everyday routines of care, health
care priorities, policies, and so on.
In the end, the task of tl':e imegra:ive method-
ological approach is :o facilitate empirical inquiry
into soda] reaiity in a way tbat lakes into account
that b~ reality is shot through with a mosatc
of different realit:es and that m:r reseaxl: is part
of the processes forming this soda! mosaic or a
";iatd:work quilt" (Deleuze & Gualtari, 1987;
Lindee, 2003; Saukko, 2000 ). This integrative
quilting approach aims to address some novel
historical and intellectual factots, but it is close
to exploring the nexuses between the local and
global, the cultural and the real, and the personitl
and the political, which have fascinated and infat-
uated cultural studies throughout its history.
I make no claim in this chapter to point ~beyond"
these positions or debates; I simply hope to
contribute to the ongoing project of making the
incompatible compatible in an analytically
sophisticated, methodologicajy practical, and
polifrnlly produc:ive way that has fueled the
paradigm for over three da:ades.
Ill NOTE
L This distinc1lon reflects Antonio Gramsci's sep·
arafion between "good sense" and "common seme"
(Gramsci, 1971, p. 333) as well as the later ~oncep, of
"double artiwlation" (Grossberg, 1997, p. 217).
ml REFERENCES
A[asuutari, I' (1998). An invitatfrm to sQcial rese,:;rd1.
London: Sage.
Ang, I. 11996). Living room wars: Rethinking media
audienci:$ for a postmodern wcrld. Londn:1;
Rm::tledge.
Ang, I. [200 I). On not speaking Chinese: Living between
Asia and the West. London; Routledge.
Atki::son, .P., & Silverman, D. 11997), Kundera's
!mmorraiity, Tht intendeW society and the inven-
tion of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 304-325.
Bennett, T. (1998). Culture: A ref()rmer'J science.
London: Sage.
Bordo, S. (1993 ). The imbeamble weigh!.· Femim'.•rn,
Western cuimre, cmd the body. Berkeley: l:niver-
sity of California
Bruch, H, (I 978 }. The golden ,age: The enigma of
anorexia nen,asa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Ur. :ve:-sily Press.
Buber, M. (1910). l and tlwu. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons.
Castells, M, (1996). rise af the network sodety.
I.ondon: Blackwell.
Castells, M. [1997]. The power of identitv. ..ondon:
Blackwell.

Castells, M. (I 998). of millen f!rum. London:
Blac~wdl
Castell,, M., & Hirnarnm, P. (2002}. The information
sacieU and the m,.,1;,,,, state: The Fimiish mode/.
Oxford, t.:~ O~forr. Univcrsi: y Pre$S.
Deleu1,e, G., 1k Guanari, E ( 1987). A ,hO'usand p!l.lkaus:
On capitaii,rn and schiznphre~ia. Minneapolis:
Univ<'r~i: 1· or Minnesota
Denz::1, N. (1997). Ittterpretfre eilmagrnpily: Eihno•
,.,-aphic pmctin1s fi,r the cett!itry, Tbousa:id
Oaks.CA:
Dcpart111e11t of Health. (2003). Our i11herita11ce, cur
Reali5ing the potentiiil of g,met;,·s in the
NHS. London: The Stationery Office. Availahle at
www.dh.gov.uk1Pol icy A:idGuid,mce/HealthAnd
Socia ICa reTopirs!(;e net ic siGeneticsG enero !
Info rrnat ion/ Gen et icsC eneralA rt i c1el fol en?
CONTENT ID==40164 30&:dik= RnGBgL
Devil's advocate row ... 12003, May 16). 'foms
Higher Edurntfrm Suppleme11t, pp. 1-3.
fergusou, M., & Golding, P. (Ed,.). (1997}. Cultural
studies i,; questitln. Lond,,:::
~i~ke, ]. i 1994 ). Aac.:enc:::g: Cultural practice and cul-
tural studies. In l\. K.Dcnzi :1 & Y. S. Lincoln (F.ds ).
liarullic,1k af qualitaliv,i rese,1rd1 (pp. 189-198),
'Jhousand Oaks, (A: Sage.
F,mcauh, M. (1979). My body, thi~ paper, this fire.
Oxford Ut,;rar1 Review, 4,
Friedmann, J. (2COO). Reading Castells: :t.eitdiagnase
and sod al t:1em .v. Enviromnent cm,i l'lan11it1fl D:
~
Society and Space, ! 8, 111-1211
rrnw, J., & Morris, M. (lOOO). Cultural studies. :n N. K.
Dcnz:;; & Y. 5. Lim:oln (Ecs.), Handbcok af quali
tative research (Znd ed., pp. 3:5-346). 'lhousand
()akJl, CA: Sage.
GencWatch/UK. 2002). Genelir., ,md ')m:diclii•,:
medidne": Se!!ing piJJs, ignoring causes (Briefing
N~1mber 18), Availa:i:c a'. www.gem:w1'cCh.orgf
HumanG~n/publicatiomibriefings.htrn#llricfl8
Gin~burg, E (1997). The case of mistaken identity:
Pmble:n:, in rep:esenting womer. on the ~igh In
R. 'Hertz [Ed.), ,fl.ejlexi1•ity ,md voiu (pp.2B3-299).
London: Sage.
Ginsburg, I' (N98). Ccmested lims: Tire abor,ion debate
in an Ametic1m CO'r/rnimity. Berkeley: Unh-ersity
of Califor:1ia Press. [Original work published
1989)
Gramsci, ,\. (1971). Sdectii:ms from 1he prison notc·
/;m,ks of Amo11io Gramsci (Q. :loa re & ]. Nnwdl
Smith, Ed. and Tram.). :.,ondon: Lawrence &
Wishart.
Sa1~kko: Y,clhodolc,gits for (u!tural Studies II 355
Grossberg, L C997). 1lrfri7.itix it all b,uk h1mw: fiss,;iys
011 cultural studies. Durham, )uke tniversity
Press.
Grossberg, ~. (1998). The vic!nry of culture. Part I.
Against the logic of r:iediation.Angeial.-1,J(:l ).3-29.
Gurevltch, M., Woollacott, /., llem1ell, T., & Curran, J.
!Ecs.). ( '.\182). Culture, society mut the media.
London: Methuen.
Hall, S. (1980). Cultural studies: :·wo paradigms.
Medill, Culture and Socie1y, 2(: ), 59-Tl._
Hall, S. ( 1982). 'fht ruliscm-ery nf ideology: Rerurn of
the repressed in :nedia studies. In M. Gun,vitc:1,
J. Woollacot!, T. Bennett & J. Curran (Eds.), tullure,
sociery and the media (pp. 56-90). Lo:idon;
Methuen.
Hall,S., :l.ob,011, D.,Lowe,A., & WilEs, P. I J::ds.). :1980).
Culture, media, language: Werking papers i•i cul-
tural smdies, 1972-79. J.ond,:;n: Hutchinson.
Hall, S., & Jacqm,s, M. (Eds.). (1989 ). New time;: The
c'1angit1g face of paiiric, in lhe 199Gs. London;
Lawrence and 'Wishart.
Harai,ay, J. ( 1997). Modest-Witn~ss@Seco11d,Millenmum
.Fe•na!eMa~-Meets,OncoMouse: 1-\:minism and
t.>ctmo,,e1e11ce. Lendon: Routledge.
Jim.II, (1992). Criti,al w11m1unic,uian strdfo!:
im co1mmmication, ~!story and timl;y in
11merica. London: Routledge.
Heath, D.. Koch, Ley, B., & \1ontova, .\1. (1999)
Nodes and queries: Linking location;; in n~t
workec f1elds of inquiry. American Beha·1ioral
Sl'iet11ist, 43(3),450-463.
Lather, P. (1993;. Fertile obsess:ons, Validity after
f!OSlstru,tural:sm. 11w Sociological Quurferf;,\
34{ 4), 673-693.
Latom, (1993;. We !uwe never been me1dem.
Cambridge, :V:A: Harvard Uniwulty P:e,s.
·L,I·r:coJn, v-·, oi•. uu
- ba, E_.. ( [fjU
_:iJ'} . n,muru
" I'tst:c
· mqu,r_;,
· ·
London: Sage.
Linailn, Y., & Guba. F.. ('. 994). Com;ieting paradigms in
q1rnlitali\·e research. In I\. K. Denzin & Y, S. Linrnln
(Eds.), Hcmdboak af qualitative research ( pp. 105-
117). Thous.ind Oaks,CA:
Li ndee, M. S. (2003 J, Provenance .\:l('. pedigree: Vic to:
11<:Kusick's :lcldwor;.; with :b: old order Amish.
111 A. Gucdman, D. Heath, & .\1. S. Lindee (Eds.),
Gem:1i£ 1111J11re/.:ulture: hrthropology ,md sc;ence
beyond t!,e IWll-mlture divide (pp. 41-76 ).
Berkeley: Uni,ersi:y of California PrQ55.
Ma' 'miw,ki, B. ( 196 l ). Arg,mauts Wes/em Pacific.
New York: f. P. Dutton. (Original work published
]922)
 356 Ill ,IANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 13
Y.arcus, G. ( 1986). Conte:nporary proolem~ of
ethnography in the modern w,dd system. :n
J. Clifford & G. Maxus (Eds.), Writing culture: The
polilicnmd poetic, ofetlmography (pp. !65-193).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marcus, G. ( 1998 ). Erhnogrnphy through thi.'k and rhit1.
Princeton, NI: Princeton University Press.
fvlaso, L [100 l 1. Phenomenology and ethnography. ln
P. Alkinso::. A, J. Cofii:r, S. Dclamont, 1, Lofland, &
L 3. Loflanc (Eds.), Handbook Qf etlinography
(pp.136-144),London: Sage.
Massey, D. ('9941. Space, place and gmder. Lo::ccn,
Polity.
McG:.::gan, J. (Ee.). (1997) Cultural methodologies.
London, Sage.
l¼cRobbie, A. (Ed.). (1997). Bae/( to reality? .'vJciaJ
experience aud cultural studies. ~1anchester,
l: K: \fanchescer University Press.
Novas, C.,& Rose,N. (2C00). Genetic risks and the birth
of the somatic individual. Ec,momy a11d Sode:y,
29!4), 485513.
Patum!!.ki, H. (2003). A:i optical illusion: The Finnish
m;:;del for the information age. Theory, Culture.
and Society. 2013). l 36-145.
Radwe.y, J, (1984). Readiug the mmance: l'\'iJm1m,
patriarchy, ar;d popu/,;;r literature. Chape'. Hill:
University of North Carolir.a Press.
Rose, N, (: 999 ), Powers offreedom: Re,lramir:g po/Weal
rlio11ght. Cambridge, UK: Cam':ridge Jniversity
P:-ess.
Santos, R. V. (2003). lndigenow peoples, changing
and political landscapes, tnd hi.: • an genetics :n
Amazonia In A. GMdman, D. Heath, & M, S. Lindce
(Eds.), Gen;;tic na/,m//culture: Amhrop,,logy and
science beyond the (l;v-cult11re divide (pp. 2J-40).
3erkeltj: University of Califor ,i:a
Saukko, P. {2000). Between voic<' a::d disco::rsc:
Quilting intt:r,iews on anorexia. Qualitati1•e
inquiry, 6(3), 299-317,
Smit\ j., Mirhir, S., Stepher.sLm, M_, & Qua:rcL U
(2fll)2). Risk ;itr.:eplion and decision-making in
candidates for gene11c trsting for Hun:ing1<m's
disease: An interpretative phs:nomenolog:cal
analysis. Journal of Health Psychology, 7( 2 ),
1-144.
Tomase:i,, K, ( 19%, December). Cu/tunii polk)' & poli-
tics: South Africa and the Australian rul!ural poUq
"momeut." Paper de:ivered at the lultural Studies
Association of Australia t:onfere11cr "In Search nf
the Public." Retrieved from www.nu.a,.za/ccmB/
a:1thrnpology/culturalpol icy.a~ ;,?ID: l
lumlinsu11, J. (1999). (;Jobalizatfrm and rnhire,
London: Polity.
Waterman n, I'. ( 1999), TJ1e brave new w1,dd of Manue:
Castells: What on earth (or in ether) is going
on? Deveioprnent am:/ Chang,:, 20, 357-3!KJ.
Willis, P. ( 1977). Lfaniing ta l11b,iur: lfow worki11g-da,s
kids ger w,1rking-class jobs. Westmeac:: !iax<Jn
House.
Willis, I'. (2DO!l). The etr.nographic imagiw,1/,m.
Cambridge, l: K: i>olity:
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating pu!:i::c alienation: E:q,rrt
cul:ures of ri;;k and ethics on GMO;;, S,:ience ,1s
Culture, 10(4),4-15-•181.
14
. . -----------------------ff$¢V$,({i\!1t,'''
CRITICAL HUMANISM
AND QUEER THEORY
Living With the Tensions
Ken Plummer

Failure to examine the conceptual structures and frames of reference w/Jirh are
unccmsdousi'y implicated in even the seemingly most innocent factual in qvires I,
the single greatest defect that can be found in any field of lnqtiiry
-John Dewey 11938, p. 5051

,\1ost people in and outside of the academy arf! still puzz/1:d about what queerness
means, exact!y, so the concept stiff ha, the potential to disturb or complicate ways of
seeing gender and sexuality, as well as the related areas of race, ethnicity and class.
-Alexander Doty (2000, p. 71

R
esearch-like life-is a contradktorv,
• essy affa:r. Only on the pages of"how-,~-
do-ir" research methods texts or in the
classrooms of research methods courses car. it bl'.:
sorted out into linear stages, clear protocols, and
firm principles. My co:1cern in this chapter lies with
some of the multiple, often contradictory assump-
tions of inquiries. Taking my interest in sexualities/
gay/queer research as a ;.1arting point and as a :en-
sion, I see "queer theory" and "critical humanis:n" as
one of my own tensioos. I have tried to depic: each
and to suggest some overlaps, b·Jt my aim has not
been to recoodle the two. That is not possible and
proba:ily is not even des:rab~e. We :iave to live with
the tensions, and av.~,ueness of them is important
background for the self-reflexive social researcher:

•
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITKrJVE RESEARCII--CHAPTER 14
a Suc!At CHANGE AND
ZOMBIE RESEARCH
This discussion siould be seen against a back•
grot:nd of rapid social cha1:ge. A,though for
many, research mdhm.:s remain the same over
time (they just get a bit more refined with each
gcner<1t:o:i), for others of us, cl:anges in society are
seen to bring parallel changes in research prac•
tic~s. To put it bluntly, many claim we are moving
into a postmodern, late modern, g'.obali1.ing, risk,
litp id society, A r:ew global o:'dt:r is in the making
that is much more provisional a:1d less author•
ltative than tl:at of the past; it is a society of
increasing seJ-retkxivity a:1d ind:viduation, a
network society of flows a:1d mobilil:es, a sodety
of consumption and waste (Bauman, 2U00, 2004;
Beck, 2003; Giddens, 1991; Urry, 2000 ).
As we tentatively move into ll:ese new
worlds, our tools for theory and rese<1rch need
rn<l:cal mrcrhaul. German sociologist Ulrich Beck,
for example, speaks of "zombie categories"; we
move among the living dead! Zmnhie categories
are categories from the past that we continue to
use even Ihough they have long outlived their use-
fulness and even though they mask a cl ffercnt
reality. \\'e probably go on us' ng them bccac:se at
?resent we have no better words to put in tneir
:>lace. Yet dead they a:e.
Beck cites the example of the concept of "the
family'' as an instance of a zon:bk category, a
term that once life and meaning but many
:iow means very little, I suggest that we could also
cile most of our massive research met~ndo!og)'
appara1 us as partially zombifird. I am not a major
fan of television, but when I choose 10 watch a
do,.;urr.entary, I often am impressed by how much
more Lget from it tha:1 from the standard sodo-
logical rescar..:h tract. Ye: the skUs of a good doc•
umenta:-y maker aro r.,rety the topics of research
methods courses, even though the.se skills-from
scripnvriti:ig and directing to camera move1;1crn s
and ethics-are th1; very stuff of good 2lst•ccr:tury
research. And ye>s, so:11e research seems to have
rntcred tl:e world of cybe~space, but :nuch of it
simply replicates the methods of quantitative
research, making qualitative research disdplined,
quantitative, and antihmmmistk:. Real innovation
i~ lacki:ig..vfuch research a: tl:e end of ,he 20th
centt: ry-to borrow Beck's !er m ag.ih-t::uly
was zombie research (Beck, 2003).
Table 14.1 suggests ,ome links bctwee:1 social
chmge and social research styles. The hack•
ground is the aubodtative scienlifi c accmmt wi ch
standard research protocols. As the social world
changes, so we may start to sense new approaches
to making 'nquiries. My concern in lb is chapter is
largely with the arrival of (JUeer theory.
a A RHu:,cvE INTRoDucnoN
How re.search done takes us into various
language games-son:e :atiunal. ,m:1e more
contradictory, some (jua:ita:ivc, some qt:alltita•
tivc. The languages we use bring w::h then all
manner of tensions. Allho:1gh they someti :ncs
help us chart the ways we do research, they often
bring their own contradictions a:id problems.
My goal here is to address some of the incohcrer.
des I have found in my own res ea rcli languages
a1:d Inqu' ries ~nd to suggesl ways of living w :th
them. Although I will draw widely from a range
of sourCt:li and hope to provide some i1aradig-
nn:k instances, tl:e chapter in evi1ably will be
personal. Le: :ne pose the key cuntradic tion of
tr:y inquiries, (We all have our own.)
The ln:;k of my inquiries have fucu~cd on sex-
mdit ies, r.spec:aliy !es:i:an a.r.d gay concerns, with
an nlt:mate eye on some notion of sexual justice.
In the early days, I used a relatively s:raight•
forward symbolic interactionis:n to g:iide me in
relatively straightforward fieldwork and inter-
viewing in and around London's gay scene of the
late 1960s. Ar the same tim<', I engaged polit i-
c.il:y, Jni:ially with the Hon:osexual Law Reform
Society and then with the Gay Liberation Fro:11 in
ils rarly years. I read r.1y Hecker, Blumer, Sl rnuss,
2.nd Der.tin! At the same time, I was coming out
as a you:ig !!,ay man ,me fim:ing my way in the
very social world J was stcdying. More :-ecently,
such ~lraightforwanlness has come to be seen
as increasi:1gly problematic. lndeed, t~te;e was
 Plummer: Critical Humanism 1md Queer Theory
Table 14.L Shifting Research Styles 1:rider Comlitions of Late Mnderr::ty
Current Sac/al C/umges
foward a late mndem world
Postmodcrn/f:agmenrati11n/p.urnllzation
Mediaz,,tio::
Stories and the deaih or lhe grand narrative
i r.dividua::zal kddmiceo.i\; ::set :led identi:ies
c;obali~arinn-glocalization hybridizal'm1/
dia,pnrn
High :e,:"~/mediat,,.ifcy!mrg !p0,,t ·human
Krl()wkdge as rontested
Pos:moccm politics and t,thkil
T:ie network socirtv
Sexualities as pmblcmalk
always a tension there: : just did not always see ii
H'lurrm1er, : 995 ),
On tme hand, I have found myself using a
language that 1 increasingly call that of crl:ical
humar:ism, one al'.ied to symbolic intetactionism,
pragmatism, democratic thinking, storytcllins:,
mural progxss, redistribution, justice, and good
citizenship (Plummer, 2003 ). Inspirations range
f:-um Dewey to Rori y, Blumer to Becker, All of
t~ese are quite old and traditional ideas, und
althot:gh I have sensed their postmm:lemized
affi:1itie, (as have otters), they still hring more
orthodox daims around experience, truths, iden-
tities, belonging to grot1p,, and a lunguage of
:noral re~?onsibGties 1:1 at can be shaced through
dilllogc.es (Plummer, 2003 ).
By contrast, I also have found myself at times
using a m.ich more rad:ca!ized language Iha:
nowadays circulate~ under the r.ame of queer
theory. The latter mmt usually be srcn as at odds
with the former: Queer theory puts everything
tiut uf joinl, out of order. «Queer:· for me, is the
posl modcm;zati<m of sexual and gender studies,
"Queer" brings with it a radical d econstruct im1
of all conventional categories of sexuality and
gencer: It que~:ions all the orthodox texts and
tc'llings of thL' work of gender and sexua:it y in the
1!11 JS'l
P,issible Change~ in Research Style
-
'toward a !ale rr:,:dern 1.:scard: practice
The'polyp:10nk' tum
The ne-..v forms of media a., both teJutiqu; and cala
The ,tor)·tellinglnarrntive turn
The ,elfrrflctive turn
The by'.1;idic turn: decolonizing met::cds
(L. T. S:ciitl:, I999)
The high-tech turn
The epistemo:ogical tur~
The political/ethical turn
Researching flows, mobililies, wm::1iiencies
The queer t:.~n
modern worlc (and all we rids), [t is a m;;ssy,
rnarc'lk affair-not much differcm from i:itd-
kctual anarchists or po]tkal International
Situationists. "Queer" would seem lo be antihu-
manist, to virw the world of num:alizatior. and
normality as its enemy, ar:d tn refuse Io sucked
illlo conve1:tions and orthodoxy. If it is at all
suciological (and it usually is not), it is gotl:k and
roman:k, not dasska: and canonirnl (Gouldner,
1973 ), II transgresses and subverts.
O:i one hand, then, J am quite happy about
using ti:e "new language of qualitative method"
(Gubrium & Holstein, 1997); on the flther, I am
quite aware of a quecr language that finds ?rob-
lems everywhere with orthodox social science
methods (Kong, Mahor.ey, & Plmnrr:er, 2002).
Again, these tensions are very mud: products of
their tir.1e (queer theory did not exist before the
late 1980s ). Yet, retrospectively, it would seem
that I have al waJs walked tig'.1tropcs between ar:
academic interaclion:sm, a poE:ical libe~alism, a
gay experience, and a rnd ical critique.
Hut of course, as usual, there are rno,e ironies
here. Since the late 1980s, l have more o: less con•
sidered mysclf"post•gay," who was :hat young
man from the past wl:o studied the gay world?
Likewise, those wild q·Jeer theorists have started
 360 lll 1 !ANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 14
to build their :extbuoks, their readers, and their
courses, and they have pro! ife,ated their own eso•
teric rultHke worlds that often seem more acade-
m le tha:1 :he mos: philosophical works of Dewey.
Far from breakir:g boundaries, queer theorists
often have erected them, for while they may not
wish for closure, they r.evertheless find it Queer
theories have their guru,, faeir followers, and
their canonical texts. But likewise, humanists and
new qualitative researchers-finding themselves
under siege from postmodemists, queer theo-
rists, some frminis:s, and multkulturalists and
the like-have also foughr back. rewriting their
own h:stories and suggesting that many of the
critiqi:es laid at :heir door are simply false. Some,
like Richard Rorry-the heir apparent to the mod-
ern :.ragmatism of Dewey and James-fall into
cu,ious :raps; Him,elf labeled a postmodernist by
others, he condemns postmodernists as "posties"
(Rorty, 1999). A(ethodological positions often
lead b directions different from those originally
claimed.'
So here am I, like many others, a bit of a
humanist, a bit post-gay, a sort of a feminist, a
little queer, a kind of a liberal, and seeing that
much that is queer has the potential for an impor-
tant radical change. In the dassk words of inter-
actionism, Who am I? How can I live with these
tensions?
Tr.is chap:er (s not meant to be an essay of
overly indulger:t sc:f-analysis, but rather one in
whkh, starting to reAect on such a worry, I am
simply showing tensions that many must confront
lhese days. Not only am J not alone in sue~ wor-
ries, bi;: I also am filir,y sure frta: all reflective
qualitat:ve inquiries will face their own versio:is
of them, just as ;nost people face them in their
daily lives. Ambivalence is the name of the game.
In this chapter, l plar. to with three in:er-
connected issues raisec by qualitative research--
all fm.:used on just how far we can "p;.ish" the
boundaries of qualitative research into new fie:ds,
strategies, and polit:caUmoral awareness-and
how :his has been happening continuously in my
own work. New la:iguat1es of qaaiitat1ve method
benefit from new ideas that at least initially may be
seer. as op;;,ositim:. This is how they grnw and how
the wh1ie field of qualitative research becomes
more refined. In what follows. I will explore;
• What is critical humanism and how to do a
critical humanist method
• ½'ha: is queer and how tc do a qurer mrthod
• How the contradictions can he lived through
Ill TrtE CRITICAL HUMANIST PROJECT
.How dlffNPnt thing, would be . .. if
the social sciences at thP rim;, of thP!r
systemiitic formation in the nineteentl) cen-
tury had ti!ken tf;i; arts in the same degree
they took /he physical science <1s models.
-Robert Nisbet (1 p. 16)
U1ere is an ,ffuslve center lo this con-
tradictory, tensimrridden enterprise that
seems to be mavmg further and further
away from grand narratives and singfe,
overarching ontological, epistemological,
and methodological paradigms. This center
lies in t,':I' Jwmam',tir commitment of the
qualitative researcher m swdy the vvorld
always from the per.,pective of the Interact
iny iridividual. From this simple commit
ment flow the lii~raf and radical politic, of
qualitative research. Action, feminist, dini-
cal, conslruclivist ethnic, critical, and ui/.
wra/ studie., researchers alf unite on th•s
point. They a!I share !he belief that a po/f.
lies of liberation mu.st always b('gin with
the perspectives, desires, and dreams of
those indfvfdual:, and groups who have
been oppres,ed In the larger idPological,
economic, and pof/1/c,1/ forces of a 'iOcie,y
or a historicaf rnomem.
-Denzir. & L ,coin (1994, p. 575)
I use the term "critical ht:.manism" these days
:o suggest orientations to inquiry that focus on
human experience-that is, with the strucn:re of
experience and its daily lived nature-and that
acknowledge the political and social role of all
bquiry. It goes by many names-symbolic inter-
actionism/ etlmog:aphy, qualitative :nc111iry,
reflexivity, cu'.tural anthro?ology, and life story

research, among others-but they all have several
concerm at heart All these research orientations
have a focus on human subjectivity, expe:-ience,
and creativity: They start with people living their
daily lives, They look at 11:eir talk, their feelings,
their actions, and 11:e ir bodies as they move
around in social worlds and experience the
constrainls of history am: a material world of
inequulities and exclusions, l"iey make :nethod,
ological da:ms for a naturalistic ''inti mate famil·
iari!y" wifa these lives, recognizing their own
part in suh study.'lhcy make no claims for grand
abstractions or univc rsalism-assumi ng an
inherent ambivalence am:: ambiguity hurr,an
life with rm "final solutions;' only damage limita·
:ions-while simulta:ieuusly sensing both their
subjects' cthlcal and political concerns a:1d their
own in conducting such inquiries. They have
pragmatic pedigrees. espousing an epistemology
of rndkal, pragmatic empiricism that takes seri·
ously the idea that knowing-always Ii rr: ited a:id
partial-should grounded in experience
(jacks on, 1989). It fa never ne•Jtral, Yi Jc-free
work, because the core of the inquiry rr:u,t be
human values, As John Dewey remarked long ago,
"Ar.y inquiry into what is decp:y and im::lusi,dy
(i,e,, significalltly) human enter,5 perforce into the
specific area of morals" ( 1920, p. xxvi;, Impartiality
may be suspect; but a rigurous sense of the ethi •
cal and political sphere is a necessity, Just why
would one even bother to do research were 't not
for some wider concern or value?
¼bat are these values? In the ::nost geoeral
terms, critical humanism champions those value~
that give dignity to the perso:1/ reduce human
sufferings, and c:ihance human well-being, There
are many such va!Je syste:ns, bur at a mh:imum
11:ey probably must include the following:
L A commitment to a whole duster of democru·
values (a; opposed to totalitarian ones)
that aim to mJ1u:elre•rww human ;1~(feri.~gs,
They tai.e as a r,a,,e.:~:c the value tf1e human
beir.g and o;len provide a number of ,,uggestcc'
human right,-freedmn of IDO\'ement, fredor::
of speech, freedom of association, freecoc:
against a:bitrary arres:, and so on. They nearly
always indude the rigltr to aqua/icy, This
Phmu::er: Critical Humanism and Queer Theory 111 36 l
conm1:'ment is strongly antisuffrring and
prov:des a major thrus: toward b,1Lh tqLw lity
and freedo:n for all groups, including those with
"difftren:es" of aL kinds (Felice, 1996).
2. An ethics of care and compassfon, Significantly
developed by feminis:s, this is a value whereby
looking after :he other takes o:: a p:ime role and
whereby sympathy, love, and even fidelity
becume pr::ne concerns (Tronto, 1993 ).
3. Apo::rics of recognition and 111,,;,er:t, FuLowing the
work o: Axel Honne:h ( 1995) and significanlly
shaped earlier (;eu:ge Herbert Meat, thi;, :s a
value whereby ot::ers are always acknowledged
am: a certain level of empathy is undecta:i.en.
4, The impo~tance of rrnst. This value recognizl!i\
that 110 social relationships (or society, for that
matlfr) can fum:tior, unless :iumans hare a!
least snme mo,h:um of !rust in each othrr
(O''lei::. 2002).
Of course, many these values bring their
own tensions: We n,·.1,I wurk through thcm and
live with them, A glaring poten:ial commdict ion,
for example, :nay be to talk of hu:nanistk values
nnder capirn:i,:n, for many of the values
hJmanism must be seen as stressing oonma,ke:
values, Th~• are ""alues that are not necessarily
given a high ranking in a capitalist economy.
Corne! West has pi:trhis well:
In our own tin:e it is beco::iing ex::rn1cly df:kult
non-market values to gain a footlmlc:, Pc:cnling
:s a mm market activity; so much sacrifb:: and
:sen ice go into i: wi:houl a:iy assurance !hat thr
;m:.viders w':l get anyb:ng back Mercy. justkr: 1hcy
an, non market, Care,sfrvicc: non ma~keL Solid,rity,
fiddity: non market Swccmess and kindn~ss and
gentkncss. All non market Tragka:!y, non market
values arc relatlvely scarir.... iWest,: 999, ?· 11)
The Methodologies of Human£sm
These values strongly umkrpin critical human·
i8nL In his '"'""''" book The lluman Perspective in
Sociology, T, S, Bruyn {1966) locates this humanis•
tk: perspective as strongly allied to the met'lods
of participant observation. Flsewhere, I have sug•
gested an array of life story strategies getting
 362 JI HAND1l00K OF QtALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 14
ar human experience. T:1e task is a"fairly complete
aarra:ing of one's entire experience of life as a
whole, highEg:1.ting t:ie most important aspects"
(R, Atkinbon, 1998, p. 8). These may be long, short,
reflexive, collective, genealogical, ethnographic,
photographic, even auto/ethnographic (Plummer,
2000). Life stories are prirr:e humar:istic tools, but
it is quite wrong to suggest that this means that
the stories only have a concern with subjectivity
and personal experience. 4
Tluoughout all of :his, there is a pronounced
concern not only with tl:e humanistic under
standing of experience but also with ways of
telling the stories of the research. Usually, :he
researcher is present in many ways in the text: The
text rarely is neutraL with a passive observer.
Chris Carri:lgton's {1999) study of gay families,
for exam pie, makes it very dear from the outset
his ow;1 location within a single-parent fa:nily: "I
grew up in a working-poor, feir.ale headed, single
parent famlly_ Throughout much o" my child-
hood, in order to make ends meet, my mother
worked nights as bar tender. I11ere were periods
whe:-e she could not get enough hours and our
family had to turn to food stamps and welfare"
{p, 7). Likewise, Peter Kardi's ( 1999} study of
gay men's friendships is driven by his own pas-
s:on for friends: "What follows is partly an
attempt to make sense of my own experiences
with friends" (p_ 2). Hwnanistic inqu:rirs usually
reveal humanistic researchers.
Most comrr:on ly, as in Josh Gamson's Freaks
Talk Bilek (· 99B l a;1d Ldla Rupp and Verta Taylor's
Drag Queens at the 80 l Cabaret (2003 ), the method
employed wi'l e:itail triangulatior.-a combi-
nation of cultural analysis tools.~ Here, • ultiple
sources of data pertaining to text,, product:on,
and reception are collected ar.d the i1:tersc,;tions
among them analyzed, In Rupp and Taylor's study
of drag queens, they observed, tape recorded,
and tnmscrfoed 50 drag performances, along with
the dialogue, musk, and audience inte:action~,
including photog:aphs and dre.ssing up them-
selves, They collected data on the perforrr:ances
through weekly meetir:gs of the drag artists and
sen:istructured life histories, and they rnnd:.icted
focus groups o:i people who attended ,he
performances. In additio:i, :hey looked at weekly
r:ewspapers (such as the gay paper Ce/ebr.ite; ar.d
others to partially construct :he h:slory of the
groups. Their research !:as a political aim, human-
istic and sociological, and yet queer too, show-
that combinations are possible_ Enormous
amounts of research have heen writtrn on all of
this (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Coffey, 1999;
Coles, 1989; Eliis & Flaherty, 191:12; Hertz, 1992;
Reed-Danahay, 1997; Ronai, 1992).
A further recent example of such work is
Harry Wokot:'s (2002) account of Drad, the
Sneaky Kid. Wolcott, an educational anthro-
pologist, is well known for his mefaodologkal
writings and books, e,pedal:y i:l the field of edu-
cation. This book started life in the early 1980s as
a sho~t journal ar:id" on the life s:ory of Brad, a
troubled 19-year old. The story is aimed at g~t-
ting at the human experience of e,;: ucationa I
ure, ir: partkular, the lac~ of support fm thosl"
who are not well served by our educational
systems.
This wo;ild have been an ir.ten:stbg iifo stury
b·Jt an unexceptiona ! one hac it no: been for all
the developments th at subsequent,y cm erged
around it. \-\'hat are not told ill thr original story
are the details of how Wolcott met Brad, how he
had gay sex with him, and how he got him to te:J
his life story. Much follows after the original story,
which later takes curious turns: Brad develops
schiwphrenia and rerurns one r:igt: to Wolcott's
house to burn it down :n an enraged attempt lo
kill hiicJ. This leads to the complete de,t:-uction of
Wolcott's ho:ne ar:d all his belongings (and those
of his schoolteacher:::iartner).A serious court case
ens·Jes in which Brad is tried a:1d sent :o pdson.
Despite Brad's guilt, Wolcott is himsdf scruti•
nized regarding his relationship, his homusexual-
ity, and even his role as an anthropufogist. l!rad'a
family :s especially unhappy about the rel at io;i-
s:iip with Wolcott, but so are many acade:nics.
u;,imately, Brad is ins~itutionalized. EventuaLy,
the story is turned into an intriguing ethr.o-
graphic play. I have only read the :ext of the play
and not seen it perforn:ed. judging by the text

presented here, it comes across as a collage of
1980s pop music, sloganized slides, and a drama
in two layers-one about Brad's relatlo:1ship with
Wolcott and another about Wolcott's ruminations,
as a professor, on the plights of ethnography.
1 mention this study because although it
started out as a life story gloss-a simple relay•
ing of Brad's story-because of the curious
circumstances that it led to, a much richer and
complex story was revealed that generated a
host of qi.:.estions and debates about the ethical,
pe:-sonal, and practical issues surrounding field·
work, Sexuality and gender were pretty much
at tl:c core. It is a gripping tale of the kinds of
issues highlighted by all humanistic research.
Indeed, within the book a se<ond major narrative
starts to appear-that Harry \\Tolcott himself.
He was always present, of course, but his story
takes over as he reveals how he had regular sex
with the young man, his partner's disapproval of
Brad, and how one night he returns to his house
to find a strong smell of oil and Brad screaming
"You fucker. I'm going to kill you. rm going to kill
you, l'm going to tie yoLl up and leave you in the
house and set the house on fire"(?, 74}, Luckily;
Harry es.:apes, but un~Jckily, his house does not.
II goes up entirely in flames, with all of his and
his partner's belongings. This may be one of the
core dramatic moments in life story telling-
certainly an "epiphany»! After that, a major
d1apler follows that tells of the working of the
court and how Wolcott himself is al;no5t on tria:.
¼'he:i the story of Sneaky Kid was first pub-
lished in 191:!3, it was a 30•page essay; it has grown
into a book of more than ZOO pages (Wokott,
2002). The original article does not tell much about
the relationship from which it grew or much of the
other background; the book tells much more, but it
raises shaqly the issue of just how much remains
left out, The book serves as a shar,, reminder that
all social science, including life stories, consists of
on;.y partial selections of realities. There is always
:nuch going on behind the scenes that is not told.
Here we have the inevitable bias, the partiality, the
:imits, fae selectivity of all stories told-but I will
not take these issues forther here.
Plummer: Critical H\::manisrr: and Queer Theory 111 363
II THE TROUBLES \\TITH HUMANIS.\1
--··-------
Although J think humanism has a lot to offer
qualitative inquiry, it is an unfash:onable view
these days: Many social scientists seem to want
to turn only to discourse and language. But this
discourse is not incompatible with doing this, as
it evokes the humanities (much more so thar:
other traditions), widens communities of 'Jnder·
standing by dia:oguing with the voices of others,
and takes a strong democratk impulse as the
force behind its :hinking and investigating. As a
form of imagery to :hink about social life, this
is all to the good. It brings with 't the possibility
for such inquiry to engage in poetry and poetics,
drama and performance, philosophy and photog•
raphy, video and film, narrative and sto,ies.
:-Jevertheless, these days hu:nanism remains a
thoroughly controversia~ and contested term-
and not leas: among 9ueer theorists themselves.
We know, of course, the kmg •standing attacks on
humanism from theologies, from behavioral psy-
chologies, and from certain kinds of philoso•
phers: Therr is a notorious deilate between the
humanist Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism
and Heidegger's Leiter on Humanism. More recent
attacks have denounced "humanism" as a form of
white, male, Western, elite domination and coio
niiation that is be:ng imposed ti: roughout the
world and that brings with it too strong a sense of
the unique indivldual. It i;: seen as contra post-
modemism. In one telling statement, Foucault
prodaims, "The modern individual-objectified,
analyzed, fixed is a histurical ad1ievement.
There is no universal person on whom power has
performed its operations and ::mowledge, its
enquiries" {1979, pp. 159-160). The "Humar.
Subject" becomes a Western. invention. It is not a
progress or a liberation, merely a trapping on the
forces of power.
This loose but important duster of positions
cr:tical of humanism-usually identified with a
postmodern sensibility-would include queer
theorists, multicultural theorists, postcolonialists,
many feminists, and antiracists, as well as post-
structural theorists. Although 1 have n: uch
 364 Ill HANDllOOK OF QUALITATIVE RFSEARCH-Cl!Al'TRR 14
syn:pathy 1Nith these projects and the critical
methodologies they usually espouse (e.g.• L. T.
Smith, 1999), I also believe in the ,alue of the
p:-agmatic ar:d ht:manist tradit:ons. How ca:1 I
live with this seembg contradiction?
Let me look briet:y at what the critics say. They
claim that Humanisfll ;iropose some kind of com•
mon anc hence universal "human being" or self: a
common humanity that bllmls us lo wider differ-
ences and positions in the wor[d. Often this is
seen as a powerful, actualizing, and autonomous
force in :he wo~ld: Th individual agent is at t'ie
center of the aclion and of the universe. Tl:J, is
said to result b overt individualism strongly con-
ne::ed to the Enlightenn:enl ;:,rojed (We~:e,n,
patrhm;l:al, racist. colonialist, etc.) which turns
itself into a series of moral and political claims
about progress through a liberal and democratic
society. Human ism is linked to a universal. unen-
cumbered "self" and to the "mmkrn"Western Jib.
era! project. Such ideas of the human subject are
dstinc:ly "Western" and bring with them a whole
series of ideological assumptions about the c<:n ·
trality of the white, Western, male, middle-chm,!
bourgeois position: hence, they become :he
enemies of feminism {human has equaled male),
ethnic movements (human !:as equaled white
superiority). gays (human has equaled helern-
sex aal ), and all ,ul :ures outside the Western
Er:ligh:enment project (human here has equaled
the mic.dle-dass West).
A More Complex Humanism?
Such claims made against "humanis:n"
demean a complex, dif'erentiated :crm into some•
thi:1g far too si :nple. Hi:manism cam, it is true,
come w me&n all of the above, but the le1m does
not have to. Alfred Mclung Lee ( 1978, pp. 44-45)
and others have charted both a long history of
humanism and r:rnnv torn:s of it Attack, usuallv
' '
are waged at a high level of generality, and
specifics of what constitutes ilthe l:uman'' often
are seriously overlooked. But, as : have suggested
elsewhere, :or me this ''human being" is never a
"'·"""'" helpless atom, Humar:;; rn ust be located
'P. time and space: They are always s:uffed full of
thc'ir culture and his~ory, and they must "nest" in
a universe ot contexrn. Human beings are both
embod iec, teding anima;s and creatures with
great sy:nbolic potenfo1!. T::ey engage in synbolic
communkalion and are dialogk and intersuhjec-
tive: Tr.ere !s no such thing as the soli:ary indi-
vidual, ll uman lives are shaped by chance, fateful
moments, epiphanic,, and con:ingrndes. There is
also a co:itinuous tension between tl:e spe,;Hki-
tfos and varieties of humani6:s at any time and
place, and the universal potentials thal are to be
found in all humans. And there is a continuous
engagement with moral, ethical, ai:i.i political
issues.
Curio'Jsly, it is also dear that many the
seeming opponents of humanism can be found
wanting to hold onto some version of i1uman
ism after all. Indccd, ii is odd that some of the
strongest opponents lapse into a kind of human•
ism at d:ffercnt points in thei:· argument. for
:nstam:e, Edward Said-a leading posrcolo:i ial
critic of Western-style humanism-actua:ly
urges another kind ofhurnar:i,m, "shorn of all its
'unpleasantly lriu:nphali~: weight,"' and in re,:rnt
wlJrk rie aclaally daln:s to be a humanist (Said,
1992, p, 230; 2003),
Jadeed, at the star: of the 2i st ce:itury, there
have been many signs that the critique ofht:man·
ism that pervaded the prev Jous century has
started to be reinvigorated as a goal o( inquiry.
More .u:d more contemi:)nrary commentators,
well aware of :he attach above, go on to n:ake
sor:1 c k:nds of humanist claims, :t would not
be hard lo find signs of humanism (ever. if
the autl:ors disdai:ned then::) in rnajo, studies
such as Nancy Schcper-Hughes's Deat.~ Without
Weeping ( l 994 ), Stanley Cuhen~, States of Denial
(I 999), a,ul M,\ftha Nussbaum's and Social
Justice (1999). l'or me, they arc dcarfy inspired by
a version of !mmani,m wit!: the human ':ieing t:
:he heart of ~he anely.~i~, with care ar:d j usticc as
core values, a1:d with the use of any methods c1t
hand tha1 will bring out the story.c Sn whatever
the critiques, it doe, appear !hat a critical human-
ism still has its place i:1 social science and quali·
Iat: w im:p:i ry Bui before going too far, we should
see what queer th cory ha;. lo on all th:s.

D A QlJFER PROJECT
Queer articulate, a ra die,;:/ questioning of
,,ocia/ cultur,;;1 nurms, nolioi;s of if<:n-
rcotoduc11ve s,,xuaiitv and the family.
' '
-Cherry Srr ,h (21l02, p. 28)
Queer is by definition whatl'Vt'r i, at acids
with ,h,, norm,11, the /egitim,ite, :he dom-
ina rit Th Ne- /5 noching in particular to
which It m:ct•ssc1rif;, 1efic1.,.
--David Halperin 11995, p. 62)
(l ucer theory emerged around the mid- to late
I 9RO, in North America, largely as a humanities/
multicu ltural-'.1ased respo:isc :o a more limited
"lesbian and gay studies;' Wh :le tht ideas of
Michel Foucault loom large (with his ta:ks of
"regime, of truth" and "discursive cxplosi011s"),
the roots of queer 1hcory (if not the term) usi:all y
are seen to lie in tb: work of Teresa de lauretis
i Halperin, 2003, p. 339) ar:d Eve Kosofsky
Sedgwick, who argued thul
many of the major no<lc& o! tlmu1:1ln ~:-_cwledge
in twentieth cent·~:y Wes!em cul:ure as a who:e are
s:ructured-inceed fract.m,d-by a chronic, llO\'-'
;;ndcmic er ;,is of homolhelerosexual definition,
indkalivcly ma:e, dating from the end the nine-
lec1th ce:itury.... an understand:ng of any aspect
of mudcrn Weste~n culture must be, not merely
incomplete, but damaged in its cen: ral substance to
the <legree that it doe~ n01 incorporate a critcal
analy,'s or modern Homolheterosexu21 definition.
(I 990, p. I)
Judilh Butler's work has been concerned
with the deconstruction of lhe homo/heterosex-
ual binary divide and r:mre iuterested in decon-
strus:ting the sexigender divide. For !:er, there can
be no kind of claim to any essential gender: It is
all "performative;' slippery,, unfixed, If there is a
heart to quee, t:ieory, then, it r:1ust be seen as a
radical stance 2.round sexuality and g<'nder :hat
denies any fixed categories and seei.s to subvert
a:ry tends;crn.:ies toward nor:najty within its study
(Sullivan, 2003 ).
Plwnmcr: Critical Hur::anism and Queer Theory 1!l 3M
Despite these opening suggestions, the term
"queer theory» is v~ry hard to pin down (some see
t:, is as a necessary virtue !or a theory that rcfu ses
fixed identity). It has com-: to :nean many thing.qi
Alexane-er Duty can suggest at six difforent
meanings, ,1s follow. Sometimes it is used simply
as c. syno11ym for lesbiar., gay, bisexi:al, transgen"
i:er (LGBT), Smr:-:t:mes it is an "umbrella :ernl"
th a: puts together a range of so-called "non
straigh: positions:' Sometimes it simply describes
any non-normative expression of gender (which
could include straight). Sometimes it is t1,ed to
describe "non-straight tl:ings" r.ot dearly sign-
posted as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or :ransgen de~
but that bring wi:h them a possibility fo1 such a
reading. even if inrnherently, Somcti mes it locates
the "non-s :raight work, positions, plrasures, and
reading, of peop!e who don't share the sarr_e sex-
ua: orientlltio:1 as the text faey are producing or
responcing Taking it even :'urther, Doty sug-
gests th o1: "queer" may be a particu'.ar form of cul-
tural rc-.idcrship and textual cod:ng that creates
spaces not contained wi:hin rnnvent'm:al ,a1e-
go~ie~ s Jch as gay. strnight, and transgendered.
Interestingly. what all h;s r:i e,mi ngs have in (:om-
mon is that tncy are in some way descriptive of
text~ ar:d lhey are in some way linked to (usuaHy
transvessing) categories of gencer and sexuality
( Doty, 2000, p, 6).
In general, "queer" may be seen as partially
dernnstructing our own discourses and creating a
gre-,iter openness in the way we think through our
categories. Queer theory must rxplicitly challenge
any kind of closure or settler:1en:, so any atte1:1pts
at definition or rodilicat:on must be nonstarters.
Queer lheory 10 qi:ote j.,iichael Warner, a stark
attack on "nurn:al busim:ss in 7he academy" ( 1992,
p. 25 ). It poses the :iaradox of being ir.side :he
academy while wanting to be outside it It suggests
faat a "sexual order overlaps w'th a wide nmgc o:
instiutions and social ideologies, to challenge the
sexi:al order is soone, or la:er to encounter these
i:islitutions as a prob'.em» (W,irner, 1993. p. 5).
Quec:- :heory is really poststructuralism (and post-
:nodernism) applied to sexualities and genders.
To a Emited extent, c,ueer theory may be
seen as anothr specific ve,sion of what Nancy
'166 • HANDBOOK OF QUALl'.:ATIVE RES:EARCH-CH APTER I?
Harstod,; and ,!,andra Harding refer to as standpoint
theory (lhm:gh f have never seen it discussed in
this way). Init:ally ceveloped as a way to analyze
a position of women's subordination and domi-
nation, it suggests that an "opposition co:1sdous-
11ess" can emerge that transcends the more
take:1-for-granted knowledge, 1t is interesting that
hardly any n:er: have taken this position up, 1:mt
o:her women-won:en o: race and disability,
example-have done so, Men seem to ig:10re the
stance, and so too do queer theoris:s, ye, what we
may wc:J :iave in queer theory is really somet.11ing
akin to a "queer standpoint:'
Certain key themes are worth highlighting.
Queer theory is a stance in which
• both the he:ernsexuallho:nosexual binary and
the s,;,:1ge,nc,er sp::t arc challenged,
• there i:. a de-centering uf identity,
• a:1 sexual ca:egories arc open, fluid, and non-
fixed ( which means that modern lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and iransgender ident'tie;, are frac-
tured, along with all heterosexual ones),
• it afters a critique of mainstream or "corporate"
hon:osexllillity.
• J: secs power as being emboci'ed discursively.
Liberation rights give way to tra:isgression
and carnival as a goal pol'tk:al action, what
!:as been c,Jed a "politics of provocario::."
• all normalizing strategies are shunned,
• academic work .~iay become ironic, is often
comic and paradoxica:, and is sometimes ;;ar·
nivalesoue: "\'Vhat a difference a gay makes;'
"On a i:; ueer day you can see forever'' (cf. Gever,
Greyson, & P..irmar, 1993 ),
• ve:sio:m of :iomose:rnal s1~bject posit'ons are
inscribed everywhere, even ':1 heterosexualities.
• the devi;mce paradigm i~ :ully abandoned, and
the inte:1:st lies in a logk: of insiders/outsiders
and transgression.
• its mos! wmimm ob; eels of study are
textuai-:ims, videos, novd,, poetry, visual
image;;,
• its most frequent interes:s include a variety of
sexual fetishes, drag kings and drag ,1ueens,
gender and sexua: playfo:::ess, cybersexuali-
ties, polyamoury, sadomasochis:n, and all the
social worlds of 1he so-called radical sexual
fringe.
II A Qt:EER METHODOLOGY?
Whal are the implications of queer theory for
method (a word it rarely uses)? In its most general
form, quee:- theory is a refusal of all orthodox
methods-a certain disloyalty to oonve:1tional
disciplinary methods (Halberstam,1998, pp. 9-
13)_ \¥hat, ther:, does queer :11ethod actually do?
v\lhat does it look like? In summary, let me give a
few examples of what a queer methodology ca:i
be seen to offer,
The Textual Turn: Rereadings of Cultural A.rtifacts,
Queer methods O\'erwhelmingly em?loy an inter•
est in and analysis of texts-films, literature, tele-
vision, opera, musicals, This is perhaps the most
commonly preferred strategy of quee, theory.
Tndeed,Mkhael Warner has remarked that"almost
everything that ¥muld be called queer theory is
about ways in which texts either literature or
mass culture of language-shape sexualitY:' More
extremely, he continues,"you can't eliminate qu~e1·
ness , , , or scceen it out It's everywhere. There's no
place to hide, hettro scum 1" (Warner, 1992, 19).
The locus c:assicus of this way of thinking usually
is seen to be Sedgwick's Het-;,-een A.fen (1985), in
which she looked at a number of key literary works
(from Dickens to Tennyson) and reread these texts
as driven by homosexuality, bomosociality, and
homop:1obia, Whereas patriarchy rr:ight conden:n
the former, it positively valorizes the latter
(Sedgwick, 1985). In her wake have come hosts of
rereadings around such themes. In later works, she
gives readlngs to work as diverse as Diderot's 1'he
Nun, W1lde's The Importance ofBeing Eam~st, and
authors sud: as James and Austen (Sedgwick,
1990, 1994). In her wake, Alexander Doty gives
queer readings to mass culture products such as
"the sitcom"-from lesbian readings of the sit-
coms I Love Lucy or The Golden Girf1, ~o the role of
"feminine straight men" such as Jack Benny, to the
bisexual meanings in Gentlemen Prefer Blond/!$
(Doty, 1993, 2000). Indeed, almost no text can
esca;,e the e11:s of the queer :heorist
Subversive E1hrwgraphies: Fieldwork Revisitrd. These
are often relatively straightforward ethnographies

of spedfic sexual worlds that challenge assu:np
tions. Saslm Lambevski (1999), for instance,
attempted to write lnsider, critical and experi-
ential e:hnography of the multitude ef soda[ Joca-
tior.s (dass,gender,ethnicity, religion) from which
'gays' in Macedonia are positior:ed, governed, con-
tmllro and silenced as s11b11ltern people" (p. 301 ).
Ao a "gay" Macedonian (are the :erms a problem in
this conrcxt?) who had spent lime s:udying HIV in
A:Jslralia. he looks at t:ie sexual conflicts geuer-
ated between the gay Macedonians ar:c gay
Albanians (never mind the Aust:-alian connec-
tion). lambevski looks al the old cruising scenes
ir: Skopje, known to him from ·,lefor<', that now
take 0:1 rm:::iple and different meanings bour.d
up with scxuaE:ics, e:tmkities, gender playing,
anc clashing cultures. Cruising for sex here ls
no straightforwa,d matter. He describes how, in
approad1i ng and recogniiing a po:e::'ltial sex part-
ner as ar Alhanian (in an old crubing haunt), he
"eels paralyzed. Both bodies arc flooded wilh eth-
nic meaning, not simple sexual ones, and ethnki-
:ies reek of powe~. ;le writes: ~I obeyed by pul:ing
the (discu:-sive) mask nf r:1y Macedonidtycver my
:Jody"(;,. 398), 1r. another time and place, he may
have reacted very di fforently.
Lambevski :s overtly critical of much ethnog-
raphy and wishes to write a queer experiential
ethnog:"aphy, not a con fossional one (1999,
p. 298). Ee refuse~ to mmmir himsel: to what he
calls ''a textual lie;' which "continues m persis: in
much nf what is considered a real et:mograph:c
tex.t:' Here bodies, feelings, sexualil ;es, cthnici:ies,
and religions all can be left out easily. Nor, r.e
daims, can ethnograp;iy simply depend on site
observation or one-off interviewing. There is a
great chain of connection: "The gay scene is inex-
tricably lir.ked to the Macedon ia:i school system,
the structuring of Macedonian and Albanian
families and kinship relations, the Ma-:edonian
state and its political history, the .vlacedoniim
medical sy,ten with lt, ?Uwer lo rr.ark and
segregale 'abnormality' (homDsexuality)" (
p. 400). There is a chain of soc:al sites, and at
the same Ii me his own life :s an [ntegral part of
thi, {Macedoniau queer, Australian, gay). f,ew
researchers have been st> honest regarding the
Phirncer: Criti,;al Humani.,m anc Queer Theorr Ill 367
tensions that infuse their lives .ir.d the wider
chains of connectedness that shape the:r work,
l find it ha:tl to believe that this is not true
for all research, but it is ·.1sually silenced. laud
Hi:mphreys'~ classic Tearovm 'frade: (I 970}, for
example-admittedly, written some 30 years
earlier-can;iot speak of Humphrcys's own gay-
nesi:, his own bodily presence {though there is a
small footnote on the taste of semen!). his emo-
tional worlds, his while middle-dassness, or his
role as a white married minister. To the contrary,
although he does remind t:ie reader of hi, reli-
gious background ar:c! his wife, this serves more
as a distraction .•~ important as it was in its day,
this is a very different kind of eLhnography. The
sam<" :s true of a hDst that followed It. They were
less aware of fae problematic nature of categories
and the links to mater:al worlds, They were, in a
very real fashion, "narve ethnographies" -some-
how thinkil:g "the story could be directly told &S it
was:' We live in less innocent ti mes, and queer
tl:eory is a marker for th,.
Smver1grr Methodologies: The R,liding of Multiple
'/ex,s to Assemble ,\'ew Ones, A fine example uf
qt:eer "method" is Jucith Halberstam's work or:
"female masculinity" I 1998). Snggesting that we
have "2 Hed tt1 develo? ways of s.:eing that can
grasp the different kinds of masc'J!inities rhat
women have revealed both in the past and the
pre~enl, s:1e wrote a study that documents the
sheer nmge of such phenomena. In her own work,
she "raids" literary textua: methods, flln: theory,
ethnographic field research, historical survey,
archival records, and taxonomy to produce her
original account of en:crging forms of "female
mascuh;i ity" (Halbers:am, 199H, pp. 9-13). Here
we have aristocratic European crrn;,-dressing
women of the 1920s, butch lesbians, dykes, drag
kings, tomboys, black "butch ir: the hood" r,q-
pers, trans butches, the :ribade (a womar: who
practices "unnatural with other women),
the gender invert, the stone butch, tb: female-
t<J-mak transsexua: (FTM), and the rag;ng bull
dyke! She also detects-thrnugh films as diverse
as Alien ar:d The Killing ,lfSister George at least
six prototypes of tl:e female mas:uline: :omboys,
 368 11 HA.'JDBOOK OF QUALl'fAT:VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 14
Predators, Fantasy Butches, Transvestites, Barely
Butches, and Postmodern Butches (1998, chap. 6).
In introducing this motley collection, she uses
a ''sea venger methodolo£!y . . . Iof] different
methods to collect and produce information on
subjects who have been deliberately or acciden-
tally excluded from traditional studies of human
heha,·iorn ( l 99S, p. 13 ). She borrows from Eve
Kosofsky Sedgwick's "i:once taxonomy": "T:1e
making and unmaking and remaking and redis-
so:ation of hundreds of old and new categorical
meanings concerr.ing aa the kinds it takes to
make up a world" (Sedgwick, 1990, p. 23). This is
the mode of "deconstruction;' anc'. in this wc,rld
the very idea that types of people called homo-
sexuals or gays or lesbians (or, more to the point,
":mm" and "women") can be s'mply called up for
study becomes a key prob!em in l~self. lnstead, the
researcher snould become more and mor.: open to
start seasing new worlds of possibilities.
Many of these social worlds are not imr:iedi-
a,ely transpa:ent, whereas others are amor-
pnously nascent and forming. AJI this research
brings to the surface social worlds only dimly
articulated hitherto-with. of course, the sugges-
:ion that there are more, many mo,e, even more
deeply hidden. In one sense, Halberstam ca:ltures
:ic.h fluidity and diversity-all this goi:lg on just
beneath :he surface stractures of society. But in
another sense.her very act of naming, b:10vating
terms, anc categorizing tends itself to create and
assemble new differences.
Performing Gender ar.d Ethnographic Performance.
Often drawing upon the work of Judith Butler;
who sees gender as never essential, always
unth:.ec, not innate, never r.atural, but always con•
structed through perforn:ativity-as a "stylized
repet::ion of acts" ( 1990, p. 141 )-much of the
work in queer theory has been playing around
with gender. In::ially fascina:ed by drag, tranti•
gender, and transsexualis.:n, am! wit:i Divas, Dmg
I( ings, and key cross-ge1,derists such as Del
LaGrace Volcano and Kate Bornstein ( 1995 ), some
of it has functioned aimos: as a kind subver•
sive terrorist drag. It arouses curious, anknown
queered desires emancipating ;ieople from the
ronstraints of the gendered tyranny nf the
presumed "normal body" (Volca110 & Halberstam,
1999). Others ha\'e r.10ved out to conslcer a wide
array of playing with genders-frn:n "faeries"
and "bears:' to leather scene~ and the Mardi Gra ,,
and on to the more commercialized/normalized
drag mass consw11ption: .RuPaul, u;y Savage,
and Graham Norton.
Sometimes performance may be seen as even
more direct. [t appears in the work of alter:1ative
documentaries, in "videu terror:sm" and "street
thea,e,;' across cable talk shows, expe:imental art•
works, and activist tapes. By the late J980s, there
;;;as a significant expausicm of lesbian a:id gay
video (as well as film and filr:1 festiVl!:s l, and in the
academy, :iosts were created to deal with bis-
along with creation of more infor:nal groupir.gs.
(See, for example, Jennie Livingston's film Paris l,
Burning [1990], which looks at tl:e "ball circuit" of
poo!' gay men and transgender:sts, usually black,
in the late 1980s in New York City, or Ang Lee's
Wedding Banquet [1993], which reconfigured tile
do:nlnant "rice queen" image).~
Exploring New/Queered Case Studies. Queer theory
also examines new case .studies. Michael War:1er,
for example, looks at a range of case studies of
,o
emergent pu':ilks. One stands out me; II is the
details of a queer cabaret (a cou:iter-pub:ic?) that
involves «erotic vomi:ing.:' Suggesting a kind
"national :;ererosexuality" that, along with ''family
values;' saturates much public talk, he argues that
multiple queer cuil'Jres work :o subvert thesC'. He
investigates the queer counter public of a ''garden
variety leather bar" where fae routiues are "spani
ing, llageJ:ation, shllving, bra:iding, lacera:ion,
bondage, humiliation, wrestling-as they say, you
know, the usual" (Warner, 2UU2, pp, 206-210). But
suddenly tl:is g.mJen-varie:y S&M bar is st:b-
11erted by the less than usual: a cabaret of what is
called erotic \'omiting.
The Reading of the Self. Most of the researches
within queer tl:eory pla;· with the author's self: It
is rarely absent. D. A. Miller~, (1998) account, for
example, of the Broadway musical and the role its
plays in queer life is an in:ensely personal account

of the musical, including snapshots of the author
as child, with the albums played.
tl!I WHAT'S NEW!
As interesting as many of these methods,
theories, and studies most certa:nly are, I suggest
that there is really very little that could be called
tnJly new or striking here, Often, queer method-
ology means little more than literary theory
rather belatedly coming to social science tools
suC:. as ethnography and reflexivity (althougl:.
sometimes it is also a radical critique ortho-
dox social scirnce-espedally quantitalive-
methods ). Sometimes it borrows some of the
oldest of metaphors, such as drama. Queer theory
does not seem to me to constitute any funda•
me:1tal advance ove, :ecent ideas in qualitative
inquiry-it borrows, refashions, and retells. w:,at
is more radical is its persistent concern with cate•
gories and gene.er/sexuality-although, in truth,
this has kmg been questioned, too (cf. Plummer,
2002; Weston, 1998). What seems to be at stake,
then, in any queering of qualitative research is
:iot so much a methodological style as a political
and substantive concern with gender, heteronor-
mativ[ty, and sexualities_ Its c:iallenge is lo bring
stabilized ge:ider and sexi:aliry to the furefro:it of
analyses in ways they are not usually advanced
a:1d that put under threat any ordered world of
gender and sexuality_ This is just what is, indeed,
often missi;ig from much ethnographic or life
story research.
111 THE TROUBLES WITH QUEER
Responses to queer theory have been mixed. It
would no~ be too u:ifair to say that outside the
world of queer theorists-the world of #straight
academia"-queer theory has been more or Jess
ignored and has had minimal impact. This has
had the unfortunate consequence of largely ghet•
toizing the whole approach. Ironically, those who
may most need to understand the working of the
heterosexual-homosexual binary divide in their
Plummer: CrVical Humanism and Queer The(lt)' •
work can hence ignore it (a:id they Jsually do),
whereas tl:ose who least need to understand
it actively work to deconstrucl terms !'eally
deS<:ribe themselves. Thus, It is comparatively
rare in mainstream literary analysis or sociolog:·
cal theory for queer to be taken seriously (indeed,
it has taken three editions of this handbook to
in dude something on it, and the so-called seventh
moment of inquiry (see Lincoln & Denzin,
Epilogue, this volume) has so fa, paid only lip
service to it!). More ,han this, many gays, les-
bians, and feminists themseives see no advance at
all in a queer theory that, after all, would simply
"deconstruct" them, along with all their political
gains, out of existence. Queer theorists often write
somewhat arrogantly, as if they have a mor:opo~y
011 politkal validit}', negati:ig bo6 the political
and theoretical gabs of the past Let me reflect on
some of the star.dard objections :o queer theory.
First, for rn any, the term i:self i::; prnvo,ativc: a
pejorative and stigmatizing phrase from fae past
is reclaimed hy that \•ery same stigmatizec group·
ing and had its meaning re:1egob1t1:d; as sc:ch.
it has a distinct generationa~ overtone. Younger
academics love it; o'.der ones hate it. It serve!' to
write off the past worlds of re~earch m:d create
new divisions.
Second, it brings a category problem, what
Josh Ga1mon (1995) has described as a Queer
Dilemma. He claims that there is simultaneously
a need for a public collective :dentity (arou:id
which activism can galvanize) and a need to take
apart and blur boundaries. As he says, •ixed iden ·
tity categories are the basis for both opp=ession
and political power. Although it is important to
stress the "inessentia;, fluid and multiple sited"
forms of ident:ty emerging within the queer
movement, he can see that t:te:e are very
many from withir. the lesbian, gay, ':::iisexual, and
transgender movemer.t (LCB'r, as 1t is currently
du:nsily called) who also reject its tendency to
deconstrud the very idea of gay and lesbian
identity-hence abolishing a field of study and
politics when it has only jus~ gotten going.
There are also n:any radical lesbiar.s who view
it with even more suspicion, as it tends to work to
make the lesbian :nvisible 11:id to reinscribc tacilly
:170 1!1 HA'iDBOOK 01:' Ql:AL:TATIVF' RESEA:lCH-CHA:'Tl!R 14
all kinds uf male power (in disguise), bringing
back well-worn argu:uents about S&M, porn, and
transgender politics a.s anti•women. Radical les•
bian feminist Sbei!a Jeffreys (2003) is particularly
scathing, ;;eeing ~he whole queer mover:1enr as
a serious threat to the gains of radical lesbians
in the late 20th cen!J.:ry. With the loss of the cate•
guries of woman identified-woman and radical
lcsbi an in a fog of (largely masculinisl) queer
decons:ruction, :t beco:nes impossihle to see the
routs of wumen's ~ubmdinatinn to men. She also
accuses it of a ma} or dit:srr.: Tl:e languages of
most o:' its proponcr.ts ape the '.a:1guage of male
acade1:1ic c:i tcs, am: lose all the gains that were
marle by the earlier, more accessib'.e w~itings of
temir.ists who wrote for and spoke to women in
the communities, not just other academics. Lilian
h1derrr:;;:1 claims ii is "resolutely elitist" and puts
th'.s well:
Thi: langu,ge ,;urer scholars deploy somclin:es
seer::s :r,in,parently aimed at what lesbiar. fenb:st~
once called lhe "big hnys'' ,;t the ac.,,irmy. Lcsb:,in-
lem inisl writing, in rnntmM, ha::: as :,rimary <r<1il:cs
darity and c1Gessihilitv, since it~ purpose w,1s to
speak directly to the cr.111munity and in so doing
ref:ccL changt. i 199i. pp. 223-2261.'
There are many othrr critks. Tim Edwards
(1998) wor,ies about a polltics that often col•
lapses intu some kind of fan worsh: p, celebration
of cult films, and weak cdtuml po'.itics. Stephen
0. Murray hates the word "queer" itself because it
p,:rpetua1es binary divisions and cannot avoid
being a tool of domii:ation, a:id he worries a:iout
excessive preoccupation with linguis1ks and with
lex:ual representation (2002, ?P· 245-247). Even
some of qJeer theory's lounders now worry if the
whole radica: impulse has gotten lust anc. queer
theory has become normalized, institutionalized,
even ''lucrative'' within the acaccr:1y (Halperin,
2003).
From many sides, 6en, doubts are being
expressed that all is not 'Nell in the house o:
queer, Tb:>re are problems that come w:th the
whole ;,roject, and in some ways : still find the
lar:gaage of the humadsts more conducive :o
social inquiry.
Bl QUEER THEORY iv1Ec.TS
CmTICAL HUMA'IISM: TEL!
CoNr:,rcruAL \VoRLns OF RES:oARCH
Confiic! is the gadi1y of ,110ugfu .. ;, ~ii'f:'
qaa non of R•ficct,on .md ingenuity
John newoy (Hum,m N<111Hc·
and Conduct, p. JOO)
And so we have two traditions seemingly al
serious odrls with each ofher. There 's nothing
unusual ,i"Juut this-all research positions are
open to conflict from hoth withi:1 and without.
Whereas h:imanism generally looks to experience,
meaning, and human ~ubjectivity, queer fheory
reject, this :n favor of representations. Whereas
humanism generall )' asks the researcher to get
close to the worlds he or she i~ studying, queer
theory almosl pleads for distancc-··a world
of texts, defamili arizatinn, and deconstruction.
Whereas hm:iadsn: brings a Iibera! democratic
project with "justice for all:' qt:cer :heory aims to
prioritize !he oppressions of S('J(uality and gender
a:id urges a mo,c radical change. Humanism us·.1•
ally favors a cah:1er conversation and dialogue,
whereas queer is carnivalesqt:e, parodic, rebel-
'.ious, and playfuL Humanism cham:;:iions the voice
of the pt:blic intellectual; queer theory is to be
found malnly il: :he universities and its own self
generated social movcr.1ent of aspir:ng academics.
Yet there are some ..:ommonalities. Bo:"1, for
inslance, would ask rest:ard1er!> tu adopt a cri·
tically self-aware slance. Both would seek out a
political and efaical background (even thoug'1, in
a quite majur way, they may differ on thi s~q ueer
theory b s a prime focus on radical f!ender
change, and humanism is broader}. And but!:1
assume the contradictory messiness of ,od,d life,
such th a: no category system can ever do it justice.
Ou a c:oser look, several of the a:iove differ-
ences O\/t: rlap. Many critical humanisms can li1eu~
on representations {though tetver qurrr theorists
arc wl lling to focus on experience). Critica:
humanists often are seen as soda! construe: ion-
ists, ar.d this hardly can be se,:n as far 11;:mo,ed
from deconstruction ists. ·;·here :s r.o reason w'.1y

cri:ical humanism carmot :ake the value and
political star.ce, of queer theorists (I hi1ve and
I do), hm the moral baselines of humanism are
wider and less specifically tied to ge:ider. Indeed,
wotcmporary humar:istic method enters the
social wllrlds of different "others" to work a cathar-
con,prehension. 11 juxtaposes differences
arid cumple~ities with similarities and harmonies,
It recognizes the multip:e possible worlds of social
researcl:-nol necessarily the standard interview!i
or eth:iographl~, but the roles of photography, art,
video, film, poetic,, drama, narrative, auloelhnog-
raphy, music, imrospectio:1, fiction, audience par-
tidpation, and street theater. It also finds n:ultiple
ways of presenting lhe "data:' and it acknowledges
6at u soda: sciem;e of any consequences must be
located the political and moral dramas of its
time, One of those political and moral dramas is
"queer."
Hut there again, 1hc Msmrie,, canons, and
g,rus of critical l:umanism and queer theory are
indeed difforent, even thuugh, in the end, they are
:wt nea~ly as at odds wi6 each other as one co·Jld
be led to believe, Yes, they are not fae same; ar:d i:
is right that they should maintain SOTT'C their
differences. But no, they ace not so very differ•
cr:t either. It is no wonder. then, that I find :hat
I can live wi:h bolh, Contradiction, a:nbiva:er:ce,
and tens ion ~~ide in all critical imj:; lries.
II ~OTES
I. As Dmitri Sh,.:: n noted more than a de,ade ago,
Iha: symbolic internclior::sm has high-
lighted since ils inceplion and that <!.sured its maver-
ick s:al!;:s in American sociology bear some uncanny
resemblance to ;he themes championed by post·
modernist thinkers" (l!l'l:l, p. 303). !; invtst:gates
marginal, local, everyday, heterogc:ieous and
indeten::inate" alongside the "socially conslmc:ed,
err.ergen: and plum[" (p. 304 ), Li~,,wise, David Maines
(200 I) has rn::tir.ut'tl to sustain a11 earlier arg·Jment
that S}' rnb11lk in:eracrionism, by virti.:e of its intcrpre·
live cer:ter, find~ an easy affinity wi:h mu,h of ;,ost•
modernism, but because of that sace cemcr, has no
need tor it (pp. 219-233}, He t1nds valuable the rcsur•
gcm:e of interest in ir:lerpretive work, the importance
Plummer: Critical Humanism amt Queer Theory 111 371
no·,1• given to wriling intrinsic lo rm,tt:od;' :he
concer:i over multiple fo:.llll 1•resenlalitm, and
reclaiming uf v~lm: positions and "cr::ical work"
(Maines, 2001, p, 315), In addi:ion, a~ is well known,
Norr.ian K. Denzin has hem al the forefront in defend-
ing pcstmodernisrn wil hin sodology/cultural ;1ndics
sym :iolic internctionim:, in numemtm hooks and
parers (e.g,, Denzin, lY!l'l,!997, 2003).
2. For so:n<', "intern:tionism" has become ahnost
synonyrr.ous with sociolngy; s;;c Maines (2001} and
!'Atkinson ar:c Ho~sley (20()3),
3, Tl: e liberal, l:urmmi,t fominist philosopher
Mimha Nussb,um (1999, p.4IJ suggests a list of
"l:uman capabilities" that need cultivating for a per/\On
to lunc!ion as a h::man being. fhese include concerns
such as "bodily healtl: and integrity" smses, imag'::a-
tion, and ±ought; em,ltfons; pract:c.;I reason; af'I'a•
tion; concern for other spe:des; control over one's
environmen!; and life itself. 'fo this I might add th,:
c;11c'al sell~reOexlve pro,;;e~s, a pruces, of communka-
Lion that is central to the way we function.
4. ·-n !Job Conm:lJ's r'ch stndv, of Masculinities
( 1995)-a study that is far from heing either avowedly
"lr~::ianist" or "qw::cr'' -he takes stories as emb:cm-
aticlsy::1ptmnatic "crisis trndendes in power re:a.
tlon, (that) threaten hcg,~monk m:isrnlinity dirn:lly''
tl.119). He looks 1\1 four gmups ()f 1mm unde; crisis-
radical enviro::::irotabts, and hisexmd :i,:tworks,
ynung working-class men, and men the new class,
Connell implies Iha: I do not take this ,eriou,l)' (I 995,
p. 89). However, e,t'l1 in :he frst edition of :ny book
Do,-uments of Life (Plummer, \ 98J.:. I make it quite dear
that among the con:ributio:is or the life story, it can be
seen as a "tr,o; for history; as a pe spective on totality,
0
and as a kt:;' on soc:al change! (pp. 68-69).
5. Or, as Rupp and fof,~r crJI it, "the :ripnrtite
niodel of cultural itwestigalim:" (200.3, p, 223).
6. 1.ike.\'ise, I can smse a h.. :nanis;;i at ,mrk lii the
writings of [or::el Wes:, Jeffrey Weeks, Seyla Benhabib,
Antho::y Giddens, Zygmunt Bauman, Agnes Heller,
J!irgen Haber::ias, :\1id1e: B&khlin, and many others,
;'!eve, mind 1he naming 1:;:une, in which they have to
come out as hi.:r:,anist:; [though so:nc dearly do); what
::Jailers are the goals that they sec will prodo,:e
.;uate unde:,tanding an::! social rhangt' for the beiter, In
:his resptct, a lot of r~em read like humanists manq·~.:.
7. Sec, for example, /ump Cut, Screen, The Celluloid
Cfosel, Now You See It?. The: Bad Object Lr.cm"'
:iVt\ and the wcrls of "'.'om ¥laugh and Pratibha Parmar.
6. also Simon Watnefs cr:ti,pcs lo be found
in Imagine Hope (2000), Watm.•v is fa~ from syr::pathetic
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAUTATlVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 14
to radical lesbian ism, hm his account i:as distinct
echoes, Queer theory h.as let down AIDS activism,
Atldn5,:m, I', & Housley, W. (2003 ), !nteradionism.
London: Sagr,
Atkinson, R. ( 1998), Tht life story interview. Ihousand
CA:
Ba~rn a 11, 2, ( l99 J), Moderniry and ambivalence.
Camb1i,lge, UK: Polity.
Bauman, Z. (2000), Liquid society: Cambridge, UK:
Bauman.Z. (2004). Wasted lives: Modernity o.nd its out•
ram. Cambridge, UK: Polity,
!:leek. IJ. (2003 ). Jndividu:alizulkm. London:
Bor::stein, K. {1995). Gender outlaw. New York; Vintage,
Br:,:yn, 1: S, ( 1966), The human perspective in sociology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Butler. J. (1990;, G1md11r trouble. London: Routledgt.
Carri;iglon, !:. ( 1999 J, No pim:e lite lumw: Relatfrmships
,md f,miiiy life among lesbians and gi:iy men.
Chicago: University of Chicago Presi,.
Clifford,;., & Marcus, <i. E. 11986). Writing cul-
1111,•. Hn:,elcy: University of California
A, ( 1999). Tl:c ethiwgraphic seif' Fieldwork and
:he represmiation of1dentit)( London: Sage,
Cohen, S. (1999). States ofJerri al. Cambridge, UK; PoEty,
Coles, R : l 989). 1'he call a{ Teaching and the
maral imagination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin_
u:mJ1ell, It W, (1995), Masculinities. Ca~hrldge, UK:
Polity.
Denzin, N, K. { !Y1!9). Interpretive biography. London:
Sage.
D,:rrtin, N, K. {1997). Interpretive ethnogmphy;
Ethllographic practices for the 21,t century
London:
Denzk, N, (2003). Performance erhnogmphy.
London:
Denzin, & Lincoln, Y, (Eds.). (1994). ff1mdbcck of
qw,iit1mve rese;:.rch. London;
Dewi:y, J. t 1920), Recomtructi(m of philasophy.
New rork: :fe!lr}' Hui:,
Jrwey, J, (1938 ). of inq;.iry. New York: Her::-y
Holt.
ue,,ev. I. (I 'JXX), Humar, 11uture and conduct. New
York: Henry Holt.
Doty, A. (1993), Making things .oerfettly queer:
f'!terpreting mass culture. :Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota
Doty, A (2000 ). Flaming rlassits: Queering tlie film
cr:mon. Lc,ndon: Routledge.
Jidwards, T. (1998). Q·~eer fears: Against the cultural
turn. Sexualities, l( 4;. 471-484,
Flfis, & Fla':ierty, M. G. '.Eds.), (19921. lnvl/Stigating
subjectivity: J?esearcli cm lived experifmre.
London: Sage,
Fadl"rmi:1, L ( 1997).Afterword,ln D. Heller [Ed.}, Cro,s
purposes: lesbians, feminists and tire limits of
alliance, Bloomingtfln: Indiana U!Jivcrsity Pre,.s,
Felice, W. R (1996). Taking sufferinx Jeriously. Albany:
Mate University of New York Pn:ss.
Foucault, M. [1979), The history of sexuality. Middle•
~x, L:K: ;:farmoml,wortb,
Gamson, J. (1995), Must identity movements seH-
dtstruct?: A queer dilemma. Social Problems,
421};, 390-407.
Gamson, J. (1998). Fl'!'ilks talk back: 1i1bloid ,all shows
w1d sexual nonconformity. Chicago: V::'versify of
Chicago Press.
Ge¥tr, M,, Greys on, J., & Parmar, P. ( EdsJ ( 1993), Queer
looks: Perspective; on !esbian and gay film ,md
video. :"few fork: Rou:ledge.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and selfidenti1y.
Cam:i:idge, UK: Polity.
Gouldner, A. (1973). I''Or sociology: Reriewal and cri
rique in sociology today. London: Allen Lane,
Gubrbm, J., & Hols:ein, f. (1997). 1he ilffl language of
qualitativ11 research. Oxford, UK: Oxfurd Uni\·ersi:y
Pn;ss,
Halben;tam, J, (1998), Female masculmity. Ik::ham,
)IC; Duke U:iiversity Press.
Halperin, D, ( 1995). Sllinf Foucault: Toward; ci gay
hagiography. New )hrk: Oxford University Press.
Halperin, Il. (2003). The normalization of queer theory.
Journal af HomostJmality, 45 (2-4 ), :l39-343.
Hertz, R, (Ed.). ( l 997). Rej!erivlty and voice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Honneth, A, (1995). The struggle for recognition: The
mon:.l gmmmar ofsocialcrmjlit:ts. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Hump:ireys, L (1970 ). Tearo(Jm trade. Chicago: Aidine.
Jackson, M. (1989), Paths toward a clearing: Radical
empirici;m ar.d ethnogr11plii, inquiry. Bloorningto:::
In<liana U:i:versity P::ess.
Jeffreys. S. (2003). Unpacking queer politics, Oxford,
UK: Polity.
Kong, L Mabor1ey, D., & Pll::nmer, K. (2C-02). Queering
the interview. In J. R Gubrium & J. A. Holstciu
(Eds.), The fu;mdt·ook of interview research
(pp. 239-257), Thousand Oak$, CA: Sage.

Lambevskl, S. A. (: 999). Suck rny nation: Masculinity,
e:hnicity and ?Olilks of (:iomo)scx, Sexualities,
1(3), 397-420,
Lee, A. (Ilirecto:J, (1993). Th<' wedding banquet
[Moti,m picture:. Centr.:l M01kn Picrnres
Corporation,
Lee, A. M. (]978). Socialoy for wham? Oxford: Oxford
Univer&il y Presi;.
:im:oln, Y.S., & Deni'n, N. K. (I 994 ). The fifth m!lment.
In N, K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (lids.), Uandbook
of qualitutiVI! research (pp. 575-586). Tlmu.and
Oaks, Sage,
Livingston, J. (Direc:or), & Livingston, J., & Swimar, B,
(Producers). ( l 990). Paris fs Burning :Motion
t1kture]. Off White Production..
Mnincs, Il. (2001 ). 1'hr fauir lines of rtmsciausness: A
view of interaaioni.sm m .socioiogy. New
Aldine Gruy ter.
/l'liller, :J, A. ( l'.198;, i'l,m: for us: Essay rn the Broadway
musical. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
!'ress.
Murray, S. 0. (2002). !"ve reasons I don't take queer
theory seriously. In K. Plummer (Ed.),Sexualities:
C:riticai mnceprs in sociaiogy (Vol 3, ;ip.245-247).
London: Rou;ledge.
Nardi, P ( 1999), Gay meri'; friend;hips: Jriviticiblc com
mullities. Chicago: Un iversily of Chicagc, Pre<;s.
Nisbet, R. (1976}, Sociology as an ar( form. l.ondor::
Heinemann.
N;issbaum, M. C, /1999). Sex and s:icial ,iusti.:e,
"lew York: Oxford J;niversity Press.
(YNeilL 0. ( 2002), A question of mm; The BBC
Reith I ecwres 2002. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
:Jnhrersity Press.
Plumme:; K. (1983). Documents of life. London: Allen
and Uuwir:,
Plummer, K. (1995), Telling s,;xual s/01ieS. London:
Routledge.
Plummer, K, (2001). Docum~nts of lije An invitai,on
to a cri:i.:al humanism. Lendon:
Plummer, It (Ed.). (2002). Sexuali:fes; Critical cuncepts
in sociology (4 vols.). London: Rout:edge.
Plummer, K. (20:}3). Intimate citizenship. Seat::e:
University of Washing:on Press.
Reed-D11nah11y, D. E. ( Ed.}. (; 997;. Auwktlrnography:
Rewriting the selfand ihe social. Oxfo:.1, Bug.
RonJi, C. R, ( 1992}, A re::,exive self through na:rative:
A nigh! in the lire of an em:ic danceriresearcher.
In C. Ellis & M, G. Flaherty (Eds.), invest1g,.iting
subjectiv:,y: Rese1<rch ,m !ivf'd exp,,,.imce
(;,p. ID2-124). Newbury Parl<, CA: Sage.
Plummer: Critical Humanism and Queer 'theory 111 373
Rorty, R. (1999), Phi111,(1phy and social hapr,
Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Rupp, I~, & TaY:or V. (200:lJ. Drag queims al the 801
Cabm"et. Chicago: rniversity ;): Chicago Press.
Said, E. (2003), Orienta/ism (2nd t•dJ. New York:
Camhrkge,
Srheper-Hughes, >J. (1994). lleath Withem weepmg.
Berkeley: University of Calitorr::a Pres,.
Sec.gwkk, E. K (1985). Between men: /ing!ish literature
and male horrwsexuai desire. r>;ew York: Columbia
University Press.
::iedgwick, 1:; (l99tJ). Epistemology of cl1mit,
Ber:-eley: Univer,ity of California
Sedgwick, E. K. (1994). Tendencies. Lm1dcn: Routledge,
Shalin, D. N. (1993). Mod<.'tnily, postmodernis:n and
pragmatic inquiry. Symbolic lnternction. 16\4;,
303-332.
Smith, L T, (1999). Decolonizing metlwdologies:
ReSearch ar,d indigenous peoples. London; Zed
Books.
Smylh, C. i 1992). lesbians talk queer notions, l.o:idon:
Scarlet Press,
S.:iliva::, K. (20'J3). A critical introd11:tio11 ta queer
1/irory. Edinburgh: t:niversity of Edinburgh. P:ess.
Tron to, J. (I 99:1). t.h-a{ bmmda~ie.s: A politirnl
argument for an 1:1hic of ,are. London: 1ou1ledge.
Urry, J. (2fl00). Sacfol11gy beyor,d sadeties: Mobilities ji:ir
1/ie twemy-first cmtury, London: Routledge.
Volcano, D. L., & Hlllberstam, /, (1999), The drag kiniJ
book. London: Serpent's
Warner, M. \ 1991 ). fear ofa queer planet; Queer politics
atui social theory. Min::eapol is: !_;n ive~sity of
Minnesota.
\'\-'arnfr, M. [ 1992, J,me). From queer to eternity: An
of theorist~ cannot fail. Voice Liurary
Supplement, 106, IB 26,
Warner, M. (1999 ). The m,u/Jle with rronnal:
puli!ics, mid the ethics of 1p;ecr /ifi:, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univers'ty Pres~,
Wa~ner, M, (2002), Public co,mlerpublics.
liew York; Zo~,e Books.
Watney, S. (201l0 ). Imagine Jwpe: AllJS and guy identity.
lnndo::: Routledge.
West, C {1999). Th~ moral ohligat:ons of li~ing in
a democndc society. In n B. Batstone &
E. Mer.d:eta (Eds,), The goad ci1izen (pp. 5-12).
London: Routledge,
Weston, K, (1998). /011gsiowburn: Sexuality ami social
science. l.o:idon: Routledge,
Wokot:, H. E (2C{)2). Sneaky kid and its aftenmlth,
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Part Ill

T
he civic-minded qualitative rrscarcher th:nks hisloricalty, inleractionally,
and struc:urally. He or she attempts to identify t:ie many persuasions, pre; udiccs,
ir:jJstices,and inequit:es that prevail i:1 a given historical per:od (Mi]s, 1959, p. 7).
Critical scholars. seek to examh1e the major puhlk and private issues and personal troubles
that t:efine a particular historical morr.1:n:. In doing so, qualitative re,eard1ers self
consciously draw upon faeir own experience as a resource. They always think reflect'.vely
and histo:-kaJy, as well as biographically: ·:'hey seek stn:.eg:es of empirical inc,.'.liry tlta:
will allow :hem to make connections between lived experience, social injustices, larger
social and cultural 5tn:.ctures, an<l the here and now, Tl:ese connections will be forged our
of the interpretations and emp:rkal materials :hat are genenitcc in any given inqi;j:-y.
E:npiri,;:al inquiry, of course, is shaped by paradigm commitments and by the recur~ing
questions that any givi:u parnd igm or interpretive perspective about humar: experi-
.
ence, social structure, ar:d culture. More (ieeplv, however, :he researcher alwavs '
the practices of qualitative inqu: ry can be used to help create a free democratic sode:y,
l:ow

Crit:cal theoris:s, for exa:nple, examii:e the material conditions and systems of ideologv
that reproduce dass and economic structures, Queer, co:,stmctivist, cultural stodies, cr:ti·
cal race, and fon:hist researchers ex,m: i:, c the ,lereul ypes, pn::judices, and injustices con-
;1ectod to race, and gender. There is no such thing as va111e-l:ree inquiry, although
in qual itativc 'nquiry :his premise is presented with more darity, Such darlty permits fae
value commitmei:ts of re,earchcrs to be transparent.
The researcher-as-interpretive-bricoieur is always, al,eady in the material world of
values and empirical experitnce, Tl:is world is confronted and constiluted through the lens
that tl:e schola:'s pamcigm or interpre:ivc pe:i;;icctive provides, The work. so conceived
ratifies the inditidual's commitment tn the paradigm or pcr;;pect;ve in question. This par-
ad:gm is connected at a nigher ethkal level to the values anc politics of an emar.ripatory,
civic social science.
As specific investigat:ons are plannec and carried nut, two issues must be confroll'.ed
immediately: research design and choke of strategy of inquiry. We take them up in order.
Rach devolves into a variely of ,elated questions and issues :ha: also mt:st be addressed.

111 375
376 1111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

II RESEARC:I DESTGM 1

The research design, as discussed in our Introduction and analyzed by Julianne Cheek In
this section of the Handbook (Chapter 15), situates the investigator in the world of experi-
ence. Five bask questions structure the issue of design:

l. Hr;w will the design connect to the paradigm or penipective being used? That hov. will
empirical materials be informed by and interact with the paradigm in question?
2. How will these materials allow the re~earcher to speak to the problems of praxis and change!
3. Who or what will be studied!
4. What strategies of :::qulry wilt Jc used?
5. Wha, methods or research tools for collecting and analyzing empirkal mater:als will b~ utilized~

These questions are examined in detail in P--art IV of the Handbook.

Paradigm, Perspective, and Metaphor

The positivist, postposith•ist, constructionist, and criticai paradigms dictate, with vary-
ing degrees of freedom, the design of a qualitative research investigation. Designs can
viewed as falling along a continuum ranging from rigorous design principles on one end,
to e:nergent, less well-structured directives on the other, Positivist ~esearch designs place
a premium on the early identificat:on and development of a research question, a set of
hypotheses, a research site, and a statement concerning sampling strategies, as well as a
specification of the research strategies and methods of analysis that will be employed. A
research proposal laying out the ,1ages and phases of the study may be written. In inter-
pretive research, a priori design commitments may block the introduction of :iew under-
standings. Consequently, although qualitative researchers may design procedures
beforehanC:, designs always have built-in flexibiEty, to accour.t for new and unexpected
empi:ical materials and growing sophistication.
These stages can be conceptualized as involving reflection, planning, en:ry, da:a collec-
tion, w'thdrawal fron: the field, analysis, and w:-ite-i.:cp. Cheek observes that the degree of
detail involved in the proposal will vary depending on the fonding ager.cy. Funding ager:.
des fall into at least six cexegories: local community fonding units; special purpose,
family-sponsored, corporate, or :1ational foundations; and governmental agencies. The
proposal may also include a budget, a review of the relevant literature, a statement con -
cerning huma:1 subjects protection, a copy of consent forms and interview schedules, and
a time!ine. Positivist designs attempt to anticipate in adyance all the problems t11a: may
arise in a qualitative study (although inlerpretivlst designs do not). Such designs provide
rather weJ:-defined road maps for tne researcher. The scholar working in this tradiho:i
hopes to produce a work frat finds its place in the literature on the topic be:ng studied.
In contrast, much gr,;:ater ambiguity and flex:':,llity are associated with postposi.:ivist
and nonpositivist designs-those based, for example, 011 the constructivist or cri tka:
theory paradigms, or the critical race, feminist, queer, or cultu:-al studies perspectives. Jc
studies shaped by these paradigms and perspectives, :here will be less emphasis on formal
grant proposals, well-formulated hypntheses, tight!}· defined sampling frames, structured
 l'ar: III: Strategies of Inquiry JI 377

interview schedules. and prede:ermined research strategies, r:1ethods, rnd forms of analysis.
The researcher may lollow a path of discovery; using as models qualitative works that have
achieved the status of classics ln the t:eld. Enchanted, perhaps. by the myth of the Lone
Ethnograp:ier, the scholar hopes to produce a work that has the charncteri!it ics of
a st·Jdy done by one the gia11ts from the pas: (Malinowski, Mead, Bateson, Gn:fman,
Recker, Strauss, and Wokott), Co;wersely, qi::al:,ative researchers often at least begin by
undertak:ng studies that can be completed by m,e individual after prolonged engagement.

The Practices and Politics of Funded Qualitative Research

Cheek's chapter complicates and deconstructs the relationships among money, ethics,
a:id research markets. She shows how qualitative research is a commodity that circulates
and is exchanged in :his political economy. Funding ii:volves sellbg seJ to a funding
agency. Such agencies may not understand the nuances of qualitative rrsearch practice,
Cheek discusses the problems associated with lnstitut'onai Review Boards (IR&} and
ethics committee&. In Australia, researchers cannot cm 1duct research on humau subjects
until they h.1ve formal et.1ic& approval from the lln:versity Research Ethics Committee. In
the !,;nited States and the United Kingdom, as wr] as ;n Australia, fae origina: focus of IRBs
and the context frou: which they emerged was medicine. Qualitadve research is oftrn
treated un:airly by ethics committees. Such researd:. it may be charged, is unscientific. In
effect, lRl:!s have be.:ome methodological review boards. instiltdonaliz:ng m:'.y one bran<l,
or version, of scier1ce. In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Physicians guidelines
make the poir.t that badly designed research is 4ne::iicaLThis mear:s that j:.tdgment is being
passed on the scientific as well as the ethical r:1erits of research. Cheek observes tl:al iu too
many instances, it seems as thoug:1 qualitative researchers have become the "fall g,1ys" :or
ethical mistakes in medical research. Chee~ notes that many time~, C: ualitative researchers
are unable :o answer in ac.vam:e all the questions that are raised by such committees, Issues
of amLml over the research also are cen:raL observes, :aking fonding from someone
or some organization in order to conduct research is not a neutral This (ssue shades into
another, namely, \Nhat happens when the researchers findings do not please the funde:-1
There are da1:gers in accepting external fur.ding. Fa cult)' oem bers increasingly arc
ur.der pressure to secure external fundi:lg fo, their research. Such p:essures turn research
into a commodity that is bought and sold. Cl:eek observes that these are dangeroas times.
The conservative discou:-se of the marketplace has become preeminent. ]I is the market,
:10t the ji:dgment u!' stakeholders and peers, that now determines the worth of what we do.

Choreographing the Dance of Design

Janesick (2000) presents a l:u:d view of the design ::>rocess, She ubserves that t'le
essence of good qualitative research dcsiga requires the use of a of procedures that
are at once open-ended and r'.gorous, Influenced by Martha Graham, \.lerce Cunningham,
Alvin Ailcy, Elliot fasner, and Joh::i Dewey, she approaches the problem of research design
from an aesthe:ic, artistic, and metaphorical per~pechve. With Dewey and Eisner, she sees
o:
research cesign as a work improvisational, rather than composed, art: as a::i event, a
process, with pha~es connected to different forms of pmble:natic ex?eri1mce, along with
their interprctatior1 aud representation, Art molds ar:d fash:cms experience. In its dance
form, art is a choreographed, emergent µ:-oduclion, with distirn;t phases: war:ning up,
111 HANDBOOK OF Q:JALITATIVE RFSFARCH

stret,h:ng exercises ar:d des;gn decisions, cooling dowu, interpretation, a:id writing the
na;rative.

Vvho and What Will Be Studied?

The who and what of qualitative studies involve cases, or insta:1 cc;: of phenomena
and/or soda! processes. Three generic approaches may taken to the question who or
what will be studied. !'irst, a single case or single process may be studied, what Rober: E.
Stake (Cl:apter 17, this volume) calls the intrinsic case study. Here the rcsean:her examines
in detail a single case or !11sta:1ce of the phenomenon in question, fo~ example a classroom,
an arts program, or a death in tl:e family.
Secm:d, :he researcher may focus on a number of cases. Stake calls this the cclkctive
case approach. These cases ax then analrzed in terms of specific and generic properties.
~h:rd, rile "0'·"•''"" can exa:11ine :nulliple instances of a proce8s, as tl:at process is
displayed i:i a var:et y of <li fforent ca!>es_ De nzi o's ( 1993) study of relapse in the caree~s
of recovering .:koholics cxamined type,; of relapses across several different types of
rrcovering careers. This process approach i;; then grounded or a:ichored 'n specific cases.
Research designs vary, of course, depending on the needs of multip;e-focns, or single-
focus c,m: and process inquiries. Different sampling issues arise in each situation. These
needs and i,sues a:so vary by the parad:gn that is being cr:iployed. Every instance of a
case or process bears the stamp of the gene~! c:ass of phenomenon to which it belongs.
However, any given instance is likely to be particular and unique. Tims, for example, ar.y
g:ven dassrnom is like all dnssrooms, but no two dassroo:ns are the sa:nc.
For these reasons, many poslpositivist, conslrudionist, and critical theory qualitative
resCllrchers er::iploy theoretical or pi::rposive, ,ind not random, sampling models. They seek
m.:.: groups, settings, and individuals where (and for whoa) the processes being studied
are most likely to occur. At the sa:m: time, a process of constant compar:son-betwcen
groups. concepts, a:1d observations-- is necessary, as the researcher seeks to develop an
understanding !hat encompasses aL instances of the process or case under investigation.
A foc1s on negative cases is a key feature of this process.
These sampling and sc:e,tion issues would be addressed differently by a postmodern
cthnog,apher '.n the cultural studies tmd::ion. This investigator would be :ikely to place
greater stce&~ on the lnter.sive analysis of a small body of empirical materials (cases and
processes), arguing, after Sartre ( 19111, p. i:c), that no indiv:dua: or case is ever just an indi-
Yidu;1I or a case. Each person or case rimst be studied as a sir:g\e instance of more uni ver-
sa: social experiences and social processes. The person, Sartre ( 198 I) is "snm med
up and for tl:ls reason un'versalized by his [or l:erJ epoch, he [or she] in tum resumes it
by repmc:Jcir:g hi:nsdf .or hcrnelfl in it as a singularity" (;dx}. Tl:us, to study the partic-
ular :s to stud>• the ge:1eraL r:or this reason, any case will necessarily bear the of the
un h1crsal; consequently, there is less interest in the traditional positivist and pm,tposith•ist
concerns with negative ca;;es, generalizations, and case srlection. Tl:e resei:rchcr assume~
that readers will be ab:c, as Stake argues, :o generaEze si.:':ijcctively from :he case 'n qucs-
1ion to thrir own personal experic:i ccs.
A:1 expansion on this strategy is given in the method of instances (see Denzin, 1999;
Psat:las, l 995), Following Psathas (1995, p. SU), the "method of ir:stam:es" takes each
instance of a phenomenr,:1 as an occurrence that evidences the O?Cration of a set of
en: :nral understanding, currently ava:lable for :1se by cultural mem bcr,.
 Pa,t Ill: Strategies oflnquiry • 379

An analogy may be useful. In discourse analysis, "no ul terance is representat:ve of other

utterances, though of course it shares struc~ural features with them; a discourse analyst
studies utterances in order to ur:dersta:1d '.'.low potential of the linguistic system can be
activated when [t intersects at its momenl of use wilh a social system" (Fiske, 1994, p. 195).
This is the argument for the method of instances. The analyst exaI:lines those moments
when an utterance intersects with another utterance, giving rise to an instance of the
system in action.
Psathas clarifies the meaning of an instance: "An instance of someth:ng is an occur•
rence , , , an event whose features and structures can he examined to discover how it is
organized" (I 995, p. 50). An occurrence is evidence that''the machinery :'or its product:on
i~ culturally avai:ahle ... Ifor .:xample] the machinery of turn-laking in cor:versation"
(pp, 50-51),
•:·he analyst's task is lo understand how this instance a11d its in:ersections work, to show
what rules of interpretation are operating, to Map and illuminate the structure of the inter•
pretive event itself. The analyst inspects th<' actual course of the interactim: "by observing
what ha?pens first, second, next, etc., by noticing what preceded it; and by examining what
is act'Jally done and said by the participants" (Psathas, 1995, p, 51 ). Ques:lons of meaning
are referred back to the actual course of interaction, where it can be shown how a given
utterance is acted upon and hence given meaning. The pragmatic maxim obtains here
(Peirce, 1905 }, The meadng of an action is given in the consequences that are produced by
it, including the ability to explain past experience and to predkt future conseq·Jem:es.
Whe:her the particular utterance occurs again is irrelevant The qne,1iun of sam pliog
from a population is also not an issue, for it fa ne'te~ possible to say in advance what an
instance is a sample of {Psathas, 1995, p, 50). Indeed, collections of instances "cannot be
assembled in advance of an analysis of at least one, because it cannot be known in adva:1~e
what features delineate eac:1 ,ase as a 'next one like the last"' (Psathas, I 995, p. 50).
This means there is little concern for empirical generalization, Psathas is dear on this
poi:lt. The goal is not an abstract or empirical generalii.ation; rather, the a:m is "concerned
with providing analyses that in:et the criteria unique adequacy" (p. 50). Each analysis
:nust he fitted to the case at hand; each "must be studied to provide an analysis im{qutly
adequate for that particular phenomenon" (p. 51, italics in uriginal).

Ill SrRATEGEs oF l:1Ql:IRY

A suategy of inquiry describes the skills, assumptions, enactments, and material practices
that researchers-as-methodological-bricoleurt use when they move fro • a paradigm and
a research design to the collection of empirical materials, Strategies of inqLLiry connect
researchers to specific approaches anc methods for collecting and analyzing empirical
materials. The case study, for example, relies on interview:ng, observing. and document
analysis, Research stra:egies locate researchers and paradigms in specific empirkal, mate,
rial sites and in specific methodological practices, fur example making a case an object of
st'Jdy (Stake, Chapter : 7, :his volume),
We turn now to a brie:' review of the strategies discussed in thls volume, Each is con•
nec:ed to a comp:ex literature with its own history, its own exemplary works, a:id its own
s..:t of preferred ways for putting the strategy into motion. Each strategy also has its own
set of problems involv:ng rue positivist, postpositivist, and postmodern legacies.
380 Ill HANJBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RF.SEARCH

Performance Ethnography
Bryant Keith Aiexander (Chapter 16, this volume) ofters a detailed and sweeping histo~y
of the complex relationship beh\>cen performance s:udies, e,hnogrnphy, and autoethnogra-
phy. He connects these formations lo critical pedagogy rheory, Performance eth1:ography is
a way of inciting cult'.lre, a way of bringing culture alive, a way of fusing pedagogical with
the performative with the political. Alexander's chapter addresses the philosophical contin-
gencies, the procedural pragma:ics, and the pedagogical and political possibilities t:iat exist
in the spaces and practices of performance ethnography. Alexander's arguments compl.:-
ment the ethnodra:na performance movement inspired by Jim Mienczakowski (200 I).
Performance is an em::mdied ac: of interpretatior:, a twy of knowing, a form of moral
disrnurse. A politics of possibility organizes fae project Performance ethnography can be
used politically, to incite others to rr:oral action. It strer:gthcns a comn:itment to a civic-
minded ciscourse, a kind o: pcrformative citizen;;hip, advocated by Stephen Hartnett

The Study
Robert E. Stake (Chapter 17, this rnlume) argues that r.ot all case studie;: are qualitative,
although many arc, Poeusing on those :hat are attached to the naturalistic, ho:istk, cul-
tural, and phenomer:olog:cal paradigms, he contencs that the case study is not a r:1e:hod-
o:ogical choice but a choke of object tu be studied fiir e:mmple, a child or a classroom.
Ultimately, the researcher is interested in a process or a population of cases, not an 'ndi-
vidua, case. S;ake identifies several types of case studies (i:itr;n,k, instrumental, col:cc-
fore). Each case is a complex historical and contextual entity. Case ,tudies. have unique
corn:eptual structures, uses, and problen:s (bias, theory, triangulation, telling the story,
case selection, ethics). Resca,d:ers routinely provide ir:formalion on sud1 topics as the
r.ature of the case, its histor:..:al background, and its relation to its contexts and other
cases, as well as providir.g information to the informants who have provided infor:nation.
In order to avoid ethical problems, :he case study researcher needs constant i11pul from
"conscience, fror:i stakeholders, and from the research commun::y" (p. 459).

Public Ethnography
Barbara Tedlock (Chapter 18, this volume) reminds us that ethm1grapl:y invo,ves an
ongoing attempt to place specific encounters, events, and understandings into a fuller,
more mea:iingful content. She shows how participant observatfon has becom.: the oi.1ser-
vation of participation. As a consequence, the duing, framing, repre;;ermitirm, and reading
of ethnog1aphy have changed dramatica]y in the las'. decade. The field of autoethnogra•
phy has emerged ou: this discourse.
Tedlm:k observes that early anthropology :n the United Stales included a tradition of
social criticism and public engagement. Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and Margaret Mead
shaped p,1blic opinion throJgh their criticis:ns and their for public and politi•
cal action. By the mid-I 960s, the term •'critical anthropology'' gained :orce in the context of
the civil rights 1:rnvemcn t and growing opposition to the Virtnam War. Critical theory, ir,
anthropology, was put into ?ractice rh rough fae production of plays. An indigenous polit-
ical theater based on the works of Brech:, Boal, Freire, and others gained force in Latin
America, A:rica, and elsewhere.
 Part Ill: Strategies o!Inquiry 111 331

Umler 1he leadership of Victor and Edith Turner and of Edward B,uncr, performance
cth nog,aphy gair:cd power in the l 98~, cu::ure was seen as a perfurn:ance, and interpre·
tatio:1 was performativc. Eth:1odrama and pub:ic ethnography emerged as vehides
addressing soda! issues. Public ethnography is a discourse that engages with critical
of tl:c time, !I is an extcns'on of critkai anti: ropology, It is ar.chored i:l 6e spaces discussed
by Folry and Valenzuela ((hapter 9) and Alexander (Chapter 16) in this volume.
ln the late I990s, andcr tile editorship of Barbara and Dennis Terilock, the Ameri,:an
lrnthrnpologist ·:n:gan ;o publish politically engaged essays. Tedlock observes that "within
this politically engaged enviror.ment, social science pmjecls sene :he commu:iities in
which tl:ey are ca,r:cd ot::, rather tbm serving external communities of educators, ?olicy
makers, mi:itary pcrsoi:nel, and financiers" (p, 474), Thus does public ethnography rake
up :ssues of soda] j nstk:e.

Analyzing Interpretive Practice

ln Chapter 19, James A. Holstein and faber F. Gu '1rium continue to extend the argu•
men ts their highly influential book The New Language ,f Qualitative Method (Gubrium
& Hols:ein, 1997), In that book, they exam;ne various contemporary idioms of qualitativ~
inquiry, from natara:ism to ethnomethodology, cmotio:ial sodoiogy, postmodernism, and
poststructuralism. They ther, o'fcr a new language of qualitativs: research that builds on
ethnomefaodology, conversational analysis, institutional stu\ies of local culture, and
Foucault's cril:cal appmach :o history a:id discoi;rsc analysis also Kendall &
V'/kkham, :999). 7hdr d:apter c<1pCUrt)s a developing consensus i:J the interpre,ive
rnn:munity. This consensus seeb to s:iow how social constructionist apprmKhes rnn
profitab:y combined wil:1 poslstrncturaiist ciscourse am1:ysis (Foucault) and the situated
study of meaning and order as local, sod al accnmplisl:ments,
Holstein and Gu'::irium draw attention 10th~ in:erpretive procedures and practices t'.ia:
gh'e stmcturc and meaning to everyday life, T:1cse reflexive practices are both the topic of
and the resou recs for qualitative inquiry. Knowledge is alway, local, situated in a local cul-
ture, and embedded ir. organizational and interactional sites. Eve,yday ~tereotypes and
ideologies, induding understandings about race, dass, and gender, arc enacted in t:iese
sites. The systems of power, w:mt Do:uthy Srnifa (1993) calls the ruling apparatuses and
relations of ruling in sod<"ty, are played nut i:1 these sites. Holstein and Gubrium build
on Smit!:', project, elaborating a critical theory of d :scourse a:1d social struc! ure. Holstein
and Gubr:um then show how rcdexi,,e dist:fl'J discursive practices transform the
processes of analyr:c and critical hra,ketir:g, Such practices n,ake the foundations oflocal
social o;der visible. This e,nphasis on interpretive resources anc local re;;ources enliven5
and dramutica: ly extend~ the reflexive t.1:"11 in qua: it,dve research.

Gmumlcd Theory
Kathy Char:naz (Chapter 20, this volume) is a leading expor:enr of the constructivist
approach 10 grounded t:lemy. She sl:ow~ how g:imnded theo,y methods offer rich possi •
bilities fur ad\·a nc i:lg qualitative justice research i1: tile 21st century. Grou:1ded theorists
have the tuols to describe and go beyond situations of socia'. justice. They car: offer inter-
preta~ions and analyses of the conditions under which injustice develop;;, eha:iges, or :s
1,mintained.
382 11 HAXDBOOK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Charmaz suggests that grounded theory, in its essential form, consists of systel;la:k
inductive guidelines for collecting and analyzing empirical mater:als to build middle•range
theoretical frameworks that explain collected en:pirkal materials, Her chap:er outlines the
history of this appma;;h, from the early work of Glaser and Strauss, to its transformations
in mo:-e ra:ent statements by Glaser, Strauss, and Strauss and Corbin, She contrasts the
positivist •objectivist positions of Glaser, Strauss, and Corbin with her own more interpre•
tive constructivist approach, which slakes out a middle ground between pc1stmodernisrr:
and positivism, Grounded theory may be the nost widely employed interpretive strategy
in the social sciences today. It gives the researcher a specific set of steps to fol:ow, ones
closely aligned with the cano:is of"good science:' But 011 this point Charmaz is clear: I: is
;mssihle to use grounded theory without embracing earlier moponents' positivist leanings
(a position long adopted by Guba and Llncoln; see their Chapter 8 in this volume, and
Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Char maz reviews the basic strategies :ised by groWJded theorists. She grounds her dis•
cussfon in materials from her own research, including two moving case stud:es. She moves
these strategies bto the space of soda! justice inquiry. She offers key criteria, bask ques•
tions that ,an be asked of any grounded theory study of social justice. Does a study exhibit
credibility and originalitf Does it have resonance-is it connected to the worlds of lived
experience? Is it useful? Can it be used by people in their everyday world~? Does it con•
tribute :o a better society? With these criteria, she redaims the social justice tradition of
the early Chicago school while moving grounded theory firmly into this :;ew century.

Critical Ethnography as Street Performance

D. Soyini Madison's text (Chapter 21, this volume) shows; it does little telling. Her text
is a performance-it performs an instance of critical ethnography as a pe:formance. Her
text is a story about returning to Ghana,about leaving home to corr:e hon:e to do tr:e work
her sod must do, a final arrival. describes a time for the staging of the last perfor•
mance, the transformation of years of fieldwork on poverl y and indigenous human rights
activism into a public performance, This performance of critical ethnog!aphy serves the
purpose of advocacy and change; the performance wou;d implicate corpora:e, capitalist
economy in the human rights ab'Jses in the glo::ial South.
He: text is a performance of poS6ibilities, a staging of struggles, of violence, the imag:·
nation of how injustice could be ended,a confrontation with the truth, and solic_arity in rhe
face of conflict. It is a street performance cannot be undone, The performance has cre-
ated new possibllities, new alllances, and new friends; it enacts and imagines collective
hopes ar:d dreams.
The performance mattered. It :nade public an injustice committed on an American
street It turned passive observers ii:to SJ?iril;::d actors, It evoked spontaneous communi-
ties, am: it gave us the gift of remembering. lt gave us the possibiEty for "another strategy
of 'globalizatior. from below"' (p. 545). The magic of performance evokes a lived po'.itic,
new demands for social justice, "the possibilities of another way of being" (p, 545).

Iii THE :,l'Ew H1sTORJES A:-lD THE HISTORICAL METHOD

Texts such as Madison's simultaneously build on and advance the projects of t:le amtem ..
porary cultural historian (see Jenkins, 1997),induding the new cult'Jral Marxism; the new
 Ill: Stra:egies of Inquiry 111 383

soda! histories of everyday life; interpretive antl:ropology (Geertz); critical psychoanalytic

and Marxist studies of women, gender, and sexuality; and the discJ rsive, linguistic turn in
hi;;tory since Pnucault.
All sodal pl:er:omena need to he studied in their historical context This involves the
use of historical docJments and written records of the past, including diaries, letters,
newbpapers, census tract data, novels, and other popular literatJre and popular culture
documen;s. To understand histor:cal documer:ts, one rr:ust have an :n:erpretive poi:1t of
view, This point of view shapes how one gathers, reads, and analy,.es historica: mater:-
als. A :1istoriaris account of the is a social tex: that constructs and reconstructs the
real:tics of the past
History is always the story of somebody's lived experience, The stories :hat tell history
are always biased; uone can ever document :he "truth;' Together, they present a revealing
montage that shn'Jld speak to us today, Bui how history speaks :eveals the politics of
power, for history is not pu:ely referential; it is constructed by the historian, Written
histury both reflects and cre;ates relations of power, Today's struggles are, then, about l:ow
we shali know the past and how past will be constituted in the present Every hi stori-
cal methoc implies a different way of telling these stories,
llorrow:ng from Bcnjamir: (1969), today we write ar.c perform history by quoting
histo:y back to itself, ln this way, the craci<s and contradictions in the official histories of
the df,y are exposed. Madison shows us how to dn this.

Test imonio as Narrative, Method, and Discourse

John lkver:ey's (Chapter 22, this vo·::.ime) seminal discussion of festimonio traces tbc
con:c • porarYr historv of this :nethod back to Oscar Lf'lvis's llfe hisrorvl ,ma\vsis
I ;
in Children
(If S<mclwz. A t.:stimmuo is a first-person political text :uld by a narrator whu is !~ e pro-
tagonist, or witness to 1he event, that a:e being reported. These ~cl :i ngs report on tortu:c.
imprisornnent, soc:al upheaval, and struggles for survival. These wor;;_, are intended to
produce (and record) social change, Their truth is contained in the telling of :he events tha,
are recorded bi,· :he narrato~, The autl:or is not a rescardter, but rathe: a perso:1 who testi·
fies m: behalf of history and personal experience.
Beverley suggests a predominar:t formal aspect of the testimonio is the voice that
s:x:aks to the reader in the form of an "J:' a real :-ather than a fictional person. This is a
voice :hat refuses to be silenced, and the person speaki; on behalf of others, Yet, unlike
autobiography, testimonio involves a:i erasure of the .:oncepl of au!:rnr. The lestimoniQ uses
a voice that stands for a larger whole. This creates a de:nocratic, egalitarian form of dis•
course, The testimc.nio is an O?en-ended, interpretive work, It may contain passages and
reflections that are social cunstructions, fa'::irications, and arrangements of ~dected events
from the actual world. These constructions may deal w::h events that did not ~appen. In
ti: is sense, :he testimonio is an object of interpretation; it is :mt a :nirror of the world,
Radie,. it stands in a critical relationsh:;:, to d1evmr:d of actual events./, Rixoberta Mem:hu
(1984) doe, fais.
The testimonio asks tl:at rhe reader identify w'1h G1e text, that he or she believe in the
truth of the text as the :e1iJ asserts its interpretations of the world, In this context, Beverley
takes up the controversy surrouncing !, Rigoberta Menchu. (See also the bibliographic note
to Chapter 22), Beverley concludes with a very valuable endnote on the preparation of
testirmmi(tS, It is certain tha: in this ce:itur}', the testimonio wi] be continue :o be a major
fo:-m of critical, in:erprelive writing.
3114 111 HANDBOOK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Participatory Action Research

According to Stephen Ke:nmis and Robin ~klaggart (Chapter 23, thi1, volume), partic-
ipatory action research (PAR) is an alternative philosophy of research (and social :ife)
associated with liberation theology, m:u-.Marxist approaches to rnm:.mnily lievelopment,
and huma:i rights activism, There are sevrral different strands of participatory researd1,
fror.1 critical action research, to classroom action resea::d:, action lean:ing, action sc:cr.ce,
and industrial action research, Participatory researchers heHrve in the shared ownership of
re;earch projects, as well as the vah:c of commun:ty-based analyses of social problems,
They have a con:mitrr:ent to local community actio:1, but they take care to protect the wel-
fare and interests of those wilh who:rr. they work. Partidpntory sc:1olars ,e;cct the concept
uf value neutrality while also rejecting the c,i1:ici;ans those who dai:n that PAR scholar-
ship lacks sdentific and is too politicaL
Kemmis and Mc1aggart identify three different forms of PAR, whac they call the thl rd-
;,erson iuslrumental, secm1d permn practical, and first-person critical approaches, They
vahu,' those forms of :'AR that involve first-person relationships. The :naterial pracb:e~ of
PAR transform practitioners' theories and the theories that operate at tht: community leveL
Such transformations help to shape the conditions of lifo, connecting the local ar:d globa:,
the personal and the political. Work in this traditio:1 attc:npts to make qualitative research
mo,e humanistk, holis:ic, and relevant to the lives of human beings. This woddview see,
hui:1an beings as co-creating their reality through participation, exp<'ricncr, and action.
Partidpalory action researchers help make th's happen.

Clinical 1fodels
Par:i cipatory action research has a natural affir:il y with din ical methods. Each tradition
reflects a commitment to change, although dnical re:;earch displays a g:"fater concern for
diagnosis and treatment, ratter than large scale social change per se, H:storically, the bio-
medical, positivist, and postl)ositivist parad'gms have dominated clinical, medical
research. William L Miller and Benja:nin F. Crabtree ((hapter this volume) present a
qualitative a;temative approach tl:at locates dinicul research in the nexus of applied
anthropology and the practice of ;:;rimary hea::h care, family pract'ce in particular. They
outline an exper'em:e-based, interpre:ive v:ew clinical practice, a view that makes the
d !n ical practitioner and the patient coparticipa:1ts in the :ea: ities of medical treatment.
They ask how questio:1s emerging from the racial, gendered clinical experience can frame
the conversations that occu:: bet1veen doctors and patier,:s,
They offer a compelling critical analysis of the biomedical parad!gr:., as it is mored in a
p~:riarchal positivism, They criticize evidence-hased medicine (EBM }, the new wonder
child of dl:lical research. Randomized dinica: trials (RCT) and meta-analyses of mdtiple
RCTs are now considered to he the best external evidence when considering medical inter-
ventions. Miller and Crabtree contend that the double-blind, closed RCT has "high internal
validity hut dubious external va:ldity and almost no informat:or: aboi;: context or ewlog-
kal consequences" (p, 613 J,
They propose concep:ualizing a maltimethoc RCT as a double-strandec helix of DNA,
On or:e strand arc qi,:ahtative methods for addressed issues of context, me'an[ng, power,
and cor:.p:exity. On the other strnnd are quantitat've methods, The :wo strands are con-
nected by tht research question. "Clinicians and patients seeking support in the hea: :h care
 Part HI: Strategies ofinquiry • 385

setting ask four basic questions of cl:nical praxis: (a) What is going on with our bodies?
(b) What is happening with our life? (c) Who has what power? (d) ¼11at are the complex
relationships between our bodies, our lives, our ecological context, and power?" (p. 614 ).
This model blends experie:ice-based medicbe with a participatory, action-based,
mult:method approach. Methodologically, :his model draws on exper\mental, survey,
documentary, and field methods. It also uses the analytic fra:nework of grounded theory,
personal experience methods. clinical interviews, and participant observation. This model
treats the medical and soda! body as a contested (and gendered) site for multiple personal
and medical narratives. The multimethod approach advocated by Miller and Cra:,tree
represents a1: attempt to change biomedical culture radically. The'.r chaptet speaks to the
politics of qualitative research, In lbe clinical. as in other areas of qualitative research,
the mult:method approach often is the only avenue to a more interpretive conception of the
research process.
With Kernrr:is and McTaggart, Miller and Crabtree shaw how qualitative research can be
used as a tool to create social change, Miller ant:. Cr.iblree want :o change consciousness in
tr.e medical setting by char.ging fae language and the paradigm that physicians and
patients now uise. The tools that these four a·Jthors advocate are powerful agents for social
change.
At the same tine, Miller am: Crabtree want to ciange r:ow medical texts are written.
They want to create new forms oftextuality, forms that w:11 hold a place for those who have
no: yet been heard, Once fae pr~viously si:.enced are heard, they can then speat for them•
selves as agents of social change, In tnese kinds of texts, research is connected to polifa:al
action,systems oflanguage and meaning are changed, and paradigms are cnaJenged, Haw
to interpret these voices is the topic of Part IV of the Handbook. In the rr.eant'me, listen to
the voices in Part III: these are calls to action.

JIii NC>7E
l. Mitch Allens con:'.'.lenls ha\>e significamly shaped our treatrr:ent of the relati0nship between
paradigms and research designs.

ll REFERENCES

Benjamin, W, (! 969), illuminations (H. Zo:;n, Trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Denz'n, 'J. K, {1993 ), The alc.1holic society: Addiction cmd n1co1•ery of seij: New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishi.r.g.
1le112in, :'J. K ( 1~99). Cybetialk and the me:hod of instances. In S. Jones (&l.), Doing inrernet
res,:c1rch: Critical issues and methods far examining the Net (pp. l07-126), Thousand oa:.:s, CA:
Sage.
Fiske, J. ( l994}, Audiendng: Cultural pr.;clice and cultu,al studies. In N. JC, Denzin & Y, S, Un~nln
'.Eds.), Handbook of qm1litative re,eurch (pp. 189-198 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J, A. ( 1997). The new language of qualitative meth~d. New York: Oxford
Uni\·ersi!y ?ress.
lanesick, V. (, (2000), The choreography of qualitative research desigr:, In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds,),Haru/book 11f qualitative research (2nd ed,, pp. 37,'-:l'~n Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
386 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALITA:l'IVE RESEARCH
[enkin& K (Ed,), ( 1997). The postmodern hisrn1y reader. XcwYnrk: Rcutlt:dge.
Kendall, G,, & W:ckha::i, G. (1999). Using Fournui,~ methods. London: Sage,
Linro!n, v, S•• &. Guba, E, G, (1985), N1Jtun;listfc i1rquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
.\1enc'nl, R. (1984).I, Rigobcrta Menchw; ,in Ind/au woman in Guau:mala {R. lbrgos-Debrat, Ed,; A.
Wright, Trans.). London: Verso.
.\1:ennakowski, J. (2001). E:hnodram11: ?er:'orrncd r,search: I.imitations and polc;:it:aJ. In
P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & :,, Lofland (Eds.), Hundbook of et!mograpl;y
(pp. 461\-476). 1.ondon: Sage.
Mllls, C. W ( 1959). The soc/nlr,gii:al imagfrulfi,:m. New York: (h::lnrd University Press.
Pei n;e, C. S. (190.5,April). What pragmatism is. The M1mist, 15, pp. 161-181.
P~athas, G, (1995), Ccnversation r:maly.,is, 7hous~nd Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sartre, J, P. (1981). 1'he family idiot: Gustave Flauhcrt, 1821 (Vol. I). Chicago: 1;niversity of
Chicago Press,
Smith, D, E ( l \1\13 ). High noon in rextla r:d: A c:itique of Clou~h. Sv.-fologi;:11! Qm.rierly, 34, 183-192.
15
THE PRACTICE AND
POLITICS OF FUNDED
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Julianne Cheek
11!1 1. h-ffROIJL'CTION: CoNNECTDlG
P?.ACTICES ANl) POLITICS
11n nding increasingly is being recogni,:ed m
an enahler for quaiitative resca,ch. Part of th is
rerogniton has involved debunki1:g the myth
that qualitative rese,w;h is ,;heap to do (Morse,
2002b). Funded qualitative research can take
variuus forms, For example, the researc'ter might
be grant1:d a certain amo'J:11 of mor.ey to be used
dh,ct•y for sa'.aries, equipment, !rave:, or other
expenses identifiec as necessary for the conduct
of the :-esearch, Jn other cases, support for pro•
jeers is offered «in kir.d": The funder may choose
to ::irovide the researcher with acce&~ to speda!isi
staff or equipment as a means of supporting the
research rather than supplying cash. Thus, when
we talk abo·Jt funded qualitative ;escarch, ;t is r:ut
always mor:ey we are talking about Fu:ided
qualitdve research is not a homog1:oeous cate•
gory ahie to be reduced to a si:lgle understanding.
In the same way that qua Iitati11e approoches to
research are varieri in focus and purpose, so arc
funded qualitative projects.
Seeking, gaining, and accepting funding tor qual-
itative research is not a neutral, value-f:-ee process.
Funding dues mun:: than e:iable a qualitative project
to proceed. Any form of support for qualitative
research will have its unique demands on both the
researcher am: the research project In particular,
the a:nount of fxedo:n that researchers have-in
ter • s of both project design and the form that
the "prnducts" the research take-wlll vary
drpc:1ding oa what type of support is received.
The amount of funding received also r:iay be used
to make statements about the relative worth of an
individual researcher and to draw up rank tables
of successfu 1 researchers and research institu ·
lions, Accepting funding aEgns researchers with
certain organizations am: fur.ding bodies.
Allocation o: fundi:1g reflects judgments bei:ig
made as to what is, and is not, acceptable research
or :-e&earch worthy of being fomied. Funding thus
involves a series of choices being made, all of
which have consec,:iences both for the quaiitative
research itself and for the qualitattve researcher,
T:1is chapter ls about surfacir.g these choices,
interrogating them, and exploring some of their
effects, Such eJploration h:volvts scrutiny of the
Ill
 388 a HA~DBOOK OF QUALITAT'VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
cor:tested nature of rese-artii, our identities as
qualitative re.searchers, and the nature of quali•
tative research itself: It moves the focus dearly
onto the connections and interactions between
qualitative research. funding, and poHtics.
The contemporary political climate at the t:me
of writing this chapter is one that can be defined
broadly as neo-liberal. Although there is no uni•
tary or absolute form of neo-liberalism, neo•
liberal governments, and the political regimes of
truth that emanate therefrom, promote "notions
of open markrts, free trade, the reduction of the
public sector, the decrease of state intervention in
the economy and the deregulation of markets"
("Jorres, 2002, p. 368). Nea-liberal thought
permeated every aspect of contemporary Western
society. including higher education and the world
of research, This is evident from trends such as
research increasingly ::iei:l.g driven by corporate
needs, students being positioned and referrec to
as consumers, and a d:mate where "paymasters
and adn:inistrators accrece authority over aca•
demi cs" ( Miller, 2003, p. 897). Tl:ere has been a
perceptible shift by governments in the 'Cnited
Stales, the United Kingdom, Australia, and else•
where from an emphasis on the social aspec:5 of
government to the economic aspects, with ,he
concomitant transfur • ati on of social projects to
an enterprise form and ethos emphasizing out·
comes in terms of economlcally driven balance
sheets and repurt cards, As Shore and Wright
(l 999) point out, universities are just one of the
sites wl:ere "nro-llberal keas and practices are
displacing the norms and models of good govern-
menl established by the post-war, welfare state"
(p. 558). In such a politkal dimate, rese-arch
increasbgly is viewed as an enterprise and is
being colonized by rnrporate and market derived
and sustained understandings and premises.
It is wit!: this political backdrop always
in mind that this chapter explores aspects of
the practical:ties of doing funded qualitative
research. I asserted in fae previous edition of this
Handbook, son,e 5 years ago (Cr.eek, 2000 ), that
discussions of "doing" fanded qualitative research
often focus only on the writing of pro;xisals or
coming up with research ideas. What precedes
proposal development in terms of identifying
potential funders, and what follows receipt of
fonding, iargely remains an "unrold" story, My
reading of the literature suggests that this is still
the case. What has changed is that managerial,
legal, scientific, and economic discour,es (that is,
ways of thinking and writing about aspec:s of real•
ity) (Kress, 1985) have emerged with increasing
prom:nence in term& of shaping and influencing
the direction of funded qualitative research, in
keeping with the ir.creased influence of neo-
libe:-al-driven agendlls. Thus, in this chapter, as in
my earlier piece of writing, I focus on identifying
and approaching potential fu:iding sources as well
as on decisions and chokes that arise once funding
has been acquired. However, it is now not a mat:er
of changing registers at t;,e end of a chapter
(Cheek, 2000 J to consider a si;per-context whe~
the "focus is on larger social issues and forces that
impact on the funded qualitative researcher" to
introduce a "more critical voice, one that pmbes,
challenges, and tests assumptions about ... the
research market and the concomitant commodifi-
cation of research" fp. 4I5). Rather, this register is
present throughout-the practice of doinr fonded
qualitative research cannot he separated from
political context in whkh it operates. Thus, the
politics that sits behind many of the prac:ices of
funded qualitative research will be explored and
will form as much a focus of the chapter as the
'~oing» of funded qualitative research.
As the author of this text, I am writing from a
number of po;;itions. Those that I identify are
qualitative researcher, funded researcher, coeditor
and associate editor of jourr:als, par:el member for
a number of granting bodies, and reviewer for a
number of granting schemes and journals. Just as
l have argued that the intersection of qualitative
researc.1 and funding creates tensions, so do the
ir..rersections of these various subject positions
that I occupy at any one point in time. For
example, as an individual committed to qualitative
research as a legitimate a:id worthwhile research
approach in its own right, and defined in its own
right. at times I question my :notives in applying
for funding. Is the funding to do a project that
I believe is important and should be done rr:y

drivingmotivation,or is ii more that an opportunity
to get fur.ding has ads en and 1should pursue that?
In other wordli, what is more important to me-
the fhndir.g or the project? Myself as researcher or
myself as e:itrepreneur? I fine myself on occasion
torn between these positions because I, like many
otber researchers, am buffo:ed by the political co:1-
text in wiich I operate.
A:i example of such buffeting is that while I am
sitting here writing this l have in front of
me an e-mail communicatiou cougratulating me
for being in "the top : O'' resea,chers i:1 the part of
the university :n whid: l am :ocated, At first tl:is
migl:t st>em innoci:ous ur even a gooc :lung, but
a closer exa:nination of the premises for such a
rankint1, raises many important questio:1s and
issues. First, the criteria used to rank researcr.ers
are related to a narc0w range of measures, There is
no consideration give:1 to the fact that the amount
of funding received may be :nore a product of
how much is needed to do a part:cu:ar research
project than a reflect[011 of the relative ability of
the researcher, For example, my researd1 does not
require la;ge pieces of equipment worth many
hundreds of thou.sands of dolla~s. :,.!either is
:here anv consideration that an effect of such a
' many qualirative researchers either are confronting
rating based on individual performance may be
to discourage co!laboratio11 and mentoring of
other researchers, because the grant amour:t or
research outcomes will need to be "split" across
individuals in the research team. This applies to
publications as well: The skill of slicing material
into as many artides as possible :nay be more
desirable than having something to say. Similarly,
single-author pabllcatio:,s will be more strategic
than having to performance. Nor is there
any consideration of whether or not it is possible
to simply t~ansport the langJage and techr.iques
of corporate management and neo-liberal enter-
prise cultu,e, such as "the measu:ement of 'out•
put' a1:d 'efficiency' through compelilive league
tables, 'performance indicators' and other statis-
tical indices of 'productivity"' (Shore & Wright,
1999, p. 564) into fae i:niversity and research
conte~t. That it is possib'.e, indeed desirable, lo
do so is a g:ven-indicative of th<' pervasive
intlu1:nce of the rationality of neo-libera:ism,
L;,,:e;;: Funded Rese-,mh 11 389
Questim:s that I have been asking n::yself in the
past few rmmlbs, and again whle [ am actually
writing this chapter, include the following: Is ::
important :o me that I am un far "lrague table" of
the top 10 researchers in my irea, o, is it :nore
important to me that : challenge the assi:mptions
on whic:t such tables arr drawn up~ [s it better
to critique f~om within-that is, as a person who
does attract relatively large sum~ uf n:oney-or
does that involve selling out h order to get into that
position in the first place, and thereby assisting
in perpetuating the structures that I aim to cri-
tique? How do I survive in an academic dimale
where I, like every other facet the context, am
bein~ reduced to a dollar value worked out accord-
ing to a series of formulae, a large driver ir: whid1
is the amount of funding received for research? ff
the amount of funding is ~ey. then where does that
leave qualitative research, as I am not going to
need pico:!, of equipment worth large amounts of
dollars? ¼'hat sl:ould my res?onsc he when : am
invited onto grants as "the ci;alitat've person" or
he::ause "we thought it wouki useful to have a bit of
qualitative research in it"< My personal jom:iey
and explorations with respect to these types of
guestiom form the text to follow. I am sure that
similar issues, or will be, in the near future. It is
lmpo:tanl that these storie., are told. This ch,pter
is a beginr.ing contribution to such a telling.
1:1 what follows, however, I have deliberately
tried to avoid setting up an)· form of polel:li.::. Thus,
I an: r.ot argui:ig for, or against, doing ~unded
itafve research. Rather, I m:1 exploring what "doing"
funded qualitative research • ight mean :iir bot:1
the researcher and the research. l am viewing
funded ~ualitative research as tm, ,erngnizing that
any text has embedded within it assumptions about
the reality in question and a certain view that is
:>eing conveyed to t::te reader of the text. This :s the
subtext or "the hidden script" (Sachs, 1996), This
chapter attempt~ :o surface ar.d explore the often
hidden s.ccipt that shapes a1:d constructs under-
standings ahoat funded qualitative research, As
such, it snc,i::d not be read as either for or against
funded-or any other type-of research. Rather,
it should be read as texr itselt~ text that taKt'!l a
 390 a HANDBOOK OF QUALIIATIVE RESEARCH-C'IAPTER 15
particular view of fa:ided qualitativt research.
A1- with any text, it is up to readers as to how they
posil:on themse:ves with respect to that view.
Ill 2. LOCATIN(; FUNDlNG:
PRACTICES A>iD Pouncs
Locating funding fur qualitative research 1s a
political process. There are two major pathways
qualirative rt!c~earchers can take to loca:c funding
for projects. The first is to :iave an 'dca for a
projed and then to seek out funding sources fur
that project. The other, which is emerging with
increasiq,; c1:1phasis in the area where I wor:,, is
to respond to tenders that have been advertised
from industry or gover:1 ment for clearly defined
and dcilrly delineated research project5, L1sually
of very short duration. This is sometil:ies known
as tendered research. The reasu:1 why t:1 is type
of research is emerging with more prom inenct
in the area that I work :n is thai: t:iis money is
perceived, rightly or wrongly, as easier to win :han
funding in more trndilional granting schemes, in
which success rates can be ltss thar: 20% and it
takes mont::s for decisio1:s to be made by a long
(and s01:1e:imes cumber,mr.el process of peer
rcv:ew. Applications for these traditional schemes
arc very demanding ar:d can take up to 6 :nonths
to de\·elop, thereby d<'creasing the at:racl ivencs~
of such schemes. In addition, it tends to be easier
fo; 'nstitlltions, with their increasing enterprise
orientat:on, to make a profit from tendered
researc:1, in that researcher time will be paid for
(whexas in Australia, many "rraditional" funding
sche:ncs will :101 pay tl:e ti me of the cbef :nvesti·
gators) anc prufil margin~ can be built in. In fact,
:r: mu.r:y un:ver.sities in Australia,:t is not possible
to put in a !enc.er for research until it been
checked by business development m: its to ensme
faat the tender hes maximized rever,ue·generat•
ing possibilities. There is thus a1: overt emphasis
on tl:e rescan;!: bein11 at least as much about
~
revenue gen1:ration as aboul the actual research
lo be rnnducted. In more traditional schemes,
such profit usually is not :lOSsible. In fact, in many
of faese schemes, projects often are not funded for
tl:e full amount applied fur, with the researcher left
to absorb tbe sbor!fall. For example, in some of the
gram, I hold, the granting body will pay a fixed
amouG towards the oncns~s (the insti:ution's
contrbution toward payroll tax, worker's compen•
sation, and super;uu:uation) researrh person-
nel. However, in sorr:c schemes this :s less than
the oncosts charged by the institution in which
I work, This immediatdy leaves me with a shortfall
in fundbg ln this area before I begin. The cumula •
tive ef:'ect of this, across several grants, often
meam that I am actua::Jy working on gra:it, as a
research assistant on my own tir.1e, on weekends
and nights, because I do not have enough funds to
cover the research after all the "off the to:t costs
have been taken nut. from a purely financial point
of v:ew, this makes tendered :esearch a much more
attractive proposition, particularly if institutions
offer incentives lo indi\·idua: researchers as rewards
for revenue generation.
Doe, this rr.atte:? The short a:i swer is that y'<'s,
:: does. It has serio·J s in: ?licat:ons both for quali-
tative rese~rch itself and for the role that qualita•
tive researchers might find themselves playing
i:1 funcec rest:arch. The ty?e of funding sought
affects the type of research that can he done. For
example, it is highly unlikely that a government
department \\'ill tender for projects involving long
time frames. This immediately el' minates qnali
tative approaches rec;uiring longer periods in the
field and immersion in the data. My experience is
that if a qualitative approach is asked lur (and i: is
still the case in Australia thal !his is the exception
ratl:er than the rule), tl:en it is likely to involve the
conduct of an already spedfed number of work-
shops, focas gmups, or interviews. In other words,
tendered rc,;carch is often more about a
tive researcher operationalizing someone el,e's
idea, intent. and design than it 's abom designing
research to address an issue that the researchers
themselves have identified. Even lf lhe ter:dcr is
in a particdar substantive area of interest, it is
unlikely tha: the emphases b the proposed
research wi 1l be those of the researcher se.
This does not necessari:y meai: that the researc:1
is 1101 valuab'.e or i1:1portan:. but it does mea:1 faat

the researcher is positioned diffe~:.tly in relation
to the research process. It also has imp:ications
for i.:nderstandings and possible future directioc1s
of <;,uaiitative research itself. If tendered research
becomes more prominent, that may skew the type
of qualitative research that gets done.
Another emerging trend that I have noticed
in the quest tu gain an edge in ;ocating fundir,g
is the "tacking on" of a (usually small) c._11alitative
component to large-scale, essentially quantitative
studies in funding proposals. On one hand, this is
an acknowledgment that there are limitations
with measuring, for example, only outcomes and
opinions. However, the effect of this ":ackir.g on;'
paradoxically, can he to marginalize qualitative
research even more. Often, the quaEtative compo-
:Jent of such studies involves the application of a
few qualitative tecl:niques, devoid of any theoret•
ical grounding. Carey and Swanson (2003) note
that "some applications drop in a focus gnrJp
with no explanation of why it is being proposed
or how the expected information will '::le used,
ar.d no description of the- method or analysis
plans. Although a similarly 'nappropriate use of
quantitative methods could ,1ccur, 1 :sic] have not
seen that scenario" (p. 856). This presents a very
real possibiEty of qualitative researc'.1 becoming
more a technique than a lheoretically grounded
research approach.
Qualitative research is a way of thinking, not a
method. \Vhen lam approac.1ed to be "the qualita-
tive person" on a funding proposal that needs a
"qualitative bit or part;• that alerts me to the fact
that the research is likely to be rompa:r:mentaliled
into the main study and :he qualitative component,
which is usually much smaUer, with far fewer dol·
lam attached to it, and leaves me with little control
over the direction of the project itself. Therefore, I
am very careful wher: considering requests of this
type. It is important to determine if the proposal
going forw,ml for funding, or the tender being
called for, understands qualitative research as more
than just a few techniques able m be tacked onto
the "real" research. It is important to make a deci•
sion as to what that meac1s for me as a researcher
and what actions I will take in response. l have
experienced being in a project in which more than
Cheek: Funded Research Ill
90% of a large budget was fur the quantitative
aspects of the study and the qualitative research
was underfunded, not well understood,and under•
valued. I will not put mv8eli in that position again.
By partic:pating in that situation, however, [ was
a':lle to char,ge the thinking membrrs of the
team and now enjoy very productive and fr'Jitful
rela,ionships with them on other funded projects.
This is but one example of underlying and
ongoing tensiuns that permeate the politics and
practice of funded qualitative research. I cannot
present a "right way" of acting in the fundir.g
pmcess. there is no right or wrong way of acting,
Rather, the discussion is des:gned to raise con-
sciousness about what are often m:intended conse-
quences with n:spect to the positioning of both
qualitative research and qualitat:ve researchers in
funded proposals and research teams.
An importar:t part of being able to locate fund-
ing for qJalitat:ve res.:arch ili to ir. a position to
know about and identify potential funding sources.
Zagury ( 1997) has identified categories of
potential fa.:Jding sources. ";'hese are local commu-
nity funds, ,peda: purpose li1uudatiuns, family-
sponsored fouudations, national foundations,
government grants and corporate foundations, and
corpora:e :'unding. It is important to be aware that
tliere are distinct national differences in types and
patterns of funding. Hence, it may well be that in
certain countries, some of :he above categor'es of
funders are ofless significance than :n others.
One place to start in identifying potential
funders is to obtain p·Jblkations that list them.
One such publication is The GruntSeard1 Register
ofA,ustmiian Funding (Summers, 2003). Watching
advertisements in newspapers, particularly in the
contract/tender section, is another way of identify-
ing potential funding sources, as is get;ing on the
mailing list of the university research office (for
those who work in a univer5ity setting). Another
useful way of learning about potential funding
sources that may not be advertised or appear in
any grant register or list is to talk to peop:e who
have received funding in areas simll ar to the p,o·
posed research. Thus, regardless of the actual mix
of funding so·Jrces in any pankular country or
part of the cuumry (there are regior.al varia,ions
 392 11 HANDBOOK Of. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 15
in many nations), it is imperative tha: researchers
"do their homework" with respect to uncovering
potential funding .sources. In light of the preceding
discussion, this home'lvork will i;rvolve work:ng
out what type of funding to seek or app'.y for, am:
ho"V this funding might position both the
researcher and tne qualitative research itself
0 nee potential funders are idenlifie<l, it is
important lo get as much infor;11ation as possi'tlle
about ,hem. One way of doing this is to obtain
copies of funding gi:idelines and/or annual
reports. These documents, among other things,
give a good o'll:rvicw of the types of projects
potential funders have :unded ir1 the past and are
likelv to fund in the future. From this, re.searchers
can assess whether their pmposed research seems
to fit the priorities and interests of the f\::nder
concerned. If revie;v of documentation from
the agency reveals it as a viable potential funder 'or
the research in question, the next step ls
to approach the agency directiy lo ciscu~s the
researc.1 idea. How :his :s done will vary, depend-
ing on the type of sponsor. For example, if tl:e fun-
der calls fur proposals on a:i annua: basis, the
:esearcher can initiate rnn,act with the officr chat
deals w:th thesr applicatlons, both to acquire
i::tformatior: about the process and to introduce
both the research and the researcher to tl:e people
who are likely to be dealing with :he applicatio:1
administratively. Speaking with representatives
of the agency gives insight into its processes and
practices with respect to the way that funding is
allocated. Furthermore, it should be possible to
ascer:ain mor.: information about what tyo;;s of
::esearch have been funded in the past. The agency
may even supply reports of co:npleted research
and/or copies of proposals that have been funded.
r• is information is invaluable for ascertaining the
formal and scope expected of a proposal, as well as
in assisting in the better formulation of ideas, in
language appropriate to :he funder in question.
Examination of previously funded research also
enables the researcher to better locate the pro-
posed study in tetms of work already done in the
area. Personal cornr.mnication with potential
funding bodies is thus critical, as it provides
insigl:ts and acvice not readily available elsewhere.
Much of what has been discussec a;so applies
when researchrrs approach a funding agency that
does not have regular funding rounds but instead
tends to fund research on a more ad hoc basis. One
difference is that it may not be immediately obvfo'Js
whom to contact in the spor:sor's organization, It i,
important to find the right pe::sou, in the right
section in the organization, to talk to about the
intended research and the possibility of fonding for
it. In this way, the researcher becomes familiar with
the organization, anri t'le organiiation gets to know
the resea:cher. This is important, as a crucial ques-
tion io funders' minds is whefaer they can trust a
particular researcher to successfully complete a
worthwhile project once money is comm [ttcd to It.
\'Vhen speak:ng to a funder's representative, it is
important to present a clear.simple idc-.i that is both
researchable and likely to produce benl:'fits and out•
comes that are valuab!e fmm the fnnder's perspec-
tive. Consicer submiting a concept ?aper fas:,
either by post or in person, before making personal
contact with a representative of the organizatio:1,
The concept paper L'OUld include any preliminary
\-\'Ork done or data alre-.i.dy collected. This allows ~he
researcher to address the points identified ::iy
Bogdan and Ilikls:11 (1998) as ':ieir:g importalll
when initiating contact w'rh funders:"], Vvbat have
you donr already< 2. \'/hat themes, co11cerns, or rop-
ks have emerged ir. your preliminary work? What
analytic questions are )'OU p.;rsuing?" (p. 70).
Accompanying the concept pa?er should be
a statement of :he researcher's track record. It
is impo:1anl to demous:rate that there is ~very
likelihood, based on past experience, !hat the
research will be completec: on time and within
budget. Not only is it important to present the
research idea, it also is important to preser.t the
researchers themseivel. One of :he problems
ing many researchers is the catdi-22 situat:or: of
needing a track record to attract fonding, while
not heing able to get the fm:ding needed to l:rJild
up a track record. One way around this js lo join a
research team that already has established a track
record in the same or a closely related area of
researd!, and to work as part of that team. Thi.~ has
a further benefit of establishing contact with the
reS1:arch ~xpertise that is collectively prese:1t. It is

an ideal way to kam a:)(nt the :csearch process in
a safe way and can lead to the furmation of en<lur-
lng research re:ationsh: p, between co'. leagues.
Another stratrgy for building a track ream: is :o
acquire some form of seed flmding. The process
may he less mn:petilive than acquiring grants
from larger funding bodies, and the fanding may
be directed :o more novice rescarcl'.ers. Sm::1 seed
funding, though U8'Ja!ly modest in a:nonnt,can be
enoug".! to begin a small research project that can
lead to publications and thJs provide a fon:idation
on which other rese-ardi c:an be built
What should be evident by now is that acquir-
ing funding is not a qukk or process. Much
lead tine often is r.eeded for planning ,md for
establishing research crcde111i3Js aud rapport
with funding s,nrces. Failures are i:1evitable, and
it Ls difficnlt not to take these personally. O:.hcr
researchers can provide valuable advke and
sc ;,port tnroughout this prncess. As l pointed out
previously, many research textbooks h~gin and
end their discussions of how to acquire 'uncling
hy talking about proposal writins. This, I believe,
is nowhere near enough. W'i,,: ha, jcsl been
discussed-namely, t:le scrategies that must be
employed to get ti) the poin: where ous: can write
a proposal for ,1. specific :unding agency-is, in
my opinion. the actua. stan of "doing" funded
qualitative n:search. In addition, i: is in: ;:,e:ative
to LXl!lsidcr, at every stage the fundir.g process,
the pol:;ics behinc funding ':self ,md any partic
ular fundi '1g bid.
1tl 3. AUJlCATING fliM)IKG:
PRAcnci::s AND PouTICS
The next step, after identify:ng a potential funder,
is crafting a proposal to seei funding for the
research. I haYe delibemtely nsed the word "craft-
ing" becai:se proposal writing is a craft requiring
a 11niq11e set of skills, most of which are learned as
a result of practice. Writing a proposal involves
shaping and tailorhg a research idea to fit the
guidelines or application process imposed by the
intended funding agenc;·. Each application, even
for the sane project, w:ll vary depending un the
(hetk: Fu::cied Research Ill 39:
diarackristics and reqnirements the funder
being approached. When a proposal is written fur
a potcntial sponsor's conskleratior., it is written
for a particular audience, whose me:nbers havr
assumptions a.:ul t>X?Cctat:ons of the forrr. a pro-
posal should :ake and the :angi:age it should use,
ThJ,, as I have e.11phasired before, it is important
for re;earchcrs lo know that audience and its
exprctations,
\/\'hat follows is :10t about proposal writing per
se. Much already has been written abont :his. For
example, a recent edition of Qua!iiatrre Health
Research (Vol.3, Ko. 6, Ji:ly 2003) was devoted to a
discussion of qualitative rrsearch proposals.
Several excellent articles focused on crafting a.,d
dcvrloping qnalitative p:oposals, along with some
the politics that sits behind this. In these arti-
des, tl:e authors sha:e their experiences by telling
their stories of the development, and at times
defense.of their proposais. Here, I will continue to
eipost: aspects of what otherwise may remain
hidden with respect to the pulhcs and practice of
al:ocating funding for qualitative research.
Writil:g a proposal is a political process.
Researchers need to oonsider whether the qua'.ita-
tive approach proposed and the likely outcomes of
the ress:an;I: "fit" the agene.a of the fund: ng body.
lt is quite reasoaable for those who provice fond-
ing for resean:h to ask whether or not the pm•
p0-~ed project represents appropriate ] se of the
fur:ds for which they have responsibility, The
majority of funders take the allocation of monies
very seriously. They must welg'.1 !he relative mer-
its, from the:r point o~ view, of proposals compet-
ing :or limited resources. Thus, it is ess,mdal for
the proposal submitted to he C:ear in terms of its
purpose and rationale. Are the outcomes of the
pmi ect stated? Are they important, useful, anc
able to make a difference in people's lives? So:nc
funding bodies may be a lit:le self-serving in their
reasons for funding specific proposals. but or. the
whole, funders do r:1ake genui:!e efforts :u fund
worthy research proposal,, and most treat the
selection proce,s wry seriously. Funders wno are
seeking to lei a tender for research, while still
wantir.g to ensure 6at the rese-arch done will
meet high standards, have otl:er considerations
 394 111 HANDBOOK OF Q'JALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP:'ER 15
as we11. One of these will be cost. This lies at the
heart of the tendering process, which is designed
for the funder to test the research ma:ketplace in
terms of what their money can buy. Qualitative
researchers entering this world need to under•
stand the :narket-driven parameters of tendered
research and position themselves competitively.
Offering value for money means not only meeting
high standards in the research; it also means
considering how much, or little, money needs to
be allocated to attain those standards.
The trend for universities in Australia, as else•
where, is to move more into the world of lenders
that once belonged to market researchers and
consultants. This has meant that university-based
qua'.itative researchers have had lo confront issues
that they may have been able to ignore in the past
The inherent quality of research no longer is the
only consideration. Indeed, understandings of
"quality" themselves may have undergone l:ans-
fo::mation, with traditional measures such as
peer review playing less of a role and other factors
assur.1ing more prominence, such as perceived
value for money. Thus, some means of acquiring
funding are becoming overt forms of selling one•
self and one's research skills in the research
marketplace. The funder does not fund an idea;
rather, a researcher's tirr:.e and expertise are
bought to conduct a piece of defined research the
agency or organization war;ts done. This concept,
as I have suggested previons!y and will return to at
fae end of the chapter, creates new and different
tensions for the funded qualitative researcher. >lot
fae least of these tensions revolves around what
research funding is for: either remuneration for
selling skills, thereby contributing lo university or
researcher :r:come, or enabling the conduct of
research identified by the researcher as important
and needing to be done. Of course, these may not
be mutually exclusive, although in my experience
one or the other tends to be at the fore in any
particular funding situation.
Shaping all application forms or guidelines
provided by funders are assumptions, often
unwritten and unspoken, about research and the
way that research is understood. lt is importan: to
excavate these assumptions and understandings,
for two reasons. The first is to work out whether
the fur.ding body is likely to fund qualitative
research. Are the guidelines structured in such
a way that it is impossible to "fit" qualitative
research ir:.to them? As L:dz and Ricci (1990)
point out, rev:ewers and funders, like all of us,
have "rnltnrally prescribed ideas about 'real'
research" {p. 114). The application form and the
way that it is structured provide insight and dues
as to the funder's partindar culturally prescribed
ideas about research. Second. in light of some of
the precedir:g discussion, insights also can be
gieaned about the way that qualitative research, if
?resent :n a detailed tender brief: is uncerstood.
Uence, texts such as funding guideli:ies, tender
briefil, and research grant application forms must
be read carefully, not only for ivhat they say and
how they say it, but also for what they do not
say. Such a critical :eading enables qualitative
researchers to take up an informed political posi•
tion in relation to a particular funding source.
Another guide to the likely success of quali-
tative proposals is the compm.ition of the review
panel used by the funder. Does it contain people
who are expert in qualitative research? Does it
allow for the possibility :or the committee to seek
ex?ert opinion outside the committee itself :f a
proposal comes in t:-1a: is r:ot within the method·
ologkai expertise of committee members? Morse
(2003a}, Parahoo (2003), and many others have
noted that reviews of research proposals om
indicate real ignorance about qualitative research,
such as askir;g for power calcnlations for sample
size. Fu:ther, Morse (2003a) notes that someti:nes
the seeking and/or assumption of 'expert" advlee
about qua] itative research can be very limited and
somewhat ad hoc. The co:nmittee members know
someone who uses qualitative research or some·
one who has done a workshop or short course on
qualitative research, and "they use these isolated
•facts' as gold standards" (Morse, 2UU3a, p, 740).
Morse refers lo this sort of climate as "denigra·
tive" of qualitative research and calls agencies
to be made more accountable for "decisions based
on inaccurate, incorrect, or invalid reviews"
(2003a, p. 739). Further, she notes that e\'en if
there are qualitative reviewers on panels, they

'1;variably are in C:1e minority, often being a "faint
voice" on fondng panc:s (Morse, 2002b, p. 1308).
If the practice of ave:aging all the panel members'
scores for a particular proposal is followed, then
in many instances, because of the relative lack
of expertise in and appredation :or qualitative
, research among the majority of panel members,
it is unlikely t':!at average scores for qualitative
p:uposals will be J,jgh er:ou~'>i for these proposals
to oe recorr:mendcd lilr funding.
Once the decision has been made to pursue
funding from a particular source, tile inst:"l.lctions
given for applying for funds must be followed
carct\:]y. I have reviewed :nany research fonding
applications for which it was evident that instruc-
tions were not :ollowed. lb imprOV!; your project's
chances of being funded, follow all instructions,
beginning with the basics. \\'hen asked to confine
the application to a certain page li:nit or word
limil, do so. Similarly, if to explain some-
thing in a lay person's terms, do so. No one is
impresscc. by impenetrable language. Perhaps
most crucial is following ins:n:.ct:ons r:u:tku-
• lously with respect to the detail required about
the research hue.get and the way the fands will
be used. Many claims appear in proposals
amounts that are obviouslv. well bevond'
the fm:d-
ing parameters of the grants program in question.
Put sirr.:ily, tl:e proposal must be tailored m the
guides, not the guides to the proposal One stra:-
egy employed by many successful researd1ers to
,r.
assi~t ensuring that the proposal closely approx-
imates the guidelines is :o colleagues to read
the draft proposal and pmvidi:' critical comments.
A key point to bear in mind is that any research
proposal, qualitativc or not, must form'Jlate a dear
issue or question. The initial idea that provided !be
impetus fur the res1:ardi must be transformed into
a rescard1ab:e focus. Tie rest of the proposal me.st
unpack rhat research question and demonstrate
how the approa.::h to be taken will enable it tu be
answered. The proposed research must be contex-
tualized :n terms of what has preceded it. i::ie
study musr be situated in terres of what others are
doing and how fa:s research links to that of others.
:t must be justified in terms ap?roach and
des:g:1, having a dear direction and focus with
Cheek: Fu::ced Research • 395
dearly achievabli:' outcomes in lii:e with the
funder's ?rior::ies and stated goals. The credentials
of the ,esearcher or research team also need to
be es:ablished. The arr:ou:1t of information given
about ::1e research design, analysis, and data col-
lecrion will be determined in pa:1 by Lhe fom:at of
lhe g..iideli :i,es or application form_ The proposal
rr:ust be written so that the reader can uncersland
clearly from the documem what is i:Jte:1ded for the
study, and why. As the pc0posal is being writ:en
and afrer ii Is submilted, it is i:11portant to aso:r-
tain the deadlines and timelinE's involved, m; we!! as
the procedures followed by decision-making
person or commillee. In other wo;ds, it is impor-
tant to gain insight into the process of allocating
fa:1ds. Suen insight prepares the researcher to
expect a response b a certain for:nat wlmin a set
time, and it inform~ any necessary follow-up.
¼'hen the decision ahout funding finally is
made, tl:ere are usually three possible outcomes.
rirst, tbe request may be approved. In this case,
rhc researcher receives fur:ding, and the rcseJr~h
commences as soon as all ap;,ropriati' perm•s-
sions, such as ethics deara:1ce, arc obta'ncd.
Anotl:er p-0ssible o·Jtcome fa that the: rcsc,m:her
is asked to add or change something, for instance,
tu supply :norc :r:formafion about one or more
aspec:s of the propusa[_ This should be in1erpreted
as a positive sign. Mort' nftei: than :101, it means
that the funder is considering :Ile request seriously
and feels it has some merit; certain aspects of it,
however, need clarification before the funder is
willing to commit funds. fa another version of this
outcome, the researcher may be asked if the study
could be conducted with a reduced budget, aad if
so, how. This is not unusaa'.. Sometimes funders
have set amounts to allocate, and i: the pro?osed
smdy is toward the botto:n of :he list of prnjects
they wish to fur.d, they may he able to offer only a
portion o: the fands requested. It 's important that
re~earche~i; think carefully abm: t whether to
accept such funding. I believe that funded research
should not be atteIT-:>teci without adequate sup-
port for the activities necessary to the rc,carch.
It is ve,y tempting to accept any funding offered,
but inadequa~e funding can leao tu all sorts of
probler:1s in actually c.oing research. Clearly,
396 11 HANilBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RP.SEARCH-CHAPTER 15
research funding poses issues no: only about the
wise me of fu:ids but also about the wisdom of
whether or not tn accep, funds in I.he first place.
The third possible outcome is one that is
becoming all too commo:1, given the increasing
competition for grants: The request funcing is
rejectetl. If tl:is happens, it is impo:1ant to get as
much feedback as ?Ossible. Make an appointment
lo speak to ~he chair of tr.e committee {)f a ,epre•
sentat've of the trust, foundation, or other organi ·
zation making the decision. Find oi:: as much as
po,,sible. Copies of the revi.eweri,' reports may be
made available, and these often contain useful cri.
tiques th11t can be used in ?repa:ing the proposal
for resubmission or submiss:o.:i to another agency.
If these reports ca:rnot be ob:ainec, or in addition
to them, a list of the projects that were su::cessful
may be available. This list may give insigh:s into
whether the did in fas::t match the funding pri·
orities of the fumier, and what the fa:ider sought
in suo:essfol proposals. If r.o feedback at is
available- fmm the funder, then ask researcher.~
who have been ~uncled lo review :he unst:ccessfu!
propo1;a'. and to l:elp in debriefa:g t:.e process jus;
undergone. Talking it througl: may reveal things
that can be done differently in the next applica-
tion. However, at all ti mes ,escarchers should be
aware o: their odds of success. :n many grants pro·
g::ams :n Australia, for example, the success rate is
below 20(;/,. Sud1 low success ,ates are bcreasingly
the .:a.se in most countries as the competition for
shrinking funding sources grows :elentlessly. It is
m'Jch more likely for rescan:hers not tu ucqu'.re
funding than to be successful. Research proposals
take much time and effort to complete, and it is
hard lo cope with rejection, but it 1:1ay help to
remember that no researcher ls alone. By main•
tain:r.g contact with others ar.d setting in place
the strategies out Ii ncd so far in this chapter, the
chances of success can be maximized.
llll 4. XAVTGi,TING E·~·tt1cs
CoMMll'l'H:,: PRAcr1cEs AM> Pour:cs
Receiving a recommendation funding is 1101
the end of the review process. Funded qualitative
research, '.ike other forms of research, needs to
undergo a process of formal ethics review. Ethics
committees thus become another layer of ded.
sion making as to wr:at research will be, and will
not be, fonded, Funds may not be relea,ed u:itil
ethics approval is formally receive<:, or if they are
released, the research night not be able to pro•
ceed until ethics approval has been given. In the
univi:rnity in which I am located, and in keeping
with sta:1dard practice in Australia, r cam:ot con·
duct research with human participants unt:! r
have formal ethics approval from the university'.~
Hu!;}an Research Ethics Conunfrtee, as well as
from any relevant ethics cor:11nittees at the sites
where n:y res1::m;h is silmded. An issue for quali.
talive researchers relates lo the role and fum:I ion
of ethics committees with respect to giving such
approval. Lincoln and Tierney (2002) assert f:iat
there is evidence :n the Uni led States that some
f!Ualitativ<" r£'searchers are having pro':>ltms
getting research that has alreac.y been fonded
through the Institutional Review Board (IRBJ
elhies process. 1n the United Sm:es, lRl!s wex
initiated in L966 (Riesman, 2002) following an
order from tl:e U.S. S·Jrgeon General in response
to q:iestionable medical re.-;earch involving
elderly patients being injected w::h live car:cer
cells. Further regulations de.signed to prntect
hur:1an subjects (sic) Jecame effective in 1974.
Th'Js, the driving force in the establishment
IRlls was the ;,rotection of human subjec:s. T::i is
was in keepiug with developments stemming
from the N11remherg Code, promulgatec in the
aftermath of uneth'cal medical cxpcr:mentation
on prisoners and conccntratior: camp inmate,
during 'l,\'orld War 11. 'fhu.s, the original focus of
IRBs and the context from which they emerged
was that of medicine and lhe sc:er.tific discourse
that underpins medicine.
Similarly, :n the United K:ngdom, the Royal
College of Physicians in 196 7 reconum:ndcri that
all medical researrh he mhjcct to ethka: review,
and by l 99 I every health district was req i.:i:'ed 10
have a Local Research Ethics (om mittce (:,:l..EC ),
with Multi •centre Research .Ethics Committees
(MRECs) emerging as a neans ofhelp:ng stream
line proposals ;hat ofae:wise would have to go
through numerous LRECs (Ramchara:, &Cutdiffe,
2001). [n the United Kingdon:, as in the t: n:ted
States, the formalizing of ethics requi,emcnts
and the establishment of ethics com:nlttees was
derived and driven largely by practices from
medical rei.earch. This is also the case in Australia.
For example, un:versity-based Human Research
Ethics Committees are modeled on National
Health and Medical Research Council guicelim:s.
These apply to all research involving humans,
whether it is health related or no:. Thus, ethics
committees, and the understandings of research
w'th which they operate, ofter. are influenced by
the traditions of medicine and science, induc•
Ing the cesearch melhocs and understandings of
research that these disciplines employ.
To some extent, the emergence of qualitative
research, and parlkularly the eoergence of
funded qualitative research, bas occurred at the
sa • e t:me as the emergence of ethics committees
and the formalization of ethics requirements and
processes. At t:mcs, we see tr.e s:ollision uf these
surfaces of emergence and the working out of the
tensions that emanate therefrom. For example,
Lincolr, and Eerney (2002), Ramcharan and
Cutdiffe (2001 ), and Riesman (2002) assert that
qualitative research may he being trealt'<l unfairly,
and in fact n:ay be disacvantaged, by some ethics
committees. Such claims emanate from concerns
that qi::alitati\'e approaches arc rejected or. the
grounds tl1at they are ~unscientific" and not able
ro be generalized. Research methods increasingly
have becomr the :-emit of ethics committees. ln
effect, ethics committees can be more powerfal
than na~ional peer reviewed funding committees.
Even if national ami inter:1ationai peers who are
experts in my field and the research approaches I
eIT'.?loy recmnmend a project for funding, ethics
committees can reje,".t it on the basis of "poor
design"-and, thus, "unethical rcsearchn-that
wil: ;esult ic no bcr.efit, or even possibly in harm,
to research participants.
The focus on the qualily of tr.e research design
sterr.s from le)!i6nale ethical concerns as to the
ability of research to make a di:ference. For
example, the U. K. Royal College of Physicians
guidelines make !:le point badly designed
research is uneth kal. hecau~e t.:n necessary
disturbances may be camed to those concerned,
and tl:e lack of validity results means they can•
nut he dissemimdcd for the good of society"
(Lacey, 1998, p. 215). The upshot of this is that
"LRECs must therefore judge ,he scientific as well
as e,hkul merit of the resean;:1 under considera•
tiorf (Lacey, 1998, pp. 215 ··· 216 ). However, !he key
question arises as to what consdtutes scientific
rr.eril or '~ood" researcl: design, and who deter-
mines this. If scientific merit is reduced to "con•
ventiona: quantitative methods" (Lacey, I 998,
p, 216 ), faen tliis wi[ vrork agains I qualitative
research unfair:y. As van de:1 Hoonaard (2001)
points out, ethical review often is hasec on "the
JJrincbles and epi~temology of dedu,tive
research .... [This. rends to erode or han::>er the
thr;1st ar:d purpose of qualitative research . , .
Iand] it is a question of wnethcr it is ,1ppmpriate
to judge the ethica} merit of qualitative research
using criteria derivetl fmm other paradig:ns of
research" (pp. 19, 21). It al so hegs the question of
wr.ether ethic;; and research ccsign are une and
the same or <lifforenL
Requirements. specified by some etr.ko
cmmnillees simply can 1101 apply to qualital Ive
research_ If, for cxamp:e, it is necessary :or
rescan:ners ~o state dea:lv, hefo;c research
'
begins, each questior. that they will ask partici-
pants, th :s makes the emergent design of some
qualitative rrsearch extremely pro.Jlema:ic. As
Lincoln and Tie:-ney (2002) point ou:, the issue
here is twofold: failure 10 obtain penniss:or. to
conduct qualitative research as well as mandates
that these studies should be condncte<l in a
po.sitivist fashion, Further issues arise from the
politics between ethics committees themselves.
Some e:hks commiltees re"nse to acce:n the elbics
approval of other committees. Inconsistencies
betwee:i the decisions and processes different
ethics committees sor., etimes with the
result that it takes a long time to gain ap:,roval. l
have been caught in such politics of research with
funded proj eels, wir;h one ethics committee
approving my research a:id another r:o:. This
example highlights the inconsis1encics that car.
develop arm:nd ethics approvals. ff the research
 398 • HA:,JDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 15
concerned is a form of tendered research requiring
relatively short ~urnaround times, this protracted
approval proi.:ess can preclude the researd: from
being funded. It may also create and sustain the
perception that qualitative research is problematic,
m:wieldy, and therefore best avoided by funders.
In light of such issues, a strategy [ have used
when navigating requirements of ethi'6 commit-
tees is to write to the particular ethics comm it -
tees, explaining how I have filled in the form and
why I have done so. especially with respect to not
being able ~o provide certain details of the
research until the study 1,, actually under way.
I state how the initial approach will be made to
partic:pants, and I outline the general principles
that will be employed regarding wr:fidentiality
and other matters. I also suggest that, i" the com-
mittee would find it useful. I would be happy to
talk about the research a:1d discuss any concerns
committee members might have. I have found
most (but not all) committees willing to listen
and to be quite reasonable. However, when talking
with ethics committees who have invited me to
their meetings to discuss. concerns, I am continu•
ally struck by the realization that 1constantly have
to frame my responses in terms of the under-
standlnf!s of research that the committee brings
to the table. The conversation usua]y is as much a
discussion understandings o: research as it is
about the ethics of that research. I have had to jus-
t:fy all aspects of the research process, not just
those I thought were etl:kal matters_ .Pm example,
I have found myself e:1gaging in deep, philosoph-
ica]y derived debates about the nature of knowl-
edge and the way that it is possible to study that
knowledge. This was despite the fact that a
national funding body had deemed the research
in question rigorous enough to be funded. After-
wards, [ wondered whether any of the committee
had ever had to explain the philosophical basis of
the research app::oaches they were familiar with,
and I reached the conclusion that they probably
had not. This highlighted to me that dominant
understandings of research were in play here and
that decisions made were as much about what
individuals understood and t.1:;11structed research
to be, as they were about the ethics of the research
in questim;. This suggests that ethics committees
and the process of ethical approval are as much
discursive constr:ictions as any other text
As another example, a s:udent of mine agreed
lo change the word "participant» to "patient" in
the consent forms and information sheets that
would be given to research participants. This was
one of the conditions to be met for ethks approval
to be granted We (student and supervisor) had to
think deeply about thls, but in the end we consid-
ered that it was more important for the research
k\ go forward than to take a stand on this issue.
In reality, changing this word did not affect the
way we did our research. Ir was more about the
comfort levels of some committee members and
that their understanding of the positioning of
people entering the hospital was maintained.
However, this example does raise an :mportan:
point: At times. researchers may find themselves
asked to modify proposals iu a way that appears
to compromise the approach they wish to take.
[n instances :ike this, they must :nake whal
I would argue is a fundamentally ethical decision:
Can the research proceed under these mnditior.s?
Some readers may argue that what we did in
changing the word "participant" to "patient'' was
an ethical issue, one in which we "sold out» to
pragmatics and expediency.
One of the reasons for the initial emergence
and subsequent prominence of ethics comm itlees
and their power was a rise in lawsuits pertaining
to medical research that had gone "w:ong." a
co:isequence, van den Hoonaard agrees with "one
qualitative researcher" that"qualita:ive researchers
have become the fall guys for ethical mistakes in
medical research" (2001. p. 22), He poses the
question of whether the rise of ethics committees
constitutes a moral panic involving "exaggeration
of harm ar.d risk, orchestration of the pa:1ic by
elite or powerful special-interest groups, the
construction of :maginary deviants, and reliance
on diagnostic instruments" (van den Hoonaarc.
2001, p, 25). In .such a construction, qualitative
research could be viewed as deviant, and the
rise of prescribed forms of deductive research as
diagnostic instrument!! able to be used to detect
«suspect" research. The effect, uninte:1ded or

otherwise, of ethics committees increasingly
positioning themselves as determining what type
of research will proceed and which will not is an
intertsting shift from the original intent of ethks
committees to uphold the rights of those being
researched, to a focus equally concerned with
possible legal ramifications of ,my research
undertaken. Thus, protection as a focus of ethics
committees :u1s evolved to be as much about
protecting from potential litigation the instit·J·
tions from which researchers come from and/or
in which they do their research, as it is about
protecting individual participants from adverse
research effects.
Putting another spin on this, Kent (1997)
notes that ethics comm:ttees sometimes take on
proxy decfaion making for participants, making
''assumptions about patient's [sicJ welfare which
do not correspond to patients' actual feelings and
beliefs" (p. 187), An interesting insight in:o this
was provided by a recent experience [ had when
asking participants to sign a co:.sent form fur
a nominal group I was conducting as part of
funded restarch. The ethics con:mittee ::equire-
ment was tha: all participants must sign this am-
sent form before the group could proceed. This
particular nominal group comprised senior gov-
'\ ernment and industry representatives. One of the
partidp-.inls objected to having to sign a consent
form, seeing it as a form of coercion and control.
! 1,1;as then in a quaodary. Did I ask this person to
r leave and preckde him from the research, or did
' I proceed. contravening the legalistic requirement
of a signed form? In the end, I was able to talk the
?erson aro"Jnd to signing the form but felt that in
so doing, 1 wa& being coercive and establishing
my control of the process. I felt that the forms and
procecures had more to do with legalistic require-
ments than with ethical concerns. Far from
empowering this participant, they actually were a
form of control and restriction. This is nnt to
argue against the signing of consent forms or the
need for consent. Instead, I suggest that techniques
employed to ensure that ethical requirements are
l met can themselves become apparatuses of power
that actually do something other than ensuring
the ethics of the research, The danger is that
Cheek: Funded Resea~ch a 399
regu!ations (i.e., forms and processes) become the
ethics, rather than the ethics of the rese',uch itseJ.
Elsewhere (Cheek, 2000), I have sugges,ed
strategies for navigating ethics rommittees. These
include finding out as much as possible about the
processes used by the committee and <1&king to see
examples of proposals that have been accepted.
These actions supply ideas of both the !eve'. of detail
and the format that the committee :-equires.
Another suggestion is to speak to others who have
applied to the committee in question for ethics
approval. Remember that qualitative researchers
seeklng funding or ethical approval have rights, as
do all researchers. These include the right "to have
their proposals tre'ated with respect and due
consideration" (Kent, 1997, p. 186). Stuart {2001)
suggests that how we choose to act with respect
to how we approach eoks committees (and we
could add funding committees) is in fact an ethical
decision. He writes, "Will the research be :iased on
practices :hat treat people as objects of research
and provide them with limited opportunities to
contribute to the procuction ofknowledge,orwill it
be based on collaborative practices that view
people a.~ participants i:l the production of know!•
edge?" (Stuart, 2001, p. 38). Similarly, do we rr.as-
sage our research into prescribed forms and
formulae, knuwiug that in this form it will
he much more likely to achieve Emding and
approval, but also knowing that it may use systems
and p1actices that work against qualitative research
and leave unresolved some o( the issues posed?
These sorts of decisions and weigh.ing of
tensions and alternatives are important parts of
the politics and practice of funded qualitative
research. They challenge us to thl nk deeply about
every aspect of what we do, It is not a matttr
of expediency and learning how to "play" the
system. We need to try to work for real change,
dumge that will make a difference to, and differ-
enu:s in, the types of research that are fi.:nded and
approved. Rowan (2000} observed that
when the British Psychological Society dedded that
it was wrong to call people subjects, because it sug•
gested that they were subjected to the wiU of 1he
researcher, changing 'subjects' to 'partkipants' was
 400 1111 HA:;DBOOK OF QUAUlAl'IVE RES!'ARCF.-CHAl'TER
!or many p,yclmlngisis simpl}·a matter £If calling ·~p
ihe 'finJ and rep:ace' facility on the computer. It was
not seen a; celated to a code of ethic:;, ;i:· reguiri ng
any l'hange ill them. (p. I03)
This highlights :he 1ayers of pol; tical action
that are requirtJ lo acdress deep residual pnu:-
tices that can I: inder and even subvert level•
opment of funded qualitative research. Without
laking such political action, w,:, run the risk of
remaining or. the surface and playing the i;v,.:m.,
of the syster:1 ratl:er than changing th;;t poli:ics.
As Morse (2003b) po:nt~ ou::
Thi~ :s a task for all of rs to do rnllccl ivcly and
,y,tema'.kally, for :t involves changes ~uch as
broader::::g research priorities and perspective, on
what is considered researchab;e and what ~onsl:-
tutes m;earch. It invoi;es political ?rob!ems, s·:.ch
as exp,mding and sharing research funds to new
groups tif :::vestigators. In this light, tht" ac':riin
istrntive changes involved, s_ch a,developing
approp,fa:c review ,.,, ...,,,, expanding commit:ee
111embn.hip, and edu.:aring 01:1cr sdentis:s ahou:
the pr incipl~s of qualilal ive inquiry ... appear
trivial. (p. 849)
To focus m:ly on the mechanism of practices
associated with tunding, be they proposal writing.
peer review, O" ethi<:s re\• iew, is :o r~1:1 the risk uf
dealing only"with minur changes within the same
basic structure" (11art:n, 2000, p. 17). Put another
way, it is to focus on "what is" and working within
that, ra:he: than on "what might be" in te,ms of
"d,amatically difrerent allocation principles and
associated consequences" (Martin, 2000, p. 21 ).
mt 5. ACCTPTING FUNDING:
PRACTICES AXll POLITICS
Accepting funding ir.volves entering into a cm:•
tractual and btellectual agreement with a fu:ider
that has con~eq t:eHU'S for the research that is
undertaken. Thus, a ce:1tral mnsideratioo when
thinking about doing funded q1:11!:tative :-esearch
is whether or not to accept fum:ing from a partic-
ular funding agency; V.'ould-be researchers mus~
consider the potentiaily conflicting agendos of
funders, participants, and researchers. For
rxarr: ?le. at ur:iver,ity ir: which l work, we do
not accept funding froi:1 the tooarco h1dustry_
This i, just one example, and there are many more
instances question marks over the of
accepting funding from certain im.h:.strics,
agencies, or rven governments. Other rxarr: :.iks
include whether a p.1.rl kular industry is involved
in ques tionablc environmeuta: act iv itics or
:1ea Ith practices and whether it is a multi national
company involvec in possible expioitation of
developing countries' workforces_ Taking money
from a sponsor is nor a n,iutral activity; it links
the researcher and research inexorably with the
vah1es of that fum:cr.
A related ~et of issues emerges from a rnnsid-
eration of who cont:uls the qualitative research
that is funded. It is a fart :hat once funding is
accepted for research, :he researdu,, is not an
enti rd y free agent w'th respect :o t r.e direction
and outcome of that research. Depending on
th c policies and attitudes of the funder, the degree
of freedom allowed in carry: ng out the research
(such as changing itt, direction if the need arises
.is a result of findings, or talking and writir.g
about research l may vary considerably. :ssues
of control must be negotiated carcft:.lly in the very
early of the research, as it is often loo iate
once lhe project is well under way. Too often,
researchers either ignore or are s:mply :maware of
the problems that can arise. Takir:g :unding fmm
sm:ieone in order to conduct research is nut a
m:utral act. It implies a relationsr:ip wic:i that
funder that !:as cer1ain obligations for both par•
ties. It is important for researchers to discuss with
funders all the expectatiom and ussi;ml1tions,
both spoken anci unspoken, that they n:ay have
abo;.it the re~earch.
As an ~xamp:e, o;ic such expectation reiate5
ro what can he said about the research, and by
whom. Put anotl:cr way, this is an issue about who
ad ually owns the data or find ;ngs that rrsult from
the study. as well as abunt how tl,ose c.ata car:
he used hoth during ar.:d after the .study. Some
researchers have found themselves in the situa-
tion of uot being able tu write about the research
in the way they want to, if at a]. For example,

I carried out ,1 funded piece of res!!'&rch, using
qualitative approaches, that produced four main
fii:di ngs, each uf wh:ch was accompanied by a
sc~ies of recommer1datim1s. When J submitted t'le
report, I found that the fand ing bodv was willing
to act on two of the findings, as it believed thry
were wlthi n the bod}"s statutory remit, but not on
tl:e other two. Althougl: this seems r1",1sonable at
one level, l was .:oncerned that the remair:hg two
fi:1di11gs were in danger of bdng lost. The recmn,
rr:endations associated with 6ose finding, were
ir:iportant and, in my opinion, required action.
1 was even :non: concerned when the funder
wanted to alter the report to indude only the two
fo1dings it believed were relevant to it Fortunately,
a solution was fou1:d whereby the repo:1 was
framed to hghlight the findings considered
,e'.evant by the ft:nde,, while making reference to
:he other findings as well. In so:ne ways, this may
seem like a1, uneasy compromise, but at least the
whole picrore vr.lh given with respect to :he find
Somewhat naively, in retrospect, I had r.ot
antklpa1ed the issue arising as to what cata and
fiadings sl:0.1\d or could be induded in a study,
or what data, conversely, might be exdudcd. I am
now much more careful lo negotiate how the
findings a study will be reporte('., the use of the
'\ data, and my rights 10 publish the stcdy 6ndings
in full, myself, in scholarly literature.
Qualitative approach~ to research are premised
on an honest and ope:1 working relationship
beh\"een the researcher and the partidpants in
lhe research. Inevitably, in such sttldks the
researcher spends a great deal of time with par•
ticipants getting to know aspects of :heir wnrld
and learning about the way :hey live in that world.
At the ccntt'"r of a good working relationship in
qualitative rcseard: is the development of t,ust.
Furthtnncre, as qualitative researchers, we all
have dealt with issue, such as participa:1ts feeling
threatened by the research and tl:ercfore conceal.
ir:g in:ormation, or part icipm:ts who are eager to
please us and give us the informatiun they think
wt: want to hear or that they think we need to
know. These issues can become even mo,e com-
p'.icated in :he conc·J~: of funded qualitative
~search. Therefore, wl:en <.:onduc:ing fonded
Cheek: :'unded Research 1111 401
research, it is ioporl ant for resear~hers to tell
purti cipar.ts who is providing the fundiug and the
purposes of :hat funding. Successfl.:J researchers
report the in:1l0rtance of :na;,.ing their own rda-
tiunship to the funder dear. For example, arc they
acting as paid er:1 plo)·ees uf the fonder, or arc they
independent~ Equally crucial to a successfo\ rcla•
tionship between researchers and participants :s
to ensure, anc to give assurance., that the parti-
cipants will remain anonymous and that tl:e
confidenliality of their indiv;c·,i.l.l information
will be safeguarded. This is a mait1r concern for
so:ne participants, who may bdieve they will be
identifiec anc "punished'' in some way by t'1e
fm:der fo: example, if they criticize a funder
who is their employer. When co:1ducting research
in a specific setting among a specified group of
people, it may be d:fficult for researchers to
ensure the anony:nity of participants. It is crucial
for researchers to be dear about this issue and to
disct:ss it with par,ic: pan:s, w:io need 70 know
wnat will happe:i lo specific :nfon:rntion in tl:e
project, who will have access !fl it. and how :heir
rights to confidentiality arc bei1:g em.ured.
lr.dividuals may choose not t!1 participah: if :hey
have co:1cerns about a particular fumier having
access to info:malior: they have given or if they
question the mot i,es fut that funding being given
in the first place.
If there are any restrictions 0:1 what car or
cannot bt said about 6e findings of the research
and the research undertaking itself, then it is
important for researchers to make potentia:
participants av.,are of Part of the C(lnstant
process of giving feedback lo part:cipauts :nust
include lnformi:1g them about any issmes that
arise abuut ownership of the research and the way
it wil: be d:sseminated. All of this ii; to assist par•
ticipants in making inforn:ed decisions aho"Jt
whether to participate or not, as well as to give
them some ide:a about the u~es to whki the
research is likely to be pu L Thill ('tmh:es them to
he better positioned to follow up the xsearch
:lndings and ro have a say in what happcr.s as a
result of then:. I: is a part uf valuing all pcrspec-
~ives in the research and of treating participants
as more than simply re.~earch objects who are
 402 II HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVJ! RESEARCH-CHAPTER 15
subject to a research agenda that bas been
imposed on them.
Arelated issue can arise when the fir.dings of a
study do not please the funder. W:iat happens if
the :'lndings are, or have the potential lo be, bem,-
fidal lo the participants but may d:splease the
sponsor? W'lo has the say as to whether or not
these fincings wi:J be published? As Parahno
( 1991) points out, "too often those who control
t:ie purse te:1d to act in thc:r own il:terests when
they veto the publication of research, To others
tl:is is an abusi: uf power and office, and a waste
uf public money" (p, 39), T!:iis is a particularly
important question if the research involves work·
ing wi:h groups that ari: relatively powerless or
disenfranchised, Researchers have found :hem-
selve, in the position of not beir.g able to publish
or otherwise disseminate results in any way
because of !he contractual arrangement~ that
they have entered into when accepting funds.
When finalized, a co:itract should be checked
carefully so that researchers can be sure they are
comfortable and can live with the conditions
set Such checking of the co:itract also pertains to
tnc need fur da,ity abuut exactly w ha: will be
"deli ,ered" to the funder in return for the funding
received. Wi1a: is it that the researcher is contract-
ing with the funder to provide? This is an impor-
ta1:: question, raising the possibility of nurnerow
prohle:ns arising if the parties involved do not
snare an understanding, It is easy anri tempting
for researchers, particularly if they are inexperi-
em;ed, to underestimate the amount of time and
energy needed for a project. Consequently, they
may "overcommit" in terms of what they can
deliver tD the fander. They must consider carefdly
what it is r..asor.ab:e to provide for the funding
received, the:1 make this explicit lo the funder.
Iime frames should be placed on each de:iverable
so tl:at both parties are aware of what will be
prod.:ced and when it can be expectec.
As we have seen, obtaining fundi:ig c:eates a
research relationship to build during the co:iduct
of the research, namely that betweeu :he funder
and the researcher. All funding bodies re.:;uire
:eports about die prn!!ress of funded projects.
When commur:ka:ing and reporting to ,he
funder, which often ir:volves reporting to an
individual no:ninated by the funder, it is i:npor-
cant fur researchers to be honest and up front.
This particularly applies if something has "gone
wrong" or if for some reason the research plau has
had to be changed. In my experience, funders
would much rather find out about these tl:bgs as
they arise than be faced at the end with a project
that has not met expectations, The extent of a
funding body's involvement in research can vary
considerably, ranging from the submission of
one or two reports a year to a high! y hands on
approach in which a representative of the agency
seeks to play an active role in the research onder-
taken, 1Nhatever approach is adopted, it is impor-
tant that tl:ere is ciear communication as to the
roles that the resea:d:er and the funder will piay
in the researcl:. lt alsu is important to dar[fy that
if research is being ca:ried out in which partici-
pants will be know11 to the rep:esentative of the
agency, then there may have to be restrictioru on
access to information so as to protect part:ci-
pants' rights to confidentiality. Similarly, i: a fun-
der requires that an advisory board be established
to provide guidai:ce on the progress and direction
of the researd1, it is important to clarify the para-
meters with in which the hoard will operate, Such
boards can be invaluable in assisting with broad
issues pertaining to the substantive focus of the
research. Indeed, many experienced researcl'.ers,
recognizing the value o:' advisory boards in think-
ing thro1.:gh aspects of doing the project, inter-
pretir:g the findings, and t.-onsidering the mutes
for dissemination, may constitute such a board
regardless of fonder requirements, However, dear
understandings must be put in place as to what
acceso, if anv,' 6e hoard can have to s:iedflc sets of
.
information collected in the study, especially if
board merr.bers are connected in any way to the
study site and/or to participants.
All of this high'.ights the careful :bought that
r.mst go into deciding whether w accept money
fron: a particular fi:nder, i'unders., just like
r,esearchers, have motives for wanring research to
be clone. Some ::iodies may be entirely altruistic,
otl:ers less so, So:ne funders, ;;,arlicularl y in the
evaluation area, may be funding research overtly

:o "vindicate policies and p!"..ictices" ( Parahoo,
1991, p. 37), As Guba and Lincoln (l 989) note
wh~n writing abou: evaluation studies, "often
evaluation contracls are issued as requests for
proposals just as re.search contracts are; in this
way, winning evaluators are oftei: those whose
definitior.s of problems, stralcgies, and m.:lhods
o,
exh'.bi: 'fit' with the clients' funders' values"
(p. 124). This is why Boge an and Biklcn (1998)
assert tna: ''You can o:ily a:ford :o do l'Vaiua:ion
or policy research !or, I would add, any funded
form qualitative researd1J if you can afford
no! to do it" ( p. 217). It :s importan: to consider
whether it is possible :o retain integri7y and inde·
pendence as a researcher paid by someone else
or orovided with the support to do research. Key
questions t.o ask are how much freedom will be
lost if sor:ieone else is paying a:id how the
researcher feels about this loss of freedom. It is
important lo remember tbat although "in the
research domair:. the notion of mutua: interesl
licer.ses parmerships between s:ate, college and
industry • . . si:ch relationships merit scrutiny
rather than ar. amiable bEnd faitl•" (Miller, 2003,
p. 899) such as that preached by adherents of
neo liberul thought
It is imporlanr in a research team that team
members share similar approaches to the issues
11:at have been raised. This needs to be discussed
from the outset of the formation of :he team, and
it is just as important :o the smooth funciioni:ig
of the team as the particular expertise each ream
member brings to the project, There mi:.st be trust
among tea :n r.1embers that uedsions made will
be adhered to. Furtherrnore,it is important to talk
abnul how decisions will be made in and about
the team. Who will con:ml the budget? What
happens if there is disagreemei:t about the 'Nay
the research is proceedingr The involvement of a
:l:iird party, namely the funder, makes the need to
be dear abouc: these issues all the more impera
tive. Furthermore, the team needs :o have clear
gJideHnes about who will communicate ',vith the
funder and how. Working with other researchers
offers the advantages of l:avi:ig a team 6at
is r.1ultiskilled and often multidisciplinary in
focus. However, funding inrn:ases the need for
Chcci<: f.unded Resea:-ch 1!l 4m
good rnmmunica:ion :n the team and dear
m:derstandings or ead1 member's mle, both in
terms of :he research itself and in terms of dealing
with fander. Strategies that research tc-ams
can employ to assist in the smooth functioning of
fnndrrl projects include outlining each n:ember's
responsibilities, induding their contribution to the
fi :ial repor:; omwins up timelincs for each r:iember
to adhere to; upholding each members access to
support and fi:.r:ds; and holding regular meetiI:gs
to discuss issues among the team members.
Accepting funding for qualitative research
affects the na:ure of relationships between the
rese-..irch par:kipants and the researcher. Funded
research also can result iu the development of a
new set of relationships, especially those between
the researcher/research team and the funding
agency, along with any other st'.'llctures the fun-
der may wish to put in place, such as advisury
boards. When thee 's dear communication, these
relationsh;ps can enhance fae :esearch effort and
assist its smooth functioning. Huwev;;r, such reia-
tionships cannot be taken for granted am] need to
be worked or: actively by all those involve(i, T':1eir
development i, another pan of the practices and
politics of fuuded qualitative research.
11:!1 6. MAllKETJ)JG RE.SEARCH:
PRACTICES AND P(JLITJCS
The i&c~ues discussed i:1 this chapter have arisen
against the backdrop of an <"'mergent v:ew of
research as a cor:imodity to he traded on an
acac.cmic, and increasingly commercially driven,
mark1:1;,lacc. The late 1990s saw the emergence of
a climate of economic restraint and fundng cuts
by government~ :n :nost Western countries. At
the time of writing this ,.hapter, this trend con-
tinues, with little :ikelihood of it beir.g reversed
or slowing. Flscal restraint has greatly
tb,: avat:abil::y of fundi:1.g for research in that
many funding agencies. particularly govern·
ment departments, no longer :1ave the resources
tu support research to the extent that they once
did. At thr same time, educational institutions
such as universities have experienced cut, to their
 404 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 15
core fuodiog, One of the consequences of such cuts
to univen.ity operating budgets has been the imper•
alive fur staff to be able to generate inc01:1e for the
institution. In some cases, such i::1oome has become
part of academics' salaries; in others, this income
has bee:1 "actored into the operating budget of
the institution to .oav' fur basic resources needed to
continue teaching and research programs.
In Ausm,lia, as elsewhere, concomitantly we
have seen the emerger.ce of increasing regulation
of the university sector, including a rise in the
frequency of pres.;ribed reporting of performance
indicators. We also !:ave seen the emergence and
rise of business development units designed to
manage and sell research. In some divisions of
universities in Australia, the greatest increase in
staffing in the past decade has been in marketing
and business development units. As an academic,
I increasingly find myself in a world like that
described by Brennan 12002), in which research is
rendered out by, and oriented to, bnsiness, indus-
try, and government. Their "!'.c"1-'"' feature
increasingly short time frames for both concuct
ing and reporting on research. 1'his, of course,
mitigates against certain ,ypes of qualitative
research that are viewed as efficient and more
unwieldy. Qualitative research takes time and is
very har.ds-on. The commerdall y driven tender
and business deveiop:nent environment currently
driving much research works against qualitative
research. If the sole object of writing a proposal is
revenue generation, then the research usually will
lack strategic foundation and direction. As Morse
(2U03b) notes, "inadequate time, dearly, will kill a
proje<:t or result ill a project that has not become
all that it could ... he" (p. 846 ). If we are r.ot care·
ful, an effoct of the emphasis on quick research
turnaround and research "deliverables" could be
to encourage the rise of an atheoretical of
qualitative techniques designed for expediency
and framed by reduc:ionist unde:standings of
what qualitative research is and might do.
The contem.porary context in 'flhkh un iversi-
ties and qualitative researc:1ers operate is one
where the "fast capitalis: texts" (Brennan, 2002,
p. 21 of business and management have entered
public discourse, normalizing practices and
understandings funded qualitative research
and the purpose of that research. This, in some
instances, has created a new imperative for
obtaining funding, where the funding rather than
the research has become highly prized, Pt: I
another way, it is possible that what :s becoming
important to some unive:sity administrations is
the amount of funding obtained, rather than the
contribution of the research and its associated
scholarship :o new knowledge and pm.:ilem
solving. In such a climate, there is the poten:ial
to privilege funded research over unfunded
research. There is also the very real possibiE ty
that this environment is viewed as "natural" ar.d
"normal:' We are bombarded with r:1 essages that
we have to become more accountable, efficient,
and effective, with c:ear implications that in the
past research has been inefficient and/or ineffec•
tive and that researchers were unaccountable. But
we r.1ust pause to ask certain questions: Efr1dent
and effective in terms of what? Accountable to
whorn and in terms of 'flhat? It is a relatively
recent phenomenon for research and funding to
be so closely tied 10 the marketplace, and limited
understandings of that market place at that! For
example. in the postwar l:nited States in 1946,
Poiri and Conrad (see Bromley,2002) in the Office
of Naval Research were asked to suggest how the
federal government could support university-
based research without destroying academic
freedom and creativity, which were recognized as
important and integral lo advancing discovery.
Bromley (2002) notes that they came up with
three fundamental principles: (a) Find the best
people in the nat:on on the basis of peer :-ev!cw;
(b) support these individuals in doing whatever
they decided :hey wanted :o do, as they are much
better judges of how best to use their time and
talent than anyone in government; and (c) leave
them alone while they are doing it (i.e., minimize
re:;mrting and paperwork}. Why does this
approach seem so "abnormal" to those of us
working ir. academe ar.d/or research in the early
2000s? Is it because the understandings and dom-
ir.ant forms of the fast texts of the market and late
capitalism have colonizec: research and academic
cultures to such an extent that we cannot imagine

that a situation such as the one Bromley described
not only existed but was actively promoted, only a
few decade&ago?
V.'hat thls highlights is that at any point in
history, certain understandings will be at the fore.
Which understandings prevail results from the
power of particular groups at any one time to pro-
mote their frames of discourse to the exclusion or
marginalization of 0U1ers (Foucault, 1977}. If Poiri
and Conrad were to make :heir suggestions now,
they would be marginalized, talked about as
"dreamers;' and told to ope::ate in the "real world"
by many administrators. Of course, we may well
cispule how Poiri and Conrad defined am: opera-
tionalized sor:ie of their categories, such as "best
people" and ''peer review;' but their assertions are
useful for highlighting how far we have moved in
:erms of the ways of thinking and speaking that
are afforded mainframe status in many research
texts in the contemporary research context. The
discourse of the market is preeminent.An effect of
this is changing control over the conditions and
activities of researchers, who increasingly are
being viewed as workers selling their labor and
research ;>roducts. It is the market, not necessarily
peers, that determines the worth of research, and
even what research wil: be done. Furthermore, this
marketplace is tightly regulated in terms of the
means of ob:a:ning funding, what actually is
funded, the way research performance is assessed,
and the reporting that researchers must do both
about their research and the way that they use
their time ir. general. Such regulation codifies our
knowledge, reducing it to key performance indica
tors such as number of publications or number
of research dollars obtained, thereby diverting
attention from «more productive and educational
uses of our :ime" (Bre:man, 2002, p. 2). Emerging
trends show academics, for example, being forced
t,, estimate costs for every activity a1,d being told
that activities for which they do not get paid
directly should not be undertaken. Mentoring,
thinking time, community service, and unfunded
research are so!Ile of the potential casualties of
such reductionist discourse.
So, too, is scholarship. Scholarship increasingly
has come to be associated with na:rowly defined
Cheek: Funded Research Ill 405
research outcomes, including the number of
journal articles published, funding received, or
conference papers presented (Cheek,2002). These
measures inevitably are numeric anc. relative.
Thus, institutional Lists of "top researchers are
drawn up on the basis of numeric scores, worked
out using complicated formulae designed to con•
vert researc~ ideas, and scholarship into measur -
able throughput. What becomes in: portant is
the score, not how the score was cakulated or the
assumptions underlying it. It doesn't matter if a
researcher's funding is mostly for an expcnsh-e
piece of equipment; that researcher will score
higher than, and "rank above;' a qualitative
researcher who may have acquired funding for a
number of projects. In these formdae, publica-
tions also are converted to points and dollars.
Morse (20O2a), in keeping with many editors of
scholarly journals, bemoans the fact that in sub-
missions to the journal of which she is editor,
Qualitative Health Research, she sees an tncreas•
ing prevaler.ce of what she calls atheo,etkal arti-
cles that are "sha\:ow, thin and insignificant ... it
is the worst of qualitative inquiry" (p, 3), Morse
describes a form of jou~nal submissim: that is
almost formulaic, "trite:' and goes on to assert
that "a few commer.ts do not an article make''
(Morse. 2002a, p.4). ¼'by the emergence of such a
trend now? Could it be a:i effect of the imperative
to publish and that what counts (literally) is the
rmmbtr of articles, not thrir content, just as what
oounts is the amount of research money, and not
what it funds?
Historically, there has always been a place for
both funded and unfunded research universi-
ties and elsewhere. Some types uf research simply
have not required funding, yet have been able to
produce significant contributitms to knowledge
for which they have been valued. Furthermore,
research serves a variety of purposes. On one
hand, it can be carried ou: to investigate a well-
defined issue or problem arising in a specific area
or field, and on the other it cau be LUnducted to
probe or explore wha: the issues migh, be in the
first place. Research also can be carried out
simply for the pleasure of investigating new and
different ways of thinking about aspect, of our
 406 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARC:1-CEAPTER 15
reality: Some research projects might !ncorpocarc
all uf the .1bovc. In other wo,ds, just as there are a
variety of research approaches and associa:ed
techniques, so there are a range o::' purposes for
which research r:light be carriec out Each
research project has its own intended audience,
w~o will n:lale to the ass:Jmptions framing the
problem to be investigated as embedded within
that piece of rc-.q•l'A en· However, with the impera •
tive for acaderr. ks to generate income, the:-e has
been a subtle, ,11:d at times not so subtle, shift in
thinking toward valuil:g research that is fonded
more highly than research that is not. Given th:,,
the question rnn be asked as to whether we are
seeing the taking l:o:,i of what Derrida [ l 97 /}
terms a binary oppus't!on with respect to funded/
unfunded re;earch,
Derrida ( 1977) hold~ that any positive
representatinn of a concept in language, such as
"funded research;' rests on the negative represen-
tation of lrn "opposite," in this case, i:r funded
research. In a binary opposition, there is always a
dom ir:an! or prior tern:, and co:iversei y there b
always a subordinate or sr:condary term. For
exa:nple, consider such commor: hinary op:xisi-
t:m:s as masculine/feminine and reason/emotior:.
I:1 case, t:ie first named term is given p:-iority
over the second, wh:ch is often defined in termi- of
"not" the dominant However, as noted elsewhere,
"the def: nitiomal dynari: ic exte:ids to r~e primary
lerm as well i:t that it nm only sustain its defini·
tion hy reference to tr:e secondarv tcrrn, Thus tl:e
definition and status of the primary term is :r: fad
maintained by the negation and opposition of the
secondary partner" (Cheek, Sboc:1ridge, Willis,
Zadoroznyj, ]996, p, 189), Derrida (1977) poillts
o;;t that bina:y oppo;;itions arc constructions of
certain wcddviews: they arc not natural givens
that can be taken fur granted. In the i:istance of
funded/unfunded research, it is important to rec·
ognlzc that there is a binary opposition in opera-
tion and to explore both how it has come to be and
how it it. maintained, An in:eresting way to com•
n:cnce such an ex;,loratkm is to rewrsr the bii:ary
pairing a:1d nore the effect Wha: is the effect on
the way research is viewed and ur-derstood if
unfunded ,esearch assumes primacy and fundec
research becomes the secondary or derivative
term?
In a dimate where fu ndeC: research assi.; mes
ever increasing importance, the power of funding
agencies to set research agendas has increased
markedly. As Parahoo (1991) noted more tnan a
de01de ago, successful researcher is somcti mes
defined by the ability to 111tract funds, ;me most
rcseaxhers knmv that in order :t, do so one must
submit pa1posals m: subjects which s11onsors are
prepared to spend mone}· on. T:1:s can mtan
t!ie real issues that concern praclitioners a:,;
sometimes igr:ured" (p. 371, What has changed i:1
the past dec-.1de is that it is no longer lhe casr ::m1
successful re~earchers are "sometimes" defined
in th :s way, b1t rather thal :hey "usually" or "nor•
mally" are. We S!'r in play here "new neo-liberal
notions of the performing professional" (Shore &
Wright, 1999, p. 569).Although it is not nmeason-
able that s::>onsor, shoulc be a:,I,; 10 fund research
that is rekvanl lo them, a problem a,ises if fu:1ds
are not available for resl',m::her-initiated research
that addresses questions that h,ive arisen from the
fie'.d, If funding alone drh,es research agi;:idas,
then this may infringe 0:1 the "cadem ic freedom
of researche:-s to pursue topics of importrnce
and interest As Porter ( '. 997) notes, "pressure is
~he:e~ore exerted on ar:adcm i cs to tailor their
work in order :o meet the requiremen:s of
funders" (p. 655). Creativity may be sacrificed
fo, expeciency, in that somt: rt:seard1 topics will
have more curre:icy Iha n others in terms of
their likeliness to attract fo::idfng. Drawing o:i
Mills ( 1959), Stoesz (1989} o·:iscrvcs that "to
the ex:e:1t that this ha ?Pens. an enormous
problem emrrges-social science [rea<l qualita•
tive research: becomes a commodity, the nature
of wh:ch is defined by the bureai.:cracies of ,he
corporate and governmcnt;tl secton;" (p. 122).
The emerging emphasis on fonded rcse1;1rch,
in terms of its 2hUty to p:oduce income for insti·
tut ions, has in mv opinion seen t:ic emergence of
research as a commodity to be bought and sol<l 011
the research r, m·k<'t lnforma:ion and data from
research ?roJects are seen as a "product" m he
traded ori tnis market and sold to the big:iest
b[dde:-. Researchers incxasingly find the:usclves

struggling with tl:e nften competing demands of
research as the generation of new knowledge,
against research as a ;;or:rnmdity to :ie traded in
the ma~ke:place. Such a struggle is exacerbated by
a trend in which tht' ;,ct of wi:ming fund bg for
research i, itself viewei: as a cu m:m::y to be traded
in :he academic markel place, ro r exa:nple, p:n
motion and tenure committees in many univer·
sities are influenced by :he amount of fonding
received as a i:1eas·Jre of research success. T"tis
has the effect of maintaining the binary opposi•
tlon of fa:i ded/unfunded research, in that per for
mance ln terms of funded re-search i;; vabed,
while the abse:1ce of fi:nding-that unfutded
research-is :mt The idea of research beir.g
perceiwd as a commodity, along with the trend
to privilege tu nded research over s::1funded
research, poses sor:,e particuk1r dilemmas for
qualitative ~esearchers. For instance, it is still true
that most funding is attracted by research
pro~ects using traditional scientific methods. This
means that it i~ relative! y hare.er to obtain fundi:ig
for qualitative researc':1. If success in obtainbg
funding is used, rightly or wrongly, to m<'asure
perfonnance and to pt:: a value on research. thrn
there is a teal danger that qualitative research
could be :narginali7.ed because it is nol as easy
to attract fu mb :J sing qualilath·e approaches.
A[ of this b 10 ·:)ring in:o sharp focus some
fr ndamc:1t2l questions with which qualitative
rese,m:hers need to grapp'.e. These questions relate
lo the background assumptions about research
and research performance that are driving many
research agendas and researd1ers. Assumptions
about how resea,ch pertormance is :neasurcd and
valued :wed 10 be exposed. ';'hey can then be con•
sidered and explored in terms of the effect they
iave on notions what research is and what
thi;; nature of a research produc: sho:i'.d be.
Fu :u:ing is important in t:1<1t i1 enables research tu
he carried out that olherw ise would not occur
becaJse of resourcr constraints. It is not funding
itself that is the issue !:ere; ratl:er, it is the uses to
which the of gaining funding is being ?U;,
apart from enablii1g a specific piece of research to
pmcccd. l am aol arguing against funded qudita-
ti\•e research-far from it! Whal J am si:ggesting is
Check: Funded Research a 4tl7
tmit researchers need lo think about their own
assnmptio:!I, about funded re,rarc:1 and how such
as,umptio:1s have em bedded, within them, many
taken-for-granted! about the nature of research
and research products in what is increasingly
bcco:ning a research marketplace.
Iii 7. PRACTICES AND Pourcs
BEYOND THE "fIND A:-Jll
REPLAC!c" FU"ICTION KEY
Doing funded qualitative research ls not a net:tral
and value-free activity. Researchers must con
stantly exarr:ine their motives for doing research
and tl:e motives of fonding bodies in fonding
research. This is particu'.arly imporiant in a con-
:ext in which new forms of neo-Jibenll rational•
ity are cmerg:ng, defining ttte performance,
worth, and mission of researctt, researchers, and
the institutions in whkh Lhey work. In writing
this chapter, I am advucating suspended read·
ings. S,~ch readings suspend notions of funded
research and attend ant practices and mg.u: i-
zations, ,ud1 as fnndi:1g panel, and ethics rn:n-
mitte(;s, in order to take another look at what
otherwise become taken-for-granted parts of tl:e
fund ine, process, This other look begins by
exploring the origins of understandings ~haping
research, and parttculurly funded qualitative
research, :iow these 11nderst andi r:gs are m,; in-
lained, ,me what this reveals about the ::ontcxt in
which researchers operate. I am not advocating
that we :eplace one set of understandings with
another, bu! rati:.er that we recog:1ize, what
they are, current trends and i~.mes in the politics
and practice of funded qualitative researdi, so
that we might best position oursclve~ in relation
to !hem. Questions we r.eed to ask o·.1rsdves
include following: Can we accept and live with
the te:u,ions and contradictions posed lo us as
funded qualitative rcsc<1rd1ers in the n'alit 7· in
whicr. we live and work every day? w:1at should
we defend, and what m'ght we give up' How do we
res;:,o:1d to the enterprise culture of neo-li:;eraEsm
incrcasir.gly so :ierva sive in cvc:-y aspect of the
 408 111 EANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP:'ER 15
re;;eard; processi In all of this, a key question and
challenge is how :o avoid being always located at
the margins, as the "faint voice" (Morse, 2002b,
p. 1308) in fund! ng panels or funding received, in
order that qualitative :esearch can be viewed as
legitimate and mainfrnn:e.
There are no easy answers to these questions.
Tl:e position ta ke:1 hy each of us as individuals
will be different. Wru~: is important is that this
conversation is held and that fae inherer:t politi-
cal nature funded quali:ative research is sur-
faced a:1 d cx?lo~ed, This chapter has p,ovided a
lens to bring into focus issues concerning the reg-
ulation a:id production of for:ns of knowledge,
through !)ractices associated with, ar;d arising
fro:n, the funded research process, How qualita•
live researchers respond to the imperatives that
confronl them every day, and to the imperatives
for political act1 on that emanate from the discus-
sion herd n, will go a lo:ig way in determining
wl:at the future holds for qualitative research
itself and its positioning, either mainframe or at
the margi:ls, T:1e identities that we ind:vidually
want as q1:alitative researchers must be embed•
ded ln all facets of ou, research endeavors, includ-
ing :he seeking, acquisitlon, and use of fumis
to support that research. We nust avoid atheo-
retical pragmatic types of qualitative research
techniqi:es err:erging as synonymous with under
standings of funded (or fundabk) qualitative
resrarch. Instead, it will be increasbgly important
to promote theoretically and politically robust
qualitative research. For me, this is fae key cl:al •
knge facing qua Iitative research as ii becomes
"more accep:ed" into the funcing fold. Such
acceptance can :ie a double-edged sword for the
u:1wary and could see a subversion of all that we
have worked to establish if we are r..ot on our
gnard. l:1 a] of this, I reiterate that funding itseif
is nnt the problem-funding is useful as a:.
enable, of qualitative researd:. Prob~ems arise
if funding becomes the end, ra:her than the
means, and qualitative research (or a variant
thereof) is subvrrted to the expedient end of
gaining that funding. The choice is ours, both
individually and co]ective:y, as to which of these
positions we adopt
• REFERENCES
Bogdan, R. C,, & Bilden, S, / I 99S), Qualirative
research in education; An inlrodu,tion to theory
and method, Beston: Allyn and Bacm:,
Brem:an, M. (2002), The politic$ and practicalities of
grassroots research in educatltm. Retrieved May 15,
2002, from www.staff.vu.edu.a•J/alnarcfforum/
ma:ie_brennan,html
Bromley, D.A. (2002). Science, technology.and i;iclitics.
Teehnolol{)! in Society, 24, 9-26.
Carey, M. A,, & Swanson, J. A, (20{]3}. Funding for qual-
itative research, Quaiitat ive He.ii th Research,
13(6),852-856,
Cheek, J, (2000). A:1 untold Story'? Doing funded quali-
ta,:•;e research. In N. K. Denz':1 & Y, S. Lincoln
(Eds,), Handbook ofqualitative research (2nd ed.•
pp. 40 I -420 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheek,J, (2002).Advanc:ng what? Qualitative research,
scholarship, and the research ::nperativc. Quali-
tatiw: Health Research, 12(11), 1130-J 140.
Cheek, J., Shoibridge, )., \'\Tilli:;, E., & Zadoroznyj, M.
(1996 J. Society and health: Social theory far heal,'1
workers. Melbourne: I.ong:nan Australia J>ty
Limited.
Derrida, J (1977). Ofgrammau,Jogy, Ballimore: Johns
Hopkins Ur::ve~sity Press,
Foucau'.t, W:. (: 977). Discipline ,md punish. London;
Penguin.
Guba, G. M,, & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Eth ks ar:d pol itks:
The twin failures of positivist sc:erice. In Fourth
genera/ion evaluation (pp, 117-141), Newb11ry
Park, Cit Sage,
Kent, G, (1997). The views :nembers of local
research eth:cs committees, re~earchers and
members of the public towards the roles and
functior.s of LRECS, Journal of ,'11edical Elh,r:.s,
23(3), 136-190
Kres,, G. (: 985). Linguistic proces,es ilt socio-cu/ti.ml
practice. Victoria, New South Wales: Deakin
t.:niversity Press.
La.;ey, E. A, (1998 ), Social and medical research ethics:
Is the:-e a difference! Social Sciences ir, He~ith,
4(4),
Lidz, C. W, & Ricci, Funding large-scale
E. (I 99Q ),
qualitatilie sociology. Qua/irative Soci.ilogy, 13(2),
I,,,-·"'"·
L:ncoh:, Y. 5., & Tier::ey, W. (2002, April). "What we
have here is a failure to commu11iw.te . , .":
Qualitari1te research and institutfom1I review

boards. Paper presented a: annual meeting of
the American £duational Research Associa;i;;n,
J\ev. Orleans, LA.
Martin, fl ( 20011 ). Res,Y.J.rch grants: Problems and
oplions. Ausrralian Universities lkview, 2• . 7-22.
Miller, I (2003 ). Guvcrnmentality or commodifka-
lion? US higher edm::alion. Cultural Studies, 17(6),
89}-90!,,
Mills, C. W. (1959). J'.~e sod11logia1I imugina!ian.
New York: Oxford L'niv.:rsiry Press.
!,forse, J. (2002a). Editorial A comment on com[;lcll!S.
(Jualitalil'e flea/th Researd1, 12(1 ), 3-4.
Morse, J. (2002::). Myth Qualitative research is
cheap. Q!llliitative ilea/th Re.-earch, 12( LO),
1307-1308.
Morse, I. (2003a). The adjudication of cuali;iltivepropos ·
als. Qualitative Health Resear,:h, fJ(6), 739-742.
Mors<', J. (2003b ). A review commillee's guide for
uating quaiblive propusa:s. Qualita!he ilea/II:
.~esean}i, 13(6), 833-!15 l.
Parahoo, K. (!'l9i). Politks am\ ethics in nursing
:esean::h. Nursing Standard, 6( I),
Parnhoo, K. (2003 ). S,1uare ;ieg~ in round holes:
Reviewing qualital i,e resear,h proposa:s. /mirnaf
ofOinical Nursing l2, 155-157.
i'mter, S. (1997 ). The dcg:adatinn of Ih1.: academic
dogma. Jou ma/ ofAdvanced .Vursi:11g, 655-656.
Ram,haran, P., & C.itcliftc, J. It (2001). Jud1Jing the
cthks ot ,;ualitative researc'l: Conside,ing the
"ct:iics as prrn::rss" model. flea/th and Social Care
in 1h,: Commur:ity, 9( 6), '.\58-366.
Cheek: Funded Research Ill ·\09
Ritsr:ian, n (2002, J\ovcmbe,/December). Reviewing
social research. CJumge, pp. 9- 1(l.
Rllwan,J. (2000). Researd: cthics. lnternationa{ Journal
u/Psydmthert7I')\ 5(2), l Dj-111.
Sachs, L ( 1996 ). Causalil t, res;ionsibility an,I blame-
core issm,s in the ,·ultural con~tructiun ;,;:;d sub·
text of prevention. So,:iology ,if H,,aith and Illness,
18(5), (l.lZ-65L
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (I 999 ). Audit cultnre and
anthropology: 'Jeo-liberali,m in llr::isl1 higher
education. Journal of the Roya/ tlntlirupulogical
lnstiiuw,
Sloe,;z, D. !1989). Provo.:atinn un lhc politics of govern-
ment funded r<:search: Part l. Socia/ Fpistemolog;;
4( I), 121-123.
Stuart, G. (200: ). Are you old t::iough? Research ethics
ar.d ym:11g people. Youth Sl!idies Austr11Jia, 20{ 4),
34-3Y.
Summers, I. (2003). The (;runt!iearr:h ragister of
,lustralian funding. Per:h, WA: GrantSeard1 .
Torres, C.A. (2002). The state, priv~tisalion a11d educa-
Linnal pulic y: A ,~itique: of neo•li'itralism in '..a tin
America and snme ethical political implica
tions. r:ampu.rative E.zucatiot:, 38, 4), .u,:,-;13::,,
van den Hoonaiml, W. C, (2001 ). l, rcscarcr-etnic;;
review a moral par, id Ca11adim1 lkv:ew af
Sociology and Ant.~rapo!cgy, 381 l ), :9- 36.
Zagury, C. .S. ( 1997). Grant writing: :he uncertain rond
10 funding, Part V. From the other side: How
reviewers look at pro;iosals. Allernaliw Heaft/;
Practirform; 3( I;, 25-29.
16
PERFORMANCE
ETHNOGRAPHY
The Reenacting and Inciting of Culture
Bryant Keith Alexander
P
erformance ethnography is literally the
staged re-enactment of ethnographically
derived notes. This approach to studying
and staging culture works toward lessening tht gap
between a perceived and actualized sense of sel!
and the other. This is accomplished through the
union and practice of two distinct and yet inter-
related discip\l nary formations-performance
studies and ethnography. Practitioners of perfor-
mance ethnography acknowledge the fact that
culture travels in lhe stories, practices, and desires
of those who engage it By utilizing an experiential
method such as performance elhnography, those
who seek understanding of other cultures and
lived experiences are offered a body-centered
method of knowing, what Dwight Conquergood
( 1986a) calls a dialogical understanding in which
"the act of performance fosters identification
between dissimilar ways of being w:thout reducing
the other to bland sameness, a projection of the
performing self" (p. 30 ).
Peiformance studies, in its most procedural
sense drawn from its link to communication stud-
ies, is interested in what PeliacS (1999a} calls "the
process of dialogic engagement with one's own
and others' aesthetic communication :hrough the
means of performance" (p. 15). Ethnography, bits
most utilitarian sense, is what Spradley and
McCurdy (1972) refer to as "the task of describ-
ing a particular culture" (p. 3}. a broad-based
description of performative praxis, performance
ethnography is a form of cultural exch«nge (Jones,
2002), a performative cross-cultural communica
tion (Chesebro, 1998), an embodied criti'cal per
formative pedagogy (Giroux, 2001; Pineau, 1998,
2002; Worley, 1998 ), and a theater form that estab-
lishes emancipatory potential (Mienczakowski,
1995; Park-Fuller, 2003). Performance edmog-
raphy is also a method of putting the critical socio-
lngicai and sociopoUtical imagination to work in
understanding the politics and practices that shape
h111T1an experience (Den;i:in, 2003 J.
Within the explanatory frame of this chapter
title, I make the strong suggestion that per-
formance ethnography is a:id can be a strategic
method of inciting culture. The collaborative
power of performance and ethnography utilizes
an embodied aesthetic practice coupled with the
descriptive knowledge oflives and the conditions
of living, to stir up feeling and provoke audier.ces
II 4H
 a HANDBOOK OF Q~TAU'TATIVE R:::5£ARCll-CH,\PTER 16
to a critical soda: rt>alization and possible
response. This sod al action to which I rctcr here
briefly is not necessarily that which is ~c: into
violent motion lo overthrow domir:ant structures
of oppression: It is a physical force Slot against
lhe desire of knowing and being in the world.
The potentia; for ,oci.!I action rrsi<les at the
core of how partfcipanis in and audiences of
performa:1ce etl:trngraphy see themselves in
relation to utl:ern. The potential rt:sides in how
they understand the act of pe:for ming the lives
of others, as synec<loche :o the largrr politics of
reprrsrntation and identity race, culture,
dass, gender, The ::,otent:al lies in revealing
issues of who gets :o speak and for whom, linkt:d
with the p(,/itics of culture :ha: regula:e what
elements llf culure are featmed or suppressed
(\.\'hisnai:t. l983 ). The potential resides in '1 ow
participants choose to maintain or disrupt the
perceptual tha: exis:s within their hobitudes
and habitus, and how they might act toward i1:flu-
encins soda! awareness nf pmb;ematic human
conditions that r:rny be revealed or explored
through performance erhr.ogra?t:y,
For some, the notion of overthrowing structures
,if' oppressitJn m:ght H:em farfetched and beyond
the traditional of performance ethriogrn;;hy,
yet ll1enries and pr.tctkes in hoth pcrformar_ce
slmiies and theater arts r.ave hee11 r.1oving steadily
toward the social and political t!Oals of employing
?frformance as a tool and me:hod of cult:J:-al
awareness and social change. Such a cha::ge and
application has been made in the particularity of
praclices in traditional am: nontraditional perfor-
mance arenas, as well as planting the srrds of
social activi\m in !he classroom with futurr the-
ater and ?erformance practitioners. S'JCh attempts
seek to frame performance as a critical rej1ective
and refractive lens :o view the human condition
and a form of rt;flexiYe agency that initiates action.
Performance t:llmography uses theater to illumi-
nate cultural politics and to :nstill :rnderstam: i:1g
with :he potential to invoke change and have a
pos::ive effect on the livec'. conditions of self and
others (Boal, 1979, 1995, 1998; Dolan, 200la,
2001b; Park-1'1.:Jer. 2003; Sdmtzman &: Cohen
Cr:iz, 1994; Spry, 200:; Van Erven, l993).
The positim:' ng of aucience members as
agents in the prodJction of c;iltural n:eaning
pkct:s a mandate, if rmt a culpability, on audience
members to act as social agenls. rt requires them
to both interact with the performa:m: and to
e:1gngc in the imaginath•e, yet practical, act of
;;:rcatir:g new possibilities of human interaction
in the manner in which such cxperi ence could be
transla led into their daily Ii vcs ( flollock, 1998n ). In
this sense, the power ;;r:d potcnqr of performr:nce
ethnogmp'iy residc-s in the demand that a prrfor-
mancr text :n;ist not only "awaken moral sens:bi 1-
::ies. lt must n:ove the other and the self to act' on''
(Uenzin, 1997, p. Kili), The power and potential uf
p.:rformance ethnography resides in :he empathic
and cm ho died engagement of other ways of know-
ing tha: heightens pmsibility of a"1ing ·Jpon
!:le humanistic i mpulsc to tmnsform the world.
discussing performa:ice e:hnograpn;· :n the
second edition of the i!,mdb,n,k of Qualitative
Research, .vlichal M. McCall ;20110) did a flne job
of focusing ill:enl:on on the foundational issues
of pc-rforma11ce ethnograp:1y-likc tndng a
conceptual :-iistory of perfo:mam;e through
rut-.irism, :Jadaism, Surreal ism, and varying
ex::>erimrntal forms. She th,:n provided concrete
exar:ip:es of performance ethnography with tips
on cast] ng, directing, a n<l staging dr:1rwn from a
vH:-iety of schola:-practitio:1ers (Becker, McCall, &
Morris, 1989; Con4uergood, I ':lllS, 1988; Denzin,
l 997; McCi.l, 1993; Mienaakowski, 2001: Paget,
1990; Pollock, 1990; Richardson, I997; Siegel &
Conqnergood, 1985, 1990; Smith, l 993, 1994).
In many ways, th is chapter should be used as a
com;:ianion to McCall's efforts ill exter:ding the
scope of performance ethnography.
This chapter outl 'r:es and detai1s the philosoph-
ical contingencies, procedural :iragmatics, peda-
gogical possibilities, ao<l political pn:cntiaE, 1es
of perfiJrmance ethnograpfiy. The chaprer :1ecessar-
ily pushes and expands thr :io:ders a:1<l ways of
thinking about performance ethnography, yet the
basic approach of Jield research, dat.t collr:ct10n,
script formulation, and perfonnan.:e should not he
overshadowed by other concerns. The value of prr-
fo,ming etl:nographk mate:ial~ from the field may
he for pedagogical or representational purposes

(Van 'vlaanen, 1995), which might br:ng additional
value that circulates around critical and cdtJ:'al
research, political activism, and social change, In
these ways, the chapter ser•:cs as a gu:de to those
'Nho seek to understand how performance etl:nog-
raphy is an embodied epistemology and how
performance ethnography ca:1 become a way of
engaging a critical cultural discourse,
!Ill I. P.:l.ACTl!-:AL A'lxrTERS A\/D
PUILOSOPEICAI. Coi,,;T,NGENC!ES
In a literal sense of the aphorisn: "walking a mile
in sor:1eone else's shoes;' performance ethr:ogra-
phy most ofleu 1:ntails an emboded experience of
the cultural practices of :he other. This vrncfa:e
has the introt of allowing the participant~ in and
ai:dience the pr rfor:mmce the op_?o:1ur:ity to
::omr: to know culture differeritly. In the first pm•
tion of this section, l offer a practical pedagogical
a~~ign ment in performance ctl:nography. ln the
subsequent snh,cctions, 1 use that exa rn ;ile as a
way of teasing m:r wl:at I consider :o be some of
the disdplinar}; philosophical, themetkal, and
methodological promises and pi1falls of c:1gaging
perfor ma nee ethnography,
A. Performing Ethnography/
Performing Street Vendors
£11 response to a classroom assignment in a
300-level performance studies class, a student
group consisting of three men and ~o women
focus on migrant streetsidc vrndors. In the Los
Ar.gel cs area, there is a large number of most:y
immigrant Mexican street vendors, male and
female. who stand on the entrances and exits of
maju1 interstates and highways selling everything
from bagged ora:1gcs, cherr'.el>, and peanuts to
flowers, handmade caltural a:-tifacts, and clothing.
The students in this group c1nd1:ct eth:1og~aph ic
interviews and engage in practical assistance
under the guise of participant-observation to get a
sense of what that experi;;nce is like and a better
sense of those who engage these practices.
]n their performance, the students each carry
a commodity that thry sell :o the audie:1.:e, They
A:exander: Perforrr.ance Ethnography 111 1·:
walk :n a choreograpned circle around the room
hawkir:g their items :n a sym.:o?ated rhythm that
mirrors the persister.re of lhe street vendors, sor:1e
of whom closely approach vehicles in tra:'fic like
the seated students in class, Ir ying to init:ate a
purchase. At varying points, the circulating cara•
van stops and a ?articular ,tudent in the character
of lhe vencor takes center stage and share, a pe-
sor:al narrative. The narratives-actual,compile(!,
and conslructed'-drewn from the interviews
reveal t:le conditions under which the street ven·
dors labor. ''"hey latmr ur:der the heat of the: day,
They ern.1Junter police officers who chase them
away :rom certain areas and rude drivers who
throw things at ther:1, spit on them, or lure them
with the chance of pl1rchase and then speed away,
They endure suppliers wlm overcharge :he:11 for
their goods or S\¥indle therr: kr.owing that mosr of
them arr illegal aliens and will not press police
charges. And they experience tl:c o.:casional
kindness fro:n mntori~ts,
The narratives are delivered through
sioned voices, in :ipar.ish ai:d with Sp;inish
accents, then translated by another vendor
(student ?erformer). '!'he na,ratives reveal tht
ma'.jple reasons for which the vendors cume :o
t~is circumstance: Some work to Send money
hack to their fam:Jes in ,V.exico or 7fl snpport
their families !:ere in the United States. Some are
trapped in a type of slave labor with the coyotes
(s:nugglers of human chattel from Mtxko) who
helped them cross the border. Others labor
because they !:ave no other marketable skills.
Through :ne performance and written reflective
essays, the studetts articulate and claim a new
undcr,tanciing of the lives of particular others.
The ei:orts of ~treer vendors are not seen as
what is casually assumed or asserted to br their
culture, but acts of survival and si:stcmmcc
g::ounded in their current pre&camenl and Lhei ~
relation :o space, place, am: time.
The student performance is a dialugic ~:1gage-
ment in which they extend the vokcs of the other
into the specialized place of public access, the
classroom. The performance serve;; as product
and process, a performative representation of their
knowing, a starling puint ot their under::tanding,
414 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 16
and a :nethod of engaging others in the issues
tha: unde::gird cultural experience. In th:s partic-
ular example, performance ethnography helps in
establishing a c;itical site, an instance in which
embodied experience merts social and theoretical
knowing to establish a critical dialogue between
researcher-performers and observers {Ga;oian,
1999, p. 67). It is the S?ecificity of the project, the
partici::arity of the culture represented, and the
u.mteKI the performance in the classroom that
affords the O?pornmity for dose scrutiny.
B. Performance Studies,
Performance, and Performativity
Performance studies as a disciplinary forma-
tion often defies det:nition-in the way in which
definitions codify and categori,,e, as well as capti;re
and contain, that which they seek to describe-
thereby limiting its reach and srope. Bormwbg
gem:rously from communication studies, sociol-
ogy, rultuml st:Jd ies, ethnography, anthropology,
and theater, among other areas, performance
studie, explores and considers a wide range of
human 1u:tivity 11s t;:,;prtssion. Richard Schechner
(1Ytl8} states, "rhe subjects of performance
studies are hoth what is performance and the
performative-and the myrlac contact points
and ovrrlaps, tensions and loose spots, separat•
ing and connectir.g these categories" 362).
In other words, perfornumce pivots on the
enacted :iati;re of human activity, t:'le socialized
and sh iftir.g norms of human sociality, ar.d the
active processes of human sense-making.
In the preceding example of the street vendors,
performance is engagrd as an imetpretive event
of cultural practice. Performance involves scripts
social discourse constructed with intention and
:>erfurmed by actors in Hie company of particular
audieru::es. The :-elated concept of performativity
:-eterem:es the s:ylized repetition of communicat:ve
acts. linguistic and corporeal, that are :;odally vali•
cated and discursively established in the moment
of the pei:formance (Butler, 19Y0a, 1990b, 1993).
Through the example, students use these related
terms in :he range of perfo:mance studies to
explore the fundamo:r.tal notion of hu'Tian behavior
as perfurmative-as .socially constructed, enacted,
eme:gent, repeatable, and subversive.
Performarivity becomes the soda] and cultural
dynamic that extends and exposes the import of
repetitive human activity. Tb:: students use these
constructs to acknowledge and engage the study
of human nature as ':mth an issue of being and
doing. to explore soda! structure and human
agency as mutually constimted, and that the
recursive nature of ml rural play can produce
unintended and intended consequences. This
aliows us to see social action as moments of
broader power relations !bat can be illuminated,
interrogated, and intervened, if not transformed
(Bhabha, 1994; Dia • ond, 1996; Langelller, 1999).
One version of performance studies sees its
shif: or evolution fro:n the study o:: literary texts
through oral interpretation1 to a broader construc-
tion of text as the scope of ci:::ural practice and
articulated human expression. This then moves
from an exclusive focus on text to comexr-such
as analyses of religious rituals, wedding cere•
monies, sporting events, and particular :ulti.:ral
practices such as t!:iose of the street vendors in I.be
student example. Th:s approach valorizes diverse
episte:nologiral paradigrr.s In which tlie role of
artist-actor is expanded to :ndude all social
beings as performers. The focus of study shifts
from an exclusive emphasis on canonical texts
to ,ult1.:ral practices in everyday life, especially a
focus 01: historically ma;ginalized groups.
These variations ground performance studies'
privileging of three concer:1s. First is an a;:,precia-
tion fur the aesthetic/creative nature of hurr:an
expression across borders of text, context, and
embodied practice.' Second is a focus on the body
as a site of knowing and showing,5 hence what
Conquergood (1998) distinguishes as "s:ruggles
to recuperate the saying from the said, to put
mobility, action, and agency back into play"
(:i. 3I). Tbin: is an interest in ethnography as a
critical method of observii:l:l and st:.idy Ing the
performative nature of cultural prac:ice.
This signals what some have cobed as the
cultural tum in performance studies (C'haney,
1994; Conquergood, l998; Pollock, :998d; Strine,
1998 ), or what Victor Turner (l 982 l refers to as
the perform,itivi· ,md refl~xiVe tum anthropology.
In such ..:ases, there is an intense focus on the ways
in which cultare is perforrr:ance practice, sedi-
mrntcd as norms of sociability, Thus le both the
cu\tura 1 mm in performance studies and the
perforrnativc and reflexive turn in anthropology,
there is a move to put culture bark into motion
(Rosaklo, 1989, p. 91 ). By perfur:ning empirical
materials derived through ethnugraphk practice
researche,s as perforrr.ers, and the audiences of
such performative research are afforded a more
intimate understa:iding of cultu,e.
ln this way, performance becomes not only
embodied p,actice but a:so explanatory metaphor
for huma:i engagement, and perfor • ativity
becomes the everyday practice o[ redoing what it
done (Po]ock, 1998h). The act.uil sense of
other is derived through embodied txperiencc of
the other's cultura; practice. In th:s way, as Peggy
Phelan ( l 998) states, "Pcrfor:nance and per~
for:11ativity arc h:aided :ogether by virtue of iter-
ation; the copy renders perforrr,a:,cc authentic
and allows thr spectator to :ind in the per:brmer
'prei.ence,' Presence can he had o:ily through t:ie
citation of authenticity, through refere:ice to
so:nething (we have heard) called ':ive"' 0° have
seen called life (p. 10). Hence, in performance
ethnography the tex:ual subject becomes the
empirkal subject, allowir.g perforn:ers and audi-
ences lo be brought closer to aspC(ts of cultural
being that operate at the real and everyday level
of experience (Denzin, 1997, pp, 60-61 ),
In other words, what happens when ethnog-
raphy becomes performative, when edmog:-aphy
becomes performance~ What happens to the
ethnograph id It reinstates the actualization of
everyday cultural performance. lt rchrdrates the
ubje<lified, text-bom:d descr:p:ion of lives-live,!
into living em bodied forr:is that off"r a g:-eater
sense of direct expc,icm:e and the direct k:mw-
i ng of culture. It rrhstates ethnographic bodies
to the realrr: of process, of activity, of doing-
negotiating beings, buth in the simulated pres-
ence of :hci r daily Ii ves as wel, as wlthin the
specified mor:1ent of ;ierforn:am;e,
Using performan(e as a11 '"explanalury
metaphor" :nvolvcs reconstructir.g the notion of
performance fror.1 theatrical imtertainmem to
performance as a method of explaininJ,!;, exempli
fying, projecting, knowing, and s11arfog rm~ning.
It involves, as in lhe example with the students
i11 the street vendor performance, ways of using
performance as a means, mcthmi, and mode of
communka:iun establishing a:, intercallur al
dialogue, The comparat:ve relationship ':1ctween
the object of reflection and tl:e performative act
n:uves toward an embodieci and engaged under-
standing. Conquergood ( 1998] tracks this sema11-
tic genealogy "from pcr:i.mnai:ce as mimesis
to poiesis tu kinesis, performance as ir:iitation,
construction, and drnamis:n" (p. 31 )."
Performance methodology can be descrf::iec: as
a collectivized ensemble of precepts 'Jsed by those
committed to the communicative and peda-
gogical potential that knowledge---the process of
attaining, sharing, and projecting knowing-can
be accomplished through doing, Wha: Pineau
( 1995) refers tu as deep ki ncsthetic attune~ent
that allows us lo aU1:nd lo experiential phenom-
ena in an cmbod'.ed, rather than purely intellectu-
alized way" (p. 46). Hence students and audiences
come w hww rhrough doing, whetlicr :his is per
forming ethnographic notes or performing rhetn-y
as a means of practical experience in testing
hypotlu:ses or d:splaying knowledge,
The hroad-based construc:ion uf per:ormancc
merhodo'.ogy opens up the possibility of engaging
perform.mer in strategic ways: perj~rmance as a
method £Jf iiu1uiry or performance as a way ofknow-
ing (Geiger, 1973; Hopkins, 1981; O'Brien, l91l7;
Wolcott, .999),performcmce as u method of report-
ing knowledge a1id ideological critique (/ack,011,
1993, 1998; Nudd, 1 Park-Fuller & Olsi?n, 1983;
Pinrau, I995; Taylor, 1987), performcmce a~ a
meth,id of critical response (Alexancer, 1999;
Conquergood, l 986a, 1986b; Harrison-Prpper,
1999), performance as un ac/ of publication
(Espinola, 1977), and performance as an interpre-
tive tool (J ack.,,on, 2000; M~rrill, 1999; Pollo~k,
1998a; Roach, 1993; Roman, 1998; Wolf, 2002). In
each case, performers use the processes ,,f research,
analysis, and synthesis leading toward message
rehearsal (intent,content,and form) to cuhninate in
an enactment of tl:ought and knowing, Hence, the
 416 • HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER Hi
process of con:ing to know and the act of projecting
the known are intricately interwoven,
C. Cultural Performance and
the Performance of Culture
Another version of performance studies sees its
particular origins in the collaborative dis,,:ourses
between Richard &:hechner ( 1965, 1977, 1985) and
Victor 'lurner ( 1982, 1988) in which theater and
ant'lropology infurm each other to explore the
innate tneatricality of cultural expression and
interculti:.ral exploration. 7 My interests what has
been co:istructed as cu/tum! performance have
been influenced by them and scholars such as
Chesebro (1988 ), Clifford (1998 l, Conquergood
[1983, 1985, 1986a, 1986b, 1988), E. C, Fine and
Speer (1992), Fuoss (1997), Guss (2000),
Kirshe:1blatt-Girr:bett (1998), MaCaloon ( 1984),
and Singer (l 972 ), to name a few, It is undergirded
with the kernel ur.derslanding that cultural perfor-
muna, refers to the collective expectations and
practices of members of partkalar communities.
Cultural performance is the method in which
we all defi:1e community, ma:nta:n community
membership, negotiate identity, and sometimes
subvert the rules of soda~ nembership and pr2c-
tice, Hence, echoing Turner ( 1974), Conq1,ergood
(1986a) notes that as burr.an beings we are hamo
perforrnans, in that we socially construct the very
world that undergirds our emactmen:s. lt is how
some :iave approached the notion of perfor
rnance as the pre5entation of self in everyday lf{e
(Goffman, 1959), the practice of everyday life
(Certeau, 1984), the critical self-reflexivity of
engaging ri;stored beha~·ior or twice-behaved
behtnior (Schechner, 1988),and the tensive enact•
ment of social dramas (Turner, 1974, 1980).~ It is
the everydayness of performance in cultu:-e that
be~ome,s the focus of ohservatiun in ethnographic
re,search and thus becomes the source model of
reperforming culture in performance ethnogra•
phy that :s the primary focus of th is discussion.
Signaling an important element of pe:for-
mance ethnography, Cllffo:d (: 988) reminds us
that we can better understand cu:rnral ide:itity
not by studying :he artifacts of museums or
libraries, but through observing emergent cultural
performances. These emergent cu:tural perfor-
mances signify the social and roltura; constructs
that aiready are in place and those that are being
challenged, subverted, or appropriated. The street
vendor project exe:nplifie.s the way that perfor-
r.1ance ethnography n:irrors social, culti:ral, and
political practices ,o publicize the po!itks in the
existence of those social occurrences.
In making the link between cultural perfor-
mance and performance ethnography, l make the
reciprocal yet interrelated distinction between
cultural performance ir. everyday lite and the per-
furmance ofculture in which there is a documenta-
tion and re-creation of cultural forms found
through research (Alexander, 2002b ). The students
in the street vendor performance studied culture
and then sought to re-create their unde:-star.d:r.g
in/through performance. This was primarily to
better know and unders:and the culture, hut for
so1:1e it might be a process of rehearsal ir. becom•
ing a cultural member; a form of practiced encul·
turation as it were, leading toward col'.'lpetency and
cultural membership (Samovar & Porte,, 1994).
The performance of culture that is presented
in performance ethnograpl:y Is a reflection of an
actual culture refracted through the lens of eth :io•
graphic practices and situated ir: perl'orming
bodies that (re}present that culture. The inten
tions of lhe a<:lualized versus the performed ver•
sion of cu:ture (by others) are different, yet they
may inform each other by sensitizing performers
and aud:ences to alternative cultural systems
(Chesebro, l 998, p. J 17).
Performance e~hnography always simu:ates
the fishbowl conditions under which cultures
operate in everyday life, CuJture operates both
within the confines of its own constructions
(power, social relations, time, history, and space)
and under the forces of externalized pressure that
affect the conditions of its operatior., Performancr
ethnography as a moral disr;ourse foregrounds this
very delicate balan.;e, The presumed subject of
scrutiny in perfommnce ethnography is not exdu•
sive to the particular culture being performed but
also applies to the process of engag:ns cultural
performam::e. Conquergood (1986a) writes;

Performance requires a special doubling of
consciousness, re:lexive self-awarer.,ess. The Pff·
former plays neither the role of Selfor Other; instead
of an 1 or a You, tl:e performer is essentia:ly, at all
times. playi:ig a We..,, Perforr::ance can recondle
the lens:on between lde:itity, which banalizes, and
Dif:mnce, whic:i estranges, the Ot"ler. (?, 34)
In this way, performance ethnography
becomes a form of sto.ndpoint epistemology, a
situated moment of knowing that positions
performers and audiences in the interstices of
kr.owing themselves through and as the other
(Denzin, 1997). The moment of performance is
both practical place and Hm 1nal space, a stand-
:>o:n: from which to view culture.
At this point in offering an overview of practi·
cal matters and philosophic.a: cont:ngencies, it is
nrce,sa:y to state that performance ethnography
cannot ar,d maybe should not be easily reduced
to being (just a) method. Althor.g'..1 I know that
lam pushing the borders of what some might
refer to as tri.ditional performance ethnography,
I am also asking the question of "Why do we do
performance ethnography?" In the rendering of
and response to the question, I suggest that most
people see performar,ce ethnography as moral
discourse, Thus, this chapter asks readers to
extend their familiar methodological construc-
tion of performance ethnography into a larger
view of its promise and possibilities.
Beyond the practical pedagogical or the plea
sure of the perforrnative, performance ethriagraphy
is moral discourse in the tradition of all qualitative
research. It is situated activity that locates the
participants, researcher,, and ob.servers in the
world-a world in which the implications and
complications of being and knowing others can
be negotiated in mutually beneficial ways. lt con·
sists of a set of interpretive material practices that
make culture visible; hence making manifest not
only the cultural conditions of living, but al.so the
joint concerns of humanism that can be equally
distributed. These practices work m illuminate
the world as much as they work to transform the
world (Deru:in & Lincoln, 1998 ),
Following a feminist commimitllrian model,
performance ethnography "interlocks personal
Altxander: Performance Et'mography 111 417
autonomywtth communal well-beinf'It encourages
the "morally appropriate action [that] intends
community" ( Christians, 2000, pp. 144-145 ).
Through performance ethnogmphy, pe~former-
researcher-scholars ask audiences (both objecti-
fied onlookers and performers as audience to
their own engagement) to position themselves in
relation to those being represented in perfor•
mance. These performances are always enmeshed
in moral matters; they use performance to i[umi-
nate the dynamics of culture that are always and
already in practice with and across borders of
perceived difference (Conquergood, 19115). They
contain a moment of judgment of others and of
the self in relation to others, a judgment that
affects choice not only in the moment of perfor·
mance bm also in those moments after perfor-
mance in which the sensuousness of performative
experience resonates in the body and mind, seek•
ing its own engagement of meaningful express:on.
D, Links and Challenges
Between Ethnography and Performance
The selection and manner of p:esenti ng
particular cultural insights in performance
ethnography reveal not only an assumed actuality
of the other but also a particular critique and
understanding of the other. This is and in most
cases is not equal to the actual experiences of the
other, This element of critique and commentary
that is a cornerstone of performance methodology
becomes the cautionary tale am! the ethical linch-
pin in the process of performance ethnography.
The staged performance of culture is also an
appraisal of culture. It foregrour:rls aspects of
human experience for particular reasons, with
particular desired effects-either in the form of
direct critique or through the more artistk trn?es
of parody, metaphor, and analogy,
This begins to reveal the problems and the
possibilities of performing the other, for selves
always intervene experience and foreground
orientation, desire, and intent. For example,
when performing the lives and narratives of the
street vendors, my students (as researchers and
performers) had to reconcile their thoughts and
 418 11 HA~DBOOK QUAL!TAl'JVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 16
feelings a:iout the street vcmiars. They tad to
negotiate the balance betwe<ln :heir everyday
experience;; with .street vendors and their social
CoJtmentary on street vendors, w: ~h and against
their embodied posi donalitr in performing street
vendors, They hac to ai.k the c;:.iestion:
How as researchers anc performers in uur red-
pmai l relationships do wc negotiate a:ul help to
ir:form and/or transform 1hc politics uf class,
not:ons of work cultural bia;;, issues of
pride and proprietyr This in to what we
;0111c to know abcut the pred ia,r:1ent and
mnc:ticns of these st reel vendor, thrnugl: the ioint
effort of performance and cthnographrt
In this sense,all those engaged in performance
ethnographr • ust always dearly de'"1ne them-
in relation to the popu:at ions being
performed. their !r.:cntion, in ps:rformhg, the
desired effects their yerforma:1ce, and the
methods c:1gaged in gathering a:id reporting
knowledge, Although this works in tern;io:i with
what might be constructed as "t:·aditional perfor-
:uancc elh :mg raphy" used as pedagogical ?me·
tice or p:.iblic entertnir:ment, these questions and
concerns are m..x:essary rrlationa! and politkll1
abot,: re:irescntation
. that onlv. enhance the
pedagogical potency of such er:deavors.
Ethical g:.iidcs for performance i:tlmugraphy
are dearly estao!idhed within tl:e contr:but!ng
disciplines of both performance and ethnography
(Alcoff, 199111992; Bateson, 1993; Chambers,
2000; Ch:-istians, 2000; Cliffo,d & '.V1 arc us, 1986;
.'vi. Fine, Weis, Wesee::i, & Wong, 2000; Lockford,
1998; Rusaldu, 1989; Sparkc~, 2002; B. Tedlock,
2000; D. Tedlock, 1983; Valentine, 1998; Vale:1ti11e
& ½.lc:ulinc, I Here I want to foregrour:d
three arfa:ulations of ethical relations in perfor-
man,:elelhnography. My intention here is to a "Ethnographies are cocurr:ents :ha: pose ques-
partkuiar perspective on the relationship between
ethnographer and cultural co:n munity-the rela-
tional, repri:sentational, and variables of trnns-
lation in any social text-as well as the binary
oppositions involved in the dynamics of bdng
audie::ice ro the prrformance of actual lh·es.
First, in "Performing as a Moral Act: Ethical
Dimensions of the Ethnography of Performance;'
Dwight Co3quergood ( l985) chins "four ethical
pitfa Ils, pcrformative stances towards the o:her
that are moral:y problematic" (p. 4). The
Custodian's Rip-off is likened to a theft or rape, a
search and seiwr,e on the part of tl1e etlumgr,1-
pher, who approaches ai:d appropriates culrnre
without a sen~e of care. The bithusiasts
h!~Uuation ju :nps to com:h:sion.~, making facile
assumptions u: performative practice in an
attempt to q:.iickly assume idcntifica:ion with the
other. Tl1e Skeptic's Cop-out embodies the steril-
ized and historicaUy objectified app:oaches to
ethr:ogmphy in wh icb the ethr:ugra pher stands
nmsic.c or above cultme, avoiding persona:
involvement or encounter with the other-but
is readily prepared :o cast jt:dg• ent on cultural
practki: and identity. The Curufor'.i lixhibilionism
overly identifies with the other, 10 the ;,o: nt of
exotic:zing and romantid1.ing the other as the
noble savage and thereby forther dici1otomizing
tl:e difference benveen self and other.
(onquergood wnstructs a fif:h stai:ce, the
dialogirnl 5Umce, "Dialogical performance is a way
of ha,ing bti1m1te mnvernatiun with other people
and cultures. Instead of ,pea~ing about tl:cm,
one speaks to and with them" (1985, p. '.O). T:1e
dialogical stance negotiates the border, between
identity, differcr:cc, de:achmenl, and commit-
ment not only to represent the other but alrn
to re-present the other as a me::m nf cnntinu-
ing a dialogue that seeks understanding. "It is a
kind of performance that resi ,ts conclusions, ii
is intensely conu:iitted to keepi:ig the dia:ogi:e
between performer and text [pcrlor:m,r and cul
tural members] open and ongoing" (p. 9),
In d:scussing the nu~ure of ethnography and
its links to pe~formance, I have often turned to
Van Maancn's (1988) constructior.. which states:
tions at the margins between two cultures, '1''1ey
necessarily decode one i:ulture while re-coding ii
for another•· (p. 4l.' Within this statement, r $ee
a:1d u:1dcr,tm1d t:1e interpreti,..e !l,J.ture of ethnog-
raphy to the lived practices of others-through
a detailed description of culture, knowing, of
course, that such a de,crip'.ion is always and
already inflicted w ilb and pmcesse<l th mugh the

puticula:- experience of the ethnographer-the
one who reports. It is also shaped and influenced
by the sociological, perce,:;tual, and political
issues of the audience-those tu whom suci
findings are reported, with a particular concer:1
regardi:1g why the report is :icing made. One a1;ks
how suhjrcts and thci r actior1s arc concrrtizcd
and isolated from tic e historicity of experience
for the scrutiny of others Denzin, 1997,
pp. 247-248, and his citing of Fiske, 1994),as we'.!
as what happer.s in those murnenb uf trans:at:-:m,
tlcose mo:nrnts of an assumed acc:uracy in decod •
ing culture and the recoding of such under•
standings across borders of experience. These are
also the chal'.rngcs of performance, what Judith
Hamera (2000) describes as "a very specific
tec:mology of t nu16l atitm, a :ook rebounding
between two differently fram ec Iexperiences J
into language" (p. 147).
Second, Nor man Denzin (J 997} outlines four
paired terms :hat might be used to examine any
s,id:11 text. I prcscnl them here as a way to fore•
grounc the rcladonril, the representational, and
cha[enges of translation l hat are faced in both
ethnography a:td ;,erforrr:ance-with the speci fl::
emphasis on the combined effonfevenl of per:or-
mance ethnography. Denz:n outline~ the four as
follows: ~(a) the real aud i:s reµresenlatious
in rhe text [perfo~mam:e I, (b) the text and the
author (pertormer], (c) lived rxperie1,er and
textual [and crnbod:ed l representations, and
( c) the subj eel and his or her intenlional mean-
ings" (p. 4), I exti:nd the use of the following
logics to both the spedfidty of his emphasis,
interpretive ethrwgraphy, and the moce exacting
process of perfor:nai:ce ethnography.
In the ca.'rt' of performa:1ce ethnography, there
is ,, double assumption of the abil: ty to capture
and contain culture thm ugh language and tl:cn to
assume and e:nbody .:ulti.:re through the r:iateri-
aHty of cifferent bodies; bodies that may have dif-
ferent or even opposing historkitv, bodies that are
framed and co:1joi:led with bones, muscles, and
s i:H:ws that have not bee:1 sufficiently exercised or
exorcise.: into being over time. Maybe this is the
representatfrmal or a representational clial-
lenge in ?Crforn: ancc cth nography, one I~ at 's not
,\ lexande:: Pedorman,e E:hr:ogmphy 111 41 ~
easily solved, but i: can be understood if the
cor:Juined effort of perfor:nance/ethnography
can be seen as a dialog:cal engagement. In such
an engagerr:er:t, :1erformam:e ethnograpl:y is
not only an act of presenting xsea~d: findings
and rcpresen:ing t:1£ other bu: also a means of
ex tending r,nd expanding on a cril ical di~.logm:
in and a":lout cuhure, w::h researcher-performers
ernbody:ng the nature of their knowledge and
inviting a:.nll1ences to participate.
In this way. performance ell::mgraphy is
!inked appropriately with the :rnd it ions of inrer-
prcrive ethnograp,iiy-the staging of reflexive
ethnographic pedormances tha: turn eth:10-
graphic and theoretical texts back onto each
o:he~. a form of both scholuly production and
textual Gitfr1ue committed to the critical social
processes of meaning-making and Eluminnti11g
cu:tural experience. This is done through
descriptive la:igt:age and embodied e:1gagemcnt,
a~ well as cngagi :1g the performance of critical
accou:1tabi I: ty :or/of the very processes uf its pro-
,iuction (Bochner & Ellis, 2002; Denzh1, 1997,
1999; Ellis & Bo,:hner, l 996. 2000; McCall, 2000).
Performance and e1hnogmpny are both co1:-
cerned w:th lessening gaps between the known
and the unknown, illuminating and ex:Jkdng
the lived µraclices of ofaers, and br'dging geo-
graphical and snc;al distances through vivid des-
cription, narra·ion, and emho..iiment-helping
readers/audiences m see pnssibililies through
the visualization of experience. Maybe th rough
theal,kaliLing experience, the challe:ige of per-
formance ethnography il, to represent culture
without claiming c·,1lture, to imerrogate and
decenter culture-without discarding culture
(Conquergood, l998). '.v1aybc tl:c challenge is to
project the knov(lng of culture, without dominat-
ing the experience of the other, thus creating a
"recognizable verisimilitude of selling, ,h.,racter
and dialogue" that foregrounds culture and not
self (Cohen, 1988, p. 815), while providing the
:iecessary critical processes to tease out/at those
elements that conjoin and sepa,atc the two, for
both research!writer/pe:former and auck:nce,
Th :s would also re qui re that the staging of
such a performance must dema1eri ulize the
 42C • HANDBOOK OF QUAL!TATIVE RF.SEARCH-CHAPTER 16
fourth wall o( theatrical production that often
encourages objectified viewing, creatbg a more
dialectical tl1eater (Brecht, 1964; Kershaw, 1999),
a 1heaterofperformance that, while framing the aes•
thetk event as part entertainment, also refrwnes
the experiem;e of performance ethnography from
entertainment to social and intercultural dialogue.
This dialogue exists hetweer. performers and cul-
:nral in formants, and between the perforn:ative
experience of the audence in the moment of the
doing and how that is extended in the everyday•
ncss of their bcir.g,
Tl:ird, Linda Park Fuller (2003) offers five
problematic aspects of audiencing-as ,he
engaged practice of participatory viewi:1g, It is
a positiona'.ity that further implicates the viewer
in performance ethnography and, in her specific
case, Playback Theatre, Park-Pullet describes
Playback Theat:-e as "an audicnce-i:1teractive,
improvisational form in which audience members
tell stories f,om their lives and then watch those
Slories enacted on the spot" (p. 291 ). Playback
Theater is further H:eorized by Fox ( 1986), Fox
and Heinrekh (1999}. and Salas ( 1996). It is
g::uunded in logk:s of community-based theater
(H2edicke & Nellhaus, 2001) and the liberatory,
democratic, bteractive theater practices of Boa!
( 1979, 1995, Hl\l8) and Wirth (1994), It is fur
ther explainec throi.:eh the role of witmessi:lg in
performance ethnograpny (Doyle, 2001 ). In large,
these methods engage performance as reflexive
r,mxl,, praxif as the relationship between theo•
retical understandings, a c:itique of society, and
action toward socia: reform (Freire, 1985 ), Hence,
the five prublematic aspects of audiendng that
Park.fuller outlines are the relational dynamics
between emparhizin,i:lcriticizing, empowering/
di,empowerir.g, supporting/shaping, resisting/
t,w,aking, and the ritual dance of power, a] of
which i• p:icate the representational politia, of
performing others in light of our own ,Jense par-
ticularitv, whkh is always
/ . dichotomous and fluid
(Mohanty, 1989),
Risking a conf:ation of her significant contri •
bution:;, f see her primary argt:mer.t grounded in
Wallace Bacon's (: 979) use of tl:e term "tenslve-
ness :' Park-l;uller seemingly extends his logics
from the specific exploration o[ literary texts, to
a broader context of soda! and c;,iltural perfor-
mai:ce, Temliveness refers to those comp.:ting
ir:1pulses that give any performative sitt:ation
dynamism, a push and pull-b·Jt not a tension
as in friction or strife, but the actions of those
elemen:s and attributes of social relations that
either • aintain social systems or seek to
transform them,
So what appear to be binary opposites in l'a,k-
Fuller's cor:strm:tion are really dyna:nic dyads,
necessarily co-present variables, and procedural
mandates specifically in Playback Theatre tr.at I
app:y in general to performance ethnography. ln
her wotds, they encourage reS?Q:15!bility: "I A]
responsibility to listen to, to respect, and to learn
from one another's stories, but also to 'talk back:
to intervene, to unmask be latent stances in
stories that can divide the human community,
and to redress, tbrougii its various rituals, the
wrongs suffered in silence as well as in speech
or action" (p. 303 ). In this way, performance
ethnography encourages a dialogue and actio:i
that extends oc.tside the specified si1e of per-
formance and into the everyday realm of humar.
social interaction,
II IL PROCEDURAL
PRAGMATICS AND GE;-1RES OF
PERFORMA:vCE ETHNOGRAPHY
Conquergood (1988) writes 1;1at performance
al ways "takes as both subject matte, and
method the exper:endng body situated in time,
place, and history" (p. 187). Hence, the procedural
pragmatics and genres of performance ethnog-
raphy that I outiine here are ce:itered in the
performing body, yet it is how bodies are situated
in performance, the body being performed
(self/other) and the source mode: of informai:ion
gathered i researche,/perfonner) in ?erformance
ethnography that shifts. According to Soyini
Madison ( 1998), "Performance becomes the vehi-
cle by which we travel to the worlds of Subjects
and enter domains of intersubjectivl :y that prob-
lematize how we categorize who is 'us' and who is

'them: and !:ow we see oi;rselves with 'other' and
different eyes" (p. 282). Hence, performance is
a way of comir.g to know self and other, and self
as o:her.
Within tl:is sedon, I .suggest :hat the bodies
and lived experiences being represented in perfor-
• ance eti:nography shift between "the other" and
back to "the self;'with particular interests in denot-
ing and connoting the ties that bind. I fall short of
establishing a specific typology that sepRrates a:id
cielineates i11dividual approaches :o doing perfor-
mance ethnography, knowing that borders of
perfor:na11ce ethnography bleed and that the
impulse is in staging articulated lived experience,
cultural practice, and knowledge of culmre.
A. Performing Others in
Performance Ethnography
Victor Tu mer and Edie 'Pl mer (I 982, 1988 ),
who were mostly inte:-ested i:l teaching cu~~ure,
provided their students with descriptive "strips
of behavior" to develop into "p:ayscripts:' thereby
perfor:ntng "eth:mgrnphy in a kind of im;tmc-
tional theater" (1\1rner, 1982, p. 41). It was their
at:e:npt to have students mme to understand the
intricacies of embodied cultural practice. The full
process of such a pedagogical engagement culrr:i •
nates not only i:1 the experie:icing body but also
later in the critical reflection on what slucents
corr:e to know through assuming the particular
cultural practices that have been mostly outside
the ::ange of their everyday experiences. This form
of performance ethnography was mostly ;-tudent-
in-class centered.
This point of origin prnvides the theoretical
and :nethodologkal foundation for the type of
work being clone in performance studies, begin-
ning with a specific example in the work of Joni
Jones. In documentmg her ow11 work with perfor-
mance ethnography, based on her research in
Nigeria on the Yoruba deity Osun, Jones (2002}
offers an audience-centered brri11d of perfor-
mance ethnography designed to invite audience
members to participate within the performance
of a particular cul:ural format:on. Her production
of Searching for Oscm was an insta;lation piece
Ale:xande:: Performance Ethnography 11 421
that focused on "aspects of Yoruba life that moved
[her] most-dance music, divination, Osun's
relationship to children, 'women's work: and
food p,eparation" (p. 1). The cai,t of performers
assumed archetypal characters in Yoruba life,
engaging in particular cultural and relational
pract:ces. The invited audience to the per-
formance entered the perfor:nance space not as
distanced onlookers but participants.
The audience was invited to engage varying
dimensions that shape cultural Ufo-food/ eatir.g
and dinir:g rituals, movement/ musk and dance,
dothingithe wearing of traditional garb, and
listening to storytelling and oral lore. Within
her method, as in the work of Boal {1979), Jones
created O?portunities for audiences to make the
move from being spectators to being "spect-
actors;' active participants who were involved in
knowing and shaping their own experience.
Hem.-e, the process of coming to know is not
only relega:ed to seeing, but also extended and
enriched by fully participating in the eq>eriencc.
Approaches to performance ethllography also
engage group-field srudy work. Such approaches
culminate in the public performances of research
notes anc. interviews by those who conducted the
research and may involve members of the cultural
communities explored (sec MrCall, 1993; Pollock,
I990 ). It can be the result of a single researcher's
long-term researr:h that works at excava:ing spe-
cific polilical and cultural events. Such examples
might operate on a localized level, such as restaging
the politics leading to a r11.feteria workers' strike at
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
(Madison, 1998),or an interculn,ral and interracial
lt?vel of co,iflict, such as in the staged ar:d perfor-
• ance work of A1111a Deavere Smith-Fires in the
Mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and Other Identi-
ties (1993) am: Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 (1994).
This is historical and cultura:Jy ha~ed wnrk
in which artists use performance to foregro:md
and make conmentary on culture. They offer
performed elements of historical truisms as a
method of illumi11ating aspects of oppression and
the politics of social relations based in race,
ethnicity~ sex, gender, and dass. 10 !n describing
her project dealing with the cafeteria strike,
422 Ill HANDBOOK OF QlJALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 16
Madiso:1 (1998) wr:tes that "the performance
strives to co:nmunkatc a sense of the Subjc<:ts'
world in their own words; its :10pes to ampliff
their meanings and intentions to a larger group of
listeners and observers" (p. 280). In this way, we
iso co:ne to ur:derstanc Deavere Smith's work in
searching for the A• erican character in Fires in
the 1\tlimn:
In he:- project, Deavere Smith intervi;;:wed, and
later performed, 19 orlg:nal portraits of African
Americar:s and Jews (polit'dans, housrwivcs,
activists, authors, parents, ec::.) after the radal
unrest riotir:g in Crown Heights, llrooklyn in
l 99 L The unrest was sparked by what is cons:d-
ered an accident (AHasidic man drivlng a station
wagon swer\ied on a mr:ier and killed a young
Africar. American boy: This was fo:lowed hv the
' '
act o' ret rihuti or: 4 days later in which a young
Jewish m,.n was stahbec hy a group of young
i'\fricar. American men,) Th rough the ;;uttrcssing
of performed e:hnogrnphic interv'.ews and d:ar
acter sketches, Deavere S1r:ith illuminates the
seeds anc logics of racial contestation that »ere
germinating long before the incident dtat sparked
the fires of riot. Thus, the proi ect provides the
aud'ence w: :h a searing portrait rnce re:at:01:s
in America thac operates on the level of performed
visceral response.'
In this sense, performa11ce ethnograph)' can
also operat;;: on a globalized level in which a
specific issue of the human condition that
cmsses national borders is exe:nplified, such as
hi Soyini Madison's intentions to stag<: '/'mkosi, the
Ghanaian practice of ostradzing girls who have
been sexually abused. The :n:er:tion of SL'.Ch work
would be to present t!'.e result of :he individual
scholar', research in Gl:ana and her cril:que of
the ,ractices. Staged in Ghana amid the Ghanaian
debates ov;;:r the: practice,, :he performance
would serve a critical reflexive praxis, a refractive
mir,or and argL1menr mncerning social practice
and cultural investment (Jones 2002 ).
This approach to performance ethnography
:-enects that tradition in which empirical mater;-
als are presented in the form of scripts, poems,
short stories, and drama, tl:at are staged and
presented to diverse audiences. (See Ballman,
1986; Becker et al., l 989; Bochner, I994; Bruner,
1986; Conquergood, 1985, 1986b, 1989, I991,
1992; Kapferer, 1986; McCall & Becker, 1990;
Mienczakowski, i 992, l994, 1995; Mienczakowski
&: Morgan, 1993: Paget, 1990, 1993; Richardson &
Lockridge. 1991; Schcchncr, 1986; Strrn &:
Hend;;:rson, 1993.)u These approaches work
toward the redramatization of cultural Ji:e, by
re:iydrating the lived 1,;x1,e:,ences of 01 hers
described in ethnograph:c work, restoring aspects
of the drnmaric, dyna:nic, and aesthetic qualities
of cultural practice in the mon:rnt of presenting
research,
R Performance (Auto )Ethnography
The il:tention of performance eth:10graphy
could be signaled h the desire to build a template
ofsociality (Han:er2, 1999). This construct signals
11ot a proiectcd star:card of living but an associa-
lion of experit'IJC~ gained :hrough performance.
It allows audiences to see others in relation tn
therr.sel ves; to come to know, to conrc:npl&tc on
how they .:a1T,e to know, to signal ways of being,
and to see possibili,ies for their social rela-
tii:mal orientatiuns and o::i'.igat:ons 1o othe~s.
Performance ethnography as templatt of sodality
becomes a generative (cwto)etlinographic experi-
ence tha: spar'.,s and provides a template on
whkh audieno,, begin their own :irocesses of
cdical reflection (Alexander, 2000).
Ji: this se:m:, although perforn:ance ethnog-
rapl:y is traditionally thought of in terms of th~
performance of the culrural o:her and gmundec
in ~:i:lernaiii:eJ ethnographic practices, it can also
refl cct a pmcess of internalized ethnographic
pmctice :n which a performe, uses lived experi•
ence and personal history as c'Jltural site, such as
in autoethnugrapby (Ellis & Boehner, 2000;
Lionnet, 1989; Reec-Danahay, I 997; Spry, l 997,
200 l ). Sach a jour:1ey into the self is no less
treacherous than crossing the bordrrs and bound·
aries inhabi:cd by the exotic other. Nor are ,he
potential inliights gathered less meaningful in
coming to understand the polit:cs of ,:;ultural
identity in the c'.rcu'.:1t ion of sodal relations. In
particular, autoet:mography a me:hod that

attempts "quite literally, Ito I come to terms
with ,ustainiug questions and cultare"
(\Jcumann, 1996, p. 193). It is a :11ethod of navi·
· the "busy ·mtcrsec t,mm;" o f ~ace, sex, sexu•
gatmg
ality, class, and gender that is often con,;;truc:ed
as the unitary location of cultural identity sedi·
mc>nted in social pra.,1kc (Rostldo, ! 989, p. 17).
Using this as an alternative approach, perfor•
mance eth1,ography thus can iu,!uck what has
been referred to os autoperformcmce, singularly
conceived performances such as autobiography,
autuethnogra:ihy, and performance art (Kirby,
1979), All of the,e, to varying degrees, have as
:he:r concerted eftor: a critique ofse'lf and sa<iety,
selj' in society, and self as resisl ant a11d transfor·
malive force of society. Uespite the suggested
critiques of solo performmice as a nardssistk ad
of self-indul!;ence and nilrclssism (Gentile, 1989},
rran.;oisc Lionnet (1989) secs autoethnography
in particular as a form o( cultu:-al performance.
She sta:es that autoethnography "transcencis
pedestrian notions of refoce:itiality, fo:- the st,lf,
ing of event is part of the process of 'pl¼ssir:g
on: of elaborating cultural forms, which are not
static and inviolable but dynamically involved in
tl:c creation of culture itself" (p. 102 ).
Auwcthnogra?hY tb:s c:1gages cthnogra-
phical analys:s of pe,;;onally liwd experience. The
evidenced act of showing :n a'Jtoethnography is
less about reflecting on the se:f in a public space
than obout using the public space and pertor·
:nance as an ac: of crilicaUy reflecting cJl:ure,
an act of steiug the SfP thr. self through und
as the other, Thus, as a forn: of perfon:iance
1:thnugraphy, it is designed to engage a locus of
.:::11bodied retlexivity usir:g lived experience as a
specific cultural site that offers ~ocial torr: men-
tary and cultural ciitiquc (Alexander, 2002b ).
Ellis and llochner (2000) ider::ify five differ·
ent exemplars for autocthnogr::iphy tl:al blend
and bleed the borders of individualized cultural
identity, inte:1tionality, and its orkr:rn:-lon to
audience. Briefly s! atcd, in rejlexive 1:thnographies
researchers criticallv retlect on lived experience in
a particu'.ar c1:ltural community (w:1ich may nol
be 6eir own), specifying their exact relation to
self and a particular society. Na rive ethnograph ies
Alcxar:cer: l'er[,rmance Ethnography 111 423
:oregmund the experiences of researchers, who
reflect on their membership in a historically
marginalized or l"Xoticized .:u! ture. Complete•
member•r,·searchersletl1rmgra11hies are those in
which a member of a particular cc1lmre interprets
am:: reports on the culti:re for outsiders. Literary
autoe/~rwgraphies feature writer/researchrrs
descr'bing and interpreting their culture for
that are not familiar with the write:/
researcher's culture. Per.tonal narratives ru, critical
autobiographical stories of lived experie:1ce offer
(public) audier:ees access to personal txpcrience
with t':le intent of politicizir:g aspcc:s of human
experience and social scns~·making.
K:ildn Langellier ( l 989) writes that like most
narratives, the personal nar:ative "docs sornelh ing
in the social world , .. fit] partidpatels J in the
ongoing rhythm of people's lives as a retlectio:1
of their social organization and .:ultu ral values"
(p. 261), :n this 1vay, the personal narrative as a:1
exemplar a:1d contnbuting model of self-storying
is a reflection an individual's critical ex,;;avation
of lived experience and the categorizing of cul-
tural meaning. This is then shared with in a public
domai:1 to provide the audience with a meaningful
articulation of human experience. T:1e benefit,
as Langdlier ( 199!!) Inter writes, re~idet< in the
conseqJences and conditions of ~he telling, the
audience that orients to the story and proce.~ses
the transgressive and recupera:ive powers of t:.e
perform ativc moment. In writing this, I ar:i not
collapsing personal narrative into etlmography;
nor bleeding the borders between perisonal nar-
rative and autoethnography-as much as r fore-
ground the links exploring lived and living
experie:1,;e (s~lf anc other) that is germane to all.
I think that ar the core of performance
cthm1graol:y is the desire not only for an audience
to see the performance nf cultt:re, but, as Fllis a:1d
Bo~hner ( 1996) suggest, to engage on some level
:n a "self-conscious ::eOexivii/ on the!r own rcla-
:ion to the experience (p. 28). i want to claim and
categorize t:1is quality and process :n the manner
in wh:ch Victor Turner (1988) defim:s "performa-
tive reflexivity:' as "a condition in which a socio-
cultural group, or its mo.~t perceptive m;;;m bers
adi ng representatively :um, bend or reflect back
 424 ll HA~DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 16
upon themselves" {p. 24}. Turner's thought on
reflexivity is culture and context specific. The
inherent reflexive turn of perform ative experi-
ence is precisely its power to transmit as well as to
critique culture and self.
[n his essay "The Personal: Against the Master
Narrative:' Fred Corey (1998) outl~nes what l
belleve to be a key argumer.t for personal narra-
tive as performa:1ce ethnography, specifically in
his Ii nks between the personal and the cubrral.
He writes: "The master narrative is an artillery of
moral truth, and the personal narrative defixes
the truth. The master 11arrative is a cultural dis·
cou:-se, replete with epistemic implications,
and the personal narrative is a mode of 'reverse
discourse"' (p. 250).U Using Foucault's (1982)
construct of reverse discourse or counter discourse,
Corey gives territorial distinction to the personal
narrative as moral discourse.
Whereas the master narrative often dictates
and speculates on collective identities, the per-
sonal narrative "tell[s I about personal, li\-ed expe-
rience in a way that assists in the construction
of identity, reinforces or challenges private and
public belief systems and values, and either
resists or reinforces the dominate cdtural prac-
tices of the community in which the narrative
event occurs"a (Corey, 1998, p. 250). Although
there are multiple constructions of the master
narrative, I want to suggest, along with Corey, that
the master narrative is the dominant, hegemonic,
way of seeing or thinking the world is or should
be. the narrative that often guides and undergirds
social, cultural, and politkal mandates,
The personal narrative a:ways .stands in
relation to the master narrative, which is the
reflection of culture and our relation to/in culture.
Hence, the personal narrative is always a reflec-
tion on ar.d excavation of the cultural contexts
that give rise to experience. In this sense, personal
narratives move from what some might presume
to be an insular engagement of personal reflec-
tion, to a complex process that implicates the
performahve nature of cul:ural identity. Like
autoethnography as theorized by Ellis and
Bochner (2000), personal narrative places the
individual in a dialogue with "history, social
structure, and culture, which themselves are
dialectically revealed through action. feeling,
thought, and language" (p, 739),
• Ill. LINKS BETWEEN
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY A:-.ID
CRmCAL PERFORMATIVE PEI>AGOCY
Drawing fror.i pr:nciples in performance studies
and ethnography, the precedi:lg section~ have
laid the foundatim:ai logics for performance
ethnography as a social focce, a st:11tegk embod-
ied methodology. and a moral discourse. This
section further grounds performance ethnog-
raphy as a c,itical pedagogical practice designeG
to democratize the classroom. The section also
furthers how these logics expand our under-
standing the unifying links :Jetween perfor•
mance, pedagogy, culture, and social reform.
By including these logics, r dearly ur:derstand
that while performance ethnography may stril't to
fanctwn as a critical pedugagicul stmtegy, not all
performance ethnography would participate
within the logic {)f critical pedagogy. In :his case,
I am interested in the theorizing of educational
practice "that turns the ethnographic into the
performative and the performative i:tto the polit-
ical" (Denzin, 2003, p. x:iil, By drawing on the
kernel logic of Turner and Tnrner (1988), I want
to necessarily expand the pedagogical use of per-
formance ethnography from mere class activity to
an insurgent method of engaging, critiquing, and
commenting on culture that is an ongoing activity
in edi:cational practice.
A, Critical Pedagogy
In Peter McLaren's extensive body of work,
listed here in brief (Giroux & McLaren, 1984,
1994; McLaren, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1997,
1998, 2000; McLaren & Laukshear, 1994 ), he, per·
haps more than any other educator-scholar, has
laid the groundwork for a critical pedagogy.
Theorists in critka: pedagngy argue that schools
are grounded in processes of culture and cultural
propagation, and that classrooms have always

been sites of cultural inscription that to
legitimate particular forms. In this se:ise, critical
pedagogy is grounded in the moral imperative of
exposing systems of oppression that exist within
the very structures of education, the process of
schooling, ar:c the overarching logk perpetu•
ating hiera~chies of oppreision and liberation
through the sanctioning of particularly restrictive
perfom:ances of self and other.
In Schooling as a Ritual Performance, McLaren
(1993) grounds his critical vision in a politics of
the body, which is my core link between pedagogy
and pe:forma:1ce ethnography. :us concept of
enfleshment signals "that meeti:1g place of both
the unthought social r.orms in which meani:!g is
always already in place and the ongoing produc-
tion of knowledge through particular sudal, inst:•
tutional and disdpEnary procedures" (p. 275).
This work centers his ethnographic pmject in tr.e
feeling body, the dialogicaliy constiluteii feelillg
body, the discursive body, and the performing bady
as sites of social inscription. IEs work sJggests
that the body is th~ site of knowing ar.d feeling,
and the site fro:n which trar.sformation is instan•
tiated and i:litiated. Mc:,aren states, "this means
decoupling oJrselves from the discip'.ined mobi-
lizaticms of everyday life in order to reartkulate
the sites of our affective investmem so that we can
'reenter the strategic po'.itics of the social furma-
tion'»'5 (p. 287). Desire :nust be inflected into a
transformative politics of hope and action. I
believe that performance ethnography taps ir:to
tbs ker:iel logic of experience, Mclaren goes or:
to call for a criticat:y reflexive and embodied per·
formam:e of resistance ar:d subversion that opens
spaces variation and ~xpression.
R. Critical Performative Pedagogy
Grounded in a performance-based methodol-
ogy, the practical and theoretical construct of crit•
ical performative pedagogy is used in diverse yet
interlockin11 ways. For example, performance
stud:es scholar Elyse Pineau ( 1998, 2002) uses the
term to refertnce a body-eer.tered experiential
me:hod of teaching that foregrounds the active
body-knowing. Her conceptualiza:ion of crit:cal
Alexander: ?crformance Eth nographv 11 425
performative pedagogy, heavily supported with
precepts from critical pecagogy, "acknowledge( s)
that inequities in power and privilege have
a physical impact on our bodies and conse•
que11rly must be stru!Jgled agains: bocily, through
physical action and activism" (2002, p, 5.3). Her
performative rr.ethodology engages the body as a
pr:mary site of meaning-rr.aking, of ideological
struggle, and of performative resistance. Hence
bodies are pu: "into action in the classroom" as a
means of exercising and engaging a libcratory
practice that extends beyond the bordt'rs of •.he
dassroom into everyday citizenship (2002, p. 53).
Her approach is what cultura: stJdies scholar
Lawrence Grossberg (] 996) might to as the
act af doing. fn particular, performative pedagogy
in the classroom is userl to illuminate and
embody soda! politics "intervening into contexts
and power ... in order to enable people lo act
more strategically in ways that may change their
context for the better" (p, 143). In this w~y, critkal
performative pedagogy is a rehearsal process
that pract:ce, possibilitv outside the dassrcom
(Boal, 1985;.
Communication and sociology scholar Norman
K. Denzin (Z003) approaches critical performance
pedagogy as a duste~ of perfo~mative a1:d ema:1-
dpatory ~trateg:es. It includes Pineau's cm1slruc-
tion but extends further into a "civic, pubJdy
responsible autoethnography tha: addresses the
central issues of race, ger:der, society, and
democracy" (p. 225). The expanse of his survey
inch:des performance ethnography, amoethnog-
raphy, performative cultural studies, reflexive
critical e~hnography, critical race theory, and lhe
broader socio] ogical and ethnographic imagi
nation, all of whk:h a~e m:cergirded in his expan ·
sion of Freirean (1998, 1999) ?olitics, perlagogies,
and possibilities of hope,
These methods are all empowered wib the
ability to aper. 'lp spaces of pa:n tu critical w, ,,,,.
tion on self and society. Hence, :hey exist in that
tensive space of he•ng radical and risky--radical
in the sense that they strip away notions of a given
human condition, and risky in that our sense of
comfort in :C<nowing the world is mace hare. They
give way to tl:e possibility of knowing the world
 Ill HANDBOOK 01' QUALITATIVE RESEARCII-CHAPTER
diffor,·ndy. They open a possibility of hope
encouraged by social respor.sibility, political
activism, and e:igaged participation in a moral
science of humanistic di sco1.:rs~. This duster of
pe1founalive stmtcgies :hat refers to as critical
performance pedagogy are all crntcred in the
active '::iody do:ng; the active mind knowing; a:id
an active res;io:isibility that co]ectivizes and
promotes democracy and humar: rights.
De:12i :i's construction addresses Giroux ·s
(200 I) search for a prnjecc and the politics of hope
when he di;;cusses "strategies of understanding,
eng~.gement, and transformation that address the
most demanding soda! prubler:1s of our time,
Suc:1 projects are utopian .. :• (p. 7). Denzin refe::s
to utopian as im::icatiug an ideal slate of hmnaf'.
social relations hut also us.-s utopian to h:dicate a
particular and practical strategy of gaining insight
into cultural utl:ers in o:-der lo build community.
Performance ethnography as the overarching logic
of th:s disci:ssior. .;an be what Jill Dohm (200 I b)
describes a~ a utopian performat{ve. The theater or
the situated site of performance can become a
place where "audiences are compelled tu gather
with ot:1ers, to see peop'.e perform Eve, hoping
perhaps for ooments of transformation that
might let th~m rernnsider and change the world
outs:de the theatre" (p. 455). Although Dolen ls
refere:1cing the spedfic project of thea,er, I am
focusing broadly on perfirmancc and then apply•
ing :: back to the specifics of prrformance eth:iog•
raphy :r: which actual lives and actual :mman
conditions are presented for public disccssion.
C. Border Pedagogy
In Postmndrrn education: Politics, C11l1ure, and
Social Criticism, Aronowitz and Giroux (I 99 J)
discuss the construct of border pedago,~y. "Horder
pedagogy the opportunity for stucents to
engage lhe multiple references that constitnte dif-
ferent cultural codes, experiences, and languages.
Th is meilns educating students to read these codes
critically, to learn 6e limits of such codes, inc!ucing
the o:ies :hey tL;;c to construe t t:icir own narrat:ves
and histories" (?P· I 18-1: 9).I believe this to be core
logic of a student in class-amrered approach to
[6
performance cthnogna?hy. It is a logic faat
promote;; $tudent engagei:ae11t of actual accounts
and descriptions of cultural practice, wi1h the in:ent
for them to cone to know culture differently. ln
more specific 1n" "- Aronowitz and Giroux wri:e
that border pedagogy helps students to unde:-stand
that " [o J:ie's class, race, gender, or t:tlmicity may
influence, but dues not irrevocahly predetermine,
how one takes up a par:kular idetJlogy, reads a par-
ticular text, or rcspo:'ld~ to particular foros of
oppressior." (p, 121 ). Hence, there fa the potential of
seeing the links that b:r:d humanity and not the
borne:; of difference tl1at we pre,mme divide us,
Border pedagogy requires teachers to engage
students in the places and ideological spaces of
their own experiences as they try to make sense of
:ulture and curriculum-while :iract;cing a voice
lor:g subdced and silenced b ciu: clas,room. Such a
perfonuance-based mdml' der:iands a new level
of engagemem tl:at crosses borders ',etween the
:<nowing a:'ld the k:10wn. Giroux and Shannon
( 1997} state: "Pedagogy in this context becomes
perfonnative through :he ways in which various
authors [teachers and stucenh, l engage diverse cul·
ti.:.rnl texts as a contcxt for tl:eorlzing about social
issues and wk:.er political considerations" (p.
In these ways, the Un;;. between performance
and f'thnography can move :he overaJ: engage-
ment of education beyond mere leaching, that
process of organizing and integrati:lg ;{nowledge
for the purpose of sharing meaning and mandat-
ing understaf'.ding in the confines of the class-
roorr:. Jt can move towa;:-d the notion of pedagogy,
whid: str2.tegizes purposeful learning with an
awareness of the social, cult'Jral, and ?Olitkal
contexts in which learning and living take place.
Perfonna:i.ce ethnograp~y as a part:wlar peda-
gogical strategy can then move even fu,rher to
enrnmpass a critira! pedagogy by reveaEng, inter-
rogating, and challer:ging legit:mated soda! and
cultJral forms and opening spaces additional
voices in a meaningful human discourse. Such an
act would always b.: moving toward hecu:ning a
rev0Juti,m11ry pedagogy that :1<,lps to enact the
possibilities of social rransformat:or: by bleeding
;he borders of subjectivity il.nd opening spaces of
care (Mclaren, ,WOO).
 Alexander: Performance Ethnography JI 427

D Public Pedagogy concern both in performance studies and in

ethnography. l have al::eady focused on the is~ue
In bath Pineau's and Denzin's approaches
of representation and the social reconstruction
to critical performatve pedagogy, there is a
of other people~ lives, whether as pedagogical
hope that the embodied, reflective. and reflexive
method or as political activism, Performance
process of performative pedagogy becomes what
ethnography troubles the issue and illuminates
Giroux (200 l) constructs ac~ a public pedagogy, a
the need for careful consideration and delicate
process in which the efforts and effects of such
attention to the dramatistic questions of who,
critical processes are not limited to the sterilizing
what, when. where, and why (Burke, 1957),
confines of the classroom or the real:n of self-
directed to the actions of others and, more impor-
knowing, hut are presented tu and enacted in the
tant, directed to our own political intentions,
public sphere so as to transform social li!e, G~roux
Drawing from the conceptual frames of theorists
w~ites, "Defined through its perforn:ahve func-
in performance studies, ethnography, and anthro-
tions, public pedagogy is marked by its attentive-
pology, I outline and extend some of the more
ness to the inte::connections and struggles that
dominant issues that reflect these disciplines as
take place over knowledge, language, spatial rela-
they converge in performance ethnography,
tions, and history; Public pedagogy represer.ts
a moral and political practice rather than mereiy
a technical procedure" (p. 12). Public pedagogy A. Dominating Issues at the
expands privatized notions of pedagogical prac- Convergence of Performance/Ethnography
tices, specifically the in-class strategies used by
Performance ethnography highlights the
indlv:dua'. teachers that might mark disdplir.ary
concern in performance sudies with how
Ji mits and boundaries. In such case, a public ped-
specific cultural practices shape identitv and the
agogy is framed and conceptualized by a political
concern in ethnography of how identity shapes
network of principles in critical pedagogy and
the prac:ice of cul:ural j)erfotmance. Per:'or-.
Ct;cltural studies that link teaching and learning
manee eth nogmphy also high:ig:1Js the role 01
with s11dal change. t 6
cultural hegemony in the interpretation of cul-
Through the performed engagement a cul•
tural performance (E. C. Fine & Speer, 1992,
tural dialogue, performance ethnograph~ b~com~s
p. 16). I:i this case, cultural hegemony is defin~d
a pub'.ic pedagogy with several chara.cle~1sttc~. It 1s
as the collectivizing practices of cultural fam1l ·
designed to • ake public the ofte:i privatized, 1f nut
iars who regulate identity through tbe actualized
secularized, experie11ces of others. It is designed to
embodiment of particular norms as identifying
begin the painstaking process of deconstmcting
markers of communal, cultural, and political
notim:s of diference that often regulate the equal
membership.
distri':m:ion of humanistic roncern. II makes pre•
Performance ethnography as a reifying and
sent and visible the lived experiences of self and
magnifying cultural performative. act :"p:kates
gi,fag students, performers, and audiences
aspects of this quality of cultura1 perrormance
access to knowledge that, one hopes, will open
in at least three ways, First, in the staging and
spaces of possibility.
embodiment of "the other" i::l performance, per•
formance ethnography capitalizes on the observ-
able and replicable behavior of cultural members
Ill IV. Po:.:TICAL POTENTIALITIES :n a particular context. Second, performance
AND PRII.CT!CAL INTERPRETATIONS etr.nog:aphy depends on the integrity of rela
Of, PERFORMANCE E7H:iOGRAPHY tional and ethical actl: of the ethnographer who
describes culture and the performer w':10 embodies
Performance ethnography :eases at and illumi• cul:ural experience. The questions of why are par-
mites a wide variety of issues tha, a~e of particular ticular c1,1itum! practices engaged and why they ure
 428 111 HANI>BOOK 01: QUAIJTATIVE RESEARC,f-CE APTER 16
stuail:d thmugh perform,mce should be scrutinized
carefully. In this way, performance ethnography
foregrounds the rcpresenlalional politics of per-
formance and ethnography and the ethical issues
of responsibility to particular audicm.:es and
cultures represented in the texts (Carlson, I 996,
p. 15). The question of wha1 aspec1s of culture are
reenacted in performancefor what re,ison a11d with
whar perceptual and literal effects 011 culture
bl!fng represented aiso should be critically
engaged. Third, pcrfo1 r.iance etbmgrnphy ralls
fur a reflexive engagement on the part of the
participants-actors/audiences to quest:on what
they accept as :ruth and to examine how their
tru::hs arc shaped by their perspective both in
a:1d perfor:narce, as well as in and uf the
cultural Ii ves n:presentcd :h rough performancr
(Jones. 2002, p. I).
I>iscussing the :hree stages in tl:e mcthod-
o:og:cal procc~s of performance ethnography,
etfmogmpl~y imo playscnj'1t, script imo perfor·
111am:e, and perfor rrwm:e into meUH:lhnogrnphy,
Victor Turner (l 982) comments on a level of
cridcal rellexivity tha: i:np:icates the nature of
ethr:ngre'.lhy and oerformance. He writes, ''The
re"kxMty of performance dfa:solves the bonds
{be:ween body and mentality, :.incm1scio·Js and
oonsdous thinking, species a11d self) and so
cn,ativdy dcmocmtizes" (p. 100 ).
Performance ethnography orchestrates a:1
emhod ird understanding of how notions of the
sel: are always constructed :n relation to other,
and how we hold those perceptual standards as
regu lato1 7 device, in maimaining human socia:
rclalio;1s. As a moral d'scourse, performance
cthnugrnphy democratizes human sodaEty by
dosin~ the gaps between the knovm and tb.e
unknown, bcrv,cen self and other, and between
the borders and boundaries of differently lived
experiences.
B. Interpreting and Evaluating
Effective Performance Ethnngraphy
ln artirnlati r:g conce:ns of interpretation and
evaluation, [ focus on three an:as oi emphasis:
content, form, .ind impacL i depend heavily on
Laurel Richardson's (2000a) ir: which she
writes: "Ethnography is always situated in human
activity, :iearing both lhe slrei:gths and lir:iita
tions of human perception au: feeling* (p. 254}.
These arc pa;pllbly felt and rra lizcd in the con·
Joinec effort of performance ethnography, which
is to articulate a vision and understanding of a
p,.rtkufar cultural experience, as ii resonates and
ricochets between self and other and, at ti mes, self
as other.
Content
L Substantive contribr,tion (Richardson,
2000a, p. 254): Does this piece contribute to our
understanding of sodal liter Do the writer/
perfo,mers demonst:-atc a deeply grounded (i:'
embedded) human-world understanding and
perspective? How tr.is pcrsptdive infor:m:c
the constmction of the tex:?
The notion of contrib:nion is really an issue of
intention. It is based :n a series of questions that
seek to get to :he core of :he critica: endeavor of
the perform alive engagement. Wha ~ does the
performance seek to accomplish r V\111ctt tlue.s the
perfo,1mince lo contribute, in te:-ms of
knowledge one experience, to the a,.dier:cd In
sorr:e literal ways, the constructed cr:tity of
the performance must have a specific purpose
with specific goals. What is/arc the mor~l and
theoretical arguments in the text? In the case uf
audience-centered perforrr:am:e ethnography,
wb.11 aspects of culture do the performers seek
to expose to the aud:cncc-partkular traditions,
dotl:ing, :'ood, sod al expressions, and so or:?
What critical evaluation (or politicized under•
standing) of cult~ral practice do the perform-
er, ,eek to s\hare with !he audience, or want the
audience to assume? ,vhat political nmvement,
emotion l'1 re~pur:se, or engr,gcd trmperar:m::
docs the performance seek to :ncite?
2. Reflexivity (Richardso:1, 21J{JIJa, p. 254 ): How
die :he authorfpe:iormers co:ue :o writefperform
this ten? How was the 'nfurmat'on g11thered1
How :1as the a:.ithor/performcrs' su :ijectivity beei:
both a prod·,i..:er and produs:t of this text? ls there

adequate self-awareness and self-exposure for the
audience to make judgments about the point of
view? Du au6 or/perfom:ers :,old themselves
accmm:ablc lo the standards of knowing and
telling of thr people they haves tudied?
Tl:e performatlve cm1strnction and prcsenta
tion of ethnography has multipk- levels of reflex-
ive accountabilities, "irst, when the perforrner
ls represent i rig the cultura 1 other, there is a
performer-based rcflexivil), Th is level of reflexlv ity
:s a cril kal selt-examina:ion of the performer's
intc:itiom, a dear understand:ng of his or her
dense particularity in relation to the performed
other, aml his or her positionalil y in relation to
the ?Olit[cs of per forming ulher,
Second, perfo~mance e~hnography encour-
ages a critical retlection on the performed pCJpu-
fation, gathering a c,ear understandi::ig of the: r
cultural experience. T'.:lis turns into a performer-
pr:rformed rcjlexi1,itythat acknowkdges the active
procrss of performativc embudime:it of the other,
the resonant points of ;u:1cture and disjunction,
and how thev work toward and in tension wit!:
intended goal' of the overal I pcrfon:rnti ve engag<'-
m.:nt. Such c:-itical engagen:ents seek :10: only
to kr:ow the selves engaged in the performance
(performer and performed). but also how lh,;;
performance seeks to encourage a certain cr'.tic.il
reflexiveness in the audience as they engage faE
performative moment. The performance should
push the audience to learn and engage previously
unspDken and unknown things abo:Jl culture and
communkation frnrr: the experience of their
engagement {Gooda]. 2000). This perforrnative
learning engagen:ent is spedtic both to the rep-
resented culture and to ways in which such
knowlecige can be extrapolated to broade, issues
of social and cultural internction.
3. :ixpresses a rca1ity (Richardson, 200!la,
p. 254): Uoes this text p,esent a lltshrd out,
embodied sense of lived experience? Does i: seem
"trur" :11eaning a credible account of a cultural,
soda'., individual, or curnmm:al sense of ,he
,,reaI"'.
Tl::e moment of performance prrsrnts n context
that opens the V>'ay for the perfurmer"eth nographer
Alexande:: Perform.u!Ce Ethnography 111 429
"to present human social behavior as more, rather
than as less, complex, to keep explanations from
be com 1ng simplistic or red;1ctio:1ist" (Wolcoa,
l 999. p. 79). In this regard, Denzin (1992) might
~Jggest that perforrr.ance ethnog:-aphy must
"reflect ba;;k m:, be entangled in, and critique
currenr historical moment and its diswntent~"
(p. 25 ). For my own purposes, the current histori-
ca: n:o • ent is both :he actualized lived cor:di:ions
and practices of :hose presented in performance,
and also the moment of pcrforma:1ce.
Form
4. Aesthet:c merit (Rlchan:lson, 2000a,
p. 254 J: Does this piece succeed aesthetica]y?
Does the use of creative analytirnl practice open
up the text and invite interpretive responses? Is
the text artistiCi!lly shaped, satisfying, complex,
and not boringr
T:1c writi:li,; in perforr.1ance ethnography
mus1 he well crafted. Thi:; implies craft bu1h in
poel le tcr m.s, though aesthetic language that
i:wokes the lin~s hetween foll emotion, critical
thought, and understanding; as wc:1 as craft in
the sense that the language must bi; clear, effec-
tive, evocative, und more than subtly rcprcsen-
tath'e of the populations to which ii rct:ecls
(Pclias, 1999a, 1999b; '>pry, 2001). The wr:ting
mus: give the audience to whicl:: it is p~esented
access to the world of those it represents in a
manner that simulates the vi sccral response of
actual experience.
In tht case of using empirical materials gath-
erec. from ethnographic interviews, the language
that infornan·,s speak spec.ks the logic of their
desire. 'Their processed and re-articulated voice
must be shaped and ?laced in context, signaling
both the actuality oflocation in the utterance and
the regenerated conditions of its use in perfor-
mance-bridging space, lime, and tin: ch,rnneled
<"mbodiment of cultural experience. The crafted
language ar:d embodied engagemen; of perfor-
mmice etl:nography must meet the standards of
intellectual rigor and aesthetic acumen set by
experts and theorlsts :n both performance ~tudies
and the social sciences ( l)enzin, 1997; Spry, 2()01 ).
 430 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER :6
It must have the sensuousness of articulate
embodied thought, with the clarity and efficacy of
good research grounded in ethical care and thick
description.
lmpm.:t
5. How does performance ethnography affect
the performers (emotionally, intellectually, and
politically)? How does performance ethnography
affect the audience (emotionally, intel:ectually,
and politically)? What new questions are gener•
ated in and through the performance? Does the
performance move the performer and audience
to try new ways of seeing the world, pa!tkular
cultures, particular research practices, and ways
of k:nmving the world? Does the performance
move the performers and audience to a particular
achon-e;,:tending outside the borders of the
immediate performativeexperience? (Richardson,
2000a, p, 254 J.
These are not questions of measurement or
the validation of effect that often trouble the very
personalized and deeply felt responses to per•
formative engagement, yet the strategic purposes
of engaging performance ethnography :night
e:r:courage performers and audience mrmhers to
ceflect upon the nature of :hefr experience. They
might suggest that audience members of these
performances be offered a forum or Yenue, such
as speaking in post• performance discussion
sessions or writing on questionnaires or com-
ment sheets, This helps in further ;:heorizing
what audiences bring to and take away from
performances. It helps to clarify the effectiveness
of performance to engage, inform, ignite, and
incite response beyond personalized pleasure
or the emotional stirrings of dis-ease (Park-
Fuller, 2003 ),
Fur:hermore, some form of engaged discourse
might s;iggest asking performers and audience
members to articulate a shift in their way of
thinking and seebg the world. What do they
know differently? What will they do differently?
How can they literally translate perfor:native
experience into knowledge and translate knowl-
edge into doing? In many ways, this possibility
extends and reifies the dialogic nature of
performance ethnography, into a realized dia-
logue between the aestl:eticized recreation of
cultural others, the performers who :nake their
presence and voices known in performance, and
the diverse audiences with whor::1 they come into
contact.
• V. DIRECTIO'.\IS IN/FOR
PERFORMAKCE ETHNOGRAPHY
Performance ethnography is concerned with
embodying aspects of ethnographic description.
It is this practice of engagement that allows per-
formers, subjects, and audiences (in their reci-
procated and intensely bound positionalities) to
wme to an experiential sense of the variables that
affect cultural life. It focuses on the importan:
transformative process of becoming. which
nals our agency for empathy and our llex:b::ity
in embodying cultural norms. One can hope that
the pedagogical, aesthetic, and political processes
that inform performance ethnography wiU con•
tinue to bubble to the surface while establishing
new ways of engaging, extending, and critically
reflecting on the multiple variables that shape and
affect cultural k11owing,
Soyini Madison's (: 998) key constmctio:1 of
the performance ~fpossibilities offers both validity
and direction for performance ethnography. I
knowingly and willingly displace my voice to fore-
ground some of her germinal artii;;ulalions on tl:is
note, knowing that they are most certainly key
reminders of the ways in which performance
e;;hnography seeks to open realms of kr;owing
and doing :hrough the joint efforts of perfor-
mance and ethnography and the necessary po:it•
kal activism that yokes and drives engaged
citizenship. (See how Madison furthers these
impera:ives in !:er chapter 011 critical ethnography,
Chapter 21, this volume) He~e r reframe her artic-
ulations as tenets for a performance of possi-
bilities-not rules, but a set of organizing
principles that should guide the future of pe,:for-
mance ethnography.

Tenets for a Performance of Possibilities
• The performance of possibilities functions as a
politkally engaged pedagogy that newr has to
c~nvince a predefined s:.ibject-whether empty
or full, wl:ether essential or fragmcr:ted • to
adopl a new position. Rather, the task is to win
an alrer,cy positioned, already invested indivkl-
ual or group w a different set of places, a differ-
ent urganizatio11 of the space ofpas,ibi!ities.
• The performcmcr of" posstbi!ities invokes an
invEs:ment in politics "the Other: keeping
in mind the d1n.lmics of performance, audi•
ence, and Subjects whi:e at the sar::e time being
wary of both cynics and zealots.
• The performance cf p11ssibilirie.i takes the $:and
:hat p1:rformance matters because ii doe~ some•
in world. Wt.at it does fur the audi•
en,e, Subjects, and those engaged ln it must
":le dr:ve:1 hy a thoughtful crili,Jue assump-
tions and pu,pose.
• The performui1ce of possibilities does not accept
being heard and included as focus, but only
as a starting ;,oint Instead, vokc is an err. bod-
ied historical srlf that constructs and is con-
structed by a matrix of social and political
proces~es. 'l'hot aim is to pre,e::t and represe::t
Subjects as made and makers of meaning.sym-
bol, and history in their fu;:est sensor,' and
social dimensions. Therefore, the perjormance
of po,sibilities is al8o a performance of vo:ce
wedded to en,.,..·enr-,,.
• The perfi1rm11nce of possibiiities a~ an :nterro-
gative field aims to crea:e or co::trib·~te to a
discursive: space where unjus: systems and
procl'Sses are icenlified and interrogated. It is
where what has ':;een expressed through the
illumir.alion of luke and the enmunter wllh
subjectivity r::otivate:i individuals to some level
ofinformed am: strategic ac:ion.
• The performance of possibilities motivates
perfurme:s ar.d spectarors to app~opriate the
rhetorical currency thc1 need, from the inner
s;:,ace o:· the pedormana to the outer domain of
the social world, in order to make a m,,terial
difference.
• The pcrformanee of possibilities necessitates
creating performa:ices where the inteJt is
largely to invoke i nterrogaton of sped fie politi •
cal and social proces5es so that art is seen as
consd11n,ly working toward a cult'~:.il politics
Aleirnndet: Performance Ethnography Ill ,m
cf change that resonates in a progressive and
invnlvec citizenship.
• 'fr.e ptrjbrmance of p~ssi~ilities to rdn•
to audier:ce n:embers the we:; of citizen-
ship and :he possibilities cf their individual
se:vcs as agents and ,.hangc-makers.
• The perform,mce ofpassibii11ies acknowledges that
whe:i audience member, begin :o witne.,s degrees
o; tension and incongmity between a Subjec:'s
life~'i\T>rld anc these processes and systems th;.t
challenge and under:nine that world, something
more and new is learned about hDw po1,er w:irks.
11 The performance rif possibilities s.:ggests
both performers and audiences can be trans-
fo:med. they can be the:nselves and mn:-e as
they travel between wor:ds-the spaces that
they and othe:, actually inhab:t and the spaces
of possibili:y of human liberation.
• ·:be pe~farm1mce ofpos,ibili11es is n:oral resp on -
sibllity and artistic excelle::ce thnt culmina:es
in tl:e acth•e in:erven:ion of mi fair ,·to<•""'"
ret:'laking the possibility for new o;ienings tha,
bring tr.e marg:ns to a sha,ed center.
• The perfirrmance o( pos,ilii/ities not arro
gantly assume Iha! W< e:,rdusive:y arc
voice to the silencc-d, for we u11de1stat:d they
speak and have been spea:-:ng in spac<'S and
places ofll:n foreign to us.
• The perfirrmance afpnssibflitie, in the new mil·
lenniun: will spc'Cidize i:i the whoII r in:possible
r~aching toward ligh1, 1ustice, and enlivcn:::g
possibi::ties (Madison, 1998, pp. 276-286).
How might Madison's construct;or.s be mace
manifest in performance ethnography? How
might we move toward a ::oncrete tmiterializa
tion of these possibilities? How might 'h'e extend
the prumises and possibilities of performance
ethnography outside a sorr:et:mes insu'.ar aca-
demic endeavor characterized by talk and into
a community-based ap?l:cation where doing has
meaningful conseqi:ences? Those of u, working
for a critical cultural awareness tlimngh perfor-
mance stud:es, ethr.ography, cultural srucies, and
peda~og:cal studies ande:1,tand tl:at the stakes
are high, but so is our desire. Wi: understand that
the steps that we take leave tracks from wiere we
have been :::,ut also establish trails to our directior;
and others to follow. AHow mi: tll offer some
possible directions for us to traveL
 432 111 HANDBOOK OF QGALITATlVE RE~:::ARCH-CHAPTJ:R 16
First, of critkal reflexivity are ;iJways al
the center of perforr.1ance et'urngraphy. The act of
the seq· see the self signals Joseph Roach's
(2002) discussion thmugh Brecht o' defamilari2·
ing the self-not defamilarizing the by
simply ste;,ping into the bodies others, '.lut by
heroming aware what happens in and as a
result uf that shift Perfonnance ethnography
would bei:efit from w:ial K. E. Supriya {200 I) calls
the !taging of ethnographic reflexivity in whk:;,
tl:ere ls a rritical emphasis on seeing the self see
the self both in moments of cthnograp!'lk practict:>
and i:i the performance of that knowle,:ge. Sud:
per'ormances might at once c,m!:rm the power of
performance as a method of knowing and present
a dear template fo, audiences to engage in the
process of cri7ical relle<:tion on their exp<:riences
in perfo,mance ethnugrap:iy, thus assisting faem
in developing crilic<il that cxtenc beyond the
perfurman :;e mon:ent and .:an af:ect fae ways in
w:1ich th:y move throng>: thr world.
In this wav, we a:so 1:ced Langellier's ( l998)
d:arge relate<l to performing personai narrative
when w,ites: '"lh 'just do it'»-in th is case
performance ethnography-"without producing
knowledge abm: :" the links between performance,
ethnography, and culture risks explo:ting rdtural
practices tor personal gains. Joining Langellier,
Elizabet!: Bell (2002) yearns for ?erfornance
theorv, that can he: .::i to "account for the material,
political cunsequem:es of performance ... fl
(p. 128}. I ap;;ly her '.ogic toward building a cri1 i.
cal theory of pcrfor:nanct ethnography, a theo,y
that can help to en ligr.ten us on :!ie revelations
gained through performative experietKe, These
revelations mignt exceed the particularity of
method, pedagogical purpose, or eve.:i the poli!ks
of representation to foregrou:id the logi,s of eJect
and 1he sociopolitim.l impacts of performotive
experience.
Such a theory would ask and answer :he
fo:Jowing questions: Wlat do performers Jr:C
audience mcmbe~s lake from experience of
performance ethnography'r How. thmugh a ?"rfor ·
mance of translated ethnographic materia!s, do
perfo~mcrs and audiences come 10 know culture
better? l n ,mswering these questions, performance
ethnography might also be formally :J nked to
Giroux's {2001) desire for a public pecagogy,
then~l'ly' linking practices that are intcrdisdpli11ary,
pedagogical, and performance-based with such
practices that are desig:1cri to further racial,
economic, and political demo era cy, practices
that are desigm,d to strike a :1ew balance and
expand the inc'ividual and social dimensions of
cfrizenship (p. 9).rn
Second, although performance ethnography
often seems interested in retlccti ng on the experi ·
cnce of and with the cultural other, distbctions
are made through perceived C'haracteristks of
difference. To what degree would pc:-rformance
e:hnography also benefit b illuminating the ways
in which "difference" as an ideological and prac•
ticed ..::onstruct is a part of any community?
'lb what degree woulc perfor:nance ethnography
·::ier:ctir in turning its gaze on the specified com·
munities to which ethnographe,s and perform·
ers claim membership, and thereby illuminate
:he ways in which struggle and strifo are presen:
within the everyday ll'e of cultural famillars?
Mosl recently, :ny work has moved i;1to what
I have constructed as an integrati"ve and reflexive
ethnography cf performance t::tat bntl: captures
and extends this logic. This experio.:nta:
approach is gruur:ced both in Denzln's (1997;
cons I ruction of rejlexive critique ,md in Jones's
! I997) i;se of performance as a critiqu1; of rhe
academy. I: i.,; also informed by Schneider's (2002)
notion of a rejlexive!dijfractive ethnograpfiy,
which charges that ethnographic practices should
not only n,• inscribe the nature of what already
happen~ in the world. but also move toward
instaotiati:lg ways of seeing and methods of
knowing to transform those practices.
The approach allows n:e the opportunity to
address questions about and tespomes to staged
cultural performance that i er.counter in the
academic com nu: nities in wlud1 l claim :m:n,ocr-
ship. A:though these comments and cririque,;;
are "seemingly" directed to a particular product
or uttem:icr, ,he inseparability of product,
procrss, and producer (a member of ''minority
culture') in relation to the variables that shaµe the
life of the critic (a member of"majorit}' c.1lture")

always b:eed the borders. These bleeding borders
are like semi-permeable membranes between the
pi:blic and the private, between professional
aud the personal, and between t½e politics of
?('Wer and propriety that always threa:en to hold
:ension-filled historical soda: rela:ions in stasis.
By incorporating such critiques in a restaging of
the performance either in embodied or written
fo,m, I stage a critical re:1exivity for self and
other. thereby further theor:z.ing the mechanisms
that undergird both performances in everyday life
and how others and I reconstruct and critique
those occurrences in tne academic ar..d scholarly
cultural arena (Alexa:1der, 2004b).
The kernel idea that I am suggesting rnrns
on the following questions. Can perforcance
ethnography be used :o tum the tablei; not only
on those constructed as "the other" but also on
our collective cultural selves? Can performance
ethnography be used to look a: the very condi-
tions ander which ethnographers, scholars,
teachers, and students labor, in order to discover,
or rather uncover, the way~ :n which our talk
about oppression and liberation of the othe:- are
not always the models that we use in developing
and n:aintaining the commun:ties in which
we claim membership~ Can we use performance
ethnography to cdtkaHy gaze back on our own
practices? Can we use performance ethnography
to exp:ore the ways in which the mixed ider.tities
in ar:y community (e.g., race, ethnicity, class, sex,
sexuality) and the invest:nents we have in main-
taining these social identities often dash a:id rub
against each other? These points of contact must
be acknowledged and addressed sometime before
we begin to cu re the wor!d.
In this way, maybe performance ethr..ography
. , forma-
can be used to deconstruct disciolinarv
tions such as white studies, black studies, queer
studies, and the varying machinations of identity
polit:cs that both center and decenter th~ vested
interests of varying populations in the larger
moral discourse of hurr.an interaction. Maybe,
in some rafaer spedfic ways, under the rubric
of performing theory and embodied writing
(Madison, I999), we can engage a close ethno•
graphic excavation and performative engagement
Alexander: Performance Ethnography a 433
of these :ogics faat undergird human sociality.
Such an engagement might reveal how theo,etical
and academic logics format and foment particu-
lar social tensions and thereby sustain borders
of difference, even as they purport to democra•
lize. Examples inch:de the following: (a) how the
construction of commodity ir. white studies
and black studies is the sign:fier for myths of
nationality and identity that reconfirr:1 problem-
atic constructions race, power, and division;
(b) how queer studies/;:heory performs a
tance to regimes of the nom:.al, and in turn
generalizes concern& and experiences within an
imagined community where tr.ere is still cunte&·
talion over the very terms "gay" and "queern as
informed through issues of race, class, sexual
practice, and desire.
I see my own work moving in these areas
when issues of personal survival motivate sd1ol-
arly production (Alexander, 2002a, 2003, 2004a,
2004b ). More often, r am positioning myself as an
affected party, as a community member, or as an
indigeuous ethnographer. Through autoethnog-
raphy, I am exploring and sometimes exposing
my own vu'.nera':;ility to rad al, gender, and cul-
tural critique as a method ofhot'i ·1nderstanding
and other, ar.d self as other, while engaging
in per fur mances (written and embodied) that
see.k to transform the sodal and cultural condi•
tions under which I live am! labor.
Third, performance ethnography needs to
develop legs, or walking feet, traveling the dis-
ta:ice to particular audiences that might effect
change, sud1 as Boal's Legislative Theatre, or to
those audiences that need an affectve awareness
the issues. Following some of the more radical
applications of Theatre of the Oppressed, Play•
hack Theatre, and Community-Based Interactive
Theatre(s), performance ethnography as an acad-
enic construct cannot sit in the ivurv, towe: and
invite audiences to come to it. It must go to those
plo.ces and spaces where such ,ritical performa-
rive intervention is needed to magnify i,sues,
to dynamize movement-;:,hysical, soc:al, and
politici (Boal)-and tu engage audiences most
in neeci of exerdsir.g and practicing voice. In this
'>vay, performance ethnography would thus
 434 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RES£ARC!I-CEAP7ER 16
develop projects that "reach outside the academy
and are rooted in an ethic of rec'pmdty and
exchange" (f.om;_ uergood, 2002, p. 152 ).
Fourtn, i:l a literal move of stepping inro srm1e-
011e else's voice and consequently his or h"r lived
experience, maybe performance ethnography
continues its direc!:on toward cmss-cultural and
cross ~acial performances by having people per•
for:n the narratives of others, The kbd of work
that is engaged by Olga Davis at tl:e Univenity of
Arizona in staging even:s, leading up to illld
including the Tulsa Race Riots of 1965, might fur-
tl1er spur m: thi5 i:npulse_ The work indudes her
studcr.rs in a long-term ethnogra?hic research
projcc: and challenges then, to perform aspects of
research, race, resistance, and riots.
In many ways, Davis's pedJ.gogka: practice
of alsu having students at the predominantly
white university Ivhere $he teaches perform
actual slav<' narratives embarks on a form of
performa:icc ethnography that forces sll:dents
into realms of historical knowing. They begin to
think, as Dem.:n and Lincoln ( 1998) write,
"historicaJy, inkract:o:ially, and structurnlly:'
They begin "to make conncctlor:s among lived
experience, larger social, and cultural structures"
that ace made manifest in :he current predi-
cameuts of race and culture (p. xi). This approach
is centered in the performance of autohiography
am: tl:c performance of biography, embodying
the articulated and documented experiences of
o:hcrs as gathered through ct!: nog,aphk processes
or found texts. i,,
Pi:: h, we must strengthen the commitment
performance ethnography as a civic-minded
moral dis course that encourages whal Stephen
Hartnett ( 1998) calls a form of "pcrtormative
citizenship" -one in which the acs;he:ics of
performance "movrls I beyond ·1yp:10:ized indi-
viduality and 11urac:nus commodificatitm to
approach something closer to engag~d cultural
history" (p. 288 ). This type of cultural histnry;
as both reabns of i:idivid:ial/human experience
and us shared le.garics of pain and possibility,
e..1acts citizenship ilS productive ::iarticipatio:1 in
the realm of humar. relations. Jn Geogniphies of
Leaming,Jill lJolaa (2001a) takes on this argument
to suggest that the arena and efl!:age('. practice of
performance can create citizens a:,d engage
democracy as a participatory forum in wh:ch
ideas a:id possibi: ities for social equ:ty and ju~:icc
are shared.
flerformance ethnography can help us to
under.stand the lived cihural experiences of
others, b·Jt it also can help us to daim the joint
culpabilil y uf history's legacy. rt can lien hdp us
to s:rategize poss:bUty, ways in which colle(tive
.soda! action might lead to a :nore compatihlc
h'.lman condition.
Ill NOTES
1. Lock ford ( l 99S, 2000) for a helt•fu!
dis:ussi(ln on performing cons\ructcd narrative, or
performing t/11) rrue in experiena, or the true w ,rll.'n-
m~e narrative.
2. Bacon (1979}, Bacon and Breen {1961},
K'.einau and Mc:tughcs (1980), and 'i'brdon (1989; as
,,~erminal texts.
J. See Stem and Hcndt'rson {1993) for a i:ooc
survey of this app:oarh.
4. This is particularly noted in performance
6tadies' rr.Qs: reccn! interest in "perform.it've writing"
or what Rtcru1rdson (21JO!lh
'
\ calls "creative analvlic
, '
w:-iting ~':"~clkcs" (p. 941 ). also M11dison (1999),
Po::o,k (1998c), (1999b), and L. Miller a:id
Pelias (2001;.
5. See Carlson {]996), Conquergoo(i (2001),
Pelias and Va::(bstirg ( 1987), Strim:, Long, and
Hopkins (1990 ). and Stucky a?id \Vimr'.'ler (2fl02 i for
more expanded :;urveys of the evc,lulion of perfor
m:mcc
6. Conquerguod movement through
the wmk of [19.59), k:stin (1962),
(1969), Hymes ( H75 ), Turner (1982;, Bauman '. l 986),
Turner and 111rner (1988), and Bhabha (1994). He
marks his origin:al rnns:ruction this moment in
Conqucrguod (, 992).
7. See P:ielan a1:d 0998) for the furlhe:-
charting of this 1,ajeclory.
l\. Turner (1988) c~fmcs soda] dramas a;;. units
of aharmonk er dls~armonk social proce,,ses, a rising
::1 conllict ~ituativ!l&, Tn:kdly, they four main
phases of :iublk action: (.:) breach of reg:dar :-or:11-
gnvf'rned social rclat:ons; (b) c:-isis, du:ing w:· 'ch there
is a tendency for the breach to (c) redressivc

a:tion 10 resolvr certa':1 idnds or crisis o, legitimate
other modes of resolution: and (dI either reintegration
of the dis:u~b,d social group or tl:c social recogni:irm
and :egitimiiation i rreparabk ,chism he tween the
contesting :,art it's / pp. 74-75 ).
'l. Van Mrurn en credits Barth cs ( with the
insight
10, Coco Fusco 5 : 1994 Jdesc:iption of her wor·,
w:th (iuillerr:10 G6me1.-Pena and text;;, on the origi~. an<l
impetus of perfor• ance art. Pe~formam:c Mt is ;110~t
oft.en interested in ;he relat'onship het1,-,en :>crformarn:e
and ic'enti:y, c~pcdally the ,·L,ihility of those normally
exciuded by :ace, dass, gencer, or sexuality (set Mifflin,
1992, and T Miller; Kushner, and fllcAdams, 2002).
IL In Twilight: Los .Angeles. 1992 (1994), Anna
Deavere Smith cng,ges the same prm:es; in interview·
ing and lakr pc:forming people after the I 991 :,os
Ange'.es riots.
·. 2. See Denzin's ( I997) outlining ,,f procedural
rypes and texts of ?erformance et'mugraphy
(pp, 90-'
Corey cites .l'oucault ( 1982 J for the construct
of''rcvtrse ni,cc,·v,,e"
14. Here Stern and Hender,011 ( l 993,
p,
15. M,;.aren is ~iting Grossberg (1992. p. 394).
16. Giroux Raymond Williams ( 19119, p. L'i8)
llJ hdp es1~·,1isl: this argmnc:ll.
17. The following is c sumrn"ry th,h1ghts
presented by Madi,on (!998,pp.276-2&:,).
18. Giroux cites Hall and Hdd (1990, pp. 8-'I).
19. See Pinr<1u ( 1992) for more detailed dis
ti::ction he:ween performance ol autubiograpl:y aml
auto':fograpl::ru; per for 1mum,.
a REtnuiNrEs
Akoff, L. (1991/1992}. The p:oblem of speaking fu:
nthers. Cultural Critique,
Alexander, ll, K, (1999 ). Moving mward a poetic
re~pon,e. T!ie.!lre Topic,, 9(2l, I 07-
Alexander, :l. K. (2000\.Skin flint :or the garbage man',
kid): A genc~ative autnbiographirnl p,!rforn, anct
base,I on 1,1:ni Spry's Tattoo stcries. mul
Perj:,rrnance Quarterly 20( I), 97-1
Alexancer, B, K, (2002a), Tre outsider Ior invisible
,Wan all ove: again): Contesting the ahscn·.ed
black bndy in queer theory (with apologies to
Ralph Elliso:1). In W. Wright & S, Kapl.ui (Ecs,),
image of th, ouisid,,r; Pmceedint,;s of the 1002
Alexander: Performam:e Etlmogiaphy 1111 435
Scc,el}' jw th,• Jnterd1siiplimlfy Study of Sod,1l
Imagery cot~fenmce (pp. JO!l-315). Pueblo:
University of Southern Colora,lo.
Alex,mdtr, It K. (2002b), Performing cu:rnre and
cul!:.:ral performance l:: ).pan: A ,r': kal
(au:o }ethnograph i, traveloguc.11,eatre A11mwi: A
Jcmmal of Pe~(ormance .~tudies, 55, I - 28.
Alexa::der, B. K. (200'1). Qm,rying queer thmry again
(Or queer tlwory as drag performance). In G, A. Yep,
E, Leva as, & r. ?. RI ia (Eds J, Que,•1 amt
comm,mimtion: From di1c~oli11i11g lj!lters lo 1111eer,
ing 1hc discip!fne(s) (pp. J49-352). 'lcw York:
Harrir.jllOn Park Press.
Alexander, B. K. (2004a), !!lack fa,e/whitc ma,k: The
perfm lll<ll: vc s;;stai,:ability of whitem,s,, Quaiita•
five Inquiry, JO!. 5), 647-672.
Alt'xander, B. (2004b ). rn,><:::~, cultural pcrfor
man,c, and individua: Performalivc
rellectio::s on black ma.culine identit:;. Cultural
Studies~ Critical Methodologies, 4( 3), 377-404.
Aronowitz, & Giroux, H. ( 1991 ). Postmodern ,i,lu-
cmimr: 111,UticY, cu!rure, and sociai crit icisnt
Mhmeap(ilis: Un:vc::sily Minnesota Pm».
Auslin, J, L (1962), !low w do thing; with words.
London: Oxford University Press.
&con, W, A. (: 979}. Tlw art of inicrpr,!taritm [3rd ed.),
J\ew fork: I!oh, Rind:an & Wi :·.stem.
&,;on, W., & R. (I% I), Ut~r,iture ]or mterpretu,
lion. New York: J ;olt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barthe,, R. ( 1972). Mythologies. Londo:1: Paladin.
Ba:eso11, M, C (1993). Juinl pcrformam::e acro,,s :ul
tu res: Improvisatkm in" Persia:: ga,den. and
Perjormcmcel}uarierly, 13, 113- 121,
Haun:an, R. (1986). Story, performance, rvem:
1exwal S111dies of 11ral 1ramuiv;;s. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge l:niYersity
Be,.kc::; H. M,Call, M, M., & Morris, L. V. (1989).
lbeal:es i;ommm::ties: Three sceoes. Socia/
Problems, 93-116.
Bell, E. (2002). When balf world's a stage;
A krninist excavation cf Rich.ml Schechner's
t:irory of"actuals: The 'rheatre Ammal: A Journal
of f'l,rr.wmanL·e Srudies, I 131.
Bhabl:a, H. (1994i. The lorn!im1 of rnltare, Kew Yo~k:
Rmillctlgc.
Boal, A. ( I \llY). Theater of the oppress:ed (CA. .McBride
& MA1 lc.tl McBride, Trans.). N,•w York: l:riie::
Bm1ks,
Boal.A,( 1983). Theam,1f 1heoppre:,se,t (C.A. .McBride&
Y..-0. Leal McBride, Trans.). 'lt'w York: Thcatrr
Communication Group,
 436 lll HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
Boal,A, ( 1995). The rainboiv of desire: The Boal method
the;itre and thrn1P,Y(AJackson, Trans.). New York:
Routledge.
Boal, A. ( 1998). Legislative thealn:: Using performance
ti) "lake politic, (A. Jackson, Th!::s.}. New York:
Routledge.
Bod:ner, A, P. (1994). Perspectives on imiuiry II:
Theo:ies and stories. In M. Knapp & G•.R. Miller
(Eds.), The handbook of inttrpemma/ comm1mi•
cation (pp. 21-41), Tho·Jsand Oaks, CA: Sage.
lloclmer, A. P., & Ellis, C. (2002). Ethnographicaily
speaking: Autoetlmogrophy, literature, and aestilet•
Waln'Jt Creek, CA: AltaMlra.
Brecht, B. (I 964). Brecht on theatre (J. Wilk!, Trans.).
New York: Hill.
Bruner, E. M, [ I!186). Experier:ce and ils i:xpressions. In
V. M. Turnrr & E. M. il:uner (Eds.), Tile anlhro•
pology ofexperience (pp. 3-30). L'rbana: Universi:y
of Illinois Press.
Burke, K. (1957), 1'he phifosoph)' of literary form.
!,iew York: Vintage Hook:s.
Buller, J. :1990a). Gender trouble; Fl!tninism and the
;ubversion cf identify. N'cw York: Routledge.
Bu:ler, J, { 1990b ). Perforn:ative acts and gender consti·
tution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist
theory. In S. E. Case {Ed,), Performing feminisms:
Feminist critical tJ1earyarui theatre (pp.270-282).
Baltimore: .lohns :fookins
. Universi1y' Pres.~.
Bur:er, J. (1993). BQdies that matter: Ori the discursive
limits ofsex. New York: Routledge.
Carlson, M. (1996). Performance: A critical introduc•
rion. London: Rou:ledge.
Certeau, .\1, (1984). T,~e practice of everyday life.
(S. Rendall, Trans.}. Berkeley: University or
California Pren.
Chnmbers, E. (2000). Applied ethnography. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Randbook of
qualita,ive research (2nd ed., pp. 851-869).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chaney, D. (l 994). The cultural turn: Scene-setting e.s.iay
in mi•dem cultural 1:istory. New York: Routledge.
C'iese'iro,J, W. (1998), Perfori::1am;e studies as paracox,
culture, and :nanifcsto: A future orientatiol'.. In
5.J. Dailey(Ec..), The future ofper,farmance studies:
Vi~ons and revisions (pp. 310-319). A:rnamfale,
VA: National Con,municalion Association.
C:iristians, C. G, (2000). Ethics and pol:tks in quali:a-
cive rese-.1rch. In N. IC Der.zin & 'f. S, Lincoln
{Eds.), Handboo.~ of qualitative re.search (2rc ed.,
pp. 133-155}. 'l'ho::sa:id Oaks, CA: Sage.
H,
Oiffurd, J. (1988). The predfr:ament ofculture: 1wentieth-
century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press,
Uifford, /., & Marcus, E. (Eds,), (1986), Writing cul-
ture: The poeti;:s and politics of etfmogra.phy: A
School of l,merican Research advunced seminar.
Berkeley: t:niversity of California Press.
Co:ien, R. (1988}, Realism. [n M. Banham (Ed.), The
t,,
uwibridge guide theatre (p. 815), Cambridge,
l:K: Cambridge University Press.
Cm:quergood, D. (1983}, A sense of the other: inter·
pretation and e:hr.ographic research, l n I. Crouch
(Ed.), Proceedings of the seminarkonfmmce
on oral tradition (pp. 148-155), Las Cr:.:ces:
New Mexico Statf University.
Conquergood, D. (1985 ). Performing as a moral act:
Ethical dimensions of the et!mography of perfor-
mance. Literature in Performance, 5, I- 13,
Conquergood, D. {1986a). Pe!'formance and dialogical
understanding: lr: quesr of tl:e other. In f, L.
Palmber (Ed.), Communication as performance
{pp, 30-37), Tempe: Arizo11a State University
Press.
Conqut:rgc;od, D. C9116h}. Performing GJtt;res:
E:bnography, epistemology, and ethics. In
Slembek (Ed,), Miteinunder sprechen ,md Jum•
debt· Festschrift fur Hellmut Gei:ssner (pp, 55-14 7J,
Frankfurt: Scrip:or,
Conque~ood, D, (1988 J. Health Theatre in a
Hmong refugee camp: Performance, comrmnica-
tion and culture, The Drama Review: A journal
ofPerformance Swdie,, 32(3), 174-208,
Conqaergood, D, (1989). Poetics, play, pmcess and
power: The performance turn in anthropology.
Text and Performance Quarterly. 9, 82 88.
Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking e!l::mgraphy:
·1owards a cri:k:al cultural politics. Comm1mirntirm
Mo11ographs, 179-194.
Conquergood, f), (1992), Ethnography, rhetoric and
performance. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78,
80-97,
Conguergood, D, ( 1998). Beyond the text: Toward a
perfunnative cutturJ.i poli:i:s. In S. j, Dailey (Ed.),
The future of performaru:e stu,1ies: Visions and
revisions (pp. 25-36). Annandale, VA: National
Communiaitian Msodarion,
Conq uergood, D. (2002), Performance studies:
Interventions and r.;dica: research. The Drama
Re~iew: A Journa( of Performance Srudies, 46(2),
145-156.

Corey, F. C (1998), Tne personal: Against tne master
narrative, In S. ;, Dailey (Ed.), The future of
performance studies: Visions and re·;is/ons
(pp. 249-253). Annandale VA: ~ational Com-
:nunkatlon A5socintion.
Dmzin, N. K. ( · The many faces of emo:ionalit)·. In
C, Ellis (Ed.), Investigating subje,1iviry: Research
011 lfved experience (pp. 17-30). London: Sage,
Denzin, N. K. (; 997), Interpretive et1mography:
Ethrwgraphf, practices for the 2fsi ceritury.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin. N, K. ( 1999). Interpretive eth::ography for the
r:ext ce:;rury. Jo;muil of Contempurary Ethm1g-
raphy, 28(5), 510-5: 9,
Denzin, N. K. (2003 ), Perform anu! etlmograpl;y: Critical
pedagogy and rl,e politics of wltu::e. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
'.lenzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (199!1). Introduction to
this volume. In N, K Denzin & Y. S. L:::coln (Eds,),
Strategies of qualitarive illquiry (pp. xi-xxi').
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Diarr:ond, E. ( 1996).fntrodudr.n. In E. Diar::ond (Ed,),
Perfarmam:es and cultural politics (pp. l-12). New
York: Ro1St:edge.
Dolan, J. (2001 a), Geographies of learning: 1'heo~y amt
pr,:u:tice, ,utivinrJ 1md performance. Middletown,
CT: Wesleyan University Pre,~.
Dolan,;, (2001 b ). Performance, utopia, and :he "Utopian
per:br:11a,ive;' Theatre Journal, 53(3 ), 455-479.
Doyle, D, M. (2001). Tht role of witnessing in perfor-
mance ethrmgrapr.y. Iowa /mrrna! of Co•tmumi-
carilm, J.3(112),22-37.
ELI:;,, C., & B,,chner, A, P. (l 996 ), C()mpasing etfmog-
raphy: AJtenwt1ve forms of qu.i!irative writing.
Walnut Creek, CA: AhaMira.
Elli,, C, & Bochner.A. R(2000).Autoet~.nography, pe,-
scnal narralive, reflexivity: Researcher as s:.lbjecl.
In N, K. Denzin & Y. S, Lincoln (Eds.), Himdboak
of qmilitative research (2nd ed., p;,, 733-768).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Espinola, ]. (1977). Oral interpretation performance:
A:; act of pub!:e2-tio11. lwstr'1'n Journal of Speech
Commw1icati,m. 4j(2), 90-'.17.
Fine, E C., & Speer, J. H. (1992). Introd,;.;;tion. In
E. Fine & I, H, Speer (&ls,), Performance, cui-
nm:, a,rd identity ( pp, 1-22), Westport, CI: Praeger.
Fine, M., Weis, L, Wtseen, & Wong, L. (2000).
For wb:im? Qualitative re;;earch, representat:ons,
and social ::espons:bilities. In ~- K. Denzin &
Y, S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qua/itari•;e
Alexander: 1'erformance Ethnographv Ill 437
research {2nd ed., pp. 107-131). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Fiske, J. {1994). Audlencing: Cultural prac:icc and
cultural stuciies. !ii. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds,), Handbook ofq,mlitatiw research '.pp. 189-
l 96). ·~·hO"~sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foucault, M. (1962 I. The subject and power, Critical
Inquiry, 8,
Fcx, J, ;1986), Am 11/ servici,: Spom,meiry, .:ornmitme11t,
tradition i11 the •wmcripted t/ieatre, ~ew Paltz, NY:
Tusitala.
Fox, J,, & HeimeidJ, :J. (Eds.). {19991, Gariu:ring
Ess;:.ys on playback theatre. New Paltz, '.',lY; lu,itala
Freire, P. (I 985 ). The politics of educaJion: (.ultur.:,
power, a11d liberation. N,-,,.. York: Bergin & GP."'17·
Freire, P. (1998 ). Teachers a., cultural workers: Letters
to thine wlic dare teach (D. Macedo, D. Koike, &
A, Oliveira, Trans,). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Freire, P. ( 1999). Pe,1agogy u{ the opprened, New York:
Continuure.
Funss, K. ( 1997), Striking performuncelperf;rming
strikes, Jackson; University cf Missi,sippi Press,
Fusee, C, (1994). The history of interc-.:Jtural
performance. The Druma llei· iew: A Joumal rJ'
Perfarmaru:e Studies. 38, 143
Garnian, C, R. ( 1999). Performirrg pcdugogy: 1owards ,rn
a:rt of poiitu:s. Kev; Ynrk: SUN1 l',css.
(ieiger, D. (1973). Poetic realizing as k:cowing.
()u1m:erly Journal of Speech, 311-318.
Gentile,!. (1989), A cast of one; 011e-pemm ,Jww,fr,mr
(hrmia11qua platj<,rm to the Broadwtiy ,tage.
Urbana: University of lllinnis Press,
G,roux, II. A. (20::n;, Cultural studies as ?Ctibrmative
politics. (,ultura/ Studies"" Critical Metimdologies,
1(1),
Giroux,H.A.,&1"'.k;,,are:;,P.(1984), Critical pedagcgy, the
state mid cultural struggle. :'lewYn:k: SIJNY Press.
Giroux, H, A., & McL\:'1:n, P. (Eds.). (1994). Between
borders: Pedagogy and tire politii:s ofrnltural stud-
New \'ork: Rout:edgt,
Giroux, H. A., & Sha:mon, P. (Eds.), {1997). Education
and wltural studies: 1/Jward a perf,wma!ive pruc-
tice. New York: Routledge.
Gof:man, E. ( 1939;. The pn:smlatim1 ofself in ei·eryd,;y
life. Garden City, NY: Dou':ileday.
Goodall, H. L., Jr. {2000 J. Writing the new et}mography.
Walnut Creek, CA: AlrnMira.
Grossberg, L. (1992). We gotta out of this place:
A:ipular ,onseri•atism and posrmodern wltur~.
London: Routledge.
4J8 Ill HAt,;DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
GnlSsbe~g. L (: 996), Toward a genealogy or the
state of C'J ln:ral studies. fo :-Jelson &
D. Parnrneshwar (Eds.), Disn)1lina•ity and dis·
sent cult11ral studies {pp. 107). ISew York:
Rnut:edge.
ll. ;,t ;2000). rhe J;;sfiye stme: Race, et!micity, and
n.uhmaffsm as cultural perfimm:mce. Los Angeles:
Univer~iry of C~lifomia Press.
& Nellhaus, T. (Eds.). t2001 ).Pcrjr,rming
democr,xy: fmerna!iorwl perspectives (Ni ur/Jan
cmmmmity·based performance. Ann Arbor:
lin iversil y of Yl'chigan Press.
Eall, S" & Hdd, D. (1990). Citizen,, citizenship. lt1
S, :fol I& !vL JacL:uc, (Eds,), New times: The chang·
ing {a,·e of politics in the I99Gs (pp. 17:J- 188),
London: Verso.
Hamera, J. (199')). editor's nmes. Text aud Perji1rmana:
Quarterly, 19( l ), 106,
Hamera, J, (2000). The rnmance of mons:ers: Theorizing
Im: virtml~o bocy. Theatre l/Jp1cs, 10(2), 145-153.
Harrison-Pepper, S. [ 199'1). IJramas of pcrsuasim::
P,dormance studies interdisdplinary r<lm:a•
lion. T/1eutre 1bpics, 9(2), 141
Hart r.c!t, S. (I 998), Democracy is difficult: l'uetry,
prison, and performative citizenship. In S. J.
Dailey (Ed,), 'the fimire cf performance studies:
Visiorn and revi;fons (pp. 287-2517). Annar:<laJe,
VA: Natio:ml Crm::imnkation ,,,,,u;.1a•,1uJJ.
Hopkins, M. le ( i 981 ), F:un: page to ,tage: T':e hu'.'den
of pronf. \'outh;;rti Speed, c,.m,mimicatfrm j,:11m1r.l.
47,.
Hymes, J, (.1975 ), 3,eak:h:uugh into performance. In
D. llen-Amos & K, Goldstein (Eds.), Fofkl!J':';
Performance and comm1mfcarion (po. 11-74).
']1e Hague: M0t:ton.
lacksm1, S, (1993 ), Elbnogrnphy and the audition:
Performance as idcologirnl critique. 1ex! mul
Perfrirmance Quarterly, 1J, 21-43.
Jack,,on, $, (1998). Whi:c noises: In performing
011 writing performance. The Drama Ikview: A
journal o(Pe:iforma1":e /;/udics, 42( I), 90-97.
Jackson, S, 12000). Line! of activiry: Perform,mce, hislo•
riogruphy; Hull-House domesricity; Arbor:
l'.nh•ersi: y of Michigrn Press,
Jones, J. ( I 997). Siola do:ta: Perfurr..ance as a cr:t:<jut·
of the academy. rhe Orm•:,, Review: A ]oumai of
Perform,mi:e 8tudies, 41(2), 51-67.
Jones, J, (2002 ). Pcdormtmu! ethnography: The ro:c of
e mbodimc:i: ::i cultural ~utbentic;t~. Theatre
ulp/c"$, 12(1;, 1-15,
l<apfen:r, a (.986 ). Performa::ce and the srruct uring
of meaning and experience, In V. ;1,f, Turner &
E. M. Bruner (Eds,), flu? ant!1ropo!ogy of experi-
,mce (pp. Hl8-21l3). Urhana: Uni\•ersity of illinois
Press,
Kershaw, B. \ 1999 J, 111c radical ir1 perjimnance: BelWl'l!n
Brecht and Baudri!iard. London: Rou:ledgc.
Kirby,M. ( 1979). AutGperformance is;;ues: An in:rod;:c-
tion. The Dr,111111 flrview: A j()u~ral of Perfarmat:te
Studies. · ), 2.
Kirshenblatt•Gimbett, B, (1998). De;tinutimi culture:
lourism, museum~, and heritage. Berkeley:
l:niversity of California Press,
Klcinau, J\I, L, & ,\,lcHughes. ;, L (: 980). Tlu:am•s fer
literatures. She~man Oaks, CA: Alfred ?ublishing,
Langel:ier, K, '.11. ( I 989). Personal narrnlive,:
Per,prctivl'.~ on :1:eory and research. Iext um/
Perji:mrumce Quart~r!y, 9, 243-2 76.
Langellier, K, M. (1998 ). Voiceless bodies, budi:ess
voices; The future of p<'tsOnal nar:·ati ve
performance. In S. J. Da:IC)' (Ed.], 111e futl!re
()f perfimnanet) studies: Visiar:s and rei,isions
(pp. 207 ··· Z13 ), 1\nnandalc, VA: 1'iatfonal Com mu·
ni,;ation A~soc:~tion,
Langellier, K, M, (1999). Persona'. narrative,
formance, r1er:orn:ativity: 1\vo Dr three things
I know fo, sure. Tex/ ,md P~rformance Quarterly,
125-114.
:.ionnel, F. (1989). A1l!obi11grnphico.l voice,: /~1:u:e, geri·
der. selfportraittm::. Ithaca, NY: Cornell l;niversity
Lo,kford, (l!,1!,18), Emergem issues in the per-
:omiance of a bonier.transgres.s've narrnlive,
In S. J. Dailey (Ed.), The future of p(;rJormance
studies: Visfrms an,i revisions (pp, 214-220},
Anna:-:dale, VA: National Co:1miuniration
AsslJdation.
Loddord, L (2000 J. An ethm,graphk ghost s:ory:
Adapting "What'~ a nicr comnwd:t y like you
doing in a spectade like tlus?" and Perfor-
mance Qrmrtrn'y.20(4),402-415,
Ma Ca loon, E. It (1984 ), Rites, dramaJesiiv,d, spectade:
R2iiearsals loward ,1 theary of cultural perfi;r-
mance. Ph i:ade: phia: lns:it ute fo, the Study of
Hur:,an Issues,
Madison, !l S. ( l \198). Pedorm;:r:cc, personal na1ralive.s,
and tl:e politics of possibil:l y, In S. J, Dailey (.Hd.),
11u: future of performance siudies: Visiom Qnd
revi,iim, (pp. .tic1-Ll>tli. A::nandale, VA: National
Comm unkalion Assod,1tion,

Madison, D. s. (l'l\19). Perforr::':ig theorvlembodied
writing. Text and Performarire Quarterly, 19,
107-124.
McCall, M. M. (1993). Not "ju;;t" a farmer and notjus/
a "farm wife." U:ipublished performance sc,ipt.
McCall, M. M. (2000). ?erformance ethnography: Abrief
hislory and some advice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of q1;alitati:ve research
(2nd ec., pp. 421-433 ). Thousand Oahi, CA: Sage.
McCall, M., & Becker, H. S. (1990). Performance
scitnct. Social Probltrr.s, 32, :17-132.
McLaren, P. (l 985). ritual dimensions of resis-
tance: Clowning and symbolic inversion. Journal
ofEducation, 167i 2),84-97.
;vklaren., P. ( 1989). On ideology and ed~catlon: Cri,b1l
pedagogy and the cultural politics of re,istance.
In H. Giro'JX & P. McLaren (Eds.J, Critical peda-
gogy, the slate and ,uhural struggle (;ip. l 7>;-202).
Albany: State L:n iversity of New York Press.
:Vlcla:en, P. (1993). Schooiing as a ritual performance:
Towards a political economy of educ,aional
symbols and gesture,. New York: Routledge.
Mclaren, P '.1994). Ufe in schoal: An fntroduc;ion to
critical pedagogy in the fo:mdotio,is of educ~tion.
New Yort:: Longman.
M::Laren, P. (: 997). Revolu,ionary mui1icutlura/ism:
Pedagvgies o( dissent for the new mW.mnium.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
McLaren, P. (1998). Life in school: An introduction to
;:rirical pedagogy in rhe foundations of educati,m
(3rd ec..). New York: Longman.
Mclarer:, P (2.000). Ch£ Gue~ara, P..1ulo Freire, and the
pedagog;: of re·;o/ution. New Yo:lc Row:nan &
Littlefield.
M, Laren, P, & Lankshear, C. ( 1994). Politics of lilnra-
tion: Path, fmm Freire. 1',ew York: Routledge.
Merrill, L (I 999). When Romeo was a woman:
Charlotte Cushman and her circle offemale ;pecra-
wrs. Ann Arbor: t:niversity of Michigan.
Mienczakowski, J. (: 992). Synching out !cud. A ;ourney
into illness. Brisbane, Australla: Griffith U:iive::sity.
Mienczakowski, J. (1994). Reading and writing
resean:h.NADUE /oumai, 1& 45-54.
Mi,mczakowski, J. i 1995 l. The theatre of ethnography:
Tt:e rc-:onatruct!on of e,hnograpl:y into :hea:!'t:
with emancipatory ;,cternial. Qualitative Inquiry,
1(3), 360-375.
lvlienczakowski, J. (2001}. Elhnoi.lrama: Performed
research: Lir..:tationsand poltntiaL In P.Atkinson,
A. Coffey, S. Delamo::t, J. Lofland, & L. Loflanc
Alexander: Performanct F.thnograp:1y 11 439
(Eds.), Handbook ,if edmography (pp. 468-476).
London:
Miem:zaknwski, J., & Morgan, S, (: 993). Butting: The
ciudlenge of the drought spirit. Brlsbane,Australia:
Griffith university.
Miftlin, M. (1992). Performance art: \\/bat is it and
wl:ere is it going~ A.rt News, .91(4), 88-89.
Miller, L., & Pdias, R. (2001}. The green win,fow:
Proceedings of the Giallf ron,li:rm~e on per.for-
mative wri,ing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
t:niversity Press.
Miller,".'., Kushner, T, & McAdar:is, D. A. (2002). Body
blows: Six performances. Madiso:,: University of
Wisoonsin Press.
Mohanty, S. P. (:989). Us and ,hem: On the philosophi•
cal bases of polit:cal criticism. Yale Journal of
Criticism, 2(2), l-31.
Neumann, M. ( 1996). Collectir:g ourselves at the end of
the century. In Ellis A. P. Bochner (Eds.),
Composing ethnography: Alternali·,e forms of
qua/irative writmg (pp. 172-198). Walnut Cret:<.,
CA: AltaMira.
Kudd, D. M. (1995). The postmoderr. heroine(s) of
Lardo i'Veep:::g. Texr ar,d Performar..;e Quarterly,
15, 21-4).
O'Brien, I. ( l 987 ). Performance as criticism: Disc,wer'es
and documentatio:1 11::ough enactment. Commu-
r.irntil)fl Srudies, 10, 189-20 L
Paget, .M. A. (1990). Performing fae text. Journal of
Contemporary Etlmogrophy, 19, 136-155.
Paget, M.A. (l 993 ). A compltx sorrow (M. L. De Vault,
Ed.). Philadelphia: Tempie Universi:y Press.
Park-Fuller, L. (2003).Audier.cing the audiem:e: Playback
thea:re, pertorr::ati\-e writing, and social activism.
'lexi and Performa11ce Quarterly, 23(3 ), 288-310.
?ark-Fuller, L., &Olse:i, T. ( 1983;. llndeutanding what
we know: Yonnondio: From the thirties. literature
Performance, 4,
Pelias, R (1999a ). Perfornumce studies: The inter
pretatitm ofaesthetic texts (2nd ec. J. Dubuque, IA:
Kenda!IIHont.
Pelias, R. ( 1999b). Writing performance: Poctidzing :he
re1eurcher's /Jody. Carbondale: So-Jthtrn Illinois
University Press.
Pelias, R., & VanOost'.:ig, J. (1987). A paradigm for
performance studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
73, 219-231.
Phelan, P. (1998). lntrodt.:ction. In P. Phelan & :. 1.ane
(Eds.), The e,rds of performa11ce (pp. 1-19).
New Yo:k: New York Ur.'.venity Press.
 440 111 HAKDBOOK Df QUAUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 16
Phefan, J>. & Lane, J. (Eds.). (l '198). rlre ,mds of
performan,e. Kew York l:niversity Press.
Pir.eau, E. L (1992). A r:iirror of own: Anais t,,;in',
autohk,graphka! performances. 1'1;,~1 and Pcrfor
m,.nce Quarterly, 12, 12.
Pim·au, l'. L. (1995). Re-c:,,t'ng rel:earsal: Making
a case for production as research. /owrnal of
fllim1is Speech and Theatre ti;;od,1,fon, 46,
43-52
Pines.~, K L. (I 99!l). Perfo~rnance sludies ac,nss
the currkulurn: l'rohlems, possibilities, and
projec lions. In S. ]. Dailey (Ed.), The future
of performw,ce studies: Visions ,md revisions
( pp, 128- IJ5 ). Annandale, \/,\: N;.;tional Cci::rnHJ·
nkatlon Ass,>eiation.
Pineau, E.(2002). Critical perform,uivt: ,Jeclagogy, :r. I\.
Siuckr & C. Wir:imer (Eds.), 1/!ac:hing perfar-
numce stiuiu:s (pp. 41-54). Carbor:cale: Soutl:,~rn
Illinois University Press.
Pollo.::;;., ll. ( I'J90), Telling the told: Performing Like a
family. Oral ffis1·llrv Rm•iew, I8, I
Pcllock, ll. (1998a). Ex:ep,ionril ,p«ffs: Essays in per-
-
fi;,mrwec ,md his wry. •
Ch2.a_11,I
<
E ill: Universit •v of
l\ort:i Carnlina Press.
Pollock, D. U:d.). ( 1998h). I111rnductkm. In F.xfepfioru1I
spaces: in perjvrm,wc;: t1tid his101y
( pp. 1-4'.>). Chapel HiL LJni versit y of Ncrth
Carolina Press.
Pollock, IJ. ( 1998,). Perforn:ingwriting.ln I' Phclan & J.
Lane (Eds.), The emisofperformanct (;1p. 73-HH).
New York: \.Jew York L:niver&ity Press.
Pollock, D. (1998d ). A rt-;,ponse to )wight Conquer-
gmid's essay "Beyond the texl: Toward a per-
fo:-mat:ve cultural poli:ks:' In S. J. Dailey (Ed.),
The future performance studi1is: Visions and
revisions (pp. 37-46 ). Ar: ::andalt, VA: '.'lat:onal
Crnnmunication Association.
Rrcd-Dnnahay, D. E. (E,l). ( 1997). Auto/et.~nogmphy:
Rewriting the self and the social NeVt York: Berg,
Richardson, l. ( 1997). Fields of play: Cims1rn,tir11;;
an aaufomfr: liir!. 'Jew Brunswick, NJ: Ra:~ers
U:1 iversitv P::ts~.
' -
'
Richardson, L. (2000a), F.valuating ethnography.
Qu,llilativ.: inquiry, 6(2), a.>.,-,,a;:,.
0
Ric .ardson, L. (200ffJ ). Writing: A met::md of in,1uiry.
In N. K. Denzin & l S. Lincoln ( Eds.), Handbook
,f ijUafiratl·1c rescardr (2nd rd., 923-948).
71ousam: Oak\, CA: S.1ge.
Rich,, rdson, L, & Lockridge, 2. {1991 ). The sea r:1onslrr:
An cth:mgrnph ic drama. Symbolic Inte,,uticn, 14,
Roam, J. (1993). The player~ passion: Stud I.es /11 the science
of uctin,1;. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Pres,.
Roach, f, (20112)_ Theatre studies/cultural studies/
perfonr:am:e stud ks: The three unities. ln
N. Slucky & Wim tr.er (Eck), 1'raciiing perfiir•
111an:e st!ldie, (pp. 33-40). Carbondale: So::thern
Illinois t:nive rsity
RomJn, D. ( 1998). Act., of intervention: Pe~fomum.:e,
n,/ture, and All)',. Hloo:n i::gton: Indiana
rniver,ity
Rosaldo, R. '. 1989). Cu//;m, rind tru/Ji: The rt:making of
soda! a,;aly;is. Sos ton: Beacon.
S,llas, J. '. Ig')6), Improvising real life: Personal swry in
playbal.".~ tlwatre (R.-:v. ed.). 'Jew Palt;,)fY: Tusitala.
Samovar, I.. A.,& Portcr,R. E. (: 994}, lnrerculturoi ccm-
1mmi«,1ion: i, reader. lkmont, CA: W~dswor:1:.
Schechner, R. (1%J). Rites a11d symbols of initiation.
New '/hrk: Harper.
Schec0 :1er, R. (1977). at: performance theory,
J970-1976. t,,;;;w York: Drama Book Specialists.
Schechner, R. (1985 ), Between. theater an.d ~mhropolngy,
Pidladdphia: University of Per: nsylvanra Press.
Schechner, R. ( 386). Magnitudes of performance. In
\; M. Lrner & Ii. M, Brune~ (Eds.), 1'/;e anrf1ro-
pol,>g} of experi,-11,e ! pp. 344-369). 1.Jrhana:
University of Illir:0is Press.
Schechner, R. (1~88). Perfimnance theory (Rev. and
exp. ed.). New York: Routledge_
Schneider, L(2002), Rellexive/diffrnctive ethnography.
Cult urni studie.1 H Critical Meffwdologit·s, 2,
460-482.
Sdmliman, M., & Cohen-Cmz, J. (Eds.). (1994).
Playing !foal: Theaire, therapy, activism. New Yor~:
Routledge.
;;,cam,. J. (1969), Speec:!1 acts. New York: Cambridge
lniversity
S::or, l. (: 992), Culture wm,: Sdmcl and society in the
co1tservatiYe restimltfon. Chicago: Univ~'Isi:y of
Chicago Pre,s.
Sieg.el, & Conq-:ergood, D. (Producers & Directors)
( J9i!S ). Berwee11 two ·worlds: The Hmong shaman
in A mel'im !Video documentary].
Siegei. T,, & Conquergood, D. (Produce~, &
Dfrectors'.. (1990). T'1e hear! l:mken in half
lVidea doct1rnentary].
Singer, M. (I 972). When a tr!.i.dition modernizes:
An ,mtltrapalagirni approadr /,J In.dum avii,z,·i-
tion. New York: flneger.
Smith, A, D. (1993). Fil'!:s in the mirror: Cn:111•11 Jle;gfm,
lln•oklyn, ,md other idenhlies. Garden City, \IY:
Anchor.
Smith,A. L>. ! 1994). 1\v1Uglrt: L,is ,rn.,e•,"· 1992, Garde:1
City, NY: Anchor.
Spai,es, ,\. c. (2002 ). Autoethnography: Self'.indulge::ce
or ,;;omething murc? In r\. P. lkclmer & C. Ellis
(Rds. ), Etlmogruph icaf!y sperikiug: A11toeth1w15•
mphy, literature, and ,,esthetics (pp. 209-2.,2).
Wal nu: Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
Spra,:lry, [. I'., & lvkCardy, Tl W. ( 1 1'/ie ,:ultura/
cxperfeiice: lithnography in ,omplex sot'iefl,
?msped Height~, IL: Waveland.
Spry, T. (1997). Skins: A daughter's (re konstrnclion of
c'l.ln.:e~: A performali'vc autobkgraphy. 1itxr and
P,:r.fiJrmarrcc Quur;l?ri), 361
Spry, T. (200 ll. "er for:n i:ig auto,et:1 ncgraphy: Ar,
embodied methodii::al pra, is. Qw1litative Inquiry
;: 706-732.
Stern, C. S., & Hendcr;;on. B. (l 993 ). Perjimrwnrf:
and amtexts. New 'iork: Longma~.
M. S. (1998). ivli::iping the "cultural turn" in
pcrfor:11ance ;;tudics. In 5. J. Dailey (Ed.). Th 1:
future of perfiwm,lnce m,dies: Vi<i'1,t1, aml
ri>vi.1/cns (pp. 3 9). Annandale, VA: National
Corr.:mmkation A,sncia•:un.
Strine, M., Long, & Hopk';1s, :VL E (: 990). Re,;earch
in :::lt'l'Jlretatio., and per"orrr.ance studies. In
G. l'h:lli11s & J. Wood ( Speech commu11im-
ri01:: w wmm.:mora,,; the seventy-fiftli
"'" niversar; r>f the Spe~di C,;mmunicatitm
A:social ion (pp. 181-204 ). Carbondale: Southern
!llinr,is Universi:y Press.
5mcky, N.. & Wimme, (2002). 'fo1;chingperformurue
studie.s. Carbondale: Southe:·n Illinois :Jniversity
Press.
Supriya, K. E (20/J 1). Evocatio,, of an e11/lcll111:r:1 in Ap,u1
(;har: l'erform,ng et:mograpt::c sclf-reflexiv ity.
Text and i't'rjormanc;;: Qw1rterl;v.
Tafor, I liocumen:ing performance knowl-
edge: ·1w;1 narra:ive techniques in Grace Paley's
fiction. Svuthcm Speech (ommr.nicuti,m Jo:m111i,
67-79.
ll:dlock, Tl. (2000;. Ethnography and et::nographic
rewesentation. In N. K. Denz:r, & Y. S. Lincoln
(:':<ls.}, Handbook of quali,afr,,e rescarc/1 (2nd
pp. 453-486). 'fhousand Oaks, tA: Sage.
Iedlock, f}, ( l98J J. On the translation style in oral
narrative. 111 B. Swarm (Ee.), Snmathing the
grouud: Fw1ys on J\Jalfw American (Jl'/1/ literuture
(pp. 57-77), Be:'kd~y: l:nlver&it}' of California Press.
Turner, V, (1974). Dranws, fields, and metaphors;
Symbolic r..-ti,:m in hu,;i,m Jthac11, NY:
Corndl Un'versitv Pr.,ss.
Tumt·r, V. (1980). Soc'al dramas and slories ebout
them. Criti,:ai Inquiry, I), 141 · 161:1.
Turner, V. (1982). From ritu.il tr, theatre. New York:
Performing Ar:s Jouma: ?ublication,.
·111mer, V. 0988). The att!hrapofow of performance.
Nt:w YorK: Pcrformir1g Art,, ]ourm\l Publications.
Turner, & Turner, F.. (1982). Performing c1lmog·
rnphy. The Drama R1n1iew; A Journal of Perfor·
mar.ce Studi1cs, 26, 33-50.
Turner, V., & Tuma, (]988). :>erformanr,· etf:::og
raphy. In V. Turne:; The anthropology ,f perjor•
mar:ce I;:p. 139-155). New for,;; Performinl! Arts
Journal Publimlions.
Valen:ine, K. 3. (1998). Ethical issue, in :hi1 tran-
scription of pcrson,1I 11arrative. In ~- J. l)Jifoy
The fature of perform,mre studies: Visions
anrl revisi,ms (pp. -225). Annancalc, VA:
l\atimml Comot:nication As.,odaticm.
Valentine, K. B., & \'ali:nl:ne, E. (1992), Performi;ig cul·
tme through n,1rration: A Galle,r;an st!lrytellc,. In
E. & ]. Ii. [Eds,}, Perfom:am:e, culture,
and ide11ti/y (pp. li.ll-205). :-.lewYo:'k: l'racgcr.
Va;· Erven, E. (1993). T.~,· playful revoluri~n: Tiu•tITTii
and /i!i,;ratiim i,; Mia. Bloor,1 i r:~ton:
,. India::a
Gn iversity Pr,·s,.
Van Maamm, I. (1988). 1ale., o/ tire Jfefd: !in wriling
ethnography. Chicago: Un'versi,y Chirnga
Van :vfaanen, ). (Ed.). (I 995). Representaliim in clrmog•
raphy. ··1mt:sa:1c! Oaks, CA: Sage,
Whi,nant, D. ( I%3;. All that is native and j1ne: The pal•
ii'irs of ,:ulture in 1m American region. (liapel Hill:
;Jn iver:;ity of North OJ::olina Press.
WH:iams. R. {1989). Ad ull educ at i 011 and
chi:ige, In What i amte w say (pp. 157-166).
London: Ht:tchinson-Radus.
Wirth, f. (1994). lmcr,1aiw aciing: Aai11g, impro,·isa-
//on, ~nd inti'racting jor audience p,,.r11cipalary
th!!cure. Fall Creek, OR: Fall Creek
Wukot1 H. F. ( 1999). F.thm;gr,1pl11: A WI\)' of seeing.
1
Walnut Creek, CA: Alta.Mira.
Wolf, S. (2002 ). A pro/Jl.:m like Mar i11: G,mder and
;exua!ilJ, in the American musical. A11 n A,ho,:
Univcrsil r of Michigan l'rt'ss.
Worley, n. (I 998). Is critical performa!ive pedag,1gy
prnctical? :n S. J. Dailey \Ed.), The future of
performa1uiti itudies: Vision: and reviJions
(pp. 136~ 144).At:~.anda:e, VA: J;;ational Commu·
nkation Assoc'ation.
Yordon, J. 0989). Roles in if'!!erpreta:fr:m (2nd ed.).
Dubuque, IA: W:11. C, 3mwn,
 17
.-----------------------,tn1)'H;iiJ,1;,;+,~,
QUALITATIVE
CASE STUDIES
Robert E. Stake
C
ase studies are a common ¼'llY :o do
qualitative inquiry. Case study research is
neither r:ew nur essentially qualitative.
Case study is nut a methodological choice ·::lut
f a ch(1ice of what is to be studied. If case study
research is more humane or in some ways tnm·
scendent, it is becai.:.se the researchers are so, not
be.:ause of the :nethods. By whatever methods, we
choose to study lhe case, We rnuld study it analyt•
ically or holistically, entirely by repeated measures
or her:neneutically; organically or culturally, and
by mixed :nethods-but we concemrate, at least
for the time being, on the case. The focus in th:s
chapter is a qualitative concentration o:i the case.
The physician studies the child because the
child is ill. The child's sy1:1ptoms are both qualita•
live and quantitative, The physician's :ecorc. of tl:e
chlld is more quantitative :han q!.ialitative. The
social worker smdics the child because the child
is neglected_ The symptorr:s of neglect are both
qualitative and quantitative. The formal record
t:1al the social worker keeps is more qualitative
than qu antitalive. t In many professional and
Author's Note, Thi, re,,•!,ion of my d!Jpt~r in the 2000 sernnd edit:011 of thi, iiandb@~· cont::1ucs to draw he,v:ly from
on Whar IJ" Cas,r, edited hy Charles Ragin and Howard Becker !1992). ilditnrial
Yvoona Unco'.n is 1:erewilh ac,mowledged.
practical fields, cases ares 1m:'ied and recorded.
a form of research, case study is defi nee bv inter·
est in au incividt:al case, not by the methods of
inquiry 'Jsed.
A majority of researchers doing casework call
their studies bv some other name, Howard Decker,
for example, 'whe:1 asked ( 5i mons, 1980) what
he called his own studies, reluctantly sai<l, "Field·
work;' adding that such. labels contribute litt:e to
tl:e understanding of ,,,.hat researchers do. The
name "case study" is er:1p:1asized by some of us
because it draws attention to the question of wl:at
specially can be' learned a:mi.:: the s:ng:e case.
That epistemological question is the driving
qi:.estion of this chapter: What can be learned
about the single case? [ will e:npbasize desig:iing
the study to optimize understanding of the case
rather than to generalize beyond it.
For a research community, case study
optimizes understanding by pursuing scholarly
:-esearch questions. It gains credib:lity by thoroui:;hly
,riangulating the descriptiom and intcrpn:ta·
:ions, not just :n a single sre? but con1inuoasly
by Rita Davi,, Norma,: lle11rin, end
•
444 JIii If A'I LlllOUK 0:0 QUA LITATIV I' RESEARCH-Cl:lAPTER l 7
throughout the period of study. r'or a qualitative
mm munity, case s~udy concentrates
on experiential knowledge of the case and close
attention tn the influence of its social, political,
and other conlexts. Fur a:most ai:y audience,
optimizing understanding of the case re qui res
metkulou~ attention to its activities. These five
requin:menls-issJe choice, triangulation, expe
rient:al knowledge, co:1texts, and activ:,ies-will
be discussed in this chapter.
11!1 THE S1~GULAR CASE
A case may be ~imple o, complex. lt may be a
child or a classroom of children or an event, a
happening, such as a rr:obi:ization profes.
sionals lo study a childhood cond:tion. Lt is 01:e
among others. Ir: any give:, study. we w:11 COil·
centra:c on tr.c one. The time we may spend con-
cent ra-:i ng our inquiry on the one :nay be long or
short, but while we so concentrate, we are engaged
in case study.
CJstorn has it ~hat not c,•erything is a case. A
child r.1ay be a c.1,e, easy to spec:fy. A doctor may
be a case. But his or her docroring probably lacks
the specificity, the boundedness, 10 be called a
case. NJ topic, of inquiry, ethnome:hodologists
sti:dy methods, such as methods of doctoring.
mc:hods of cooking, examiair1r:; :1<;w things get
do:ie, and the work and play of people (Garfinkel,
1967). Coming to understand ?. case usually r~uires
extensive examining of how thhgs ge: done, but
the prime refere1,t in case study is th: case, not the
:nethods by which the case opo:rates, An Agency
(e.g .. 1:ongovernmental organilationl may be
a case. But the re,mins for child negJ;;cl or the
policies of dealing with neglec!fol parent~ seldom
will be considered a case. 'I/Ve think of those to;:,tcs
as gcr:eralities rafaer than specificities. The case
l.s a specific One. 2
I:' we are moved to st:idy i:, the case is a:most
certain! y going to ':ie a fnnct ior:ing body, The
u1se is a "bounded syste:n" (Flood, as reported
in Fa:s Borda, :998 ). In the social sciences ar:d
hur:u1:1 serv iccs, most cases have working parts
and purpn,cs; many have a self. Fu r:ctional or
dysfunctional. rational or irrational, the case is a
system.
Ir is co:mnon to recogni:ri' tha: ccr:ain features
are within the sygtem, with in 6e boundaries of
the and ol~er features outside. In ways, the
activity is patte,ned. Cohe!i::Ke and sequence are
:here to be found. Some out&ide features are s:g ·
:iificant as context. Wi:liam Goode and Paul Hatt
( 1952) observed 6at it is not always easy for the
case :esearcher to say wl:ere :he child ends a:1d
where the environment begins. But boundedness
and activity patterns nevertheless are use:ul ~on•
cepL~ 't,r specifying the case (Sta~e, 1988 ).
Ultimately, we may be interested in a general
phenomenon or a population of ,e,es more than in
the l:!dividual case, and we cannot understand a
given case without knowing abou: other cases. !ll:t
while we are studying ii, ,htr meager n:sour,:;es urc
concentrited on trying to uncerstand its complex•
ities. Later in thi., chapter, we 1nill t,ilk abour com•
paring Ullo or more cases. We may simultaneously
on more than one case study, but each case
study is a com;~ntratec inquiry Into a singie case.
Charles Ragin (1992) has emphasized the
question of"What is it a case of?" as if"member·
ship in" or "representation of" something else
wel'l" the main consideration in case study, He
referrec to the casework of Michel Wieviorka
(I 988) on terrorism. Ragin and his c:oeditor,
Howard Becker ( 1992 ), were writing for the social
scientist seeking theoret:cal genemlizatkm, justi-
fying the study of the particular only if it serves
an understanding of grand issues or explana•
tions. They recognized faat even in formal exper•
imentatio:1 and statistical survey work, there
is interest in the ilh::strativc or deviant case. Hut
histori,rns, program evaluators, institutional
researchers, and ?ractitioners in all professions
are interested in t1ie hdividual case without r.ec-
essarily caring what it is a case of. This is intrinsic
case study,
.
Even if mv definition of the study' of cases were
ag:eed ;;pun,' and it is not, :he terms ·'case" and
"study" cdy fJll ,11eciflcat'on (Kemmis, 1980). A
case stucy is hoth a pmrcss of in,piry about thr
case and the proc'..u;t of that inquiry. Lawrence
Ste:1house ( 1984) advocated calling the product a

record;' and occasionally we shall, bm the
p:actke of calling the final report a "case study" is
widely establisr.ed,
Here and there, researchers will c;,J anything
they please a case "1:i:dy; hut lhe more the object
o: study is a s:iedtk, unique, bounded systerr:, the
grea:cr the usefulness of the epistemological
rationales described '.n thi;; chapter.
Tii move beyond terminology to method, I
introdi:ce fligure 17 J, a sketch of a pla;i a case
stady: This was an early plan :nade by a small
team of c'iildhood education specialists
led by Natalia So:iy in Ukraine. The case they
chose wa::, a bot in the Step by Step child•centercd
program for ir.dusicm o[ children with disability
in regdar cl assmoms. They w;cd rigure 17, 1 to
identify content and tasks, selecting tlm:e aclivi•
ties to be observed and noting Several interviews
needed, The """""·'"1'" were deeply interested
in the case but intended to ·.1se the report to illu S·
trate 6eir work throughout the country. With
such further purpuse, l call their research an
instrumental ..:asc stucy.
Intrinsic and Instrumental lntcrest in Casrs
I find it useful to identify three types of case
,tudy. I call a study an intrinsic case study if the
study :s undertaken bcrrnse, first a:1d last, one
wants better understancing this particu~ar
case. It is :iot undertaken prirearily because
the case represents other cases or bec;:.;ise it illus·
trates a par:icular trait or problem, but instead
because, in all its partici::arity and orcinariness,
this case itsdf is of interest. T:11: rcsearcht·r at lra~t
t1:mporarily si.:bordinates other cur'osities so that
the stories of those "livir:g tl:e case''wiJ be teased
out The p:upose is not to come to understand
some abstract ;;onstruct or generic phenomenon,
such as litcr,.cy or teenage drug use or what a
school principal coes. The purpose is no: theory
building-though at otb.er times the researcher
may do just tha~. Study is unciertaken ·:iecause of
an intrins:c interest in, for e,xample, 6is particu•
la.r child, clink, cor:forence, or curricu'.u.::n, Books
illustrating :ntrinsic case study im:lui.le the
following:
Stake: Qualitative Case Studies II 445
'!'lie Education of Henry Adam.; (1918), an
,.ntobiography,
God~ Choice I 1986) by Alan Peshkin,
llrewl ,md ,')reams ( 1982) by Barry MacDo:iald,
Clem Adehr.an, Saville Kushner, and Rob Walker,'
An Aberdeenshire Village Propagitllda (1889) by
Robert Smith, and
The Swedish Schoel !>}stem (198? l by Br'tta
Stenholm.
I m:e the term instrumental case study if a par·
ticular case is exa:nined mainly to provide insig:it
into an issue or to redraw a generalization. The
case is of secondary interest, it plays a st: pportive
roll:', and it facilitates our understanding of so:ne•
thing else, The case still is looked at in depth,
contex:s scmti nized and its ordinary activities
detailed, but all bccanse this helps us pursue the
external interest.. The case may he seen as typiml
of other cases or not. (In a later section, l wCl
di5cuss wl:en typicality is important.) Here the
choice of case lo made to advar:ce understanding
of th,it other in1erest. We simultaneously have
several interests, particular and ger:.:ral. Thtcrs: i&
110 hard-and. fust Ii nc cistbgJish hg intrinsic
case studv from instrumental, but rather a zone of
'
cmr.bined purpose, ¼'.ritings iau.trating ir.stru·
mental case study include following:
"Campus Response to a Student Gunman" (;
hy K.:{y As:nusse:: folm CrPsw,'11.
Bo;.< in White (1%1) by Howard Becker, Blat:che
Geer, F.veret: l lughes, and Anselm .S1rauss,
On tlm Border ,if Vpporlunity: Edurntf,,n, C~m·
munitj\ and l,anguage al tire IJ.S..Mexico Linc
(1998; by Marleen Pugad:,
"'A :'.'fo1:,eader Becon:es J Reader: A CJse Study ,if
Lite:-.icy Acquisition by a Se,•1:relv Disabled Reader"
( 1994) by Sandra }~cCormkk,
'¼'hen there :s t'Ycn !e:;s interest i:i on~ particular
case, a numbe:-- of cases may be studied jointly in
order to investigate a phenomenon, population, or
generai condition. I call this multipl~ case study or
mllecrive a.se study," It is instrumental study extended
 446 • HANDBOOK OF QUA;_JTATIVE RESEARCH-C:IAPTER 17

liubchyk (the case)

------.J./ ~ \I Educalion In
Jkraine

The J
Parents'
Clinic /-\
Oksana's
Econorric First•Grade Teach1:1r Polllical \)
1 Condtions Classroom Treinng Conditions

/
Sites
\~
----
S:epb~ Step
Teaching r-·..__
Oksana U'l>-
,-/ s1andams

'jlJ
·~~:;
Laws
Research or I
( ~hyk'sMom

! I-' istory of ~ Press

Step by Step Reporls

ISsLes: Main lnlormatlon Questions:

Mainstreaming Versu.s What does L ubchyk lear1 in school?
Speo,al Scrools Does his ,:n;sence distract olhers' learning'>
Crlld-Centered Versus Does the Mr1istry support mainsl,eam'ng?
Toochor-Cente•oo What d sabllities are not admlss b!11 here?
Teaching Why did Ok,;ana beoome an advocate'?
Parent lnvoiver-ent How did Llubcl-yk's socialization change?
Teacher Assis:ants Is the teacher t•aining lrainee-cenle!'lli:1?

Figure 17.1. Plan :or the Ukraine Ca.e Study

to several cases. Individual cases in the collert:on
may or may no: be known in advance to manifest
some common characteristic. They may be similar
,\r dissimila:, with redundancy and variety each
important. They are chosen because [t is believed
that understanding them will le-ad lo better under
standing, and perhaps better theorizing, a::iout a still
larger collection of cases. ~llustrations of collective
case study induce the fullow:ng:
Teachers' Work ( 198.5) by Robert Co:::iell,
"Researching Practice Setr:::gs" (of medical d ir::cs)
by Benjamin Crab:ree anc' William Miller in their
dited volume Doing Qualitative Research ( 1999;,
Savage llrnqualilie; (199:) by Jona:han Kuzol,
Bold Ventures: Patterns Among lnncvulions in
Science and Marhem"lics EdU£ati,;m (:997} edited
bv Senta Raisin a:id Edward Britton, and
'

"The Dark Side of Organizations" (l 999) by Diane
Vaugha::.
Repor:s and authors ofter. do not fit neatly into
the three categories. I see these :hree as useful for
ti-Juking about purpose. Alan Peshkin respondec
to mv classification of his book God's C,~oice
( 1986)' by saying "I :nean :o present my case so
that it can be read with ir.ten:st in the case itse:f,
but I always have another agenda-to learn fro:n
case about some class of thi:!gs. Some of wha:t
that will be re • ains an emergent matter for a long
:ime" (personal com:nunkation).
For thi~ fine work, for 3 years Peshkin studied
a single school, Befhany Baptist Academy, l;r.til
the final chapter, he did not te:l the reader a:mut
matters of importance to him, partirnlarly unfair
trea:ment of ethnk rr.inorities. The first ore.er of
business was to unders:and the case. T:ie im:ne•
diate, if not ultimate, interest was intr; nsic. The
methods Peshkin used centered on the case, only
later taking up his a·::,iding concerr: for com rrrJ ·
nity, freedom, and si:rvivaL
Other typologies case study have been
offered, Harrison White (1992) categorized social
sciem::e casework acco:ding to three purposes:
ca.'ie st·Jdies for identity, explanation, or control.
Historians and political scientists :-egularly exam-
ine a si:lgular episode or movement or era, such
as Norman Gottwald {1979) did ir. his study of
the emergence of Jewish identity. I choose :o call
these studies case studies when th.: episode or
' relationship-however complex, impacting, and
bounded-is easily thoug..l;t of as organic and
systemic, heavy with purpose and self.
It is good to recognize that there is a common
form of case study used in teaching to 'ilustrate
a poillt, a condi:ion, a category-somethbg
important for instruction (Kennedy, 1979}. For
decades, professors in law schools and business
schools have paraded cases in mis manner. ror
staff development and management traini:ig,
such reports constitute the artic:es of the Jo11rm1/
of Case Researrh, a key publication of the North
American Case Rese'arch Assodation. Used for
instruction and consultafam, they wme from
pedagogically oriented instrurr.ental case stady.
Stake: Qualitalive Case Studies • 447
Biography has its own histury. William Tierney
(2000) noted that, like case study, biography calls
for special attention to chronological structures
and to procedures for the protection of human
subjects. Similarly, television documentaries,
many of them easily dassifi able as case stJdies,
require their own me:hods. J;, law, the case has a
special definition: The practice of :aw itself could
be called case study. The work of ethnographers,
critical theorists, institutional demographers, and
many others has conceptua: ancl stylistic patterns
that not on:y amplify the taxonomy but also
eKtend the foundation for case study research in
the social sciences and soda! services. My
purpose here in categorization is not taxonomic
but to err:phasize variation in concern for and
methodo:ogical orientation to tfie case, thus
focusing on three types; ir.trinsic, instru • ental,
and collective.
Seeking the Particular
More Than the Ordinary
Case researche,s seek flUt bo:h what is com·
mo:1 and wha: is pa:1.icular about the rase, ·lmt the
end product of the research regularly portray,
more of the uncommon (Stouffer, 1941),drawing
all at once from
J. the nature of the case, particu:ar:y its activity
a nr: f.mctioning;
2. its historica: background;
.t its phi.,ical
, settin5-l;
'
4. other conlexts,such as economic,political,legal,
and aesthetic;
5, other cases throug:i whk:~ this case is recog
nlzed; a11d
6. those infor:nants through whom the case can be
known.
'lh study the case, to probe its particuJarity,
qualitative case researchers gather data on all the
above.
Case ur:iqueness 7raditionally has not bet>n a
choice ingredient of scientific theory. Case study
research ha, been constrained even by qualitative
 448 n HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RES::ARCH-GIAl'TEH 17
methodologists, who grant less than foll regard
to study of the particular (Denzin, 1989; (i~ase::
& Strauss, 1967; Herriott & Firestone, 1983;
Yin, 1984). These a:iJ other social scientists have
written about case study as lf intrinsic study of a
particular case were not as important as sti:dies
intended 10 obtain generaHzations pertaining to a
population of cases! Some have emphasized case
study as typification of other cases, as exploration
leading up lo generalization producing studies,
ur as an occasionai early step in theory bui;ding.
At least as I see it, case .study method has been too
little honored as the intrinsic study of a valued
particular, as it is in biography, institu :ional ,eif-
study; program e,alualion, ther.ipeut ic practice,
and manv lines of work. In the 1994 firnt edition
'
of lb is Handbook, I wrote, "insistence on the ulti-
macy of theory buildi:ig appears to be diminish-
ing in qualitative soc 1al sd ence" (p, 238 ), b'Jt now
I am not so sure.
Still, even intrinsic case studv car: be seen
as a small step toward grand 'g<'neraH:tation
(Campbell, J975; Flyvbjerg, 200 I; Vaughan. 1992),
especially in a case that runs counter to a rt:Ie, But
generaliza :ion should not be emphasized i:1 all
research (Feagin et al., 1991; Simons, 1980).
Damage occurs when the commitn:ent to gen,
era'.izc or to theorize runs so strong rhar the
researcher's attention is drawn .iway from features
important :'or understanding the case itscl~ The
case study researclicr faces a strategic ds:cision in
deciding how much and how long the complexi-
ties the case should be studiec. Not everything
about fae case am be t:nderstood-so how much
needs m be1 r.ach researcher has choices to make.
Organizing Around Issues
A case study has {as has research of all kinds)
some form of conceptual structure. Even an
int,insk case study is organized around a small
number of research questions. Issues are not
information quest:ons, such as "\'\Ibo initiated
their advocacy of regio:1al forestry planning?" or
"How was their hiring policy announced?" The
issues or themes are questions such as «In what
ways did their changes in hiring policy require a
change in pc:rformance standards?" or "Did the·
addktion therapy, originally developed for male
dien:s, need reco11crprua:iza1Jon for women?"
Issues are complex, situated, pni'Jlematic rela-
tionships, They pt:ll attention both to ordJnary
ex;,erience and also to the disciplines of knowl-
edge,such as sociology, ewnomics. c:hics, or liter-
ary ,riticis:n, Seeking " different purview from
that of most designers of exp er' mer.ts and testers
of hypotheses, qualitative case researchers nrient
to complexities connecting ordir:ary practice
in natural habitats to a few abstra.: t:ons and con-
cerns of a,ademic disciplines_ This broader
purview is applied to the single case, leaving it as
the focus, yet general:1.arion at('. proof (Becker,
I CJIJ2) linger in the mind of the researcher, A
ter.sion exists. 9
The two used as examples two para•
graphs back wen: wr!tten for a partkt::ar case. A
more general question would be "Does a c:iange in
hiring policy away from aftlrmative action require
change in per:ormance standards?" or "Voes
addiction therapy originally devduped fur male
clients need reconceptualization for wimwn ?"
Whether s:ated for genemlization or for particu,
larization, these organizing themes should serve to
deepen uncrrstanding of the sped fie case.
Starting with a topical concern, researchers
pose faresi,adowed problems, m concentrate on
issue-related observations, interpret patte:-ns of
data, and refor:11 the issues as assertions. One
transformation experienced iu my work in pro-
gram eva:Jatio:1 's illus:rated in Figure 17,2, with
an issue for a l:ypothetkal case stJdy a m1.1,5JC
education program,
The selectior: of key issues is crucial.
Researchers follow their preference for or obliga-
tion to intrir:sic or instrnmenl:lll study. They ask,
'".Vl1ich issue c1uestions :iring out our tom:e,m?
Which would be the dominant theme?" To maxi-
mize understanding of the case, they "Which
seek out compelling uniquenesses!" Por
ar: evaluation stucy, they ask, "\Vhich issues
l:d p reveal merits and shortcomings1" Some
resei:.rchers raise social ; u;;tice issues ( House &
Howe, I999). Ir: ge11eral, they ask, "Which issues
facilitate the planning and activities inquiry?"
 QL:alit;il i ve Studies • 1'19

t Topical lssJe: he goals o' ·he music educauoo program.

2. Foreshadowed Prob,em: The majority of the community supports the present emphasis on
bend, chorus. and performances, but a few teachers ano community leaders prefer a more
intellectual emphasis, for example, history, l:teratu'e, and crilica review of music.
3, Issue Under Development Whal are the pros and cons o! having this teaching stall leach music
theory and music as a discipline in courses req Ji red ot everyo1e?
4. Asserlion: As a whole. lhis community was opposed to provioing the exlra !u1d rig required to
provide if'ltellectually based school music.

Figure 17,2. An Exan:ple of Issue Evolution in a Stucv

Issues arc chosen partly ir, terms of what ca:i he
learned within the opportunities for study. They
will be chose:1 i.lifferc'n:ly de;:,ending on tile
pi:rpose of :he stL:dy, and differently by different
researchers. One might say a personal contract is
drawn between resea,cher and phenomeno:i.
Resea:-chers "W:iat can be :rarned here that a
reader needs to kc.ow?"
The issues used :o oro:i er nize the stucv• '1lav
, or
may nor be the ones used to report the case to
o:hers. Some cases wL be structured by need fur
information, raising E,tlc debate. Fnr example,
what lee to the change in operating policy? or "Has
pe:-formance quality bee:i dropping?» IssJes often
serve to draw attention to important :unctioning
of the case i:1 a situation of stress, as w;.;L \IS to
lease out IT.ore of its interaction with contexts,
Contexts
The case to be studied is a corr. .::ilex entirv'
located in a milieu or s::uation embedded in a
number of contexts or backgrm:nds. H:storkal
context is almost always of interest, but so are cul-
tu:-r,: anc physka: contexts, Other conteXts often
of in:erest are the social, econor:ik, politkal,
ethical and aesthetk.
The case is singular, ':mt it has subsections
(~.g., production, marketing, sales departments),
grouos (e.g., patients, nurses, adn:inistrators),
occasions (e.g., work days, holidays, days near
holidays), dimensions, ar.d domains-ma1:y so
weli-populared that they need to be sa• p;ed.
Each of these n:ay ba,,e its own contexts, and the
comcxts may go a long way toward making
relationships understandable. Qualitative case
sti;dy calls for 7he examination of these complex-
ities, Yvonna Ur.coin anc Egon Guba (2000)
pointed out tl:at mud: qualitative research is
based on a view 6at social phenomena, human
dilemmas, and the nat:m: of s:ases are situational,
revealing experier.tfal happenings of nany kinds.
Qualitative resea reher, somel imes are or i-
en ted toward ctiusal expianatfrm of events
(3ecker, 1\192) ':mt r:1ore often tend :o perceive
events as fol,toy did in War and Peace-multi p:y
se(Jucnccd, im:;tiply contextual, and coincidental
more than rnmaL Many find the seard1 for cause
as simplistic. Tiley describe instead the sequence
and coincidence of events, interrelated and con-
textnally ·:JOund, purposive but qJestionably
deten:una:ive. They favor inquiry designs for
describing :he diverse activ itics of the case, Uoing
case studies does not require examination of
diverse issues and contexts, b·Jt tl:al is the way
faat r:iost qualitative re.searchers do them,
Ji;l TilE STUilY
Perl:aps the simplest rule for me:hod in qualita•
tive casework is :his:'' Place ;10ur best intellect into
the ti: ick of what is going on:' The ·):--ainwork
ostensibly' is ohserva~ional, but more criticallv, , ::
is reflective.' t In ':ieing ever-xtlecrive, the researcher
is cur:1mitted to pondering :he in, ?ressions, delib-
erating on recollections and :-ccords-but not
necessnrily followiag the conccptua'.izations of
 4:50 11 HAND!!OOK or QUALITATIVC: RESEARCH-CHAPTER l 7
theorists, actors, or audiences (Carr & Kemmis,
l 986). Local meanings are important, fore-
shadowed meanings are important, and readers'
conse<;uential meanings are important. ln
~igure 17 .1, activ ihes in the first grade class-
rooms, parents' dink, and teacher training
sites are to be described anc interpreted. The
case resea,d:er digs ir.to meanings, working to
relate them to contexts and experience, 1n each
instance, the work is reilective. 1'
If we typify qualitative casework, we see data
sometimes precoded but contl nuously :nterpreted,
on first encounter and again and again. Records and
tabulations are perused no: only for classification
and :iattern rerogtiition but also :or "criss-cm.,~sed"
reflection (Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapuu-
gaV',m, & Boerger, 1987). An observation is inter-
preted against one issue, perspective, or utility, rl:en
interpreted against others. Qualitative cas1;: study is
characterized by researchers spending ex~ended
time on site, personally in contact with activities
ar:d operations of the case, reflecfa:g, and revising
descriptions and :neanings of what is going on.
Naturalistk,ethnographk,phenomenological case•
workers seek to see what is natural in happenings,
in settings, in expressions of vi,he,
Reflecting upon case literature, I lind case
study methods wri:ten about largely by people
who hold that the research should contribute
to scientific generalization. The bulk of case study
work, however, is done by people who have intrin-
sic :n:iere,st in the case. Their intrinsic case study
designs draw these researchers towa:-d under-
standings of what is important abm:: that case
',vithin its own world, whkh is :io: the same as
the work. of researchers and t1:eorists. !ntrinsic
designs ai tn to develop what is perceived to be the
case•.~ own issues, contexts, and interpretations, it!i
"thkk description:' In contrast, the methods of
instrumental case study draw the researcher
toward illu:;trahng how the concerns of researchers
and theorists are manifest in the case. Because the
critical issues arc more likeIv to be known in
advance and m follow disciplinary ' expectations,
such a design can take greater advantage of
already-developed instruments and precor.ceived
coding schemes. 13
In intrinsic case .study, researchers do not
avoid generajzation-they cannot. Certainly,
they generalize to happenings of tl:eir case at
times still to come and in other siruations. They
expect their readers to comprehend their inter•
pretations bi:t to arrive, as well, at their own,
Thus, the methods fo~ case work acbally used are
to lear:i enough about :he case to encapsulate
complex meanings into a finite report but to
describe the case in sufficient descriptive narra-
tive so that readers can experience these ha?pen-
ings vicariously and draw their own com::lusions.
Case Selection
Perhaps the :nost unusual aspect of case study
in the social sciences and :1uman services is the
selection of cases. to stady. Intrinsic: casework
regularly begins with cases alreai:y identified. The
doctor, the soda! worker, and the program eval-
uator receive :heir cases; they seldom choose
them. The cases are of prominent interest before
formal s:udy begins. Ins.trume>ntal and collective
casework regularly requires. cases ,o be chosen.
Achieving the greates: understanding of the criti-
cal phenomena depends on choosing the case well
(Patton, 1990; Vaughan, 1992; Yin, i 989). Suppose
we are trying to understand the he:iavior of people
who take hostages and we decide to probe the phe-
nomenon using a case study. Hostage taking does
not happen often; in the entire world, there are few
cases m cl:oose. Current options, let ·Js. imagine,
boil down to a bank robber, an airline hijacker,
an estranged father who kidnapped his own child,
and a ShE,e Muslim group. We want to generali,.e
abou.t hostage-taking bel:avior, yet we realize that
each of these cases, each sample of one, weakly
represents the larger group of [r:terest
When on;:; dei;igns a sludv in the manner
advoca:ed by Michael Huberman ,ind Mattl:ew
Miles ( I 994) and Gery Ryan and Russell Ilerna:d
(2000} in the second edition of this Handbook,
nothing is more important than making a repre•
sentat:ve selection of cases, Fur Ibis design,
formal sampling is r.eeded. The cases are
expected to represent some population of cases.
The phenomenon of interest observable in the

case repre~ents the phenomrnon writ large, For
Mile, and Hubcrmar:, Yin, and Ma'.inowski, the
main work was science, an enterprise to achieve
the best possible explanations of phenorr:ena
(von Wright, 1971). In thebeginning,phenomena
are given; the cases arc opportunities to st·Jdy the
phenomena, But even i1: the h1rger collecti,e
case studie~. the sample size usually is mi:;;h too
sma[ to warrant random se'.cc:tion. For qualitative
fieldwork, we draw a purposive sample, buildir:g
in variety and acknowlecging opportJnities for
intensive study. 1·'
The phenmncr:0:1 on the table is hostage
laking. We wanr to improve our understanding
of hos:age taking, to fit it intr. what we know
about cr;minology, cont1ict resolution, human
relations-that is, various abstract dim,·nsiom. 1••
We recognize a large population hypothetical
rnses and a small subpopulation of ac,;ess.ible
cases, Vve want to gene:11li?,e ahout hostage taking
without s;,ecial in:erest in any of those cnses avail-
able for study. On representational grounds, the
epistc:nological opportr.dty seems small, but we
are opt! mistk that we am learn some importar:t
things from almost a:1v case. We choose one case
or a small number of exemplars, Hostages umally
are strangers who :iappen to be available to the
hostag., taker. We might rule out stud;ting a father
who lakes his ow1: child as hostage. Sue:, :Sidnap·
pings actuully u:ay be more common, but we rule
oat the father. We ace more interested in hostage
taking accompanying a criminal act, hostage
taking in order to esca?e. The researcher exanines
various iaterests in the phenomenon, selecting a
case so:ne :ypicality but leani:ig toward those
cases that seem :o offer 01Jnortuni1·.i
,r , to leam.
My choice would be to choose that case from
which we feel we can '.earn the must."' That may
me2.n taking the one must accessible ur the one we
can spend the most tlme with, Pote:itial for learn-
ing is a dJlerent and some:imes si:perior criterion
lo represenlalive:iess. Some:imes it is better to
le.irn a to: from an atypical case than a little from
a seemingly ty?ical case.
Ano:hc, illustra:ior1, Suppose we arc intere,ted
in the attractiveness of inte:-ac:lvc Irhc visitor
rr:anipulates, gets :eedback) displays in children's
Stake: Qualitative Case Studies JI 45 I
mi:seums. We have resources to study four
museums, to do a collective study of four cases, lt
is likd y that we would se: up a typology, perhaps
of (a) museum types. namely art, science, ar:d
history; (b) city type,, name! y large and very
large; and (c) program types, name;y cxhibilory
and participative. With this typology, we coi.;:d
create a matrix of 12 cell,;, Examples probably
cannot be fouml for all 12 cells, bu: resou,ccs do
not allow studying 12 any;1,ay: With four to be
studied, we are likely :o &larl nut thinking we
should have one ar:, one history, and two ,cience
museums (because interactive disp;ays are more
comreor: in science museums); two located in
'.arge; and two ir: very large cities; and two each of
the program types. But when we :ook at existing
cases, the logistics, the potential recepEon, the
resources, and additional characteristics of rele-
vance, we r:1ove toward choosing four museums
lo study that offer variety (failing short of struc·
lured repre~entat:ocl across the allributes, the
four thul give us the bes! opportunities to learn
about interncrive displa~·sY Any ':iest possible
selection of four mnsei;ms from a ba!ar,ced
design would not give us cor:1prlll ng re presen ta
tion museun:s as a whole, and certainly not a
statistical basis for generalizing about interac-
tions between interactivity and site characteri,.
tici. Several desirab:e types usual.y have to be
omitted. Even fo~ collective case studies, selection
by sampling of attributes should not be the high-
est priority. llalance and varie:y are important;
opportunity to learn is o:ten more import am.
The same ;:mJcess of selection will occur as
part of intrinsic case study. F.ver: though the case
is decided in advance (1:sually), there are subse-
quent choices to make about persons, places, ai:d
events to observe, They are cases wirhin the
case-embedded cases or mini·cases, In l'igure
17.1, nvo mini-cases were anticipated, o:ie of the
teacher Oksar:a and one of Liubchyk's mother.
Later, a third mini case wa:: added, :hat of a clinic
created by parents. Here again. traini:lg, experi-
ence, and intuition help us to ma k:e a good selec-
tion. The Step by Step early ch:ldhood program
in Ukrniue (Figure 17.1 l airr:ed to get children
with disability ready for the regular dass::oom,
 45Z ll 'IAND!lOOK OF QUAllTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 17
avoiding segregated special education, the usual
assignment. 18 The sponsors chose lo study a child
in the school wifa the most developed activity.
Selecting l:ie child was influet1ced largely by
the acr:vit}· of his parents, two teachers, a social
worker, and the prircipal. With time short, the
researchers needed to select other parents,
:eachers, and community leaders to 'n:erview.
Which of them woul.:i add most to the portrayal?
Or s·Jppose that we are studyir:g a progra!".1 for
facing computers in the homes of fourth graders
for scho:astk purposes. The cases-that the
~chool sites-alreadv• :iave been ,elected.
Although there is a rertain coordination of act:v-
it y, each participating researcher has one case
study to develop. A pr1 nd pal issue has :o do with
impact 011 the family, because certa:n expecta•
tions of computer use accom?any placement tr.
the home. (The computer should be available for
word processir.g, record keeping, and games by
family members, but certain times should be set
aside for fourth-grace homework.) At one site,
50 ho'.Tles now have computers. The researcher
can get certain information frorr., every home, bot
the budget allows observation in only a sreall
number of homes, Which homes should be.
selectec'J Just as in the collective case study, the
researcher notes attributes of interest, amor:g
them perhaps gender of the fourth grader,
em::e of siblings, family structure, home discipJne,
previous 'JSe of computers, and o,her technology
in the home. The researcher d1scusses these char-
acteristics with informants, gets recommenda-
tions, v:sits several homes, obtains attribute
data. T'.1e cho:ce is made, ensurir:g variety but not
necessarily represen:ariveness, without strong
argument for typicali :y, again weighted by cons id•
eration.s of acces, and even by hospitality, for the
time is short and perhaps too little arn be learned
from inhospitable pa:-ents. Here, too, the primary
criterion is opportunity to learn.
Interactivity
Usually we want to learn what the selected case
co es-its activity, i:s functioning. We will observe
what we can, ask others fo~ their observations,
and gather artifacts of that functioning. l¼lr
exam pie, the department being studied provides
services, '.Tlar.ages itself a:1d responds to manage•
ment by external au~horities, observes rules,
adapts to constraints, seeks opportunities, and
changes staffing. Descrt'Jing and interpretir.g
these activities constitutes a large part of ma:1y
case st'Jdies.
These activities are expected :o be influenced
by contexts, so contex:s need to be described,
even if evidence of influence is no! found.
Staffing, for example, rr.ay be affected by the polit-
ical context, particularly union activity and some
form of''old boy network:' Public an:10unccment
of services may be affected by h'stork al and
physical contexts. Budgets have an economic
context Qualitative :-esearchers have strong
expectations that the :-eality perceived by people
inside and outside the case will be social, cultural,
situational.' and contextual-and thev. want the
interactivity of functions and contexts as well
described as possible,
Quantitative researchers study the differences
a:rmng main effects, such as the different inl1u-
enccs of rural and urban se,tings and the differ-
er.t perfo:mances of boys and girls, comparing
subpopulations. Demographics and gender are
comrr.on «main Programmatic treat:m:nt
is another common main effect, with researchers
comparing subsequent performance those
receh'ing di fferen: kir.cs or levels of treatmer.t.
Even if all possi':!le comparisons are made, some
performance differer:ces remain unexplained. A
typical treatment might be personally accommo-
dated work condit'.ons. Suppose urban females
respond differe:itly to such a treatment. This
would show up in the analysis of variance as an
interact'on effert l,nd suppose a pa:tkular city
girl, Ca,men, consistently responds differently
from other city gir!s. Her pattern of behavior is
unlii{dy to be discerned by quantitative analysis
but may be spotted ea~iiy by case study, And on
further a:ialysis, her ?attrrn of bthavior may be
useful for the inter;,retation of the functionfog
of several subgroup,. As cases respond dif-
ferently to complex situations, the interactivity
of main effects and settings can be expected

to require the particularistic scrutiny of case
study. 1~
Data Gathering
Naturalistic, ethnographic, phenomenologi•
cal caseworker& also seek what is ordinary in
happenings, in settings, in expressions of value.
Herbert Blumer ( I969, p. 149) .:ailed fo: us to
accept,develop, and i:se the distinctive expression
(of t:ie particular case) in order to detect and
study the common. What details of life the
researchers are unable lo see fo, themselves is
obtained by interviewing peopie who did see
them or by finding doci:ments recording them.
Part IV of this Handbook tleals extensively with
tl:e methods of qualitative research, particularly
observ,.tion, interview, coding, data management,
and interprclatio:i. These pertain, of course, to
qualitative case study.
Documer:ting the unusnal and the ordinary
takes lots of time-for planning, gai:ling access,
riata gathering, analysis, and write-up. In many
studies, there are no clear stages: Issue develop·
:nent continues to the end of the study, and write•
up begins with prelimir.ary observations. A
speculative, page-allocating outline for the repor,
helps anticipa:e how issues will be har:d:ed and
how the case will become visible. For many
researchers, to set out upon an unstructured,
open-ended study is a calamity in the :na;,,ing. A
plar. is essential, hut tr:e caseworker needs to
anticipate the need to recognize and develop late-
emerging issues. Many qualitative fieldworkers
invest little in instrume:it construc:ion, pa~dy
because tailored ( not standardized) questions are
needed for most data sources, The budget may be
consumed o_uickly by devising am: field-testing
instruments to pursue what turns out to be too
many foreshadowing questions, with some of
them maturing, some dying, and sorr.e moving to
new levels of complexity. Even the ordinary is too
complicated to be mastered in the time available.
When the case is too large for o:ie researcher to
know well or for a collective case study, teaming is
an important option_ Case research requires inte-
grated, holistic comprehension of the case, but in
Stake: Qualitative Case Studies 111 453
the larger studies, no or.e individual can handle
the complexity. Coding ran he a great help, if :he
team is experienced in the process and with each
other. But :earning a detailed analytic coding
system within the sl udy period often is too great
a burden (L. :W.. Smith & Dwyer, 1979), u:dudag
observations to simple categorie,, eatins up the
on-site time. Of:en sites,key groups or actor,,and
issues should ·,e assigned to a sl r:gle team
:m,mber, ioduding j·Jnior members. The
;;arts to be studied and the researcr. issues need :o
be pared down to what can be comprehended by
the coilection of team rn em hers. It is better to
negotiate tl:e parts to be smdied, as well as the
parts r:ot, and to do an in-dep:h stucy of a few key
issues, Each team member wri:es up his or her
parts; other learn members need to read and cri·
tique these write-ups. Usually, the team leader
needs to write the synthesis, getting critiques
from the teiilm, data sources, and selected skeptical
friends.
Triangulation
Wifa repo rti r:g and reading both "ill-
strue lured" and "sod ally constructed;' it is not
~urprising lo find researcher tol:rance for ambi-
guity and championing of multiple perspectives.
Still, I have yet to meet case researchers uncon-
cerned about dariry of their own perception and
validity of their ow:i communication. Even if
meanings do not transfer intact but ins:ead
squeeze into the conceptual of the reader,
there is no less urgency for researchers to assure
that their sense of situation, observation, report-
ing, and reading stay within some limits of corre-
spondence. However accuracy is construed,
researchers don't war:t to be inaccJrate, cm:ght
without confirmation. Counterintuitive though it
may be, the ai;thor has some responsibility the
validity of the readers' inlerpre:ations (Messick,
1989). Joseph Maxwell ( 1992} has spoken of the
need for thinking of valici ty separately for
descriptions, interpretations, theories, generaliza-
tions, and evaluative judgments.
To reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation,
varim:s procedures are e:nployed, two of the most
454 111 HANDBOOK QUAlll'A:·1vE 1ESEARCH-C:iAPTER 17
common being redwulancy of c.ata gathering and
procedural challenge., to explanadons (Denzin,
1989; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). For qualitative
casework, 6ese procedures generally are called
triangulation.~ Triangulation has been generally
considered a process of us:ng multi?le percep-
tions to clarity meaning, verifying the repeatabil-
ity of an observa:ion or interpretation. 21
lint acknowledging that no observations or
interpretations are perfectly repeatable.22 triangu-
lation serves also to clarify meaning by identify-
ing different ways the case is being seen (Flick,
1998; Silverman, 1993). T:,e qualitative researcher
is interested in diversity of percep:ion, even the
md:iple real'ties within which people live.
Triangulation helps :o identify different realitie;.
Iii LEAR:,,Jll\G FRo:.: THE PARTICt:IAR CASE
The researcher is a teacher using a: two
pedagogical methods (Eimer, 1985), Teachi:lg
didacticaJ9,, the researcher teaches v,,hal he or she
has learned.Arranging :or whal educationists call
disccwery learning, the researcher provides ma:er-
ial for readers to '.earn, on their own, especiaily
things about which :eaders may k:iow better than
the researcher.
What can one learn :rom a single case?
David Hamilton (I 980), Stephe:i Kemmis (1980 ),
Lawrence S:rnhm1se (1979), and Rober: Yin
(1989) are among those who have advanced the
epistemology of the partic:.i.ar, 1 1 Even Donald
Campbell ( L975), the prophet of scientific gener-
alization, contributed. How we learn f~om the
singdar case is related to how the case is like
and unlike oilier cases we co know, mostly by
.:omparison, 14 It :s intuition tr.at per.;uade, both
researcher and teadtr that what is known about
one case may very well be true about a similar
case (Snith, l 978),
Experiential Knowledge
From case reports, we convey and draw for~h
the essence of quaiita:ive undernlanding,,, that
is, experiential knowledge (Geertz, l 983; Polanyi.
1962; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; von Wright,
1971). Case study facilitates the conveying of
experience of actors anci stakeholde:s as well as
the experience of studying the case, It can enhance
the reader's experience with lhe case, It docs ,his
largely with narratives and situadonal descrip·
tions of case activity, personal re1atio:iship, and
group inter,JI'etation.
Experiential descriptions and assertions
are relatively easily asi;:mila:cd by readers inlo
memory and use. When the researcher's narrative
provides opportun1 ry for '.'itarious experience,
readers extend their perceptions of happenings.
Natura: istic:, ethnographic case materia!s, at least
to some extent, parallel actual experie:1ee, feeding
into :he most fundamental pro.:esse8 of aware-
ness ,rnd understandl1:g. Deborah Trumbull and I
called these processes nat11ralistic generalizlifion
(Stake & Trt:mbull, 1982). That is, people nake
some generalizations entirely fron: personal or
vicar;m:s experience, Endurillg :neanings come
from encounter, and they a~'l: modified and rein-
forced by repeated encounter.
l n ordinary living, this occurs seldn:n to the
lndivid;rnl alone and more often in the presence of
01:,ers. In a social process, together people bend,
spill, consolidate. am: enrich their undersland-
ir.gs. We come w know wha: has happenec partly
i:1 terms of what others reveal as their experience.
T:ie case researcher emerges from one social o:pe-
riencc, the obset'V"a:ion, to choreograph another,
report. Knowledge is socially constructed-or
so we constructivists believe (see Sc11wandt,
2000)-and through thdr experiential and con
textual accounts, case study researchers assist
readers in the con,trudion of knowledge,
Case researchers greatly rely on subjective
data, such as the testimony of parlkipants and
the judgr.1e:rcs of witnesses. Many critical
observations and interview data are subjective.
Most case study is the empirical study of human
activity. The major questions are not qnesdons of
opinion or feeling, but of the sensory experience,
And the answers con:e back, of coucllc, with
description and interpretation, opinion and :eel-
ing, all mixed together. When the researchers are
not there to experience the activity for themselves,

they havt.' to ask those who did experience k.
To :na~e empirical data more objec:ivc ar:d less
subjective, t:ie researcher uses replicative, falsi-
fication, and :riangulating methods. Guod case
slu!!y research follows disciplined practices of
ar:a: ysis and triangulation to tease out what
deserves to be called experiential knowledge from
what is opinion and preference (Stake, 2004).
Understanding the case as personal experience
depends 0:1 whether or not it can be embraced
intelh:ctually by a single researcher (or a small
case study team). When the case is something :ikc
a person or a small Agency or a legislative session,
a researcher who is given enough time and access
can become personally knowledgs:ablc about
!:ie activities a:id spaces, the rclatio:iships and
wntexts, of the case, as modeled in Figure 17,l.
Possibly with the help of a few others, he or
,he can become cxper:entially acquainted with
rhe case. The case then is embruceab/e. Throug:i
observation, enumeration, :md talk, the rcsear...:..1er
;;an personally come to perceive the nature of the
cas~. When the rese,ucher ca:i see and inquire
about the case pers,,:ially, wit':l or without scales
a:id ri.:brics, that resf",m:he:- can come to under•
st3nc the case in t'le most expected and reSj)ecied
ways. But when the researcher finds the case
obscured, extending into u,o ..distant regions or
beyond his or her comprehension, and thi:s
beyonc perimnai er.counter, tl:at researche:- con-
ceptualizes the case riifferentlv; The case is like:v
' '
to become overly abstract, a construct of criteria,
Wbethe:- or not they want to, researchers then
depersonalize the .:iss:gnment, rely more on
ir:strumcnts and protocols, and accept simplistic
reporting frou people who themselves lack direc:
personal experience, Even if the researcr:er has
extens:ve person;il contact w'rh parts of the case,
tha: contact fails to reach too many extremities
a:-id complexities. Thi;; is a case beyond personal
embrace, beyond experiential k now'r,g.
Knowledge Transler
rmm Researcher to Reader
Both researcher and reader bri:lg their con-
ccptial structures to a case, In tht :itcmture, these
St:,k,:; Qualitative Case Studies Ill 455
structures have been ca:Jed many things, in duding
advanced organizers (Ac.subel & Fitzgerald, 1961),
schemata (Anderson, 1977), am'. an unfolding of
realization (Bohm, :985). S0me sud: frameworks
for thought are unco11sdous. C<immm:icalion is
facilitated by carefully crafted structure,. Thought
it~elf, conversation surely, and writing especially
draw phrases in:o paragraphs apoend labels
onto constructs. MC',mings aggregate or attenuate.
Associations become rela1ions:1i;»; relationship~
becooe theory (Rubinson, 1951). Generali:r.aticm
can be an unconscious process fo, both researcher
and reader,
fn private and personal ways. ideas are
struc:ured, highlighted, subordinated, connected,
embedded in contexts, em bedded wich :lh.:stra-
tion, and laced with favor and doubt. However
moved tci share ideas case :esearche,s might be,
however clever and elaborated their writings, tlcey
will, like others, pa~s along to readers some of
their personal :neanings of events and relatioa-
sdps-and fa:: to pass along otheri;. They k:mw
Iha! readers, too, will add and subtract, invent and
shape-reconstructbg the knowledge i:J ways
that leave it differcnllv' coi: r:ected and more likelv,
to be persm~ally usetuL
A rescarcner's knowledge of the case fa-::cs
l:aZ-Ordous passage fmm writing 10 reading. The
writer seeks ways of safeguarding the trip. As
reading bt'gins. the ca~e slowly jo:ns the corn·
pany of cases previously known to the reader.
Concept·1ally for the reader, thi:' new case cannot
be bJt some variation of cnses alre<&dy known. A
new case wdtout commonal:ty cannot be under-
stood, yet a new case without distinction will not
be nulicec.. Researchers cannot know well which
cases their :-eaders already know or tr.eir readers'
pec1:'.iarities mind, Tney seek ways :o protect
and s:ibstantiate the transfer of know!edgc.
QJalitative researchers recognize a nc,;:d to
ac,:;om:nodate the rl2'aders' preexisting k1:owl·
edge, A!though everyone deals with this neeci
eve~y day and draws upon a lifetlrr.e of experi-
ence, we know precious little abot:t how new
crperienc<' merges with old, Au:ording to Ro.nd
Spiro and colleagues (i987), most personal
rience is Jll.. strucilm:1:/, neither pedagogkal:y r:or
 456 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALIIXI'IVE RESc:ARCH-CHAPTBR 17
epistemologically neat It follows tr.al a
well-structured, propositional presentation often
will r.ot be the better way to transfer experiential
knowledge. The reader has a certain cognitive
flexibllity, the readiness to assemble a situatior.•
,e:arive schema from the knowledge fragments
a new encounter. The Spiro group (l 987)
contended that
the best way to lear:: and instruct in order to
atlltin the gMI of cognitive :lexibility in know]·
repr<:sc::cal ion for fature application i, a
method of cas1:-b&sed presc:i!ations whkl: treats
a conte::t domain a., a landscape is cxpk1ret'
by "criss-missing'' it in many dirt<::io:is, by reex·
am Ining each case "si,e" in the w,ry'ng ca n:exts
of di:fercnl neighb<,ring cases, and by using a
variety of abstract dime:isiom for comparing
cases. (p. 178)
Kr.owledge transfe, remains di'Ticult to
understand. Even less unders :ood is bow a small
aspect of the case may be found by many readers
to modiiy an existing understanding about cases
in general, even when :he c2se is not typical. is
In a ghetto school (Stake, '.995}, I observed
a :eachcr with one set of ru·es for dassroom
deco,um-except that for Adac1, a nearly
expelled, indomitable youngster. a mme liberal
set had to be contir.uousiy invented. Reading my
account, teachers from very cifferent schools
agreed wl:h two seemingly contradictory
ments: "Yes, you have to be strict with the rules"
and "Yes, sorneti :nes you have lo bend the rules?'
They recognized in the repor: an unusual :mt
generalizable circumstance. People find in case
reports certain insight.~ into the human condi-
tion, even wh 1le being well aware of the atypical-
ity of the case, They may be too quick to accept
the insight The case researcher needs to provide
grot:nds validating both the observation and
the generalizatio:1.
IJII
""' sTORr:EUJN{, ,26
Some say we snm1ld just let the case "tell its own
story" (Carter, 1993; Coles, 1989). Tie story a case
tells of itself may or mc.y not be useful. The
researcher should draw out such stories, partly by
explaining ls sues and by referring to other stories,
but it is risky to leave it to the case actors to select
the stories to conveyed.ls thepurpnse to convey
the storyteller's perception or to develop the
researcher's percept:or. of the case1 Given expecta•
tior:s nf the client, other stakeholders, and
rtaders, either emphasis may be more appropriate.
One cannot know at the outset what i.ssues, per•
cept:ons, or theory will be useful. Case researchers
wiually enter the scene expecting, even '.mowing,
that certair. events, pmh:ems, and relationsl:ips
wm be important: yet they discover that some of
them, this time, will be of little consequence
(Parlett & Hamilton, 1976; L.M. Smith., 1994). Case
content evolve. even in the last phases of writing.
Even when empathic and respectful of each
?erson's realities, the researcher decides what
the case's "owr. story" is, or at least what will be
included in the report. More will be pursued :han
was voh:.nteered, and less will be reported than
was learned, Even though the competen:
researcher will be guided by wbat the case indi-
aites is most impnrtant, and even though patrons
and other researcliers will advise, that whicl: is
necessary fo, a:i understanding of the case will be
decided by the researdier.27 It may be the case's
own story, but the report will be the ri:searcher's
dressing of the case:~ own s:ory. This is not to dis,
miss the aim of finding the story that best repre-
sents the case, but instead to remir:d the reader
that, usually, criteria of representation t:.ltimately
are decided by the resea;cher.
Many a resea:-cher would like to tell the wiole
s:orv' but of course cannot; the whole .storv '
exceeds anyone's k:10wing and anyone's telling.
Even those indinec to :di all find strong the
obligation to winnow and consolidate. The
qualitative researcher, :ike the single-issue
researcher, must choose between telling lots and
te!Eng little. John van Maanen (1981!; identified
seven choices of presentation: realistic, impres•
sionistic, confessional, critical, formal, '.ite:-ary,
anc jointly told. He adced criteria for selecting the
content. Sor.ie criteria are set by fan ding agencies.
prospective readers, rheto~ical convention, the

researcher';, career pattern, or the prospect of
pd:lkation. Some criteria are ,et 'Jy a notion of
what reprcsei:ts the case r:1 ost "ully, most appre-
ciably for the hospitality received, or most com-
p:ehen sibly. These are suhjective choices not
1:nlike those that all researchers make choosing
what to study. Some are made while designing
the case study, hut sonw continue :o he made
throughout the study and until the final hours.
Reporting a case seldom takes the traditional
form of telling a story: in:roduction of characters
followed by fae revelal ion and resolution of
problems. Many sponso:s research and many
a researcher want a report that lnoks like trndi-
tiona: social science, running from statement
uf probler.1 to review of literature, data collec•
tion, analysis, and condusions, The case can be
portrayed in many way~.
Many researchers, early in a study, try to form
a:1 idea of what the final report migh: loo~ like. :n
Figure 17.3,the topics of 16 sections of an ar:tid-
pated 45-?age report have been sequenced in the
left columr., with guesses of page limits provided
for each, Tl:i s is the plan of the researchers from
tkraine, Natalia Sofiy and Svitlana Btimova, with
liubchyk as their case. Liubd:yk would !-.ave been
sent to a special school for children of disability,
but thanks to a diligent mother and an inclus:on-
oriemed principal, he was "mainst:1;amed" in
Mrs. Oxama:, regular kindergarten, Str.itegica:Jy,
liubchyk is used as a pivot for exmninbg the
recent r.i ai:ls.treamir.g thrust in Ukrair:e. As seen
wlurr:n headings, the most i:nportant issue
w,1s indusio:,. followed by teacher trabing and
child-cer:tered cducatior:, then three other con·
ccrns. Where these issues may be developed in the
report is predicted in the figure, ln !he Iast two
rokr.rns, the researcher!< listed singular momer:ts
and quotations for placement in the sections, By
forecastir:g the order and size of :he parts of the
story, one can "'"''11 the chances of gathering
n:uch too much any kine of data.
Comparisons
A researcher will report his or her case as a
s:ase, knowing :t w'll be compared to others,
Stake: Qualitative Ca,e Studies 1111 4:,7
Researche,s differ as to how mucn they set up
comparative cases and acknowledge thc- reader's
own cases. Most naturalistic, ethnographic, phe-
nomenolog:cal researchers wLl concentrate on
describing thr prrsent case in sufficient cctail so
that the reader can make goo,: comparisons.
Sometimes researcher will poir:t o·Jt compar•
isons that n:ight be made. Many quantitative
and evaluation case researchers will try tu provide
some comparisons, sometimes hy presenting one
ur more reference cases. sometimes pmvicing sta ·
tistical norms for refere:ice groups from which a
hyputhetical reference case can be i:nagined. Both
the quantitative and the qualitative approaches
provide narrow {!founds for sh kt ..:omparison nf
cases, even Ihough a t~adition of grand cor:ipari-
son within comparative anf:1 ropology
and related disciplines ( Ragin, J98 7; Sjoberg,
Williams, Vaughan, & Sjoberg, 1991; To'Jin, 1989),
I see formally desig,ned comparison as actuaJy
compe:ing wit:1 learning about and from the par-
ticular ,Rse, Comparison is a grand epistemologi-
cal strategy, a powerful conceptu ~.i mcchan ism,
fixing attention upon one or a few att:ibutes.
Tims, it ob,cures any case knowledge that fails to
facilitate wm1iarison, Comparative description is
the opposite of what Geertz ( 1973) called "thick
des..::ription!' :hick description of the rr:usic pro
grar:1, for example, :nig:,r inc:adc conflicting per-
ceptions of the staffing, recent program changes,
the charisma of the choral director, the workh1g
relationship with a dn:rch organist, faculty inter-
est in a critical vote of the scl:ool board, and the
lack of student intcr<?St in taking u".l the darine:.
In these particularities lie the vi:aE:y, traun:a, and
un iqucness of tie case. Comparison might be
r:,ade on any of these characteris:ics but teru:ls to
be made on more general variables traditionally
noted in the organization of music programs
(e.g., repertoire, staffing, budget, tour policy). Wi:h
concentrat;o;i on the bases for cor:iparisun,
uniquenesses and complexities wi:: be glo.~sed
over. A researcn design featuring comparison sub-
sti tu:es (a) the wmparison for (b) the cau as the
:ocus of the study,
:lrgardless of the type of case study-intri:1.sic,
instrumental, or collective-readers often :earn
 458 11 HANDBOOK OF QLJ\LITAT!VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 17

Topic quotes,
Sections impressions

D,C,3 Liubchyk 5 X I !x i, Teoorer selection

A. Black today,
green to-morrow
F, 1 3 1 8, Director nal
Dksana X X )( X 2. c~ild prol&clior.
bureaucrat
4 lchr Ing, Lviv 3 1 X X X
3. ciild view of C.l'.s viewol
dlsabmty ti'!la & mgmt
' 4. lchr v ew of
Press con!, L viv 2 X X 0. Boey contact
dlsablllly
5. nature al E. tchr sta!lirg
Tchr tng, Kiev 2 )(
~-----
aisabllity orpotioles
Tchr Ing, lJkr. 2 2 X X F' Oksana's
6 role of church
activity centers
3 LiLbcryk G.puen!S
3 X X 7. teacher un ons
-~ ---
voted supcort
Hs parents 8. European H. psychalag'I
2 X X
UnionTACIS assess'!lenl
9. Chernoble I. aggression,
Parenl Org's 2 2 X
eflects alfectlcn
8, 9 LEA, Lviv 3 1 10. special ed
------- alternatives
I
11 prepari,g
Ministry 2 2 X X X
oarents

2.8 SbS Uk•aine 2 2 X .x l( X

lnlerprelat,oo:
10 4 X
/Ill. ed. pol cy
ln:erpreta:lon:
-eacher tra1rmg 4 X X
I 1terpre1at1on:
§ 4 X
Inclusion

A liubchyk 2 Ix
45 11

Figure 17.3. Plan for Assembling l:kraim;; !'inal Report

:ittle from rontrol or reference cases chosen only
:or comparison. When there are mult'ple cases of
intrinsic i:lterest, then of course it ca:1 be usefol to
compare them. 18 Hut often, tl:ere is but or.e case of
in:rinsic interest, :f any at all. Reacers with intrin-
sic interest in t:b.e case learn more ahm:x i: directly
from the de:l(ription; they do 1101 ignore compar•
isons with other cases but also do not concentrate
on comparisons. Readers examining instrumental
case studies are shown how the phenomenon
exists within <'articular cases. As to reliability,
differences between measures, surh as how much
the group changed, are fundamentally more un:e-
liablt than simple measurements. Similarly,
condusions about measurec differences between
any two cases. are to be trusted than are
conclusions about a si:igle ra.,e. Neve:-theless,
illustra:i1m of how a ?l':enomenon occurs in the

dr,umstances of <<'¥Pre I exemplars can provide
valued and trustworthy knowledge.
Many are the ways of rnnceptualizing cases
to maximize 1earning from a case. The case is
expected to be sorr:ething that functions. t:iat
operates; the study is the observation of opera-
tion~ (Kemmis, 1980). There is something to
be described and interpreted. The rnnceptions
of most naturalistic, holistic, etbnographic,
phenomenological case studies need accurate
description and suh,iect ive, yet disclp 1i ned,
interpretation; a respe\:t for and curiosity abm::
culturally differei:t perceptions of phenomena;
and e:npathk representation of local settings-
all bltnding (perhaps ch:mped} within a con•
struc:ivist epistemology.
111 ETHICS
Ethical considerations for qualitative research
are reviewed by Clifford Christians in Chapler 6 of
this Handbook (and elsew:iere by authors such
as Coles, 1997, ar.d Graue and Walsh, 1998 ). Case
s:udies often deal with mailers that are of public
interest ':mt for which there is neither public nor
scholarly right to know. Funding, scholarly intent,
or :nst'tutional Review Board aut:10riza:inn doe;;
not constitute ir,,,ns,. to invade the privacy
of otbers. The value of the bes, research is not
likely to outweigh injury to a person exposed.
Qualitative researchers are guests in the private
spaces of the world. Tt.eir ma:rners should be
good and their code of ethics strict
with r:iuch qualitative work, case study
research shares an ir:tens1c interest in personal
views and circumstances. Those w'10se lives
a:id expressions are po,trayed :isk exposure
ar.d embarrassrr.ent, as well as loss of ~tand,
ing, employment, and self-esteem, Somethi:1g
of a con tract exisiS between researcher and
the researched:•9 a disclosing and protective
covei:ant, usually informal but best not silent. a
moral obligation (Schwandt, I993). Risks to
well-being cannot :,e inventoried but should be
exemplified. Issues of observation and reportage
should be discussed :n advance. L: mits to access
Qualltative Studits 111 459
should be suggested and agreer.ients heeded. lt is
important (but never sufficient) for targeted
pe~sons to receive drafts of the write-up revealing
how t:iey are presented, quoted, and :n:erpreted;
the :esearcher should listen well to these persons'
responses for sig::is of concern, It is important that
great caution be exercised to rr.i:1imize risk5 lo
participants in tht case, Even with good advance
information from the researcher abo'Jt the study.
the researched car.not be expected to protect
themselves agains: the risks in':ierent in partici-
pation, Rules for protection of human subjects
should be followed (yet protested when they serve
little more than to protect the researcher's institu-
tion from Utigador. ). The researcher should go
beyund those rules, avoid low-priority probing
of ser:sitive issues, and draw in advisers and
rtvicwers to he:p extend the protective system,
Ethical problems 11rise (both ir.side and out-
side the researc:, topics) with no:idisdosure of
malfeasance and immoral:ty. When rules for a
study are set that prevent the ,c,".u"" ,., from
"whbile hfowing" or the exercise of compassion,
a problem exists, Where an expectation has been
raised tha1 propriety is being examined and r:o
mentior: is made of a serious impropriety that has
been observed, the report is deceptive. Breach of
ethics is seldom a simple matter; often, it occurs
when two con:radictory standards apply; such as
,.vJth;ioldlng full disclosure (as per the contract)
i:i order to protect a good but vnlnernble agency
(Mabry, 1999). Ongoing and summativt review
procedures are needed, with impetus from the
researcher's consc:ence, from stakeholders, and
from the research community.
a SuMMARY
Major conceptua'. respur.sibilities of t:ie qualita •
tive case researcher include :he following:
a, Bounding the case, conceptualizing the object
of studv-
••
b. Selecting phenome::a, lhemes, or J:;soes (i.e.,
;l:e research questions to emphasize);
.. Seeking patterns uf data to develop issues;
 450 Ill :IANDOOOK Ol' Ql__;ACTATIVE Rl:SEARCH-CHA?Tl'R 17
d, tr:angu:ating key observations and oases for
i11tiorpreration;
e, Selecting alll:mat:vc inter;i~etations !o pursue;
and
r. Developing assertions or gener,.::z.itions about
lhe 01se.
Except for (a), :he step~ are similar to those of
other qualitative re.searchers. The more intri:lsic
the interest of the researcher in the case, the :nore
the focus of smdy will be on the ;;ase's idiosyn·
crasy, its part:cular context, issues, and story.
Some major stylistic options for case re,earchers
are the folluw ing:
a. How much lo make the report a story,
b. How much to compare with other w,es,
c. How much 10 formalize generaiLiations or leave
such genernlizing to readrrs,
d. How much dc;;cription of rhc ~esrnrcrer 10.
include in the report, am;I
c. Whether or not an:i how r::uch to protect
anonymity.
Ca,e sr'Jdy is a part of sdentilk methodology,
ac
but its parpose is not H:nited to tl:c vance of
sdence. Populations of c.ises can be re?resenlcd
poorly by single cases or samples of a very few
cases, and such ,mall samples of cases can pro•
v1de questionable grounds for advancing grand
generaliz&tion. Yet, «Because more than one theo·
re:ical notion :nay be guiding an analysis, co1:fir-
mation, fuller specification, a1:d contradiction all
may re.suit from 01:c ;,11se study" ( Vaughan, 1992,
p. 175 ). For exa:nple, we lose confidence in the
generalization that a child of separated parents is
better off placed with the mother :han with the
father whe:i we find a single ir.stance of resulting
injury. Case studies are of value in refining theory,
suggesting complex: ties for furll1er i:ivestiga-
tion as well as helping to establish the limits of
generalizability.
Case study also can be a disciplined force in
setting ;mbiic policy and in :eflectir.g 0:1 human
experience. Vicar:ous experience is an irnpurtant
!:iasis for refining action options and expe;;:a -
tions. Formal epi stemolugy needs forther drvel-
npn:\;nt, but somehow people draw, from the
description of an individual case, implications for
other rnses-not always correctly, but with a con•
fidence shared by ?eople of dissimilar viei.vs.
The purpose of a case report is not to represent
tl:e worlc. out to represent the case. Criteria for
conducting the kine of research that leads to valid
ge:1eralization need modification to fit the search
for efixtive particularization. T'ie u:ility of case
research to ?ractitioners and policy makers Js in
its extension o:' experience. The methods o[ qual-
itative case study are largely the methods of disd•
plin.ing personal and particularized experience.
D NOTES
: , Many ca51, studies are both cualitative and
qmrntit,:tive, In :;carch of fundamcn:al pursuits coil'.•
mon to both qualitative ,md quantitative research,
R,,bert Yin ( 1992) analyzed three well.crafted research
efforts: (a) a quantitative invesligalion to resolve dis•
puled authorship 1>:' :he Federn'.:,1 Papers, (h; a qua!i•
lative s:i.:dy of Soviet intent al the time of tf:e Cubtn
missile crisis, and (c) l::s own studie, u' the recogni:.-
ability of hum a:: 0
1e "ound four common com•
mit:me::rs: l{) bring expert :.C;iowledg<: to hear upon the
phenomena studied, lo round 'JP all t;ie relevant data,
to examine rival interpretations, ~nd ll• ponder and
probe tht degree tc wh i,h the findings 'lave implica•
tions elsewl:crl'. Thrst commilmrnts are as ir.:portant
in ,11,e research as in any 01her type.
2. Anm!:er ,pedlk •Jnc for targeting ,1 qualitative
study is :he event or instance. Events and ::ist;mces are
bounded, complex, and relaid to issues, but they lad;
the organic systemacity of most c11~es. Media insra:ices
have been s:udied !J.y John Fiske (l 994) and Norman
Den r.in (l 99S). Con\'trs,u ion analysis is a re:ated
approach (Psathas, 1995; Silverman, 2000).
3. Definition of the case is not lnde?cndcnt nf
i nterprel ivc pa:11c:gm o, methods of inquiry. Seen
fron: different worldvicws and in difforcnt situa-
tions. Lhc "same" case is different. And however we
originally define the rnfe, wcr~ing defi 11 •:io:·
changes a, we ,tudy. Aed th~ definition of the case
c'iangcs in d::terenl way, under ciffercnl rne6.>ds cf
study. Thr· case of Throdo:e lboseve!t was nnt just
di(forc:i:! y portrayed but was differmtly defined as
biographer Rdmu::d Morr:s ( 1979) ?~csrmcd hlm,
one chapter at a time, as "the Duce from New ,ork;'

"the Dear Old Reloved Hrotht::' "lht Snake it:
Grass:' "the Rough Rider;' "the Musi famous Man in
America:' and so on.
4. The history of case study, like the 'llsro:; of
curio,ity and m:m::cn sen,e, is fa~nd 1hroughout the
:tbrarv.. Pee;:,s
' .
at tha: historv can b<, found in Rubt"r:
Bogda:i and Sara B:cklin {1982),John Creswell (1998),
Sara Delamon: (1992), ~oe Feagin,A:;thony Orum.and
Gideon Sjoberg (1'191), Robert Smke (l '178), Harrison
White (1992), a!'.d thrnugh-::ut thii, 1Jcmdbo1;k,
5. Bread und Dream, is a prngrar:i eval-.:.ation
repurt. Mast evabations are intrinsic ,asc midks (see
Mabry,: 998).
6. Collective case study fa essentially what
Robert Herr:,m ;md William Firestone (1983) ci.:;ed
''multisite qua:ih11ive research?' Multisi:e program
evaluation :s another common exam?lc. A n-;:11her of
German sociologists, such as Martin Kohli and
Schutze, have used collective case studies with
S::auss's grounded theory appruach.
7. In a thoughtful review of an early draft of this
chapter, Orlando l'als Borda urged ahandoning :he
effort to promote i n:rinsic rnsework and the study of
parti ,ularity. In pe rsi5ting here, I t:iin k it importa:11 lo
suppo:t disdpl i::ed and scholarly study tha: has few
scirnlilk aspirations.
8. In 1922, llronislaw M111ir:owski wr<Jte, ''One of
the first rnnditim:s of a,,~ptable R!lmog:apbk work
certainly is that it sl:ould deal with the totality of
1111 wtial, cultural and psychological aspects of the
community .. ." (1921/1984, p. icvi). There fa a gocd
spirit thrrc, alt'wugh totalities defy the acui:y of the
and lhc longevity of tile watch,
9. Gencralizatio:: from colkctiw case study has
been discussed by Herriott and Fircsmnc (1g113 ), Job1
and Lyn Lofland (1984), Y:iles and Huher:11.10 (1994),
and again by Firestone (I 993).
1C. Malinowski c.aimec that we could dis:inguish
he:ween arriving with clo,ied minds and arriving w'th
an idea of what to look for. He wrote:
Good t:aining in 1:~eory. a:id acquaintance w i:h
its la:est rcsuils, is r.ot identical with being
drned with "preconceived ideas." If a man set~
ou: en an rxpedltiuo, dete:mincd lo prove i:er-
lain hypotheses, if he is ir.ca;:niblc of changing
his views constantly a:id casting them
ungrudgingly undi:r the prt'$s11re of e,idence,
needless to say his work will be worthies,, !kt
the more problems he bri ngb with him mto the
field, the mo:e he is in the habit of moulding his
Stake: Qualitative Case Studies 1111 461
·heori," according to facts. and of seeing facts
in their bearing upon theory, the hetter he is
equirped fnr t:ie work. Pre.:onceived ideas are
pemicio•;s in my sdenl ilk w:1:k. but _fare~hud-
~w~d problem, are the m;1.::: endowment of a
scientific thinker, a::d prohlems are first
revealed to the observer hy his t:ieoretktd
studies. {l 922/1984, p. 9)
l woul::I. ~refer to call i: inlerpre,ite :o em;iha•
the rroduction of :nl".i:::ngs, but etl1m,!';:aphe,
have used that term tn mean ''foam the sped al d
actcr., the local meanings" E:i<.:kson, 1986;
Schwandt, 2000 ).
12. Ethnographic use uf the ,errr reJ7ective some-
times limits atten:it1n m the need for selfchalle::ging
the :csearcher's etic is;;ues, frm:ie of :eferen;;e, and
tural (Tedlock, Chaplei 18, lhis vo:ume). That chaJ.
is :::iportant but, follow::ig Donald Schon ( 1983 ).
l refer to ageneral frame of mind when I call qualitative
case work nif!tctivl'. (lssuei; ''brough: in" are called ernic
issues; Lhose found du,ing ficlc study a:e callee
Coding is t:ie method of connecting data,
issues, inte:pre!alions, data smm::es, and rcpor: writing
(t,t.iles & Hubcrma;:, 1994). In ,mall studles, this
mea:is carefu: labeling a:;tl sorting into :Ile folders or
co:ciputer files. M~uy en1 ··i"' ;:,e Lied int,J more than
one t:le. If the file beccmes too b·~:ky, s·.:btiles m.-ed to
be created. 'Joo many filrs spoils the s:iup. In larger
.~tudie.~ with ri:es 10 be used hy several team members,
a fo,mel coding system needs to be developed, possibly
using a cmnpv.cr program ,ud: as Ethnogrnph,
,4.nAS,ti, or JiyperRESEARCH.
14. Mkhael Pa 110:; (1990), An,elm St muss and
Jullet Cn:nin (1990 ), and William ~ireswne (1993 I
;;a\'t discus&ed successive selection of cases <Jvcr :ime.
15. As indicated in a previo·;s section, 1 call :hem
.
issues, Marv Ke::ncdv' {l 979 .l called th.-m "n•levant
aflrib:.:tes:' Spiru d 111. (1987) called tht>m ''abstract
di:nensions." Malinowski (1922/1984) called Lhcm
'"lhcories:' In contemporarv c11se research, :he.se will be
our "working theories'' m1,rc than :he ·'gra::d theo,il:S''
disciplines.
16, If my emphasi~ is on learning ahout bo:h :he
individue: case and the pi:cnommon, I might do two
studies, one a rasr study and the other a study ,lf :he
pl:enomenon, giving close atlentio:: IQ an array uf
im,1an=es ul l:%tage taking.
Firestone {199 3) advisee maxi mi2lng diversity
a:1.l "lo be as llke the population of interes: a., poss'blc"
(p. 18;.
 462 ill HANDBOOK Of QUALITATIVE RbSEARCH-CHAPTER 17
18. ·~·he project is ongoing, and no rcpor! is ye,
available. The Step by Step program is dtscrihed in
Hansen, Kdufrnann, and Saifer (n.d.),
19. for a numoe:· or yea,s, psycholog:sts Lee
Cronbach and Rkharc Snow ( 1977) studied aptitude·
treatment in:eractions. They hoped to find general
reJles by which teacl\crs could adapr inslrnction to
personal '.earning ~lyles, A: deeper and deeper level,
of in!eaction they found significance, leading not co
prespedl'ying teac~,ing methods for individuals but
~upporling the COll(:'.us!cn :hat differentiated com's·
tc::cics cf response by individuals are 10 be expected ln
compkx situations,
20. Laurel Richardson and Elizabeth SL Dierre
speak similarly cf ,,7sta/lizatirm in ChaptcT 38 ;i:· ;his
volume.
21. C:eative 'J&e of"member ,;:heck:::g:'submitting:
dra:h for review by data so:.:rces, is one uf the most
needed fmm~ of validatio:: of qualitative researd1
(Gle:me & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Cuba, l 985).
22. o~ that a reality exists outside t':e ti'Jservers.
23. A:mmg !he ear::er philooop!lers tif sden,e
providing groundwork !br qualitative contributions to
theory elaboration wne Herbert Blumer, Barney
Glasc1, Brm:'slaw Malinowski, and Roh~r: Merton,
24, Yet, in the words of Charles Ragin, ''variable
oriented comparative wor:S (e,g,, <]Uantitalive cross·
narior:al research) as compared with case criented
comparative work disemhodies and obscures ..:ases"
(Ragin & Becker, 1992, p, j),
15. Sociologi.ts have used tie km: ''micro/ macro"
10 refer to the le-.ip from u:icerstanding individual cases
or part~ to underst,mding the system as a whole. Even
wJhout a:: adequate epistemologkal ma?, sociclogists
do leap, and so do our reader& [Collins, 1981 ).
26. Storytelling as representa:ive of ct::t'Jre i:id as
soc:olog'ca! text e:ncrges from many traditions, but
nowhere more than from oral history and folklore. It is
becoming more disciplined in a line of work called
nar,ative inqL:t)' (Clandenin & Conne]y, 1999; Ellis
& Buchner, 1996; Heron, i 996; Lo,;cridge, 1988;
Richardson, 1997). The Journal of Narrative and Life
History i::dudcs studies using such metlmds,
Z7, 11 may appe&r thal I claim here that par:icipa•
tory action resrnrch is problematic. Joint responsibility
for design, datu gathering, and interpretation is pos.~ •
hie, often ccmmem:iable, It is important that readers
know when t:ic values of the study have :ieen su
shaped.
28, Ev,tluation studies mn:paring an ln::ovative
pmgrarn to a rnntml ,ese regularly fail to make the
comparison credible. No matter how well studied, :he
control case toe weakly rep:-i:senls cases pre,.e;1rly
known by :he reader. By compreheusivdy describing
the pmgram case, ,he researcher may help the reader
draw naturalistic gentralizations,
29. A special o!:>lil!(\tion exis:s to p111tect those
with limited resources. Those who comply with the
resfarcher'.s requests, whll contribute in son:e way to
the mnking of the casr, should not !hereby be> hur;-
usually. Wher1 continuing breaches o: ethics or mo:..1-
ity are discovered, or when !hey are the reason for the
study, ;he researcher :nust take son:e amelior.1tive
action. Expose and crit,que arr legitimate with::; case
study, but li::ing self-indictment out of ii ,espondrnt is
no more legitimate in research ;han in :he law,
II. REFER:£:iCES
Adams, H. (1918). 111e education of H,mry Adams: An
autobiography. Boston: Houghton MJf::n.
Anderson, R. C, (I 977;, The not:on nf schrma and
the educatiu.::ial enterprise, ln R. C A::derson,
R. [.Sp::u, & W, l::.Montague (Eds.),Schooffr,g ~nd
lhJ? acquisition of 1.:nowledge (pp. 415-431).
H:llsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlb,rnm.
Asmussen, K. [.. & Creswell, J. W. (1995 ). Campus
response to a studen: gunman, Journal of Higher
Education, 66, 575-59 L
Ausubel, D. Jl, & F1!7.ge:ald, D. ( I961}, Meaningf\.d
learning and retentio::i: lnt.:rpersonal cognitive
variables. Revie:w of Educational Research, 31,
S00-5lll.
Becker, H. S. ( 1992 ), Cases, causes, conjunctu,es,
stories., and imagery. In CC. Ragin & H. S. Becker
[Eds.), Wha! i;; a cust• Expiormg the fm.mdatior;s
of social inquiry (pp. 205-216), Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Gniversit y Press.
Becker, ff. S,, Geer, 13., Hughes, .E, C.. & Strauss,}\. L
(1961). B,ys in ·;;,hile: Student culture in medical
school. Chicago: University of Chicago Preas.
Blumer, H. (: 969), Symbolic intemftionism: Petspl'Ctive
and methGd, Englewood Clif.s, XJ: P,enlice-lla!L
Boge.an, R. C., & Biklen, S. K, (l 982 ). Qualitative
re>t?mrh for education: An introduciion to theory
and methods. Boston: A:iyn & Bacon,
Bohm, D. (1985), lfnjiilding meamng: A weekend of
dialogue with Da,,fd Bohm, New York: Routledge.
Ca:npbell, :J, '[ (:975). Degrees o!' freedom and ca~e
study: Omiparariw l'olitical Sri.dies, 8, l 78-193.

Carr, W. i.., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical:
F.ducati1m, knowledge aml action rese1m:h,
London: !:'aimer.
Caner, K. [1993). The [llace o: story in the study of
teaching and teacher ed1Ka,io::. Educali1mal
Rrniarcher, 22, S-12,
C.andenin, J., & Connel'.y, M, (l999). Nana1iw inq1,iry.
San Franci;;co: Jossey-llass.
Coles, R, ( I989 ). rlre c../i of stories: 1eaching and
morai imagination. Boston: Houghton Mif:';in.
Colts, R. ( 1997).Doing dowmeniaryworl;;, Oxford, UK:
Oxfo:tl Universil r Press,
Coliins, R. (1981 ;. On the microfoundations of
macrosodo:ogy. 1'.merican /ournai of Sociology,
86, 984-1014.
Cr,nnell, R. W. (1985). Tea.:hers' work. Sydney: George
Allen & Unwin.
Cn1:i:ree, E, & Miller, W. L. (: 999). Rcscarc:i]11g
practice settings: A case ,tudy approach. [n
B. F, Crabtree & W. L. Miller (F.d~.J, Doing qrwiita·
tii•,; research ed., pp. 29',-J,12) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell,;. W. (1998J. Qualitative inquiry and research
design: Chcosmg am{lngfive tradiriot1s. Thmismd
Oaks,CA:
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. :::. (1977 ). 1\ptitudes am/
in.structimrn/ methods: A handbook (llr rrsearch en
interactiort.i. New York: lrvingtcn.
De\amont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educalinr,a/ seUings;
Methods, pujalls and perspcc!,tes, l .ondon: falmer.
Demdt:, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.).
Englewood Qiffs, N;: Pren:ic..:: H,1:.:.
Oenzin, :J. K (: 999). Cybertalk and the method
instance~. In S. Jone, ([,d, ), Doing Internet
r.:search: Criti,·al iss11es and methcdsfor ~xamining
the Net (pp, :07-126). Thou.and Oaks, C.A: Sage.
Eisner, E. (Ed,). (1985), [earning ,md teaching ihe
wt1ys of k11(T4'ing l84th yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Educatlor., Chicago:
University o: Cr::cago Press.
Ellis, C., & !lodmcr, A. P. (Ed~.). fl996), Composing
athnograph.y. Walnut Creek, AllaYl::a,
Erkkson, F: : 1986). Qualitative methods in research
on teaching. In M, C. \V\ttmc~ (Ed.), Handbook
o/ researrh ,m te11ehing (3rd ed., pp. 119-161).
New York: Macmil.an.
Fat. Borda, {Ed.). (: 998). Peoples par1i.:ip,ui,m:
Challenges ahead. ~ew York:
~eagin, J, R,, Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991 ). A ,Y1se
jiir the case stud), Chapei Hill: Univrrsil y of North
Clrnlina
Stake: Qualitati ,~ Case Studies Ill 463
Firestone, W. A. (:993). Alternati\!e arguments for
ge11eral izing from data as applied to quali:ative
resea:ch. Fd,icmiimal Researcher, 22(4 ), 16-23.
J. (1994 ). Audlendng: Cult·_ ral practice a:id
cultural studies. In N. Denz:11 & Y. S.
Lincoln \Eds.), H,mdbcok of qualitative rese,m:h
(pp. 359-378). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Flick, U ( 1998). An introd,1c;icn to qua7iiative research:
T!ieor;; method and application;, London:
Flyvbjcrg, (2001). Making ,vela! s.:umc~ matti:r.
Cambridge, UK; C.:.::ibridge :Jniversity Press.
Garfinkd, H. ( 1967) . •~wdies in et!momethcdo/og1,
N,,w \'ork; Prentk:e Hall.
Geecti, (1973), Thick desc:iption: Toward a::
interpretive theory of cul:::x. In Geertz, The
interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-30). Kew fork:
Bas:c Books.
(1983 ). focal knowied'gc: Furrr;er e,say5
in interpretive ant/;rapoiogy. New York: Basic
Books.
hla,er, Ji. G., & Strauss, A. L (I 967). The discr,very
of grounded the,,ry: Strategies for quaJitatii•c
re<1•r1rch Chicago: A]dine.
G:esne, & Pcshkin, ,4., (1992). Becoming qua/itati·1e
re.searchers: An i11trodw:tio!!. ½'hitc Plains, 'JY:
Longma1:.
J.P.,& L<:Compte, M. D. (: 984).E:lirwgraphy aml
qualitative design in educmianal research.
New York; Acader,ic Press.
Goode, W. & Hatt, P: K. ( 1952). Th-, ca,e ,tmiy. In
W J. Goode & P. K. Eatt, Methods ofS(lcial rrn:wd1
(pp. 330-340). New York: 'vkGrn,,•HilL
Got:wald, N. K, ( 1979), The tribes ofJahwelt: A so.:ioloK)'
of t•u: religion of liberated israel, l 250- 1050 B. c, ,.
Marfmnll, NY: Orbis Boaks.
Graue, \1. E., & Walsh, D, ~- (1998), Studying children in
rnnl>xl: i'1ieori,,s, metlwds, ethics. ::.lewb·.iry Park,
CA: $age.
Hamibn, D. (l980). Some cmitra~ti::g assu111ptio:·.s
about case study research and survey analysis,
1n H, Sin:ons (Ed.), Towards a scicr.te of rhe
singiilar [pp. 76-92). Norwich, lJK: University of
East A::glia, Centre for Applied Re,carch in
Education.
Hanse::. K. A,, Kaufr::ann, R. K., & Saifer, S. (no da:e).
Edumtion mid cu/lure demm:racy: Early
chi/d~oodpractice, (Available from 'Jew York: Open
Sodetv J::stitute, 888 Scventl: 1\ve,, York,
'
10106)
Heron, J, (1996 ), Co•oJ>erative inquir)": Research itrto the
human condfticn. Lon,ion:
 464 11 HAXDBOOK OF QUALl'l'.>\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
Herriott, R. & Firestone, W. (1983). Multisi:c
qua:itative ;iolky research: Optimizing descrip-
tion a::d ge::eralizabi::ty. Educational ResearcJ1e1;
12(2), 14-19.
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. ( 1999). Values in evaluation
a11d social researc/1. Thou.and Oak,;, CA: Sage.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. ll ( 1994). Data manage-
ment and analys:s methods. In N. IC. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincol r: (Eds.), Handbook of qualltarive
research (pp. 428-445 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag~.
Kemmis, S. ( 1980 ). The imag'na,ion of the case and
thr invrn::cn of the study: Ir: H. Simons (.Ed.),
1owards a science of the singular (pp. 93-142).
Norwich, UK; University of East Anglia, Cenrre ro,
Applied Researci: in .Educatim:.
Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from sjngle ca~e
studies. Evalualian Quarterly, 3, 661-t-78.
Kozol, J. (1991 ). Savage ine.quaU1ies. ::-Jew York: Harper.
Lincoln, Y. S., &: Guba, E. (1985). Narwalisrfc inquiry.
Beverly H:Us. CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic
con:roversies, contradict'cns, and emerging m:1-
(uences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. lim:oln (1:d~.J.
Hanr:ibook Qf quuliiatiw: research \pp. 163-188 '.1.
T'musand Oa~s, C.'\;
Lockridge, F.. (191!/l)_ Faithful in her fashion: Catherine
Barkley, th,; inYisible Hemingway hernine.)nurnal
ofNam:ni·te Jed1mque, /8(2), 170-17/t
Lofland, I..;., & Lollanti, L. H. (19114). .!lnaiyzing social
setting,: A gu!lit to qualitative observation and
ana(~sis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadswnrth.
Jl.1a'iry, L [ I998). Case stt:.dy methods.In H.J. Walberg &
A. /. Reynolds i l::ds.), Advances in educut1,mul
productivity, Vol. 7. Evaluation research fr-r edu-
cational productivity (pp. 155-170). Greenwich,
CT; JAi.
Mabry, I.. (199!1), Ci:·cumstamial ethks. Americiln
for,rnal ofEvilluation, 20, 199-212.
MacDonald, B.. Adelman, C., Kc1shner, & Walker, R.
{1982). Bread .;mi drccmu: A ruse study in bilm-
g1111i sdwaling in the U.S.A. No:wkh, UK:
University Qi Eas: Anglia, Centre fur AppEed
Research in Education.
Malinowski, B. ( 1984]. Argm1uu/s a/ the western Pac[fic.
Prospect Htights, II.; w.aveland. (Original work
publishtd 1922)
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding validity in
qualita, ive research. Harvard Edurat1orial Review,
6J, 279-300.
McCo:mick, S. ('. 994;. A nonreader becomes a reade::
A case study li:erary acquisition by a severely
disabled reader. Readi~K Research Q,u1rterly.
157<76.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In I.. Linn (Ed.),
Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13- L03 ).
'Jew York: Macmulan.
Miles, M. ll., & Hubcnna:i, A. M. (1994). Qualitative
data 1mulysis (2:id ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Morris, It (1979). The rise of Theodore Roosevelt.
:.lew York: Cowarc, McCann & Geognegan,
Parlet:, M., & Hamil:on, IJ. ( 1976). Evalmuion as :Jlu-
minatio::; A new apprnach to the study of innov-
ative prog:·;mmcs. !11 G. V Glass (Ed.), Ei•aiuaricm
studies review annual (Vol. I, pp. 141-157).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pa:ton. ;,,i. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation a~d
rttsearch nmhods !2nd ed.), Newbury ?11rk, CA:
Sage.
Pe.~hkin, A. (1986 ). !lad's :;;hnice. Chkago: l!niversity of
Chicago Press.
Polanyi, M. ( Personal knowledge: Tow,mis a post-
critical philo,ophy. Chicago: Universil y ol Chi01go
Press.
Pngaci':, M. (1998 ). On the border of opporfuni~y:
Edacarion, tomm,miry, and language at the U.S.·
Mexico iim:. Mahwah, NJ: F.rlbaum.
Psathas, G. {L995 l. Conversation ,malysi5' T':ousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ragin, C. C;_ ( 1987). The carnparaffw me,ltoJ. l:ler;..eley:
Universi:y of California Press.
. C. C. I, 19"2'
Ragm, ., , . of "Wh at :s. a case.~"
In C. C. Ragi:: & I:. S. Becker (Eds.), Whal is
a ca.,t? Exploring the Joi.mdati,:ms of S()cial
inquiry (pp. I U!}. Cam'.',ridge, UK: Cambrkge
Univernity Press.
Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). (1992), Whul is a
case> Expioring the Jimml.ations of social i11,1uiry.
Cambridge, UK: Caml-;ridge Univer.dy Press.
Raisin, S., & Britton, R. D. (1997). Bold wniu11?s; Patterns
t,mcmg US. innovations in science ~nti mat.~emat,
lcs education. Dordrechr, the Netherlands; Kluwer
Academic.
R:charcsm1, L. ( 1997 ), Fields uf play. New llru nswick,
NJ: Ru:gers University Press.
Robinson, W. S. (1951). Th· log:cal strucn.:re of
aoalytic i nducrion. American Socio/ogica/ Review,
16. 81
Rumelhart, D, E., H.Orlony, A. (1977). The represerna-
tion n'know:edge in memory: In It Anderson,
R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Mont Ague ( Eds.), Schooling and
the acquisition knowledge (pp. 99-13.5).
Eillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard. F.. R, (2000). Data analy,b and
management methods, ; n K. K.. Denzin & Y. S.
L::1colr: (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 769-802). New:mry Park, CA: Sage,
Schiln, D. (I '183;. The reflective practitwner; How pro•
fessiOl'zafs rfiink in actirm. New York: Basic Books.
Schwandt, T'. A. ( l99 3), Theory for the moral scie::ces:
Crisis of identity a;:d purpose. lo G. Mil'.s & D. J.
Flinders (Eris.), Theory and concepts in qr.uiliw.tive
research (pp. 5-23). New York: Jea,:he,s College
Press.
Schwandt. T. A. (2000). Three epistemological s:ancC'.i fur
qualitative ill(;uiry: Intrrpretivism, he,meneutks,
ar.d social cons1mctionism. J:i N, K. Denzin & 't S.
Lincoln (Eds,), l!andlnok of q~alifatiwi research
(2nd ed.,pp.189-213). Newbury ?ark,CA: Sage.
Silverman, D. ( '.993). Interpreting qw:ilitative daui.
Lone en: Sagr.
S'lvcrman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds,), Handbook of quali-
tative research (2nd ec., pp. 82'.-834). Kcwbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Sin,ons, H. (Ed.). (1980). Toward, a ,cience of the sin-
gular. Norw kh, :JK: Uni~ersity of Ea.~t Anglia,
Centre for Applied Research in Education.
Sjoberg, G., Willia:ns, N., Vaughan, T. R, & Sobe,g, A.
( 1991). Thr case appronch in social research:
Bruik methodological issues, In J. R. Feagin, M.
Orum, & Sjobe1g (Eds.), A .-ase for tlw case
study (pp. 27-79 ). Chapel :1ill: University of
'.\lurth Carolina ?ress.
Smith, L. M. (1978). An evolving logic of partidpar.t
obscrva1io11, ed,~catiunal ethnography and other
ca,e :;tudies. !:: L Shulman (Ed.), Review of
J,e.search in Edi,c"ticm, 6 (p;). 316-377). (hkago:
Pearnck Press.
Smith, L. M. (19911). Biog:aphical melhod. In N. K.
Denzfo & Y. S, Lincoln (Eds,1,Handbo,Jk af qua/i,
tative research (;ip. 286-305}. r:,ousand Oaks,
CA:
Smith, L. M,, & Dwye,, D. (19791. Federal pa/icy in
cu:ticm: A case study of,w urlum educa1ion project.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education,
Smith,R. ( Hli!9). An Aberdeensl;ire Village PrmJaganda:
Forty )'ears ago, Ed':iburgh: U~vid Douglas.
Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. R, Schmitz,;. G., Samarapungawn,
A,, &. Boergt;r, A. E. (19117). Knowledge acquisition
for appHmt:on: Cognitive ~exibilit y anri t~ansfer in
complex content domains, Ir. B. C. Britton (Ed.},
far:cutfre comrol proo:sses (pp, 177-199). Hlllsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum.
Stake: Qualitative Case Studies Ill 465
Stake, R. E. (1978). lne case method of social
inquiry. E4ucatiorud Researcher, 7(2),
Stake, R. E. ( 1988 ), C.L~e study ::iethods in edu,:ational
rcse-,mh: Seeking sweet waler. In R. M. Jaeger
(Ed,), Complementary me/hods for r<!'scarch in
educaritm (pp. 253-278 ), Was:i i::g1<111, DC:
An:erican Educational Research Asscciation.
Stake, R. E. (1995) The art of c11;e stud}· research.
Thousand Oaks, (A: Sag;.:.
Stake, R. E, (2004). St1rndards-based and responsive
evaluatic.11. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Sta;ce, R. E., & Trum·:iull, I), J. (1982). Natura::,tic
ger.eraliz.ations, Review Joumal af Philosophy and
Social Science, 7, 1-12.
Ster::iolm, B. ( 1984 ). The Swedish schr:ol ,ystem
Stockholm: The Swedish Institute.
Sre:ihouse, l, (1979). rhe study of sump/es ,md the
strtdy of cases, Presidential address to the annual
conference of the Britis!: Educational Research
A,,sodation.
Stenhousc, L (1984). Library accc-ss, libra~y use ar:c:
user education in "cmfomk sixth forms: An <1uto-
:iiugrapb:a: accm.:::t. ln R. (~. Burgess (Ed.), The
reseaFch pr{l(eS5 ir1 ed•icational ~mti11g,: Ten case
studi1:s (pp. 211 234). ~nmlor:: Palmer.
Stouffer. S. ( 1941 ), 'fote;. on ,he case·study and the
unique case.Sociometry, 4, :149-357.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Rasfcs of quaiit111ivc
res~arcii: Grmmded theory prcced11re.i and tech
niques. Newbury Park,
Tierney, W. (2000). t:nda:,::ited roJrage: Life history
ar:c lhe ;iostmodem challtnge. In N, K, Denzin
& Y. S. :incoln (Eds.), Handbo,A of qualitmive
research (pp.537 554).Thousand Oaks,CA:
Tobin,J.(1989).Preschool in three cultures. New Haven,
Yale University Press.
van 'Vlaa:ien, J. (1988), Tales llj' the fwld: On writing
ethriogrllphy. Lr.:cai;o: U:::versity of Chkago Press.
Vaughan, IJ. ( 1992 ). The(lry elaboration: The heuristics
of casi; analysis. In C. C. Ragin & S. Becker
W~a1 is a Exp/oritig the fm.mdmiims
of social inquiry (pp. 173-202). Cam'Jric.'ge, UK:
Cambridge Universi:y Press.
Vaughan, D. (1\199). The dark side o[ organizatinns:
Mis:ake, misconduct and :::s.csI<:~.Annual Review
ofSm:ioiogy. 271-305.
von Wright, G. H. ( 1971 ). Explurw:ticn ,md 1111dar.,t~11d·
ing. Lornlon: Routledge & 1egan Pau:.
White, H. C. (392). are for id,rnlity, for explar:a-
tion, or for control. In C. Ragin & H, S. Becker
(Ed~.). Whal is a rn,ef 1.;xpioring tilt foundations
466 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHA!'Tl::R l 7

socilll inquiry {pp. 83-!04). Cambridge, t::<: Yin, R. K. [ l 989). Case siudy re,;e~rch: Design and
Cambridge {;niversity metiivds (2nd ed.), 'Jewbury Park, CA: Sage.
w:e\·iorka, M, (l 981! J, So,:u/1,es ,,t terrorisme, ?aris: Yin, R. K, (I 992, November). Eva/uull,m: A sinxular
Fayard. craft. Paper pre,enred at the ann'..lal meet:ng of
Yin, ll. K (1984), Case sttuiy resemch: Design and the American Evaluation A,sociat:on, S,•att,e, WA,
methods (,\pplied Social Rcsearrl: Methods,
VoL Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18
THE OBSERVATION OF
PARTICIPATION AND THE
EMERGENCE OF PUBLIC
ETHNOGRAPHY
Barbara Tedlock
P articipan: o:iservarion was crca1ed during
the late I9th century as an rthnographic
field method for lhe study of small, homo-
genem:s culture~. Ethnographers were expected to
live in a society for an extended period of lime
(2 years, ideally), actively participate in the daily
lire of its members, and carefully observe tl:eir
;oys and sufferings as a way of o:m.ining material
:or social scientific study. This method was
widely believed to produce docum.:ntary inli:ir •
1:iation that not only was "true" but abu r~flected
the nati•te's own point of view about re-ality.'
The privileging of partidpant observation as
a scientific :nethod encouraged ethnographers
to demonstrate their observational skills in schol•
arly monographs and thei: social participation
in personal me:noirs. This dua:istic ap?roach split
puhlk (:nonog'.'aphs) from private (memoirs) and
objective (cth:10graphic) "ram sub;ective (auto·
biographi::al) realms of experience. The opposi-
tion creatc;.i what seems, from a 2 l st-century
pe:·spective, not only improbable bi:, also morally
suspect;
More recently, erhnographero have rnodified
participant ohservabm by undertaking ~the
observation of participation" (B. Iedlock, 1991,
2000). Dur:ng th:s activ:ty, :hey reflect 0:1 and
critically engage with their own participation
within the ethnogra?f1ic frame. A new genre,
known as "'autoeth nograpby;' emerged from lh;s
practice. Autho:s working the g.:mre a:tempt
to heal the split between public and private
realms ':iy connecting the autobiographical
impulse (the inward) with the e:hnograpl:ic
impulse (the gaze outward). Autoethnograp:1y
at it, best is a cultural performance that t ran•
srencis self referentiality by engaging with
c ultura! forms that are directly involved in be
crca:ion of :ul:ure. The issue becomes not so
much distance, ,i,ject:v!ty, and neutrality as
closeness, subjectivity, and engagement. This
cha ngt: in approach emphasizes relational over
autonomous patterns, interconnectedness over
im:lependence, translucence ove:- transparency.
and rlialogue and performance uver monologue
and reading. J
1111 467
468 111 l!J\NDIJOOK OF QUAUTAT:VE RESEARCll-CHAPTER 18
Such once-taboo subjects as adni:ting one's
fear of physiOll violence as well as ones intimate
encounters in the field are now not only inscribed
but also described and performed as soda) science
data.4 The philosopbcal underpinnings of this
discourse lie in the domains of critical, feminist.
postst,uduntlist, and postmodern theories, with
their comparative, interruptive, no::i-universalisric
modes o" ane1ysis. Social in this environ-
ment has gh:en up o:i sim?le data collection and
instead "offers re-!eadings of xpresentations in
every furm of informatiun processing, empirical
sdence, literature, film. te:evisior:, and co;npute:"
simulation" (Cloi:gh, 1992, p, 137).
ml Pusuc ENCAGEMt:NT
Early anth,npology in the l'nited Stales inc:uded
a traditio:i of social criticism and public engage-
ment. As a result, most art ides and books of that
time could be read, understood, and enjoyed by
any educated pers01:, Sc:10l,1rs such as Franz Boas,
Ruth Benedict, am: Marga rel Mead shaped public
opinion through their voluminous writing, public
speaking, a11d calls for social and political act:0:1.
Boa;; ~rem most of h:s career biilt'.ing against the
racist confusion of ;:,l:ysical and cultt;ra/ human
attri::iutes. His ,tudent Ruth Benedict, in her best·
selling book Patterns of Culrurt {1934), promoted
the notion of "cultnre" as no~ just those arl events
that found their way into the women's pages of the
new~papers of her era, but a peop;es entire way of
life, In so doing, she humanized non-elite and
non-Western peoples rhty too nave culture-
and delei;i:imatec evolutionary ideas concerning
hierarchies of peoples. Margaret Mead, L:1 Coming
of Age in Samoa ( 1928), contf'Sted the notion that
adolescence w:is necessarily a period of strain,
Later, in Sex and Tempemm1mt in Three Primitive
Societies (1935), she argued agai11st the dominant
Westen-. sexual ideology o: her time, which
dai med that men were naturally aggressiv;;: while
womt'.n were naturally passive,'
By the 1950s. however, as academic rnlture
in the Cr.ited States felt the chill wind of :he
McCartr.y era, man~· researchers no longer dared
to ac'dress their work to the general public.
Instead, they withdrew into small professiona:
groups where they addressed one another. As they
did so, they elaborated ever more elegant apoliti ·
cai theoretical paradigms; fanctionalism, culture
and personality, structuralism, componential
analysis, and semiotics, In time, soda! and politi •
cal disengagement became entrer.ched in acade-
mia am: a strong ta boo against any form of ;ocial
criticism of l:egemonk institutions or prnctk~~
arose, It would not be unti I!:le mid- l 960s that the
cri:ical function nf ethnography in the Un :ted
States would reappear. Stanley Diamond coi :ied
the term "critical anthropology" in l 963 and sub-
sequently clarified its socially engaged nature in
his journal Dialecrical Anthropology."
This rekindling of public engagement took
p1ace it1 the context of the civil rlgr:ts movement,
opposition to the war in Vietnam and other 'cl.S,
ir.ten'entions in the Third World, 1he writings of
t:ie California branch of the Frankfurt School,and
the rt,ienrch of educational revisionist.~.As a more
genera: research paradigm, this renewed public
and critical engagement was known as "critical
theory," Schola:s working within the paradigm
saw it as a way to free academic work from capi•
taHst domination and to help scr.ools and u!h~r
inslitutions to bemmc p'.aces where people might
be socially empowered rather 1han subjuga:ed. 7
One way critical theory was put into practice
was through :he production of plays addressi :ig
the economic and political plight of impoveris:ied
working people and peasant.~, In the mid-; 960s,
popular theater groups such as Brcad and Puppet
in the l:nited States and 1ea/ro Campesino in
Mcx:co began working tugether as egaEtarian
collectives, producing t:1eater for the masses,
The goal of sJeh theater groups in Latin America
was to poldcally transform the peasant.~' view of
themselves as independent rural farmers tu 1;1at
of exploited, ur.d erpaid workers.
P:uln Freire theorized that this em powenntnt
process, which he called conscienrizatior:, takes
pla.:e whenever people recognize and act upon
their own ideas rather than consuming the ideas
oc ot:iers. !n Pedagogy of the OppreJsrd (I 973),
he desuibed how the process of corm:ier;tizatfon

occurs by means of dialogue, during which people
share in formation on institutional injustices and
challenge powerful i'.lterest~ so a~ to change rhti~
own everyday realities. Grassroots partidpa•
tory research grew out of this enviror.ment and
became a strategy for groups lacking resources
and power to work together :o achieve political
empowermeuL1
As par:idpatory research and grassroots
theater became important movements in Latin
America, university students and intellectuals, ln
their rush for solidarity with be masses, reduced
cultural differem:es to class differences. What they
faDed to realir.e was that indigenous peoples live
on the margins of capitalist society mainly fur
reasons of linguist:c and religious differences,
rather than simply beca:ise of econon:k disen•
franchisement (Taylor, 2U03, p. 198).
Peru's leading tnea te, collective, Grupo
Cultural Yuyachkani, l:as worked to avoid this
politically nawe stance by r.1aking visible a com-
bined multilingual and muhieth.:'!ic epistemology.
This predominantly "wh:te;' Spanish-speaking
group is deeply involved with the local ind:genous
and mestizo popdations as well as with tnmscul-
tural Andean Spanish ways of knowing and
remembering. The Quechua part of their name,
Yuyachkani, which means "I run thinking,» "I am
renembering;' and "i an your thought;' high•
lights their recognition of the complexity of Peru's
social memory, It consists not only of ardi.ival
memory existing in written texis but also, anc
perhaps more importantly, of embodied memory
transrr:ltted in performance. The group attempts
to make its urban aucaences able to re:::ognize the
many different ways of being ~Peruvian;• and in so
doing it insists on creating a community of wit•
nesses th~ough its performam;es (Taylor, 200 I).
There exists a similar history of popular theater
in Africa (Coplan, 1986). In Ghana, for example,
Concert Party Theatre combined oral and vernac•
ular :orms in such a way as to be sirr:ultaneously
accessible to both illiterate and educated people
(Cole, 200 I). As in Latin America, intellectua:s in
Africa initially disapproved of popular theater for
what they saw as its lack of soda! or political rad•
icalism. They had been unaware of the political
Tedlock: Public Ethnography 111 4611
nature of the performances, which, instead of
voicing criticism in a direct and obvious narrative
form, .subtly imbedded political subversion within
the do:ng of the perfurmance itself. The actors'
self-positior.ing as "preachers~ and the audiences'
endorsement of this in their search for "lessons:'
created a new theater form tha: was neither mime·
tic no~ spectacular, neifaer realist nor classical.
Rather, it ','lllS a dismurse of exa • pie. As s:ich, it
was both sodall~· and politically engaged.9
Concert Party Theatre transformed the autho•
rizing fiction of colonialism, "civilization;' into a
humorous practice rather than allow Ing it a fixed
ontological status (cf. Bakhtln, 1984). This sug-
gests that in order to discover the social, cultural,
and political significance of popular theater, one
must analyze the poetry of action, West African
concert artists chose elements from local,
national, continental, diasporic, European, and
American sources and poetically reshaped them,
producing an altoge1her new and powerful form
of popular politics,
II PERFORMANCE ETANOGRAl:',fY
Performa:ice 's everywhere !n life: from sln:ple
gestures to melodra:nas and macrodra • as.
Because dramatic performances can communi-
cate engaged political and theoretical analysis,
together with nuanced emotional portraits of
human heir.gs, they have gained acceptance by
a number of documentarians. Plays and other
performances become vibra:it forms of ethnogra-
phy that combine political, critical, and CX?ressive
actions centering on lived experiences locally and
glo';,ally. A number of ethnog:aphers have served
as producers. actors, and dramaturges. "'
There are two main types of performance
ethnography that directly link anthropo:ogical
and theatrical thought. One considtrs human
behavior as performance, and tl:e other consid•
ers performance as human interaction. Edith
,rnd Victor Turner suggested that every sm:ioeco
nomic formation has its own cultural-aesthetic
mirror in which it achieves self-reflexivity: Their
goal was to aid students in understanding how
 470 111 HANDBOOK OF QUATITATIV:: RESEARCH-CHAPTER 18
people in a multitude of cultures experience
thei~ ovm social lives, To that end, they stag~d
a Virginia wedding, the midwinter ceremony of
the Mohawk, an \Jdembu girl's puberty ceremony,
and the Kwaklut'. Hamatsa ceremony}'
Because culture is emergent human !nte:-•
action rather than located deep Inside individual
brains or hearts, or loosely attached to extcr:ial
material objec:s or impersoual social structures,
dramas are a powerful way to ho:h shape and
~how cultural rnnstructio11 in action_ Bec,rJse of
this subjunctive quality, plays create and enact
moral texts that communka:e vi':Jrant emotional
portraits of human beings. together with an
empatl:ic response and deeply engaged political
<11:alysis (Cole, 19!!5 ).
Playwriting and produc:ion (as contrasted
with wri1ir.g short ,wries or novels) provide
checks on flights of tl:e imaginatio:1, because
d~amatk perfu::mance demands that the vision
be embodied. Public performance, encourage
authors and performers to :hink concretely aboi:t
what can be ohst!rved ra:her than dwelli11g on
in:1er :houghts. Actors cor:mrnnkate, by means of
gestt:re and other bodily forms, an understand-
able and believable mimetic reality for their spec-
taton,. Such perfor r:mrn:es operate on a teedhack
principle of ap;mn:imating reality by checking :he
derails ar.:d then rcfi ning the representation in a
reiterative or "dosed loop" app:-oach, In contrast,
novels and theatrical dran:as, although they may
be ethnographically informed, operate on a more
"open" princi,:,le.
Because of these and other characteristics,
popular theater, with :ts egafaarian "by the
people, for :he people" ethos, serves as an imU:a-
tion of aspects of tht sensible world, and thus is
a tbrm of cultura'. mimesis or representation.
Milton Singe: (: Y72) introduced the notion of
"culturnl pe~lorr:rnnce'' as an imporrant institu •
tion embndyi ng key as;,ects of cultural :raditions.
Since then, popular theater, especially impro-
visatlon, has been studied as cultural pcrfor-
mam:e in many places. Popular !healers i:i Iran
Indonesia., as examples, are extemporized
around minimal plots. The actors ad lib among
themselves and dialogue w:th the audience.II
Music, song, dance, storytelling, ,mppetry,
and other theatrical for:ns often are embraced as
forrrs of polit:cal analysis, catharsis, and group
healing by indigenons peoples who have exp er j.
er.ced eth:iic, cultural, and social displacement;
grinding poverty; and :wrrendous acts of vio-
lence. Basotlm :nigrant laborers, for example,
respond to their social situation with nighly
evocative word music, creating a "cull ural shield»
against dependency, expropriation, and the dehn-
:nan izing relation;; of race and class ir: Sm; th
Afrj~a (Coplan, 199,t). Women .iving in the filYe•
las, or urban sha:1tytow:1s, of Brazil create absu t ·
dist and black-1:umor modes of s:orytelling in the
face of poverty, trauma, and tragedy. These stories
aesthetically define and emotionally release the
alienation and frustration caused bv. vears of
'
severe economic depr:vation and soda: despera-
tion (Golds:ein, 2003). In so doing, they proc.acc a
,:ommentary in which the actors, who are also
their ow:1 authors, refuse the sur;::,h:s of know[.
edge that typifies an authoritative author, These
actor-authors, with the he:? of their audience
members, creak multiple co:nic subplots. As a
re~ult of thls contingent sim ation, each perfor •
mance is unique and t:nrepeatabk.
An :ndigenous theater group in Mozambique
produced a play in Maputo :hat opened with an
attack on a mar'.,et ''IOman who was brutally
killed and transformed :nto a spirit. A ceremony
was then perfrmr.cd that included healing stor•
!es, songs, ritual bathing, a:id the holding and
stroking victims of violence as one would a
:rightened child, According to the group, the key
purpo~e for writing and performing the d,ama
was to r:ioo]i~e wo1:1en l• to a sex strike until the
killing stopped (No:dstrnm, 1997).
Ir; Chiapas, Mexico, c·.1ring the late 1980s, a
group of .Maya:1 :armers who had served :'or many
years as informants to foreign ethnographers
founded a theater company called Lo'il Maxii, or
«Monkey Business" (Bre,;;lin, 1992). Their goal was
lo produce dramas that conld showcase Mayan
history and culture. From its i:1crp1ion, ant:Jro•
pologist Robe,t Laughlin worked as a dramaturge
for the groJp. An early play they prod·Jced
was titled Herencia fatal, "fatal inheritance"

{Sna ftz'ibajom, 1996), It concerned PNO brothers
who killed thei:- sister in a dispute over '.and. Such
disputes are still a cmmr.01: p::oble:n in rural
.\1exico and Guatemala, where siblings ofte:1 end
up in court ('. ue to a lark of adequate available
agrlcult:m1l la:id 1pon which to s1:ppnrt their
:anilics.
The play opened with a curing ce~emony
showing a shaman at work, Duri:ig the premiere
in San Cristobal, a:1 initiated shaman, who ali,o
was 2. membrr of the trm: ?I:!, snt backstage with
the cast. In the middle of the performance, he
suddenly jumped up and walked arou:id to the
front of the curtain in order to see if the shamanic
healing was properly perlorrm:d. Beca'Jse this
scene was a:1 im?ort11:1t part of the play's
verisim illtude, it had to be absolutely true to life.
[f ii were not, then the mostly Mayan audience
would not connect with the cultural continuity
message provided by the exa:npk of traditional
healing. In the :tice of enormous historical injus•
tkes, in which the majority of ,he lai:d is owned
by abse:1tee landholder.~, healing :-!tuals allow
Mayans a space for resistance a:1d reeu peation.
This wa& accomplished in the play by revealing
the ongoing colu1:ial imperialism at the hear~ of
Mayan social problems,
This and other plays have continued to be pro-
duced in dozens rural Mayan hamlets, as well as
in the large, multicthnic c::ies of Mexico and the
1,;nited Slates (Laughlin, 1994, 1995}. At the end of
each performance, the cast and ai:d:ence conduct a
dialogue. Ideas fo, ways to improve be production
as a work of art, cultural docume:1t, and political
critique are aired, and change;: are inch:ded in
future performances. This type of teedhack loop is
at the hear: of Bertholt Brecht's (1964) distinction
betv.-een "traditional" and «epic" theater. Traditior:al
thea:er is monologic, and as a result the spectators
are llnable to influence what happens on the stage
becaum' it Is art and they represent life. Epic theater
is dialogic, and as a resL11t the audience undergoes
a process learning something about their H,·es.
Popular theater consist!ng ethnographka:ly
derived plays, also call"d "ethnodran:as" (Miencza-
kowski, 1995, 1996), is locat<::d within the tradition
of epi:: theatc,.
1cdlock: Publk Eth nograp'iy 111 471
Another instruc~ive exar:iple of elhnod;ama :s
the Zuni play Ma"l Okyartsik an DenihalowiUi.,ve,
"Gifts from Salt VJoman:'It was written, sponsored,
and performed seve;al times in the 1990s by the
theate1· group known as Idiwtman An Chawe or
"Children of the Middle Place:' This ::,iling'Jal play,
explorlng the physical and spiritual care of :fA1ni
Salt Lake, raised important isrnes about the
l:nlted States government's continuing violatior: of
Zuni sovereignty. The tribe sponsored a number
of pu:.ilk performances in pueblo as well as
a c;oss-cuuntry toar. After each performance, the
director, playwright, actors, dancer,, singers, and
audie:u:e members conversed about the mcanir:g
and interpretation of the play. In collaboration
with the Appalachian group Roadside Thca:er,
they also produced a bicnllural play tit:.ed Com
MountainiPine Mountain: Following the Seasons,
or Dmva Yalmine/.4shek'ya Yalam,e Debikwayinan
IduJohha. The ptrformers included 3 Zun: and
;, Appala:hian storytellers wearing modern dress
and 16 traditionally dressed Zuni dancers and
singern. lnstcad of underscoririg cultural differ-
ences, of wh 'ch there were :na:1y, they :ocused m1
the similar':y of rheir reciprocal caring relation·
ships with hu:11a:1s, animals, and moi:ntains
([,ocke, Porterfield, & Wemytewa, 2002).
Etlmodraruas also have been used to adcress
urban anci institutional social issues. A perfor•
mance piece ,"<entering on schizophrenia, titled
Syncing Out Loud: A Joumey into Illnl!!'s, was
sented Jn several residential psychiatric settings in
Austnalia, The play was written ':Jy sociologists and
;:;erformed by a group of professional actors and
r:ursing ,1 udcnts as a psychotherapeutic strategy
i:1te1:ded to i:1struct both studen:s and patients
(Cox, :989). Each performance was fol!owec by
an open for.im that not only built communicative
consensus but also revealed clements of the per
formance tl:at were inaccurate and cisenfranchis-
ing, As a result of this public ?erformance-editing
straH,gy, the script ,emainec O?tn ended and
constantly evolving (Mienczakowski, 1996).
\Vhat happer.s when an ethnodrnma is not
handled ::i this manner was revealed :n a
play ca]ed Talabot, performed in 1988 by the
Danish faeatre group Odin Teatrel (Hastrup,
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAIJTATIVe RESEARCH-CHAPTER 18
, 992 ), The central character was a Danis!: woman
erhnogra p!'.ter, Kfrs :e:i Hastrup. She wrote a
de~ailed autobiography for use by the cast in
performing her life, The other characters-
Knud Rasmussen (the Danish Polar explorer),
Che Guevara tthe Latin American revolutionary),
and Antonin Artaud (the French surrealist
poet)-were chosen to mirror speci:ic elements
in her 'ife. Kirsten hac read about Rasmussen's
arctic explorations as a child, wiich is what lured
her ir:to antl:ropology, Che Guevara chose revoJu.
lion lo empower the weak, while Kirsten chose
ethnography to defond weaker cultures. Antonin
A rtmid juxtaposed theater and th: plague, and ia
so doing he mirrored Kirsten's own madness after
her 5eldwork, when she wds caught in a spider's
web of competing realities, The ethnographer also
had a twin in the play, a trickster figure who, like
her~elf, S<:rved as a mirror prom:sing not to lie but
ne,·er telling the whole truth either, a classic
ethnographic dilemma (Cra :,anzano, l 986),
Kirsten's initial response lo seeing the play
staged was the feeling of shock and betrayal at
"having been fieldworked upon" (Hastrup, 1995,
p. 144). In analyzing her own discomfort, she
noticed tl:at exaggeration of her biography,
accomplished through the use of masculine
heroes, created schizopnrenia in her self concept
As a result, she found she could neither fully iden-
tify with, nor fa:ly distance herself from, the
stagtc Kirsten. "She was neit.!1er my double nor an
other. She restored my biography in an original
way, being not,me and not-not-me a: the same
time, l was not represented, I wa.~ performed"
(Ha&lrnp, 1995, p. 14 l ). When the theater troupe
:eft Denmark for performances in Italy, she felc
:ha: they we~e running away w:th the meaning of
her lite, with her soul, ,.nd in so doir:g they had
strippec !:er of her concept of a sel( The pain this
caused made her understa:id the informant's loss
at the departure of the elh;10gra ?her, who fur a
brief time :1id encouraged her to see who she was
for another.
Because Hastrup learned something about
herself as a spectator, the play might be described
as falling within the Erecbtian category of "epic
theater." However, beca Jse the director failed to
include her responses and observations in his
subsequent performances, the play operated ir. a
traditional theatrical mode, revealing a fictive
attitude toward reaH ty. Thus, even though the play
was ethnographically researched, it was not an
ethnodrar.ia in the epic moce, because it did nut
operate within a c:oseJ•loop feedback model of
refining the details again and again until ii
became closer and closer to the reality of her life.
• PUBLIC ETRNOGRAPHY
At about the sm:1e time as the development of
ethnodrarna, a few publishing honses and profes•
sional assoc'at'ons began to encourage soda!
er.tists to communicate openly with nonspecialist
audiences, One of the earliest and the must sue·
cessful of these efforts wa..~ that of Jean Malaurie,
who established the French series Terre Humaine
al the publishing house P:on in Pa.:is. Over the
years, Terre Humaine developec: an enormous
publk audience for its passionate and politically
engaged narrative portraiture. This dislinguished
run of accessible narraEve ethnographies and
biographies is now mo,e tl:an 80 titles in length."
A similar open:ng up of anthropology
occurred in Britainanc the t:nitedStates. [n 1985,
The Royal A:ithropological Institute, located
in London, launched a new journal tilled
Anthr!lpoloy Today. This bimonthly ;:mbikatlon
was designed to appeal to people working in
neighboring disdpli nes, including other social
sciences, education, film, health, development,
refugee studies, and relief aid (Benthall, 1996),
It has focused on st ill photography, ethnographic
films, fieldwork dilemmas, native anth:opology,
globalization, and the rule of anthropologists in
developmenL
The Arnericar: :\ nthropo!ogkal Associa:ioo
also assumed a central ro:e in stimulating a
hroade: rr:ission for the discipline of anthropol-
ogy. The flagsnip journal of the association, the
American Anthropologisl, ur.der lhe editorship
of Barbara and Der:nis Tedlock (I 993-1998)
i:icluded na:,y more well-written, illust:'ated,
passionate, moral, and polit:cally e:,gaged essays

than ever before it~ hundred-year history. The
associstion also 'nvfred a group of scholars to its
i:eadquarters to discuss ''Disorder in CS. Societf'
On occasion, Roy Rappaport (1995} sug·
gested that engagec. ethnography ought to both
critique and eniighter. members of own
socic:y. This stimulated the Center for Community
Partnersnip at the University of Pennsylvania to
initiate discuss~ons of str;.:egics for encouraging
researching and writing about socially relevant
topics. I'he center labeled its undertaking "public
interest anthropology:*
More rece:itly, a sociological collective at !he
University of California, Berkeley, undertook a
project involving finely tuned participant ohser-
vat:on within local po'.itical struggles worldwide.
They documented many newly emerg:ng social
issues, including the privatization of nursing
homes, the medicalization of brea~t cancer, and
the dumping of toxic waste. Their work, wh:ch
sr.owed how ethnography could have a global
reach and relevar.ce, cous:sted of directly engaged
fieldwork that was both concep tua'.iy rich and
empirically concrete. In their edited volume,
<]lobai Erhnoxraphy: forces, Ctmnectfom, and
Imaginations in a Postmodern WiJr/d (Burawoy
et al., 2000 ), tney demonstrated how globa: i,at ion
impacted the daily lives of Kerala nurses. Irish
software programmers, a:1d Brazilian feminists,
among dozer., of other groups, rn this wurk, we
see clearly how researchers can weave back and
forth wilt.in the storied lives of others, creati:lg
an engaged narrativ.;: grounded within a specific
commuuity that is, in tum, locatec witl:in an
internaConal mosaic of global forces. In so
doing, the vei: of scien:ific professionalism that
surrounded and protected social inquiry during
the McCar:hy era was pulled a~ide, revealing how
prh•ate joys and troubles create ,.nd blend with
larger national and international public issues,
As one group progn:ssive colleagues in
anthropology focused their critical gaze within
the borders of the United Stales, anothe~ group
of progx~slve colleagues in social sciences
focused their cri:ical gaze outside the United
States. The School of Ame~icar. Research, located
in Sa:1ta Fe, New Mexico, valorized both of these
Tedlock: Pu:,:'c Ethnography a 473
directions :or anthropologists when in 2003 it
sp!it the prestiglous J, l. Staley Prize between
Reyna Rapp (1999) fur her book on amniocen-
tesis in the U:1itec: States and Lawrence Col:en
( 1998) for his book on Alzhe:me~'s disease in
India. Rapp's ethnography centered on the moral
conflicts women faoe when they choose to abo:1
fetuses because of information gained by genetic
tesring. Col:en centered on the culturally and his•
torically located descrip:ion and embodiment
of the anxiety surrounding aging_ Tr:ese m::hors
not only are excellent researc"lers and writers but
also are deeply implicated in ar.c passionate
about their topics. I consider their ethnographies,
together with ethnodrama, as. important forms
of"public ethnography:'
By public eth:10graphy, [ mean the type of
research and writing that directly engages with
tte critical social issues of our tirr:e, inducing
such topics as health and healing, human rights
and cultural ~urvival, environme:1talism, violence,
,var, genocide, immigration, poverty, ,acism,
equality, justice, and peace. Authors of such works
passior.ately bscribe, translite, and perform tr.eir
research in order tu ?resent it to the general
public, They also use the observation of their own
participation to understand and artistically por•
tray the pleasures and sorrows of daily life at
home as well as in many out-of-the-way piaces_ In
so doing. they emotionally engage, educate, and
move the public to act:on.:,
Public ethnography, as. I conceive it, is both a
theory and a practice. It straddles the do:nains of
lived experiem:e and recollected memory of time
spent interacting in the field, on one hand, with
time S?eJ1t alone in reflection, interpretation, and
analysis, on the other. As a revolutionary theory
and a powe:ful pedagogical strategy, it creates a
locitiou within whid: new possibilities for
describing and changing the world co-occur,
rn an attempt to fulfill these new mandates,
ethnographers are once again engaging with
the general public. They are penning op-ed pieces
in r.ewspapers and writing magazine essays,
popular books, shurt stories, and nove:s. They
are also creating dramas, poems, performance
pieces, films, videos, websites, and CD-RO~s.
 474 Ill IIASDllOOK OF QUALffATJVE RESEARCH-CH,\PTER 18
These various ethnographic staging, are dee;ily
"enmeshed in moral matters" (Co:1quergood,
:985, p, Experimental theater, persunal mura-
tives, filmrnaking, and documentary photography
produce mimetic parallels through which the
subjective is nacic present and available to its
performers and witnesses. This is true for both
indiger:m;s and outsider ethnographers, produc-
ers, and performe~s.
Three recent books beaut ifullv doct:ment
public ethnography in action, Paul Farmer's
Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and
,he ,1\'1.'W War cm the Poor (2003) illustrates the way
in which racism and gender inequality in the
Jnited State~ create disease a:id death. He pas-
siona:ely argues Iha! healrh care s:mulc be a basic
hun:an right. Aihwa Ong, in her ethnography
Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New
America (2003), documenb the way in which
Cambodian refugees become citizen& through a
combination uf being-made and self-making.
A,ong !he way, she raises important .:; ucstions
about :he meaning of citi7tnship in an age of rapid
globa:ization.
David Anderson and Eeva Berglund, in their
edited volume Etlmogrupldes of Consen•,1tion;
Em,ironm(mtalism and the Distribution of Privilegr:
(2003), reveal that rnnsecVation efforts not only
fail to protrct e:wi:'Oltments ::iut a:so disempower
a:rcady underprivi:eged groups, The authors
make visib:e these marginalized peoples,examine
how prn; ects to protect landscapes are linked
to myths of slate identity and national progress,
ar.d shuw how conservation creates privileged
enclaves for con sumpt;on while restricting local
people's rngagement with thei, envirun:nent.
Drawing on the tradition of critical theory, they
shed light on overlooked aspects of environnen•
talism, and as a result they were dtallenged by
a powe:-ful wnservatior: orgar:ization that hinted
at litigation if they published their critique. This
extre • e reaction to their project helped them to
re,11ize that tl:eir efforts ":iac moved tile a:ithro-
?<Jlogicat gaze toward relatively powerful organi-
zations ,vithout giving these organizations the
right of veto" (Berglund & Anderson, 2003, p. l 5),
To avoid a lawsuit but still publish their research,
they euited their contributior.s so as to conceal all
personal and organizalional identities.
As sd:olars and activists produce more public
ethnography, they wt11 move ever further into the
political arena, As they are read a:id listened tu,
they will encounter legal and other attempts to
siler.ce tl:em. Slich is the price of what Michae:
Fischer (200.'I, p. 2) has rallt•d "moral entrepreneur-
ship;' rhe directing of ar.:cntion to matters about
which something ought and might done. Th's is
a that n:any researchers will pay happily in
retum fur the c~ance to practice e::mngrap:iy that
makes a differcr:ce hoth at home ar:d abmad,
We have moved far from rhr Enlightenmtnt
goals nf "value-free" social scie:1ce based on a
rationalist !)resumption of canonical ethics; we
have entered into the arena of postculonial sncial
science, with its focus on morally er.gaged
res.r,m::h. This new ethical framework pre~·.1mcs
that the p1:bl'c sphere consists of a mosaic of
comm·.1nities wi~h a ::iluralism of identities and
worldviews. Researchers and participants are
united ·Jy a set of ethical values in whi.;:1 personal
autor:omy and communal well-being are inter
'.ocked. U11dertak ing research in alliance w:th
indigenous, disabled, and other marginalized
peoples empowi:rs diverse cultuml expressions
and creates a vibrant dscourse in the ,,.n,i,,,
respect, freedom, equality, and just:ce. This new
ethnograp:iy is deeply rooted in idea.~ of kind-
r:ess, neighhcrliness. and a shared moral gooc.
"v\'ithln this politically engaged environment,
social sd e;1 ce projects serve the communi:ies in
which tl:ey are carried o;.it, rather than ,erv:ng
external communities of educators, policy makers,
military ptrson::iel, and financiers,"
Ill CO\'CI.USWN
The ohscrvalio:1 of participation produces a
cLJmbinalion cognit:ve and emotio:ial infor.
malion faat ethnographers can use to create
er:gagrd ethnodramas and other forms of public
ethnography. Such performances and hooks
address important soda) iss1:es in a hu11:a11 :stk,
self-ref'.e:xive mam:cr, engaging both :hi:: hearts

and the minds of their audiences. The public
ethnographies currently being written, published,
and performed today are robust example& of
humanistic concerns and moral entrepreneurship
in action. They will engage and embolden a whole
new generation of scholars in many disciplines to
tackle the ethical dilemmas stemming from ongo-
ing devtlopr.ients ir: rnvironmentalisrr:, biotech-
nology, and information catabases. There is much
public ethnography yet to be done.
ll NOTES
1. The rcp:acement of a1mcfu:.:, ethnography b1·
experientially gained knowledge of othe, cultures was
pioneered by Matilda Cox Stevenson, Alice 0 1etche~,
Franz Boas, a:id Frank Hamilt,m Cushing (B. Tedlock,
2000, p. 456). This new type of research was clai rr:ed as
a fom1al me:r:ud later by Bnmislaw J\ilalinowski (Firth,
1985). Malinowski also claimed that anthropology was
roncemed wit': understanding o:her ml:r::-es from the
"natives point oi view• (1922, p. ;:.,5), For a c:scussim1
,,f the history and practice of parlid;mut observation,
sec B. Tedlock (2000).
2. This sulit between monographs and me:-:ioirs
is illustrated by the book, of Jean Paul D•Jmont (: 976,
1978),
3. For <.i:scussions of the genre cf autoelhnogra-
phy, see Strathem ( l\187), Lior.:-:et ( 1989), Deck (1990),
Friedt:ian (1990), B. Tcdlock (;991), Okely and
Callaway (1992), Prat: (1994), Var. Maancn (1995),
Ellis and Bod:ner (1996, 2000}, c:ough (1997),
Harrington [1997), and Reed-Danahay (1997).
4. Examples of works touching on these mpic~
include Cesara ( 19.'\2), Wcsto:: (1991, 1998), Scheper-
Hug:ies (I 992), K:einma:i and Copp ii 993), Newton
(1993), Wade (1993), Blackwood (1995), Bohon
(I 995),Dubisch {1995), Grindal and Salomrme (I 995),
Kulick ( 1995 ), Kulick ar.c' 'Nillson ( l 995 J, Lewin
(i995), Nordstri.lm and Robbe:i (1995), Shokeid
('.995), Behar (19%), Daniel 11995), Kennedy and
Davis (1996 ), [;:win a:1d Leap (: 996), Wafer (:996),
Zulailra and Douglass (I 996 I, Willson (l 997), Lee-
Treweek and Llnkogle (2000), Theidoo (2001 ), V.'okott
(2002),Gusrerson (2003),anc Wax(2003}.
5. A recent lor.g essay in Tire New Ycrk,11
( Pierpont, 2004) profiled the public legacy of Boos as
well as his students. See also the book on iace by
l:ienedkt (1945).
Tedlock: Public Ethnography 1' 4i5
6. See lliamond 11974) and Gailey (I 992).
Stanley Diamond founded the international journal
Dialectical ,Anthropology in 1975. rrom its inception,
it has had an impor:ant critical role in critiquing the
discipline of anthropology: its intellectual :eaders.
paradigms, and representatiom.
7. See Marcuse (1964), Leacock (1969), Freire
( 1973), Sowles and Gi:1tis (1976), Brodkey (1987), and
Giroux (1981! ).
8. Participatory research, also known as "p.;:tici-
p-atory anion rcsean:h;' :s closely associated with criti-
cal performance eth::ography, liberation tl:eory,
neo-Marxism, and h\.'.man rights activism. See Oliveira
and Darcy (19'75), Fals llorda and Rahman [1991),
V,thyte {1 '191 ), Marika, Ngum:wut:hun, and White
(i 992), Park el al. (1993), Hemn and Reason (1997),
Cohen-Cn:z \1998), Kemrr.:s and Mc'hlgga~t {2000),
a:id Haedide (200L).
9. For disrnssions o: this n{'w type of postcolo-
nial politically engaged the(lter in Africa, sec Desai
(1990), Mlama (1991), Mda (1993), Kerr {1995), ldcko
(1997), and llarber (WOO).
I0. for examples and discussions of pcr"cr:-::ance
et::nography, see Kuper (1970), Garner and 1'.lmbull
(1979), Grindal and Shepard (1986), 1'Jrn~r L988),
TL:::nbull in Higgins ~ml Canr.an (1984 ), D. led lock
(1986, 1998, 2UOJ), Com;utrgood (1989), McCall ~nd
Becker (1990), Richa,dson and Lockridge (l99l),
Hastru11 (1992, 199.5), .MienczakowtJki and Morgan
(1993 ), S:nith (1993), Allen and Gamer (1994),
Laughlin (!994), Bynum (1995), Isbell (1995), Kondo
(1995), M'enczakowski (1995, 1996), Schcvill anc'
Gordon ( 1996), Cule (2001 ), Wolcott (2002). anc'
Chatterjee (2003 ).
: I.· See Tur::er and T:Jrner (]982), Schechner
(1983, 1985), Schechner and Appel (1990), Turner
(1988), Beeman (!993), and Bouvier (1994) for dis-
i:ussions of theatrical anthropology. Tl:is resear,h is
vt:y different fm • Eugenio Bar::ia's "theater anthro-
pology;' which is omce,ned with cros,-cult:.:ral
acto, trainlng (3arbn & Savarese, l 991). For an
analysis of Iran i.in popular theater, see Beeman
(I 979, 1981),
12. Ethnographic descriplions and discussio:1s
<1f Indonesian popular theater indude those of Belo
(1960), Peacock (1978), Wallis (:979), Kee:er (1987),
an<l Hobart {2002), 3alinese popular :heater can be
observed in a dassk documentary fi::n by Bateson,
Belo, and Mead (1952 ).
13. See Bala::d!er ( 1987), Malm.::ie (1993 ), Descula
(1996), ,nd Auregan (20(11} for disc,ssions about the
 476 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUA:JTATIVE REShAKCH-C'fAPTER 18
mtu:-e and impact of the For a recent title in this
series, see B, Tedlock (2004),
14. Partidpan:s in the development and discus•
sion of this ••'"'""' paradigm within anthropology
induce Peggy Sanday (: '!76, 20fl3), James Peacock
; 1995, 1997), Anne Prands Okongwa and Joan P.
'.lencher (20GOJ, and lulia f'ale}· (2002),among others,
15. Some e:mmp:es uf advoca:y and
cthnngraph:c re.~earch 'r:dnde Bello, Cunningham, and
Rav (1994 ), Cuds and McClellar: ( 1995 ), Mullings
( 1995 ), Huck (: 996), llc:mvem111 {1996 J, Seavey (1996),
Zufaika and Douglass (1996), Harrison (19971,
Cummins (]9911), Thorrr:(m (1998), Brosius (1999),
rillrweather (1999), L}'Ons and J.awrenc~ (1999), Kim,
Irwin, Mill;:n, and Gershman (2COO), Howitt (2001),
McClusky (2001), Lamphere (2002), Gusterson \2003),
Siege: ( 2003 ), 3alliste and Youngblood Hcndc-r,,nn
(2004), P:ummcr (2004), Griffiths (2004), Mdn:osh
{2004), Stc,enson (2004), and R. Tcdlt,ck (ZOil5)
Electronkally available repor1s am: other informatk,,:
a!"<' bern:ning n:,ire and more 1m;ior:anl fo, ,eseard1ers
working in 1hc,e rapidly developing areas. See, for
i:xa:n?le, both "New Issues in Refugee Re~earch''2:1d the
monthly :l.clugee :.ivdihoods e-mail digest at www
.unhcr,ch. Sec also the portal called "Forced Migra:ion
Onlit1e" al w\vw.:hrcedmigration.org. and ·,¥ww.secure
, migrationcxpcrtci:n.
16, more i:iformatior. about, a:id models
th,s morally engaf:ed turn withi:i the social
srienccs, see !larrison (;!,l!,ll), Denzin (1997), Frmk
(2000), and Chatterjil (20C4). This is rapidly beco:ning
a vis he s<idal movemc::: :. At the American
Anlhropulogical Assc..:fat :on meeting in :iovet::ber,
2003, in Chicago, a coalition called the Justice Action
Network nf Anthro1m:ogisls (JAN,\) was founded, !Is
mcn1buship li;;t mrrentl1/ consis:s of more thar. 2:>0
anthropuhigists fwm C-,:iadc, United S:ates, the
Un ired K'ngdom, Australia, South Kore.;, Cost~ Rica,
!vfox:ro, and the Netherlands.
Alim, & c:amer, K (IS'l4). Condor qatay [Playl.
Prr,dw:ed .ind performed by the Depa,tment
'fheatrl:: a:1d Dance. G,mrge Washington Uni11ersity,
Dnm:hy Hells ,',fanin Tl:eater, 'I.fare:: 31-April 3.
..\ndersrm, D, G., & Bcrglund, E. (Eds,). ; 1993).
Ethnogrnphi1"> oftanservntimi: fr,vironmmta/ism
,md the tlistrilmtfori pri,•i!cge. New Yor;.::
l\erghah n Hooks.
Auregan P ( 200 l). Vcs et de,, homes, 1i:rre
Hurnaim:: un autre sur :lcieru:es de
/'lwrnme, Pa:is: :-athaniHER,
l\akh: in, M. (1984 ), ifabi:lais and his world (E lwolsky,
Trans.;. Bloomington: [ndiana [niversity
Balamiie,, G. {1987). "·lerre Homair:e" as a liternry
moveme:it Anthropology Ttuiay. 3, l -2.
Barba, E., & Savarese, N. ( 1991), ,i d;ctionary of ,hea,re
,mtbropology: Tlie secret art of lhe pi:rformer,
I.ondon: Routledge.
llarher, K (WOO). The generation of plays: Yoruba
popular life in theater. Bloo:ni;:g1on: lndia::a
[niv~rsity
BartSL)ll, G., l:ltfo, I., & Mead, M, (1952). 1rar:ce and
dance m Bali ['.'lotion piclt:rc ]. New York:
New York Ur:ive;:;ity Film Library.
Battiste, M,, & ihu::gblol.lc Henderson, S. (2000),
Proteeting indige11m15 .~mm·ledge heritage: A
global challenge. Saskatoor., Saskatchewan: l't::ich,
Beeman, W, 0, ( 1979). Cul:c,al <limen,ian~ af per•
formance conventions in lri1nian Taziyeh, lt1
P. I. Chdk,w,,ki (fa!,), 1il'z{veh. Ritual and dmma
in !ran. Kew York: New York University Press,
Bccm:m, W. 0. (1981). Why do t'.:ey la·Jgh! An
lnteractional approach to humor in traditional
lrnn:an in:provlsatory theatre. Jou ma/ ofAmerican
Folkli!re, 94(374), :•'J(J~:,.:;r:,,
:k>cr.1an, W. 0, ( 199 3). The anthropology of theater
and spectacle. Anmuil Reviews in Anthropology,
llehar, R. (1996), Tlie vu!r.eral,/e obserw:r; Anthropology
:hat breaks your heart, Boston; lleacon.
Bell(:, W, Cun:;inghanc. S.. & Rav, R. (1994). Dark
victory: The United SrateS, <1n1m,1rnl ad)li!I m,mt,
and giobul pcverty, Lo::don: Pluto,
l:lela, J, (1960 ), Tranci, in Bali. \l""'' York: Columbia
U::· vesilv Press.
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of cu/t;.re. Boston:
Houghton Mifllin.
Benedict, It (1945;. Ra,e: Scien,~ and pa!itics.
New York: Viking.
Be::thall, J, (:9%). b::larging the context of anthro•
pology: The Gm: of Am/mJ[m!ogy Tad,~v. In
J. MacCfancy & C. McDonaugh (Eds.), Popularizing
all!hropulugy (pp. 135- 141 J. London: Routledge.
Berglund, E.. & Ande;:;on, D. ( I993 ). !ntrodncfam:
;aware~ an ethnography of ecological under-
privilegc. In IJ. G. Anderson & E, Berglund (!!cs,),
Et/111ogra!•hies of CQnservatior.: E111timmnentalism
and t.~e distrilmtiGn of ptivilegt (pp. l-15 ).
New Bergtahn Books.

Black WQOd, E. (1995). FalliJ1g in love with an-0:1:er
lesbia~: Reflections on identity ':: fieldwork. I::
D. Kulkk & M. Willson (Eds.), Taboo: Se.x, identity
and erotit: ,ubjertivity in anthropologicalfield·,jJf)rk
( Vi,1. S1-75 ). London: Routledge.
Bolton, R. (1995). ·1ricks, frlends, and lovers: Erotic
encounters in the fidd. In D, Kulick & M. WE:scm
(Eds.), Taboo: Se:r, id,imity a11d crctic subjectivity
in ant~ropological fieldwork (pp. 140-167).
New York: Rrmtledgt'.
llouv ier, H. ( 1994). Special issue on anthmpclogy
and theatre !Special issue). Thearre Researc~
lnt,'fnaJional, J9.
B,iw:t:5, S., & Gintis, H. ([ds.J. ( 1976). Sdr~oling in cup•
ita/L<t America. New Yor:c Bask Books.
Brecht, B. {1964). Drecht on thea1er {J. Willett, Ee.).
New York: Hill & Wa::g.
l:lrns::n, P. ( 1992, A•~gus: ). Cuping witli change: The
Maya d:scover the pla/s the thing. 5mitbo1lian,
pp. 79-87.
:.lrn<lkey, L. 0987). W:itin1; nilictl ethnographic nar
mlivcs. Anrhropolagy and Education Q1111r!erly.
18, 67-76,
"hnsius, P. :. (1999). Analyses and interventk,ns:
Anthropological e::gagemrnts with cnvlronme:1•
ti,!'sm. Curren! Anthropology, 40( 3), 277-.l09.
B·:,ck, P. ( 1996). Sa,:-ificing bmum rights on the altar of
mt>ralily: White defpera:ion, fa; right, and puni•
tive social welfare reform. Crl,an AnrhrapalDgy,
25(2), 195-2l(t
lhrawoy, M., Blum, J. A., c:eorge, S., Gill, Z, Gowan, ·1:,
Haney, L, el al. t2000 ). Global ellmograp•!J; Forces,
cowuxtions, and imagimlfions ill r1 postmadern
world. :Jerkdcy: University of Californ:a Press.
Bynum, B. (: 995, Decem ,er). My heart is sttl! r:i.:hir1g
!Play;. Performed at the A:neric,m Anthropol-
og'ca: Assodation :Vfeeting in Atlanla, GA.
Cesara, M. [pseudonym of K. Pocwc 1- (1982 ).
Refli!Ctfrms of a wonum ,mfhropolugis1: No hiding
pl,.ce. London: Academic Press.
Chatterjee, I'. {20U3}. Staging "A time for tea': Theater
anc poetry in writing thi: plar:tation. XCP (Cwss
Cultural Poetics), 12, i2 78.
ChJtttrjii, A. (2004). Anthro;nclogy &:id rnhural s..::•
vival: On representations of indigcr.ousness.
Authropology ,\ews, 4513), 7-8
Clough, P. --:. (1992). Tire end(s) of etlmograpliy: PrJm
reaii.,m to social critici;;m. N,:wbury :>ark, CA: Sage.
Clough, P. T. ( 1997 I. A:: :otelecom mu::ication and
au;oethnography: A rcad::ig of Caro:yn Ellis';; Final
11egotiarions. Sociofcgical Quarterl;r. 38, 95-1 IO.
ledlock: Public Elhnugra;ihy 111 477
Cocke, D., Porterfield, D., & Wemytewa. E. (2002).
Journey.s hame: Revicaling a Zuni Appalachia
collaboration. Zuni, KM: A:sh iwi Publis'iing.
Co'ien. L. {1998) . .Vo r;ging in l11dia: .4!zheimer's, the
bad family, and oiher modem things. llerkdey:
Unh•ernity of California Press.
Cohen Cruz, I. (Ed.). (l998). Radical streer ~rfor•
mrmce: An intemat iom,l anthofogy. New York:
Routledge.
Cole, C. M. (1001). G}uma~· coneerr ;;urty thta,re.
Bioor.".ington: '.r:diam, ll:liversity Pres,.
Conquergood, D. {1985 I. l'erformi ng .is a moral act
Elhkal di::ieminns of the ethnography of perfo:.
manre. Literature in Perfermrwce, 5. 1-1 3.
Conquerg,:;nd, D. (1989). Poe:ics, play, process and
power: The perform.1nc,: tum in anthrnpu:cgy.
T,xt and Performwice Quarterly, 9, 81-88.
Coplan, D. {l 986). Iceolosy and traditio:1 in South
African black popular theater. Journal of
American Folk/ore, 99, 151-176.
Coplan, D. (1994). ln rite time of ,urmibu/s: The word
music ofSouthAfrita's Basot!w migro11ts. Chicago:
t:niversit}' cf Chkago PrtSs.
Cox, H. (1989) Drnrr.a in :he arls lah.A11stra!ian NuwJS
Joumt1', 19( I), 14 l.i
Crnp,uizano, V.11986). Enn:es'dilemma: The masking
of subversion i:: ethn.:,graphic description. In
~.Clifford &G.Man:us (Eds.), Wri1ingrnl1ure:Tlu:
poetic~ ,md politics of etlmograplry (pp. 5l-76j.
3erkeley: U1::ve:·~ity of California Press.
Cummins, J. (1998). Organic agriculture and the threat
of genet'c engineering. Third l1lorld Resurgenre,
93, 6-7.
Curti:l, K., & McClella:i, S. (1995 ). Fallin1., um,i.:gh lhe
s,:i:ty net: Povert ~- foo<l assistance ami sh:>pping
constraints in an American city. Urban Antnm•
pology, 24, 93- BS.
Daniel, E. V. ( 1996). Charred lullabies; Chaptrrs in arr
cmthropalogy 0J ·1iolence. l'r':icclon, NJ, P•incetm1
University Press.
Deck, A. (1990). Autoethnogrn?hy: Zore Neale
Ilurswn, ~oni Jaban1, and cros,-disciplinary dis•
course. Black A'11eriam Litemt,m forum. 24,
137-256.
Dehavenm1, A. I 1996 ). F!'Om bad I~ worse m the
emrrgency as,fstanre unit: llow New Hirk Cily
lrie,t lo ,,op ,heileriug homeless fami/ie;; in 1996.
New York: Aclion Research E'miect.
Denzin, N. K. ( I 99 7). Jmerpreti11i! eth11ograph)•:
Erlnwgraphic pn.ctices for the 21st century.
fh,msand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 478 Ill HA'ffillOOK OF QL'ALID'.:J'I V£ RESEARCP.-CHAPTER 18
Desai, G. (1990). Theater as praxis: Discursive strate•
gies in African popular tr:ea:er. Africa" Studies
Reriew, JJ( 1;, 65-92,
Des cola, P. {l 996 ). A brko/cur'.; workshop: Writin~
us lances du crl!spuscule. l:, J, MacClancy &
C. McDonangh (Eds.}, Popularizing amhropo/ogy
(pp. 208-224}, London: Routledge.
Di11mond, S. (1974), fn search of the primiti1,e: A
critique of civilrzalwn. New llrunsw ick, NJ;
Tra::sactinn Books.
Dubis~h, J. (1995). Lovers in the !'le'.d: Sex, domina:ice,
ar:d the female anthropologist. Ir: D. Kulick &
M. Willson ;Eds,), 1iwoo: Sex, identity ar.d eroii~
subjectivity in anthropological.fiel,1work (pp. 29-50),
Lo:idon: R:-.utledge.
Dumom, (!976). Und;;r 1he rainbow: Nature and
supemature among the Fanari fadians. Austin:
University of '!'exas Press.
:lnmom, J,•?. (1978). The headman and I: Ambigwty
and ambivalence in rlw fieldwork/rig experience.
Austin: Univers!cy of
Ellis, C., 8: Hoehne,, A. P. (Eds, i. (, 996). Composing
etlmagrapfry: Alternative forms ofqualitative writ,
ing, Walnut C:l!ek, CA: AltaM ira.
Elli;;, C., & 3ochner,A, P. (2000).Autoethnngraphy, per-
sm1al narrative, :eflexivity. ln N. K. Denzin & Y: S.
Linm:n (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative rese,m:h
(2nd pr. 733-768). Thmmmd Oaks, CA: Si\,le.
:airweat::er, J, R. (1999). Understanding how farrr:ers
choose between organic and ,onventional pre-
cuction: Results :rorn New Zealand and po:icy
i mpl'c~tions. ltgricu!tim: and /Jumm1 Values,
16(1), 51-63
fals Borda, 0,, & Rahman, M. A, (Eds,), (1991 ). Action
,md knvw!cdge: Bn,aking the rmmopvly wftl; par·
ticipatory action•res~arch. New York: Apex.
Rlrmer. P. (2003). Pa:l:al11g11.•s of power: Health, human
rights, and th.r new war on the po1Jt. Berkel,y
:Jn iversity of California Press.
Hnh, R. (1985). Degrt'.:;s of intelligibility. In ;. Overing
(Ed.), Rl!ilso.~ mui morality (pp. 294~). London:
Tavistock
Escher, M. J. {2003 ).Emerg,mrfarms ofiife and thlt amfmJ•
pofogica/ voice. Durham, l\'C; Duke University Pre.s.
Fm::k, G. (2.000). Verms on i~heefs: Twc decades of
dialogue on disability, biogmphy, and beingfemate
in America. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
F,eire, P. (1973). Pr!dagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Seabury.
F,iedrr:an, K. (1990). Auto:iiographical sociology.
American 5aciologist, 21, 60-66.
Frommer, C. (2004), Protecting traditional medicinal
knowkdge. Cultural Survival, 27( 41, 83-87.
Gailey, C. W. /l 992 ). 1::troduction: Civilization and
culture [n tb: work of Stanley Diamond In C. W
Gailey ( Ed.), Dialectical r;;nthmpoiog;: Essays in
honor ofStanley Diamond (pp. l -25 ), Gainesulle:
Univers:ty Pres.~ of Florida.
Gamer, N. C., & Turnbull, C. M. ( 1979). A111hropology,
drama, and rhe human experience. Washington,
DC: George ¾'ashingtnn University.
Giroux, H. (1988). Critical theory and the poli::cs of
culture and vn'ce: Reth i nklng tr:e discourse
educatior:al research, In R. Sherman & R. Webb
( Eds. l, Qu11/ita!JYe research in edua1ticm: Focus
and methods lpp.190-210). New Yor;_; Falmer.
Goldstein, D. M. (20fl.'IJ. I.augliter r.111 R,ice,
d1.ss, violence, and sexuality in a Ric shantywwri.
3erkeley: Universil y o: California
Griffiths,l'. (2004),Help or hindrarn;e? Tb: globa: envi•
nmmen; fadlitv, biodiversitv conservation, and
' '
indige:mus peoples. Cuftul'tlf ,Survival, 28( I),
28-31.
Grindal, B., & Salomone, F. [Eds.;, (1995). Bridges to
humanity: Narrotives on anthropology and friend-
ship. Prospect :-1 eights, II.! Waveland.
Grindal, B.. & Shepard, W. H. (: 986, November).
Redner.A gir! !Play],
Gustt'rson, H. (2003). Anthropology and the military:
'. 9611, 2003, ar.c beyond~ Anthropology Joday,
!9(3),
Haedicke, S, C. (2001). Theater for the next generatkm:
The Living Stage Theatre Company', p,ngram for
teen mothers. In S. C. Haedicke & E. Nellhaus
(Eds.), Peifonnir.g demoaacy: lmernalimwl pe
spci:rfves on uri.>a11 community-based performance
( pp. 269-280), Ann Arbor: University of Mkhigan
Press.
Harringtnn, W. ( 1997). lnlimate journ(l/ism: The art
and craft of reporting ewryday life. Thousand
Daks, CA: Sage.
Harrison. F. V. (1991). Ethnography as po:ttics. In E 'l
Harrison (F.d),Decolnr.izing anthropolnf;)': ,\1ovi11g
further toward ,m anthropology JiJr liberation
(pp, 88-109). Washington, DC: As~ociation of
Rlac~ Anthropo.ogists, American Anthropologkal
Assrcciatinn.
Harrison, F. \,: (~997). tl:e gendered politics
and violence of structural adjustment;
from Jamaica. In L Lamphere, H. Ragon<!, &
P. Zavella (E.:ls.), Situated lives-g,m,ier and
culrurc in everyday l~re (pp. 451-468). Kew Yo,k:
Routledge.

Eas:rup, ( 1992 ). Out of at;t'i roµology: 1 he anthro·
pologist as a:: object of dramatic represenhuion.
luirunil Anthr,ipology,7, 327-345.
Hastrup, K. ( '. 99.5 ). A p,magt to cmthropolog;: Between
experience and theory. Londm1; Rm:.tledg.:.
Heron, J., & Rea;;on, I'. ( :997). A participatory inquiry
paradig:11. Qualitative Inquiry, 3. 274-294.
iliggi:1s, C, & Cannan, D. (1984). The lk [Playl,
Woodsmck, IL: The Dramatk Pub!ishing
Company.
Ho:;art, M. (2002). Live or dead? Televising theater in
Bali. In F. D.Ciinsburg, L.Abu-Lugh~d, & B. Larkin
(Eds.), hfedia worlds: Amhn•pology on new termin
(pp. 370-31\2). Berkeley: University of California
Howitt, R. (2001 ;. Rethinking resource management:
Justice, sust11inability, and indigenous peoples.
New York: Routledge.
ldoko, E. :. (1997). "Retsidual" forms: V:able tools fo,
communi:y develu?rnent through drama-the
"'fandari'' experime::t. Borno Miiseum Society
Newsletter, 30-31, 27-36.
Isbel:, B. ,. (1995). Women', :.ima 1973. In
D. Tedlock & 3, Mannheim (Eds.), The di,;/agfc
emergence of cuiture (pp. 54-74). C;ha:rn:
University of Illinois !'re~,.
Keeler, W. (I 987 ). ]WlCl'!esc sl?c.dol~ ['l~ys; Jav,mese
selves. Prince:on, NJ: Princeton Univers:ty Press.
Kerr::nis, &: Mclaggart, R. !2000). Partidpalnry
act:on research. l n N. K. D,~nzin & Y. S. Lincoln
( Eds. J, Handbook of qua!itmive research (2nd ed.,
pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ker::iedy, E. :.., & Davis, M. I>. ( IYY6). Bcots of leather,
slippers of gold: The hi,1ory of a iesbiall commu•
London: ll.o:.llledge.
Kerr. D. I l995). African popular theatre. Lond,m: James
Currey.
Kim, J. Y., Irwin, A.. Millen,]., & Gershman, J, (2000).
Dyillgjor growth: Globol inequaliiy and the health
vfth, paw: M::mroe, ME: Common Courage.
Kleinman, S., & Copp, M.A. (Eds.). (19,3). Emotions
a1ui}1eldwork. Newbury Park, CA: s~ge.
Kondo, [). '. I995}. Bad girls: Theater, wome:: ,;f
colo:-, and !he politics of representatio::. In
R. Bebar & D. Gordon (b:ls.}, Womtn writing
rnlture (pp. 49-64), lkrkeley: Un:versity of
Californi~ Press.
Kulick, D. : 1995). The sex:.:al life of anthropologists:
t.cl•tic ;ubjcctivity and ethnograp:::c work. In
D, Kulick & M. Willso:: (Eds.), 1aboo: Sex, identity
~nd ,rolic siibfertivity it, ,mthrapolcgicai fieldwork
(pp. J-28). London: Routledge.
Tedlock: Public Elhnograpr:y 11 479
Kulick, Ll., & Willson, M. (Eds.). C995). 1iiboo: Se.~.
identity and L'rotic subjectivi~v in anthropological
fieldwork. ::.ondon: Routledge.
Kuper, IL (1970). A wire/; in my heart: A p!ay set in
Swaziland in the 1930s. London: Oxford Unlvrrs'ty
Press.
Lamphere, L. (2002 ). Structuring di·llir,ity: Elhr,ogrnphic
perspectives on the new immigration. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Laughlin, It M. ( 1994, March). From aii for [Play).
Performed Marer: 24 at t:ie cari:er·em;e "La
sabiduria Maya ah idzatil: The wisdom of the
1>1aya;' Gainesville, FL.
Laughlin, .R. M. (l 995). Frorr. all for a;J: A Tzotzll·
Tzeltal tragicomedy. American Ant/.rcpologisr,
97(3), 528-542.
Lea,ock, E. ( 1969). Teaching and learning in city s1:hoo/s:
A comparmiw smdy. New Yor<:: Basic Books.
1.ee-Treweek, G., & Linkogle, S. (Ec.s.). (2000). Danger
in thr field: Ethics and risk in social rese,m:h.
Londn:i: Routledge.
Lewin, ll. (1995 ). Writing lesbia:: t·thnogra ~,hy. In
R. Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing
mf,ure (pp. 322-335). Berkeley: University of
California l'rt'!is.
Lewin, & Leap, ·w. LI Eds.). ( 1996 ). Out i1! tht .field:
R~µertiom k.,;bimi 1.md J;t!J anrhmpcfog1sts.
Urhana: Univcrsi:y of Illinois Press.
:.ionnet, F. ( 19119). Auloethnography: The an-archic
st,1e of Dust tracks ,m a road. In E Lionnet
(Ed.), Autabwgmpilu:al voices: Race, gender, seff
portraiture (pp. 97-129). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Lyons, K.. & Lawrenn:, G. (1999). Alternative know!•
edges. orga:iic agr:cul:ure, and the bio:echnology
debate. Culture and Agriculture. 21(2), I- :2.
Malaurie, J. (1993). L,! livre Terre Humaille (Vol. ll.
Paris: P:an.
t✓.alinow5ki, ll. ( 1922). Argonauts of the wrstern Aidfic,
London: RrrJtledge.
Marruse, H. ( 1964). One dimensimwl mim: Studies iii
idwlogy ()f advanc.ed industrial society. ::-:ew York:
Honghtcn Mifflin.
Marika, R., 'lgurruwutthun, D, & White, L (1992).
Always together. Yaka gllna: Partidpatory
research at Yirrkala as part of the developmen: of
Yolngu education. Corwergence,25( 1), 23-39.
McC~II, M., & Becker, H. S. (1990). Prrforrnancc
science. Sncial ProM,m1s, 32. 117-132.
McClusky, L J. (200 I). Here our culture is hard: Stcries
of dome;tic violence from a Mayan community in
Belize. Austin: Cniversity of Texas Press.
 480 1111 HANDllOOK 08 QUALITATIVE RESEARC:f-CEAPTER 18
\llclntosh, L S. (2004). Seeking emlronmental and
social ;ustict. t.ultural Survival, 28( 11, 5.
Mda, 7.. (: 993). When peopl,: play people: Development
ra.'lim1micatirm through theatre. I.ond en:
llcoks.
Mead, ),1. ( 1928 J. Comi11,1; ofage in Samou. Har nmnds-
wnrlh. UK: l'engui r:.
M<:<1d, ),f. ( 1935 ). a,;d temperament in t.~rre primi-
;i vti HX i.:ties. l:ar::mmli;wo~lh, UK: Penguir:.
M1e:1ezakowski, l, ( 1995). The flea:re of ethnography:
The rtconstrucfam of ethnograph;< into theatre
wil:1 emancipatory potential. Qualitative l!iqufry,
1(3),
Mienciakowski, f. (1996 J. An ethnog:aphk act: The
ccm:ruction of cm1se1mrnl lh,,,me. In C:. ::ms &
A. P. Bochner (Eds.}, Composirig ~thnagrop~l':
Alternative forms of qua/iuuiv~ writing (pp. 244-
264;. \V,,lnul CA: AltaMirn.
Micnczakowski, ]. , &. Morgan, S. (1993 ). !lusting: Tire
challenge ()f rhe dniught sJ>irit IPlay J. Brisbane,
Au~trnlia: G,iffith lln[versi: y Rcpro/;:'llphics.
.\1bma, P. .'vi '.199l ). Culture and devellipir.eni:
1he popular tilealm appruuch in Africa. Up?saia,
Sweden: Scandinavian lnst:tute of African
Studies.
X:ulling~. L. (1995 J, Households heacied hy v10:ncn:
The po:itics (J[ recc, das, and gender. In
S. D. flin,hurg & R. Rapp (::Js. I, Canceirittg /he
NW worf,j order: Tile global .tditic.< of repro-
ducrion (pp. 122- B'J). Berkeley: Unlvrrsily of
California
~ewton, I:. C993). My best inf,nnant'sdr~ss: crotk
equation i:, fieldwork. Cu!turcil Arithropology,
8,
;,io:-d~trum, C. (I \i97). A dilfere11t kind 1if war smry.
Philadelphia: Univcrsitv nf Pennsvlvania l':ess.
' '
No,dst:urn, & Robben, A, C. (Eds.). (:99Sj.
Fieldwork wuler fire: Ctmtempcrary slu1fits af
violence and ;urviwlL Ber·,.,foy: University of
California Press.
Oke:y, J•• & Calfaway, IL (Eds.). { :9..:J2). J.nthropo/ogy
and ilutohiagrapliy. Lnndon: Routledge.
OkoHgwa,A. F,,& Mcnc::er,) P. (2000).Amhoopohigy
public po::cy: Shifting terrair.s. rww,,~, Revir·w
Anrhropo/og,v. 29, 1117 -124.
Oliveira, R.. & IJa,cy, M. ( 1975). The militant observer:
A w,;f(!/ogicai alrerr:acive. Geneva: IDAC.
Ong. A. (2!}(1:l). BwMfw is hi1iing; Rejugeltli, citizenship.
the mw America, llerkeley; Univers:ly lli California
Press.
Paley, J. (2002). foward an ant'i ropolog)' of ,:emocracy.
Annual Reriew ofltritflrcpofogy, 31, 469-496.
Park, P., et (Eds.). (199:l). of clumge:
l'at ticip1u11ry reseurrh in th~ lJnitea States ai,d
Camui<1. lbmnlo, {;anada: OISE.
Peacock, J. L. (1978)- Symbolic reversal and social
hlslory: lran~vestites and downs of Java. in
B. Babcock The reN,r,ible world: S1'n,bol'ic
i>1wmon in art 1111d srdely (pp. 209-224). [tha,·a,
!,IY: Co~ell t.:nlversity Press.
Peacock, j. L. ( 1995 ). Arnerkan cult ma I values:
Dis,mlt'T5 and cha:Jenges. In S. Forman {l',t),
Di;;gnosing America: An/hropology arid public
<'J1g11gement I ;,p. 23-50). Ann Arbor: llniversi~y of
Michigan Press.
Peaco=k. I. L ( I The fo1urc o( a:1thmpolog,,
American ,1mhrupo1agist, 99(1 ), 9-17.
Pierpont, C. H. (21)04, March 8;. The ll:easure of
Amerka: How a rebel anthropologi.,t wagi:d war
m1 radsm. The ,Vew Yorker, pp. 4R-63.
1'rntl, M. L. (1994 ). 'Jransculluration and aurcethnog·
raphi,: Peru 1615/1980. In E Barker, P. Hulme, &
);I. lver,011 {l'ds. 'I, Colonic1i ,liscour,elp~;tn,fonial
rhcory (p;1. 2""-46). J..fa::chester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
Rapp, R. ( 1999). Testing women, the fetus: The
soda I impu.:t amniu,~ntesi.s in America.
;>iew York: Routledge.
Rappaport, R. (1995). lli.iorde;, nf o;r own. In
S. fo;man (fai.},JJiag.~osing America: Antfirapt1!/lj:;}'
and public engagonml (pp. L;,;,-L,f;Jj. Ann Arbor:
t:niversity of ~b::higan Press,
lteed-Danahay, D. E. (I 997). Auto-ethnography,
Rewrirfng rite ;.elfand the social. Oxford, UK: B,:r~.
Richardson, L., &: Lockr:dge, E. (I 99]). The sea
monster: An ethnogn,;,hic drama. Symbolic
Intemctimi, 14, 335-340.
Sanday,?. (1976). Anthrapafogy the public interest:
Fieldwark umJ theory. New York: Academic Pre,i.,.
~anday, P. (2003, November), Piil>/ir intere,1 anthro-
po1,1gy: A model for ;•;iga:z.ed science. Paper
pre;iarcd the Pi.:hlk lntertst Anthropoltlgy
Worksho ?, Chicago.
Schechne, R. (l,l!n;. Points of contact between
anthropolog:ca 1 and theatrical tho:.ight. South
Asian Anthropo!r.,1;ist, 4(1 ), 9 30.
S,:hcr:1ner, It: 191!5). Between tr11mter and anthropology.
P:::ladelphia: l.;nivers:tv of Pcmlll,lvania Pres~.
' '
Schcr:mcr, R. & Appel, W. (Eds.I. (1!190). By mear,s
of perform,1111:e. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Uniwr~ity
Sd:eper-llughes, N. (1992), Death without weeping:
The viG/mce o( everyday life in Bruzii. 1lerkeley:
LJnivcrsity nf California Press.

Schevil;, J.• & Gordon, A. { 1996 ). The 1r.y1h of the docile
woman [P:ay]. San Francesco, CA: Califo,nia On
Stage.
S<'avev, D. ( 1996), Back to basics: Women's paverry and
wetfarn n'form, Washington, DC: Center for
Research 011 Women.
Shokeid, M, (1995), A gay ;ymigogue In New Y,,rk.
New 'lbri: Columbia University Press,
Siegel, S. (2003, December), Conservation at all
costs: How irrdustry backed e1wiro11n:entalism
creates violent cor~flict tJm1mg indigenma
peoples. Corporate Watch. Retrieved fmm W'NW
.rnrpwatch.org1
Singer. M. (1972), Whe'l l/ great tradition modernizes.
Lo;idon: Pall Mall.
Smith, !l D. ( 1993). Fires ir: t.~e mirror: Crown Hefghts,
Brookly'1, and other 1,,,.,,,,,1°, fPlay]. Garden City,
t;;Y: Anchor.
Sna Jtz'ib&jom (1996 ).XcJ1a'k11xcsel al/ob e/,1v la slumal
bat:t'i viniketik ta Chyapa. Renacimiento de/ 1ea1ro
Maya en Chiapas (2 vols.). Sar: Cristobal, Mexico,
Casa dd Escritor.
Steven5on, M. G. (2004). Deco:onizi r.g i;o-ma11agei:::cnt
in northern Canada. Cultural Si1rvi val, 2.'i(: ),
68-7L
Strathern, M. ( 1987}. Tl:~ limits of :;.u10-anthrn[:1:ilogy.
In A, Jackl,on (Ed.), Antriropofo:,:y al iwme
(pp. 59-67), London, UK: Tavistock,
·ray:or, D. (200 I). Y·.1yachkani: Remember'::g mmr::unil)~
In S. C. Haedic:..e & E. \Jdlhaus !Ed,;.), Performing
democracy: lntermit/1:ma/ perspecriw:s on urban
communily-btl!ied per(arman,e \pp. J l0-325). Ann
Arbor: L:niversity o: Michigan Press.
Taylor, D, (2003). The t1r,h/·,e and the reperroire:
Performing w!tural memory in the Americas.
D·~:ham, NC: Duh Univcrsil v, P~ess.
Tedlock, It (l 99: ). rrom participant observation to the
observation nf participation: The emergence of
narrative e;h:mgrapny, Journal ,fAnthropological
Rt'$earch, 47, 69-94.
Tcdlock, B. 12000). Ethnography and ethnographic
repre,en:a1lon. In 'J. K. Der:zin & Y, 5. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research ed,,
pp, 455-484). Thou~and Oaks, CA: Sage.
1edlock, B, (2004 ). Rituels et pouvoirs, /es fndiens Zunis
Nauveau·Mexique. Paris: Editions Pion, Collectio::
Terre :fumaine,
'ledlock, B, (2005), Struggles betw~en nation states anc.
r:ative peoples over :ierbai rr:edidnes and indige-
nous crops, In K. 1hrjesen & D. Champagne
(Eds.), Indigenous peoples and the madem stale
(pp. 43 ··· 59 ). Walm:t CA: AltaMir.i,
'feclock: l'ublic Ethncgraphy lll 481
Tedlock, D. ( 1986). The lrans'.ator or why the crocodile
was not disillus!or.ed: A play in one a•:1.
1ranslarfon Review, 20. 6-8.
Tedlock, D. (1998, April), Man of Ra/Ji,wi: The May,m
,i,ma: i)f thiJ lrump~rs ofsacrifice [!'lay]. Prodneed
and performed in the Katharine Cur::ell Theater,
State l:nivcraity of New York Jt Buffalo.
Tedlock, D. (2003}. Rulnnal A May,m dramu
of war and sacrifice. New York: Oxford Universi:y
Press.
Theidun, K. (2001). Terror's talk feldwork and war,
Dialectical Anthropology, 26(1 ), 19-35.
Thornton, ·i: (1998), Crisis :n the last frontier: :ne
Alaskan subsistence debate. Cuitural Survi·ml,
22(3), 29-34,
Turne:, V. (1988). The anthropology r,j performance,
New York: ?AJ Publications.
Tu me,, V., & Turner, E, (1982 ). Perfor:11 ing ethnogra-
phy. Drama Revfew, 26(2), 33-50.
Van Maanen, J. (: 995). An end to innocence: The
ethnography of ethnography. In j. Van Maanen
(Ed), Representation m etluwgraph.y (pp, l-35).
T:iousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wade, P, (1993). Sexuality and masculinity among
Colomb:an blacks, D. Bell, P. Ca;ilan. & W :.
Karim (Ed,,), Gendered field,; ,\/omen, men and
ethnogmpliy (pp. 199-2i4). Londo~,: Routledge.
Wafer, J. (1996). 0:JI oi the c:oset anc' into print: Sexual
ide111ity the tcxtnal field. In E. J.ewin & W. L.
l.eap (Eds.), Out in //Je field: Reflections of lesbJau
and gay amlmJpo!ogisls (pf•. 262-273). Urbana:
Univers:ty of Illino:s Press.
Wallis, R. ( 1979). Ba.lin,!se theater: Coping old and
new. Papers in !nternatior;a/ Studies: Southeasr
Asia Series,
Wax, M, L, (2003). Wart::nc dilemmas of an ethical
a:ithropolog:,: Anthropology Today, 19(3), 23-24.
We:.ton, K. (: 991 ). Families we chaa.;c: Lesbians, guys.
kinship. ~ew 'lork: Columbia :fniversity Press.
Wes Ion, K, (1998 ), Long slov1 burn: Sexuaiiry and social
sdcnce. Londor:, Routledge.
Why:e, W. R (EdJ. (1991 ). Ptmiripatory aciicm
researc,i. London: Sage.
Willson, M. ( 1997). Playing the dancr, dancing t'ie
game: Race, sex and stereotype in anrhmpologi ·
cal fieldwork. Ethnos, 52(3-4), 24-48,
Wukou, H, F. (2002). Sr1eaky K11J and ils aftermi;th:
Elhics and imimacy m fieldwork. Walnut Creek,
CA, Alta Mira,
ZJ:aika, L & Doug:ass, 'N. A. ( 1996 ). Terror arrd tabvo:
Thefo!/ie5,fabie,, and faa.s ofterrorism, New York:
RoutledP,e,
19
INTERPRETIVE PRACTICE
AND SOCIAL ACTION
James A. Holstein and Jaber E Gubriun1
ualitativc inquiry's analytic pendulum is
Q constantly in motion. There have been
times when na:urali~rr. was nn :he
upswing, when the ridily detailed descriptim: of
soda! worlds was the goat A: other times, analy-
sis has shif:ed toward the processes :)y which
:hese worlds and their experiences are socially
constructed. The pendulum has even doubled
back on :tself as postmoc.ern sensibilities refocus
the analytic project on itself, viewing it as a
source of so;:al reality in its own right (see
Gubrium & Holstein, I997). Although it can be
unsettling, the oscillation invariably dears new
space for grow th.
This chapter capita 1ize;; on a u:o• entum :hat is
currently building arr ong qua'.itative researchers
interested in the practka'. acco:nplishm ent of
mear:ing and its relation to soc'al action. As social
conslructior:ist ar:alysis expands, diversifies, and
claims an im:reasingly prom:r:ent place on the
qua'.itative scene, analysts are drawing new inspi-
ration from ingenious a:nisreadings" and innova-
tive adrnixti;res of canonical sources. Rrcc:1tly,
e;hnomethodolog:cal ser:sibiEties have hcen
appropriated to tl:e constructionist move (see
Gubrium & Hulslein, 1997; Holstein & Gubrium,
2000}, heightening and broadening its analytic
acuity. At the same tine, yet r:d'ng a different
cLrrent in the discursive and linguistic flow of the
social sciem:c:s, po;:;tslrJctm1l ist discomse
has suffused construc:ionism with cultural,
institutional, and histor'cal concerns, This chapter
outlines one attempt to explore and rxtcnd ,he
discursive and ir:tcract:m:al terrain tbat is emerg•
ing al i:itersection of efano:nethodo;ogy and
Foucauldian discourse analysis.
For ~ome time, qualilati ve researchers have
bee:1 interested ir: documentit1g the processes by
which social reality is con structcd, managed,
and sus:air:ed. Alfred Schulz's ( 1962, I 964, 1967,
1970) social phenomenology, l'etcr Berger and
Thomas Iuckmann's (1966) social const:-udion-
ism, and process-oriented strains of symbolic
interac:6.mism (e.g., Blumer, 1969; Hewitt, l 'J97;
Weigert, l 9!H) all have mntribured to the con-
structionist ?rojecr, but et'lnomethodo:og}·
arguably has been the most analytkal:y rndkal
and empirically producti\"e •n specifying the
actual pmcedures through which social order is
accomplished (see Garfinkel, 1967; Heritage,
1984; Maynard & Clayman, 1991; Mchan & W'ood,
1975; Pol:ner 1987, 1991). 1 The ar:alytic ,:mphasis
II 483
 484 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALl'l'."\TlVE RF.SEARCH-CIIAPTER 19
throughour has been on the questio:1 of f,ow
social rea;ity is construc:ed, with efanometho•
dology taking the lead in documenting the
mechanisms by which th is is accomplished in
eYeryday life.
Recently, a new set of concerns has emerged in
relation to etr:nomrthodology, reflect:ng a hereto•
fore suspended interest in what is being accom-
plished, under what comEtions, and oi.:.t of what
resources. Older :1aturlllis:ii: questions are being
resurrected, but with a more analytka[y sophisti-
cated, em pi :ica]y sensitive mier., and with a v:ew
toward sod al action. Analyses of reality construe•
tion are now re-e1:gaging questions concerning
the broad cultural and the instil utiunal contexts
of meaning-making and so;..ial order. The em erg
ing empirical hori ions, while stil, centered on
processes of social accomplishment, are increas-
ir:gl y viewed in tern:s of "inter?retive practice"
the cm:stellation of procedures, cond1:ions, and
resources through which reality is apprehended,
understood., organized, and conveyed in everyday
life (Gubriurr. & Holstein, 1997; Holstei:i, 1993;
Holstein & Gubriur:i, 2000). Interprt:tive practice
engages both the hows and the whats of social
reality; it is centered in both how ;x:ople method-
ically construct their exper:ences and their
worlds, and in tbe configurations of meaning and
institutional Ji fe that inform and shape their real-
il y-constituti ng activity. A growing attention to
both the hows and the whats the social con•
struction process echoes Karl (l 956)
adage that neople ac:ively construct their worlds
but not completely on, o~ in, :heir own terms. The
dual concern not only makes it possible to under•
stand the construction pmcess but also fore-
grounds the reali:ies themselves that enter into
and are produced by the process.
The new set of concerns converges on the issue
of social action. Strict attention to the hows of the
construction process informs :.is of the mec'ia-
nisrns by which social •orms are brought it1to
being in everyday life. But this tells us little aoo u:
the shape ar.d distribution of these realities in
their ow:1 right. The possibility, fur example, that
family troubles will be constn,cted a particular
way at some time and place, and differently in
an other, is glossed over the construction
.
.nrocess. The whats of social realitv are outshone
by attending exclusively to the hows of :,s con-
struction. I:'s the times and places of tl:ese
wltats-the whens ar.d the wheres-that locate
the concrete, yet cor.structec., realities that chal•
lenge us, Attenc'.ing to the latter offers a bas:s for
making particular chokes and tai{ing actior:.
Although an appruach that emphasizes the hows
of ,he mnstn:ct:on process rests on the assump•
tion that social life 's not in stur:e but is a prod-
uct of ;>ractical choices, there is a r:eed to attend
carefully to the choices in tow as well as imminent
possibilities. The latter moYes :n:erpretive pri!c-
tice Into the real :n of polltks.
Ill Fm:'lnATmMAI MA:-TERS
Imerpret:ve practice has diverse conceptual
bu,es. r:1ese range from Schutz's development of
a social phenomenology, to the related empirical
.:oncerns embodied in ethnomethodological
programs of research developed in the wake of
Harok Garfi nkel's (: 967) early studies a:id later
work o:i talk in interaction (see Sacks, 1992;
Silvern:an, 1998 ), and to the contemporaneous
stucks of :nstitutional and h istorkal d:sC1i·Jrses
?resented by Miehe: Foi.:.cault (see Dreyft:.s &
Rabinow, 1982). Let us co:1sider :hese in ti:rn as
they point us toward more recent developments_
Phenomenological Background
Edmund :Husserl's (l 970) philo~ophical phe-
nomenology provides the point of departure for
Schut;,; and other soci ,,J phenomenologists.
Cor;cerned with experiential nnderpinning.~
of knowledge, Husserl argL:es tha: the relation
between percrption and its objects is not passive.
Rather, human consciousness actively cons:itutes
objects of experience. Consciousness, in other
wo:ds, is always conscio:.isness-of-something. It
does rm! stand alone, over and above experience,
more or less imrr.aculately perceiving ar.d con•
ceiving objects and events, ·:1ut, instead, exists
always already-from the start-as a constitutive

part of what it is conscious uL Although :he term
"const,uction" came into fashion much later, we
might that consciousness cons:ructs as much
as tt perceives the world. Hi:sserl's project is to
investigate the structures of consdousr.ess that
make it possible to apprehend an empi:-ical world.
Schutz ( ]962, 1964.1%7, 1970) turns Husserl's
philosophical ?roj ect toward the ways in wh:ch
ordinary members of society attend to their
everyday lives, introduc:ng a set of tenets that
aligns with etbnometl:oc.ological sensibilities. He
argues lhal the social sciences should focus on tl:e
ways that the lifo world-the wor~d every individ•
ual takes fo, granted-is experienced by its
members. Schutz cautions that "the safuguardi ng
of •this l subjective poin-: of view is the only but
8affident g;iarantee that the world of social real-
ity will not be replaced by a fictional :1on-existing
world constructed by the scientific observer"
( 1970, p. 8). Fro;I1 this perspective, the sdenlitk
observer deals with how the social world is made
meaningful. Her focus is on how • em·:iers of
social world apprehend and act upon the objects
)
of their experience as if they were things separate
and disti:tct from themselves. Ernl'.e Durkheim's
(196l, l964) formulation of a sociology baseC: on
the emergence of categories sui gt;neris, separate
and distir.ct from individual thoug'.1t and action,
resonates with this aim.
This is a radical departure from !he assump•
tions underlying what Scl:utz calls "!he natural
attitude-;' which is the stance that takes the world
to be pri ndpally "out there:' so to speak, categori-
call;· distinct from acts perception or interpre•
tation. ln the natural attiti.:de, it is assumed that
the life world ex:sls before members are present
and that :: will be !here after they depart Schutz's
,ecmnmendation frir sluriying members' atten-
tion to :his life wor'.d is to first "bracket" it :or ana-
ly:ic purposes. That is, the analyst temporarily
sets aside belief in its reali:y in order w bring its
apprehension into focus. This makes it possible
to view the cLmsti:utive processes-the hows-
':iy which a separate and dis:inct empirical world
·Jecomes an objective reality for its members.
Ontological ji:cgments about the natr:re and
essence of ;hings and events are suspended
Eolstein & Gubrium: Sod al Actio:i 11 485
temporarily so that the observer can focus on the
ways that :'llem':Jers the life world subjectively
constitute the objects anc events they take to be
real, that is. to exist independent!~ of their atten•
t:or, to, and presec1ce in, the V/'Orld.
Schutz's orientation to the snbjectiv:ty of ~he
world pointed him to tr.e commonsense
knowledge that members use to "objectify" (make
ir.to objects) its social forms. He noted that indi-
viduals approach the life world with a stock of
kr,owledge composed of ordinary constructs and
categories that are social in origin. These images,
:olk theories, beliefs, values, and an:tudes are
applied to aspects of experience, thus making
them meaningful and giving them a semblance of
everyday famili.irity. The stock of knowledge pro•
duces a world with which members already see:n
to be acc;uainted. In part, this is because of the
categorical manner by which knowledge of par·
ticular ob!1~cts and ever.ts is articulated. The myr-
iad phenomena of everyday life are subsumed
under a delin: ited number of shared cons trucls
( or types). These "typifications" make i: possible
to accoi:nt rationally for experience, rer.dering
,rarious things and sundry occurrences reoogni,•
able a:; parlicular types of ob;ects or e\'cnts.
Typification, in other words. organizes the flux of
life into apprehensible form, making it meaning•
fuL !n rurn,as experience is given shape. the stock
of knowledge is itself elaborated and alterec in
practice.
Ordinary language is the mc>dus operandi.
ln the natural attitude. the meaning of a wore is
taken principally to be what it references or
stands fur in the real world, following a corre-
s;>ondence theory of meaning. In this framework,
the leaciing task of language is to convey accurate
information. Viewed as a process of typification,
however, words and categories are the const::utive
building blocks of the social world. 1ypification
through ordinary language use creates the sen:;e
among users that the life wurld is familiarly orga·
nized and sub.stan:ial. simultaneously givbg it
snape and meaning. Individuals who ir.teract
with one another do so in an e:wironment bat
is concurrently constructed and experienced ir:
fundamentally the same terms by all parties, even
 ?86 111 HAI\DIIOOK OF QUALITATIVE llliSEARCH-tHAPTER Jl
though mistakes may be made in its particu'ar
apprehensions. 'faking for grnnled lhat we inter-
subjectively share the same realiry, we assume
:·urther that we can u:1derstand each other in its
terms. lntersubjectiv:ty is thus a social accom-
plishment, a set of understandings sustained :n
and through the shared assu:nptioru of interac•
tion and recurrently .sustained in processes of
lypificalion.
Ethnomcthodological Formulations
Although indeblcd :o Schuti, cthnomethodol ·
ogy is not a mere extension o:' his social phenom·
enological ;.irogram. Ethnomethodology addresses
the problem of order by combining a "phenome-
nological sensibility" ( Maynard & Clayman, 199:)
with a paramount concern for everyday social
practice (Garfi :i kel, 1967;, From an ethnomethod•
olog'cal standpoint, the social world's fuctidry is
a.::complisl:ed by way of members' constit;.ith·e
intcractional work, the n:echanics of which
due es and maintains the accountable d n.:;;m-
stances their li,es. In a manner of speaking,
cthnomethocolugbls focus on how members
c.ctually "do" soda: life, aimi:lg in particular to
docu:nent t!le mcchani.sms bv which thev con•
. '
cretely construct and sustain social entities, such
as gender, self, or farr:ily, for exar:1ple.
Although Garfin~el's studies were pne-
:10 mcriologicl.llly infurmed, his overall project
:-csponded more directly to his teacher Tako:t
Parsons's theory of action (Heritage, 1984; Lynch,
I993). According to Parsons, social orde:: was
made possible through socially integrating
syskms of norms and values, a view that left little
room fur the everyday production social order.
Garfinkel sough an alternative to this approach,
which in hi, judgment portrayed artor!l as "wl-
tural dopcs"who automatkally put into place the
effec:, of external soda! forces. anc internalized
moral :mperatives. Garfinkel's ( 1952) response
was a vision of social order built from the socially
contingent, practical reasonir:g of ordinary
member:; of society, which, contrastingly; fore•
grounded their cul:ural acuity. He vieweec
tr.embers as possessing ordir..ary linguistic and
inleractional skiJls through which the accountable
features of everyday life were produced. This
approach deeply implicated members in the pro•
duction of social order. Rather :han more or less
playing out moral directives, Garfinkel conccptu•
alized members of society as ac:ively usiag them,
thus working lo give their world a sense of order-
liness. lndeed, ethnomethodology's focus became
members' integral "method~" for accomplishing
cvervdav
J '
realitv.,
The en:pirical investigation of members'
methods takes its point of departure fror:1 phe·
nomenological bracketing. Adopting the parallel
policy of "ethnomethodological indifference''
(Garfinkel & Sac~s, 1970), the investigator tem•
porar'ly suspends all com:11itments to a priori or
privileged versions of the social worlci, focusing
instead on how members acuimplish a sense of
social order. Social realities such as crime or
men~al illness are not taken for granted: instead,
belief in them is suspendec. :emporarily in order
to make visible how they become realitie11 fo:
:hose concerned. This brings inlu view the ordi·
nary constitutive work that produces be locallr
lh,challengerl appearance of stable :ealfries. This
policy vigorously resists )'Jdgmentai charactrriza•
tions of the correctness of members' activilies.
Contrary• to the common sociological tendency to
i:'onicize and criticize co:nmonsense formula·
tions frun: the standpoint of ostensibly correc:
sociological v:1:ws, ethnomethodology rakes
member;;' p,ac:ka1 reaso:1ing wl:at i,
drcurnstamially adequate ways of iuterpersonally
orienting to and interpret:ng the world at ha:1d,
The abici:1g guideline is succinctly co:1veyed by
Melvin Po liner (personal cmr,munication): "Don't
argue with the membe:i; I"
Rthnomethodologi5ts have exarnir:ed many
facets of socia'. order. One aim has been to docu-
ment how recognizable structures of behavlor,
systems of motivation, o~ causal ties between
motivations and social structures are evidenced
in members' practical reasoning (Z'mmerman
& Wieder, 1970). Whert>'J.S conventional sociology
orients to ru:es, 11onns, and shared meanings
as exogenous explanations for mer:1bers' actions,
ethnomethodology tur:1s this around to con~ider

how members themselves orient to and use rules,
norms, and shared meanings to ac;:ount for the
regularity of their actions. Ethnomethodology
sets aside the idea that actions are externally
rule-governed o:- internally mot'vated in orcer to
observe how members themselves establisr. and
sustain social regularities. The appearance of
action as being the conseq;,ience of a rule is
treated as just that-the appearance oi actiou as
compliant or noncompliant. b "accounting" for
:heir actious by prospectively invoking rules or
retrospectively offering rule-motivated explana•
tions for action, members wnvey a sec.se of
structure and order, and, in the process, cast
their act:oc.s as rational, coherc:1t, precedented,
and reproducible for all practical purposes
(Zimmerman, 1970).
ror example, a juror in t:Je midst of deHbera•
tions may account for her opinion by saying that
the judge's instructions on how to cons:cu the
case in question compel he, to think as she does.
She actively uses the judge's :nst:-uctions to make
sense of her opinion, tl:ereby giving it the sem·
blance of rationality, legality, and correctness
because it was formed «acwrding to the rule"
invoked (Holstein, l 983 ). In contrast, another
juror might account for his opinion hy saying that
it was servbg intcre,,ts of justke, i.::i:ing a
valJe or • oral prindple in explanation (Maynard
& Mani.o, 1993). From an ethnomethodological
standpoint, the rationality or correctness of these
opinions and :he reasoning involved is not al
issue. Instead, the focus is on ;he hows invo:ved -
the use of bstructions, values, moral pr:ndples,
and other accouc.ts to construct a sense of coher•
ence in social action, in this case a shared under-
standing among jurors of what led then: to form
their opinions and reach a verdict.
The accountable display of soda: order forms
ethc.omethodology's analytic horizon. Rather
than assumi:lg a priori that members !'.:1-are
meanings and cefinitions of situations, ethno•
rr:etl:odologists consider how members acr.ieve
them by applying a native capacity to "artfully"
accou'.'lt for their actions, rendering them orderly.
Social order is 1101 externally imposed by prover
bial social forces, nor is it the expression of more
Holstein & Gubrium: Social Action 111 437
or less socialized members of society; instead,
ethnornethodologists view it as locally produced
by way of the practices of mundane reason
(Pollner, : 987). If socia: order is accomplished it:
and through its practices, then social worlds anc
d rcumstances are self-generating. Members, as
we put:, eader, are continually"cioinf social llfe
in the very actions they take to communicak' anci
make sense of it Their language games, to borrow
from Ludwig W(ttgenstein (1958), virtuaEy con•
stitute the\:' everyday reali:ies; in this sense, the
games themselves are "forms of life."
This implicates two properties of ordh:ary
social action. First, all actions and objects are
"indexical"; they depend upon (or "index") con•
text (see Hols:ein & Gubrium, 2004). Objects and
events have equivocal or indeler:ninate 1:1ea11i11gs
without a discernible context. lt is through con-
textualization that practical meaning is derived.
Second, the drcums:ances ~hat provide meaning·
ful contexts are themselves self-generating. Each
reference to, or account for, an action-such as
the ;umr's comment that is expressly follow-
ing the judge's directives-establishes a context
(in this case, of procedural dutifulness) for evah:-
ating selfsar:1e and related actio:is of the
juror nerself and the actions of others, The
account establishes a particu:a, context, which
in turn becomes a basis for making her own and
o:hers' actions accountabk Having established
this context, the juror can then virtua[y turn
around and account for her actions :iy saying,
for example, "That's why I feel as l do;' in effect
parlaying the context she has constructed for her
actions into something recognizable and reason-
able (accountable), if not 1:,timately acceptable.
Practical reasoning, in other words, ls simultane-
ously in and about the sett:ngs to which it orients
and that it describes. Social order anc its practi·
cal realities are thus "reflexive:' Accounts or
descriptions of a setting constit'Jte that setting,
while they are simultaneously being shaped by
the contexts they constitute.
lithnomethodological research is keenly
attuned to naturally occurring tal'.c< and soda]
interact ion, o.denting to them as :onsti tutive
clements of the settings studied (see J.M.Atkinson
488 1111 HANDllOOK OF Ql:AUTATIVE R!'SEARCH-CHAPTER :9
& Drew, 1979; Maynard, 1984, 1989; Mehan &
·wood, 1975; ,:,.;ci;,:s, 1972). This has take:1 differ•
ent empir:cal direc:ions, in part depending on
whethe, the interactive meanings or :he structure
of tu;k is emphasized. Ethr.ograph k studies tend
to focus on locally crafted r;1eanings and the set•
1ings wilhin which social inleractlon constitutes
the practical realities in questio:1. Such studies
consider the situated content of talk in relation
IU local meaning-making (see Gub:ium, 1992;
Holstein, 1993; Lynch & Bogrn, 1996; h-1: 1ler, J991;
Pollncr, 1987; Wieder, 1988). They corr.bine anen•
t:or: to !:ow social order is built up in everyday
commun:cat:on with detailed descriptior.s of
place settings as those settings and their local
underslandings a11d perspecfr,es • ediate the
meaning of whar is said in the co"JcSe o" social
interaction. The texts produced from such studies
are highly descriptive of everyday lite, with both
cor:versational ex tracts from the sett' ngs and
ethnographic accounts of iute:-action being used
to convey :he methodical productior. of the
subject matter in ques:ion. To the euent the
analysis of talk in relation to soda! interaction
and setting i,, undertaken, this tends to take
the form of (non"Foucauldian} discourse a:1alys:s,
or DA, which r:10re or less critically orients to
how talk, conversation, a:id o:he, communicative
processes arc used to make meaning
Porter, 1996, 1997; Potter & Wetherell 1987;
Wod,k 2004).
Studies that emphasize the structu:e of talk
:tself examine the conversational "machinery"
through which mea:iing emerges. The focus here
is on the srquential, utterance-by-u:terance,
socially structuring features of talk or «talk-in•
interaction;' the now familiar bailiwick of conver•
sation analysis, or CA (see Heritage, 1984; Sacks,
Scl:ieg'.off, & Jeffersor:, 1974; Silverman, 1998;
Zimmerman, l988). The analyses produced from
sud: studiei; are detailed explications of the com-
municative ;iruces,es by which spei.,ers method·
killy and sequentially constn:ct their conce,ns in
conversational practice. These analyses are often
bereft of ethnographic deta:1 except for brief lead•
ins thal describe place settings, and the analytic
sens.: conveved is that biographic.al and ,rodal
particu'.ars can be understood as arti:acts of the
unfolding conversational machinery, although the
analysis of what is caHed "institJtional talk" or
"talk at work" has struck a greater balance with
place sctti ngs in this regard (see, for example,
Drew & Herilage, 1992). Although some contend
that (Xs connection to ethnomethodology is ten•
uous because of this lack of mncern wit!'! ethnn.
graphic detail i.P. Atkinson. 1988; Lynch, 1993;
Lynch & Boger:, 1994; tor counterarguments sc-e
t,fa~·nard & Clayman, J991, and ten Have, 1990),
CA dearly shares ethnomethodologys interest in
the local and me:hodic,d construction uf ~,JCial
action (Maynard & Clayman, 1991 ).
John Heritage (1984) summarizes the fi:nda•
menta Is of conversation analysis in three
premises. First, interaction is sequentially orga •
nized, and this may he observed in the regulari•
ties of ordinary convc~sation. All aspects of
inte.:-ac:ion can be found to exhibit s:able and
identifiable features, which are independent of
speekers' individual characteristics. This sets the
stage for the analysis of talk as structured in and
through sodal :nteract:on, not by internal
sources such as motives or by external determi-
nants suc:1 as social status. Second, social inter -
action is contextually orientrc in that talk is
simultaneously productive of, and reflects, the
circumstances of its produ1.1ion. This premise
highlights both the local conditionin8 and the
local constructiveness of talk and interaclio:i,
exhibilin{! the dual properties of indfc);icality and
refleYivity noted earlier. Third, :hese properties
characterize all soda! interaction, so that no
form of talk or inte:active detail can be dis•
missed as irrelevant.
Conversation analysis has co:ne under fire
fro:11 efanome~hodologists who argue that
in situ det,1ils of everyday lite are ignored at 6e
risk of reducing soc:al life to rernrded talk and
conversational sequendng. Michael Lynch, for
example, has drawn a paralleJ bctwccr. CA and
molecular biology, which, proverbially speaking,
tends to miss the foresl for the trees, in thi, case
the molecules. On one hand, this serves 10 under
score Lynch's claims ahout C:Xs bask formalism
and sdcnth.:n. On the other, it projects the image

of conversation as a relatively predictable set of
socially structured techniques through which
orderly soda) activities are assembled. Convcrsat:on
analysts, according to Lyn.:h, attempt to describe
"a simple order of structural elements and rules
for combining them, and thus they uncertake a
reductionist :irogram :10: unlike molecular biol-
ogy" ( 1993, p. 259), which at~er:1prs to deconstruct
DNA fo:- its molecular stf'Jctures and rulrs of
combination, glossing over the distinc: for:ns of
life in tow.
As a "molecular sociology" (Lynch, 19931, CA
focuses on the normative, sequential "machinery"
of conversation that constitutrs social action. This
machinery in ma:1y ways inverts conventional
under,tand:ngs of hurr.an agency, st:·JstitJting
the demands of a moral order of conversation
for ?SychologiaJl and motivational j :operatives.
Althm:gh this does not strip participants of
all agency, i, does plr,ce ther:1 in the :nidst
of a "liberal ecm:orny" of conversational rights
and obligations (Lynch, 1993) that tests eth•
nomethodolog:;,:al toleiam:e fo~ deterministic
formulatiuns.
In contrast to what Lynch a:1d David Bogen
( 1994) have labeled the "e!!rkhed positivisrr." of
CA. Garfinkel, Lynch, and others have elaborated
what they re:1:r to as a "po,tanalyt:c" eti:no·
methodology tha: is less indim,d to un ivcr.salist:c
generali111tions regard:ng the endudr:g strl!cti:res
or machinery' of social interaction t' see Garfinkel,
1988; Lynch, 1993; Lynch & Bogen, 1996). T:iis
prograrr: of research centers on the highly local-
ized competencies that constib:e specific
domains of evcryd,1y "work:' especially fae
(bench )v,ork of asrronomers (Garfin kcl, Lynch, &
Livingston, 1981), biologists and :1eurologists
( Lynch, ;985 ), and mathematicians (Livingston,
1986 ). The aim is to do cum em the haecceity-the
"just th:sness"-of social practices within fr·-
cumscribed domains of knowledge and activity
ILynch, 1993 }. The prnctical details of the real•
tl1;1e work of these activities an: viewed as <1r.
incarnate feam re of the knowiedges they produce.
It is impossib 1e to se;:,arate the knowledges
from the highly particula:ized occasions of
their ;.,ruduction. The approach is theoreticall;-
Holstein & Gu:i:ium: Social Action Ill 48\l
minimalist in that it res:sts a priori conce;:itual-
izatkm or categorization, especially historical
time, wnile ad vocaling detailed descriptive
studies of the specific, local practices that
manifest onler and rcr:cer it accountable (Bogen
& Lynch, 1993),
Des?i:e their success at d'splaying a panop:y of
social accomplishment practices, CA and postan-
alytk ethnomethodology in their separnte ways
tend to disregard an important balance in the
cor.ceptualizations of talk, setting, and social
interaction that w<1s evident in GarfinKefa ear:y
work and Harvey Sacks's (1992) pioneering lec-
tures on conversat'onal practice (see Silverrr:an,
1998 ). ~either Carfinkel nor Sacks e:wisioned the
machl nery of conversation as productive of rec-
ognizable soda) forms h its own right. Attentiar:
to the constitutive how, of social realities were
balanced wit::i an eye to the meaningful whats.
Settings, cultural understandings, and their
everyday mediatio:is were vicwed as rdlexively
inte~woven wifa talk and ,mcial interaction,
Sacks, in part'<:ular, m:derstooc culmre to be a
n:atter of practice, something that served as a
resource for discer:1ing the possibk linkages of
utte~ance~ and exchanges. \\lhethcr they wrote
of (Carfinkel'.~) "good organiz.l!ional reasons" or
(Sacks's) ''r:1embership categorization devices:'
both lni,ia;ly avoided the reduction of social p:-ac-
tice to h :ghly loca1ized or momentary haeccefties
of any kind.
As such, some of :he origbal ?romise of
ethnome::-iodology has oeen short •circuited as
CA ar:c postar:alytlc ethnomethodology have
inc:easingly restricted their investiga,ions to the
relation between social practices and the immedi ·
ate accounts of those pract'ces. If the entire goal
of pos:a:1alyt:c and CA pro; eels is cescribing the
acc1r.mting practices by which descriptions are
made intelligible in the immediate circumstance,
of their production, then construdunists would
need to formi:late a new project that retai:1s
ettmomethodology's interactional sensibilities
while extending its scope :o both the constit:iti11e
and constituted whats of everyday life. Michel
l'ournult, among others, is a valuable resource fur
such a project.
 490 Ill BANDBO<)K OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP-:-l'R 19

Foucauldian Discourse Analysis by :.imself. They are pa:terns Iha: he finds in his
cuhurtc and which are ;iroposed, suggested and
Whereas ethnomethodology engages the imposed on him by his t;J]ture, society and his
accomplishment of everyday life at the :• terac • social group. (p.• l)
tional level, Foucault has undertakeu a parallel
project in a different empirical register.A?pearing
,m the analytic stage during the early 1960s, at This parallels etlrnomethodology's interest in
documenting the accomplish:mmt of order in tl:e
about the same time eth no;;1ethodo:ogists did,
everyday practice of talk and social interaction.
Foucau:t cons:ders how l:istorically and culturally
Foucault is. par:icularly concerned with social
located systems power/knowledge construct
locations or institu :ion al s1tc:s--t:i:e asylum, tile
subjects and their worlds. Foucauldians refe~ to
~ospital, and the prison, for exar:1ple-that spec•
these systems as "discourses;' em;ihasizing that
they are not merely bodies of ideas, ideologies, or 1fy foe p:-actkal operation of discourses, linking
the d1samrse of particulnr subjectivities with the
ot~er symbolic formulations, but are also wor;.;ing
construction of lived experience. As in ethno•
attm:dcs, modes of add:ess, terms of reference.
methodology, there is an interest in the constitu ·
a.nd courses of action suffused into social prac-
tive quality of systems of discourse; it :s an
tices. Foucault (1972, p. 48) himself expla'.ns tr.at
orientation to pnictice that views social worlds
discourses are not "a mere intersection of ~!tings
and their subjccli vities as always already embed•
and words: an obscure weh of things, and a man•
ded and embodied in its disrnrsive couventions.
ifest, visible, coioreC. chain of words." Rather, they
.Severa I commentators have ;,obted to the
are "practices that syster:ia:ically furn: the objects
parallel between what Foucault (I 9811) refe~s to
[and subjects) of which they speak» (p. 49). Even
as systems of "power/kuowledge" (or discourses)
the design o~ b·Jildings such ms prism:s reveals fae
and eth.1onu:thodulugy's forrm.:Jation of the con-
social logic that specifies ways of hterprctir.g
stitutive power oflauguage use (P. Atkinson, 1995;
persons and the physical and .social landscape~
Gubrium & Holstein, 1997; Heritage. 1997; Miller,
they occupy (Foucault, 1979).
1997b; Potter, 1996; Prior, 1997: Silverman, 1993).
Like the ethnomethodological perspective on
The correspondence suggests that what f.ou•
social interac:iou, Fou.::ault views diiscourse as
cault documents historically as "discourses-in•
sodally rdlexive, bot:i constitutive and meaning-
practice'' in varied institutional or cultural sites
fully descriptive of the world and its subjects. For
may be likened to what ethnome:hodology traces
Fo·1cau It, however, the accent is as m·1ch on the
as "discursive practice" in varied forms of soda!
constn:ct:ve whats that discourse constitutes as it
interaction.; We will continue to apply these
is ~n the hows of discursive technology. Although
terms-discourses-in-practice and discursive
this ,epresents a swing in the analytic pendulum
practice-throughout the chapti:r to emphasize
toward the cultJrally ~:1atural~ Foucault's treat-
ment of d:sco;i rsr as soc'al practice suggests, in tl:e parallel, as well as the possibilities for critical
awarene.ss and social action that it suggests.
particular, the impo~tancc of t:.nderstanding the
Although elhnomelhodologists and Foucaul-
pmctrces of subjectivity If he offers a vision of
diam, draw upon different intellectual traditions
subjects and objects constituted throi:g!: dis•
and work in distlr.ct empirical :-egisters, we want
cou~se, he al:o allows an unwittingly active
to emphasize their respective concerns with
suh,ect who simultaneously shapes and puts dis-
course to work (Best & Ke[ner, 1991 ).As l'ouca·1lt socfal practice: They both attend to the reflexivity
(I 988) explains:
of d;scourse. Neither discursive practice nor dis-
course-in-practice is viewi:d as being caused or
If now l am interested . . in th: way lr: whkh the explained hy exte ma! sod al forces or internal
subject constitutes hin:self in an active fashion, by motives. Rather, they are taken to be tb.e working
the practices of the stlf, practices are ne,·er· mechar.ism of social Efe itself, as actual'.y kr:own
theless not something ~hat tt:e individual invents or performed in time and place. For both, "power"

lies the articulation of dis:inctive forms
social life a, such, not in the application of partk·
ular resources by some to affect the lives of others.
Although rliscourses-ir:-practice are represented
by "regimens/regimes" or lived patte;11s of action
that broadly (historically and institutionally)
"discipline" or enrompass their adherents' lives,
and discursive pra~tice is manifest :n j)attems of
talk and interaction that constitute everyday life,
tbe pract:ces refer in com:non to the lived
"doing;" or ongoing accomplis:1ment, of social
wor:c,.
ror Foucault, power O?erates ir. and through
discourse as tne other face of knowledge, tl,us the
:erm "power/knowledge;' Discourse 1101 only puts
words to work, it also gives them their meaning,
constructs percep:ions, and formulates under.
standing and ongoing courses of interaction. The
.
"work" enlailed simultaneouslv and reflex:ivelv,
constitutes the realities that words are taken otl: ·
erwise to merely reference or specify. To deploy a
particular discourse of subj<"Ctivity is not simply a
matter of representing a subject; in practice, it
simultar.eously constitu,es tl:e ;_ind, of subjects
that are mean ir:gfully embedded in the discourse
itself. For example, to articulate the discourse of
medic:ne in today's vmrlc automatically generates
the roles of professional healer and patient, each
of whose actions in t:irn artici:'.ate the application
and reception of technologies of healing served
by the dominance of scientifc knowledge. ·rhe
taken-for-gnmtedness of this socially encom•
pass lug dis course makes challe:1ges to thiE way of
"thinking" (or speaking) seem oddly misplaced.
Even the weak "powerfully» partidpa:e in the dis-
course that defines them as weak. This is a kine of
knowledge-in-practice, and it is powerful because
it not on:y represents but alw ineluctably puts
into practice what is known and shared. Language
is not just more or less correlated with what it
represents, but is always already a "form of life;'
to again pi:t ft in Wittgenstein's (1958) terms.
If ethnomethodologists tend to empl:asize how
members use evervdav, methods to account for
;
their activities and faeir worlds. Foucault makes
us aware of tl:e re'.ated condifams o: possibility
for what t:1.e results are likely to be. For example,
Holstein & Gubrium: So,'al Action 111 491
in a Western postindustrial world, to seriously
think of medicine and voodoo as equally viable
paradigms for understanding s:ckness and heal-
ing would seem idiosyncratic, if not amusing
or pre?OSterous, in moot conventional si: uations.
The power of medical discourse partia[y lil:s in
its ab:li:y to be «seen but unnoticed,* in its ability
to appear as the only possibility while other pas•
sibilities are outside be plausib'.e realm.
Both ethnomethodology', and Foucault's
approach to empirical material are"analytks:' not
theoretlral framewor~s in the traditional sense.
Conventionally understood. tl:eory purports to
explab the state of the :natters in question. It
provides answers to why ooncerns, such as why
the suicide rale ls :·isi:Jg or why individuals are
suffering depression. Ethno:nefaodology and the
Foucauldian project, in co:itras:, aim to answer
bow it is that individual ex?erience comes to be
uncer,tood in particular terms such as tl:ese.
Th~ y are prethcoretical in this sense, respectively
seeking lo arrive at ar: understanding of how the
subject matter of theory comes ir:to existence in
tr:e first place, and of what the .mhject of tr:eory
night possibly become. The paralle'. lies in the
oommon goal of documentbg the practiced bases
of such rea:ities.
Still, this ,emains a jn.rallel. Because roncault's
project (and most Foucauldian project~) operates
ir. a historical rep,ister, real.time talk and social
'nteractlon are understandably missing from
chosen bodies o: em :;,irical material. Although
floucault himseJ points to sharp turns in the dis·
cursive formations that both form and inform the
shifting realities of varied institutional spheres,
contrastir:g extarit social forms with the "birth"
of new ones, ne provides little or no sense of the
everyday technology by which this is achieved
(see P. Atkinson, : 995; Holstein & Gubr' um,
20001. Certainly, l:e elaborates the broad bir:h of
new tt!chnologies, such as the emerge.:'lce of new
regimes of surveillance in medicine and modern
criminal j:ist[ce systems (Poucault, 1965, 1979),
but he doesn't provide us with a view of how these
O?erate in soc'al interaction. Keithcr do latter-day
Foucauldians-su:h as ;,qikolas Rose ( 1990), who
informatively dornm~r:ts the birth and rise of tl:e
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAtlTATIYE RESEARCH-CHAPTl'R 19
technical appar.atus for "gove:ning the soul" that
fo:-ms a ?rivare sci f-of:er much insight into the
everyday processes throug:-i whi:h rnch regimes
are accomplished. These hows, in other wo:-ds, are
largely missing from the:r analyse,.
Conversely, ethnomethodology',; commit·
ment lo documenting the real-time, interactive
processes by whie!: reality is built up ir.to
accountable structure5 precluc.es a broader
spective on constitut ivc resources, possibilities,
and limita~ions. Such whats, so to speak, are
largely a:iscnt ir: adhe;ents' work. It is one t:ii ng
to shnw in interactive dttail ,ha: our everyday
encounters with reality are ongoing accomplish-
ments, but is quite another matter to di;;rive a:1
understanding of what the general ;;arame:ers of
those everyday encounters might be. The machin-
ery oi talk in interaction tells us little about the
massive resources that are taken i;p in, and that
guide, the operat'on of conversation, or about the
consequences of producing particular results and
not others, each of which is an important ingredi-
e:it of pract kc. Members ~peak their worlds and
their s:1bjccl ivities, bi: t they also art iculatc partic-
ular for ms of life as they do so. W'hat Foucauldian
considerations offer ethnomethodology in this
rega:d is an analytic sensitivity to 11:e discursive
opportunities and possibilitit'll at work in talk and
soda! inter,u:tior:, !mt withoul making ir neces-
sary to take these up as external templa:es for thr
everyday production of social order.
DI AN AK'AIYTICS OF
(\,'Tf',RPRETIVE PRACTICE
The anal y:ics of interpretive practice has bene
t1 :ed from drawing together ethnomerhodological
and Foi:cauldfan sensibilities. This is not simply
another at:empt a: :.ridging the so•ca[ed n:acro-
rnicrn divide. That debate usually centers cm the
ques:ion of how to conc~qtualize the relation.ship
between p rcexisting larger and smaller soda I
forms, the assumption being that these arc cate-
gor'cally d:stinct and separately cl iscerr.ible.
Issues raised in the debate perpetuate the dstir.c ·
tion between, say, social systems, on one hand,
~nd soda! interaction, on the other. lr. contrast,
those who consider c:hnomethodology and
Foucau'dian analytic, to be par,;1Jlel operations
focui; tb.eir attention insteac on ,he interactional,
institutional, and cultural vniabilities of wdaJ\y
co:istl:uting discursive pract:ce or discourses•
in-practice, as the case migh: be. They ar,: con-
cerned with how the social construction process
is shaped across various domains Df everyday Ii :e,
not in r:ow separate theories of macro and micro
domains can be linked together for a :uller
account of social organ'zatior.. Doctrinaire
accounts of Garf:nkel, Sacks, Foucault, anc otl:ers
may contim:e to sustai:i a variety uf J:slinct pro·
but thes,: projects are not likely to inform
one amitl:er; :m~ will they lead to profitable "con-
versations" between dogmatic practitioners who
insist on viewing them~elves as speaking different
analyt:c languages: In our view, what is required
is a new, hybridized a:ialytics of reality constrnc-
:ion a: the crussmads of :n~litutions, culture, and
soda: interaction-an an~Jytics that "misreads"
ar:d co opts useful insight;; from estab:ished tra-
ditions in ordec to ap?redate the ;,ossfole com-
p.ementarity of analytk 'dioms, without losing
sight of their distinctive utililil:s, limilatioi:s, and
contributions.
DI BllYO;<;D ETHNOMF.THODOT,OGY
Some conversation analysts :iave edged in this
direction by analyzing the sequential mach:nery
of talk in interaction as it is patttrned by institu-
tional conr.;xr, b:inging a greate: concer:1 for the
wf1ats of social life into the picture. Their studks
of"talk at work" air:1 to specify how :he "simplest
systematics" of ordinary conversation (Sacks,
Sc:iegloff, & Jefferson, I974) is shaped in va~ious
ways by the reflexively mnslructcd speech environ-
ments of particular interac:ion.1] regjmes (see
Boden & Z'mmerman, 1991; Drew & Heritage,
1992). Ethnomethodologkllily oriented etlmogra-
phers approach the problem from another direc-
tion by asking how institutions and their res pcc:ivc
representational cultures are brought into being,
managed, and su,tained in and through memh0rs'

soda) interaction (or "reality work") (see
P. Atkinson. 1995; Dir,g1,'lall, Eekelaa,, & Mt:rray;
1983; En:erson, 1969; Emerson & Messinger; l 977;
hubrinn:, 1992; Holstein, 1993; Mehan, 1979;
Miller, l99L 1997a). Sdf-con.sciuusly Foucaukian
ethnographers, too, have draw u links between
everyday discursive practice and discourses-in-
practice to document in local detaii how the for-
mulation of everyday texts such as psychiatric case
records or coroners' reports reproduce institational
discourses (see Prior, 1997).
In their own fashions, these efforts c,msider
both the fwws and the whats of reaJity construc-
tion. But th:s is analytically risky business. As:,dng
hmv q;1estions without having an integral way
of getting an analytic handle on what questions
makes concern with the what> arbitrary, Although
talk-in-interactio:i is locally "artful:' as Garfinkel
( 1967) puts it, not just anything goi:s. On the other
hand, if we swing too a:10.lyt;cally in the &rec-
tioa of cuntextual or cultural impe,ativcs, we ei:d
up with the cultural, institutional, or judgmental
"dopes" that Ga:finkel ( 1967) decried.
Tr:e adn:oni:ion that "not just an}'thing goes'
been take:1 serioJsly, bJt cautiously, ·:;y both
ethnon:ethodologists ar:d conversation analysts
as :hey have sought to ca::efully document the
practical contours of interaction in the varied cir-
cumstances in which it ur.folds, Systematic atten ·
tion to everyday rcasoni ng and to the sequential
o~ganization of cor.vcrsat:ons have made it clear
that outcomes are constructed in the interactional
apparatuses within wh:ch their ante-:edents are
made topical. But this is a very delimited approach
to the constitutive whats of social c01:slruction,
one that lacks a broad view of the in ,titutional
and cultural discourses that serve as resou,ces fur
what is likely to be co:1s.tructed, when, ar:d where
in everyday life.
Tb broaden and enrich ethnomethodology's
analytic scope and repertoire, we have extended its
reP.ch into the institutional and cultural whats that
corr.e into play in soda: interac:ion. This needn't
be a historic,.: extension, as was Foucault's metier,
although that certainly should no: be nded out.
Rather, we appeal to a "cautious" (and self-
rnnsciou,) naturalism that addresses the practical
Hul,leii: & Gu ~durn: Social Ad ion Ill ,193
and s: :cd production everyday life (Gubriurn,
1993} and that, as will be seen, provides a integral
basis for criricat:y, no: just de.criptively, attending
to ongoing talk ar.d social interactior.. The ana-
lytics of interpretive practice i, SJch an effort.
It centers on the i:1terplay, not the synthesis, of
discursive practice aod discourses-in-practice,
the tandem projects of ethrmrmd10dulugy and
Foucauldian discourse analys:s. This analytics
assic.uously avoids theorizing social forms, lest the
discursive practices associated wit!: the construe·
lion of these forms be taken for granted. By the
same token, it cum:ertedly keeps in.st itutional or
c:1ltural discourses in view, lest they be dissolved
into localized displays of practical reasonfa:g or
forms of sequent'al organization for talk-in-
interaction. First and foremost, an analytics of
interpretive pradk:e takes lL~, in real time, to the
''going concerns" of everyday life, as Everett
Hughes ( I984) liked to call social institi.;tions.
There, we can focus m: how members artfully put
di!ltim:: discourses to work as they cons:itute their
subjectivities and related social worlds.
·n1e emphi!Sis on the interplay between the hows
and whats of interpretive practke is paramount.
Interpl .iy connotes a dynamic relationship. We
assiduously avoid analytically privileging either
discursive practice or discourses-111-practke.
Putting it in ethnomethodological terms. the air.1
of an analytics of interpretive practice is to docu-
ment the :11:erplay belween the practical re.i-
soning and intrractive machinery <::nta:ied in
constructing a sense of everyday reality, on one
hand, and the institntional condit:ons, reso'Jxes,
and related discourses that substantive:y r.ourish
and ir:tcrprclivdy mediate ir::eraction, on the
otl:er. Putting it in Fouciluldian terms, :he goal
is to c.escribe the interplay between institutional
dis courses and the "dividing practices" that
constitute local subject: vities and their worlds
of experience (Foucault, L965). The symmetry of
real-world practice requires tr.al we give equal
treatment to both articulative and its sub•
stantive engagements.
Qualitative researchers are increasingly focus•
:ng on these two sides of interpretive practice,
looking :o both tr:e artful p,ocesses and the
 494 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CH APTER i 9
substar:tive conditions o( meaning-making and
soda! order, Douglas Maynard ( 1989 ), for
examp;e, notes that most ethnographers tradition,
ally have asked "How do participant& see things?"
whereas ethnomethudologically informed dis-
co:.use studies have asked "How do participants
do things?" Although his own work typically
begins with the later question, Maynard cautions
us not to ignore the former. He explains that, in
the interest of studying how r.u:m!:iers do things,
ethnomethodological studies have tended to
de-emphasize factors that condition their actions,
Recognizing that"external soda! structure is used
as a resource for soda! interaction at tl:e same
rime as :t is constituted within it," Maynard sug-
gests that ethnographic and discourse studies can
be mutually informative, allowing researchers to
better document the ways in whkh the "struc::ure
of inreraction, while being a local production,
simultaneously enacts matters whose origins are
externally ir:itiated" (1989, p. 139). "ln addition
to knowing how people 'see' their workaday
worlds," writes Marna rd (p. 144), ,eseard1ers
should try to understand how people "discover
and exhibit features of these worlds so that they
can '::ie 'seen:"
Expressing similar interesls and co:icerns,
Hugh Mehan has developed a discourse-oriented
program uf "constitutive ethnography" that pu~s
"structure and structuring activities on an equal
footing by showing how the social facts of the
wodd emerge from structuring work to become
external ar.d constraining" (1979, p, 18, emphasis
in the original), Meha:1 examines "rontrasrive"
instances of interpretat;or. in order to describe
lJoth the "distal" and the "pmxi mate" features
of the reality-constituting wor'.s. people do "within
institutional, cultural, and historical contexts"
(1979, pp. 73 and 81).
Beginning from similar ethnomethodological
and discourse analytic footings, David Silverman
(l 993) likewise attends to the institutional
venues of talk and social construction (also see
Silverman, 1985, 1997), Seeking a mode of quali-
tative inquiry that ex:iibits both constitutive and
contextual sensibilities, he suggests that discourse
studies that comider the varied institutional
contexts of talk bring a new perspective to
qualitative inquiry. Working in the same vein,
Gale Miller (1991, 1997b} has proposed "ethnog,
raphies of institutional discourse" tha, serve to
document "the ways ir: whid: set:ing men:lx:rs
use discursive resources in organiiing their prac-
tical actions, and how rr.embers' actlans are cor:-
strained by the resources available :n thr settings"
(Miller, l 991,p, 280), This approach makes explicit
overtures 10 both conversa:ion analysis and
Foucauldian discourse analys:s,
M:ller's (1997 a) ethnography of the discourses
characterizing a therapy agency is instructive,
especially as it sheds Hghr on the everyday pro-
duction of the client in therap)', His l 2-year
ethnograph:c study of Northland Clinic, an inter-
nationally prominent center of "brief therapy;'
recounts a marked shift in dient su lJjectivity that
accompanied a conscious alteration of treatment
philosophy. Vvhen Miller began his fieldwork,
Korthland employed "ecosystemic brief therapy;'
which er:iphasizec. the social contexts of clients'
lives and problems, In this therapeutic environ-
ment, clients' subjectivity was lir:ked with the
systems o( social relationships that were taken
lo fo:m and fuel their problems. The approach
required the staff to discern the of these
systems. and to intervene so as to alter their
dynamics and thereby effect change. Miller
notes that this approach was informed by a "rr:oc' -
em" discourse of ~he reality of the probler.1s in
qc.estion.
Several years into the fieldwork, ;:;!orthland
shifted to a more "postmodern" approach, articu-
lating intervention in an everyday linguistic and
constructivist discourse, Therapists began to apply
what was called "sob.. tion•focused brief therapy,'
whid: meant viewing trouh:es as ways of talk:ng
about everyday life. This prompted the staff to ori-
ent m the therapy process as a set of language
games, expressly appropriating Wittgenstein's
sense of the term, The idea here was that troubles
were as much constructions-ways of talking or
forms oflife-as they were real difficulties for the
clients in questior.. This transformed die;;ts'
institutional subjectivity from being relatively
passive agents o: systems of perso:ial troubles

and negative stories, to being active problem
solvers with the potential to formulate positive
stories about them~elves and design helpful .solu-
tion,. As an everyday language of solutions, not a
discourse of problems, became the basis of inter-
vention, the narrative identity of clients was
transfo;med to reveal entirely different selves-
Changes in the therapy agency were articulations
of transformations of both the discourse-in-
pracrke and related discursive practices. This
resulted in the construction of distinctly different
"clients" and "problems" (subseqi:ently "so1u-
tions"], Emphasizing both the hows and whats of
the agency's changbg interpretive practices pro•
vides both the researcher and those researched
an awareness of the alternative ways client lniu-
bles can be construed and the kinds of action
that can be taken to deal with them in the
process.
Dorothy Smith (1987, 1990) has been quite
explicit in addressing a version of the interplay
between the whats and hows of social life from a
feminis: ;:,oint of view, pointing to the critical con-
sciousness made possible by the perspective. Hers
has been an analytics initially informed by e:hno•
methodological and, im;reasingly, Foi.:cauldian
sensibilities. Moving beyond ethnome:l1odology,
she calls fo, what she refers to as a "dialectics of
discourse a:id the everyday'' (1990, p. 202).
Stressing the "play and interplay" of d:scourse,
Smith articulates her view of women's "active'
placement in their worlds.
It is easy to ,:1iscornstrue the discourse as having
an oYerriding power to determine the values af'.d
interpretation of womens ap,ieara::.:es in ,ocal set-
tings, and see this power as essentially at the dis,
posal of the fashion industry and media. But
women an." active, s,dlled, make chokes. consider,
arc not fooled or foolish. Within discourse there is
play and interplay, (p. 202)
Pl::ilosopher Calvin Schrag ( 1997) similarly
emphasizes the advantage of the strategy of analytic
interplay over theoretical integration. Schrag puts
this in the coulext of the need to guard against
redt:dng what we refer to as discursive practice
to mere speech acts or talk-in-interaction, on one
Holstein & Gubrium: Soda! A<:tion 11 495
hand, or supplanting the local artft;;r:ess of social
interaction with its institutional discourses, on tile
other, Considering the self after postmodernity,
Schrag echoes our own aim to keep both ilie con•
structive whats and hows in balance at the forefront
of an analytics, lest the study of lived experience
neglect or overemphasize one or the other.
We must stand guard to secure the of dis•
cuuue as :emporalized event of speaL:ig bct·,,eerr
the objectification of sptech acts and language on
the one hand and the abstra~tions and reifica:ions
the structuralis: desigr:s of narraloiugy on the
other hand. "!'he event of di.conrse as a saying of
something by sor.:ieone to someone is threatened
from both "below" and •above"-frum below in
terms of a tendency tm,ard an ontology cf elemen-
1a1 ism fixated on the isolable, ,;on.titutive e'ements
of speecli acts and linguistic units ... and from
above in the sense ()f a predilection toward an
abstract holism of narratologkal structures that
leave the event of discourse behind, Only hy slick•
ing to ,he terrain of the «between" will the subject
as the who of discourse and the who of narrati1:e
remain visible. It is on tr::s terrain, which we will
later come to call the terrain of lived-experience,
that we are able lo observe the august event of a self
understanding itself through the twin moment.~ of
discourse ar:d narratioo. (;,p. 22-23)
We echo Schrag's warning against integrating
an analytks of discursive practice with an analyt -
ics of discourse-in-practice. To integrate one with
the other is to reduce the empirical purview of
a common enterprise. Reducing the analytics of
discourse-in practice into discursive prac!ke
risks losir:g the lessons of attending to hstiti:
tional differer:ces and cultural configurations as
they med:ate, and are not "just talkec bto being"
through, social interaction. Co:iversely, figuring
discursive p:-actice as the mere resk~;ie o( ir:stiti:,
tional discourse risks a totalized marginalization
of local artfulness.
Analytic Bracketing
Rather than attempting synthesis or integra-
tion, we view an analytics of ir:terpretive practice
as mor<.' like a skilled jugglbg act, alternately
 496 111 :IANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESlcARCH-CHAPTER 19
concentrating on the myriad hows and whats of
everyday Jfe. This requires a new fo:-rn of brack-
e:ing to captu:-e the interplay between discursive
practice and discourses•; n-practice, We've called
:his tedrn:qut of L1scillating indifference to the
realities of everyday life "analytic !racketing~ (see
Gubrium & Holstein, 1997).
Recall that ethnome:hodology's interest in the
hows by which real:ties are constructed requires a
studied, terr:.vorarv, indif:erence to those realities,
like phenomenologists, cthnomethodologists
begin their analysis by setting aside belief in :he
real in o,der to brir:g into view the everyday prac-
tices by which sub,iects, objects, and events come
to have a sense of being observable, rn:ional, and
orderly :or :hose rorn;erned, The ctl:nomethod.
ological projl'ct moves forward from there,
doctimrn~ing how discursive practice constitutes
Stlcial structures by identifying the particular
mecha:iisrns at play. Wi1tgei:stein (I 958,
p. 19) might put language is "taken off holiday"
in order to make visible how l~ngi:age works to
constn:.ct the o'::lj ects it is otherwise viewed as
principally cescrihing,
Analytic bracketing works somewhat differ·
cntly. It is emp:oycd throughout analysis, nut just
at the start, As analysis pmcceds, the observer
h:termillentlv, orients to evervdav
' . realities a~ both
the product., of mrmhe~s rea:ity·constri.:cting
procedures ar.d as resources from which realities
are ronst!,Jted, At one inoment, :he analyst may
be indifferent to the structures of everyday life
in order to docun:cnt their pnxbction thmugh
discursive p1actice. In the next analytic move, he
or she brackc:s discu!"Sive pranice in order to
assess the local availability, distribution, and/or
regulation of resources for reality rnnstr:iction.
In ",Vittgcnsre:nian terms, this t:anslates into
attencing to both language-at-work and language·
on· holiday, alternating considerations of !:ow
langi,;ages games, in p.irtkular institutional dis-
courses, operate in everyday lite and what games
are likely to come i:1to play at particular times and
plarcs, In Fm:cauldian terms, it leads to alternating
considera:ions of disoourses-ir.-practice, on one
hand, and tr:e locily fine-grained documentation
of related discursive practices, on the other.
Analytic bracketing amounts to an orienting
procedure alternately focus: ng 011 the whar:;,
then the hows, of interpretive p~ac:ke (or vice
versa) in order to assemble both a contextually
scenic and a contextually constructive picture
of everyday languagc-i:1-use. The objective is to
move back and for,h between discursive practice
and di:;rnurse~-in .. p:-actice, documenting each in
tum, and making informative references to the
other in the process, Either d:scursive machinery
or available discourses becomes the provisional
phenomenon, while inten:st in the other is tem-
porar:1y deferred, but :10: forgo Iten, The constant
interplay between the analysis of these two sides
of interprel: ve practice mirrors the lived intcr?Jay
bcrween social interaction, its immediate sur-
roundings, and its going concerns.
Because discursive practice and discourses
in-practice a:-e mutually co:1stltutive, one rnnnot
argue tl:at analysis should ·:lej:!in or end with
either one, althoqili tl::ere are predilections in this
reg,1rd, As t:iose who are ethnographically ori-
ented are wont to do, Smith (1987, 1991l), for
exam pie. ad vucates beg' 111dng "where people
we take her :u mean thal this refej"!, to where
people r..re located in the institutional landsc-.ipe
of everyday lifo. Conversely, co:wcrsation an3Jysts
insist on beginning with discursive pr.ictke, e,,en
while a variety of unana:yzed whr,;ts typically
informs tl:eir efforts.'
Wherever one starts, neither the rnlrural and
ins~itutlunal details of discourse nor its interpola•
tions in social interactior: predctcrm:ne:; the
other. If we se: aside the need for an indisputablt:
resolution to the quest iun of which comes first
or last, or has prior::}; we ca'1 designate a sui:able
point of c:eparture a:1d pmcced from there, so
:01:g as we keep firmly in mind that the interplay
within inte:-pretive ;,racticc requires :hat we move
back and forth analytically between its facets.
lltcaust we don't want to reify the components,
we continuously remind ourselves that the a:1;1-
lytic task centers on !ht dia;ectics of two fields of
play, not fae reproduction of one hy the other,
Although we advocate no n:le for where to
begin, we needn't :ret that the overal: is
impossible or logically incoherent. Maynard

(1998, p. 3441, for example, compares ar.alytic
bracketing to "wanting to ride trains that are going
in diffurent directio:1s, initially hopping on one
a_:id then somehow jumpir:g to the other;' He asks,
"How do yo~ jump from one train to another when
they are going in different directions?" The ques ..
tion is, i::t fact, merely an elaboration of the issue
of how one brackets in first place, which is, of
course, the basis for Maynard's and other eth •
nomethodologists' and conversation analysts' own
projects. The answer is simple: Know'.edge of the
principle ofbracke,ing (and unbracketing) makes
it :,ossible. Those who ':iracket the life world or
treat it indifferently, as the case might be, reacily
set reality aside every time they get to work on
thdr respective corpuses of empirical maleriaL II
becomes as routine as rising in tl:e morning, hav-
ing breakfast, ,md going to tl:c ?.'Orkplacr.' On tl:e
uther hand, the desire to operationalize bracieting
of any kind, analytic bracketing in dudee, into
explicitly codified and ,e<juenced prncedural
moves woJld :urr: bracketing into a sel of :-ecipe-
likc, analytic directives, something surely to be
arnidcd. We would assume that no or.e, except the
most recalcitrant operntionalist, •,vnuld want to
substitute a recipe book for an analytic:;/
Ana;y:ic bracketing, however, is far from
11ndisdpd11cd: it has distbcl procedural implka-
t:ons. As we have noted, the primary directive is
to a1tema:ely examine both sides of :nterpretive
practice. Reseatchers engagbg in analytic brack-
eting must constan Uy tun t their attent:or: ir: :11ore
tha1: o:1r d;rection. This has resulted in new
J;1ethodological hybrids. So:ne analysts undertake
a more conten:-oriented form of discourse analy-
si.'S Potter, 1996; Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Others develop melhods of"constitutive etlmogra·
ph( (Mehan, 1979), the ''ethnography of practice"
(Gubrium, 1988 }, or other disc Jrsively 1,ensitive
ctt:nographic approache8 Holstein, : 993;
Miller, 1991, 1997a). The distingJishing feature
such studies is their disciplined focus on both
discourse-in-practice and discursive practice.
The dL:al :ocus should remi 11 d us :hat, :n
describing the constitutive role \)f disconrses-in-
practice, wt' must take care not to appropriate
these nalve:y into our analysis. W.: :n'Jst sustain
Holst~in & G.ibriur.i: Action 111 497
ethnomerhudology's desire to distinguish between
members' resource& and our own.A, a :esult,as we
consider discou:ses-in-practlcc, we m:1st attend
to how they mediate, not determine, members'
sucially constructive activities. Analy:ic bracket-
ing is alway~ substantively temporary. It res'sts
fu]-blown attention m discourses as .wstc:11s of
power/knowledge, separate from how they operat.:
in lived experience. It also is endur:ngly empir:cal
i:1 that it does not take the everyday operation of
..:ism:.m,es for granlod as t~th, of a se:ting
wutcourt.'
\.Yorking Against "Jbtalization
Centered at 6e crossroads of discursive prac•
dee and discourses-in-pracliot, an analytics of
:n:e,pretive practice works aga;nsl tutaliza~ion.
It offers breathing room for choice ar:d action. It
restrains the proper,sity of a l'oucaJ!dia:1 a:1alyt·
ks to view all interpretations as artifacts of par·
tic'Jlar rcgi:nes of powe::/knowlecgc, Writing in
re:ation to the broad sweep o:hi, "hislories of the
present;' Foucault was inclined to tJverernphasizc
the predominance of discomse, in con•t~ucting
the horiwns of meaning a~ particular ~imes or
places, conveying the sense that discourses folly
de:ai: the nuances of everyday life. A more imer-
actinnally sensitive i'.m1I ytics of discourse-ur.e
ti.:d to discursive :.ractke ········ r.:sist~ rhis tendency.
Because interpre:ive practice is rr:ediated by
discourse through institutional functio'.'l'ng, we
discern the operation of power/knowlec.ge in
the separate going concerns of evt:ryday life. Yet,
what one institutkma: brin!!s tu bear is not
necessarily what another puts inro practice.
Institutions constitute d:stbct, yet sometimes
overlapping, realities. \Vhereas one may deploy a
gaze that confers agency or subjectivity upon
individuals. for example. anofaer may constit..i,e
si.:l:Jjecliv:ty along different lines, such as :he
family ,ysterns that are ca;h:d into question as
su :,j ects and agents of troubles in :amily therapy
(see Gubriu •, 1992; Miller, 1997a).
Still, if i11terpret'.ve practice is complex anc.
fluid, it is not socially arbitrary. [n :he practice
of everyday life,discourse is articulated in myriac
 498 111! 'iAI\DBOOK OF QUALrIJ\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 19
sites and is socially var'egated; actors method:·
cally bu[id up their shared realities in diverse,
locally nuanced, and biographically informed
terms. Although this proC'Jces considerable slip-
page in how discourses do their work, it is far
removed from the uniform hegemonic regimes of
power/knowledge presented in same Foucauldian
readings. Social organization nonetheless is
evident in the going concerns referenced :,y
partidpants, to which they hold their talk and
interaction accountable.
An ana lyric, of ir:terpretive p,actice must deal
with the perennial qr:estion of what ~ealities
a:id/or subjectivities are being constructed in the
myriad sites of everyday life. In practice, diverse
articulations of discourse inte:-sect, collide, and
work against the construction of common or
unifor:n subjects, agents, and social realities.
Interpretations shift in relation to tl:e institutional
anc cultural markers they reference, wh:ch, in
tum, fluctuate with respect to the varied settings
in which social intera c:ion unfolds. Discourses•
ir:.pr2ctice refract one another as they are
• ethodically adapted to practical exigencies, local
discur1,[ve practice serving ;.ip variation and inno-
vation in process (see Abu-Lughod, 1991.
l993; Chase, 1995; Narayan & George, 2002).
From How and What tc. ¼ny
Traditionally, q:ialitative inquiry has con-
cerned itself with what and how questions. Why
questions have been the hallmark of qr.antitative
sociology, which seeks to explain and ostensi::ily
predict behavior. Qualitative researchers typically
approach why questions cautious~,. Explanation
is a tricky business, one that <; 'Jalb1tive inquiry
e:r.braces c.iscreetly in light of its appreciation for
interpretive elastic:U;. It is one thing to describe
what is going on and how things or events take
shape, but the question of why things happen the
way :hey do can lead to inferential leaps and
e:npirkal speculations that propel qualitali ve
analys:s far fro:n its stock •in-trade. Tl:e chaJenge
is to respond to why que,tion in ways that are
em ;>:rically and concept"Jally consonant with
qualitat:ve inquiry's traditional concer:1S.
Our approach to :nterpretive practice provides
a limited basis for raising particular kinds of why
questions in the context of qualitative inquiry. In
order to pursue why questions, one needs to des-
ignate a domain of explanation for that whid: is
to be explained. The ramiliar distinction in sociol-
ogy between macrosodological and microsodo•
logical domains, for instance, specifies two kinds
of explanatory footing. Most commonly. macro•
sociological variables are used as footing for
explaining mkrosociological ph enol!le:1a.
example, using the rc1ral/urban or the tradi-
tional/moder;i distinction to explain qualities of
face•tO•face relationships. Parsons's (1951) social
system framework was once a leading model of
fais kind of explanation, applying macro-level
systemic var;ables as explanations for function-
ing and variation in individual lives and actions.
One way for qualitative inquiry to approach
why questions w:thout hazarding its tracitiona:
analytic interests is to proceed from the whats
and hows of social Provis:orn1I explanatory
footing can he found at :he Junc:ion of concerns
for what is golr.g on in everyday life in relation to
how that is constructed, centered in the space we
have loca:ed interpretive practice. Bracketing t:Je
whats, footing for explaining the constructive
nuances of social pal terns can be found in discur-
sive practice. Bracketing the hows, footing for
explaining the deli.oited patterns of meaning
conseq:ient to social construction processes ,;:an
he four:d in disoourses.in•practice.
The interplay between discourses-in-practice
and discursive practice ill a source o~ two kinds of
answer for why things are organized as they are in
everyday llfe. One kind stems from the explana •
tory footings of discursive practice, directing us
to the artful talk and interaction that designs a:id
designates the local contours of our social worlds.
Pror:1 such footings, we learn why discoun;es are
not ~emplates for action. Their articulation is
subje;;t to the everyday contingencies of discur-
sive practice. Discourses-in·practlce arc talked
into action, so to speak; the}' do not dictate what
is said and done from the outside or from
inside, as if they were separnte ,m d distinct
so"Jrces of i:i lluence. To answer why social

structures are as circumstantially nuan:ed as
they are, one can brnckct the cons:ituti ve whats of
the matter in order to reveal how ro::ogdzable
activities and systems o( mcar:i:1g are const:tuted
in particular domains of everyday life, Discursive
practice, in other words, provides the fuoting for
answering why recognizable consteaarions of
social order take on locally distinctive shapes.
We may also answer limited why questions
that are related to discursive practke, questions
sud: as why discursive actions unfold in specific
ci :-cct io:is or why they have particular con~e-
c,ucnccs. Answers emerge when we bracket the
constitutive work tha: shapes who and what we
are and what ii is tha: we do, By itself, the machin-
ery of converoalion gives us few dues as to when,
where, or what particular paltern~ of meai:ing or
action will be artfully produced and managed,
Tne machinery is like a galloping horse, but we
iave little or no sense of when it began to run,
where it's :1eaded, what indeed it is up :o, and
what might happen when it ge:s there, ls il racing,
fleeing, playing polo, detverlng the mail, or what?
Each of these possibilities rec, uires a discourse to
set its course and to tell 1:s what messages ir might
be conveying, This can infonn us in delimited
ways of why the mac:tinery of speech environ-
ments is o,gani lOO and prop.died in lhe way:s ::
Discourse-in-;,:ac:icc provides the footing for
answering wl:y discursive ?ractice proceeds in
the direction it does, toward wha: end, in pursuit
of what goals, and in rclation to what meanings.
Iii SusrAJNJNG A CRITICAL Coi,;suousNESs
The interplay of discourse-in-practice and discur-
practice sustains an integral crit kal con-
sciousness for qua!itativc inquiry, which is a
nece~sarv bash, for re;ated social action. Each
' strm:tive qaality of $Oda! interaction. It tur'.ls us
com poncnt of interpretive practice ;er ves as
endogenous grounds for raising serious questions
relating to the empirical assumptions of ongoir:g
inquiry, Crit:cal consdousness is built into this
frn:newurk; it is nnt external to :t. Indeed, it's t~e
other face of analytic brac.{eling, It for pur?oses
of broadening our knowledge of everyday lifo,
Holstein & Gubrium: Soda! Action 1l 499
analytic hrackelin('! pruvides a mi:'.tllS of com bi1°l ng
atte:itfon to co:rntltutive hows w::h substantive
whats, it simultaneously er.joins us to continu-
ously pay attention to what we may be short·
changing in the service of one of these ques:ions
or the other, The continuing enterprise of analytic
bracketing doesn't keep us comfortably ensconced
throt:_ghout the ,es.cac{:h process in a domain of
indifference to the Iived realities of experience, as
a priori :i:acketing does, Nor does ana:y~k brad,-
eting keep us comfortably engaged in :he unre•
peutant naturaEsm of documenting the world of
everyday life the way it really is, Rather, it continu-
owly jerks us out of the analytic :~thargies of but:l
endeavors.
When questions of discou,se,: n-practice take
the stage, there are grounds for problematizing or
politicizing the sum and substance of what other•
wise can be too fodlelv. viewed as arbitrarilv or
individualistically construc:ed, :nanaged, and
.
sastained. Tr.e persistent urgency of what qucs-
tions cautions us not to assume that interpersor,al
agcr:cv, artfulness, or tl:e n:achinerv of social
' '
intc raction is the whole swry, The urgenc >'
prompt;; us to inq1:ice '.ntt1 the ':mJader ~ou;ces uf
mattcrs that are built up across ti :ne and circum-
stance :n discursive practice, the contcmpora:1e-
ous conditions that inform and shape the
construction process, and the personal and inter•
personal consequem;es for those :nvolved o:' hav-
[r:g c1mstituted their world in the way lhey have,
Although the view tovrard interpretive pracl :ce
doesn't orient r:aturalistkally to the "real world;'
neither does it take eve::yday life as built from the
ground up in talk-in-interaction on each ,md
every rnnvcrsatio:1al or narrative occasio:1, 111e
po:itkal consequence of this is an a:1aly tic frame-
work that turns to ma :ters of social organization
and control, imp\ kating a reality that doesn't rest
completelr on the machinery talk or the con-
to wider cun:txl~ i'.1 search of other sources of
change or ,tabiE tr:
When discursive practke cm:1 mands !he
light. there is a basis fur critically cnallenging the
representational ~egemony of taken-for-granted
reaE:ies, J11e continu.;J urgency of how questions
 500 • HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 19
warns us not to assume that the world as it now is,
is the worid that must he (cf. Freire's [ 1970J strat-
egy of conscierttile11ft:lO). The warning prompts
i:s to "unsettle" realities in search of ,heir con-
struction to reveal the coi:stitutive processes that
produce a:1d sustain particular realities as the
processes are engaged, not for time immernorkl.
Critically framed, the how concerns of inter-
pretive practice caution us to remember that the
everycay realities of our lives-whether they are
being normal, abnormal, law abiding, criminal,
male. fer:1ale, young, or old-are realities we do.
Having done them, they can be undone. We can
move on lo do realities, producing and repro-
ducing. time and again, the world we inhabit
Politically, this presents the recognition that,
in the world we live in, we could enact alternate
possibilities or alternative directions, which the
apparent organization of our lives might appear
to make seem impossible. If we make visible the
constructive fluidity and malleability of social
forms, we also reveal a potential for change (see
Gubrium & Holstein, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1997;
Holstein & Gubrium, 2000 ).
The critical consciousness of this perspective
deploys the continuous imperative to take issue
with discourse or discursive practice when eith.e,
one is foregro·Jnded. thus turning be analytics on
iuelf as it pursues its goals. Reflexively framed,
the interplay of discourse and discursive practice
transforms analytic bracketing into critical
bracketing, offering a basis not only for docu-
menting interpretive practice, but also for criti-
cally commenting on its own constrm:tions,
putting tl:e analytic pendulum in motion in
relation to itself.
Social 1\.ction
The critical consciousness that is endogenous
to interpretive practice can be taken outside the
context of research and analysis. Further attend-
ing to the substance of the social realities at stake
in a realm of everycay life can specify tl:e who.ts
into whens and wheres. Further attending to what
i11 at stake in the construction process can lead us
to identify the times when and the places where
those concerned cons,ruct particular soda! forms
in the ways they do. Knowing this provides inter-
ested parties, such as family members and trou-
bled individuals, not j usl social researchers, with
knowledge of the alternative constructions avail·
able to them for assem bliog themselves and their
experiences ir. particular ways. They are provided
distinct bases for action in the co11,e:d of vario:.is
discourses, as Foucauldians mlght put it, to con-
st:uct their lives so that preferred solutions cume
into play. This works against totalization in the
world of actio:1.
For example, Gubrium's {1992) comparative
field study of two family therapy programs
focused on both the how, and the whats of the
process by which therapists and family members
constructed fa:nily troubles. His mate:ial shows
how participants in both programs went about
assembling the knowledge and approaches avail•
able to then: into explicit pictures of dom.estic
disortler and equally straightforward designs for
turning disorder into orderly, or functional,
family lives. The hows, or mechanisms of tht
process. were similar in the two prog:ams,
including cataloging and classifying particular
experiences :nto reflexively constructed cate-
gories recognizable to all. The whats, however,
were distinct. In one of the facilities, an outpatient
program called "Westside House;' family troubles
we:-e interpreted and dinically categorized as the
dysfunc-::ions of a hierarchical family system. In
the other facility, an bpatient program located al
what Gubrium called "Fa:rview Hospital;' troubles
took on an emotional cast, hierarchy being dis-
placecl by mutual disclosure and democratic
communication centered on individual members'
feelings. What was cons:ructed in these two
locations was distinct and had contrasting con-
sequences for the family members' lives, even
though the construction process was similar.
The social action consequences follow directly
from the identification and documentation of
car.structed differences. Comparing what is
constructed at Westside House with what is con-
structed at Fairview Hospital provides a modicum
of d10ice for an,'One seeking solutions-in this
case, to family troubles. \Vest.side House :s a

discursive environment that privileges authority
and downplays individual feelings, whereas
Fa:rview Hospital is a discursive environment
in which feelings and dear communication loom
forth as a basis for heaEng familial wounds.
Broadening the comparative perspective to
include other discursive environments of family
cur.struction adcs to the concrete choices for con-
structing bot:1 what these families are and solu-
tions for w:iat they could be isee Miller, 2001 ).
Takeu into the world of everyday life. this
provides those concernec-stakeholders such as
troubled sons and daughters and distressed moth·
ers and fathers-with evidem:e of the possible
soh:.tions available for understanding construc-
tions of what troubles them as wet: as altemative
ways of resolving those troubles. This moves
beyond single solations by providing evidence of
the varied ways that troubles can be assemble;;:
into concrete realities. The hows and the whuts,
respect:vely, show that stakeholders have a choice
in how their troubles will be construed as well as
the options for construing :hem in parrirnlar
ways, From related knowledge of when and where
options present themselves, action can be orga-
nized toward preferred possibilities.
Although social :-esearchers themselves aren':
obliged to take a crit'cal consciousness into the
outside world. a critical consciousness does oblig-
ate tbem to documen:, publ i,h, and make broadly
available the possib:Jities for construc:ing every•
c.ay life. It is :n this spirit, which stems in many
ways from Wright Mills's (1959) call for a pub-
Edy oriented critical co:isdousness, that we have
nff,,r;,.' the framework of interpretive practice for
?Ubhc consncption and social actior..
Iii NOT.ES
I. S<imc self-proc:aimed ethnornethodolog~ts, how-
ever, would reject the nolion t'iat ethnomethodology is in
any sense a"constructionist'' or"constructivis:" enterprise
(see Lynch, 1993). Some reviews of :he ethnomethod·
ological canon also clearly Imply that consm1ctionlsm i,
anathema to :he etlmorm:thodologkal project (see
Maynard 1998; )faynard & Clayman, 1991 ).
Holstein & Gubriurr:: Soda! Action 111
2. Although clearly rellecting Gar!inkeli. pkmeer-
ir.g contr'bulions, this chacacterizat:011 of the eth-
;;omethodologkal pro;ec: is perl:aps dose~ to the
version conveyed in the work of Melvin Poliner ( 1987,
1991) and D. Lawrence Wieder (1988) tbm to some of
,he more recent "postanalytk" or conversation analytic
furms of ethnomethodology. Ind.:ed, Garfinkel (1988 ),
Lynch ( 1993), and others n:ight object to how we our-
selves portray ethnomethodology. We would comend,
however, that t:iere is much to be gained from a stud-
ied "misreading" o; the ethnomethodological "da,sics;•
a praclke tha, Garfinkel himself advocates for the soci-
ological classics more generally (:ice l.ynch, : 993).
Wlth the figurative "death o: the author" (Barthes,
J977 ), those attaclied to doctrinaire readings of the
canon should hin-e little grounds for argt::nent.
3. Other et'inorne:hodologists have drawn upon
Foucault, bu, without neressarily endorsing these
affinities or parallels. Lynch (1993 ), for examp:e, writes
that Foucault's studies can be relevanl to eth-
nomethodolog:cal investiga:fons in a "restricted and
'literal' (p. 13: ), and he resists the generalization
of discursive regimes across :iighly occasioned "lan-
guage games:' See McHoul ( I98fi) and Lynch and
Bogen (1996) for exemplary ethnomethodological
appropriations of Foucaulc:an insight,;.
4. There is still mr:slderable doctrinaire smlimenl
fu:- maintaining ''hard-headed, rigcrou, invcslig,ation
in one idiom" wh:!e re.:ognii.ing its p,issible "incom-
rnensurability" with othrrs (Maynard, : 'I'll!. p. 345}.
-:-he benefit, according to May:iard 11998, p.
would ''strongly reliable understanding in a partk•
ular domain of social life, and it need not imply nar-
row:iess, fragmentation, limitation, or isolat'on:' Our
sense is that sud! conversatior:s do produce fragmen-
tation and isDlatim1 (see Hill and Cr:ttenden IJ 968; for
a v:vid example of nonpmduc:ive conver.ation deriv•
ing from 'nc011:palible analytic idioms). resultir:g in
the repmduc:icn of know:edgr and, of course, the
equally sta:e rep!'l!sentation of the e,npir'ca: world. In
our view. reliability has never been a strong mougl:
incentive to ignore the potential v,didi:ies of new ar:a-
lytic horiions.
5. The CA argurnen: th:s point of depar:nre is
that ostensibly distinct patterns of talk a::d inte:action
are ,o:istituti,-e of particular settings, ancl therefore
must be the ;ioint of departure. This is tricky, though.
CJ\'s practilionel'l! routinely dcsigr:ate and describe
particu:ar institutional co::texts before the analysis of
the conversations that those conversations are said to
reveal. CA would have us :ielieve that selling, a~ a
 502 111 HAN:nmoK OF QUALIIX:]\!E ~ESE.~.RCH-CHAPIER 19
disrincl cor.text "or talk and interactio::, would :ie
visi~ly (bearably) comtituted in the madiir,ery of
i:se:f [see Schegklff, 1991 J. T:1is would mean that no
scene-selling woulc: be necessar;- (or even need tu be pro-
vided) for th,· pn,dnction nf tht discursivt:' context tll be
apparent One wonders if what Is demonstrated in friese
stu,~ies could have been prod:JCL'II in the unlikely event
that no ;,rior knm,~edge cfthe ~elting h,id bee:1 availab'.e,
or if 11::ior knowledge were rigorously bracke:ed.
CA studies admit to being about conversa-
tion in same rnntex:, the m~riad M:l,::es of tele-
phone intera,tion make that discur~ive context
avallabk to readers b.:fan: the anaJ,.,is begin.,. Indeed,
!:lies of ,esearch reports literaUy announce instiHI·
Iion al cumext .:: the 5tarL Fur example, one of
Heritage's : I985) d1ar1:ers is li!led "Analyzing News
Interviews: Aspects of the Productim: c: Talk for an
'Overbcar:ng' Audience.» lmmec'iately, the reader
knows and, in a rmi:mer of speaking, is pre;1ared to gc1
lhe g:st of, what convc,sation is "doing" in wh,ll fr,J.
lovrs. ln a word, the produdivily of talk relies as much
m: this analytically uncierr,'1::ognized start as on wh.;t
the analysis proper aims to ,how. In such s:udies, con-
text in<"vi:ably sneaks in the front doer, in ti:lcs and
"indcenta:'' setting, Apparently. analys:s fail to
rccog:::ze :hat sorr.e measure of discurswe context is
being impcirted to assisl in the ex:,lanat:on of how
context is indigenousl •· cunstructed.
Strictly speaking. the researcher ,annot hope to
attribute inslilutior.al pa:tems com?,Cldy to ti:.,
machinery of convtr:llltion. Nor can sl:c completely
disat:,rnd to discours,•-in-practice and meaning
descri b: ng the ,equenti al lfow ccnve:'llation,
Analytically; o::c nt:J,1 at some poinl rrnppmpriate
'::strtutions and ex:er::al culrural undcrstam:ings in
order to kr:ow what is ar!fully anc methudk.:.:Jy going
on i11 that talk and fateraction. f,entered as ana:yt ic
bracketing is or: both of interpretive practice,
thC'r<:' is C()llCCrltd war~ant for the continual ret."1
th<' analytic gaze lo c:smurse-in-;i:acticc.
6. There arc other useft:I m<'taphor~ for de~cribing
huw anaMic bradreti::g changes the forns from dis•
course-in• praclice to discursive ?rat:lke. Om: can Iib:n
the operation to shifting white driving a mclor
vehicle equipped with a manual transmission. One
mode of ana:ysis may prove i;u ire productive, hut even,
tuar.y ii will strain against the rcsisronre engendered
ht· ow11 tcmpor,; 0 ,.:1alytic orientation. 111/hen the
analyst llOll" that fre analytic "engine" is laboring
under, or being rnns:rai netl by, the restrain:, of whM ii
is ,urrenlly "geared" to accomplish, she can decide 10
virtually ''shift' ana: yth; "gears" in urder lo gain fur: her
purd:as.: on the aspeets of inlcrprclive interplaJ' that
we:re p,cvionslr hra!'.keted, fust a, there can be no pre•
scription for shifting gears w~ilc drivir.g (Le,, one ca11
neve: specify in advance at what spred om: should
shift u;, or down), changing analytic brackets alv,•ays
rcmaim an artful entrrprisc, awaiting the empirical
cin;umst,:mce:; it en.:oun:ers. It:; timing ra11rn1 he pre-
spccified. Like shifts in driving, changes
arc not arbitrary or unc' isciplincc; mther, they res;,ond
lo 11:e analytic challrnges at han,I ::: a ;:irincipled, if not
predellm11 i ned. fashion.
7. ·:nis may !lt' t:1e vc-ry lhing Lynch ( I99J) decries
with :es?ectto conversa:ion analysts wlm attempt 10 for-
malize and :irofessioualizc CA as a "scien:ific" discipline.
8. Scimecritks :see Denzin, 19%) have wo~rled that
analytic hra:cki:r: ·:g reprcsc:its " ,el,ect.w objec!lvi,m,
a form of "ontological i;erry:nandering," . ul'
course, ':ave be~omc fighting words amor:g c0:1strnc-
·io:iists, ;lut we shtdd soberly recall 1:ial Skve
Woolgar and Dorothy l'aw:uch (1985) have suggested
t:ial carving oul some sort of analytic footing may be a
perv;:sive and ·.:navoidable feature any sodologi~al
co:11 mrllta,y, Out LW:r1 constant attention :o It:.: inter-
play between discourse• i n-pract icr and ,lis.:urs' ve
praclke-as they are u:iderstood used by
mem:iers-rnnlinually reminds us of their rc!lcxive
relationship. Ger~ymanderer5 stand t:icir separate
ground and unn•llcxively drconstrut1; 11nalylic brack-
eting, in 1.1Jr:east, en con rages a continu~l and meth0dl •
cal dcevnsti uc Lou of emp' rical grountlings themselves.
This may prod·Jce a less-thar:-tidy picluw, but it Jlso is
,ksigned to keep reifkation ,II bay and ungr;mnded
s:gnilkation ccntroL
19 RE:ERENT:1:s
Abu-Luglmd, I.. (l 991 ). Wriling against rnhure.
In IC fox (I'd,), lfrrnpturing ar:fl,ropvlogy
(pp.137-162}.Santa f,c,!;M: SAR l're,s.
Abu·btghClC, ;,. ( 1993). 'H,;,;"" women'i w;ir!ds:
/}edoui11 s!orie,,. Bc,kdey: University of Ca'.Jomiu
Press.
Atkinson. J. \1., & Drew, P. {] 979). ()rder in ::ourl.
Atfa:1t:c Highland,, I\ J: l !u~anities Press.
Atkinson, P. (1988 ). Ethnometlmdoi t:gy: A ,ritkal
review.Annual Revi1:w ufSocio!ogy, 14, •Hl-465.
Atk'::son, P. (I 995 l. Medic,;/ talk and medn·al wurk.
Londnn: Sage.

llarthes, R. ( I9Ti). lmage, music, texi. New York: Hill &
Wang.
Berger, P. L, & tuckmanr:. T. (1966). 11u: suci,11 con-
Mmclfrm of 1mlity. !'Jew York: Doubleday.
!lt-;;I, S., & Kellner, :i. I 1991). Posimoderr, theory.-
Cririrnl it:rermg11tl,ms. New York: (;uilford.
Blumer H. ( J969). Symbolic interacti,mism. Englewood
Cliffs, >If: P:en,ict-Ha!L
lloden, D.,& Zimmerman, D. (Ecs.). (:991). Talk and
soda/ structure. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bogen, & Lynch, M. : I 993). Do we need a grneial
:heory of social prnb'.cms? In I, Holstein &
Mille: (Ed,.), !iecomitlering social crmstrut•
tior.ism: Debate~ in s1dal proi>lems t/ieory
:pp. 213-237). Hawthorne,1<1':Aldine de Gr:1;1ter.
Chase, S. E. 0 995 j. Ambiguous empowerment: Tiu,
work narratives ofwom,m ;·chool ,;upenntendents.
Amhtrsl: University of Massachusetts Press.
Denzin, h'. K. { 1998). The r.ew ethnography. /oiim.ii of
Contemporary Ethnography, 405-41 S.
Dingwall, R., Eclzcfaar, & W.u,ray, T. (1983). The pra•
tec!ian of dri/dren: Sr,,te infervent hm and family
life. Oxford, UK: Blackwell,
Drew, P., & Heri:age, f. (Eds.) (l 992). Talk Iii w11rk.
Cambridge. UK: Cambridge Univer~ity Press.
l)rey:us, H, L,, & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Fcucuult:
Beyond structuralism and hermeneutic;. Chicago:
i:niver,lty of Chicago Press.
Dmkhe::11, E. ( 1961). Tlw eforr;.mt1,ry forms of the re/i·
gious lije. New Yor,::: Coll ier.Macmi::an.
Durkhe: :n, E. (1964). rht rule.; ,orialogica! met/rnd.
New York: Free Press.
Emerson, R. :VI.\ 1969). Judging dclir.quen/;, Chiugo:
Aldine.
Emerson, R, M., & Messinger, S. ( I977). The mitro•
politics tronble. S.1u:iall1robiem,, 121-134.
l',mca,::1, M. (1965). Madness and r:i1'iffatition.
New York: Randt>m nrnm·
fow.:aull, i>t (1972}, The archaeology of knowledge.
lsew York: Panfr.eon.
foucrnlt, M. ( 1979). nisdp/ine pw1ish. New York:
Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1988 ), The ethic 0 1• care for the self a;, a
prncfa:c o:· freedom. ln 1. Hemauer & G. Rasmussen
(!:ds,), Tiu: finai F!.mcault (:,p. 1-20) Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Frei re, P. {1970). Pe,-iag(1gy ,if the oppressed. New Yor;;;
Continuu::i.
t,arfinkel, H. (19!:>2). The perception of the other: 1\
study in social order. rnpuhlished doctoral dlsser
talion, lfanard Univers:,y.
Hol.tein & Gubrium: Social Action II 503
Garfinkel, H. ( 1967 ). .Stwiie, in et.~rwmelhtid()/og;:
Eng:cwood Cliffs, NJ: l're::tice Hall.
liarfinkel, H. (I 988 ). Evidence for lrn::,illy p:11cuced,
na:urall y atcmmtahle pher.omenn of order*,
fogk, reason, meaning, method, de. in and as
of foe essential quiddity of immortal on:': nary
sociely, (I of IV): An announcemet:I st,:dk's.
Sccioiogical Theory, 6, 103- ·.o9.
G·.irflnkel, H., Lynch, M., & l.ivingstm:. E. (1 ~81).
The wo:k uf a discove:ing SC(•enc:e rnns!rncd
w: :h materials fro:n the op:ically discovered
pulsar. Pllifosaphy of 1/ie Social Sciences, i l,
131-]58.
Garfinkel, & Sacks, H. (1970), On the formal ~true•
tu res of practical actions. In J.C. McKinney & E. A.
Tiryakian (bk), Theoretical .<ociaiogy (pp..l'\S-
366). :Jew York: Apple:on-Century·Cmfts.
Cubrium, J. F. ( 1988). A.nol)'zi11g field reality. Newbury
Park.CA:
G11brium, 1- F. ( i 992]. Out ofcontrol: Family tfiempy grui
domestic di,ordn. Newbury Par~, CA:
Cubrium, J. F. (1993 ). For a cau,ious natural:sm. In
J. Holstein & G. Mille:· (Eds.), Recc11si1ie•i11g social
wnslmctiv11ism (pp. !19-IOI). New York: l;[dir:e
de Gruyter.
Guhrinm, J. E, & Holstein, J. A. ( 1990). What is famf!y?
Mount~in Vjt;"",,, CA: .Mayfield.
Gubrium, J. E, & Hol5tein, I. A. ( 1994}. Cons11·,aing the
life course. Dix Hills, NY: General '.·fall.
("llbrium, /. E, & Holstt'i11, I- A. ( I'l'J~ ). Ufe course nul
leability: Biographical work aml dc11rivati7ation.
Sociologic11I lnquirJ-,
(iuhrium, I. E, & Holstein, I. A. {1997). Th;; new lan-
guage of qualirative metlwd. :-Jew York: Oxford
University Press.
Her't"t!'e. j. (: 984). Gmfi•1kel and ef.~rwmetlwd,,logy.
Cambridge, UK: Po[tty,
Her i:age. J. I 1985). Analyzing news intevicws: A,peers
of the pmdnctiun cf ralk for a:i overhearing
audieuce. :n T. A. v,rn DiJk ( Ed.), liamlbot1k of
diJCQtirse a11alysis (VoL 3, µp. 19), New York:
Academic
Heritage,]. {1997). Con,crsalion analy,i.s aml inst:rn-
tio:·,al talk: AnalyL.ing d,11a. 1n '.). Silverman ,: Ed.),
Qualitati,•e re>l!arch: Ti1eory. mefhtid aml p,aclire
(pp. I61- London; Sage,
Hew ill, J. P, (l 997). Self and Stlciel)i 1'ostr,n: Allyn &
Baron.
Hill, R. J., & Crittenden, K, S. (1968). Proceeding, of t/;e
Purdue Sympt1sium au Ethnomethodology. \-\-'csl
Lafayette, I\I; l'llrdue l{csearrh Foundation.
SC'4 1111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 19
Holstein, J, A. (1983 ). Jurors' use of jodgrs' instructior.s.
Sociological Metlwds and Research, 1I, 501-518.
Ho:stei n, J, A. (I 993 ). Caurt•ordered insanity: Inter-
pretive practice and irmilw,tary commitment,
Hawthorne, NY: Aldin.: de Gruyter.
Hulstein, J, A,, & Gubr!u:n, J. F. (2000). The self we lite
by: Narrative identily in a postmodern world.
Nc;I\' York: Oxford l'ni"ersity Press.
Holstein, J.A .• &Gubrium, J. I' (2004 ). Context: working
it up, down, and across. :n C. Sea:e, G. Gobo,
). E Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds,), Qualiu:itive
research practice (pp. 297-Jl I). London: Sage,
Hughes, E. C. (1984) Going concerns: The sti.:dy of
American institutions. In D. Riesman &: H. Secker
(Eds.), The sociological eye (pp. 52-64). New
Brunswick, NJ: Tr.i::sactiun Bocks,
Husserl, I'.. ( 1970). Logical it1vestigatian. 'N'ew York:
Humanities Press.
Livingston, £. ( 1986). !'he ethm1methadological foun•
dmions of mathematics, London: Rour:edge and
Kcgan Paul,
..ynch, M. ('. 985).Art and artifact in laboratoq ;cience.
Londo11: Routledge and Keg,,11 Paul,
Lynch,M. i 1993},&iemiju: practice and crdinaryaaion.
Caml:>ridge, l'K: Cambridge University Press.
Ly:1ch, M., & Bogen, D. (1994), Harvey Sacks' pri:nitive
natural science. Theory, Cu!t!.ire, and Society, 11,
65-104.
Lyn,h, M., & Bogen, D. ( 1996 ). The speuade ofhistory.
Durham, NC: Duke University P~ess,
Marx, K. (1956 ). &leered writings in sociowgy and
social philosophy (T. B111tornore, Ed.). New York,
1,tcGraw-Hill.
Maynard, D. W. (1984). lnside plea bargaini11g.
New York: Plenum.
MaynarJ, D. W. (1989). On t:'le ethnography and analy•
sis of dhrnu~se in instirutional setting,, In
J. Holstein & G, !,Wier {Eds.), P!crspectiw:s cm
social problem! (Vol. I, pp. 127-146). Greenwich,
CT:JAL
Maynard, l), W, (1998 ). On qualitative inq;;:ry and
extramode:nity, Contemporary Sociofogy, 27,
343-345,
Maynard, n W., & Cayman, S. E, ( 1991 ). The diversity
of ct!mmnethodology: 4tmual Review ofSociology,
17, 385-418
Maynard, D, W,, & Ma1izo, J. (1993), On the sodologyaf
justice..~acfologiral Thecry, I 1, 171-193.
McHoul, A. ( 1986). ':he getting of seruaiity: Fo:1ca·J.it,
Car:inke'., and the analysis of sexual discourse.
Theory, Culture, and Socie(y, 3, 65-79,
.Mehan, H, ( 1979 ), Leaming lessons: Social organization
in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
l'niversity Press.
Mehan, H,, & Wood, H. (1975). T/;e '!'ality of eth-
1mmethodo{og,v. New York: Wiley.
Mi[er, G, (1991). Enforcing the wr.rk ethic. Albany:
SUNY Press.
Miller, G, (!997a).Rec,lmingmiracle workers: Language
and meaning in brief tliempy, ~ew York: Aidi ne de
Gruyte:,
Mi:ler, G. (19'l7b). Building bridges: The possibility of
analytic dialogue be:Ween ethnography, conver•
sation analysis, ar.d Fouca·J:t. In D. Silverman
[Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, merhod and
prnctice (pp. 24-44). Londom Sage,
Miller, G. (200 I), (hanging the subject. Self-rnnslruc-
tlon in br:ef therapy. In J. F. G;;briurn & J. A,
H'ol,;;tein (Eds,), Institutional selves: Troubled
identities in a poslmodern world (pp. 64-B3).
New York: Oxford l:niversil}' Press.
Mill:.;, C. W. (!959). The socivlvgirn! imagi11alirm.
New York: Grove Press.
Narayan, K,, & George, K, M. (20021. Personal and fulk
na:ntive as culture representation, In JR Gubrium
& J. A. Holstein {Eds.), Handbook of interview
re5earch (pp, 815-1132). Thousand oa:.:s, CA: Sage.
Parsons, T, (l9Sl). 1'he s<1cial system. New 'fork: Prer
Press.
Pollnc,, .\,1, ( I987), Mundane re.awn, Cambridge, UK:
Carr.bridge University Press.
Polin er, M. (1991 ). Left of ethnome1hodology: The
rise and decline of radical reflexivity. American
Socivlogicai Re~·iew. 56, 370-380,
Potter, J. (1996), Representing reality: Discm;rse,
rhetoric, and social construction. Lonccn: Sage.
Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analyz•
ing na:;muly-occurring talk, In D. Silve~man
(Ed.), Qualitative researcl,; 'l11eory, metiiod and
prartice (pp.14t,-J60). London: S.:.ge,
Po:ter, J., & 1,\/er;~erell, M. ( l 'l87), Discourse and social
psychalvr;y, London: Sage.
Prior, L, {1997), Following in FcJL:cau'.t's footsteps:
Text and rnntext in qualitahe resea;eh. In
D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: 1'/ieory,
me1hod and practice (pp. 63-79). Londo::: Sage.
Rose, N, ( 1990), Governing the soul: 1'/te s.~aping of the
prii•ate ,elj: c'lew York: Roudcdge.
Sacks.Kt 1972). An initial bvestigation o: the usabiJ.
ity of ,onversatfonal data for do'::g sociology.
In D. Suclnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaaimr
(pp. 31-74). New York; Free Press,

Sacks, ( 1992 ), Lertllres 1m cor.,'f!rsatfrm ( Vols, I &
Oxford, UK: Bla,kwdl.
Sacks, H,, Schegloff, E., & Jdl:erscn, G, (197 4), A sim
plest .~}'Stomatks f.,r 1he org:mizatior: of n;m-
tak i ng for convcrs,tion, T.r:mguage, 50, 696-735,
Scheglofl, E, A, ( 1991 ). Reflect ions ;i:: talk and social
structure. In D, llodcn & fl Zimmerman (lii:ls.),
TQ/k and ,,idai strm:tun: (pp. 44-70), Cambridge,
UK: PoUtv,;
Sdtrag, C, 0. (1997). The seij· aJler po,rmadernity, New
Haven, CT: Yale Universi! v Press,
S:hutz, A. C962). The prab!em of social reaiit): The
Hague: Martinus Kijhoff,
Schutl, A. (l 964), Studies in wcial the()ry, The Hague:
Marlinus Nij:-ioff,
Schutz, A. (1967). 111c phenomenolagy of the
wcrld. Evan,trm, 1;,: ~orthwes1ern U::iversi:i,
Schull, A, ( On ,11f1f1wme•!owgy and social re!a,
rions, Chirngo: University of Chicago Prrss.
Silverman, D. (1985;, Qi,alitari,,1: m,1hmfol11gy and
sadology, Alders0,ct, UK: Gower.
Silverman, D, {1993 ). lntcrpretire auaiilaliYe data,
Londn:1: Sage,
Sil,er:rnm, D. (Ed.), ( l 997), Qualitarh, re,eard::
Tlieary.. n:,~tlwd and prartice. Lo::don:
Sih·erman, D, (1993), Htlrl'o/ Sacks: Cwiver.;a!itm
,malysis and soda/ scie11a, New 'fork: Oidcrd
Univer,ity Pres,,
Smith, D, F,, ( 1987). The everyday world,;, problemmfc,
3oston: :.:orthw:;te:11 University Press,
Holstein & Gubr:u m: Social Action Ill 5[l5
Smith, ll, l:, ( I\190), Ti:xls, /ans, a11d fer11111inity. London:
Routletlge.
ten Have, P. ( l990), Mc1:;odologkal issues in c.mwrs«•
tinn am,.,,,,,. l:iullerin de Metimdologie Socio•
logique, L
Weigert, A. J, (l '18 l), Sociology nj ever7day life,
'.'lew York: Longman,
Wiede,, D, L. (1988), Languagi: amt ,oci.1/ mlii,y.
Washington, DC: Un;vc:sity Pre,; of America.
Wicgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical i11~esri!(;,;1tums.
'.'Jew 'dirk: ~.facmillan.
Wodak, R, (2004), <liscourse analysis. In
C, (iobo, I, f. Gubrium, & D, Silverman
(Ed,}, Qu.;IJtative r.'search pral'iire {pp, 197-2 J,).
London: Sagr.
Woolgar, & Pnwludi, D, (1985;, Ontofogkal geny•
mandering, ,'/9cfrd P,oblems, 214,-227,
Zimmerman, D, H, [1970), ·~·he pracl:ca:i6es rule
use. In J, nougla,~ (EJ.), Under~illndi,ig eFeryday
(pp, 221- 2311), Chicago: Aldinc,
Zin:mcrman, D, E, (1988), ()11 rnnvcrs~lion: The cor:·
vcrsation a::alytic perspective, In I, A, Anderson
(Ed,), Communicariouyear/:.oak i I ( pp.406-4 3,.)
Heverli, Hi]s, CA: Sage,
Zimr:ierman, H" & Wieder, D, L (1970),
Etlm,miclhoc:ology and the Fohkm ur,for, In
J, Do·~glas (Ed,), Understanding ewryday !if.~
(pp, 183-295), Chicago: Aldinc.
20
GROUNDED THEORY
IN THE 21 ST CENTURY
Applications for
Advancing Social Justice Studies
Kathy Charmaz

G
rounded theory methods of the 20th
century offer rich possibilities for
advancing qualitative research in the
21st century, Social justice inquiry is one area
ar:10:1g many in whic:i researchers can fruitfully
apply grounded theory methods that Barney G.
Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss (I 967) created.
In keeping with the theme for the current
Handbook of advancing constructive social cri"
tique and change throug.1 qualitatve research,
this chapter opens discussion about applying
grounded theory methods to the substantive
area( s) of soda! justice. [nquiry in th:s area
assumes focusini:; on and furthering equitab'.e
distribution of resources, fairness. and eradica-
tion of oppression (Feagin, 1999 ). 1
The term "grounded theory" refers bot:, to a
method of inquiry and to :he p~oduct of inquiry.
However, researchers commonly use the term to
mean a specific mode of analysis (see C;rnrmat,
2003a)_ Essentially, grounded theory methods are
a set of flexible analytic guidcll :ies that enable
researchers to focus the:r data collectio:1 and to
build indi:ctive middle"range theories through
successive levels of data analysis and conceptual
development. A major strength of grounded

Author's Note. I thank Adelf' ~.. Clarke, :Sorman IC Denzin, Udo Kelle,Anne Marie =-1,:a'.lglin, ilJld Jar.ice Morse their co:::i ·
ments on an ea:lier vet>ior of this d:apter, l al,o appredale having tl1e views of t'ie f.1llm,i111; members of the Soncma Slate
\Jnivm'ty Faculty Writing Prcgrom: Karin En.tam, Scott Miller, Tom Ros'n, losei;hinc Schalldm, aml ''.'haine Ste-u,is. I pre-
se:rted brief excerp:, from earlier drafts in a keynote addres,;, "Rec:aiming Tradition, and !<,d\Jr::iing Trends in Qt:al't.ttive
!IJ:searc:1; at the Qualilative ~search C<>ufC'lence, Carleton Univeri;ity, Oltawa, Canada, May 22, 2003, and Ir: a pres,ala:ion,
".Suft,ricg and the Self: Meanings of Loss :11 Cl:ronic llin<!$S; at the Sociology Department, Udvenily of California, Los Ar:geles,
J.m1uy 9,2004,

II 507
508 111! 'fANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE [iESE/\RCH-CHAPTER 20
theory mrthods is that they prov:de tools
for analyzing processes, and :hese tools hold
much ootential for studying soda! justice iss:Je~.
A grounded tl:eory app,oach encuurag:t:s
researchers lo n·main dose to their stc1rlied
worlds and to develop an inttgrated set of rhco•
:.:tical concepts :rom their empirical materials
that not 0:1:y synthesize and interpret them be.:
also show :,rocessual relationships.
Grounded theory metl:cds consist uf simulta-
1:eou~ da:a collection and analysis, with eac:i
informing and focusing the other throughm:: the
research prncr-ss.1 A, grounded theorists, we
begin our a:i.2.Jy5cs ea,ly to help us focus further
data collection.3 In tun1, \'le use these focusec
data to refine our emerging analy,es, Gmundcc
theory entails developing increasingly abstra:t
ideas about resea:-ch participant~• meanings,
actions, and worlds and seeking specific data to
fill out, refine, and check the emerging conceptual
categories. Dur work rcs1.:lts in an analytic inter-
pretation of ?articipants' worlds a1:d o( the
processes rnnsti:uting how these worlds are con-
structed. Thus, we can use the processi_:_al empha-
sis in rroundcd theory to ana'.yze relationships
bctv,ccn human agency and social structure that
pose theoretkal and p,ac:ical concerns in social
justke ,tu des, Grounded theorists portray
their r:nderstanding$ of research participants'
artin:1, and meanings, offer abstract interpre-
tations of empirical relationships, anc create
condl:ional stalements about the imp'.ications of
their analyses,
Applying grour:ded theory methods to the
substantive urea of social jm,ticc produces rrdp-
rocal benefits. The critical stance i11 social justice
in combination with the analytic foci:s of
grounded theory broadens and ~harpcns the
,cupe of inquiry. Such efforts locate subjective
au! collective experience in larger structu:-e, and
inc rcasc understanding of how these structures
work (see also Clarke, 2rni3, ZOOS; Maines, 2001,
2003), Grounded theory car: supply ana:ytic tools
to move social iustice stud:es beyond description,
wh:le keeping them anchored in their respective
e:npirical world,.' Not cmly are ;ustice a:id injus-
tice abstract mnct>pts, but they are. moreover,
enacted processes, made rea: through actions
per:'ormed again and agai 11. Ground1:d theorist:,
c;m offer i1: tcgrntcd theoretical statemer:ts about
the conditions under whicl: in/1wtice or justice
dt'vrlops, cha r.ges, or cor.tinmc's. How might we
move in this direction? Which traditions pmv'dc
starting points/
Ill CossT~ucT1v1sT RE-V1s:0Ns
()" GROUNllED THEORY
·:o develop a grounded theory for the 21st ce::itury
that ,'.dvances social j:.istice bquiry, we must build
upon its constructionfat ele:m:nt, Bthe~ than
nhjeclivist leanir.gs. fn the r,asr, most major stat('-
' .
ment, of grounded theorv methods mir.imized
what numerous critics (sec, for example.Atkins.on,
Coffey, & Delamont, 2003; Bryan:, 2002, 2003;
Coffev, Holbrook, & ,i\tkinson, 1996; Siln,rman,
'
2000) tlr1 d lacking: interpretive, cons:ructionist
inquiry. Answering thi, criticism :urans building
on the C1 irngo school routs in grounded theory
coosis1ent with my constn:ctivist statement in the
seco:1d edit:0:1 of this handbook (C:1armaz,
2000a ).5 Currently, the Chicago school antecedent&
u: grnuridec thrnry are growing foint and risk
beh:g los:, Contempora,y grounded theorists may
:10: rea: ize how rhis I radition h:flu ences tl:eir
work or may not act from its premises at al L-:-hus,
we need lo review, rer:ew, a::id revitalize links to
the Chicago sd:uol a, gm ui:ded tl11:ory develups
in the 21st centu~y.
Buildng on the Chicagn heritagr sup_:)o,ts the
<leveloprnent of grounded theory in directions
6.at can serve inquiry in :~e area of soda! ;;;stice.
Both. grounded theory methods ai:d soda~ justice
inquiry fit pri:.g:natist empha,e, on p:ocess,
change, ar.d prob:ibiEstic outcomes." The prag-
n:at:st conce;ition of emergence recognizes that
the reality of the present differs fro:n the past
from wiich it develops (Strauss, 1964 ). Novel
aspects of expericr:cc give rise to new :nte,prela-
liun:; and actions, This view of emergence can
sensitize social justice researchers to study
ch.mgr in new ways, and gr01:m!e('. theory meth-
ods can give them the tools for st'.idying ::. Thus,

we must revisit and redairr: Chicago school
pragmatist and :1ekwork traditions and develop
their imp:ications social Justice and demo•
crati<: process.' lb do ~o, we must move further
into a constructionist social scien{:e and make :he
positivist roots of g,mmded theory problematic,
For many re~earchers, grounded theo,y meth ·
ods provided a template for doing qualitative
research stamped with positivist approval.
Glaser\ especially, Glaser, 1978, 1992) stro:ig
foundatio:1 in mid- 20th-century positivism gave
groi.:r,ded theory its original objectivist cas! with
its emphases in lugk, analytic procedure,, com·
parat:ve methods, and conceptual development
,uni assJmptions of an external discernible
world, unbiased observer, and dis.,;overec theo:y.
Strauss's versions of groum'ed theory emphasi:ied
meaning, ac:ion, and process, consistent with his
intellectual roots in pragmatis:n and symbolic
interact'onism. These root, seem shrunken in his
1:1dhodological treatises with Julie7 Corbin
(Strauss & Corbii:, 1990, 1998) but grmv robust :n
other works (see, for example, Corbin & Sl:auss,
1988; Strauss, 1993). l.ike Glaser, Strauss aad
Corbin also advanced positivistk procedures,
altl:m:gh different ones. They introduced new
technical proc.:dures and made verification an
explicit goal, thus b:·inging grounded theory
closer to pu~itivb: ideals! In divergent ways,
Strauss and Corbie's works as well as Glaser's
treatises draw upon objecrivist assumptions
foanded in positivism.
Sin.:e then, a growing number of scholars have
aimed to move grour.ded theory in new direct ions
away from its positivist pasL I share their goal and
aim to build on the constr·.1Ctiv:st elements in
grounded theory and to reaffirm its Chicago
school antecedents. Io date, scholars l:iave ques•
tioned :he epi~temologies of both Glaser's and
Strauss and Corbin's versions o( grouaded theory.
We challenge earlier assurnp:lons about objectiv-
ity, the worki as an external reality, re 1ations
between the viewer and viewed, the nature of data,
and authors' representations of research partici-
pant~. lnstead, we view positivist givens as social
co:t~tructions to question and alter. Thus, when
we adopt any positivis: principle or procedure, we
Charmaz: Advar:cing Soda! justice Research JI SC!I
attemp: :o do so knuv. ingly and to make our
rationales explicit In the second ~dition of this
ha:idbook (Cr.armaz, 21100a ), I argue!! for bui:d-
ing on the pragmatist underpin:i:ngs in grounded
theory and developing it as a social construction•
ist method. Clive Seale ( IYY9) contends that we
can retain grounded theory methods wifaoJt
adhering to a narve realist epistemolcgy. Antony
Bryant (2002, 2003) calls for re-grounding
grounded theory h:: an epistemology tbit takes
recent methodological developments into ,m:ount,
and Adele E. Clarke (2otJ3, 2005) aims :o ir.tegrate
postmodern sensibilities with grounded theory
and to provide new analytic tools for discerning
a:1d conceptualizing subtle empi:-ical relation-
ships_ These moves grour:ded theorists reflect
shifts ir. approaches to qualitative ,esearch. 9
A constructivist i,;rounded theo:-y (Charmaz,
1990, 2000-a, 2003b; Charmaz & Mitchell, :mol)
.;dopts grounded theory b'llidelines a, tools but
does not subscribe to the objectivist, ::xisilivist
assumptions in lts earl icr formulations. A con-
structivist ap?roach emphasizes the studied phe-
nomc11ot1 rather :han the methods of studying it.
Constructivist grou :1ded theori$tS lake a
s:a:1 ce 011 modes of knowi r.g and repre,eul lng
studied lite. That means giving dose attention to
empirical readties and our co[ected renderings of
them-and locating oneself in these rcaEties. It
does not assume that data simply awa:t discovery
in an exten:al world or that n:ethodologkal pro-
cecures will cor:-ect limited views of the studied
world. Nor does it assum0 that in: part:al
observers enter the research scene withm::: an
ir::erpretive frame reference. Instead, w:1.at
observers .see and depends upon their ;:,rior
il:terpretive frames, hlogra?hies, and interests a.,
well as the research context, tl:eir relationships
with research part kip ams, cm:crek fidd expe ri-
enn:s, and moces generating and re::ordi ng
empi ri;;al ma:erials. No qualitative method rests
ur. pure induction-the questio:1s we ask of the
empirical world frame w:iit we k:1ow of it ln
short, we share in co:istructing what we detine as
data. Similarly, our conceptual catego,ics arise
through our interpretations of data rather than
emanallngfrom them or from ou, merhodolog'cal
 510 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 20
practices (c:, Glaser, 2002). Thus, our theoretical
analyses are interpretive renderings of a reality,
not objective reportings of ir.
Whether informed by Glaser (1978, I 992,
1998, 2002) o~ Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998),
many research.e,s adopted positivist grounded
theory as a template, ·r:1e constructivist position
recasts this temp '.ate by challenging its uhjec-
tivist underpi:rnings, We can use a con8tructivist
template to inform social justice research in the
21st cmtury. Clearly, much research in the area
of social justice is objectivist and flows f::om
standard :,ositivist methodologies, A construe•
tivist grounded theory offers another alternative:
a systematic approach to soda! justice inquiry
that fosters integrating subjective experience with
social condit:ons in our analyses.
An interest in social justice means attentive,
r:ess to ideas and actio:is concerning fairness,
equity, equality, democratic process, status,
h:erarc1y, and individual and collective rights
anti obligations. It sig:1ifies thinking about being
human and about creating good societies and
a better work:. lt promp:s reassessment of our
roles as national a:id wor:d citizens. It means
exploring :cnsions between complicity and
consciousness, choice ar:c constraint. indiffer•
ence and compassio:i, inclusion and exdusio:i,
poverty and privilege, and barriers and opportu•
nities. It also means taking a critical stance
toward actions, organizations, and social ins:itu-
ticns. Social justice studies re,;aire looking at
both rea'.ities and ideals. :nus, contested mean-
ings of "shoulds" ar.c "or.gl:tsfi come into play.
l:nlike positivists of the past, social justice
openly bring their shoulds and
oughts into the discourse of inqufry.
• REEXAMINING GROUN:JED
THl'ORY OF THE PAST
In the 20t~ century, grounded theory rr.ethods
offered guidelines and legitimacy for conducting
research. Glaser and St,aus.s (1967) established
qualitative research as valuable in its own right
and argued :ha: it proceeds from a difterent logic
than quantitative research. Although researchers
did not always understand grounded theory
methods and seldom followed them beyond a step
or two, they widely cited and acclaimed these
methods because they legitimized and codified
a previousiy implic:it process, Grounded theory
:nethods offer1:d explicit ~trategies, procedural
rigor, and seeming objectivity. As Karen Locke
(1996) notes, many researchers still use grounded
theory methods for "a rhetoric of justification as
opposed to a rhetoric of explication" [p, 244; see
also Charmaz, 1983; 51:verman, 2000).
All analyses come from particular standpoints,
in duding those emerging in the research process.
Grounded theory stadies emerge from wrestling
with data, making con:?arisons, developing cate•
gories, engaging in theoretical sampling, and inte•
grati:ig an analysis, But how ,ve conc·Jct all these
activities does not occur in a social vacuum.
Rather, the entire research process Is interactive;
in this ser.se, we bring past interactions and cur•
rent interests into our research, and we interact
with our emp:rical materials and emerging ide-as
as well as, perhaps, granting agencies, insti:u•
tional review boards, and community agencies
and groups. along with research partidpants and
colleagues. Neither data nor ideas are mere
objects that we passively observe and compile
(see also Holstein & Gnbrium, 1995),
Glaser (2002) treats data as something sepa-
rate from the researcher and implies that they are
untouclied by the compe:ent researcher's inter•
pretations. perchance, researchers somehow
interpret their data, then according to Glaser,
these data are "rendered objective" by looking at
many cases. Looking at many cases strengthens a
researcher's grasp of the empirical world 2nd
helps in discerning variation ir. the studied phe,
no:nenon. However, researchers may elevate their
own assumptions and interpretations to "objec-
tive" status J they do not make them explicit.
No analysis is neutral ~despite research ana-
lysts' <:faims of neutrality. We do not come to our
studies un!nitiated (see also Denzin, 1994; Morse,
1999; Schwandt, 1994, :moo). What we know
shapes, but does :lot necessarily determine, what
we "find." .Moreover, each stage of inquiry is

construdec. through social processes. If we treat
thes~ processes as unproblematic, we may not rec-
ognize how they are constructed. Sodal justice
researchers 1:kcly n nderstand thei:- starting
assumptions; othc, researche::s may not-indud-
ir.g grounded theor:sts. JJ As social sdentiB:s, we
define what we recotd as data, yet how we define
data outlines how we represrr:t 6en: in our works.
Such definitional decisions-whether implicit ur
ex:plkit-retlect moral chokes that, in ::im, spawn
subsequent moral dedsior.s and action.~. 11
Rafaer than abandoning the traditional posi-
tivist quest for empirical de7aiJ, I argue that 'NC
advance it-without the clo«k vf r1eut1uli1y and
passivity i:r.shroudirig mid-century positivism.
Ga,he:fog rkh emp:rical materials is the first step.
Recording these data systematically prom:its us to
pu:"Sue leads that we nigi:lt otherwise ignore or
not realize. Through making systematic rerord-
:ngs, w.: also gain comparative materials to pin-
pobt conte:m:al condit'or:s and to explore links
between levels of ar.alysis. By seek:ng empir:cal
answers to emerging tl:eoretical questions, we
learn about the worlds we enter and can increase
:he cogency of our subsequent analyses. Hence,
data need to be informed by our tl:eorehcal sensi-
tivity. Data alone a:-e insufficient; they :nust be
telling and must amr1¥er theoretical questions.
Without theoretical s::utiny, direction, and
development, data culminate in nundanc des•
criptiuns (see also Silverman, 2000). Tile value of
the product then becomt."!l debatable, and critics
treat earlier st'.ldies as reified rep:esentations of
the Ii mits of the method itself rather than how it
was used (Channaz, 2000a). Burawoy (1991) cat·
egori ,.cs the products of grounded theory as
e:npirical generalizations, Moreover, he claims
that the merhod does not mns:der power in micro
contexts and that "it represses the broader macro
forces that both li:nit c:um~;e and create domina-
tion in the micro sphere" (p, 282). I disagree.
Simply because earlier a"Jthors did not address
power or macm forces does not mean that
grounded tl:cory methods cannot In contrast to
Burawoy's claims, I a::gue that we s'trdd 11,e
grounded theory methods ir. precisely these areas
to gain :resh ir.sights in social Justice inquiry_
Charmaz: Advancing Social Justice Research 111 , l I
Critics of grounded theory commonly miss
fuur crucial points: (a) theorizing is an activity;
(b) grounded theory method~ provide a way to
proceed wit!: :his activity; (cl the re~earch pro::i-
lem am: the researcher's unfoldir.g interests shape
the content of th:s activity, not :he method;
and [d) the products theorizing reflect how
researchers acted un these points. As !Jan E.
Miller (2000) argues, the ironic issue is that
researcher~ have done so little grounded thc\1ry,
de,pite their claims to use f:s potential for
developing theory remains untappec:, as does its
potential for studying power and :1:equality.
Social justice studies require data that diverse
audiences agree represent the empirical work and
that researchers have given a fair assessment ] do
not mean that we reify, oh; ectify, and universaliz;;:
these data. lns:cad, 1 mean that we must sta:-t hy
gathuing thorough en:pirical materials precisely
because social justice researc'.1 may provoke co:1 •
lruversy and contestcc, com:bsions, Thus, we :1eed
to identify clear ::io"Jndarics and limit::; of uur data,
Locating the da:a strengthens the fmmciat'.or. for
making theore:kal insigh:s and for provicing evi ·
dcnce for evaluative claims. Cr':b; can then evalu-
ate an author's arg·Jment on its merits. The better
they ,;an sec direc: connection;; between the evi-
dence and points b the argument, the more this
argument will persuade them. T:1e lingering hege-
mony of pos: tivism ;.till makes rnntrovcrnial
research s·.ispect, as Pine, Weis, Weseen, and Wong
(2000) observe, Therefore, the data for s·Jch stud-
ies must be unassailable.
A strong empirical foundation is the first
in achieving credibility •· for both social justice
researchers and grounded theorists. Despite
reliance on data-drive:1 interpretations, the rusl:
tu ·'theorize"-or perhaps to pJbJsb-has led
some grounded theo:isls tu an unfortuna~c
neglect of thorough data collection, w;ikh has
persis7ed si:1.ce Lofland ai:d Lofland ( 1984) fir,t
noted it Glaser (1992, 2002) di~counts quests for
accurate data and dismisses full description a~
dLstinguishing co:1ventio11al qualitative data
analysis from grounded theory. However, leading
studies with implka:ions for social jus:i.:e aed
policy have had solid em pirkal foundations
 512 111 HAN03()0K OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 20
(see, for exam pie, Dune:re, 1992; Glaser & Strauss,
1965; Goffman, 1961; Mitchell, 2002; Snow &
Anderson, 1993 ). Grounded theory studies that
lack err:pirkal vitality cannot support a rationale
for major social change-or even minor policy
recommendations. The stronger tr.e soda! justice
arguments derived from a study, particularly con•
troversial ones, the greater the need for a robust
empirical foundation with compe]ing evidence.
Ill l'srnG G::i.oui-;oED THEORY
TO Sn;oy SOCIAL JUSTICE lsst:ES
Initial Reflections
Both the steps and the logic of grounded
theory can advance social Justice research.
Grm.:nded theorists insist that researchers define
wr.at is happening :n the setting (Glaser, 1978;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Sensit:vity to social jus-
tice issues fosters definiGg latent processes as well
as exp:kit actions. Gruunded theory tools fo:
stud yir:g action-colle<:tive a& well as individual
action-can make social justice analysis more
precise and ?tedictive. By focusing the data gath •
ering, a re.searcher can seek new information to
examine questions concerning equality, fairness,
rights, and legit;macy." The grnunded theory
openness ta empirical leads spurs the researcher
to p·Jrsue emergent questions and thus shifts the
o:
directio;1 inquiry:
A social justice researcher can use grounded
theory to anchor agendas for future action, prm.:·
tice, and policies in the am1lysis by making explicit
connections between the theorized antecedents,
current conditions, and consequences of major
processes. Social justice research, particularly par-
ticipatory action research (Kemmis & McTaggart,
2000), proceeds from researcbers'and participants'
joint efforts and commitments to cha:1.ge practices.
Because it arises b se-::tings and situations in which
people h,we taken a reflexive stance on their prac•
tires, they alrea<ly have tools to conduct systematic
research on 7heir practices in relation to subjective
experience, social actions, and social structures.
Her.cc, adopting s:onstructivist grour:ded theory
would foster their efforts to articulate dear links
between practices and em:h level and, thus, to
strengthen their argun,enls for change.
Other researchers need to weigh whether, when,
how, and to what extent to bring research partid·
pants into the process. Although well imended,
doing so may create a series of knor~y problems in
concrete sitnatioru;.'1 Janice Morse (1998) finds
that the consequences of bringing participants into
research decisions include keeping the analytic
level low, overstating the viE'lvs of participants who
clamored for more space :n the narrative, and com-
promising the analysis. Moreover, Morse (1998)
notes that qualitative analyses differ from partkl·
pants' descriptive accounts and may reveal para-
doxes and processes of wr.kh pardci ?ants are
unaware.
Adopting grounded the-0ry strategies in social
justice research results in putting ideas and per·
spectives to empirical tests. Any extant com.::ept
m1,;,st earn its way into the analysis (Glaser, 1978).
Tlus, we ca:mot import a set of concepts such as
hegemony and domination and paste them on the
realities b the field. Jnstead, we can treat them as
sensitizing concepts, to be explored in the field
settings (Blumer, 1969; van den Hoonaard, 1997).
Then we can define if, when, how, to what extent,
and under whkh cor.ditions these concepts
become relevant to the study (Charrnaz, 2000b).
We need to treat concepts as problematic look
for their cha.rac,eristics as lived and understood,
not as given in textbooks, Contemporary anthm·
pologists, for example, remain alert to issues of
cultural imperialism. Most sociologists attend to
agency, power, status, and hierarchy.
Grounded :heory studies can show how
inequalities are played out at :n:eractional and
organizaliomd levels. T:ue, race, dass, and gen
der-and age and disability-are everywhere.
But how do merr.bers of various groups define
them? 14 How and when do these status variables
affect action in the scene? Researchers must
define how, when, and to what e.xtent parlicipanls
cons truer and enact power, privilege, and inequai ·
ity. Robert Prus (1996) :nakes a si:nilar point in
his book Symbolic Interaction and Erhnographfr:
Research. Race, class, gender, age, and disability are

social construc:ir.ms with contested definitions
that are continually recumtituted (see, for
example, Olesen, Cht1pter I 0, th's volume). Using
them as statk varia·:iles, as thou!',h they have
uncontested definitions tr.at explain data and
social processes before or without loo;cing, under•
mines their potential power. laking their mean·
ings as given also under:nines using grounded
theory to develop fresh insights and ideas.
Adopting my alternative tack involves juxtaposing
participants' definitions against academic or sod•
ologkal notions, ln turn, researchers themselves
must be reflexive about how they represent par•
ticipants' constructions and enactments.
What new dimensions will social justice foci
brir.g to researc:'1? Societal and global concerns
are fa:idamer,tal to a c:i1ical perspec:ive. Thus,
these studies situate the studied phenomenon in
relation to larger units. How and where does it
fit? For example, a study of sales interactions
cou'.d look not only at the immediate interaction
and how salespeople handle it ·:mt also at the
organizational context and perhaps the corporate
world, and its global reach, in which these inter•
actions occur. Like many qualitative researchers,
grounded theorists often separate the studied
interactions from their situated co:1texts. Thus, a
social justice focus brings in more structure and,
in turn, a grounded theory treatment of that
structure results in a dynamic, processual analy-
sis of its enactment. Similarly, social justice
,esearrh often takes into acrnunt the hil;torical
evolJtion of the current situation, and a grounded
theory analysis of this evolution can yield new
bsights and, perhaps, alternative understand-
i:lgs. For that matter, researchers can develop
grounded theories from analyses of pertinent his•
torical materials in the:r realm of inquiry (see, for
example, Clarke, 1998; Star, 1989).
Critical inquiry attends to contradictions
between myths and realities, rhetoric and practice,
ar:d ends and means. Grounded theorists have the
tools to discern and ana:yze contradictions
revealed :n the empirical world. We can examine
what people Slo/ and compare it to what they do
(Deutscher, Pestei:o, & mtello, 1993). Focusing on
words or de:ds are ways of representing people;
Cl:arn:az: Advancir.g Social Jusdce Research II 513
howe:ver, observed contradictions be:ween the two
• ay indicate crucial priorities and practices. To
date, grounded theorists have em ;>hasized the
overt-usually overt statements more than t!i.e
tacit, the liminal, and the implicit. With criticlll
inquiry, we can p:it ou, data lo new tests and
create new connections in our theories.
Ill SOC!At JUSTICE EMPHASES:
REsoURCES, HrnRARCHlES,
AND Po11c1Es AND PRAti'ICEs
A social justice focus can sensitize us to loo~ at
both large collectivities and individual 1:xperi-
ences in new ..says. Several emphases stand out:
resources, hierarchies, anc policies and practices.
Erst, present, partial, or absent resources-
whether economic, social, or ?ersonal-influence
interactions and outcomes. Such resources
inchide information, co:1trol over meanings,
access 10 networks, and deterrninatior. of out·
comes. Thus, information and power are crudal
resources. As Martha Nllilshaum (:999) argues,
needs for resources vary among people, vary at
different times, and vary according to capabilities.
Elders with disab:ing condi!hms :1eed more
resources than other people do or than they them•
selves needed in earlier years. What are the
resources :n the empirical worlds we study? \Vhat
do they mean to actors in the field? Which
resources, if any, are taken fo:- granted? By w:10:n?
Who controls the resoun:es? Who needs
them? According to wnkh and whose criteria of
need? To what extent do varied capabilities enter
the discussion? Are resources ava[able? ff so, to
w:10m? How, if at all, are resoi.:rces shared,
hoarded, conceah:d, or distributed? How did the
current situation arise? \.\/hat are the implicatio:1s
of having control over resources and of handling
them, as observed in the setting(s)?
Second, any social entity has hierarchies-
often several.¼nat are they? How did they evolve?
At what costs and benefits to involved actors?
Which purported and actual purposes do these
hierarchies serve? Who benefits from them?
Cnder which conditions? How are the hierarchies
514 Ill HANDBOOK OF Q!JA:.JTAllVE !IESEARCH-C'-IAPTE:l, 70
rela:ed to power and oppression? How, if at all, do
definition~ of race, gender, and age duster
in specific hierarch'es ardfor at particular hierar-
chical levels? W:1 id: moral justifications support
the observed hie:-archies? Who ;iromulgates these
jusl:lkations? How do :hey drctdate? How do
these hierarchies affect soda: actions a: macro,
meso, and micro social levels< How and when do
tht: h:er~rchies cha1:ge?
Third, the cunsequerJces of social policies and
practices r,r<' mad c IT"al ir: collt~dve and in div !d-
ual Ilfe. Herr we have the convergence of stru c:ure
and process. What are the rules-both tacit and
explicit? Who writes or enfor::es them? How?
Whose i:iteresls do the rules n:flect? Frum whose
standpoir.t? Do the :-ules and routine practices
:1egatively affect certain groups or categories of
individuals? If so, are they aware of them? What
are t::e implications of their relative awareness or
lack of it? To what extent and when do various
participant~ support the r.lies and the policies
and practices that flow from them? When are they
contested? vV":1.en do ~hey meel resistance? Who
resists, and whkr. risks might res:stance :iose?
By asking these questions, I aim to stimulate
thinki:lg and to suggest d:verse ways that criti-
cal iuquir ;· aml grounded theory research may
join. The potential of advancing such e:1.deavorn
already has been indicated by symbolic lnter-
actionists who ?O: nt the way to der:10:istrating
micro co:1,cquences of stn.:ctJral inequalities
(L, Anderson & 5r.ow, 2000; Scheff. 2003; Scin•ralbe
et aL, 2000). Cumbiniq5 critical im-1ui ry and
graur.ded beory furthers these efforts.
ml WoRKINl, Wr:-H GROUNDl'D THEORY
St.idying the Data
The followii:g intenriew stork~ p:0vide the
backdrop for ir.troduci:ig how grounded beory
guideEnes can illuminate social justice concerns,
My research is soc'a: psychological; however.
grounded theory methods :10:d untapped poter.t ial
for irmovative studies at ,'le organizational, soci-
etal, global levels of analysis, The examples
beluw offer a glimpse of the kinds of ini:ial
comparisons l make.'' I bel!,an studyir:g the experi•
ence of chro:1ic ill11eS!i with interest, in me;;i:ings of
self and :ime. Such soda: psychological topks can
reveal hidden effects rr" :r.equality and difference on
the self and soda: life that e:nerge in resean.:I:
participant~' many stories of their experiences.
Hoth grounded theory and critical inquiry
arc inherently cornparati ve methods, In earlier
renderings, I treated the excerpt of Christine
fla:ilorth below as a of st:fforing and Marty
Gordon's initial tale as a shocking significant
event that marked a turni1,g poirt in her life, The
first step of gro:.rnded theory analysis is to sudy
the da:a, Cmundrd :hcori~ts ask: What is happen-
ing? and What arc ?eop le doing? A fresh look
at thr accounts below can suggest new leads hJ
pursue a;1d raise new questions,
Al the tirr:e ot the fo:Jowing statement,
Christine wr,s a 43-year-old single woman who
had sy;;temk lupus erythemato~:.i,, Sjog.en's syn-
drome, diabetes, and serious hack injuries. l had
first met her 7 years earlier, when her multi p>c
disabili:ies W<'re less visible, a::hough intrusive
and worrisome. Since then, her :ieallh had
declined, and she had had several long stretches
ofliving on meager disability payme1:ts, Christine
described her rece:it rpisode:
1 got the sore, 1ha1 are [:; my mr.::lh, got in
:h ro,t and dosec my thro;;l u11, w I coukh:'1 eat or
c;ink And lh~n :ny potassium dHuped ,fow n to
2,0. I was on the verge of cardiac: arrest . , , T:1at
rime when I w,'.nl in tl:cy giivc me 72 ·Jo!llcs of pure
potassiu,::, burned all my v,'ins ou:.
I asked, "\I/ha: docs that mean, :hat it burned
your ,cins out?"
She said, "IL hurts really 'Jad; just heca·~se if:;
so s,rong and they can't dilute it with any:::':11;.
T;;ey usually what they do is they dilute with
sor:1c1hing like ii nun:bing becau,,e : was
Z.O, which :s right 011 cardiac: arrest :hat they rnuld-
n'I do it, they 1:ad to get i: i 11 "
l askcd,"l)id you rre:'1..etha:~1m were that sick?"
She said, "Well, l ca:led the doctor SEveral times
saying, 'I can't ,wallow: I had to walk a:-o:rnd and
dmol on a rag. They fin all}' :nadi.; an <.ppoi n;r:1ent,
and I get there I waited ah8ut a half hour. The

lady said that lhcre was ai emergency and &"id Iha'.
I'd have to w:nc bac:<: tomorrow, And I said, 'l can1:
I s,lid, soon as [ stand up, I'm go:ng to pass out:
Ar:d she said, 'Wdl there's ooth ing we ran do: , _,
Ar:d thm thb other :mrse came in just as :
up and :,a.<sed oul, so then they took me to emer-
gency. ... And it took them 12 hours to-they knew
when I went':: there to adt:::t me, :mt it took thtm : 2
hours to me 'ntn a room. I sat en a gurne}c And
the)' ju,t i«lp: fluid in m,· un:il they got me 18 a mom.
La,er in the ir1lervicw, Christine explained,
[W'1en the 5ores go to :ny throat, it mak!'B i:
reaLy hard to e,_t or drink, which makes you ::ehy
dm1eci_ After that fir,t time .. when I called it
had b~>en 3 since rd ale or drank anything ...
and the time : got an a;ipointment, it was,
I bdicve, six or ;;even days, without food er ¥tater.
Jmagin~ Ch ri~t i ne w"'.:Sing slowly an.:. deter-
minedly up the short sidewalk to my house. See her
bent k::ecs ar:d lowered head, as she lake~ celibrr-
ate steps. Chrls:ine looks weary and sad, her as
laden with care as her bcdy is b•;:dcncd by pain
and 1m11nd,.Alw,iys large,she is heavier than I have
ever seen !:er, sla:tlingly so.
Chrbiinr has ,i limited edu.:ation; ,he can
hardly read. Ihir.:, of her trying to make he, case
fur immed:atc treatme::t-witlm~t an advoc;ate.
C'i ri,tine rnn voice rightrom indignation, despite
the fatigue and pain that !:er spirit and dr~ins
~,'r energy: She can :1arely get through stressfol
workday, yet she must work ,!> many hours as
siule be;,;aust she earns so little. lne low pay means
:hat Christine suffers dircdly frorr: cutbacks a: the
~gcncy where she works. Her apartment provides
res1iite, hut few comforts. II no he,it can•
nof afford it. Chri~tinr docs :101 eat well. '.'Ju:ritious
food is an uimhta:::abk lux:.iry: cooking is tno
strenuo·$, and cleanup is heyond imaginatim:. She
tells me that apart:nent is filled with ?'cnues
and ceram c sta:ues of cats as well as sta;;ks of
things lo sor:, Maneuverable s11a;;c has shrank to
cult 'ng th rough the piles. Christine seldom
deans house-no et,ergy for that. I've never hem
tn her ,ipartment; it emba:rasscs her ;oo much tn
havf' vbilors. Christine would :ovc to adopt a kitten
but ;;als are not pe,mitted. Her eyes glaze with tears
when n:y skittish cat allows hn to pct him.
Christine has ·:iocome more immobile and now
uses a :nolorized sctmter, whidi she has saved
Charmaz: Advancing Social /ust'ce Re~ea ,ch 1111 515
her from total disabi::ty, Rut ,ince using tie scook'r
and approaching midlife, she also has one
hundred pmmds and a better vehicle to
transport the ,cuotc,. Christine has little :ru,ial
by 1ww; her friends from :iigh school and her bowl•
i~-~..., davs
' have busv , fon:ilv
;
and work !ive,_ Whet: ,ht
first hf'rnme ill, Chrfalir:c had scme nasty encoun-
ters with seve,al of tho;c friend, who ,u;cuseJ lm
d !e'gning illness. She feds :ier isolation keenly,
although all she can handle aikr work is resting on
the couc:1. Her relatinnship with her elderly mot:.er
l:as neve: been disapproves cf her
brntl:er, who has t:mved back in with their mot::er
and is tak i :ig drugs. Om: continuing 1:ght in
Christine's life ls her recently married niece, wr.11
j.:st had a hahy.
The years h:we g:uwn gray with hardsbhis and
troub:es. Chr'stine ha~ few resour,cs-eccno111ic,
soc:al, or personal. Yet she perseveres in her strug-
g:e to rerr:ain independent and employee:, She
bdicH:S th2t if she loot this jcib, sl:e would never gel
;;::other one. Her recent weight gain m:!cs o:1e more
rea,0:1 for the shame sr.e feels about he: bcdy.
Christint suffers from chronic illm,.s and i:~
,piraling :onscqJences. Her p;:11Sical ,' :stress, her
anger and fru,trnl ion abou: her life, sadn,~ss,
shame, and uncertain:y all ca·:.se h.:r to suffer.
Christine talks some a':iout aml mw.:h about
or
how d :'fiml: disability and lack nwncy make her
life. She has not mentioned the W(lrd ·'sufforing:'
Like many oth:r chrnn ically :11 people, Christine
resist, describing herself in a way that might under-
mine her worth and elicit moral judgm~nls. Yd ~he
has tales tll tell ol' her tur:,1oi\ and troubles.
(C:1armai, I999, pp. 362-363 J
T:1 ,e following in7ervlew account of Marty
Gordon's situation contrasts with Ch ,istit1c's story.
.
.½art v re1:eivi;d care from the sarn e hcah:lt facilitv'
as Cnristine ar:d also had a lite-threatening condi-
ticm that confounded orriinary treatmer:• ,md
r:ianagement. However, Mar,y's relationship :o
staff there and the content and c; ,mlity of her lift>
differed dramatica]y from Christine's.
Whe,1 I firnl me~ Marty Gordon in 1988, she
wat a 59 year-old wo:n:u: with a diagnosis of
rapidly progressing puli;1omiry fibrosis. A hospi ·
talization for extensive tests led to the diagno.(s of
Marty's conditio:1. She had moved to a nrw arr.a
 516 11 HAKDBOOK OF Ql;ALITATIVE RESEARCH~CHAPTER 20
after her husband, Gary, retired as a school super-
intende:tt. am: she herself retired early from her
teaching and grant-writir:11 post at a high schooL
Marty said that she and Gary were "very, very
dose!' They had had no children, although Gary
had a son by an earlier marriage and she, a
beloved n:ece,
Pure retirement fastec about 3 monrhs before
they became bored, SubseQ'Jentlv, Marty became
" ' '
a part t:me :-cal es:ate agent and Gary worked in
sales at a local winery. Not only did working br:ng
new :n;crests bto their lives, but it also helped pay
their hefty health insurance costs, They had not
realized that their retirement benefits would not
nwer a health insurance plan, They bot!: found
much pleasnre in their :1ew lives and in their lux•
urious home high in the hills overlooking the city.
Marty seemed to remain almost as busy as she
was before retiring, While working full-time, she
had entertained her husband's professional asso•
dates, had run a catering business, and had c,e,
ated special meals to keep Carys diabetes and
l:eart condition under cor.trol. She had taken much
pride-and still did-in keeping up her perlectly
appointed house and in keeping her weight down
t'lrough regular exercise, For years, she had arisen
at 5 each mornir.g to swim an hour before going to
work, then stopped at church afterward to say her
rosaries,
When l first met .½arty, she told the following
tale aliout he: first hospitalization:
The ciucto; came in to teli me, 'li'1, it didn't look
good and that wa.s a-could be a rapidly"-
and it ap;:ieared that mine was really goir:g rapidly
and that it might '>e abo:.:I weeks. Ylhmi ! T::at
blew my mi r.d. It really did. , .. Right after that-
I'm a Catholic-right after that, a pnor littlt volun•
teer lady can,e in and said, "Mrs, Gordon 1" And t'1e
doctor hac said, "Mrs, Gordon?" ~Yeah, OK," And
then he told me. She said, "I'm from St Mary's
Chim:h,"J said, "Je~'llii, Mary,and Joseph, they've got
the fur.era! already!' And it just-then I
began to see r.urnor in it, bu! l wiu, scared, , , ,
This was rhepoin;when-/1 deddecl,"I'this is
going to happen OK, bu: I'm no: going lo let it hap-
pen;' , , , Am: I think prnbably that was t:ietmning
point whe:: I said r wouldn't acce:i! i:, You know,
I wlll nm accepl !hat uhm, death sentence, or
whaleve:-you want to mil it {Charmaz, 1991, p, 215)
However, from that poir:t on, Marty had Gary
prnrr:ise her that she would die first. She needed
him ta take care of her when she could no longer
care for herself moreover, she could not bear the
thought of livir:g without him, During the next
5 years, Marty made considera!:>le gains, de,yite
frequent pai:1, fatigue, and shortness of breath.
One Sunday evening, when Gary came home from
a wine-pouring ar.d Marty saw his ashen face, she
insisted, "We're goir.g to emergencY:' He had had a
second heart attack, followed by a quadruple
bypass surgery; Marty said, "He sure is a lot better
now, And, of course, I was >'<7Y angry with him, r
said lo him, 'Yon car. r:ever leave me,! tell you, I'll
sue your [She explained to me,l Because we've
had a deal for a long time:•w:ien telling me about
to
her owr. health, she recounted is conversation
with her surgeon:
I come in for ar: appointment and I had just played
I8 holes of golf, and so he said, "I think we misdi
agnosed you:' Anc I said, "Well, why do you tl:::ik.
rhat1" And hr said, "You're just going over, you're
surpassing everything:' So I sa[d, "Wt'.'., that doesn't
necessa:·ily mean a diagnosis ls wrong:· I said. '¼re
you going to give me c:edit for anything?~ And he
"Well, wha, co you mean?" I said, "You have to
have a medical an5wer, you can't have a:: answc
that I worked very hard, on my whole body and my
mind, to get, you know, the integral part mysclf,
and t'iat maybe that n:ight be helping? Anc !he fact
!hat I don't !Ouch fats and I don't do this and I do
exercise? That's not helping, huh?" So he said, "Well,
l guess so,' A::d 1 said, "Well, do you wam w t,kc
out n:y lungs again and I "You look them
out {already]'.' So he acknowledged, he s~ id, "Yeah,
ifs just that It's so un;isual;' And maybe not a~cept·
ing something, you know, denial is one thing, :mt
no: excepting is another :hing.
Marty strove to be the exceptior: lo her dismal
prognosis-she bsisted Oil being an exception.
She made great efforts lo keep herneJ and her
husband alive, functioning, and enjoying life,
By confronting her doctor and challenging his
definition of her, Marty rejected his narrow,

medicalized definitior, of her. She implied that he
was denying her wellness. Thus, she enacted a dra•
matic reversal of the conventional scenario of a
doctor accusing the pat:ent of denying her illne~,
Marty fought feelings of self-pity and sometimt>I,
talked about suffering and self-;-lty interchange-
ably. Wher: she ref.ected on how she kept going,
she said:
I do, do really think that, if you sit down, and I
mean, literally dow:1, beca•Jse it's hare to get up,
you do start reeling sorry for yourself.And I'm say-
ing, "Oh, God if I could only get up without hurt-
ing." Ar.d I've begun to feel, once in a whlle, I get
this little .,orry fur myselt' thing, that cou:d have
a day without ;iain, 1 wo::cer what I'd do? Prvbt.biy
norhing. Bet:aw;e I wouldn't push r:;yself and I'd get
less done.
l asked, "How so?"
Marty replied, "My whole thing is faith and ~ti:·
lude. Yo·Jve just got to hav~ ii. I feel so sorry for
pe0ple who give :n, But :m;ybe that's why . , • }'ou've
gp: to have some people die. (Otherwise tl:ey'd] he
hanging arcund forever."
Marty had fortitude-and altitude. Marty
•r.te:1ded 10 live-by will and grit Dying? The
prospect of dying undermined her belief in Indi-
vidual control and thus conflicted with her self-
concept.
DI lN:EGRAil~G GROUNDED THEORY
vVJTH SOCIAL JcsTlCE RESEARCH
\Vhat do these stories indicate? W:1at might they
suggest about soda! jus:ice? How do grounded
theory methods foster making sense of them?
Both women have serious debilitating conditions
with mJ!tiple harrowing episodes that make their
lives uncertain. Both are courageous and forth
right, are aware of their concitions, and aim to
remain productive and autonomous.
Coding is the first step in taking an analytic
stance toward the data. The initial coding phase
in grounded theory forces the researcher to define
the action in the data state!':'lent. In the figures
illastrating coding (Figures 20.1-20.3 ), my codes
Ch.;,maz: Aclvancing Soclal Justice Research 111 517
reflect standard grounded theory practice. The
codes are active, immediate, a:id short. They focus
on defining action, explicating implicit assump-
tions, and seeing processes, By engaging in line-by•
line coding, the researcher makes a doss: study of
the data and lays the foundat 1on for synthesizing it
Coding gives a researcher analytic scaffolding
on which to b·Jild. Because researchers study their
e:npiri.:al materials closely, they car: define both
new leads from them and gaps in them. Each
piece of data-whether an interview, a field uote,
a case study, a personal accoum, or a docu:nent-
can inform earlier data. Thus, should a researcher
discover a :ead through developing a code in one
interview, he or she can go back through earlier
inter views and take a fresh look as to whether this
code sheds light on earlier data. Rese-.irchers can
give their data muldple reacings and renderings.
Interests in social justice, for example, would iead
a researcher to note points of struggle and conflict
and to look ''or how participants defined and
acted in such 1:10:11ents.
Grounded theory is a mn:?arative met:10d in
which the researcher compares data w:th data,
data with categories, and category with category.
Compar;ng these two women's lives illuminates
their several similarities and striking contrasts
between their personal. social, and material
resources. I offer these comparisons here for
heuristic purposes only, to clarify points of con-
vergence and c.ivergence. Both women shared a
keen interest in retaining autonomy, and both
were aware that illness and disabilitv, raised the
specter of difference, discon::iection, and degra-
dation. Nonetheless, Marty Gon:or.. enjoyed cmch
greater economic security, choices, privileges, and
opportundes throughout her life than did
Christine Danforth. Marty's quick wit, articulate
voice, organizational skills, and diligence consti-
tuted a strong set of capabilities that served her
well in dealing with failing health,
Poverty and lack of skills had always con-
strained Christine's life and curtailed her choices,
They also din:.inished her feelings of self-worth
and moral status, that is, the extent of virtue
or vice attributed to a per:<on by others and self
(Charmaz, ia press). Then illness shrunk her
 518 111 HA~DBOOK OF QR".UTATIVE RESF.ARCH-CI-L".l'TER 20

Recogniz, ng illness spiral I got the sores that are in my mouth, got in my lhroat and
Recounting symptom closed my throat up, so I couldn't eat or drink. And then my
progression potassium dropped down to 2.0. I was ori lhe verge of
Approaching crisis caroiac arrest. ... Thal time when I went in they gave me
bottles of pure po~assium, burned all my veins out.
I asked, 'Wr at ooes thal mean, lhal ii burned yeur veins out?"

Suffering lhe effects of
treatment
Receiving raplc treat'!lent
Forfeiling comfort for speed
Sne sa,d, "l! nu rts really bad; it's just because it's so strong
and they can't dilute t w!lh anything. They said usually what
they do is they dilute with something like a r umblng effect,
but because I was which is right on cardiac arrest that
they couldn't do it, :ney had ro get i: in fast."
I asked, "Dio you realize that you were that sick?
She said,

seeking help
Remain.ng persistent
Explaining symproms
Encountering bureaucratic
diS'TI ;ssal
Experiencing turring point
Explal'ling severity
Receiving seco'1d refusal
Collapsing
Prolonging the ordeal-fltti 'lg
ii:o organizatioral time
'Well, I called Iha doctor several :,f'les saying, 'I can't
swallow: I had to walk around and drool on a rag. They final y
made an appointment, and I got there and I wailed about a
1alf hour. The lady said that there was an emergency ar,d
said :hat I"d have to come back tomorrow. And I said, 'I can't.'
I sa,d, 'As soon as I stand up. I'm going to pass out: And she
said, 'Well there·s nothing we can do.' ... And !her this other
nurse came in jl.SI as I got ..;p and passed out. so then they
took me to emergency., .. And ii took them 12 hours lo-
they know wne,; r wert 111 there lo admit me, but it took them
12 hoJrs to get me Into a room. I sat on a gl,lmey. And they
just kepl fluid in me until they got me to a room.

Later in !he Interview. Chrislire explained:

Explaining symptoms IW'ien the so-esJ go lo my th roal, ft makes it really hard to eat
Awareriess of oomplicatiom, or d1nk, which ma.,;es you dehydrated. After that first
Enduring lhe wait lime ... when I called her ii had beer three days since I"d ate
Suffering induced by or drank anything ... and by the time I got an appointment. 't
organization was. I oe ieve. six or seven days, without food or wa:er.
I

Figure 20.1, Initial C,iding-Chrls::r1e lJanfo~th

Jmited autonomy, and her moral status plom-
me,ed further. Christine lived under a clou<l of
;1c.1S!!u1~ desperation. The anger she felt earlier
abo•Jt being disabled, deprived, and discon-
nected had dissipared into a lingering sadness
and shame. Clearly, Chris tine has far fewer
resources tbm Marty. She also has had fewer
opportunities to devc:op capabilities througl:oct
her life that could help :1er lo manage her current
situation.
Marty strug~ed periodically with daily rou-
tines, b·Jt she exerted control over her !ire and her
world. Her struggles resided at another level; she
fought agaln;t ~ccoming ir.active and sinking
into self-pity; She treated bot;., her body and her
mind as objects to wurk on and to improve, as
projects. Marty wo,ked w ilh physicians, if they
agreed on her terms. Although she hac grovm
weaker and had pronounced breatr.ing p:uble:ns,
she believed living a: all testified to her succe~s,
 Charm::u: Advancing Social Justice Research Ill 519

Receiv ng oad news
Facing dea:h
Suffering diagnostic;
shock
Identlfying religion
Recounling the
ide'ltilylng moment
Finding humor
Feel ng frightened
The doclor came in to tell me, "Uh, it didn't look good and that
this was a--could oe a rapidly"-and it appeared that mine was
really going rapidly and that it m,ght be about six weeks, Whoa!
That blew my mind, It real y cid,,,, Right altar lhat-l':11 a Catholic-
right after tnat, a poor little volunteer ,ady came 111 and said,
''Mrs. Gordon?" And the doctor had said, "Mrs. Gordon?" "Year,,
OK." And then he lold me, She said, ''I'm frorr St Mary's Church:'
I said, "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, :hey've gotthe funeral already.'
And t real,y just-then I began to see humor in it, but I was
scared ...

Accepting the presant This was ~,e point when-[1 decidedj, "If thrs is going to happen OK,
but not the progrosis but I'm nol going to let ii happen:• • , , A 'ld I think probably that was
Insisting on controlling lhe lu rnirg point when I said I wouldn't aocepl it You know, I will no:
lhe ii ness accept that uhm, aeatr. sentence, or whatever you want to call It
Turning poi,;t-
RelJslng the death
sentence

Figure 20,2. lniti2.: Coding- \farty Cordon

For long years, Marty krpt her illness contained,
or at leas: 1;1 ostly out of view. Her proactive stance
toward her body and her high level of involve-
ments l>'Jstaincd her n:ornl status, Whatever
scdal dirr:bi,hn:ent of mora: status she experi·
enccd derived J;1 ore from age than from suffering.
The k:nds of insigr.ts that grounded theory
methods car: net social justice research vary
a~cording to level, scope, am:: objectives of the
s:udy. Th rough cumparir:g the stories atiove, we
gain some srnse of s:rucl ural a:1d organizational
sources of sutler'ng a'.'ld their differential effec:s
on ind:vlduals. The compuisons suggest how
research participants' rdati ve resources and
capabilities became apparent lh:ough sti:dying
induft ivc cfo:a.
The comparisons also lead to ideas about
stri:ckre. Most policy rrsra,d: emphasiies access
to health care, Compar: ng these two int1:rviews
ir:dicates differential treatrr:ent within a health
rare org,miw.tion. fn addition, the comparisons
raise questions about rhetoric and realities of
recciv lng care, Marty Cordon credited her "faith
and attitude" for managing her ill ncss; howeve:,
her lifostyle, income, supportive relationships,
ar.d quick wit also helped to buffer her losses. B1::
mlght not her attiti.:de and advantages be dialectic
and m·Jtually reiufordng? Could not her advan•
tagcs have a:so fostered her faith and aUitJde?
Each person brings a past to the present \\'hen
invoking a similar logic, the residues uf the
past-Emited family support, poor education,
undiasnosed learning problems, and lack of
skills complicated ar:d magnified Christine
l},mforth's troubles with cl:runic illn<!ss and in
negotiatir.g care, The structure of Chrislinc's life
led lo her increas[ng Jsolat ion and decreasing
moral stalUs. Might nut her anger and sadness
have followed! From Marty and Christine's
stories, we can discern hidden advantages of high
social class status as well as hidden injuries uf:uw
status (Se1melt & Cobb, I
Last, coding practices can help us to see our
aooc.mptions, as well as those of our research par,
tidpants, Rather than rais[ ng our codes to a level
of objectivity, we can raise quesl:oi:s about how
and why we dcvelopec certain code_,_ I6 Another
.-.iy to break open our assumptions is to ask col•
leagues and, perhaps, research part:dpants then,·
selves tu engage in the coding. V\.'hen they bring
divergem experie:ice tu tr,e coding, their responses
to the data rnav call tor scrutin v of our own.
' '
520 JI HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 20
Chrlsllne Danforth
Awareness of Predicting sympll'.lm
ill,1ess ntensification
Aecogniling illness spira
Lack of control over escalating
symp1oms
Experieneing stigrra
Developing a Remaining pers !!lent
slarce toward Monito•lng progression ol
illness symploms
Seei<ing relp
Material Flghling to keep the Job
resources Having a health plan
Struggling :o handle basio
expenses
Eking out a life-Juggling
lo pay the re1t; Relv,ng
on an old car
P,m,om1I Pers;;vering despi:e mu!tiple
resources obstacles
Oel&nding self
Recognizing lrjuslioa
Abiding sense of sname about
educational deficits and
poverty
Haling her appearance
Trying 10 endure life
Fffling llXCIUdeo from
organizational worlds
Social reooJrces Living in a hostile world
Tak11g delight In her niece
Retreating lro"rl cruel
accusations
Suffer ng 11:meliness
Realizing the !ragil ly o! rer
exislence
Foreseeing no lulure help
Strategies for Minimizing visib lily of de'icits
managing life Avord11g disclosure of illness
Limiting activities
Figure 20.3. Comparing Hfe Situations
Marty /Jordon
Learn ng Md ei,:perimenting
Beoo"'.'ling en e~pe,1
Reall2ing the po1ential of s11gma
Suffering in lial diagnos:ic srocK
Feeing Ir ghmned
TMing control
Refusing dealh senlence
Making deals
Challenging physician's view
Attacking physician's assul"'lp!iors
Discredilfng physioiar's opinion
Rejee:ing "!'iedical model
Working on body and mind
Following slricl regimen
Swaying physician's view
Believing in 1er own perceptions
Seeing se'f es an except on
Working parMlme for extras
Havi11g a health plan
Having solid retirement Income
Enioving oomlortable Mfestyle with trave
and amenities
Prnserving aL looorry
Forgir,g partnerships with prolessionals
TrusUng herse'I
Having a good edJcalion
Assuming the right to conlrol her life
BeMeving in ndMdual power
Finding strength througr !ailh
Possessing a sense of entitlement
Aimirg to e1joy lite
Having decades of experierce with crgamrations
and professionals
TaKing reluge in a close marriage
Hav,.,g strMg support, multiple ,,volvemems
Malnlai1lng powerful imagas of pollitive and
negative role models
Knowing she could obte n hep, if 'll!ledeo
Obtaining husband's promise I
Avoiding disclosure of m,ess '
Conlrol:ing sell-Oily
Remalring aCllve
Malnlalning '8 iglous faith
I

fill RECLA!Ml'I G C1-11C1\GO
SCHOOL TRADITIO'IS
Marty Gordon and Chris:ine Danforth's sit•Ja-
tions statements a:mve indif:ate the con
struction of their views and actions. Note that at
certain points, they each struggle with o':ldurate
social struclJres that take on tangible meaning
in their stories of c:-uci;,J interactions. To make
further sense of situations and stories like these
a11d to interpret the .social justice issues with
them, I have called for :-edaiming Chicago school
underpi:mings in grou:1ded theory. "'.'hese 11nder-
pinnings will move gmunded theory :nore com-
pletely into constructionist social s,;ience. What
are these undcrpinr.ings? What does redaimiug
them entail? On which assur:1ptions does Chicago
school sociology rest? Why are they significant
for both the development of grounded theory
methods and social justice inquiry?
In briel; the Chicago school assumes human
agency, attends to language and i:iterpretation,
views social processes as open-ended a:1d emer-
gen:, studies action, and addresses temporai'ty.
This s..:'.1001 emphasizes the significance of Ian•
guage for selfuood and social life and ·.1:1de,.
stands that human worlds mnsist of meaningful
objects. In this view, subjective meanings er:ierge
from experience, and they change as experience
changes (Reynolds, 2003a). Thus, the Chkago
school assumes dynamic, rec: pro cal relatiouships
between interpretation and action, and it views
soda! life as people :itling together diverse forms
of conduct (Blumer, 1979, p. 22)." Because social
life is i:1teractive and emergen:, a ce:1ain amount
of indeterminacy characterizes it (Strauss &
Fisnc,, !979a, 1979b), How might we use Chicago
school soc:ology now to :nform contemporary
grounded :heory s:udies and social justice
inc.u:ry! Where rr.ight it :earl us? What mural
direction migh it givel
Both p:·agmatist ?hilosophy and Chicago
school i:lhnography foster opeuness to the world
and cJriosi:y about it. The Meadian cor.cept of
role-taking assurr.es empathetk understanding o:
,esearch partkipa nts and their 'Nor Ids. To ach ie,;e
tbls understanding, we must know how people
Charmaz: Advanc'~g S,idat Justice Rese.rn:h g 521
define thei, situat:ons and act on therr:. Soc:al
justice researchers can tum this point into a
potent tool for discover:ng if, when, and to what
exter:t people's meanings and actions contradict
tl:ei, economic or political interests-and
1-\ilcther and :o what extent they ax aware of such
contradictions (see, example, Kleinman,
1996 J. Thus, seeking these de'initions and actions
can make critical inquiry more complex and
powerful. K::iowing them can alert ths: 1esearcher
to ?oints uf actual or potential conflict and
change-or compliance. Similar:y, learning what
things mean to people rr:akes what thev do with
them comprehensible-at least from th~ir world-
view. Couversely, how people act toward things in
lheir worlds indicates their relative sign'ficance.
Such rn:1 sideratior.s prompt the researcher m
construct an inductive ana:ysi, rather than, say,
impose slructural concepts on the scer.e.
Although Ch :cago school sociology has been
viewed as microscopic, it also holds implications
for the meso and macro levels that sL,cial justice
researchers aim to engage. A refocused grm:nded
theory would aid and refine con:1,·ctinns with
these levels. Horowitz (2001) .shows how extend•
ing 1\:lead's ( 1934; notion of "generalized other"
t:;k.es his soc;al psychology of the self to larger
soda: entities ar:d addresses expanding den:ocra•
:ic participat:nn of previously excluded groups.
Her argument is IWO•prnnged: (a) the develop
ment of a critical self is prcrec:1:site for demo,•
racy a11d (:>) gro·Jps that achieve sel:•regulation
gain empowerment
The naturaEstic inquiry inherent in Chicago
school tradition means studying what people in
specific social worlds do over time and gaining
intimate familiarity with the topic (Blumer, 1969;
Lofland & Loflar.d, : 984, I995 ). Hence, to reclaim
the Chicago tradition, we must lirsl: E!ta/Jlisr1 int 1·
mate familiarity with the se!!ing(s) and the events
occurring with in i1-as well as 1,•irh the research
participants.!' This point may seem obvious;
howe,;er, much qualitative research, indudiug
i:;rounded theory studies, ska:e the surface rather
than plumb the depths of stud :ed lifo.
An emphasis on action and process .cads to
considerations of time. The pragmatist treatment
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALJ l'A'f IVE RF.'iEARCH-CH Al'T ER 20
of social constn:.ct:orn of past, present, and future
co'Jld direct soda! justice rcsca,cr.ers :o look at
timing, paring, and temporal rhythms. These
concerns could alert us to new for• s of control
and organization. fn addition, understanding
timir.g and sequem;;ing can shed ligl:r 0:1 the suc-
cess or failure of rnl lcctive action. Thus, attending
to temporal' ty affords us r.l'W knowledge of the
worlds we study.
Chicago lieldwork traditions have long empha -
sized situated a:ia '.yses em :>eddied in social,
economic, and occasionally poE:ic11l contexts, as
evident in urbaa ethnograph ies (see, fur example,
!::. Anderson, 2003: Horowitz, 1983; Suttles, 1968;
Venka1esh, 2000). Numerous grounc.ed theory
studies have not taken account of the context
which the studied research prnhlem or
proct:ss exi~u. Combining Chicago intellec:ual
t".1ditions with social justice sensitivities would
correct tendencies toward dccon:extual:zed-
and, hy extension, object ificd-grounded theory
analyses.
Looking at data with a Chicago sd:ool lens
entails focusing on meaning and process at both
th;; subjective and soda: level,. Uke many other
people wit!: chronic :llness, the women above are
aware of the pejorative moral meanings of illness
and suffering and sensed the diminished s:atus
of tl:osc w~o suffer. Wheu I asked Marty Gordon
how her condition affected her job, shr said, "I
never lei it show there. Never. Ne•:er give cause for
a fl}•bod y either to be sorry for you or want to get
rid of ym::' Al6oug:i Christine ::>anforth hated
her job, she viewed it as her lifel:m, and feared
losing it After telling me about receiving written
ultimatums from her sn perviso~, i.he said:
>fobody is going w hire me .... An able body
get o:1e Uob l, cow am i going to get So if
I'm dyslex:c, you know, those people don't even
know what i, let alur:e how to deal with it
I w,itddnt be able Lo get a jab as a re,·eptir,niRt
bec,m,e I ,;an'l read and write like most pcop:e, ~o
I'm there for lite.
Christi nc Danforth's employers kr:ew :he
names her medical diagnoses, but they did not
undcrst,md her sy:nptoms and their efteets in
daily life. Christbe's story took an ironic twi~:.
She worked fo:: an advocacy agency that served
people with disabilities. Several staff members
who challenged her work and worth had serious
physical disabilities thrm,elves, Christi:1e also
disrnvered tha, her supe::visors nad imposec
rules on her that they allowed other staff to
ignore. Thw, the situation :orced Christi :ie to deal
with r:1ultiplc moral rontiadctio:1s, She suffered
the co:u;equem:es of presun:ably enlightened d:s-
abilit y advocates repmdudng r:egative societal
judgments of her rr.oral worth. Tales of such
injustice infonn stnries of suffer:ng.
The~e examples suggest the second step to
r«lalming the Chicago tradition: Focus on mean-
ings and processes. This step includes addressing
subjective, situational, and social levels. fly piec-
ing together :nany research par:ic:pants' state-
ments, I developed a moral hierarchy of suffering.
Suffering here is nnch more tha:1 pai1; :t ddines
self and situation-and 'Jltimately does so in
moral ler:us that support irnc{JUities. Sa~fering
takes into account stigma and soda'. definitions of
human worth. Hence, suffering :ndudes the lived
exper:ence of stigma, reduced autonomy, and loss
of control of the defining images or self, As a
result, suffering mag:d1es difference, forces rncial
di6connection, elicits shame, and increa$es as
inequalities mount 19
Meanings of suffering, :iowever, vary and arc
processuaL As researchers, we mast find the range
of meanings and learn huw people form th~m.
Figure shows how :,uffering takl'ls on moni
status and assumes hierarchical form. [n addit ior.,
it suggests how suffering il:tersects with institu-
tional traditions and structural conditiun~ that
enforce difference. In kee?i ng with .i grm:nded
theory perspective, any attribu:es taken as sta:us
variables must earn their way into analysis
rather thc.n be assumed. :'-l'ote tr.at I added
reso'Jrces at1d capabilities as poten:Jal marke:rs of
difference as their sig:iificar:ce became dear in
the data;" Figure 20.4 implies how la~ger social
justke issues can e:n<'rge in open-e:1dcd, inductive
rc~earch. In this case, these issues concern access,
equitable treatment, and inhtrent hmr:an worth
in hea:th care.
 Charmaz: Advancing Social Justice Research • 523

HIERARCHY of MORAL. STATUS in SUFFERING

H1GH _MORAL STATUS=VAL.IDATl:D Moll.AL CLAIMS
MECllCA, E\>l[RGEI\ICV
IN\/OLUNTJ\Fl" ONSET

8u1MElESSt..ESS FOR COl>DITION

"APPROPRII\_E. APPEARANCE l\t..D DEMEANOR

Sus1e,1NEP MooAL S1AJl.l!r:Ai::ceP1eo MoRAL CL111111s

CHRONIC ILLNESS

NEGOTIATED DEMANDS

P9!;;SENT OR PAST POWER & AoCIPPOCITIES

Diminished Morel Status-Questionable Moral Claims

CHRONIC TROU3LE

BLAME FOR C0t,D!TION A 'IC COMPLICI\T ONS

PERSONAL VALUE

worth le6S
worth less
worth Less
WORTHLESS

Institutional TradlHons Structural CondlUons

Difference-class, race, gender, age, sexual preference, reeo1m::es, capabllitles

Figure 20.4. Hierarchy o: Moral S:atus in Sufforir.g

Smra:: Adaptec and expanded from Charmai (1999), "S:ories of Sufferi11g: Subjects' Stories and Research Narratives;'
Qwilitaiiw Heai!J, Research, 9, 362-382.

rhe figure reflects an abstract statement of
how individual ex;,erier.ce and social structure
co:ne together in err:ergent action. The figure
derives from inductive and comparative analyses
of meaning and action, consistent with Chicago
school sociology. When we compare Jndiv:dual
accounts, we can &ee that Marty Gordon and
Ch ris:ine Danforth develop their stance toward
illness fro • different starting places and different
experiences, yet they borh are active in funning
their definitions. The Chicago school concept of
human nature has long contrasted with much of
structural social science. We not only assume
human agency but also stucy it and its conse•
quences. People are active, creative beings w:10
act, not merely :>ehave. They attempt to solve
problems in their lives and worlds. As researd1ers,
we need to learn how, when, and why participants
act. Thus, the third step in redai:ning Chkago
traditions follows: Engage in a close study of
action. The Chicago emphasis or, process
becomes e,idem here. What do research parti·
cipants see as routine? What do Ibey define as
problems? ln Marty Gordon's case, the problems
 11 HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALI'l'.A1'1VE RESEARCH-CHA?TER 20
disrupted her life and could kill her. She had
good reason for 'l'.'1rnting to oversee her care. At
one point, she described her conversat:on with
Monica, her lung ,pecialist, about ending treat-
ment wi:h predn is one:
l've had a couple se1backs. . The first time I
went off it Iprednisonc:. my breat:::ng capacity cut
right in half, so she said, "No.• And I :nake deals
with her. , . , So I'm going to Ireland and she said,
"Okay, I want you :r. don hi~ it now, go hack up wh'lr
y<Ju're tr;ivdir.g, and then we'll :alk ahout it. But no
dea:s, .nd don't be: stupid:' So when I can:e
l ,aid, "lei's try it again;'
Rut when Marty came hac;i. from lrela:1d. she
had complications. She described what happened
while she was playing golf;
l wo~md up in emergency faster Sun.Jay because I
thought ... l pl'.!led a muscle.... But faey thought
it was a 11ul rr:onary ~mbuiism .... They said, "\Veil,
with your ,;ondi::im we have to take an X a long
Xrat' A::c he Iphysic:anl said, "Oh, I don·t like what
I ,,fe hen,," Acc I said, "Look, yoo'~e not the doctor
that looks at that ,di :he rime·, dtdt get m·rvm1s, it's
been So he said, "::-fo, there's a fot more scar
tissue than your o:1:er X ray:• And r said, "Yeah, well
that's paI for :he course, from what I unde:-stand:'
And he said, "But there's a hnle there r don't !:ke to
see," I said, "Look, it's a pulled mtt,de. Give me the
Mo/ri11," [At the time of this interview, !\.fotri11 was a
prescrir,tion drug.] A:1d finally he sa:d, ", , . Maybe
it is a pulltd muscle." So she IMo:1ka, her lung spe•
ciallst] cal:ed me the next day and she said, "Okay,
le!', slow down on th:~ going down on the p:1;d-
nisone, :oo manyside things are happening, s,., we're
going slower;' And I think it w'll work .•• , :'m sti:1
playir:g golf and still wo:idng.
Marty Gordon's recounted conversatiuns attest
to her efforts to remain autonomous. She insisted
011 be:ng t:ie leading actor in her life and on
shaping it& c,uality. From :he beghning, she had
remained active in he:.- care and unabashed in her
wiliingncss to challenge her physicians and to
work with them--on her terms.
AR:e:1cv does not occur in isolation; it always
within a social context already shaped by
language, n:eaning, and modes of interaction.
This poin: leads us w the :iext step in reclaiming
the Chicago tradition: Discover and detaii the
social context within which action accw,. A dual
focus 01: as:tion und context can perr:iit social
justice resea,chers to make m:anced explanations
of behavior. \\/hat peop~e think, feel, and do must
be analyzed within :he relevant social contexts,
which, in turn, people construct through action
and interaction. Jndviduals take into accou:it the
actions of lbose around them as t:ley themselves
act. Interaction depe:1 ds on fining line;; of act:m:
together, to ·Jse Herbert Rlumer's term (B!m':ler,
:969, 1979). We sense how Marty Gordon and
Monica fit lines of actions together m quell her
symptoms, Marty crafted an enduring profes·
sional partnership with Monica :ha: has ea.,.:d
her way through ar: increasingly less accessible
hea::h care organization for r.i ore than JO years.
Knowing that others are or will be involved
shapes how people :espond to their situa:ions.
The more participants create a shart:'d foct,s and
establish a joint goal, lhe r:iore they will build a
sharer. past and projected future. Marry and
Monka shared fae goal of keeping Marty alive
and of reducing her sym?toms while minimizing
medicatio1: side effcc:s. They built a history of
more thau a cccade, and to this day they project a
shared future,
The women in these two stories grapple with
the issues that confront them and thns affect the
social context in which they live, Marty hati a
voice and made herself hea,d; Christi rn: t ricd but
me: resistance. She lacked advocates, social ski:Js,
and a shared professional di~course to enlist
providers as allies, whkh commo:1ly occi:rs when
dass ai:d culture divide providers and pat:ents.
The construction of social context may be more
discernible Marty's statements than i11 other
kinds oi interviews. In Christine's attempt to
ob:ain care, s:,e related the sequence and timing
of events. We see that she received care only
because she became a medica'. emergency, a:id Ive
learn how earlier refusals and delays increased
her :nisery.
These interview statements rnntair: words and
phrases that tell and hint of meaning. Marty

Gordon talb about "making deals;' "working
hard;' "not excepting;• "wallowing; and "pushing
myself." Christine Dar.forth mntrasts herself with
ar. ''able body" and rec0t1:1ts how the seque:1ce
o: even:s affected her actions. The fifth step in
reclaiming the Chicago school tradition follows
th is dic:um: Pay attemtion ta language. Language
shapes meaning and influences action. In !urn,
actions and experier:ces shape meanings. Marty's
interview excerpts suggest how .,he uses words to
make her meanbgs real and :ries to make her
meanings stick in interactim:, Chicago school
sodology assumes rec:?rncal a:1d dynamic rela•
tions b,'tween in:erprelalion and action, We i;iter•
pret what happens around and to us and shape
our actions accordingly, particularly when some-
1hinJ;! interrupts our routines and causes us to
reth ii::.- our ,it uations.
In addition to the points outlined above,
Ch icagn school scholars have generated other
concepts that can frt:itfully inform :r:itial direc-
tions in social justice research ,nd can sensitize
the researd1er's empirical observations, Ar.:10ng
concepts are Glas.:r and Strauss', (1965)
concept of awa;e:1::ss contexts, Scott and Lyman's
( 1968) idea of acrnunrs, Mills's (. 990) notion
of vocabularies of motive, Goffmar:'s ( 1959)
metaphor uf the thea:er, and Hoc:1.schild's ( 191!3;
depiction of emo:ion work and fee;ing rules.
Establish:ng who knows what, and when they
know ii, can provide a cruciul fous for studying
interactim: b sodai justice :-csean:h. Both the
powerful and the powerless r:iay be forced to glve
accounts that justify or excuse their actions,
People describe their n:otives in vocabdaries i:1
situated social, cultural, his:orical. and economic
conrexrs. Viewing life as theater can ale:t social
,
'ustice researchers to main actors,' mir.or charac-
:ers and ai.:diences, acts and sce:ies, roles ,md
scripts, ar.d 'ront,stage i:npressions and back-
stage realitie~. IJilforent kinds of emotion work
and feeling rules reflect the settir.g~ in wl:ich they
arise. Expressed emotions and stifled feelings
stem from rules and enacted hierarchies of power
.ir:d advantage that less privileged actors may
unwittingly support and reproduce for
example, :,ivdy, 200 I).
C:armaz: Advancing ;11Stke Research J!l :25
Ill RETHINKING Ot,;1 LANGUM'iE
Just as we must attend :o !:ow our research parlic,
ipants' language shapes mea:iing, we must attend
to our own language and make ii problematic.
I mer.tion a few key terms that we qualitative
researchers assume and adopt These terms ha,,e
se:ved as guiding metaphors or, more cumprehen•
sively, as organizing com:epl.., for entire studies,
Perhaps :ronically, Chicago scr.ool sociologi,ls and
tneir followers have promulgated most of :hese
terms, Researchers have rr.ade them part of tneir
taken.for-granted lexicon anc, l believe, imposed
them luo readily on our stud:ed phenomena.
The logic of both the earlier Chicago school and
grounded theory means developing our concepts
from our analyses of empirical realities, rather
~han applying coneep:s to them. If we adopt extant
concepts, they nust ea:n their way :nto the analy-
sis through their usefulness (Glaser, 1978). :'hen
we can extend and strengthen !hem for
example, Mamo, 1999: Timmermans, 1994).
Two major concepts carry i:nages of tect:cal
manipulations by a calculating ~odal actor:
,5tratcgies and negotiations. Despite what we
rndal scientilsts say, much of hu:nan behavior
does not reflect explicit strategies. Su bsurning
ordinary act ions under the rubric of ustrategies"
implies exp:idt tactical sche:ncs when, in f.ict,
an actor's intentio:is. may r.ut !:ave been so clear to
him or her, much less tu this ~.••~·•• audience.
Rather than strat~gies, much of what people do
reflcc:s their taken- :or,grar:ted habitual actions.
These actions becor:ie rm:rine anrl scarcely recog·
nizcd unless disrupted by cha:1ge or challenge.
Note that in the long lists of codes comparing
Christine Danforth', and Marty Go:don's situa•
lions, r list :nar:y actions but few s~rategies.
'When looking for taken -for granted acrions in
our research, John Dewey's (1922) cent:",il ideas
about habit, if not the term itself, can prove
helpful to a:tend to participants' ass·Jmptions and
taken-for-granted practices, which may not
always be ir. their own iotcres:s. Like S:iow's
(2001) ;ioint that much of life is routine and
proceeds without explicit interpretatio:1, Dewey
(1922) views hab::s as patterned predisposirio:is
526 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAUTATI VE RESEARCH-CHAl':'ER 20
that enable individuals to respond to their
situations with economy of lhougbt and action;
People can act while focusing attention elsewhere
(see a:so Clark, 2000; Cutchin, 2000). Thus, habits
include those taken-for-granted modes of think·
ing,feeling,and acting that people invoke w!thout
retlection (Dewey, 1922; Hewitt, 1994). The habits
of a lifetime enabled Marty Gordon to maintain
hope and to manage her illness. Christine's l:abits
let her eke by but also increased her isolation and
physical problems.
Like the concept of strategies, negotia~ion
also imparts a strategic character to interaction.
:legotiation is ar. apt term to describe Marty
Gordon's "deals" and disputes with her practi-
tioners. Al least from her view, contests did
emerge, and bargaining could bring them to
effective closure. Then interaction could proceed
from the negotiated agreement. Marty brought
not only her resolve to :ier negotiations, but also
years of skills and fearlessness in deal:ng with
professionals, a partnership with her primary
physidan, a network of supportive others, and
the ability to pay for nutritious food, conve-
niences, and a good health plan. Little nego-
tiation may proceed when a person has few
such resources and great suffering, a9 Christir,e
Danforth', story suggests.
Although the concept of negotiations :nay
apply in Marty Gordon's case, we have stretched
its applicability, as if it reflected most interac-
tions. It does not. Much of social life proceeds a,
people either ·.mconsdrmsly adapt their response
to another person or interpret what the other per-
so::1 says, means, or does and then they subse-
quently respoc.d to it (Blumer, 1979). Interaction
ca:i views, temper emotions, modify inten•
tions, and change actions-all without negotia-
tion. The strategic quality of negodation may be
limited or absent during much sociability. People
can be pereuasive without attempting to negotiate.
Negotiation assumes actors who are explicitly
aware of the conte:1t and structure of the enslling
imeraction. Kegotiation also assumes that partic-
ipants' interactional goals conflict or need
realignment if future mutual endeavors are to
occur. For that matter, the term assumes that all
participants have sufficient power to make their
voices beard, if not also to affect outcomes. Judith
Howard (2003) states, "The term 'negotiation'
implie.s that the interacting parties have equal
opportunities to control the soda) identities pre•
sented, that they come to the bargaining table
with equal resources and together develop a joint
definition of the situation" (p. :O). Nonetheless,
much negotiation ensues when the parties
involved do not have equal resources, and much
foment may occur about enforcing definitions of
social identities, despite unequal positions. For
negotiations to occur, each party must be involved
with the other to complete jo'.nt actions that
matter to both, likely for different reasons.
The problems of applying these concepts and
of importing t.11eir meanings and metaphors o:i
our data extend beyond the concepts above. These
probleos also occur with applying the concepts of
"career;' "work:' or "trajectory,' which we co;.ild
examine with the same logic. However, the cur·
re:1.t social sder:tifk emphasis on stories merits
scrutiny here.
Ill METAPHORS OF S:ORIES
Al1D MEANINGS OF SII£NC:'S
The term "storyn might once have been a
metaphor for varied qualitative data such as inter·
view statements, field note descriptions, or docu •
ments. However, we cease to use the term "story"
as metaphor and have come view it as concrete
reality, rather thar. a construction we place
on these data. With several exceptions (e.g.,
Charmaz, 2002, in press; Frank, 1997), social
scientists have treated the notion of "s:ory"
as unpmblewa tic. We have questioned whose
story we tell, how we tell it, and how we rep:e.senl
those who tell us their stories, but not t:ie idea of
a story itself or whether our materials :it the term
"story." The reliance on qualitative interviews in
grounded theory studies (Creswell, 1997), as well
as in other qualitative approaches, such as narra-
tive analysis, furthered this forns or; stories, ln
addition, the topics themselves ofintensive inter·
views foster produdr.g a story.

Limiting data co]ection to interviews, as is
common in ~rounded theory research, delimits
the theory we car: develop. fn social justice stud·
ies, we nust be cautious a·:iou: which narrative
frame we impose on our research, and when anc
how we do it. The frame itself can prove conse•
quentlaL The story frame assumes a linear logic
and bour:daries of temporalit)' that we m:ght
over• or underdraw.ll
Par: of my argt:mer:t about stories concerns
silences. hi earlier works (Charmaz, 2002, in
p::ess ), I h,ive empha<.ized si'.ence& at the individ-
t:al level of analysis; they are also significant at the
orga:1izational, social worlds, and societal lev~ls.
Cla:-ke {2003, 2005} pmYides a new grounded
theory tool, situational mapping, fur showing
action and inaction, voices and sik:ices, at varied
levels of analysis. She observes that silences reveal
absent organizat:or.al alignments. Thus, mapping
those silences, in their relation to active aEgn-
ments, can render invisible social stru::ture
visible. lnvisible aspects of social structu::e and
process are precisely what critical inquiry needs
ro tackle.'~
Silences pose significant meanings and telling
data in any research that deals with :nnral
choices, e:hical dilemmas, and just social policies.
Sile:, ~e signifies abseace a:id sometim~ refa:cts a
lack of awareness or inability to exprcss thoue;it,
and feelings. However, si:rnce speaks to power
arrangements. It also can Jr.can attempts to nm·
trol information, to avoid redirecting actions, and,
at times, to impart tacit messages. The "right" to
speak may mirror hierarchies of power: Only
those who have power dare lo speak. All others are
silenced (see, for example, Freire, 1970). T:ien,
too, the powerless :nay retreat into silence as a Inst
rekge. At oae pobt, Christir:e Danforih felt tr.at
her life was out of cont:ul. She described being
;;i\enced by devastating events and by an aggres-
sive psvc:1.iatrist, and she stop?ed talking. In all
these ways, silence is part of lang·Jage, meaning,
and action.
Makir:g stories ?roblematk a:1d attending to
silences offers new possibilities for understanding
sodal lite for both social justice and grounded
theory research. V.'ha: peuple in power do not say
Chatmaz: Advancing Social [ustice Research 111 527
is o:ten more te:ling than whal they do say: We
m1U,t note those who choose to remain silent, as
well as those who have been s::<'nced. Treating
both stories and silences with a critical and
comparing them with actions ar:d inac:ion pm·
vides empirical m:derpinnings for any emerging
grounded theory. Subsequently, the constructed
theory will gair. usefulness in its explanatory and
predictive power,
Ill ESTABLTS:UKG EVALUATTO~ CRJTERIA
L'sing grm:nded theory for social justice studies
requires revisiting the criteria for evaluating
them. Glaser and S~rausis ( 1967; Glaser, 1978)
criteria fo~ assessing grounded theory studies
include fit, workability, relevance, and modifiabil·
ity. Thus, the theory must fit the empirical world
it pu:-ports lo analyze, p::ovide a workable under-
standing and explanation of Ibis world, address
prob:em s and processes in it, ar.c allow for varia•
tio:'I anc change that :na'.<c the core theory useful
overtime. T'.1e criterion of rr:odiflahility allows for
rdim:m;;nts of the theory tha: ~imal:aneously
n:ake it more precise and enduring.
Pmvid ing cogcr:t expl.inations stati:1g how the
studv :neets higl: ~tandards will advance soda!
' C
justice inquir}· and reduce unmerited dism:ssals
of it, However. few grounded theorists provide a
model, T'-tey selcion: offer explki: discussions
about how their studies m1;et the above or othe:
criteria, although 1hey often ?mvide statements
01 the logic of their decisinns (ct S. ]. Miller &
Fredericks, 1999}. In the past, some grounded
theorists :iave claimed achievi;1g a theoretical
grounding wi:h '.imited empirical material.
Increasingly, researchers justify the type, relative
dep:h, and extent of their data collection and
analysis on one crJerion: saturation of L'lltegorics.
They issue a claim of satt:ration and end their
data collection (Flick, 1998; Morse, 1995;
Silverman,2000). But what does sa:uration mean?
'lb whom? Janice Morse (1995), who initiated the
critique of saturation, accepts defining it as "data
adequacy" and adds tl:at it is "operationalized
as collecting data until no new information is
 111 HA~llliOOK OF QUA UTAIIVE RbSEA'U:H-CHAPTER
obtained" (p. 147), Often, researchers invoke the
criterion of satu~ation to justify sr:1 al I samples-
very small sample, with tl:in data, Such jushfica-
liuns dim in i,h the credibiiity of grounded theory.
Any social justice study that makes .:;uestionablr
dal :ns of saturation risks be: ng see:i as suspect.
Claims uf saturatio:i often reflect rationaliza•
tion more than reason, and these claims raise
questior.,, What stands as a category? 13 Is it ron-
ceplJaJr b ii useful? Developed? By whose c:-ite-
ria? All these questions add up tn r:-ie hig question:
Wh,,t star1ds ,is adequate research? Expanded cri-
teria that indude :he Chicago school's r:gorn:1s
study of context and action makes any gruuuded
theory study more credible and advances the
claims of socia: iustice researchers. Then we can
augment our critrria by going beyond "satu,a-
tion" and ask if ci:r empirical detail also achieves
Christians',;; (2000) and Denzin's ( 1989) cr:terion
"interprcfve sufficiency." which takes into
account cultural comple:dty and multiple inter-
p:eta tirms of life.
lb reopen explicit dfocuss ion of criteria fur
gnnnded theory studies., and particularly those
:r. soch,1 j ustke research, I offer the follmving
criteria.
Criteria fur Grounded Theory
St udie.s in Social Justice Inquiry
Credibility
• H11s th,· researcher ac'iievcd int:::iale familiari:y
with the sttt::ig or to,ild
• Arc the data suffici.:n: :o merit tht researcher',
da:::1.s? !:Onside~ the range, num 'Jer, and depth
of obscrva::ons contained in the data.
• Has th.- researcher made systematic cor:,parisons
bct,,.,<:cn nbservations and between categories:
• Do tho: categories cover a w:de cf empiri-
.:al observations?
• Are there strong logi~al links between lhe galh,
m:d data ar.d 1hc researchn'.~ argument and
analysis?
• Has the researche: provit:ed enough evidence
liir hi~ or claim, to allow the n:·ader 10 form
an i ndcpendent :is:iessment-and agree with
the researcher's dai1mr
Origimi/ify
• Arc the categories fresh? Do thry o:'fer new
insights?
• Docs 1hc analysi:;, provide a new wr:cept"al
rendering of the data?
• What is the social and theoretical significance
of the work!
• Hew does the work challc::ge, rx:end, or refine
cu:rent ide2.s, co::cepts, and :,,~d1i:es/
Resonance
• Do the categories portray the fullness of 1hc
~tudied experience?
• Ha, researcher revealed Ii 1r.:::al ;a::d taken•
for-granted meanlngi
• Ha~ :lee rese1:rchc, ,lrawn links between larger
collectivities and individual lives, when the data
so indicate?
• Do thr analytic interpretations make sense tc,
members and offer them deeper insights about
their lives and worl(l\7
Uscfulnr!ss
• Docs the aruilysi., offi:~ in:erprctalions t':at
, r can nse in rhei r even•dav worlds?
;1conlc 1 ..
• Do Lhc analytic categDries spctlk rn generic
• Have the,c;e gec1eric prc,ccs:ses examined for
hiJde~ social justice ir.:iplii::ations1
• Can the analysis sp,irk fort::er research in other
sub,1<:itive areasr
• Hnw does the work conliibute lo :naking a
bette~ society?
A strong combbation of originality and credi-
:ii:ity increases resonance, usefulness, am: fae sub-
sequen: value o: the contribution. The criteria
above accounl for :he empirical study and devel-
oprr.ent of the theory. They say little abm:: how
the rese,m·her writes the narrative or what makes
it compelling. Other criteria speak to the aesthet-
ics of the writing, Our wr]ten works derive from
aesthete pri r1ciples and rhetorica'. devices-- in
addit:or: to theoretical statements and sci enlific
rationales. The act of writing is intuitive, inven-
tive, and i11terpretive, not merely a reporting of
acts and facts, o:, in the case of grounded :heory,

causes, conditions, categories, and consequences.
Writing leads to fu:ther discove~ies deeper
insights; it furthers inquiry. Rather than daiming
silent authorship hid den behind a scientific
facade, gro:mded theorists-as well as pro?O·
nents of social justice-should claim audible
voices in their writings (see C:1armaz & M!~chell,
1996; J!litchell & Charn:az. 1996}. For grounded
theorists, an audible voice brir.gs the writer's self
into the words wr..ile illuminating intersubjec-
tive worlds. Such evocative writing sparks the
reader's imagined involvement in the scenes par·
trayed and those beyond. In this sense, Laurel
Richardson's (2000) criteria for the evocative texts
of "creative analytic practice ethnography" also
apply here. These criteria consist of the narrative'6
schstantive contribution, aesthetic merit, reflexiv-
ity, impact, and expression of a reality(?. 937).
A grounded tl:eory born from reasoned reflec•
tions and principled convictions that conveys a
reality makes a substantive contribution, Add aes-
thetic merit and analytic impact, and then its
influence may spread to larger audiences. Through
redai!;ling Chicago traditions, conducting inquiry
lo make a difference in the world, and creating
evocative narratives, we will not be silenced, We
will have stories to tell and theories to proc~aim.
Ill SUMMARY AND COKCLUSIOKS
A curn toward qual!:ativc social justice studies
promotes combining critical inquiry and
gro1.:r.ded theory in no•;el and productive ways.
An interpretive, constructivist ground theory
supports this turn by buiiding on its Chicago
school autecedents. G::ounded theory can sharpen
:he analytic edge of social justice studies.
Simultaneously, the critical inquiry inherent :n
soda! jus:ice research can enlarge the focus
ar.d deepen the significance of grounded theory
acalyses. Combining the two approaches enhances
the power of each.
A grounded theory informed by critical
inquiry demands going deeper into the phenom-
e:1on itself and its situated location in the world
than perhaps most grounded theory studies have
Charrnaz; Advan.:ing Social Justice Research 111 529
in the past This approach does not mean depart
ing from grounded theory guidelines. It does not
mean investigative reporting. Grounded theory
details process and context-and goes into the
social world and setlini:; far beyond one investiga•
tive story. Grounded theory contain~ tools lo
study how processes become inst:tutional ized
practices. Such attention to the processes that
constitute structure can keep groundec. theory
from dissolving into fragmented small studies,
With the exception of those studies that rely on
historical documents, grounded theory studies
typically give little ,cratiny to the past and some-
times blur inequalities with other experiences or
overlook them entirely. Studying soda] justice
iss·Jes means paying greater attention to inequal-
it}· and its soda! and historical L'llntexts.1bo much
of qualitative research today minimizes current
social coutext, much less historical evolution.
Re'.ying on inte:view studies on focused topics
may preclude attention to co.:1text-particularly
when our research participants take the context
their lives for grdnted aud do not speak of it.
Hence, the mode of inquiry itself limits what
researchers may learn. Clearly, interviewing is the
method of cho:ce for certain topics, but empirical
qual:tative research suffers if it becomes synonr·
mous with interview st•Jdies.
Like snapshots, iulerviews provide a picture
taken during a moment in t:me. Interviewers gain
a view of research participants' concerns as they
present them, rather than as evems unfold.
Multiple visits over time con:':'.lined with the
inlimacy of intensive interviewir:g do provide a
deeper view of life than o:ie-shot structured or
informational interviews can provide. However,
anyone's retelling of events may differ markedly
from an etl:nographe,'s recording of them. In
addition, as noted abm'<'., what people say may
not be what they do (Deutscher et al., 1993). At
that, what an interv:ewer asks and hear~ or an
ethnographer records depends in part on the
overal; context, the immediate situation, 1mtl his
or her training and theoretical proclivities.
At its best, grounded theory provides methods
to explicate an empirical process in ways that
prompt seeing beyond it. By sti,king closely to
 530 111 HAN IJl!tlOK OF Qt;ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPT2R 20
the leads and explicating the relevant process,
!he researcher rnn go deeper ir:to meaning and
a,tion than given in words. Thus: the focused
inquiry of gro·Jnded theory, with its progressive
inductive analvsis, moves the work theoreticallv
' '
and covers more empirical observations than other
approache~. b this way, a '.(JCused grounded theory
portrays a pkt ure uf the whole.
II NOTF.S
I. S·.ich emphases often sta:t with r•ressing social
problems, col\eclive concerns, and impassioned voices.
In m:i:rast, Rawls's ( I) emphasis oo fairness
be5in, frcm a distam:cd positior: of theorizing individ
ual rights and risks frurn the standpoint of the raliomd
actor under hypothetical cDndit ions. Conceptions
social justke mus: take into 3ccoun: both cQllectlve
good~ and individual rights a:id tr.US! rccognizr that
definitions both of rntionality and of"rnliona:'' actor;;
,.:e ,q'tuated in tim<\ space, and culture-and hn::: can
change, To fosl,·r jus:ke, Kussbium (ZOOC, p. 234)
argues that ;irnmoting a c.rllective good must not sub.
• :di nate the ends of smee individuals ov~: ot:Jers. She
observes that women sofler when a co:Jcc!h:e good is
pm:noted wilhm:t taking into account the internal
power and opportunity hierarchies within a gmllp.
2. For de:,crlptions of grounded theory guide
l'nes, sec Charm,.z (2000a, 20031;), Glaser (l 9i8,
1992), and Strauss ,,nd Corbin (1990, 1998).
l I :ise the t.::rm "data" thmughm:t for tl\'O rea,
o:
sons: It sy;:,bolizes (a) a fund empirical n:aterfals
tr.at we sv!ltematicallv collect and as,e:,1ble f() ac.1uirc
' '
knowledge about a to?ic and (b) an ae:,:nowledgrr.ent
that ,1uali:ative reso'Jrces hokl eqcal sig~ ifica::ce for
studying empirical reality as q~antitative measures,
altlm::gh they differ lu kind.
4. ln this way, lntegrnti11g a critical ,lance offers a
co;rective to na,row and lin:ited studies conducted as
grounded th<'ory srudies. Nei:her a narrow focus nor
llrniU:d empi:ical material :s part :if the method itself.
We rnmmt bli.:~ how earlier researc::e,rs have used
grounded theory w:lh the guidelines ::i the n:elhod.
Ait:mugh ,odal .ic stke ':1q11iry suggests su ::istantive
fick:s, it aloo assumes questions and ccncan, about
power, privi:ege, and hierarchy that so::ie .:roumled
theorists may not yet have entertained.
5. Chi :ago school socio: cgy shaped an endurin.5
trndition nf qualitat:vc research in sodology, o' which
groum1ed theory "" "'"'" n pa,t Wr.at slands as "the"
Chicago school varies de;icnding on wf:o defines it
(Abl:,oit, 1999; L. H, Lofland l ~80). In my view, the
Chkago school theoretical heritage gm:s hack t<J the
ti!,ly years of the 20th century, in the works, for
ell.ample, of Charles Horton Cooley ( 1902), John
Dewey ( 1922), George Herbert Mead ( 1932, 1914),and
Charles S. Peirce (H.irtsb:,rm: & Weiss, 193l-1935J. In
research :i::actke, the Chkago sdmcl spa~ked study
of the ci:y and spawned urban cthmigraphies (see, for
example, Pa,k & Burgess, Shaw, 193[); Thomas
& Znt1niecki, 1927; T':rc.shcr, ]927;. Chicago ,odolo·
gists often held nar,·c and partfa: views hut many
scmt'd the injustices arising in the social problems of
the city, and Abbo!t (: 999) no:es that Albion Small
attacked capitalis•. Nonetheless, some Chk11go
school sodol ogists reinfor;;ed ineguities i11 their own
bailiwi,ks (11eeg,rn, 1995). Mid-century elhnogra•
phers and qua'.H,llive researchers built on the:r
Chicagu schoo. i:ilcllectual ::eritage :md mia:ed what
scholars have calkd a ,emnd Chicago sd:ool (G.
l'i::e, 1995). for recent renderings of the Chiu.go
school, see Ab:101t ( 1999;, G. A, Fh: (I 995), Mmo!f
(2003), and Reynolds (2003a, 2003b). Chil:ago school
.,oc iology emph,1 sizes the wnte, tu al backdrop of
observed scenes and their sitllated nalo :\' iu lime,
;llace. and xlationships. Despite the p,mial e::ier•
gence of grounded the(:ry from br>th theoretical and
:nethoclologkal Chicago sdiool roots, Glaser (2002)
disavows the pragmabt, const,ucfa:nis: elements iri
grounded theory.
6. Symholk inteactionism provide., a:, open·
ended :hcoretical perspective from which grounded
theory rc:;,~ancncrs tan start. This pen;pective is nei·
ther inherently presc,iptive nor micmsociologia,:.
Barbara Ball;s I.al (2GO:) not only ,ugge,ts :he con:em•
porary usefulness o" early Chicagn school .;yr::bolic
intcrartionist ideas for studying race eth nidty but
also nu:es their bplkalions c urre::t poli!ic,1!
action and sod al policy: Pav it: ::Vfaines (2001) demon,
s!ra!rs that ;;ym bol:c internc:io:iist e:-:11; bases on
agency, action, ace ncgot i11ted order have long had
macrosociologkal ir:iport Ht' sh::ws lhilt the disdplir.r
of sociology i::cone<.tly-a 11d ironka:ly-
wmpa rtmentahcd sym:iolic i nteractionism w 'iile
increasi::gly becoming 1".lo~e interactionisl in :!s
asrnmpt ions md directions.
7, : r: ;ianicufor, lhe Chicago school ?ro'lides
antecedents for anending :o social refo~m. as in lam:
Addams's (1919} work et Hnll-J.fouse and Mead and
Dewey's inlercs:s in democratic process. The t'eld
resear,~ founded in Chicagn school sociology has been
called intc, question at various historic,11 jum::l.1:es

:h;m Marxist m:<l poslmode:nisl perspectives (sec,
:or example, Burawoy, Bkm, et al,, 199 l; BurawO},
Gan:son, et al., 2001; Clough, 1992; Denzin, 1991.;
Waccuanl, zoon Cri:kfan:s of Chicago sdmnl sociol
ogy h,m:, suggested t:mt grounded t':eory repre.er.ts
:he most ,udilied ar:d realist statement of Chiaigo
:,c'mol mcthodriogy (Van Maanen. HISS).
8. Strauss and Cmhin~ (1990, 1998) e:11:ihasis on
techn,ca: procec.ure;; has :ncl with chagrin by a
1umber of researchers (G;aser, 1992, Mella, : 996;
199,; J. In his , %'/ handbook Q1l<ilitatfre
An,19-s1s far St1dal Sdentim, Strauss men:icns axial
coding and verlfi.::ation, depart from earlier
vers:tms of grounded thecry, and he and Juliet Corbin
( 1990, 19911) develop them in their coat:thored texts.
9. My critique mir:o:s a mL:ch largrr trend.
Ur.min and G:iba (2000) find :r:at the movement
from pos'tivis::; pe:vade, tne soci,d sdern;;;;s.
state that the turn ww,rd interp:clive, postmodern,
ar,d critical theorizing :-:-,akes most studies \'Lie erable
to criticism (p.163).
10. Grounded theory pro,:dcs tools that
re,e~r.::hers ,an and :lo-use fonr ru1y philosophi-
cal ;;,erspec: ive-or :iolilkal agenda, Studies of wcrt::er
involvement, for example, may start addressing
c,:,ploy~es' concerns o: management's aim to ir.cre~se
corporate prnfits.
I L Ted:odc (::ooo) states, "Ethrmgrap::crs' lives
are embedded withi:1 1hcir fide e:q,er'ences in such a
way that all their intc,actions inv():ve moral ,:hnices''
(p. Ethnography may represent one l>f a con-
tinuum. Nel'er:heless, does ll!}I grounded theory
research also inv(llvc moral d1o'ces?
12. Feminist researcn suggests ways w pmccc(i.
lieVault (19<J<J) and Oles,'n (2000) :1;ovide exccllent
overviews of and dehares in icminisl re,earch.
13. of ex ~,Joitn:ion arise when partic:pants
wor::Z without pay or recogn:lion. Feminist resm:chers
often recommend having parik:;iants read draft;
of materials, yet eve:: readir:g drafts may be m,l muc:i
when ,~search partic'panrn arc st:uge:lin15 with
losses, allhoug;1 they may have ,cquestec to see the
re,earcbcr's wr'tings in progress. Vvhn research
participants ex;ness interest, I s;'1arc early hut !
ey b) reduce part idpants' potcn!lal feelings t,f ,ibliga-
t:un to fini.h reading Morse (1998) tgree., wi:h
,haring rc,ulls but ::ct the ccmciuct of in,Juiry.
l4. Schwalbe et al. {2000) and Harris {2001) make
irnpmtant :naves ::1 this anr.:ytk direction.
15 ':'he firnl two interview excerpts a:1pear ir:
ea:licr published accounts. l indudc them so that read·
er, inte:eskd in how I us,•d them in soda·,
Channa,:: Advanc::ig Socia: ;usticc Research Ill S31
psychologi,;al accoun:s may obtain them. Sabseque:it
int.:,view statements have r:ct been ;mhlished. The
data are part of an evolving study of 170 interviews o:
-::iro::ically ill persor.s. A of resean;h partici-
pants that include- these two women have bee:1 inter,
viewed mul:iple times.
16. F.mher s?edfics of grounded t':eory guide-
lines are avai:able Charmaz (2000a, 2003b, C':annaz
& Mitchell, 2001), G:a,er (1978, 1992, 2001) Strauss,
( 1987}, and Stra~ss and Corbin (1990, 1998)
17. I rt:al ize that p,esenting the Chicago school as
a u:1ificd perspective is somfthing of a historical gloss
because di[lerem;;;t:. are discemib:e be:ween the early
pragmatists as well as among the sociologists who fo: ·
lowed them. furthermore, a stmng c; 11antitalive trac:-
1'en develo;ied at the U::ivers': r of Chicago
Bulme~, I984 ),
:8. Lofland and Lofland (J 984, I995) for an
cmphas:s on de,,crih',11, the research setting. I.iii coin
ancl Guba ( 1985) offer a som,c rationale for nanm1lis
t:c :r:quiry ,ls well as good for cr:mducting it,
Whm the data consist of eictant texts s;ich as docu-
ments, films, or :exts, then the researcher may need to
seek multiple empirical sources.
19. Sclicff (2003) for a di.,c:.;ssion of relation·
shi?S betwe.:n shame and society.
20. Grounded theory methnds can infor::; tradi ·
ti,mal quantitative research, alth:i;:r,h tne;;c 1:pprooches
.seldom have been used :oge:her. ~lypotheses can be
drawn from Rgure 20. 4, such a., th ill greater tb.e
delinitinn~ of an individual's d::ference, the more rapid
his or her :t:::ible dow:i t!:e moral hierarchy suffer·
:ng. Quantitative researchers could pu:.ue
r:ypotheses.
, And as I have pointed ou: with i;1dividual
accounts (Charn12.;:,2U02), raw exper:ence may Ii: ne:ther
narrative logic nor :he mmprehensihle conrent of a slllr),
22. Clarke's (2003, 2001) conce;,: of imp!icatcd
actors ;;an be particularlr useful lo analyze voices and
silences in 5Dcial ju~:ire discourses.
See Dey (1999) for an extensive discussicn on
conslructing categor'e, ir: the f'.irly grounded :henry
works.
Rlil'l:RENCES
Abbo!l, (1999). Department & disciplirre: Chicagr,
sociofogy at ,me iiundre,l Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
A,ldams, J. (1919 ). 111,emy year., ar Hull flrwse.
Yo:k: Macmillan.
 532 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 20
Anderson, E, (2003}, Jelly's place: An ethnographic
n:emoir, Symbolic ln11:raction, 26, 217-237,
Anderson, L, & Snow, TI, A. (200L). Inequality and
the self: &.ploring connectio:is fron: an inter-
actionis: perspective. Symbolic lmen:;ctiim, 24,
396-406,
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A,, & Delamont, S, (2003), Key
theme¥ in qualitative research: Conti,mitfes and
changes, :lew York; Rowman and Lirtlefleld.
Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic interactionism Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall
Blumer, H. (1979). Comments on "George Herbe:1
Mead and the Chkago tradition of sociology:"
Symfwlic Interoction, 2(2), 2
Bryant, A, (2002). Regrounding grounded theory. The
Joi,rnni of lnformario.~ Technology Theory and
Application, 4, 25-42.
Bryant,A. (2003).A com,1ructive/ist response to Glaser.
Forum Qualitative Sozia/forschungkr::o,um: Quali-
ta1il'f: Social Rex>ardi, 4, Retrieved :rocn www
,qua'.:tative ·research.net!fqs· texte/l ·03/ 1-bryant·
e-htm
Bulmer, M. (1984}, 1'h.i Chicago school of sociology,
lnstitutianalization, diversity, ,md the rise of sod•
olagy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burawoy, M (1991 ), Reconstructing soc:111 theories, I:l
M. Burawoy, J. Gamson, J. Schiffman, A, Burton,
A. A. l'erguson, L Salzinger, L., et [Eds.],
Elimograplry 1.mbmmd : Power and resistance in
the modern metropoli, (pp. 8-28), Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Burawoy. M., Blum, J. A., George, S,, Gill, Gowan, T.,
Haney. L., el at (2000), Gfobal etimvgrapliy:
Forces, connections, and imagtmi:tions in a post•
modern world, Berkeley: t:niversity u;.lifornia
Press.
3urawoy, M,, Gamson, J., Schiffman, J., Si.::ton, A.,
Ferguson, A. A,, Salzinger, L, et aL (L99 l).
Eihnogrriphy 1mbound : Power and resistame in
the modem merropo/Js, Berkeley: University of
California
Charmaz, K. (1983). The gro;mded theory method: An
explkation and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson
(Ed, J, Contemporary field resean:h (pp. I 09- l 26),
Boston: Little, Brown.
Charllll!z, K ( 1990 ). Discovering c:ironk i:2ness: :Ising
grounded theory. Social Science and Me,licim,, JO,
1 61-1172.
Chanuaz, K. ( 1991 ), Good days, bad days: The self in
chronic ilirum 1md time, Sew Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers Uuiversily Press.
Charmaz, IC ( 1999). Stories of suffering: Subjects'
stories and research narratives. Qualitatfre Health
Researlh, 9, 362-382.
Charmaz, K. (2000a), Conslruclivisl objecti11ist
g:ounded theory. In :-1. K. Denzin & Y. S. li11cob1
(Eds,), Handbook ,ifquaiitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 509-535), Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K,(200Db 1, Looking backward, moving for
ward: Expanding socio:ogical ho,izuns in the
twe:1ty-first cen1ury. Sodologicai Perspectives, 4J,
527-549.
Charmaz, K, {2002 ). Stories and silences: Disclosures
and self in chronic il;:1ess. Qualitative Inquiry, 8,
302-371\.
Charmaz, K. (2003a). Grounded theory. In M. Lewis•
Beck, A. E, Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.}, The Sage
encyclopedia of sacial science research methods
(pp. 440-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charrnaz, K. (2003b ). C:rounded 1heory. In J. A, Smilh
(Ed,), Qualitative p.sychology: A practical guide to
research methods (pp, 8:-110). London: Sage.
Charmai, K. (in press). Stories and silences: Disclosures
and self in chror.:c illness. In D. llrashers &
D. Goldstei:: (Eds.), Health rommunitation.
New York: Le.wrence Erlbaum.
Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G, (1996), The myth of
silent authorship: Self, substance, and style in
ethnograph:c writing, Symbolic Iriteracrion, 19(4),
285-302.
Charmaz, K,, & Mitch di, ft <i. (200 l ). Grounded theory in
ethnography, In P. Alkir.son, A. l:offey, S. Delamont,
J. Lo!land, & L, H. Lolh!nd (Eds.), Har.dbook of
ethnography (pp, ,60-l 74}. London: Sage.
Christians, G. (2000 J, Ethics and politics in qualita
tiVf" research. In N. I( Denzin & Y. S. Lh1roln
(Eds.), Handboo,~ of qw2lit11tive researd1 (2nd ed,,
pp, 133-155). T:1ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, EA. {2000), The concepts of habit and :'Dutine: A
pre!in::nary theorctical synt:iesis, The Occupational
Therapy foumal ofResearch, 20, 123S-138S.
Clarke, A, E, (1998 ). Disciplining reproduction:
J.'1oderm'ty, American itfe !dences and the ''{)rabl.em
af sttL" Berkeley: University o( California Press.
Clarke, A. E, (2003 J. Situational arnilyses: Grounded
theo,y mapping after the pos:modern tum.
Symbolic Interaction, 26, 553-576.
Clarke, E, (2004), Situarional analysis: Groundr.d
theory after the postmodern Hirn. Thm:sa::d Oaks,
CA:Sage.
Clough, P. I, (1992). The end(s) of ethnography: From
realism ID social criticism. ~ewbury Pa~k, CA: Sage.

Coffey,A., Holbrook, P., & Atkinson, l'. ! 1996 ]. Qua:itative
data analysis: Ted:r.ologies and represen:ations.
Socioiogicai Rem,r.l, Online., 1('.).Retrieved from
;,,'Ww.soecesonline,org.uki Ill /4 .html
Cooley, C, H, ( I 902). Human nature and t/:e ;ociar order:
t,,·ev..· fork: S<:ribner's,
Corbin, J.M., & Strauss, A. ( 1988). Ur.endinx rare and
·,vork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas:;.
Creswell, J, W. ( 1997). Qualitll!iw• inquir:, 1.m,J research
design, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Cutchin, M, P. {2(K.0), Reter11ior: of r:::.ral p:1;>Sidans:
Place integra!:on and the triumph of habit The
Occupational Therapy Jm,rru1I of Researr.h, 20,
I06S-Ul S.
Deegan, M. ). ( 1995), The second sex and the Chicago
school: Women's acco:::.nts, knowledge, and work,
1945-1960. In G. A, Fine (Ed.), A m:,md Chi.::agQ
sdwol? {pp, 322-364), Chicagr>: U::lver~ity of
Chic.ago Press,
Denzin, N. (l 9i!9). lt1terpro1ive biograph}, Newbury
P..irk, CA: Sage.
Dentin, N. K. ( 1992). Symbolic imeractionism and cui-
tuml studie5: The politic, ofinterpretation, Oxford,
UK: Basi: Blackwell
Denzin, N. ( 1994). The art and politics of inte:pret~-
hon, ln N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds. l,
H,mdbook of qualitaril'l? resear;h (~p. 500-515).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Deutsche:, I,, Pestello, R., !l< Pestcllo, H. F. ( I<)()3).
Sentiments and a,ts. New vor,<:: Aldinc de Gn::yter.
DeVaul:, M. L ( 1999). Liberating method: Feminism a11d
social research Philadelphia: Te:nple University
Press.
Dewey, J. (l 922 J, Hurn an nature and conduct.
J:,;ew YQrk: .Modem Library.
Dey, L (1:l99). Grounding grounded th,wr;,. San Diego:
Mad em ic Press,
Duneire, M, (l 992), 5'/im's ta&/e: Race, respecrability,
aml masculinity. Chicago: Uni,ersi:y Chicago
Press.
Feagin, j. R. ( I999). Soda! j·.istice anu sociology:
A!',endas for the twent>•first cmtur1c American
.Sociological Review, 66, L-20,
Fine, A. (Ed.). (1995), A second Ciiicago school? The
dei-elo;mer1t of a postw~r American socioiogJ,
Chicago: University of L'hicago Press,
l'ine, 'vi., Weis, L., Weseen, S., Ile Wong, L. (WOil). For
whom? Qualitative reseaxh, repres~nta:kms, and
social respo:isibilltictl, ln N, K. De::1.in 8: Y. s.
I.in:oln (Eds,), Ha11dbook of qualilu1ive 11:searrh
(2nd pp. l07-l31), Thousanc:Oaks,CA: Sage,
Charmaz: Advancing Social !us:ke Research Ill 533
Flick, U. ( 1998 ). An inrroduclfrm lo quulitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Frank, A. W, ( 1997). F:nacting, illness stories: When.
what, and why. In E. L Nel.'lOn (1'1.1.), Stories and
their limits: NarratiH' c;ppwa,hes to bioethics
(pp. 3149), New Ymk: Rou:ledgc.
P. (1970). The pedagogy of ,he opfn.<s~d (M. B.
Rrur.cs, '!rans.). New var~ Herder ~lld Herde::
Glaser, ll. G. { I 978). Theoretical $ensilivity. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Pn:ss,
Glaser, B. G. ( 1992), Basics ofgro;mded thet:ry anaiysis.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociolngv Pre,s.
Glaser II. G. (1998}. Doing ifi'Ol;ndcd theory: ls;ues arid
discussions, Mill Valley. CA: Socitilogy Press.
Glaser, G. {2001;. Concepmalization cmrtrasted with
description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociolog)' Press.
Glaser, B. G, (2002). Construt1:vist grounded thecry1
r'(Jruttt Qualitatiwi Soz±aljim,ch1mg/Porum; (Jua/i•
t,mve Sucia/ Reselln:/;, 3(3;. Retrieved from wv,,v.•
.qualitative-rese:ard1,netfc.5,te:cte/3..iJ2/3·02glaser-
e-htrn
Glaser,B. G.,& Strnuss,A, L (1965).Awa,eness ofdyiJJg.
Chicago: Aid• ::e.
Gl,1scr, B. G., & Strau~s, ;., (1967). T/ie disawery of
gr:nmded 1luory. Chicago: Aldine,
Go'fman, E. { l'l59). 1'111' presentation of ,elf i» evt~yd1,y
li(f, (;ardcn City, N¥: D..,ubieday,
Goffman, E. (196 I), Asylumt, Garden Cit:,\ l\Y:
Duubleday.
Harris, S. i( (200 I). Wha: ca1, interactionism toll·
tribute :o the study of inequality? The case of
marriage and beyond, .',ymbolic l'!teraciicm, 24,
455-480,
Hartshorne, C., & Weiss, P. (.Eds.), (1
Collected papers of Charles Sounders Peirce
(Vols, 1-6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard l:niversity
Hewitt, J, P. (I994). Self mid ,vcie!y: A symbQ/ic: imerac,
ri(misr social psychology (6th ed,). Boston: Allyn &
Bacot:.
Hochschild, A, ( 1983 l, The manag,·d heart:
Commercialization of lmm,m feefirtg. lkri<dey:
Lniversity of Cal ifomia Press.
Holstein, ], A., & Gu brt1::11, J. E ( 1995). The act.:,., inter-
view. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Horow:ti. R, (1983), Horwr and the l,men·c~ri dream:
(.'u/111re and idem ity in ll Chi;arro cllmrnunity, New
Br:mswi,;k, t;;J: Rlltge~, l:niversity
Horowitz, R. (2011 I). lnequa;1:i~s. d::mocrac)·, and field-
work in the Chicago schools of yesterday and
t(iday.Symbolic interaction, 24, 451-SD4,
 111 EANDBOUK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CEAP:ER lU
Ho\'\•;ud, J. A, '.2003), Tc:1siom of .~ocial justice.
Sociolvgicul P!:r,per.:tives, 46, l ·20.
'<emmis, S., & Mciaggart, R. (2000). Participatory
action research. I:1 N. K. Denzin & V, S, Lir:roln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative re.•,,an:h (2nd ed.,
pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kleinman, S. (I 996), Opposing ambitions: Gemier and
idem ity in ,m alremativ<' organi.u.rivn, Chicago:
t:nivm;iry of ChicJgo Press.
fl. B. (201J l ). lndividua: agency and collective deter•
minism: Changing perspec:ivrs on race and ;,'th-
nicilies in cities, the Chicagn schoo: 1918-1958. In
J, )<Im::ia, D. Kaeslcr, & W. V,inclawski (lids.),
,Wirrors and windows: in the history of
socioiugy (pp. 183-196), To run: Jntcmati m1a I
Sociological Ass•OY.atto::i.
l.:::eoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry,.
Bevi,:'ly Hil'.s, CA: Sage.
Unco'.n, 'f. S, & Guba, E. G. (2000). Parndigmati.
:ontrnvers:es, ccnlradic:ions, and err:erging con-
fluences. In :'-1. K. Denzin & Y. S. Linrnh1 (Eds.),
/laml/mok ,l( Qualit11ti11;, Research (2nd ed.,
pp.16,\-188). ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.
Lively, (2001 ), Ocrnpatinnal daims lo professional
'sm: The case of paralegals, S7mbolic lnteractfrm,
(: 996), Rewriting The fhtcovi'ry 11f Cirow:ded
ther;ry after years? {aumai Management
lnquiry, 5. •n-L"'"·
Lofland, I" & I.of.and, L. H, (1984 ). A11alyzing s,JCiu!
settmg., C'd. ). Belmo::t, CA: Wadsworth.
Lolland, J,, &: Lu:land, L. H, (I 995). At111lyzittg
settinf}, (3rd etLJ. Belmont, CA: Wr.dsworih.
Ln:1and, L. H. ( 1980). Rem ir:isccnce, of classic Chicago,
Urban l,b'i!, 9, 251-28 I.
Maines, D. R. (2001). The faultime crmcimisr.ess:
A view ,if ' iuteractfrmi,,m in tociolo,w·1. Ne,,,; York:
1
Aldine de Gmyter.
fv:aines, D. R.(21l03). lnte~artionisrn's place. Symbolic
lmmicrion, 26, 5-18.
Jv:a1m.1. L (l 999 ). Death and dying: Confluences of
emotion and awareness. Sociology of Health ,:m,J
lllrrc.<s, .li, 13-26.
Mea,:, C.H. ( 1932}. Philosophy of the presenf, LaSale,
11.: Op!!n Cciu:1.
Mead, G. 11. (193',J, Mind, self and s,)dety. Chicago:
University of Ch1cago Press.
Melia, K. M. (1996}. Rediscovc:ing Glaser. Q;.mJitative
Heuuh f{esearch. 6, 368-378.
,\1 iller, D. E. (2000 l, Mathematical dimensions uf qua: i•
:alive research, Syml,aUc !r.teractivn, 399-402.
Miller, S. L, & Fredericks, M. (1999). How doe,
grounded tr:eory explain! Q1.rnlitati"1e Health
R1iseard,, 9, 538-55l.
Mil:,, C. W.: J 991)). Situated actio:;s and vocabularies of
motive. 1n D. Bris&ett & C, Edgle;• (Eds.). Life as
theatre (2nd ed, pp. 207-218). New York: Aldinc
deGmyrer.
W. itdicll, R. ('.., fr. (2002). Daucing to Armageddon:
Sw viva/ism ,md chaos in modcrri rimes. L:l:.,ago:
Univcrsi:y of (.'hicago Press.
Mitchell, R. c;., & Charmaz, K. : I 996}. 'li:lling talcs,
wri'.'ng stories. Joumal of Comemporary Ethnog-
raphy. 144- I 66,
Morse, J. M. (1995}, The significance or saturation,
Quaiitative Health Research, 5, :47- 149.
Morse, I. M, ( 1998). Validity by rnr:m1iltt'e. Qualitafr;e
Health Re,earch, 8, 4113 -445.
Morse, j, M. ;1999), The errm;l:alr walkthrough,
Qualitative Jlea/Jh Research, 9, ,,.,,,,,-,,,,,,u,
Musolf, G. R. (2003}. The Chicago s~hooL In L T,
Reynolds & :t J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.;, lfa11d•
hook of .,ymbo/ic in,era,·rfonism (pp. 91 ··· 117).
Wal r:ut Creek, CA: Alta.V:: :a,
Nnsshaum, M. C. ( 1999). and social justicr.
New Yo,k: Oll:fonl llniversity Press.
Nu~sbaum, M. C. (2000). Women's cap,1bilities and
social Justice. Joumol of Hu»1f.m Deveio1•rmmt, 1,
219-147.
Olesen, V. L (2000). Feminisms and qua!ita:ive
researdi at and i11:o the millcr:niom. In N, K.
JJenzin & Y, S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hcmdbook of quali•
tative research (2nd ed., pp. 21 I, Thousand
Oak., CA: Sage.
Park, R. & l:li.::-gess. E.W. {1925 ). '!'.Ii,~ ciry, Chicago:
University of Chicago Pre;;s,
"rus, R. (1'.1%). Symbolic inforu,tiun and 1:tlm(Jgrapl1ic
re_,earch: Intersubjectivity and the study of human
lived ,•x:FJ•eri,:mc;;. Albany: State University of
'iorkPress.
Rawls, f, (1971). A th wry of,,,,""" Cambridge, MA:
3elknap Pre.,s Harvard University Press,
Reynolds, L 'f. (2Q0ja). Early representatives, In
L 1 Reynolds & N. J. Herma::-Ki1111ey ;Eds.),
Handbook cf symbolic iliterartiom'sm (pp. 59-81 ).
'Nalnut freek, CA: Alta.Y'.i:a.
Reynolds, L, T, (20031:>). btellectual precursor~. In
L l: Reynolds & N. J. He:man-Kinncy (Eds.),
H.1.mibook ofs;,1mbolic interacrionism (pp. 39-Sll).
w,,::.ut Creek, AJtaM :ra,
Richardson, L. (2000). ·writing: Amethod of inq11ir y. I11
I\. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook

<:f qualitative research (2nd ed., ;ip. 923-948).
,housar:c Osks, (',A: Sage.
Scheff T. J. (2003). Shame in self and society. Symboli,:
interaction, 26. 139-262.
Schwalbe, M. Goodwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D.,
Thompson, S., & Wolkomir, M. (2000). Generic
processes in the reprodL.ction of inequality: An
inte:actionist analysis. Social Fcrces, 79, 419-452.
Scliwandt, :. A, (1994 ). Constn:ctivist, interpretivist
approaches ro huma:: inquiry. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Ed~.), Handbool of' quaiuative
m,eardi (;ip. I: 8-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, 1.1\, (2000). T:1ree ep:stemologkal stances for
qualitative inq·J:ry: lnterprctMsm, hermeneu:ics,
and soda! cons,ructlonism. l:: N. K Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), H,mdbook of qua/i1ative re,earch
(2nd ed,,pp. ;89-213;.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, M., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. America!l
Sociological Review, •16-62.
Seale. C, ( 1999;, The quality of qualitative researcl.,
Lm1du:1:
Sennett, R., & Cobb, J. (1973). The hidden injuries of
cla,s. New York: Vintage,
Shaw; C. (1930). The jack-roller. Chkago; L'niversity of
Chkago
Silverman, U. (2000 J. Doing qualitative re,ean:h: A
pr,1ctlca/ lumdbook. London: Sage.
Snow, D. (2001). Extending and broadening Blumer's
,onceptualization of symbolic intera~tionism.
Symbolic intern<'!ion. 24, 367-377.
Snow. D., & Anderson, L. ( I993 ), Down on their luck:
A study of homeless street people. Berkeley:
University of California P:-ess,
Star, S, L (1989}. Regions of the mi•1d: Brain research
and the quest for scietttffic certaimy. Stanford, CA:
.Stanford University Press.
Stem, P. N, (J994 ), Eroding grounded thwry. In I, Mo:se
[Ed.), Critical i;,.sue, in qualitative research methods
(pp. 1..:-,:L.>1.Thausand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L. (Ed.). (1964). George Herbert Mead Oil
rociaf psychology Cl:'cago: Unlverst,y of Chicago
Press.
Charmaz: Advancing So;;ial Justice Research 111 535
Strauss, A. L. (1987), Quali!alive analysis fer social
scientists. Nev, Yiirk: Cambridge University Pn:ss.
Strauss,A. L.11993}. Cmilinuai permutations of actian,
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Strauss. A.. & Corbin, J. (1990;, Basics cf qualitative
resean:h: Grounded theory procedures and tech-
niques. Kewbury Pa~k. CA: Sage.
S1rauss, A., & Corbin, J (I 998). Basics f qualitative
research: Grtnmded theory procedures ami
niques (2nd ed,). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A , & Fisher, B. ( 1979a). George Herbert Mead
and the Chicago tradi:im1 of sociology, Par: 1.
Symbolic Inten:icti,m, 2( 1),
Strauss, A., & Fi~her, B, ( 1979b ). George Herbert Mead
and the Chicago tradi:ion of sociology, Part 2.
Symbolic Interaction, Z(l), 9-19.
Suttles, G. (1968). Social order of the slum. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
1edlm:k. 8. [ZOOO). Ethr:ography and ethnographic
representation. :n N. K. Denzin & Y S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qunlitarive research (2nd ed.,
pp. 455-186), Tho1:sa:id Oaks, CA:
Thomas, W. I., & Znar.'ecki, F. (l 927), The Polish
peasant in America. )Jew York: Knopf.
Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang, Cl:'cago: L:niversit)• of
C'.hirng'.l Press.
Ttmr::em:ans, S, (l 994 J. Dying of awa,eness: The
theory of awareness contexts revisited. Sociology
of Health and Illness, 17, 32.2-.H9.
van cien Hoonaard, W. C, ( 1997 ). WorUng with sensitiz-
rnrtcepts: Anulylfra/ fieid re;;earch. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage,
Van Maanen. J. (1988). Toles of the field. Chicago:
[niversity cf Chlcago
Venkates::, S. (2000). American projeet: The rise and
Jal! of a modern ghetto. Camtddge, MA: Ha:-vard
U:iiversity Press.
Wacquant, L (2002). Sc:ntlnizlng the street: Poverty,
morality, and ih~ pit:ans of urban ethnoi;raphy.
American foumul of Sociology. 107. l 468-1534,
21
CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY
AS STREET PERFORMANCE
Reflections of Home1
Race1 Murder, anci Justice
D. Soyini Madison
W
hat does it mean to be at hmr.er How
docs leaving home affect home and
being-al-:t0:ue?
I kmie is here, not a particL:!11r place tha: one simply
inha'::its, hut more tha:: onr p:.ace; there are Im; ma:iy
homes t,1 al:ow place 10 secure the mo1s or rou:es of
one's destination, It is :,ot simp:y that the subject
lines not bdong anywhere, '!be journey between
humcs provides the subject w:th 11:e cont<lu~ ol' a
space belonging, 'mt a spac~ t;iat e~.presse; the
very logic of llil bterval, the passing through of the
s~x:t betwei.!11 appar.:ntly fixed momen:s of depar
tore and arrival. (Ahmed 2000, p, 76)
Ill THE AIRPORT: DEPARTING
Hm11E/ ARR!VTNG Hor,.,rn
Whtn my plane was about to land at Ketoka Inter
national Airport ir: Ghana, \V,;;st A'.Ii..-a, in March
of .WOO, I had been away from Africa for :iearly a
month, I had gone home to th~ Uniled States to
~ee my son and my daughter after more than
2 years of tleldwork in Ghana., was leaving home
to come horr.e. ror the last 2 years, airports 01:
both s:dcs of the Atlantic marked physical ana
symbolic junctures of the ceparture and arrival of
home (Ahmed, 2000). Airports had become rhi-
1nmes of ?erennial beginnings and endi:lgs, of a
mark<"d lirninality tha, delineated what lt meant
tu depart one life and arrive in another. Airports
became the synecdoche for a black Diaspora
ciEzenshi? ar:d fo! a poiitics of mobility.
During l 4 hours of travel, l r.epartcd home
in order to arrive horr..e, and, in the ser.dment of
Alice Walker, to do the work my soul must do
(Walker, 1974), in Ghana, hy doing ti:e work of
performance and by making a performance that,
hopefully, mattered, As I gathered my belongings
to leave the pla:1e, I realized it wa~ my last year in
Africa. Twas in the final stage of my fiddwock-
the culmir:al:ng stage, This was the year I would
stage the performance, thereby making my field-
wnrk public and its purpose kr.own.
II
 538 • HANDBOOK OF QUALITATfVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
It was upon entering the airport and waiting
for my friend and follow Fulbright sis:er, Lisa
Aubrey, to pick me up that I began to feel the full
weight of this final arrivaL This was it. There was
no turning back, It was time to transform 2 years
of fieldwork data on pover~y and indigenous
human rights activism into a public performance,
a pablic performance for the purpose of advocacy
and change. The performance would depict a
debate raging within a community of Ghanaians,
one side representing the human rights of women
and girls, and the other side representing the
preservation of traditional religious practices.
The former believed that traditional religior. must
he changed fur the freedom and development of
thtir people, while the latter believed that tradi•
tional religion must be preserved for the suste-
nance and protection of their people, The
performance would represent these opposing
claims, but it wm::ld do more-it would implicate
the corporate, capitalist economy and the conse•
quences of poverty on human rights abuses in the
global South.
LPerformance of Possibility
As I walked through the airport, thoughts of
the pe:formance and its purpose took hold. Th1s
perfurma:ice was going to be about the work of
Ghanaian human rights activists and the work
they were doing in their own country, and it had
to bt powerful and true and absolutely urgent
because bodies were on the line. These people
were changing the lives of women and girls by
re-imagining the discourse of rights, by mobiJiz.
ing their communities, and by changing the law.
Moreover, Ghanaians did this for themselves
under the forces of wretched poverty and global
inequity, The performance had to unveil the labor
of these acth·ists working in their local communl·
ties, A'\l'U it had to unveil the devastation of global
forces that impeded and burdened their victories.
This perforc:umce aimed to expose the hidden,
clarify the oblique. and articulate the possible. It
would be a performance of possibility (Madison,
: 998) that ai:ned to create and contribute to a d:s•
cursl\-e space where unjust systems and processes
are idemified and interrogated. Social critic Anna
Marie Smith (1998) stales:
Disseminatior. of den:ocratic discourse :o new and
needed areas of the social is the first step toward
change... , One becomes r.;dicai:zed when one
fir.cs a compeL:1g discourse to speak. (p. 8)
! hoped the performance would provide such a
discourse through the descriptions and narratives
of those Ghanaia:i rights activists who told me
their stories. Staging their struggles for bu.man
rights and the mandate for economic justice
through the illum1nating frame of performance
promisrtl this dissemination of democratic dis•
course. I hoped the performance would offer its
audience another way to speak of rights and the
origins of poverty that would then un-nestle
ar.other possibil:ty of informed and strategic
action. fn other words, the significance of the per•
formaru:e for the subjects of my fieldwork is for
those who bear witness to their stor:es to interro•
gate actively and purposefully those processes
t:iat limit their he.11th and freedom. I do not mean
to imply that one perfo:mance can bring down
a revolution, but one performance can be revolu·
tionary in enlightening citizens to the possibili-
ties that grate against injnstice, One performance
may or may not c;hange someone's world, but, as
James Scott reminds us, acts of resistar.ce amass,
rather like snowflakes on a steep mountainside,
and can set off an avalan6e. Everyday forms
resistance give way to collective defiance (Scott,
1990, p. 192), In the performance of possibilities,
the ex.pec;tation is for the performers and specta
tors to appropriate the rhetorical currency they
need, from the inner space of the performance to
the outer domain of the soda! world, to rnakr a
material difference (Madison, 1998),
Performance scholar Diana Taylor reminds us
that when confrontec. with certain "truths~ the•
ater has the power to illuminate not only what we
see and how we see it, but how we can reject the
reality of what we see and know to be true (Taylor,
1997). 1 believe more and more :hat a perfor-
mance of ,;iossibility is always a harbinger of and
a confrontation with the truth,

IT. The Unexpected in the Present Tense:
The Yfurrler of Amadou Diallo
l see Lisa at the baggage claim. How on Earth
did she actually get inside the airport! 7hose
hard-core guards dor1t lei anyone co:ne inside
airport un'.es, they're traveling. This woman is a
wonder, with her combination of striking beauty,
unabashed willfolness, irreverence for rules, an(:
extraordinary intellect. She always aver:s thr
expected, the pre<lktable, the requirec. I wont
evrr, ask her how she might have cha:med the
guards to ger th rough this blockade of a:1 airport.
while throngs of others are waiting outside to
greet frier:ds and relations.
"Lisa!" l shout, so happy to see my frle:id.
"Soyiiiim:eee:" she calls out wi:a excitemer.t i::t
her Louisiana acce:i.t. "How was the flight?"
«The flight was frne. I have just been so wor-
ried aboc.t getti::tg this performance ready. This is
all on top of the fatigt:e of r.ot sleeping for 2 days
tryin~ to back here.»
"Oh Soyini, g:rrrrl, the perforr.iance will be
wonderful and you will be fine. Besides, you don't
have time to be tired:'
"Why?" I asked cu:iously_ "What's happening?"
"V\'e must organize a protest march on the
American embassy Amadou!"
"Lisa. it is all so awful and so redundant,"
Lisa's voice tightens. "Does a blackman's life, a
poor blackma:i's life, mear. anything in the U.S.?"
The march was Lisa's icea, and I knew that
sh would be stalwart in mobilizing people of
m:m:ie1:ce to 5ta.:1.d up and speak out against the
murder of Amadou Diello a:1d 1he rnisuirriagc of
justice rhr,: follmved. Sdll, I was so exhausted I
could hardly speak.
"Lisa, are we meeting tonight?"
"Yes, we're all meeting at Flavors Pub in Osu
tonight. This will be our second meeting. I need
you there to help organize. We don't have r:iuch
:ime. We need to mount the protest for next week I"
I'm stunned. "Next week?"
"Yes, next ·week. We need to get the letters
and petitio:is to Wash:ngton within 2 weeks for a
re:rial. Are you too tirec, Soyinii Can you make it,
tieca'Jse we may be up all night:'
Madison: Stree: Performance Ill 5j9
1:ake a deep, uneasy breath, not so :n uch from
fatigue but from the contrad :ct:or.. l am in the
home of my heart, Africa, reflecting back on a
400•year•oki rage for the home of my bir:h, the
United States. The ideology of liberal democracy
in the United States is, for some, a 1r:ocel for the
world, yet its democratic principles partr:er with
radal injustice with E.agrant consistency. Racism
in A:11erica is no moribund phenomenon; w:1Jl-
ever or :mwever its forms of di.,guise, it is alive
and still hurting people. I will protest here, in my
African borne, for what was done there, in my
American s111.11c:, to a blackman born or: this
con:inent. I say to Lisa,"Lel's go:"
• ••
[African] Americans Ofj!imi7ing protest activ:t:cs
in Ghana against :he United Stntes govemme:,t
poS<ed interesting political aiid social cnntadual
questions regarding cifrl.cn's rights, state responsi,
bili:y, ar.d cemocracr in ,m irm:rnario:·,al cnmex:.
for ins:ance, ::1 what wav, c,rn citizens lawfullv.
'
exerdse their cor.stitutional rights to ~old institu-
tion, of govern men: ao:;ountable for lheir actions
when citizens resice il"~lside of the country c,f
their birth and dtizensl:ip? Additionally, how we
e:1sure that protests con::ply lo faws of both lhE'
land of citiz.en,hip am\ the land of residencd
furthermore, how can ,ve operate within the cG::-
fines of bot!: sets of laws and sti:I maintain the
passio;:, outrage and fervor of our der.:an<ls?
(Aubrey, 2C01. p. I;
Africanist and political science professor Lisa
Aubrey wrote :hese words for ln Salute of Hero
Amadou Diallo: African Americaru Org,mize
Anwdou !Jiallo Protest 1tct!rilies in Accra, Gluma
in 2000: Lesson for Demacr!lty in the United States
and in Ghana.
Ill THF. STREET Pt-:Rl'ORMA'.'ICE:
BLACKNESS AJ\'D OursmE BliLONGr:-.IG
There are more people here at the march than
we expected, We've worked very hare, and we've
pulled it off.The teach-ins, fae awareness sessions,
54ll II HANIJBOOK OF QUAUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 11
the petitions, the letter writing campaign, and the
irJerm1tional solidarity day for Mu:nia Abu Jamal
each were essentia I and dynamic projects in our
organizing effo,ts fur this march, Amadou
Dia!lo mard1, Each these activities was a suc-
ces,, now cuhnimlliug in this day. I look at all
these people gathered '.1t:re: They arc a blend of
races and ethnid:ies, expatriates from Europe,
Asia, Africa. and the Amerkas living in Gha:ia
from all over the world and coming to voice their
indignation over the death of a young, innocent
black man in New Yo1k Cily wlm was murdered by
four p:a im:lothes police officers as ile was enter-
ing his residence in the Bronx. The police of::kers
fired 41 hullcts at Amadm: Diallo; 19 of those
bt1llets entered his body after he had fallen to the
g:uund. ·~he police were looking for a criminal, a
young black man they thought wu, Amadou.
They asked him if they could hiwe a wurd wi:h
h irn. Amadou reached for nis wallet to show his
id.::ntification; then, the bullets came, and they
kept rnming. He did not have a weapon. The ofli-
cers were brought to trial. A. jury of eight wbite
men and four black won en acquirt<'d 1'.,e four
white police uflice~s. I Ill'Onder, if all tile office:-s
had been bl8ck, wollld Amadm:i's life have been
S?ared? II is a troubling thought, but 1don't think
it would nave n:ade a difference. Bbckn~\s is a
universa: sign'fier of :ear, danger, a:1d threat
across color .ines; the meanings play out in tl:.e
destruction of too many black men in Amer:can
ci 1ie, hy t"I ose powerfu 1 and powerless with
g;ms,
Here we all stand, together, on this day, March
8, 20!JU, remembering Amadou and demanding
; ust ice. And :1e re I stand, A:rican Amrrkan,
between two hmr.es-one majority white, the
other majoril y black. I stand 'Jere tr.inking about
thi., thing calied race that wrestles bet'A'een Africa
and America and that is complicated hy the catt:-
gory "Africa:, American:'
Perfor:nance scholar Ioni Jo:u:s writes:
Just wh,11 is an Afrkan Ar::eri;;a;: Africa! My
i:mhili1y lo ,rn.,wer this q·Jestio11 uprooted a hereto•
fcre, fundamenta: asptx:: of my identity, a part of
th: self! took for g,anM.! in the U~ci1cd Smtes a, a part
of my ct:ltura! icrntity. !n my mind, my d:-::adlocks,
West Afri::an inspirl'.d do:hing, and bfackness of
to::gue me,mt something powerful in the United
Slates, while for the Yo:uba, these artifacts of
tit r elicited puzzkrnent, am-.isement, and some-
limes disdain, I did n:.: feel that my self, r:ie sclf
I had constructed on the l'.S. sd, was visible.
rnL.•c~L., I foll out ufrr.y self, (1996, p. 133)
! Remember: A Digression
I remember, during my f:rst days in Ghana,
I we1:t to visit Lisa. I was lookii:g for her flat; I
couldn': figure out wllid1 apartment was hers. A
Ghana iar. living on the first floor of her building
saw that I was lost. He knew that I was looking for
Lisa.so referrir.g to her, he asked,"Are you looking
for :he white girl upstairsf''
I was taken aback by his descriptiun. Lisa
is honey brown, with nalu;al hair a:1d West
A::kan-inspired dothir:g and b:ackness of tongue.
How could he :nistake [.isa for a white worrum!
"~o:• I sdd, umettled and insulted. "f am not
looking for a white girl, I am looking for Lisa
Aubrey and we are both African Amerirnns."
The man poin:ed to her apartment a:id then
just shook his head and chuckled under his
breath, "Ahrunt'
I trembled. He had just cailed me a fo~cigner, a
white person.
B1ack people are dying and catch:ng hell in the
United Stales, and that man called me Abruni! [
belong to blackness as much as this ma:i'. I a:n
rrminded of cultura: critic E!speth Probyn: "If
you have to think about belonging, perhaps you
are already O'Jtside. Instead of presuming a com-
mon locus, I wa.1! to cons:rier the ways in which
the very longing to belong embarrasses its taken-
for-granted nature"(l996,pp.8 9).
For many black America1:s, at profound
moments, helo:1glng requires a fixed poli:ical
ground. Unde:-standing that ulti:nately we belong in
differe:11 categories and to different cu;:nmunities
and :.hat our belonging may be annunciated r,t dif-
forent stages of political and social progrrssion.s (or
regressions), beyond all this, ':;\frican America:!"
as s:gn'f:rr and as signified is nonetheless a rela-
tively stable reality o"' belonging to blac,mess in the

United St;ites, however corr: ,Ucatcd that belonging
:nay be. [ exp,;riens::c belonging with;n the racial•
:zation of blackness in the United States not as a
longing from an outside identif)' tu enter iuto an
inside identity. I am always already ins:de. Even
when I'm not thinking about an I ever not a
':,lark person? Granted, I experience black belong·
Ing m: American soil as a space of tlux and ar:, bi•
gi: ity constituting multiple idc:ttilie,; however,
this ':ielonging rrmains a discursive and material
association with specific bodies based on l:istori
~al,soci.1:, and political amngements that are reg•
ulated :hrough law. culture, and the everyday. As
this belonging is disci.:rsi vcl y instituted and mate•
rially cirperie:i;:ed, my black budy is fur:hc~
de:1ce that I am not white anc. that I belong to !he
category of blackness.
Black pco;,lc can o, canr.ot and will or will not
choose tu he slippery am! e,,1uivocal about their
rad al idi>ntil y a:id he:m1ging. But for many black
people in the United States, embmcing this belong·
Ing, however i: is artic'Jlatcd or whatever level
of its oonsistency, becor.1es a matter uf saving one's
life and one's sanity. Th:s kind of belonging falls
beyond in:1,;lfoc•.u;,: ur ph iloso?l':ical pondering; it
is psy-:hological and physical pmtectiun,
I never quest,or:ed tb:! fact of my blac'."n"ss. It
is as much a part me as my st:n, my :iose, my
mou6, my hair, and my speech, all tl,e while with
an u1:dersta11ding that it is beyond appearances.
When Anna Julia Coo;;cr said, "Wnen and where I
enter, my race enters with me;' she wis ack nowI•
edging the ubiquity of race as it is in:ernally felt
and externally con.,truc:ed {G'ddings, l 996). The
eve~•prese:1t fac, of race :oo:ns within the multi-
lavertd realms of blackness in tr:e United SI ates
and' withir: a web of projections both rnlored and
white, both host ik and admiring, where race/
blackness often precedes being, In Ghana, West
Africa, the words "wl1ltc girl upstairs" disrupted
my reality of belong:ng (that I've always known)
to very core. 1 was remindec that geography
might be one of tr-e greatest deter:niners o: them
all. Perhaps geography is destiny after
Y,y peri;anhood, for L:sa's neighbor, was out•
side blackness. I wns outs:de belonging (Piobyn,
1996). l represen:ed so:nething dsc to him. At that
Madison: Strccl Pedhrmanu, J11 541
moment, it was representation t;,ut eclipsed any
notion of belonging. I was r.ot a black woman, but
the representat;on a wl:ite une, the represcnta-
t;on of a white, advanced rountry. The :1eighbor
certainly understood t:1at I was not white like Julia
Roberts is white. ~ was not white by pheno:ype,
but by cour:try. Although 1:e may ]:ave J;1derstood
that I was of African descent, it did not :natte,.
Nation and global orde: took primacy over racial
idelllii:Cation, In that instant, i representc>d an
i:1dividual of Americar: descent, not African
des~ent_ I live in a:1 arivanced countrv; he Iives in
'
the developing world_ This fact of c,onomy
eclipsed blac:.:m,ss within the U.S. context or any
un lty around o:aspora blackness tr.at I might
:'ar.tasize.
3elonging may be the effe::: of identity, but
re:,resentation becarr-1,: a fra:ncwork :or meaning
in the white girl upstairs (Hall, 1997), And if
resentation embodies meaning, my meaning was
now constructed as not :ilack, as not belonging.
And if one of the :h ings that culture is based on is
the ?mduction and eichangc of mear_ings, if
0:1.e of t:le Wilys we give thir:gs mea11i:1g is by how
we produce them and hm-., we represent t:iem or
how they appear tu us, in that moment :he white
girl upstairs became the das,ic encounter
between cultural in.sider ar.d cultural o·Jtsider.
At that moTT:ent, insiderlout.sider was deeply
inscribec and poignai:tly ::eversed, i was the uut-
sider, a:1d bdonging was r1:versed. That race is
socially made became ar. nnderstatemc:n at t:ie
so i.:nd of"white girl:' We arc reminded repeateci.ly
(and for good reason) that race is construcred,
reconstructed, and deconstructed depending on
locale, history, and power, hut im :neda!e experi•
ence sm~etimcs pene:rate~ dee;,cr. Would he have
caied Lisa white if she had been a man and if I
had been a man? Wo'Jld h.e have said, ~the white
boy upstafrs"r 1f I had been ii white A merica:1
woman, would he have referred to race at all?
Would he :iave said, "vou mc:an the !adv upstai r;;?"
' '
I personalize my experiences '.n lhe field to
engage ironically wif:i a vulncrahility toward lllli-
versal ques:ions and hunan Lltlcase. Race as per-
sonally experienced the ethnographic then,
when I became subjed and object of the Other's
541 !Ill H1\.'~DllOOK OF QUALITATIV:' RESEA:~CH-CIIAVT'ER 21
gaze, brings me to the ethnographic now, wri:ing,
I theorize f:um lhe starthg po:n: of the personal
and from my own racial dislocation between,
within, and outside belonging in Africa, Race, in
the mornent-''white girl upstairs"-meanl tr.at
this (re)construction of who I am is tied 10 where
I live and where I travd, as well as po:itklzed pe,.
spectives on wealth, opporunity, and technology,
sp.,c:fkally as they are perceived by those in the
global South, the developing worlc, That blackness
is contingent-relative to African Amerirnm,,
~OT on being of African descent hut on being
Amerian citizens-is for many Africans taken
fur granted, while for many black Arr:erkans it is
disheartening. Blackr.ess is tied lo slavery, terror,
and <l iscrim '.nation, as it is also tied to .i culture
and past that are genern:ivc, free, and prosperoll~.
However, in that ethnographic then, all these lay-
ers were dis placs;d in recognition of my American
citizenship that is complicated because I am of
Africar. descent
II L Street Performance
and Diaspora Identity
We are marching duwi: the streets \Jf Accra.
t:1is is less a protes, march and more a st,eet per-
formance, or is it more a p:ntest march because it
is a street performance'
We had fJI planned to :nee! a, the Labonne
Coffee Shop in !own and then march in silence
to the Ame:-ican embassy; u;>on reaching :he
embassy, we would begh: our p:ogcam of speeches
and testimonies, But the silence has surrendered
to the sheer energy of our co]ective w:11. We are
all caught in the drama and the urgency of o;,i r
indignation, which cannot be s::illec by silence,
not here on this cominent of drurr:s, poetry,
and dance, always dance, because this coming
together has evolved 'n:o a precious praise song
mightily strung together by the antiquity of dark•
skinned motion, The march is a perfo,mance of
move1m:t1t made into a variance of sounds, s.ym-
lmlic rhythms, and lyrical incantations of mou:-n ·
ing and politics. The onlookers in our path join
our chorus of steps. They sing and chant with us,
They see lhe black and white T-shirts we are
wearing, the word "Diallo" written in black ;etteu
across the front and the nnm bers" l 9 of 4 l" writ·
ten across our backs, We pie~ up more and more
people on our This march is becoming a
carnival or contestation of the higbcst order, of
,mrposeful action (Conq .:ergood, 2002), We are
all together, absorbed spontaneously in the com-
munit.is and flow of this assemblage of move•
ment am: this alchemy o: collective wilL There is
no wh: te girl i,; pstairs here; :here i, only, in this
heightened moment, com:nunal energy. On this
path of street pnforruam:e and prote,;,t, for
this brief moment in ti:ne, all oft:s be'ong lo each
other for perfor:riance and because of it. and
;some of us, for just:ce and because of More
and more come to join the march, We art ,tepping
and shg:ng; we are meeting new friends: we are
learning about th particularity a lost life; we
are er;acti ng uur urgency for justice, Reggae
&inger Shasha Mar:ey raises his voice and calls.
We respond. He calls again, and we resp on(: again
in the reverie of Ghanaian high life,
Anthropologist Victor Turne:: ( l 982) wr'tes:
Is thi:rc any of us who has not :;nuw ;: this 1::llmenl
when the mood, s1yle, or fl: o: spontancou.s com,
munitas i,, upo:1 us, we place a h 'gh 1/alue an per•
son;,; hrm~ty, o.,.,,nmess, and lack of pretensions
or prc:entiousnes~. We fed that it is im;iortanl ln
relnle dirrctl;> to another person as he pn:sent,
l::::iself ':1 r'le here and now, free from the n 11• • ••
ally defined e:icumhranccs his rok, sta:us, rcpu •
·.ation, class, ~aste, ~e~, or other strncrnral niche.
I:1cMduals who interact with one a::other in the
mode cf spo,,tane0us commun itas become totally
absorbed into a sir.gle ,ym::~ronizcd, fluid event.
II has something magical about ii. (pp. 4i-48)
The magic of our inspired oneness surr,rnoned
by the cramatic sounds and motions of street
perfurmance displaced "while girl upstairs;' at
least today a:id with a possibility for tomorrow,
into a Dfa,pora corndousnes,, a hlac.{ Atlar.tic
identity, that would ciemanci that African pcople.s
on the con:inent and in the United States u:ider·
stand Amadou's death as an allegory for poHtkal
actioi: on both sides of the oc.:an, Describing that
day, 1 turn again to Lisa's artic:e and her words:

African Ar.:erica:: individuals in who took
:he inilialivc of organitiug protest a.,;tivities were
sui;iµorted by many !'an-African and other :iuman•
i:ar:an comm;.init:es that believe in justice, fairness,
equality, and demoGacy. [:1dividaals, community
organizations, ncn govemmell!al organizations
(NGOs), businesses, especially private radio ,ta,
tio::s, ofrexd untiring support for the D'allo protest
activi:ies. Among the support.,rs were the African
American Association of (;hana, One-Africa, the
Brotherhood, members uf :he Ghana :egal pmfes-
sion and the Ghana Har Associatio::, other con•
cerned Ghanaians, Ube~an refugees in Ghana, the
W.E.B. D1:bois Center, tf:e Embassy of Guinea, the
Com:nission on HJman Rights and Administrative
Justice (Cl !RAJ, a quasi governmental organiratio::
of Ghana), th.: Studer.t and Workers Solidarity
Committee, Musicians of Ghana (MUSJGA) and
Ghanaian and American students from the Univer-
sity of Ghana, .'.,egun. [Aubrey, 2001, pp.1 -2)
Now, the 1:1arch has grown to even greater
nu:n::iers, Amadou Diallo's memory is reaching
out like a hand gesturing for another to hold and
,o reme:n':Jer. Manifost through performa:ice, the
gesn re is exquisite, evolving inlo a celebratory
embrace.
We finally reach the American embassy. We
fo,m a large circle in front of the buildir:g. As the
cirde forms, we begin lighting our candles. Lisa
begins the ceremony by recounti:lg the night of
Amadou's death. She co:1cludes her presentation
by ,peaking eloquently or. the nature of democ-
racy and descen:. Her words are a call to action for
free speech, for collective action, and for the U.S.
Departme::it of Justice to intervene and bring
federd civil rights charges against the acquitted
police officers.
After Lisa ends her presentation, l begin to
speak I am speaki r.g the power of n:m:rning:
mourning the hope Amadou Diallo, who was so
like so :nany imrr:!g:ants, 1'TIO strive most of their
lives lo come to the land of opportunity, wealth,
and happines,, and discover that when they
finallv arrive, thev must confront the om:nous
' '
I
inequality and vinlence of race in America, l dos;:
by recovering wl:at it means to mourn, not on:y a~
loss but also as evocation. Our mourning evokes
I'
l
Madison: Street Performanct 111. 543
social activism. I am remir:ded of ,ights activists
who have fought across national borders and their
urgent cry:« Don't mourn, orga:iize!"
The ce,emony is drawing to an end. The writ.
ten statement we crafted, demanding a retrial
and that .:ivil charges be broughl against the
:i:)Ur police offii:ers, is given to the director of
:he embassy. She receives the state:nent w::·.1 the
;iromisc that the embassy would look into the
ma:ter and take actior., as its officers a'.so believe
in justice.
111 NOVl::MBER 15,2002,
NoRTII CAROLINA, U.S.A.
And the Hate Goes On
La, La, La, La, La
A ret~ial was not ordered. The accu:ttat of the
fuur police offkers was granted vrithout further
interfere11ce by the jus:ke svst:cm When I first
began preparir.g this chapter, 2 years afte:- o;i r
prntest march, 1wen! to the kternet to search for
new developmcnt~ relating to the Diallo casi:.
I discovered that :here was an Amadon Diallo
Web site. I opened the site and, to rr.y surprise,
altbough the murder of !Jiallo was on February 4,
1999, nearly 3 years prior, their was a posting for
that very day, :'Joverr.ber l 5, 21l02. \\'hat fo:lows
are samples of the :nost recent exchange over a
J,day period from when I first discovered the site.
These ,·erb,dm exchanges (including spe'.Eng
and grammar) represent the sentiment of most or
tr.e entries sent to tl:e Amado:i Diallo home page.
: havf chosen tu include only three that were the
least offunsive.
"fame: Nigger God Killer
Date: Tuesday, 'Jove::1bcr 12, 2002, at 20:11:06
Comments: Phuck you Nigger God s:e.pid fncldng
worthless faggot ass ni15ger! Someone shoc:ld kill
your worthless cocksucking faggot nigger Kill all
niggers! Wbitc Power!
Narr:e:Aryan
Date: ThursdaJ., ~ovember :2, 2002.,at ,,.,.,,.,,,, 1
 544 • HANDBOOK OF Ql:ALITATl\'F RESEAll.CI' -CHA PT Eel 21
Comments: A:nadou Dial:o is a worthies, nigger; the
cops shou:d have blow:i this nigger hrains ,KL The
on: y good nigger is a dead nigger, Hell Hiller!
IJe·.:tschcsla~c'. tl:er Alles! Ein Reich, Ein volk, Ein
Fuhrer! Scig hem
All niggers and niggerkwers mu, t dicl
Date: !'riday, November IS, 20tl2, nt o I:44:'i I
Comme:11.-: I mtally agree with vo·~ Aryan. The c1ps
should have not only blown Amadm. Dial1:i's
out, but have also blmvn ()t!l his who.e for::':v·s Dra:::s.
a!IL:s true while people (exduding kike,, wiggers,
am' faggots, hr~ausc they're niggerlo,ir:g white ra,;e
traitors) ~hould blow every nlgger oo this e;;rth's
brains out. i'. uiggcrkill'::g and niggerl:wcrkilling was
legalized l'c: be ::<:illing tons <1nd tons o[ niggers
niggerloving white r2ce ~:-a1tor kikes, wigiiers. and
faggnts e11eryday.
And hate goes on, even after ri,~ath. We are
in an era when many still relegate such racism to
bygone days. The messages from the Internet
notwithstanding, and given that the nunder of
Amadon Diallo r.iel :10 '"".,""'' what good did our
street protest do? Peuvle still hale, and more
people of color have died since 1999 at the hands
of murderous author1 tv. What ls :ne value o:' rnch
pe,formance;; when 'what we aim for is :10t
achieved? What effect did om performance march
have in the lig:1t of these desFicablc and violent
words?
JV. Conclusion
Just like a hell cannot be Llllrung, our s:reet
performance car.r.ot be undone. It is remembered,
and it has produced friends, allies, ar.d comrades.
,is it ha~ also inspired imagination. The promise of
it performance of possibility is that it not only cre-
ates alliances while it n;.m1es and r:iarks injustice,
but it also enacts a forct beyo:id ideology; it enacts
and imagi:ies the vast possibilities of collcctive
hopes rnd dreams coming into frJ ::ion, of actui :y
being lived. In the words of performa::ice scholar
Janelle Reinelt, "perfor:nai:e can overrun ideol-
ogy's containment" ( 1996, p. 3). Why, tl1c11,did ollr
street per:onnancc mailer?
The performance made public in:ernational
b}'Jstice comr:1 itted on m, Am,dca n city streeL :t
broug'n that injustice beyond its part icdar loca•
tkn by extc:1ding the arena of public v:ewing ar:d
awareness across national bou ndades to invoke
and materialize a transborcer participatory ca::
for j1.1&t ke, generating a sl reet performance I~ a1
embodied a dialogue w:th aJthmity (Gunner,
: 994). Tl:erefore, ir: this more expanded pcr:or-
mative participation, a re-,·ision:ng of ingrabed
social ar range:nents relating to authority and
violence, <'.nd puwe:, as well as freedom of
speech and sodal change, wc:-e called into ques-
tion by tl:e voices and action of those sitJated
wi ~hin the context of globalization from below
(llrccher, Costello, & Smith, 2002; Co':en-Crnz,
1998),
The march evolved into a ~tree! perfonmmce
that made spi riled actors out of passiv~ observers.
Engaged action motivated by pc-rforma:ive inter·
vent ion, a per'om,ance of possibility was required
for the ca[ anc the response, for the k,lirr:m:ies,
the dialogue, and the demand upon the American
embassy. Vloreover, ii :s the emotio:1ally d1argcd
animation c::awn from the body in motion,
wilh:r. the heighte:1ed moment~ of perforrnative
inrervention, that t.:nleashes a pal pahle defiance
lh,lt dissolves apathy (Conqucrgood, 2002;
Denzin, 2003; Madison, 1999). The performance
evoked spontaneou, con: munilas that offers the
akhmy of I: uma :1 mnnection, conj oimurn:, and
intersuhjectivity to the power and ubiquity of
memory. We reme:n ber how :his commun:or: fol!
for llli and for each othe~. together. It 'Na, made
even more powerfully :1 uman became it was pub-
lidy performed. I echo the sentlr.1cr.t of social
"' l ivist Ernesto J, Cortes, J,. , that there i, ad imen-
sion uf our human ii y faat err:ergcs or.!y when we
engage in puhlic discn;irse.
The strccr performance, empowered by com•
muuitas lhe humanizing dynanics of public
discourse, provided us wit!: lhe gift of remember
ing (r'oiloci, 1999). The street performance
:,ecame a method and a means fo~ the c.i.,scm tna-
tion of discm:rse r('lative to rights, justice, ,.ml
change, and, moreover, for transborder pal'I kipa-
toty democracy (Brecher e: al., 2002). 1be march

was a local ,md a d:-mnatk point of inter rogatiun
U.S. foreign policy rrlative to den:ocrncy assis-
tance programs that de1:i anc that other natior: s in
the world to make their state :r:stitu:ions ac~ount•
able and (Ac:1Jrcy, 2001, p. 2). Lisa Aubrey
states: "Fly organizir::g the protest activil ics,
African Amcr'cans were frm:ing the U.S. tu look
into the mirror for the very tra:1,parcncy and pro
bity it aims to cu:tivatc am: extract from other
governments" (,. 2). The street pcrforn:am:e
honored the local in speaking truth to powe:-
(Marable, 1996] and becllme a con:municc.tive
instrument in the public interrogation of injus•
tice that resulted in the enactment of collective
memory and mourning.
Fina]y, the street perforn:ancc opens tr.e pos-
sibility for ar:othcr st:·ategy for globalization :rum
he low. Globalization frnm above is n aki:ig poor
pco?le poorer and ric'i ?eople richer. l!recher,
Costello, am: Smith, in 6eir powerfully rnncise
book Globi,lization From Re/ow, state:
The ul!im11te sourci· of power is mt the comma::d
t::osc ,l: " top, bu: ccquiescem.:e of those at
the boll om ...• In res,1en:;,• lo globali1.ation from
above, movements are emerg:ng ali over the world
in social locallons that art marginal to ..:omi·
nam power centers. T:it'l>c ar~ linking up :iy mt·dllS
of n~!w:irks that ,.;ut across mn ional borders. They
~:·e beginning to develop a sense of solidarity, a
common belirf system, a11d a .:ommon progrnrr:.
They are 11Hlizing the~ ne:works to im;icse new
no;m, on corporations, governments, and interna•
tinnal iml:I ulions. (pp. 23, 26)
The street performance is another il'.ustrat:on
of the communicative function and po:itical effec-
tiveness of performance in • obilh:ing communi·
ties tor d1aoge. I: serves as. an added example of
t'~c potenfail of street pcrfcmmmce as a platfor:11
for subaltern voices and cross-border access a:1d
network~.
Seve:-al years have passed ,ince our march on the
American embassy in Ghana, and l still relive in
mv' memorv, words and chants from several of
O'J, Ghanaia:1 friends who were responsible for
J,fadiso:-: Street Perfirma:ice II S45
turning a protest march into a street ?Crformance:
Shasha chanted "We are One l.ovc"; Akosua kept
repeating "We prnve today that we are sisters";
Hden asse,ted "We are all Af:ican people"; and.as
the march car.1 c to an e11d, Kweku &aid, "Ar: ocear:
cannot divide our blood:'
I remember the resounding force of 1he drum•
mcrs and how our steps :narkec the rhyti:.ms
the drums along the road to the em bass;' um:e1
1he hot rnn, 6e blazing heat, ;me the many
accented voices filled with song, chant, bante:-,
and laughter, In Shasha's words and in the words
of many other Ghanaians who performed that
day, we were living in lbe co1m:mnitas of one love.
But after the march, and beyonri the path of
the marthe:-s, Lisa and I still remain the white
girls upstairs, However, on that particular day, the
magk of performance evoked a politics tha: was
Ii ved in fle~h and on the ground and that
cemandcd. social jcstice, a poEtics that is now
reinem':iered and recm;n:ed for :h~ possibil itics o:
anot:1er way ofbcir:g.
Ahmed,S. (2000), Str12·11urenw:mi1irs: Err,bodfed others
in posf.,:i.,/,mia/it;,. York: Ro·.11ledge,
Aubrey, L. (200 I). hi st,l11fc of ilerr A11111dr,11 Diallo:
Ajiic.111 Amerirnns organize Amadou Dfr1//o
pn•tesl 1W iviiies i11 Accra. Gh,u1<1 in 2000: J,esi~n
fi,, dmw,:1·11c1 i11 the Ur:ircd Staic.; cmd in Gfuma.
Retrieved from www.oh:(1.e::u/tongum,!win1er/
200: /lisa-au·;1:-ey.h1 rn
Brecher. ll., Costello, I, & Smith, B. (2.U02). Globalizn·
till!! fr.'m be/en,, Cambridge, UK: SffJ:h End.
Co·,en-Crnz, J. (Ed.). (1998). Radirnl sin'!!/ perfor·
m111:ce: An intenrnli,ma' ,mthoiogy. New York:
Routledge.
Conqnergncd, D (2002). Perfo,mance ,tudics: lnl~~-
vrntions and rndkal research. Th~ Drwna Rcl'li'w;
46(2), ,,,.,.-,.,....
Denzin, N. :2rnnJ_ Perfotmanre ,-tlrnogmphy: Criiical
pedagogy and the po/f1ics culture. ·:·ho,1sand
Oaks, Sage.
Giddings. P. (. 996). When amt l enter: 1he impact
o,f /1/ack w9111cr: on race amf sex in America.
}kw York: W'Hiam tv:orrow.
546 11 HANDBOflK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 21
C1:mm:r, L (Ed.). (1994). Politics a11d perfiJrmilnre:
Theatre, poetry, and wng in so111ium1 Africa.
Johannesburg: W:rw-.i:er8rand Jniversity Pres.s.
Hall, 5. ( 1997), Representation: Cultural represrnta/fons
and signifyi•rg practices. Lcir.don: Sage.
Jor:es, J. L ( 1996). The selfas othe:: Crea:ingthe role of
Joni the Elhnographer for !Jm;.;en Cirdes. '/ext
,mdi'erfimnc;ru:e Qu11r1:erly. 16, 13'.-145.
Madison, S. (1998 ), Performance, personal narr~lives.
and the politics of po,s:bility: Thf future of
:ierfor:nance In S. J. Daily (Ed.), Visions
,md revisions (pp. 276-286). Washington, DC:
'faEonal Communication A&~oda!ion.
Madison, D. S. ( 1999 ). Perforn::r:g 6,oryfel1'.hodiec
writir.g, a•id Per.for mance Quarterly, I 9,
107-124.
Ma~abk, ,\,1, ( 1996 ), :Speaking lrnth m p,«,,:er. Boulder,
CO: Westview,
Pollock, D, iJ999), 1el/ing bodies, performmg birt/
New York: Columbia University Press.
Proby:1, E. ( 1996), Outside belongi•;g. New Yori
Routledge.
Reine\:, ; , ( 19%), Crucibles of crisis: Peiforming suci,
change. Ann Arbor: t:niversity of Michigan Pre>1
Scot!, J. ( 1990). 1Jomi11a!i,m wrd rite arts of re,istanc,
:,Jew Haven, CT: Yale lniversity Press.
Smith.A. (1998).Lac!au and Mouffe.· The radical Jernr,
,:ratir imaginary, Kew Ycrk: Routledge.
Taylor, D. (1997). OiEappearing aas: Spr.r.uJes o
gender and nationalism in .4.rgentimis "Dirty War.
ll:Jrham, NC: Duke l;nivcrsity Pres,.
Turner, V, ( !982). From ritual to theatre: The hum at
seriousne,s of play. New York: Performin5 Ar-
/m:~nai Publication~.
Walker, A. (1974). In search of aur mot.~er,' gardens.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
22
TESTJMON/0, SUBALTERNITY,
AND NARRATIVE AUTHORITY
John Beverley
I n a justly fa:mrns Richard Rorty
(1985) distlng1:lshes between what he calls
the "desire for solidarity" and the "ciesire for
objectiv::y" as cognitive r::odes:
There are lwo pri ndpal 1q;:ys in which ~effective
ha man hdngs try, by placing their lives in a larger
context, to give Sl::r,se :u t::u~e lives_ firs: i, by
telling the ,tory of their contribution to a crn1c::m -
mty, -:11is cm:,:mmity may be the actual hismrirnl
on,: !n wh:ch they llvr, o~ ,mother act Jal one, di,-
hmt 111 time or pb:cc or a quite imaginary one, ccn-
sisting perhaps of ,r dozer hemes and heroines
sel•:ct,:d from history or fction or both_ Tht semnd
way is to describe ther:1selves as ,landir_g in an
immediate n,klion to a n,mhum;;n ri:'.1-l ity, Thi,
relation is ;~n:edb!e in lhe se::,t that it does not
derive from a reklion between .,uch a reallty and
thci, tribe, or their mllior,, or im,1gined band
of ton:rades_ I s::afl say that ,tories of ,he furme:
kind exemrl iiy the dcsi re for rnlidaril r, and that
of the fat:cr kind exemplify th,· d :sire
objcctivi:y_ (p_ 3l 1
The cue.;;tior, of testil!wnio-tcstimonial
na:-rative-has come prominently or.to tl:e agenda
of the human and soc ia'. sciences in recc r:: years
in part becm:se testimonio intertwines :he "desire
for obiectivitv"
J • and "the desire for sni'datitv" , in
its very ,itua:iun of prodnctio11, circulation, and
reception.
Teslimonic is by nature a demotic a:1d heterc,-
geneous form, so any formal definition oi it 's
bound 10 be too limiting. 1 But the following might
serve provisional'.y: A teslimmiio is a novel or
novella-length r.arrative, p:oduced in the form of
a printed text, told in first person by a nar:-a-
tor who is also the real protagonist or witness of
the events she o, he r~counts. lts unit of narration
is usually a "life" or t1 significant life e,-pedence.
Because in many cases thr di,e-:t :iarrator is
so:neone ~ito is either functionally ::E,e:ate or, if
literate, not a professional writer, the production
of a teslimonio generally involves the tape reco,d•
ing and !her. the transcript:or. a:1 d editing of an
oral ac;;ount by ar. :nterlocutor who is a journal·
ist, ethnographer, m li:erar y author.
Altl-iough one of the an,eceder.ts of /estiman io
is undoubtedly the ethnographic life history of
the C.11i!dr,m ofSam:hez so~t, t,>stirm:mia is not exartly
corrnnenrnmble with the category of life history
(or oral history)_ln ;h~ lifo history.it is inten-
tion of the interlocutor recorde~ (the eth11og:-a?her
111, 547
548 Ill IIA'<DBOOK OF QJALr::tiTIVE RESEARC:i--CHAPTER
or journalist) that is paramount; in testimonio, by
contrast, it is the intention of the direct narrator,
who uses (in a prag:natic sem;e) the possibility
the ethnographk in~erlocno, offers to bring his
or her situation to the attention of an audiens::e-
the bourgeois public sphere-to which he or s:.e
would nornally not have accei;s because o:' the
very conditions of su':laltemity to which the testi•
11w1:w beam witness/ 'fe,limanio is not intended,
in other words, r.s a rec:111ctment of the anthropo·
'.ogical fur:ctiur: of the native infor • ant. In Rene
fara's ( I986, p, 3) phrase, it is :-ather a m.rraridn de
urgenda-an "emergency" mirrative--ir:volving
a pro ::ilem of repression, poverty, marginality,
exploitation, or simply survival that is implicated
ir: the act of narration itself, In general, testimonio
could be said to coincide wi:h the fer:iinist slogan
"The perso:ial is the political:' The conli:mporary
appeal of lestimrmio for educated, :-niddle-dass,
transnational publics is perhaps related :o :he
importance given in various forms of 1960s coun-
terculture to oral testimony as a form of pe,sonal
and/or collective catharsis and liberation in (for
example) the consdousr.ess-raising sessions of
the early women's movement, the practin, of
"speakini; bitterness" in tl:e C:iinese Cultural
Revolution, or psychotherapeutic er.cour:ter
groups.
The predum:na:1t C.)rmal aspect o: the tes,imo-
nio ', the voice that speaks to tl:e reader th:-ough
the text in the form of an "I" that demands to be
recogni:.:ec, that wants or needs to stake a da'm
on oi:r attention. Eliana Rivero (1984-1985)
notes ~hat''thc act of speaking fa:thfully recorded
on the tape, transcribed and then 'wr:tlen:
renaim in the testimonio punctuated by a
repeated scr:es of intcrlocu:ive and conver,a-
tiona: markers ... which constantly put the
reader 01: the a:erl, so to speak: Tnte< Arc you
following me? OK? So?" (pp. 220-221, my trans-
bdon ). The reslllt, she argues, is a "sr:aillike'' dis·
course (rli'sci.rso eru:aracol.ido) keeps tJmi11g
in on itself and that in the p:ucess invokes tl'.r
complicity of the reader Ci rough the 1:1edh:m of
his or her counterpart in the text, the direct intcr-
loculur. This presence of the voke, which the
reader is mear:t to cxpe::ience as the voice of a re,d
rather than a fictional person, is mark of a
desire :10t to be silenced or defeated, to impose
oneself on an institutiou of power and privilege
from the position of :he eidudrd, the marginal,
the subalter:1-- hence thr insistence on the
importance of personal name ot identity evident
sometlrr:es in !Jles of testimonios, such a::; /,
Rigaberta Menchu (even more strongly in the
Spanish; Me llama RigobiTta ,\1ench1i y ad me
uar:lo la wncienda), J'm a Juvenile Delinquent
(Soy un delincueme), and Let Me Speak (Si me
permiten hablar).
This insistence suggests ,m affinity hctween
testimony a:id autobiograp'iy (and related forms,
such as the aulobiograp/: ical bild1mgsrom11n, :he
memoir, and the diary), l.lke aumhiog:<1phy, testi•
monio is an affirmation of the authority of per•
sonal experience, but, unlike autobiography, it
cannot affirm a ~elf-identity that is si;;parate from
the subaltern group or class si:u.,tion that it nar-
rates, 1estimonio involves an erasure of the func-
tion and :hus also of ,he t!'xtual prrsencc of the
"author"that is so power:ully present in all majo::
forms of Western literary and academic writing. 1
By contrast, in autobiography or the autob!o-
graphical bild:mgsroman, the very possibility of
"writing one's life" implies necessarily that the
narrator is no longer ii1 the situation of marg:nal-
ity anc subalrcmit y that his or her narrative
d.:scribes, but now ha~ attained precisely the
cultural status of an a:1thor (and, ge:ieral:y speak•
ing, middle- or uppe,-dass economic status). Put
another wuy, :he transi don from storyteller to
author :mplies a panillel transition from gemei11•
schaft ro geselischajt, from a culture of primary
and se:ondary oraliry to writing. from a tradi
tional group icenthy to the privatiztd, modern
idc=itity that forms the sub,icct of liberal poli :ical
and economic theo, y,
The meton)·mic character of testimonial
discm~rse- the sense that the voice that is address•
ing us is a part that stands for a larger whole-', a
crucial aspect of what :ite:-ary critics would cal I
t::te convention of :he form: the narrat:ve contract
with the reader it cstablbhes, Btrnuse it does r:ol
require or estahlish a hierarchy of narrative
authority, te!itimomi1 is a fi.:ndam1mtally democratic
 Beverley: Tesrimrmio, Subalternity, and Narrative Aiuho:ity • 549
and egalitar'an narrative form. It implies that any
life so narrated can have a sy:nboUc and cogr:itive
vabe. Each individual testimo 11 io evokes an
a·,sent polyphony of other voices, other pos~:ble
li,•es anc experiencs:s (one con:mon formal varia•
tion on tl:e first-person singular testimonio is the
polyphonic test!monio made up of accounts :iy
different partici?ar.ts in the sa:ne evem).
If the :10vcl is a dosed form, in tl'.e sense that
both t:1e story am: the characters it involves end
with the end of tr:e text, in testimrmio, by contrast,
the distinctions between text a:i d history, repre•
sentation and real life, pubEc and pr: vatr spheres,
objectivity and solidarity (to reca[ Ror:y's alter•
native~ J are transgressed. [tis, to borrow Umberto
Eco's expression, an "open work:' The narrator ir.
tesrimonio is a11 actual person who continues liv•
ing and acting in ai~ actual socia I spare and time,
't>'hich also rontinue. Testimanio can r.ever create
the rnusion- :undamental to formalist methods
of texmal analysis-of the text as autonomous,
set agains, ar:d above t:ie practical domain of
everyday lite and strnggle. The emergence of testi·
moni1is, for the form to have become more ar.d
more popular in recent years, means that there are
experiences in the world :oday (the:-e always have
been; tha: cannot be expr.:ssed adequately in the
dominant forms of historical, ethnographic, or
literary representation, that wou:d be betrayed
or misrepresented by these forms.
Because of its reliance on voice, te,timonio
implies in particular a challenge to the loss of the
authority of orality in the .:xmtexl of processes of
cultural modernization that privJlege l!:eracy and
literature as a norm of expression. The inequali-
ties and contradictions of ger.der, class, race, eth·
nicity, r.at:onaliiy, and cultural authority that
determine fae «urgent" situation of the testimo•
nial narrator may also reproduce themselves in
:l:e relation of the narrator to the interlocutor,
espedallyw:ien (as is generally lb.: case) tha: r:ar•
ra:or ,equires to produce the te;timonio a "let·
tered" ir.terlocutor from a differe:1t ethnic ancifor
:lass background i11 order first to elicit and record
the narrative, ar.d ther. to transform it into a
p:in:ed tl:xt and see to its publication and circulation
as such. But it is eq ua:Jy important to understand
that the testi:nonial narrato, is nut the subaltern
as such eithe,: rather, she or he functions as an
o:gadc intellectual (in Antonio Gransci:~ sense
this terrr:) of the subaltern, who speaks to the
hegemony by means of a metonymy of self in the
name and ir. the place of the subaltern.
By the same token, the presence of subaltern
voice in the teslimo 'I io is in part a literary
illusion-son:ething akin to what the Russian
formalists called skaz: the textual sir.1dacrum of
direct oral expression. We are dealing here, in
other words, :rnt with reality it~elf but with what
semioticians call a "reality efft:ct" that has been
produced by both the testimonial narrator-
usi:lg popu:ar speech and the devices of oral
storytelling-and the interlocutor-compiler, who,
according lo hegemonic norms of narrative form
and expression, transcribes, edits, and makes
a story nut of the narrator's discourse, Elzbieta
Sklodowsk.a ( l 982) cai:tions in this regard that
it would be na.Ive to assume a direct homology
between text and history (in tes1!monio).
The dis,:ourse of a witness cannot l;e a rellecfam of
hi, or her experifnce, but rather a re:ract ion deter"
mined ":Jy the vicissitndes or memil~Y, intentio::,
ideology. The intention anc: the idtology of the
author-editor further s:.iperimposes the origina:
text, crea ling more ambig:Jties, silences, a::ci
ab~cnccs m the process of se:ecting and editing the
ma:er:al in a way co:isonant with norms of literary
form. Thus, 111!!-:ough th,: !estin:cnio :;ses a series of
devices to gain a sense of veracity and autb:-nlk·
ity-among them the p(Jit:t of view of the :irst-
pe:,on witness-narra:or-the play between fktion
and his:or 1· rea?ptars ine:mrably as a problem.
(p. 379, my translation; see also Sklodowska, ! 996)
The point is well taken, l-rJt perhaps over•
stated. Like the identification of teMimonio with
life history (which Sklodowsi<a shares), it con-
cedes agency to the interlocutor-editor of the tes-
timonial text rather tha:1 to its d:rect narrator.
It won:d be better :o say thal what is at stake in
testimonio is the particular 1:ature of the reality
effect 't produces. Because of its character as a
narrative told in the first person to an actual inter•
:ocutor, testimrmio inlerpellates the reader in a way
:'>50 111 HAN UBOOK OF Ql"A 7.,ITAl IVE RESEA RCi1 -CHAPTER 22
that literary fa:t:on er third person journalism or
ethnographic writing does not.'ibe word tes!imo-
nio carries the conno:ation in Spanish of the act
of testi:ying or bearir:g witness in a legal or ,eli •
gious sense. Com:ersdy, the situation of the reader
of testimo11io is a~ in to that of a member in a
courtroom. Somelhing is asked of us by testimo-
nio,in othe::words.ln this sense, testimonio n:ight
be seen as a kinri of speed1 act that up special
ethical and epistetnologic"l demands. (When we
are acd:-essed directly by an actual pers1m, in sud:
a way as to 11:ake a demar.d on 0·1r attention and
capacity for judgment, we nre u:1der a:1 obligation
to respond in so:ne way or other; we can act or not
on that obligat;or:, but we cannot ignore it)
What testimonio of its re.idem is in effect
what Rorty ncans by solidarity-· tb1t is, the
capad:y to identify their own identit:es, expccta•
tions, and values with r'.1ose of another. To under-
stand how th i,s happens is to understand how
testimonio worh ideologically as discourse, rnfaer
than what it
In one of the no,t powerful sections of her
famous tesrimonio I, Rigoberra Menchi1 {r,!ench6.,
1934), which has come to be ,wmething like a par•
adtgm of the gen re, Menchu describes the torture
and execution of her brother Petroci nio by elemcn:s
of tl:c Guatema'.an ;,rmy i:1 the plazc1 of a srr:all
nigh la:id tmvn c;il!i;d Chajul, whic:1 is the site of an
annual pilgrimage ::iy worshipers of the :ocal ,aint.
Here is par: thar arcOL:n::
Af:er he'd :in ished talking th~ officer onkred the
squad to lake away those who'd been %punisi:ed;'
112ked and ,w;;,llen as they w1:re. The1· dragged
the::1 along, they could 110 longer walk. Dragged
!her:: to this ;ilace, where they ::ned them up al I
together
w
within si1,;:il
•
of evervom:.
•
Thr ot'fker calle,'
to the worst of the crimina:s-the Kailli!es, who
wear diffcrmt clothes frnm other soldier;. They're
the ones with the most training, the mo.,: power.
Well, he ~ailed th,• Kaibilts and thtcy ;1oured petrol
over eadi uf the lor:ured. The caprah: s.iic, "This
i.,n't the last of thch punishmer:ts, rhcrc·s 2.:,orhcr
Thi,, is wh,11 we"ve done with all the Lbver·
sives we ca:ch, bernm,e they have to die by violence.
And if this doesr1't tead: yo;i a lt>.,son, this is what'll
happen to you too.The ;1ro:i:cm is that :he lndi:a;is
let themselves be led by the ,;;o:,i muoists. Since
no-on.:'s told the India::s anything.they go along with
the cnmmnnists," He .,,,as t:yir:g tJ conrince the
peopk but at the same tirre he was insul:ing them
h}· whal said. Anyway, the)' [the soldiers] lined
up the tortured aml pvurcd ?etrnl on thm1; anc
then !ht! s"ldi<:rs set fire to each n:1e of them. Many
0: them begged :or mercy, Some of them screamed,
many of them leapt hut u!lt•red 110 sourcc:-of
course, that was oe{:Eu,,e their breathing was mt
;,ff. Rut-an:: to me t:i is was incredible-·· r:1anv of
r!1e people had weapons with the :11, the one, who<! '
been on their way to wnrk had machetes.others :-ad
iiothing in their haud.,,:iu1 whrn they saw the arr::y
sell :::g fire to the v:ctims, eve: yone wmted to ,trikr
back, tn risk th,·ir lives doing it, despite all the
soldiers' arms .... Faced with own cowardice,
the ,m::y itself realized that the whok ;ieople 1,crc
' .
prepared to fi,ght You :ould see tha: even the
children werr e:~:agec., but didn't know how m
<:xpres, t'1eir rnge. (pp. 178-: 79)
This passage is undoubtedly compelling and
power:'ul. It inv iles the reader into ! he situation it
describes through foe m~dh:m of the eyc1,iitnes,
narrator, and it is the s:iaring of the expe::ience
through the med'Jm of Menchu', account that
constitutes the possibility of su!idarily. Rut ·'whar
J much of Rigoberta', story is 1:ot true?'' anthro-
pologist David Stoll (l 999, p. viE I asks. On the
basis of interviews in the area where the massacre
was supposed to have occur red, Stoll condudes
that the ii:ling of Menci1u's brother did not hap•
pen :n exactly this way, that Mench (1 could nor
h,we been a direct witnc:ss to the evrn: as her
account suggests, and that t:ierefore ti1is account,
along wit!l other dernL, uf l:e, le,timonio,
amounts lo, in Stoll', words, a "mytbc :nflation''
(pp. v,,._.,., 1 It wmild more accurate to
that wr:at Stol: is able to show is some :ather
than "muc:i" of Menchu', story :s not tne. lie
does not contest the fact of the n: nrder of
Mer:d11:i's ·:-irother by the a~my, and he ,ti ;mlates
that "there is no dou!Jt about the most importar:t
poiI:ts fin r:er story J: that a dictatorship oassa-
cred tho:isands of indige:ious peasants, !hat the
victims inducted half of Rigoberta~, immedia:e
family, that she fled to Mexico :o save her life, and
 Beverley: 1estimo11io, Subaltemity,
tha: she joined a reyoJutlona ry moverr:ent to
liberate her cm:ntry" (p. viii). But he does argue
tnat the inaccuracies or omissions in her narra-
tive make her less than a reliable spok.,sperso::i
tne interests and beliefs of people for whom
she claims to speak. In response to Sloll, Menchu
herself ha; ptblidy conceded that she grafted
elements of other people's experiences and stories
on:o her own account. J:1 particular, she
admitted that she w,.s r.ot herself preser:t a: the
massacre of her brother and hili companions in
Chajul, and that the acccun: of the event quoted in
part abJVe came insteac from her mother, who
(Menchu claims) was there. She says faat this and
si 11:ilar interpolations were ., way of making her
story a collective one, rather than a ?ersonal
biography. But the point remains: If the epislc-
mologkal and ethical authority of testimonial
narratives deper:ds or: the assumptio:1 that thry
are based on personal experience and direct w: t-
ness, then i: might appear that, as Stoll puts it, "I,
Rigobcrta Mcm::hu does not belong in the genre of
which :: is the most famous exa • p•e, beGuse ii
is not t:ie eyew::ness ac,;ount it purports :o hr"
(p.
In a way, however, the argume::it between
Menchu and Stoll is :iot so much about what
really happened as it i;. about who bas the autr.or-
ity to nar,ate. (Stoll's quarrel with Menchu and
testimonio is a political quarrel thiil masquerades
as an epis:emological one.) That qtestion, rather
:ban the question of "what really happencc:• is
crucial to an understanding of how /C$timonia
works. What seems to borbcr Stoll above all if th.at
Mem:h(t has an agenda. He wants her to be in
effect a native informant who will lend herself
to his purposes (of ethnograp:i k hformat'tm
gathering and evaluation), ·:lllt she is instead fu:1c-
tioning in !:er :iarrative as ar. organic intellectual,
concerned with produc:ng a text <Jfloca: history-
that is, w'.t:l elaboratir:g hegemony,
The basic idf'a of Gayarri Spivak's famous, but
notoriouslv, diffkt:lt, essav, ''Can the Subaltern
Speak?" ( l 988) might be retormi:lated in this way:
If :he subaltern cou:d speak-that speak a
way that really matters to us, that we vmuld tee!
cor.:ipelled to :i,ten to-then it wo:i:d rm! be
:,,/arrativc Authcrit ~ 111 551
suba: tern. Spivak is trying to shuw that behir.d
the gesture of the e!hnograplu:r or solidarity
octivist co:n mitted to the cau&e of tne suhalter:1
in allowing or enablir.g :he subaltern to speak is
the tracr of tl:e construction of an other who is
available to speak to us (with whom we can speak
ur with whom we would wmforlable speak-
ing), thu~ neutralizing the force the reality of
difference and antagor:i,m to which our own rel-
atively privLeged positior: in the global system
r:iigh give rise. She is saying that one of the
things being sui:ialtern :n,;;ans is not n:attering,
nm :lri:1g wortn listening lo, or not being under-
stood wh e:i o:ie is ''heard:'
By contrast, Stoll's a:-gument with Rigoberta
Y.enchu is precisely with how her tesrimQnio
comes to matter. He is bothered by tl:e way it
was us1:d by acadcr:1 ks and solidarity act ivisu
:o mobil'.ze internatio:ia: suppurt for the
Guatemalan ar::ned struggle in the I98Us, long
after {in Stoll's view) that mover.1rnt had lost
whakwr suppor: it may have initially enjoyed
a1:1ong the iDdigenous :ieasanls for w'lom
Mer.chu claims lo speak. T'iat i,sue-"how out-
siders were using Rigobert •'s s:ury lo justify cw:-
tinuing a war at the rxpenfie of peasan1 s who did
not npport (Stoll, 1999, p. 241 )-is the main
problem for StoL rather than the inacci:racies or
o:11issious themselves. From Sto[s viewpoint, by
making Mcnchi:,'s stoq· seem (in her own words)
''the story of a11 poor Guaternalans"-that is, by
its parlidpati:ig in t::te very metonymic logic of
testimonio-l, Rigobena Mrrndiri misrep:esents a
more comp'.ex a:i d :c.cologica:Jy contradictory ,it•
uati,m among Lhe indigenous pe.1sa111ts, It reflects
back to the reader not the rnhal!er:1 as such, but a
narci~sistic image of what the subaltern shouki be;
ll(ioks like J, Rigi:berta Menchu will be cxalt~d
because thty tdl ac~demks what they w~n: m
r.ear. • . . Vvhut makes /, IUgoberta .'¥/ mch,J so
attractive in uniwrsilics :s what makes it mislead·
ing about the struggle for s,irvival in I,natemafa.
We thi~k we a:e getting to understandil,g
Guatemalan peasants when a:tually we are being
borne by the rnysliJkat:ons wrnf>ped ;;:y in .n
iconic figure. (Stoll, 1999, :i. 227)
 11 HANDBOOK OF QUAll'fATIVE Rl::SEARCH-CHAPT'ER 22
k or.e sense, of course, there is a col ncidence
between Spivak's concern with the produ,tion 'n
metropoEta;i elhnog,aphic and literary discourse
of what she ca;J, a "domesticated Other" and
Stoll's concern with the conversion )'te:icbu
into an icon of academic political correctness, But
Stolls argument is aL,o explicitly with Spivak,as a
representative of the very kind of "postmodern
scholarsh:p" tha: wimld privilege a text like /,
Rigoberta Menchu, even to the e:.te:it of wc1nting
to deconstruct its metaphysics of presence, Tims,
Stoll states, fur examp:e:
Follow::ig lhe thinking of literary lhe0rists such as
f_.;lward Said and Gayatri Spivak, anthrop0logists
have become very interested in problems of narra-
tive, ,okc, and rep:csrntatior:, espeda[y the ;:,rot:-
lem of how we misrcprese:1t voice;; other than our
own, In reaction, some artthmpulogisl$ arg11e thal
!he resnlting fascination with texts threatens the
clai,:1 of anthm,1ology to be a science, by replacing
hypothesis, evidence, and generaliiatio:1 with
styhh forms oE int:o,p<;ction, 247)
Or this: "Under the influence of postrr.od-
emisrr: (which has und1.Tmined confidence in a
single set of facts) and identity politics (which
demands acceptance of claims to vktimhood),
scholars arr im:reasi:lgly hesitant to challenge
certain kinds of rhetoric'' (p, 244), Or"With post-
modern critiques of representation ar.d authority,
many scholars are tempted to abandon the task
of verification, especially when they construe
the narrator as a victim worthy their support"
(p,274)
Where Spivak is concerned with the way in
which hegemonic literary or scientific representa-
tion effaces the effective presence and agency of
the subaltern, Stoil's case against Menchu is pre-
cisely that; a way of, so to speak, rembalternizing
a na:-rative aspired to (and to some extent
achieved) cultural amliority, In the process of
constructing her narrative aud articulating her-
self as a political icon around its ci rcdation.
Menchu is becoming not-subaltern, ir: the sense
that she is functioning a, what Spivak calls a
sub;ect of history, Her testimonfo is a performative
rather than simp:y descriptive or denotative
discourse, Her narrative chokes, and silences and
evasions, entail that there are versions of "what
really happened" that she does not or cannot
represent without rdativizing the authority of
her ow::i account
It goes without saying that in any social situa-
tion, indeed even within a given or gmup
identty, it is always possible to fine a variety
of points of view or ways of telling frtat reDec:
contradictory, or simply differing, agendas ar.d
interest:;. "Obviously; Stoll ( J999) observes:
Rigobt'rta is a legitimate Mayan voke, So are all the
young Mayas who want to rr:cve to Los Ar.ge:es or
Houston, is the man with a large fan:ily wl:o
owns :h:ee wom-o.:t .;.ere, and wants me lo buy
him a chain saw ~o he can cut down !he last forest
:nore quickly. Any of these pen:ile can be picked to
nake misleading generalizations about Maya,,
(p,
The p,esence of these other voices makes
Guatemalan indigenous comrr:,mities-indeed
eve:i Menchus own immediate family-seem
irremediably driven by inter:i.al rivalries, contra-
diclions, and disagreements,
But to insist on this is, in a way, to der:y the
JJOSSihiHty of subaltern agency as such, becai.:se a
hegtmo:iic project by definition points ta a possi-
bility of col!ect:ve will am; action that depe;ids
precisely on the transformat'or. of the conditions
of cull ural and poli ,ical disenfranchisement,
alienm:Jon, and oppression that underlie these
rivalries and contradic:ions, The appea! to di\·er-
si!y ("any of these people") le-dves intact the
authority of the outside observer (the ethnogra-
pher or social scientist) who is alone in the posi-
t'on of being abfo to both hear ar:d sort througl:
all the various conflicting testimonies,
The concern about the connection between
ustimonio and identity politics that Stoll evhlces
is predka1ed on t:i.e fact that mullicultural rights
dair:1s carry with them what C.anadian pbloso-
pher Charles laylor (1994) has called a "presump-
tion o( equal worth" (and f, Rigoberta Mench ii is,
among o:1ier things, a strong argument for seeing
the nature of American socie,ies as irrevocably
multicultural and ethnically heterogeneous), That
 Beverley: 1btim,uuo, Suhaltemity, aad 'farrarive Alllhoril y JIil Y:>3
pres.imption in mm implies ar: epistemologica:
relativism that coiaddes with tl:c postmodernist
critique of En:ightcr.mer:: paradigm of scien-
t:fk: objectivity, If there is no one universal stan-
dard for truth, tlu:1: dair:1, abot: t truth are
contextual: They have lo do with how people rnn-
stnct different um:erst.rndii,gs of the world and
historical memory from the s,1me sets nf facts 'n
situation~ of gender, ethnic, and ine.:111ality,
cxplllitation, and repression. The truth dai:ns for
a restimonial narral've like 1, RigQberta ,\:fe'ndru
cepend on conferring on the for:n a spcGa! kbd
of epistemological authority as embodying su·:ial•
:em voice and experi.:1:ce. Against the amhoriry
of that voice-a:1d, :11 particdar agains: the
assu • ption that it can represent ade<1uately a col-
lective subject ("all poor (;J.;atemalans")-Stoll
wants to aff:rm the ant:mrily nf the fact-gath,dng
ar.d •testing procedures of anthmpology and
joJmalism, in which accut:n:s like Menchti's will
be treated simply as ethnograph:c data that must
be processed by more objective tech :1 iq ues of
assessrr:rnt, whicl:, by definition, a=!:' col available
to the &rect narrator. ln the fi na; analysis, what
Stoll is able to present as evidence against tl:e
val:d:~y of Menclnfs accou::t are, precisely, other
lestimv11iv,; other voices, narrative5, points of
view, i:1 which, it will c,m11:: as no surprise, he can
find something he wants to hear.
We know somelh'ng alxrc1t the nature of this
problem. There is not, outside the realm of human
discourse itsc:t~ a level of facticity that ca:1 guar-
antee fae Iruth of this 01· that represenlat ion,
givrr_ that society itself i$ not an esse:ice prior
:o representation, hut rather the cmisequence of
stn:ggles to reprcscat and over-represental:on,
That is the deeper meaning of Walter Ben iamin's
aphorism "Even the dead are not safe": Even the
historical memory of the past is con jcctural,
re.alive. perishable, 1eslirmmio is both an art and
a strategy of subaltern n:cmnry;
We would cre,;:e anutb:r ver~ion of the
na:ive informant of classical anthro,10'.ogy if we
were to grant testimo:1ial narrators :i ke Rigoherta
Mc:1ehu on:y the possibility of being witnesses,
and not t:1e puwer to create the!r own r:arratiYe
authority a:1d :iegotialc its cunditions of truth
and ~?resentativity. This would amount to saying
that th~ subaltcr r. can of course speak, but only
through u,, !!:rough our institlltionally sanc-
tioned authority and pretended objectivity as
intdlectaal;;, which give us the powe~ :o decide
what counts in :he :1arrator's raw material. llut it
.
is preciselv that ins:itutionallv, sanctio11ed author-
ity and objcctiv::y :hat, in a he:1evolen! form,
but still claiming to speak from the plac.: of truth,
the subaltern must confront ev<.'ry day in the
forms of war, ecor:omic exploitation, developnent
schemes, obliga:ory acculturation, police and
mi Iitary repression, dest:-uction of habitat, forced
sterilization, am: the like.'
There is a qt:eslion of ageucy here. What testi·
momo obliges us to confront is :10: cmly the subal-
tern as a (5elf-)represented vkti:n, hut also as the
agent-in that very act of rcprese:itation-of a
t,dns:orrnative project that aspi ,es to become
hegemun ic :n its own :·ight. In terms this pro•
' .
ject, which is not our fl\,\'Il in anv im;ncc.iate sense
and which m~y in fact imply structurally a
contrad:ctlon with our owi, position o" relative
privilege and autho:ity in the global system, the
testimonial text is a mean;; rather tha:1 a:i er:d in
;tself. Menc:ui and the persons who ,,;ollaboratcd
with her in fae creation uf /, Rigobertu ,\fe n.-hu
certait'.y were aware that the text would -Je an
important tool in humat rights and so'.idarity
work that :night have a posit:ve on the
genocidal concitions the text itself ,,,,,,.,::c.,., But
ha imerest ir: the text is not to have it becon:e an
o'Jject for us, our n::eans of getting the "whole
truth"-mda la rialidao'-of her experience. It is
rather to act tactically in a way she hopes and
ex1Jects will advance the interest~ the con:r:rn·
nity and social groups and classes her testimonio
represents: "poor" (in her own description l
Guatemalans. That is as it shm:k be, l:owever,
because it is not only our desi,e:; and purposes
that coJnt in relation to testimonio.
This seems obvious enough, but it is a hard
lesson to absorb fully, because it forces us to, in
Spivak's phrnsc, "unlearn privilege:' U:1Jearni:ig
privilege means recognizing that it :s not th~ inten-
tion of subaltern culmral practice s:nply to signify
its suhaltemlty to 1;3. that is wba: trstimonic
 II HANDBOOK Of' QUALlTAJIVf RESEARC'i-CEAP:ER 22
does, then critics like Skludowska are rigr.t in
seeing 't as a form of the stalus cuo, a kind o:
postmodernist costwnbrismo. The force of a testi•
monio such as l, Rigoberta Menchu is to displace
the centrality of intellectuals and what they rerng•
nize as culture-including history, Ii te:-ature,
journalism, and ethnographic writing. Like ar.y
testimo:1iai narrator (like anybody), Mench!l ls of
course also an intellectual, but in a sense she :s
dearly dUforem from what Gramsd meant by a
traditional lr.tellectual-that is, so:neone who
meets the standards and carries the authority of
humani stk and/or scientific high culture. The
concern with the question of suba:rern agency
and author ily in tesrimonin depends, ratl:er, on
6e suspicion th at inte'.lcctuals and w!"iting prac •
ticcs are thenselves conplidr in maintaining
relations domination and su.balternit y.
The question is relevant to the claim made
by Di:iesh U'Suuza (1991) in the debate over :he
Stan lord Western Culture 1:ndergraduatc require•
ment (which centered on the adoption of J.,
Rigoberra Mench,J as a text in one of the cca;rse
sections) that I, Rigoberta Menchu is not good or
great literature. D'Suuza writes, "To celebrate the
works of the oppressed, apart from the standard
.
of mer ii bv' whkh nther art and historv and liter•
al u:-e is ;\tdged, is to romanticize their si:ffering,
to preter.d :hat it is nati:rally creative, am,: to give
it an ae-sthetic status that is not shared or ap,;red•
ated by those who actually s::idure the oppression"
(p. !!7). It could be rcrgued that /, Rigoberla
Menchu is one of the most powerful works of lit-
erature produced ir. Latin America in the past
several <lea.des, but ~here is also some point in
seeing it as a provocatio:1 in the academy, as
D'Souza feels it to he. The su·:ialtern, by definition,
is a social posit:or that is not,anrl cann<lt be, ade-
qua:ely represer;tcd in the iuman sciences or the
university, if or.ly because the human sciences
anc tne university are among the institutional
constellations of power/knowlecge tl:at create
and sustain suba~temity. I'his j,,, not, however, to
draw a line between the world o.:' rhe academy and
t'ie subaltern, because the point of testimonio is,
in lhe first place, 10 intervene in that world-that
is, in a place where the subalte:-n is not. In its
very situation of enunciation, which juxti1poses
radically the suoject positiu'.'ls of the narrator and
intt::lKJtor, testimonio is i:wolved in and con·
:.1ructed out of the opposing terms of a mas:er/
slave dialectic: metropolis/periphery, nation/
region, Europeaniindigcnous, creole/mestizo,
elite/popnlar, urban/ru:-al, inte!lectual/m,rnual,
male/female, "lettered"/illiterate or stmiliterate.
1e$timonio is no more capable of ~ranscending
these oppositions t11ar, are more purely literary ur
scientific forns of writin11'C or • arrativt::Cthal would
require something E:<.e a c·.1ltural revolution ::1at
wou:d abolish or invert the conditions that produce
relations uf subordination, exploh:ation, and
ineq uaHty in the first place. But testimonio does
involve a new way of articulating these oppositions
a:1d a new, collaborative model for the rcfa,ionship
betwee=i the intelligentsia and the popular da;;ses.
To reti:rn lo Rori y's point about the "desire for
solidarity;' a good part uf the appeal of testimonio
must lie in the foct that it both represents symboli•
cally and enacts in its production and ,eception
a relation of solidarity betwee:i ourselves-as
rr.cmbers of the professional middle class and prac•
titioners of the human sdences-a:1d subaltern
sodal subjecls. Testimonio voice to a ;,revi-
ousiy ar.onymous and vokeless popular-demo,ralic
suhjecr, but in such a way :hat the inlellt<.1ual or
professional is interpdlated, in hi::. or her fi:nction
as inter!ocutorireader of the testimon :al account,
a, being in albmce with (and to some extent
dependem 0:1) this subject, without at the sa:ne
time lo$ing his or !:er identity as an intellectual.
If lirsl •generation testimonios such as /,
Rigoberta Menchu effaced textual:y in the manner
of the ethnographic Jfe story (except in thei~
introductory pres~:lta:ions J t:le presence of the
inte~loc.1tor, it is becoming increasingly common
i:1 what is sometimes called the "new ethnogra•
phy" to put the bterloct:~or into the account, to
make the dynamic of interac:ion and negotiation
between interlocutor and ;iarrator par: of what
testimonio testifies :o. Ruth Behar's 'Translated
Woman: Crossing the Border with Esperanza's
Story ( 1993 ), for example, is ofte:1 men:ioned as a
 Beverlev: Ti!!tim1mlo, Subaltern:ty, and Narrative Authority 111 555
modei for the sort of ethnographic text in Ivhich
the authority (and identity) of the ethnographer
is counterpointed again,t :he voice and au6o:-ity
of the subject whose life history the efanographer
is concerned with elicithg. In a similar vein,
Philippe Bo urgois's innovative e:hnography of
Puerto Rican crack dealers in East Harlem, In
Se,;rch of Respect ( l995), often pits the values
of ft:e 'n11estigntor-l:!ourgois-ag.iir:,t thostc of
the dealers he befricncs and whose stor;es and
conversa~ions he transcrbes and reprodaces in
his text. In Event, Metaphor, ,\femory: Chauri
Chaura, 1922-1992 ( 1995), the subal:ern studies
historian Shahid An:in is concerned with retriev•
ing the "local memmy" of ilTl up~isiug in 1922 in a
sma:l town in nor:hern India in the course of
which peasant~ surroun<led and hurned down :i
police statiun, leading to the deaths 23 pulke·
men. But he is also concerned with finding ways
to incorporate formally the narratives that
embody that memory into his own history of
fte evenl, thus abandonir.g the usua1 stance of the
historian a, omniscient narrator and :naki ng
tb, heterogeneous voices of the cor.1munity itself
the historian( s).
Tl:ese ways nf constructing testimonial mater•
ial (obviously. the e,amples could be multiplied
ma:iy tines over) make visiEe that what ha;')pens
in testimonio is not only ilie textual stagir"g of a
"domesticated Other:' to recall Spivak's telling
ob;ection, but the confronta:ion throug,11 the text
of one perso:l (the reader andlor immtcdia:e inter•
locutor) with another (the direct narrato, or r:ar
rators) at the level of a possible solidarity. In this
sense, testimonio also embodies a nt:1v possibility
of political ag~ns:y ( it 's essentially that possibility
to which Stoll objects). liut iliat possibility-a
postmOC~'Tni;,'t forn: of Popular t'mnt-stylealliance
politics, if you will-is necessarily built 0:1 the
recognitio:1 of and respect fo, the rad:cal incom•
mensurability of the situation of the parties
invo'.ved. More than empa:hic liberal guilt or pollt ·
icil'. mrrectm,ss, what testimonio to elicit is
coulitfrm. As Doris Sommer (I 996 i it suc-
cioc:ly, tcstimonia "is an invitation to a tcte•a•tete,
not to a heart to heart"(?, 141)_
Ill Brnuo<;RAPHJC Noni
Margare: Randall, who has o:ganized tes:imonial
workshops in Cuba and Nicaragua (am: who has
herself edited a number of restimonios on the
;0Jes of wm:, en in the Cuban and Nicaraguan rev-
olutions), is the authDr of a very good, albe:; hard
;o find, handbook 0:1 how to prepare a tcstinumio
titled Testimonios: .4 Guide to Oral History ( l 91\5)_
The first significar.t academic discussion of
mania that l am aware of was p:i b:imed ln the
1986 collection Testimonio y litera!uru, ediled by
Rem! Jara and Herr.an Vidal at the University of
Minnesotis Institute for the Study of Ideologies
and :.itera:ure. The most comprehensive repre•
sentation of the debate around testimonio in the
literary humm1iti-:s in !he ensuing decade or so is.
the collection edited by Georg Gugelberger titled
rhe Real Thing: Testimonial Discourse and /,acin
America (1996), whkh 'ncorporates two ea:-lier
collect:ons: one by Guge:berge:- and Michael
Kearney fur a special issue of Latin ,1 mer/can
Per;pecti,'t:s (vols. 18-19, 199 I), and the other by
myself ar.d H1.,go Ach1:gar titled f,a voz def otro;
Testimonio, subaitemidad, y 11erdad narruriva,
which appeared as a special issue of Revista de
Critica Literaria f..itinoamericanu (1992). The
initial literary "manifesto" of testimonio was the
essay by the Cuban novelist·ethnographer Miguel
Barnet (apropos his own Biography of a Runaway
Slave), "La novela•tesrimonio: Sodoliteratura"
( I 986), originally published in the late 1960s ir.
the Cuban journal Union. On the acader:1ic incor-
poration of lestimonio and its consequences for
pedagogy, see Carey-Webb and Benz !1996), Ja:a
and Vidal's (1986) rollcrtion happened tn coin-
cide with 6e fan::oi:s collrction on ethnographic
authority and writir.g practices edited hy ;arr:,:s
Clifford and George Marcus, Writing Culture
{1986), which exercised a wide bfluence in the
fields of ar.thropology and history. One should
note also in this respect the ,;;ertinence of the
work of the South Asia:1 Subaltern Studic, Group
e.g.,Guha, 1997; Guha & Spivak, l 988) and of
the Latin American Subaltern Studies Group (see
Rabasa, Sanjines, & Carr, l 994i 1996), For born
556 JIii HANIJBOOKOI:' QUALlTATlVE ?.FJiEARCH-CHAl'"~EJ~ 22
soc·.al sci cntists and literarv. critics, a ttnchstooe
for conceptualizing testimonio should be Walter
Benjamin's great essays, "The S:oryteller" and
"Theses on the Phi;o,ophy of Hiijrnry" (see
Benjamin, 1969).
a XoTES
I. Rorty's ( 1985) distinclion may recall for some
readers Marvin Harri s's well-known dist:nction
between emic and e!ic accounts ( where the fo,mer are
pers~::al or m!lccti,e "stories" ,me the lallcr are repre•
,,e::1a1ions given bv a supposedly ob1ecthe observer
basrd on empirical evidence).
2. Widely dilfore::t sorts of :wrrativc text.~ could
in g;vei: circumstance, function as l.estimonio.~: mnres-
s:011, murt testimony, oral histor}; :m:cmoir, aut1,hiogrn-
phy, ff~tobiogmphkul novel, chronicle, cor:fessicn, lifo
storv, nove/11• 1e.s1imon/o, ''Mr:lktiot: novd" (Truman
G1p~le), cr"likralure ol fact" (Roque Dalton),
3. Mary Louise Pratt (1986, d•m:ribc, the tesritno·
nio u~efully in this respect as '·autoethnographf'
4. ln Migud n.,,, •.,, (l'J~6l phrase, the author
has been replaced ::1 tesfimcnw by t'I~ 'unction of
u "compile," (compilador) or "activator" (gestanie),
somewhat on :he moci<'I o: film ;:,roducer.
:i. l,acan (1977, pp, 3Hl-3 I 1; writes:
Any :;ta:emer:t of ,mthority has no other gu~rim-
tee than it, very cr:unciation, ii is pointless
for ii to see, anotr.er signifier, which could not
:i;ipcar cmtsidc this locus tr. any way. Which is
what I mean wh~n I lhat no metalanguage
can :ie spoken, or, r::we aphorist:ca'.ly, that there
ls no Other oftht Other. And when the Legislatcr
(he who claims to lay down the Law i :i:t?sents
hir.:self to fill the g<-p,. docs so as an itnposto::
ml REFERENCJ:S
Amin, S. (1995). Ewr,1, metaphor; mi!mmy: Ch1mri
Chaura Berkeley: University of
C2:iforni11 l'::ess.
:i
Barr.et, M. 986). La novela-lest1m,mio: Soc:oliteratura.
In It Jara & H. Vidal (Eds.), 'le.stimonio y fiterat11ra
(pp. 280-30 I;, Minneai)olis: Uniwrshy of
Minnesota, Institute fm the Study of ldeologit'~
and Literatures.
Be::ar, R. ( 1993), Inmslared woman: fro.::mg rhe border
wirf; E,percmzas s,ary, Boskn: Beaccn.
Benjamin, W. (1969;. fllumi11ations ( R Zoh1:, Trans. l.
;>;;:w York: Schocken.
Bcvcrlev, J,, & Adiu~ar, {Ed,.). 0992). la i•r,z del
o!;o: fr.slimonio: suballernid,ul,y 1erdad m;;rrati,'il
ISpecial issu<" j, Rtvista de Crftica I ilcraria
I.:1ti1i',1(trnerlca.1,a,
:kmrgois, P. ( 1995 ). In search of respect. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carey-Webb,A., & llenz, S, (Eds,), (1996).1i:ad,mg and
1estimo11v. . Allnl :w:. Statr Uniwrsitv' (if New York
Press.
Clifford, J,, & Marcus, G. E, {Eds.I. (J986l.Writi11g
c,;ltun•: 'f'he f)Qe/lcs and p,7/j/ics v{ etlm,,gmphy,
3erkc,ey: Un ive~sil y of (:alifornia l'rrs.,.
D'SouT.a, ll (1991}, TWberal 2duca!lon. f\e1,York: r:rce
Pres,,
(ingelbtrger, li, M. (J:c,). (1996). 1'he real thing:
'fr•5rbn0nial diswnrse and Larin America.
Durr.am, NC: Dukt' Cniversity c'res;;.
Gusdbc:ger, G. \1,, & Kearney, M. (Ed.~,). (199l).
ISpecial issue J, L;;tir; Mr,r•r,am Perspectives,
18- l9.
Guh1, IL (Ed.). (1997). ti subaltem smd1es
Minneapolis: University of 'vt:mesota Pr,ss.
td1a,K,& Spiv:ik,G, C, (Fds.J, (198!\J, Seieaed suba/.
fem studie,;, New York; Oxford Unh·ersil y l're:;s,
;ani, R. (1986). Pnllogo. 111 Jara & H. Vidal (Eds,),
Ji:stimonio y literan1ra (pp. 1-3), Minneapolrs:
;;niversll y uf .\1 j nnesma, Inst itt:te for the Study
of Jdeologi,s and I l'.eraturt'i,.
Jara, It, & Vidal, H. (Eds.}, (1986), Tesfimonio y 1/ter-
atura. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
J:1stitutc for the Study of Ideologies ar.d
Liter.:!tur,s.
Li\t1!~., J. I,'1c·n)
YI I , ,.,i.,.ti1w,, •·,,w
.~-. ,de, J> Yu:k: W. \V.
Kor:on.
Mem:'111, R. (1984), l. Rigo/;erto .¥.mch,I: An Indian
wam,m ill Guatemala flurgos• IJeb:-ay• .ed.;
1\. Wright, Trrnq, Londor:: Verso.
Pratt, \1. L (1986). Fieldwork in common places, in
J, C:ifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing mlwre:
Tl.e plJl'tit, and po/iti.:s ofethnogruphy (pp, 27 ··· 30).
fierJ«,:ey: Un iv:rsity of California Pres,.
Ruba,a, J, Sanjlnc's, I, & C.,-r, R, (Eds.). (1996),
Suba:tt'rn sn:dics in :he Amerkm, ISpecial
fJisp(isiliuln, 19( 46), (Co11triht11ion, wrilkn ::1
19~4}
Randall, M. ( 1985), Tcstimonio;;A guide 10 oral history.
Toronto: Partirlpat(1ry Rese,1rch (iroup.
 Heverley: Trstirmmf,1, Subaltcrn'ty, and r-.:mraliv,· Authority Ill 557
Rivero, E. (1984-J'l85). ·lestimonio y conwrsadones
como dis:nrso liternrio: Cuba y Nkarng.1a.
amt Qmrempormy Rev:i[,;; iom.ry
Cul!uret I. Zlii-2:211.
Rorty, R. (1985). Solidarity or obiertlvity' In
J. Rajcnm,m & C. Wt'!'.t (Eds.),Post,malytic philos-
ophy (pp. 3 l\l). New York: Cclumbia ;;niver~ily
Press.
S~loJowska. E. (l 982 ). '. .a forma :,stimon :al y .a
noveli,tica de Miguel 3arr:cL Rtv ista!Rei•irw
lntemtru.?ric11na, 12, ''" ··· ""'
S"lodowska. E. ( Spaniiih Amc:icau testimonial
novel: Some aftcrt:ioughts. In G. M. Gugelhe:ger
(Ed.), Tl!e real thing: Testimm,ial discourse and
Lalin Amerira {pp. 84-:00). )urham, NC: Duke
U:1iversity P:ess.
Somm~r, D. (1996). No secrets. In 6 ..\1. k:geibcrgcr
(.E(l), Th,• rc"l thing: 11:slimonia! di,cai,rse and
fotin Americ,1 (pp. 130-160). Durhaic:. t,;C: !Jt:kc
Univcrnil ,· Pre,s.
Spirnk, G. ( Can the sub,i'.ter:i spea;,? In
1"dson & L, Gnissbcrg (E<k),Marxisrr. and 1he
fl'fterpre1u!io,i r,f c:ultur; (pp. 280-316). t:rhana:
l:11i1:ernil y of Illinois Pres.~.
Stoll, D. I 1999 ). Rigober!11 Me11rh1i the of all
pilor G1m1rmalans. Boulder, CO: \.\'cstview.
Taylor, (.. (19~41. T:,e politics of re,ognitio11. In
C. Taylor, IC A. Appir:1, J. Hdierma,. S. C.
Rockefeller, .M. Wn:ier, & S, Wolf. Mu 1•irul!uya/ism:
fix,,mi11i11)! the polili., •:f rerngnifi:m (A. Gutmann,
Rd.). Princclon, NJ: Prmcetm: U:::vcr,ity Ptess.
23
PARTICIPATORY
ACTION RESEARCH
Con1municative Action
and the Public Sphere
Stephen Kemmis and Robin l\,icTaggart
P artidpatory action researcl: l:as an
exte:isive histmy in many fields of sodill
practice. Our aim in 1h:s chapter is to
develop the view of partidpatory action research
that has shaped our own theory and practice dur-
ing recem years. We begin with a short ove:view
ofthe evolution our own th'n:dng and the influ-
ence of several generations of action research. In
our dur;;te:: on "Participatory Action Research" for
the second edition of this lfamlbook, we identified
several key approacnes to ac tioli researcn, the
and settings where they are ;nost frequently
used, several criticisms that have beer. advance<!
for each, and key sources to explore tr.em
(Kemmis & McT,8gart, 2000). The ap-;:,roaches
:dentified were a s(m:ewhat cdectic mix-partic-
ipatory ,c,carch, classroom actim: research,
action learning, actior: science, soft systems
approaches, a:1d industrial action research. We
summarize those approaches again here but do
not,,,.,,.,,,.,,,,. our views of thc:n: ii: l!1;s chapter, We
~.cknowlcdge the :nflurnce of each app:na-:h on
the field and as stimulus to reflec\ ion on our own
and practices,
for our currenl purposes, we proceed to
develop a comprehensive view of social practice
and reflcc: on aspects of our own work that we
term "myths, r.1isinterpreta1ious, and mistakes"
to move toward rec.onceptualb:ing research itself
as a social practice. :hink:ng abm:r research as
i social practice leads us to ar. exploration of
Haber r:rns's not;or. of the public sphere as a way
of cxtendh:g the th,x1ry a:1d pract:cc of action
research. We hope that this arg·,unent shows more
dearly how participal or y ad ion research differ,
from 01hrr forms of social inqui~y, integrating
more dearly iis political and mcthoch1logical
intentions. We a:.ticipate that this argument will
provide direction for an<"" generation of ;:iartici-
patory act[m: research, and we trust that it will
str<'ngthcn tr.e :heory and p:actke of participa-
tory action research in the mar.y ~elds and set-
that draw on its 'n;dlccmally and morally
r:ch traditions, ideas, and cha:lenges.
II
 560 11 EAJ,DBOOK 01-' QllALITATIVE RES3ARCH-CHAPTER 23
Ill TnE Ft.Miff m AcrmN RESEARCH
Actior. researd: began wit:l an idea attrih'Jted to
soda: ,isychologi st Ku re Lewin. It first :'ound
expre,sio:1 in the work of the Tavistock Institute
of 1-k ma:i Relations in the Ur:i ted Kingdom
(Rapaport, l970), wl:ere Lewi:1 had visited in 1933
and 1936 and had maintained contact for many
years. Lewin', (1946, '.952) own earlie:.t publica•
tim:s; on action research related to communi:y
action prograrr:s in tb: L'nited States during the
t940s. However, it is v1-1Jrth nolh:g Iha: Altrichler
and Gstettner ( 1997) argued that there w~:-e ea,lier,
more «acliouist" approad:es to action research in
community developrr:ent practked by lL G.
Moreno, for example, working with prostitutes ii:
Vienna at the tu:n of the 20th century, Nevertheless,
it was Lewin's work and reputation that gave im pc-
tns to the action research r.1ovemen:s in n:any dif..
fe:.;r.t disciplines. Stephen Corey ir:itiatcd action
research in ec:uration :11 1he l:nited States soon after
Lewin's work was published (Corey, l 949, 1953).
However, efforts :o reinterpret and justify action
resea,ch ~erms of the prevailing positivistic ide-
ology in the United States led to a temporary
decline in its developnent there (Kerr.mis, 198: ).
A second generation of action research, build-
ing on a British tradition of action research in
organizational develop:nent drnmpioned by
researchers at the Tavistock fnsfaute (Rapaport,
1970}. began in Britain with the Ford Teaching
Project directed ·:'.ly John Elliott and Clem Adelman
(Elliott & Adelman, 1973). Recognitioi, in
Australie of the "pract:cal" character of the British
i:1' :iative led to calls for more ex?licitly "critical"
and "ernandpa:ory" a,tion research (Carr &
Kemmis, 1986). The critical impulse in Australian
action researd1 was paralleled by similar advoca-
cies in Europe (Brock-Utne, l 980). T~ese advota·
des and efforts for their reali1.ation were called
the third generation uf action research, A fourth
ge:1era:io11 of action research emerged in tbe con·
nection between cril ical emancipatory action
re,earch and partidpatory action researd: tliat
had d1cveloped ii: t~e context of soda! novements
in the developing work, champ:oned by people
such as Paulo Freire, Orlando Fals Borda, Rajesh
Tandu11,A11isur Rahman, am: Marja-Uisa Swantz
as well ashy North American and Br':ish workers
in adult education and literacy, community devel-
opment, and development stndies such as Budd
Hall. Myles Hortor:, Robert Chambers. and John
Gaventa. Two key themes were (a) the develop-
1111,.·nt of theo::etical arguments fr:r more "actionist"
approaches to action research and (b) the need for
participatory action researchers to make links
wIth broad social 11rnvcmcn1s,
Participatory Research
Partidpa~ory research is an alternative pl:iloso-
phy of social research (and social life lviv.'ncia])
often associaled with social t,ansformation in
the Third \\.nrld. lt has mots in Iibe:-.ition theology
and 11eo-Ma:xht apprnad1e,, to community devel-
opme:it (e.g., in Latin America) but also has rather
liberal origins in :1 uman rights activis:n (c.g,, in
Asia). T:iree par:kular attributes are often used to
distinguish participatory research from .:onven-
tional rci;carch; shared owi:ership of research
,i,ojects, commJnity-based analysis of sodal
problems, and an orie:1tatio11 rowarci com;n·Jnity
action. Given its commitr;:cnt to social, economic,
and political development responsive to needs
and opinions of ordinary people, proponents of
participatory research have highlighted fhc politics
of co:wentional social research, arguing that ortho-
dox social science, des;iite its dai:n to vabe neu-
trality, nor:na:~y serves the ideological ::m.:tion of
justifying the position and interests of the we-allhy
and powerful (Fa:s 3orda & Rahman, 1991:
Forester, Pitt, & Welsh, 1993; Freire, 1982;
Greenwtmd & lrvin, 2000, 2001; Hall, Gillette, &
Tandon, 1982; Horton, Kohl, & Kohl, 1990;
McGnirr, 19!17; M(~aggart, :997; Oliveira & Darcy,
1975; Park, Brydor.-f.liller, Hall, & Jackson, 1993).
Critical Action Research
Critical action research expresses a commit1r.rnt
10 bring together broad social ana'.ysis-the self-
reflectlve col lcctive self-study of practice, the v,•.iy in
which language ,s used, organ i1.ation and power in
a local situation, and action to improve things.
 Kemmis&: M(faggart: Participatcr}' Action Resea:,h 111 561
Criti::al action research is strongly represented in
the literatures of educational adon research, and
there it emerges from dissafofactions wit!: class•
room action research that typically dot'll 1:,11 take a
broad view of the role of the relationship he:.,:een
education and social .:hange. It has a strong com•
mitment to partkbatio11 as well as to che social
analyses in the c:ilical social sdence traci:ion that
reveal the disempowerment and injustice created in
industrialized societies. During recent times, criti-
cal action research has also attempted to take
accow1t of disadvantage attributable to gcnde:- and
ethnicity as well as to social its initial point of
reference (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Fay, 1987; Henry,
1991: Kemm'.s, 1991; Mar:;..a, ;:.lgurruwutthun, &
\¥hire, 1992; McTaggart, I991 a, 1991b, 1997; Zi:ber·
Skerritt, 1996 )_
Classroom Action Research
Class:uom action research typically ir.volves
the use of qualitative 'ntcrp,etive mod<'s of
inquiry and data collection by teachers (often
with help from academics} with a view tu teachers
making judgments about how to impruve their
own practices. The practice nf classroom action
research has a long traditio:1 but has swung in and
out favor, pr ind ?ally because the theoretical
work that justified it lagged behind the progres-
sive ecc1cational movements faat breathed life
illto it at certain historical moments (Mdagga:i,
1991a; Noffke, 1990, 1997 ). Primacy is gi\•e:i to
teachers' self-understandings and judgments. The
emphasis is "practical;' that on tr.e interpreta-
:io:is that teachers and students are making and
acting on in the sitaatiun, In other words, class-
mom action research i~ not just practical idealis·
tic ally, in a utopian way, or just about bow
i:1:erpret,dons might be ditferent"in theory"; it is
also practical in Aristotle's sense of prac:ical rea•
soning a:iout how to act rightly and properly in a
situation with which one is confronted. If univer•
sity researche~s are involved, thfi r role is a service
role to the reache:s, Such universitv researchers
'
are often advocates for "teachers' knowledge" and
may disavow or seek to diminish 6e relevance
of more theoretical discourses such as critica,
theory (Dadds, 1995; Elliott, 1976-1977; Sagor,
J992; Stenhouse, 1975; Weiner, 1989).
Action Learnfrig
Action learning has its origins ir, the work
of advocate Revans, who saw traditional
a?pmaches to management inquiry as unhelpfd in
solving the proble1:1s of organizations. Revans's
early work with colliery managers attempting to
improve workpla~e safe:y marks a significant turn•
ing point for the mie of professors, enga_gi:1g them
directly ln management problems in organi7.ations.
The fm:dan:ental :dea of actiou learni:ig is to
bring peor,le together to learn from each other's
experiences. There is emphasis on studying one's
own situation, clarify·ing what the organization is
trying to achieve, and workir.g to remove obsta·
des. Key aspindom; are organizational efficacy
and efficier.cy.although acvocates of action learn-
ing affirm the mora 1pnrpose anci content of their
own work and of managers they seek to
engage 'r: the process (Clark, 1972; Pedler, 1991;
Revans, l980, 1982),
Action Science
Action science emphasizes the study of prac•
:ice- in orgar:izational set ~ing~ as a source of new
undersrar:dings and ir:tproved practice. The field
of action science systematk:a Ily builds the rela -
tionship between academ:c organizational psy·
cbology and practical problems as they are
experienced in organiza,iuns. Jt :der:tifics two
aspects of pro:essior.al knowledge: (a) the fo,mal
knowledge that all compete:n members of the
profession are thought to share and into which
professionals are incJcted di:ring their initial
trainir:g and (b) the professional kr.owledge of
interpretation and enactment, A distinction is
also made be:ween the professional's "espoused
theory" and "theories in use;' and "gaps" betvveen
these are 'JSed as points of reference for change.A
key factor in analyzing these gaps between theory
and p:-actice is helping ;he professional to unmask
the "cover-ups" thar are put in place, espedally
w:ien participants are :eel ing anxious or threat-
ened. The approac'l aspires to the development of
 562 11 HANIJl!OOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
the "re:1ective pra,;titiom:r" (Argyris, I 990;
Argyds & Schlin, 1974. 1978: Argyris, Plltnam, &
McLain Smith, 1985; Reason. 1988; Schon, 1983,
1987, :991 ).
Soft Systems Approaches
Suf: systems appmaches have their origins in
organ i,.ations that use so-called "hard systems" of
engineering, especially industria: production.
Soft systems methodology is fae hunnrn ''systems"
a:wlogy for systems engineering that has devel-
ooed as the sdem:e of prnduct ar:d information
flow. Jt is defined as oppn~itional to positivistic
sdrnte with its emphasis on hypothesis testing,
The researcher (typica:ly an outside consultant)
assumes a role as disci;.ssion partne~ or trainer in a
real problem situ~.tion. The rese;m.:ber works with
pan id pants to generate some (systc:ns) models of
the s::uu:ion and uses the models to qutstion the
sitmdon and :o suggest a revised course of act ion
ICheddand, I 98 I; Checkland & Scholes, 1990;
Davies & Ledington, 1991: Hood & Jadllmn, : 991;
Jackson, 1991; Kolb, 1984).
Industrial Action Research
Industrial action research has an extemh:d
his:o:-y. dating back to the post-Lewinian influ-
ence in organizational psychology and organi?.a •
tiunal cevdop • ent in the 'lbv:stock Institute of
Hur:ian Relations in Hritain and the Research
Cente, for Grut:p Dynamics in the United States,
It is typically con$t:::a:it driven, w:th very strong
advocacies for collaooration between social
tists and memb;:rs of differe::it levels of ;he orga •
nizat:on. The work is uften couched in the
language of vmrkplace democrati7ll.tion, bu7 more
recent explorations have aspired more explicitly
10 the democrarizatio:i of the research act itsd f.
following the theory and practice of the participa-
tory research movement, Especially ir. its more
recent manifestations, industrial action resea xh
is difforen:iated from action science anc it~
emphasis on cognition taking a preferred focus
on reflection and need for broader organiza•
tional and social change, Sor:1e advocac:es have
used critical :heory as a resource to express
aspiratio1:s for more participatory forms of work
ar:d evalua:ion, hut more typically the style is
somewhat humanistic and i:ldividualist:c ,ather
than · Emph,ises on social systems in orga ·
nizations, such as improving organt:ational
liveness and employee rela:ions, are common.
Also, the Lewinian aspiration to learn from trying
to bring about change is a strong theme (Bravette,
1996; r.lden, 1983; Hmery & Tlmrsmd, , 976;
Emery, Thorsrud, &: Trist, 1969; Foster, I972;
Levin, I985; l>asmore & Friedlander, 1982;
Sandkull, 191<0; ·1orbert, L99 I; Warmington, 1980;
Why:e, :9fl9, 1991),
Iii THI' EMEHGENCE OF (:{ITICAL
PARTICl?ATORY ACTION RESEARCH
Un l ii the late 19\UJs, the hallma:'k uf the action
researcl: field was edectkism. Although tl:e
Lewinian idea was often used as. a first puint of
legitimation, quite different rationales a11d prac-
tices had emerged in different disciplines. The
sequestering of mud1 literatnre under discipli-
nary rubrics meant that there was lit:le dialogue
between groups nf different ?ractitioners and
advocutes. Increases in visibility and popularity of
the appmaches rapidly changed :his. r:,ere were
large increases :n scale and attendance at the
world congresses on participatory action re;earch
as well as burgeoning intcres t at international
sociological rnmerences. Action research reemf'r-
ged as an ir.fluentia'. approach in :he I.Jnited States
{(~rcenwood & Levin, 2000, 2001). New assoc::a-
t'or:s betm,en researchers and a vast literature of
critique uf .:node,nity and its ins ii: -1ati on
1alis1, neoc2;:,: :al isl, postcapital ist state and
social systems into sucial lite created both :he
impetus for and tht possibility of dialogue. The
historical and geographical di st,ibution L'f action
research approaches arr,Jn d the world and their
interrelationships were better understood,
Critical participalury .,,tion ::esea::ch emerged
as part this dialogue, lt ain:ed tu provide a
frame of reforcnce for comprehcr:sion and
tique of itsf'lf and its predec~ssors anc to ofter a
 :<emmi~ & .'v!c faggan: Part idpatory Adon Research
way of working that addressed ra:npant :ndividu-
alism, disend:aJJI :m:nt, am! the do:ninance of
instrumcn:al rea,on-thc key features of tb:
":1.1a:aisc of modernity" ('laylor, 1991). Cri:ical
participatory action resr.irch, as we :i.ow under-
s:and it, also creates a way of reinterpreting our
own views of action research as they develop
practically, ~heorctically, a:id pecagogically over
ti:n.:, (e.g., Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis &
Mctaggart, 198811, 1981\h, 2000; Mcfaggart, 199la}.
Before we revisit sorr.c of the myt'.-!s, misit1terpre-
tations, and mis:akes assoda:ed with oar work
over duce decades, we prcsei:t a summary of
what we have regarded as the key feahm:s of par•
tlcipatory aftion research. We do this tu identify
some key ;,rinciple, as markers of prngres,, but
we the:i loo;.. ':iack at our own experience to
develop wba: might pote:itially be seen as the
rationale ::m a new generation of c,itkal partici-
patory action rese.irch.
Kev Features of
' ing practices is a social process, li, he sure, o:-ie
Participatory Action Research
Although the procrss of part kipatory ,K: ion
re sea :-d: is only ?oorly described in terms of a
mechanical sequence of steps, it is genemlly
though: tu involve a spira; of self-rdcctive cycles
of the fo'.:nwing:
• Pla,mi.~g a change
• Acting c:id <•b,t'"l"1·ing the process ,rnd ,011se-
que11a•~ of t'lc change
• Reflecting on lhese ;i~oc~5se, and corseqoen~e,
• t<eplarmiit!j
• A.ting and obsen,ing again
• .f(ejlerting again, and so on , ..
Pigi.:re 23.1 presents this spiral of seJf.retlec•
tion in diagra!'."lma:k :orm. In reality, the proce&s
might not be a, neat • s this spira; of seJf.
conta:r:ed cycies of plannir:g, acting and observ
ing, and reflecting si.:.ggests, Tne st11ges overlap,
and initial plans q1..i,kly becone obsolete in the
light of learning from experience. In reality, the
process is likely to be more lb id, oper;, and
responsive, The criterion of success is not whether
?artic'.pants have followed the steps faithfuJ;y but
1111 5,3
rather ,_..,hether :hey :1 ave a strong and authentic
sense of develupmenl and c,•o'.·.ition in their pra.cc
,£c-es, thci r imders!arrdings of thci r practices, and
the .;ituarions in which they practice.
Each of tl:e ste;i, outlir:ed in the spiral of se)f.
rellection is best undertaken collaborat: velr
by ::opartidpa nts in the p.trticipato ry ac:ion
research ;nocess, ;<;or all theorists n: action
research place this e:n phasis 0:1 mllabora1ln11;
they argue that action research is frequently a
solitary proces~ of systematic ,elt~reflectio:i. We
concede that it is often so; nevertheless, wt hold
tl1at partki ?atnry actio:1 reses.l.rch is hes! co:icep-
tualfaed in collaborative termsc Partidp"tory
action resea~ch is itself a social-and cducat'onal-
prncess. The "subjects» of participatory action
research undertake the:r research as a social prac·
tire. Moreove:-, the "object" of partkipalory action
research is soda); partidpatory act:or. research
fa directed toward study::1g, reframing, and
reconstructing social practices, If practices are wn-
sti/ uted in soda/ ir,t,m,cfion b;;l',1''Crl pcopk, dumg-
person may thangr so that othe,s are obl:ged to
ri:act or ~espond differently to that :r,div idual's
changed behavior, but the wiU:ig and committed
involvcn:ent of :hose whose interac:iuns consti•
bte the practice :s necessary, :n :he end, to seci.:n:
and legitimate the chang~. Participatory as:tion
research offers ,rn opportur.i ty to create forum~ :n
,.,hich people can join one another as copartid
pants in the straggle to remake the practices :n
which they interact-forams in whic':t rationality
and den,ocracy can be pursu~d together w:tho·Jt
an artificial separal ion ultimately bust ile to both,
In his book Bem·etn Faas 1.wd Norms, Jurgen
Habermas described thfa process h te:ms of
"opening commun:cative space" ( Habermas,
1996), a theme to which we re:urn h1tcr.
At it, best then, partidpaturr action research is
a social process o:' collabcrative learning realized hy
groups of people whc join together i:1 changir:g the
p:-actices :hrough which they i n:eract in 2 shared
social worlc. in which, for better or worse, we livr
will; t:1e cooseq·Jem:-es uf om;: ruiother's actluns,
It should also be stressed l:1 at par:idpa:ory
action research involves the investigation of
564 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 23
(
' r--_ -
~ C T &-os_s_E_R_V_E_ _
Figure 23.1. The Ac:ion Research Spiral
actual practices and nor abstract practices. It
involves learning about the real, material, con•
crete, and particular practices of particular
peoph: in parrl cular places. Although, o• co i.:.rse,
it is no: possible to si:spend the inevitabie
abstrac:ion that occurs whenever we use lan-
guage lo name, desc::ibe, interpret, and evaluate
things, participatory action resrarch differs from
other forms of research in being more obstinate
about its focus on cr.anging particular practi-
tfoners' particula, practices. Participa:ory ac,ion
,esearche:s may be interested in practices in
general or in tb, ab5lract, :JJt their principal
concern is in changing practices in «the here
PLAN
and now:' In our view, participator)' action
researchers do not need to apologiie for seeing
their work as mundane and mired in histo,y; on
the contrary, bv doing so, they may avoid some of
the philosophical and practical dangers of the
idealism th at suggests that a more abstract view
of practice might make it poss:ble transcend
or rise above historv and to avoid the debsions
of the v:ew that it is 'possible to find a safe haver.
ir: abstract propositions t:iat construe but do not
themselves rn:1stitute practice. Participatory
action research is a learning proces, whose
fruits are the real and r:1aterilll d1a11ge$ in the
following:
 Kemmis & McTaggarl: Parlidpamry 11.ction Rese;:m::i • 565
• Wha; ;ieople do
• How iieople internet with the world and with
others
• Whal peop:e mean and what they value
• The disrour;es in which people understand and
interpret their wnrld
Through participatory activn research, people
can come 10 understand that-and how-their
soda! and educat'onal practices are located
'.n, and are the product of, particular material,
soda'., and histork:al circun:stam:es that produced
~hem and by which they are reproduced in every•
day soda! interaction a particular se:ting. By
underntanding tr.eir practkcs as the product of
particular circumstances, participatory action
res,ear,::ie~s become alert to dues about how it
may be possible to transform lhe practices they
are producing and reproducing through tl:eir cur•
rent ways of working. If their current prudkc~ are
the product of one particular set of intentior.s,
:onditions, anc: circumstances, other (or trans-
formed) pr act:ces may be produced and repro-
duced under other (or tran.t>forr:1ed) intent:ons,
condition,, and cixumstar.ces.
Focusing o:i practices in a concrete and
specific way ,nakcs them accessible for n:(ection,
discnssion, ar:d rerons:ruction as products of past
ci:-ci;rnstances that are capable of being modif:ed
in and for present and future circur.i.stances,
WI: ile recognizing that the real spacs:-time
realization of every practice is trm:sient and
evanescent,ar.d that it can be conceptualized o:i:y
in the inevitably abstract (but comfortingly
imprecise) terms that language provides, partki·
patory action re,earcher, aim lo understand their
own particular practices as they emerge in their
own particular cir~umslances wdrnut reduc:ng
them to the ghostly status of :he general, :he
abstract, or the idea;-or, perha ?S one should say,
fae unreal.
Jf participatory action research is ur.derstood
i:i such terms, then th:uugh their investigations,
nartidpatory action researche,s may want to
become especially sensitive :u the ways in which
their particular practices are social practices of
material, syrr:bo:ic, and social
• communicatkl:i,
• p:1JJ.u,ti<.m,a11d
• social o:ganization,
which shape and are shaped by social structures in
• the cult:.:,al/syr::ibolk realm,
• the e~ono:nk realm, and
• the sociopolitkal realm,
which shape and are shaped by the social media
• lmguagefdistourses,
• work,and
• pow~r,
which largely ~hape, but also can be shaped by,
participants' knowledge expressed in thei:·
• 1,mder~tantlings,
• sldlls, a::d
• values,
which, in turn, shape ar:d are shaped by faeir
sodai practiceS of material, symbolic, and social
• ,,Jmmunkation,
• producton, and
• soda: organ i1.ation, rnd ,so on.
These r,fa:ionships are represented diagramrnat•
ically in Figure 23.2.
Participatory action researchers might con-
sider, for example, how their acts of communi·
cation, production, and social organ izalion are
intertwined and intrrrelatec in the real and par-
ticular practices that connect therr. to others in
!ht! situations in which t:iey fbd themselves
(e.g., commi.::1ities, neighborhoods, families,
schools, hospitals. other workplaces). They co:1-
,ider how, by cullaboratively changing the ways in
which they participate with others ir: 1hese prac-
tices, tl:ey can change :he practices tbem~elves,
their understandings of these pra::rices, and the
situ.itions in which thev live and work.
•
For many people, the image of the spiral
cydes of self-reflection (planni:1g, acting and
observbg, reflecting, replanning, etc.) has becon:c
the dominant leatu re of actim, research as an
 566 11 HAt·m1moK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH~(] IAP'TER

ONTI-ESIDEOF O\l THE SIDE OF

THE SOCIAL THE lf\lDIVIDUAL

language
Work
;,owe·
Comrrunica1i:m
Soclal 1tructures, form,, fol'fliS o1 llfe
Prodi,.c~on

Cultural stmc:ures, 'orms, forms ol I fe Social and system i1legra:ion

':cono'Tlic struc'.ures, forms, lorms of life

Soc1al·p:>lilica1 structures, forms, forms of iile

Folffl!ll,Q'f. kn~WI~
Co'11mun cation
Skills
Social an::I syslem ntegratlon
Social media
Language
Worx
Pm11er
(',0mmunrcation
Soclal 1tructura11, form,, 1o.rma "roducticm

Cultu ·al s:r"ciures, forms, fO'r"S of life

Ecor,omic s:rJctu •es, lo•rrs, f::nrs ol lile

Socia ,polilical structu ·es, fo·ms, forms o' fife

Co,;niti•;e understandi1gs
Skills
Social values, norms; e"'·olio"s

Figure 23.2. Recursi\·e Relatior.~hirs of Sncial Mediation T'iat Ac:!,m Research Aims to T~ansform

approach. In our view, par:icipatory action
researd1 ha, seven other key foa:ures that are at
least a~ important a, the self-rctlccthT spiral.
I, Participatory m·tion rc:search is a social process,
Participatory action ;:esearch deliberately explores
the mlatirm,hip between thr reaims ofthe Indivi,lual
and tlu ~ociaf. II recogn izcs that "no i:ldividua-
tion is possible w::hout socialization, and no
soci~J :zation is poss:::ilc without individuation"
/ Habcrmas, · 26), and rhal the pmces~es
of individuation and socialization cor:tinuc to
shape individuals and social rela:ionships i:1
of the settl:,g~ ir: which we find oi:rselves,
 K~mmis & McTaggart: :'anidpatory Mtic,n Research
Part:dpatory action research is a process followed
in researd1 in settings such as those of education
and community development, when people-
individually and coll~cl:vely-try lo m:der~tund
how they are formed a1:d re fo,mro as individuals,
and in relation to one another in a varietv of set•
'
tir:gs, tor example, when teachers work together
(or with stude:us) to improve prc,ces:ses teach-
ing and learning in the c:as~room.
P.1rlicipatory aCi ion researc/i is participatory
Participatory action rese.arch engages people
exa:nining fa cir knowledge (u11derstandings, skills,
and values} and interprt!live categorie~ (the ways
in which they in:crpret the:nselves and their ac:ion
in tl:e sodal and material world). It i, a process
whk'l all individuals in a group try to get a handle
011 the ways in whic'., their knowledge shapes their
sense of identity and agency and to reflect critically
on how their current kmlwledge frames a:1d con•
strains thrir action. It is also participatory i:i the
sense that people can only do action research "or:"
themse'.ve~. either im:!ividually or oollrctively. It is
rwt research done "or." others.
,. Participamry action 1csearch is practical and
coltrJbomri ve. Part:dpatory actim: research engages
people in examining the S[):;:ial practice~ that link
them others 111 social bteraction. It is a
proce~s in wfoch peo,::,Je explore their practices of
n1mmunication, production, and social organiza-
tion and try to exp:ore how to improve their in:er-
a;:tions by changing the acts that constitute them,
that to reduce the extent to which partici ?ants
expcr:ence these interactions (and their longe:·
term nmse,ptnu:s) as irrational, unprocuctive (or
inefficient), unjust, and/or unsatisty:ng (alienat-
ing). Partidpatury researchers ain to work
together 1::1 reconstructing their social interactions
by reconstructing the acts that ronst::ute there.
4. Pi,dicipatory action re.search i; em,mdpatory.
Participatory action research aims to help people
recover, and re. ease themselves from, the con-
straints irratiunal, unproductive, unjust. and
umatisfying social strucwres that E• it their self~
development and self-determinati£m. It is a process
111 567
in whk:,_ penp'.e explore L1e ways which their
practices arc shapro and constrained hy wider
social (c:iltural, coonomk, and political) struc•
ture::; anc consider whe,he:- they can intervene lo
release themselves from these constraints-or, if
they cannot, how best to work wi:hin and around
them to minimize the extent to which lhey mn-
tr'bu:c to irrationality, lack of productivity (inefi-
cien,y), injustice, and dissatisfactions (alien.don)
as people wl:ose work and lives ,or.tribute to the
structuring of a sharee soda! life.
5. Partic~~atory action research is critical.
Participatory action resear:h aims to help people
r('('.twer, and re:ease themselves from, Ihe con•
stra ints embedded in the social media through
whid: they interact-their :angnage (discourses),
their modes of ;•rork, and the social relationships
of power rin which they experience atl1liation and
ditfere:icc, inclusion and cxdusion-relation·
s:i_ip, in wr.kh, grnmmatical!y speaking, :hey
interact wit!: others in the third, second, or first
person). r: is a pt()CC:,s in which people dclihcr-
a1ely set out to conies~ ,n:c tccons:itute irrattona,,
im:mlductive (or inefficient), un:i::st andfor
I >
unsatisfying (alieaat ing) ,,r.iys of inte:-pret: ng
and describing their world (e.g., language, dis-
courses), ways of wo,king (work), and ways of
relating to others (power).
6. Participatory aci1im research is r~flexive (e.g.,
re,-ursive, dialectical). Partidpetorr action research
aims to help peo:ile to investigate reality in order
to change it (Fals Jlorda, 1979) and (we migh:
add) ID change real' ty in order to investigate it. ln
particular, :tis a deliberate process 1hmush which
people nim to tra11sform thd: practices through a
spiral cyde, of c:itical and sefcritical action
and reflection. As r::gnre 23.2 (presented earlier)
ain:s to show, it is a deliberate soda! process
designed to help collaborating grm: ps of peoplr to
transform their world so as to learn more about
the nature of the recursive re:at'm:,hips among
the following:
• Their Undrvidual a::d social) practices (:he: work)
• Their k,row/t!dge 11/ their prar, ices (the ,_.orker5)
 568 111 HA!>:DBOOK OF QT,;ALTTATIVE Rl£SEARCH-CHAPTER 23
• The s,>eial structures that s::ape ar:<l constrain
their practices : the workplace)
• The social media b which their practices are
e~pressed (!ht discourses in which their work is
represented Jnd misreprese::ted)
In oarv:ew, this :s w:iat theorizing prac:ke means.
Participa:ory adion ::esearch does not, however,
take an armcha:r view of theorizing; rather, it
is a process of learning, Ivith o~hers, by doi:ig-
changing the ways in wh:ch we inte~ac,; in a
shared social world.
7. Participatory action research aims to transform
both theory an,1 practice. Participatory actio:1
research doe., not regarc either tru:o:-y or practice
as preeminent i:i the ,elationship between faeor 1•
and practice; rather, it aims to articulate and
develop each in relation to the other through crit•
ical reasoning about both tr:cory and practice am:
their consequences. It does not aim to devc'op
forms of tr:eory can stand ,;"Jove and beyond
practice, as if practice could be coatrolled and
determined without regard to the p,.rticulars of
the practical situations that rnnfrrmr practition-
ers in their ordinary lives and work. Nor does it
aim to develop forms of practice that might be
regarded as self-justifying, as if practice could be
judged in the absi:nce of t:u:oretkal frameworks
that give them their value anc. significance and
that prnvide sub&tantivc criteria for exploring the
extent to which practices and their consequences
turn m:t to be irraciona'., unjust, alienating, or
unsatisfying for the people i:wolved in and
a:fected by them. Thus, participatory ilCtion
cesearch i:wolves "reaching out" from the specifics
of particular situations, as understood by the
people within then:, to explore the potential of
different perspectives, theories, and discourses
that might help to illuminate particu:ar practices
and practical settings as a basis for developing
«itical insights and ideas abo1,; t !:ow things migh:
be transformed. Equally, it involves "ret1ching in"
from the standpoints provided by different
perspective~, theories, anc discourses to explore
tl::e ex:cnt to whkh they provide practitioners
themselves with a critical grasp of the problems
and issues they actually confront in spedf:c local
situatim:s. Thus, pa:1Jcipatory action re.search
aims to transform both practitioners' theorie. a;1d
practices 1md the tl::eories and practices of others
whose perspectives and practices may help rn
shape the cnnd'tions oflite 2nd 'Nork in partkdar
local settings. In tb is way, participatory actio:i
research aims to connect ;he local and the global
and to 11ve out the slogar. H:at the perso:1al 1s
political.
These .seven features summarize some of the
principal fca:ures of participato:y act:on re.sea~th
as we see it. I: is a partin:lar partisan view. There
are writers on action research who prefer to move
immediate!}' from a general description of
action research process (especially the seJ-
relle.:rive spiral) to questions o[ methodology and
research tedm ique-· a discussion of the ways
and n,eans of collecting dam in d:fforcnt social
and edurntioi:al se:tings. This :s a somewhat
methodologically driven view of action research;
it suggests that research methods are 'Nhat makes
actior: research "research:' This is :int :o argue
that partidpato:y action researche,s shou Id not
he capable of cm:cucting sound research; rather,
it is to emphasize that sound research must
respect much more than fhe canons of method.
JIil MYTHS, M ISIN'l ERl'Rl!TATION 5,
AK) M1s·:,,KEs 1K CR1':'1rA1
PAilTCIP:\TORY ACTION RESEARCH
The cri:ical viEtv of participatory action rescarc~
that we developed over tl::e more than two dceaces
since 19!1 l emerged in a practice that involvec
some successes; however, from the perspective
of our current understanding.~, it also engendered
some failures. Sometimes we, as wdl as sorr:e of
our rolleagues, mythologfaed or over.stared :he
power of action research as an agent of :1:divi<faal
and social change. Sometimes we misinterpreted
our own experier.ce and tl:e ways in wh'ch sub-
s:antive and methodological literatures might be
usefa: pedagogicall}', Someti1:1es others misin:er.
preled m:.r views, occasionally even despite our
stout disavowal. The repeated reference to thr
 Ke:;111,•s Ix McTagga:r: Par:kipa:ory Action
action research spiral as "the method of action
research» contir:ues to frustrate us. We also made
some mistakes, These myths, mis'.nterpretations,
anc nist.i kes duster~d arm: nd fnu r key foci:
• Exaggerated assumptions abour how empower-
men ! r.. ight be ad:ieved thrc ugh act 1011
research
• C:cnfusinns about the ro:e of those hdpi::g
others tu learn hov, t<J ccndoct at:tio:1 ,escarch,
probler:: fadlitutflm, and the illushm
r.euttality
• The falsity of a sa:iposed researdi-act1vism
dualism, with !\:search seen as dls;iassio:rnte,
lnform:d, and rational and with activism st'l:n
as passionate, intuitk•e, and wet1;..Jy theorized
• Undcrstate::ienl the role ,f the collecrivc and
how ii :aight be conccplui]i1.ed ':: conducting
the research and in formulating action 1he
";mijed'' and in its <'116,agcmen: with :he 'public
s;ihere'' in a:: facets of instia:timial and .~ocial
life
We present these reflections on our prt1ctices
here and return to them lat<:'r fror:1 a different
tbeoretka: perspective.
Empowerment
In our earliest work on action research, we
argued that self-refkct:ur: on effort:; to bring
about change tl:at was disdolinec by group plan-
:iing and reflection of observations would give
participants a greater sense of control of their
work. Some:imes we overstated oar daim s; we
were victims our own enthusiasm and persua·
sion. Tl:is was not always unconsci01:s. We faced
the dilemma of the advorate; tnat is, rhetoric can
he'.p lead to changes ir: reality. Our a~pfrations
were often picked up by other:;, the result left
a:tio n research advocates vulnerable to charges of
hyperbole or naivete in real settings where indi·
vidual and collective char:ge oitrn proved lo be
extremely difficult to effect.
It is true that au increased understanding
of social situations :hrough action materially
changes individual power, authority, and control
over people's work. However, it is eq ua; ly true :hat
.s1:ch change is often technical and cor:&lraincd,
invoking conceplS such as "cf"'dency:' A.ttlu:atk
change, and the empowerment that .:rives it am:
derives from it, requires politica'. sustenance by
some khd of collec:ivc, too eas:iy construed as an
\,ct:on group'' ;hat defi :1ed it;;,:lf by oppus: :ion to.
and dlstinctiveness from, a wider social o, public
,ealm. Neve~theless, it was a mistake not :o
emphasize suflicien:ly that power comes from
collective con:mitment and a :nethodology that
invi:es the democratization nf the objectification
of experience and the disciplining of subje,tivity,
Aquestion rema:ns as ro w:1.ethcr this was ;u: ade-
qua:e conceptualization of ''empowerment;' the
way in w:iich to achieve it, or indeed who or what
empow'fr:nent wa~ for.
The Role of the
Facilitator of Action Research
We were tnr.i bis=d 'ly the concept of "facilita•
tion" as early as L98 l at ;he Aus:ralian National
Sem:nar on Action Research (;.lrown, lienry,
Henry, & McTaggart, 1981!). Too often the fas:ilita,
tor lapsed i:-.to the role "process conoultanl"
with ?rctensions or aspiratio:is to expertise about
a ume:hod" uf action research, a role quite incon-
sistent with the cnr1 :mitment to participate in the
personal a:1d social changes in practice that had
brought participants together. Despite ef:orls to
con:ain the concept then, and to disavow its util•
ity and outlioc its dange,s later, it was a J'.1lstake HJ
perpetuate the use of a term that a:reaciy carried
cunnotations of neutrnEty. Although the role of
u:iivers:ty researchers :n action researc:1 is
always somewhat pro·Jtematk and .:u: important
object of critique, conceptualizii:g facilitation as a
neutral or merely ::cchnkal activity deni~, the
social responsibility of tl:e facilitator in making or
assisting social cha:1ge (Yic1aggart, 2002). The
er:1p"tasl s on techniqaes of facilitation also O\•er-
played 7he :r.iportance of academic researchers
and implicitly differentia;ed the wor~ of theoreti,
cians and practitioners, academics and worke~s,
and community developers and peasant W()rkers.
Preoccupation with neutrality sus:alned tl:e
posi:ivistk myth of the researc:ier as detached
 570 'Ill HAI\ :)HOOK OF QUALlTAl IVE RBSE.ARCH-CH1\ PTE;<.
sec::etary to tl:e universe and focused attention on
the social practices (and research p1adices) of
"the other?' Tbfa in turn helped to make action
researd: '.ook like research for amateurs.
University ;,mfessors often play an active role
i;1 a<.:t1or. research. ln 1he educat:on field, for
example, they arc often lead:er educators as well
as resea xhers. 'Icad:e r education is just one ~sub-
prd.:t :ce" of educa/ ion as a social practke and, of
course, :~ i:ut practicec: exclusively by universi :y
professnrs. In education, there are also curricu-
lum practices, policy and administration prac-
tices, an c research and evaluation practices.
There is also a variety of stucent learning prac
t ices and cu1:rnmnit y and parent participatior:
practkes that help to constitute :he prac6:e of
education. Si1r:i:arly, ir. action research com-
munity cevcio;,me11t in sn:ne pa,ts of th: world,
outside researchers !Jave often been indispe11sa:,:c
cdvocatcs and armnateurs ,)f change and not jusl
tcchn k:al advisers. Jt is dear to us that some of
these animatei;rs have beer. heroes in social
transformation, and we must a.::ki:owlcdge that
many have lost their lives because of their wu:k
with dspossesscd and disempowcrcd people and
commi.:1:ities, struggling with them for justice
anc democracy against r<·pressive social and
economic mndilions.
A:,art "rom lhesr moral and politica: reasons
against seeing :adlitat:or: as a merely technical
m'.e, there are reasons of episkmofogy. F. mph a11is
on "acililation as a neutrnl rule bHnds one to the
11:anifoid:1ess of practice, that is, to constitu-
t1or, of P'"·""'··c through the know:cdge of indi-
viduals and a mnge of extra:ndividual features,
in duding its sod al, discursive, r.i ond, a1:d politi
cal as;:iects as well as its histo,kal fo:mation such
as the way in which it is shaped a:1d reshiped in
traditions o:· practice (Kem• is, 2004 ). Seei:ig
facilitation in nei::ral tern:s also blinds one to lb,
way in which practice is constituted as a "mult'.ple
rca'ity" :hat is perceived differently by different
pa:ticipants in and observers of praclice (e.g.,
professionals, clients, clients' familic, and friei:ds,
interested observ,;rs). Thus, seeing the mlc of
facililat:m: as a nemml role obscures key aspects
o': practices ar.d impedes critique of the way in
which prm:tkcs may sustain and daily ~econstitute
soc'al rerd ities whose c:1aracter and consequen•
ces can he unjust, lrrational, ur:?rodudive, ar:d
unsatistactory for some tile peo.:,le involved i:i
or aftcctcd by ther:1.
Th is leads u5 :n the nub of a problem. What is
the s 1ured concepmal space that allows the inlri-
cation nf these st:.:'lpractices of broad social prac-
tices, such a, education, health, agriculture, and
tra:isporta:ion, to become the objc;;t of crihcJe
and subje~1 of e11ham:ei:1ent? To understand
how these subpra ct ices are con~ti tutive of lived
i.odal realities re,;·1'res whar Freire called ro11sd-
rntiza1 ion, tha: is, the dcve1op:nent of a:1 infor-
med critical perspective on social life among
o::dinary people or, to put :t another way, the
development of a critical theory of social life by
the pwple w r.o participate in 't.
The Research-Activism Dualism
We find ,ignificant understatement of the role
cf thco,y and theory :mi!ding in the literatc1re of
action resea:ct:. The callses of this arc complex.
On the one hand, they indi.:de the dift1cullies
associated wit'i group members introducing be-
oretical com:epts and experience of similar case!l
that arc tno d:ffkult or amfrontir1g fur other
par:ic:pants (McTaggart & Garbatd:eon Singh,
: 981', ). On the other \and, they induce the diffi-
CLJ Itics of ignoring o, oversimplifying pe::tir,ent
theoretica'. resoi.:rccs without which partkipai:t,
may be obliged to con st rue their owr: prob Ie.:ns or
cor:cerns as if in a vacuum, isolating them :mm
useful intellectual and discursive resources and
sometir:1c~ leaving them vu Incrable to charges of
mere navel gazing. This is compounded by thinking
in terms of a :h~t1ry-ac:ion (rhinking-activism)
dll al ism. Thinking about '1:1 satisfactory condi-
tions is !ess confronting than acti.:ally changing
:hem, and some take ,e:ug~ :he vicw that
pol:tical action is somehow less rational than
1hinking or talking about change. We reject this
riuaiism; on the contrary, m:r experience suggests
that there should be bot:i more theory ar:d mo,e
action in action research. Political acti,ism sho:ilri
be theorctk<1lly informed Just like any other social
 Kemmis & )t.c·Jiggarr: Participa1ory Ai::icn Re.eJn:h
practice. Although actiur. research is often
incremental rr.e sense that it encourai!,es growth
and developrr:ent in participa:1ts' ex?ertise, sup
pon, cun:mitment, confidence, knowledge of the
sitrudon, and understanding of what is prudent
(i.e., changed thinking), it also encourages growth
and deveio?ment in partic'pants' capacity for
action, inc'.uding direct and substantial collective
action that is well justified by the demands oflocal
conditions. circumstances, and consequences.
The Role of the Collective
r:,e idea of the action research group is ty?l ·
cally credited to Lewin immediately after World
War ll, although it may be that Morer.o p•or.eered
the ?ractice a ger.eration ear'.ier (Altrlchter &
Gstettner, 1997;. It was Lewin who argued the
potency of "group commitment" in bringing
a"om:r changes in soda! practices. In more recent
views of a~1ion resear::h, the "colltttivc" is seen as
sup?o::tir.J.! three important functior.s. First, it is
seen as an expre~sion of the democratization of
sdentitk practice. Instead of deferring to the pro•
noum:ements of professional experts, a local
entific community is established to use principles
of scientific inquiry to erJ::ance and create richer
local unde:1,tandings. We have referred to this
pro::ess as the "objectification experience;' Two
funher roles of the collective are expressed in the
idea of the "d'sciplining of subjectivil y:' where
subjectivity rders to an lljfective aspect, the emo·
:ional reactions of participants, and a:1 aspec: of
political agency, In the affective aspect of subjec·
tivity, the action research process creates oppor·
tunitles for feeling.~ to be made accessible and
explored. At the same time, it createi, opporti.:.ni •
ties fur the way in which people foci about their
sitiations to be examined fur deeper muses and
meanings and for participants to differentiate
serious and abiding c:once~ns from transient or
peripheral rea..:tions to immediate difficulties.
Again, this work is not simply the pre:;erve of !:te
scientific or professional sped al ist group thera•
pist or facilitator; or. the contrary, in participatory
action research, it r:iust be part of a social process
oftransformation (of selves as well as situations)
111 571
that is comprehens'ble to partidpai,ts. Participants
play a supportive role, but the collective has a dis-
ciplining function,:, elping to clarify thinking and
providing a context where as well as cogr.i •
tive questions can be justified, People corr.e to
realize that some feelings are superlkial, misdi-
rected, unfair, and overreactions, Other feelings
are focused, strengthentd, and nmtcred as ~hey
are revealed, articula:ed, thought tr.rough, and
rcnected on. This is introspective i:1 part, but its
aim is :-efined aclio:1.
Political agency is a coro.lary of heightened
unc.erstanding and motivation. As affect becomes
mobil:zed and orgar. ized, and as experience is
more dearly objectified am: ande:-stood, both
knowledge and feeling become articulated and
c:scipli:u,l hy the co,lective toward pr:ident
action. lndividua I art ion is iucrea~h:gly informed
anc planned with the support and wisdom of
others directly participating in xlated action in a
siti.;atim:. The collective provides critica'. support
for the deve;op;nent of personal political agency
,md cr!ticnl mass for a commitment to change.
Through these intera.:1ions, new furr:is of practi-
cal cons.::oi.:sness emerge. In otl:er words. both
the action and research aspects of action research
require participation as we:J as tl:e disciplining
effect of a collective.
The extension of action research collectives to
include- "critical friends;' to build alliances with
broader social movemen:s, and to extend mem-
bership across institutional hierarcnies has been
a way of enhanci1:g lhe understanding and politi·
cal efficacy of individuals and groups, However,
the problem of how to create the conditions of
learnir.g fur participants persists. People not only
are her:1med in by mater:al institutional condi-
tions, they frequently are trapped in institutional
d:scourses that channel, ceter, or muffle critique.
How do we ere-ate (or re-create) new possibilities
for what Fals Borda (1988) called vivencia,
through the revitalization of the public sphere, and
also promote dttolonizatinn of '.i:eworlds that
have become saturated with rhe hi:reaucratic dis-
courses, routinized practices, ar.d institutional-
ized lorr:1s of social relationships characteristic of
social system, that see the work! only throL:gh the
 111 HA;>;D[lOOK ()c QUAfJ-;-ATJVE lffSEARCH-CHAPTER
prism of organizat:on !Ind not the human and
humane Ii11i ng of sodd lives? Tnis is an issue th at
we have nm, -.'Orne to i:1terpret through the notion
of public discourse in pub'.ic spheres and the idea
of research as a social practice.
ml PARTICIPATORY AcnoN Ri::st:A~CH
AND "'HI' STLDY OF PRAClKE
lo oi.:r chapter 011 partidpatory ac:ion researc'l for
the second edition of this /Iandbook, we outlined
fivt: tradit:or:s in tl:e study of practke. We argued
that research an practice fa itself a prac:ice and
(:ie practice of research o:i practice has histork-
ally taken, and continues to take, different forms.
DJ ffe:en: practitioneis of research 011 practice see
it more frnn: the pt:rspccti ve of thr individual
and/or the social ,l!ld more from an "o~jective"
perspective and/or a" subiectiv,t perspective. They
use different re~earch methods and tedmiques
that reflect these episten:ological and ontological
chokes, that is, chokes ;;bout what it means to
krww a practice (the epistemnlogka! choice) and
about what a practice Is and thus how it manifests
'.:self in rea!tty (the ontolog'cal choice). If research
on practice is methodological~· defined, however,
researchers n:ay obscure. even :rnm them,eh•es,
the ep:stemological and ontological choices :h,•,;
u:1derpin ;heir choice& of methods. As ways of
"seeing" practice, re.,eaxh methods both illuminate
and nhscure what the resean:r. am: the researcher
ca 1: see. As Ludw lg Wi:tgensoci :i nu:iced, this may
involve a "conjuring trick" that obscures :he
thing we hoped to see:
How docs the philoso:ihical problem ah,rnl mental
proccsse., and st<1tcs and ab,)u! behaviourism ari~e?
T:1e f::st $lep is G1e ,me t:ia! altogether escapes
notice. We 1a: k of processes and states and bwe their
nature undeciccd. Som~imc perhaps we sha!: know
more about th;;m-we think. l:lut t'ial is just what
commits lL~ to a ,iartlrular way of '.coking at the mat-
ter we have a defini:e mncept of wha: i: ::ieans
to learn to :.:now a pmce5S better. (T:ie decisive mnve-
mcnt in the conjuring trick :i,,, been cade, and i:
was the very one that we thought quite innucenl.) And
now the analogy w;:ich W8S to :nak,e us und.erstant!
cur t::oug::ts foils to pieces. So we have 10 deny the
yet ·J:immprchcnde<l process in the yet unexplored
mdiun:. And now it looks as if we denkxl ::1en-
1al pmce;;ses. And natural: y we don't want lo de::y
lhcm.(Wittgenstein, 1958, p. l03)
\Ve <:0ndude, therefore, that it is risky to proceed
ir: a di sci ss:on of tesearch nr: pract:ce prir:cipally
from tesearch methods and techniques-r:sky
brcai.:se :he :ncthods we choose may i:i<1dver-
tcntly have "~on:mitted us to a particula, way of
seeing the mat11:r:'
!Ji uur chapter in the second edition of this
/Iandbook, we depicted the relationships among
five broad traditions in the study of practi;;s;;,
Table 23.l sumi:iarizes these traditions.
We argued that these different approac:ies to
the studv' of .rac:ice involved differe:it kinds of
relationships he tween the researcher and the
rese.;,rched. Rssentially, we argued that "objective"
apprm!ches tended to see practice from the per-
spective of an outsicer in the third persor.; that
"subjective" approaches tend el~ to see practice
from the perspective of !In insider in the semnd
person; <1nd that the reflex:ve dialectical perspec-
tive of critical social science tended to sec prac-
tice from the perspective of the ins:c:cr group,
whose mcm hers' interconnected activities con-
stitute and reconstitute tneir own soc:ai prac•
liccs, in the Jirst pcr.s,:n (n!ural). This last
perspective on practice is the om: taken by
partkip~nt-researchers in participatory action
research.
In terms of these five aspects of practice and
the five traditions in lhe study of practice, it
seems tu u, thal a methodological:y driven ,i~w
of pa:ticipatory acrion research finds itself mired
:n the assumption- abou practice to which one
or another of the different traditio:1 s of research
on pm;·tke iii committed. Depem:ing on which o:
6ese sc:s of presupposit:ons it ado?ts, it may fbc
itself unable to approad1 (the study nfJ prartke
in a suf!icie11tly rich and mult:foceterl way, that is,
in terms that recognize different aspects of prac-
tice and do justice to its social, historical, and
discursive construction.
If partidpatory action resea:d: is to explore
practice in tern:s of each of the five aspects
 Kemmis & Mdaggar:: Partidpatory Action Research 111 573

table 23.t. Re:a1innships Among Different Traditions in the Study· of Practke

Bmh: Ref7cxive-dialectirni
·1iew af imiividual-socia!
! Airsp;cctive Hie l11dfridual The Socia! rclatimu mid cor.ne,ti,m,

Ob;ec:lvc ( ·,) Prm:tice as indivk:ual (2) Practke as s,n;ial

behavior, ,cen in wrn1s
of performances. even:,,
and effu;;ts: Behaviorist
and mos: cogn it ivist
approaches ln psych11lngy
Subjedive I3j Practice as '1,tc11tional
action, sha:ied ':Jy
m,:aning and v,dues;
Psyc:iological ver,telien
(emp,r;hetk
understanding) and mrm
ronstruc'tivist approaches
imc,action (e.g., ;itual,
,y~l~m•structured ):
Str:,cturc..fnnctionalist
and sodal .c;ystcms
approadics
\4) P:uctkc as socially
structure(', shaped by
discourses, tradition:
Jnterpretive, aesthetic-
!:' smrical vemelten
(etn:ath~t:c
understanding), and
poststrucluralist
approache,
I

Both: ( 3) Practict' as ~oci:illy and

Rellcxlve ·· dialectical historically cons::tu:ed and
view sub;ed,c- us reconstitu:cd by human
nbj~.:live relations agency and ;mdal a..:tfon:
and connections Critical mrthods; dialect kal
,malysis (multiple met:1ods)
a

out! i:led in our c:iap:cr in :he second edition of
this Handbook, it will need to consider how
riiffe;xnt traditions in the sti:cy practice, and
different research methods and tech niquts, can
provide multiple resource~ for th;: lask. lt must
also avoid acceptir:i the assumptio:1s and lim:t:a·
tions of particular mcthocs and techniques. Fo:
example, the participatory action researcher may
legitimately eschew the narrow empiricism of
thooe approaches that attempt to co:istrue prac•
tire entirely "objectively;• as if it were possible to
exclude considernlio:1 of participants' subjec;ive
intentions, rr:eanings, values, and interpretive cat•
ego:ies from an understanding of practice or as
if i: were possible to exclude consideration of the
frameworks of language, discourse, and :rodition
by which pcop'.e in different groups construe their
practices. It does not follow from tl:is that quantita-
a??ro~dies are never relev<1nt in participatory
action resrarch; o:i the cnntrary, they may be-
but without the constraints of empiricism and
ohjcctivism tbat :nar:y quantitative researchers
put on these methods ar:d techniques. [ndeec,
when quantitative researchers use q ucslionnaircs
to convert participant,' views into ni:meria:J
data, they tacitly concede tl:at pcact ice cannot be
u:1derstood without taking partklpen7!" views
i:ito account. Participatory resenrc'.1ers will differ
from o.:1e•sidedly quantitative is::a,c,i::u.:c:i i:1 the
ways in which they coJect and use sJch data
because participatory action ;esearchers will
regard them as crude approxlrnations of the ways
in which participants understand themselves and
not (as empiric'stic, obje;;::ivistic, quantitative
researchers may assert) as more rigorous (e.g.,
valid, reliable) because they are scaled.
On the other hand, the par:icf patory action
researcher wiE diffor from :he or:c•sidedly
 574 111 HANDBOOK Q:JALI"'.'ATIVE Rl:SEARCH-CHAPTER 23
qualitative approach that asserts !'lat action can be
unrlernrood only f7om a qualitative pcrspective, for
example, :hrough dose clinical or phenomenologi-
cal analysis of an individual's vieWS or dose ana:y-
of the discourses and traditions ,hat shape the
way in whkh a particular practice is uncerstood hy
participants, The participatory action researcher
will also ..,mt to explox how changing "objective''
drcJ:nstances (e,g,, pc,formances, events, effects,
p-atte:ns of interactior., rules, roles, systerr. fum;:-
tioning) shape and ar~ shaped '-Jy the "subject:ve"
conditirms of participants' perspectives.
In our view, questions of research methods
shoulc not be regarded as unimportant, but (in
contras, with the nethodo'.ogically driven view)
we wo:lld want to assert tha: what rr.akes partici•
patory action resea,ch "research" is not the
machinery of research tec'miques but ra:her an
abirli:lg conccn: with the relationsnips between
social and educational theory and practice. In
oar view, before questions about what kinds of
research methods are a?rropriate can be decided,
't ls necessary lo decide what k:nds of things
''practice'' and "theory" are, for only then can we
decide what kinds of data or evidence :nignt he
:elevant in describing practice and what kinds of
analyses rr: ight be relevant ii: interpreting and
evaluating people's real pradice5 in th,; real situa
tions in which they wor:<. On this view of partici
patory actio:1 research, a central q·Jestion is hmv
pcl'lctk'es are to ::;e under!<tood "in t:ie field;' as :t
were, So that they become available for more
tematk theorizing, Having arrived at a general
view of what it rr.eans to understand (theorize)
practice in the f:eld, it becomes possible to work
out what ;;.1nds of evidence, and hence what kinds
of research methods antl techniques, might be
appropriate for advancing our understanding of
practice at any particular ,ime.
The theoretical scheme depicted in J'igure
takes a view of what theorizing a practice might
be like-locating practice within frameworks
of pa::1icipants' knowledge, in relation to social
structures, and in terms of social media_ By adop-
ting a more encompassing view of practice like
the one outlined in Table I, we may be able lo
understa;, d and theorize Jt more richly, and
in more :omplex ways, so that powcrfal social
dynamics (c,g., the tensions and interconnc;tions
between system a:1d lifeworld [Hahermas 1984,
1987h I} can be construed ;1nd rrco:1stituted
through a critical social practice such as partki-
pa :ory ac:ion research,
The partici ?ants i:i ;>artkipatory action
research understand practice from both its indi-
vidual and its social aspect& and understand i:
both objectively and subjectively, They virw pra,•
tice as construc1ed and reconstructed historically
ho:h in terms of the discourses ir. which practices
arc described and understood and ir: ter.:ns
socia:ly and histurically constr'Jcted a::tions and
their amsequences. Moreover, they view pract:ce
as constituted and reconstituted ;n human and
social acrfon that projects a living past tl:rougl:
the lived present :nto a fu:ure where the people
involved and affec:ed will live with the conse,
quences of actions taken.
This view nf practice as pmjecied through
history by action applies not onl;· to 1he "fint-
lf'Vel" pra.:tkes that are the ob; ect and subject of
partic:pai:ts interests (e,g .. the practices of eco-
nomic life a village aiming at conununity devel-
opment) :mt also to the practice of research itself.
Partidpanrn in part ic: patory action research
unc.ersta:1d their research practices as meta-
practices that help to construe: and reconstruc: tl:e
first-level practices they are invesligatir:g, For
example, participants in a participatory action
research projec: on practices of community devel,
opment (the first-levrl practices} understand their
research practices as among the meta-practices
that s:1.ape their practices community develop•
ment Practices of management, administration,
and social integrat:on are also meta•practkes
shaping their practices of community develop-
ment. However, ur:like those other meta-practices,
the me~a practice of partk:;>atory action research
is delibe:-ately and .,ystematkally reflexive, It is
both outwarc.lv directed and inwardlv (self-';
' ' C
directed. It aims to change community develop•
ment practitioners, community cevelopmer:t
prnct:ces, ar:d the practice situations of co:nmunity
 Kemmis & J.k'laggart: Particlpamry Action Rcsearc:1 11 575
development through pracrkes of ~esearch that
are also malleable and developme:m1l and that,
through collaborar!ve proce~se, of communka•
tion and learning, change the practitioners, prac•
ti;;es, ar.d practice situations the research, Like
other ·.ira:c:H:es, tne practices of participatury
action research are proJectcd through history by
action. They are meta-practices that aim to tra:u;
form the world so that other first-level transfor-
n:ations become possible, that is, :ransibrmations
in people's way~ of th in king and talking, ways of
doiq; lhi ngs, .1nd ways of relating to one another,
This view of research practic~s as sprdfically
located in time (history) and soc(al space has
implications :hat are ex ?lured later in this
chapter, In the process of pa:1icipatory action
research, same people are involved in two par-
a[e I, :cfl1:xivcly related sets practices. On the
one hand, they are the practitioners of co:nmu-
nity development (to use our ea~lier examp:e); on
the other hand, thi,' are the ?ractitioners of the
meta"?ractice of participatmy action ~esearch,
Tl:ev art b,,tJ1 Jiractitioners and researchers in, sav,
' '
commu::iity develop rr:e!lt, :he development of
primary health care, or school-community rela-
tions. Ther understar:d thdr research as "engaged
research" (Bou rdieu & Wacqu,rnt, 1992) through
which they; as researchers, aim m transfurm prac-
tices of ..:ommunity devc:opmrnt, primary health
care, or school-community relations, But they
also 1:nderstami their rest'arch practices as con-
structed ~.nd oper. w reconstn:ct :or., They do not
regard the rcsearc:, process as the application of
fixed and preforrr.ed research techniques to the
particL'..iar "applied" problem with which they are
concerned, On the contraq·, they regard their
research p,actices as .1 matter of borrowing, con-
structing. and reconstructing research methods
and techniques to throw light on the na:ure,
processes, and consequence~ of the p.1rticular
object they are sn:dying {whether community
development praL'tkes, primary health care prac-
tices, or pr<1ctkes uf school-co:nmunity relat:ons),
And this mt>an~ tbat participatory action researchers
are embarked on a process of trans:o:ming them•
selves as reSe.!l'chers, transforming their research
practices, and t,ansform ing the practice !-eUings of
their research.
ll: our chapter in the semnd cdit:un of this
Handbook, we also aq;ued a view of research
~ha: wt ter!T!ed "symposil:.m '""'"11.,," that
research drawing on the multi?le discip;inary
perspectives of different traditions in social scien.:e
theorizinl:! and multiple research methods that Ub-
minate different aspects of p:actic-e;:;. We believe
that :his approach wi:'. increasingly come to c'larac-
tcrize ;:iarticipatory action research inquiries, Thai
is, we expect that as participato:y action research
bt-comes more sophisticated in its scope and ;r.ten-
t:ons, it will draw on transdfadplinary :heuretkal
resn'J rces (e.g., relevant psychological and sociolog
ical theories) and multiple research methods and
techniques that w:: a\:ow ?llrticipant-rcsearchen
to gain insight bro the formatio:i a1:d :ransforma•
tion of their practices in context ror example, we
"xpe,t to set: more participatory action research
using research techr:iques characteristic of ,111 five
of the traditions depicted in '!ahle 23.1, These meth-
ods and techniques are pre~entcd hi 'fab!e
In the current edition of the !landbook., we
argue that the :udurc of the social rc!ationships
involved in participatory action research- and :he
proper prdtics. of participatory action research-
can be more dearly under:,tuod from the perspec •
tive of Habermas'.- (19S4, 1987a) theory of ccm,
m,mietttive action and, in particular, his lats:r
commentary on t:ie nature of the public sphere, as
outlined in Hetwe:im Fact.< 1md Norms (Haber:nas,
I 996, chap. 8),
a TEE PourKs oF PAKr1r:irAroRr
ACT!()N RP.SEARCH: U)MMt:~ICATIVE
ACTION AND THE PUF!'JC SPHERE
1:1 his book Theorv of Comm1micative Action, ar:d
✓ "
especially the secor:d volume. Habermas ( 1984,
l987b) described communicative action a, what
people do when they engage in communiration of
a particulac-i!nc widespread-kind, with thr~
?articular features, It is commi:nication ln which
people con~douslv and delibe::ate;y aim
576 • !IANDl!OOK Of QUALITATlVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER

Table Me:b::ds and Te.::hni,Jues Characteristic of D':fe!'cnt Approaches lu the Study of Pra:tice
.,
I
Both: Refle"ive-dialecticai
view ofmdividual-svcia!
Perrpetli·1e 11.e lndi ~idual Th~ Sod,i rt'l:4t1,ns and comux:tio'is

Ohjectiv,:: (I) P:actice as ind:vj<luai l'mctke as social

bch,ivinr: Quanlil~tive
cn,rdatio~.al-txperimrntal
methods; psychometric
and ob.,erva: ional
ltchniques, tesls, and
inter&rtion schedules
Subjective (3) Prac:icc as intentional
action: Qualitative ar.d
and system;, behaviur:
Quantitative and
mrrdationa·. -e~pcrin:ental
:ncthod,,; obsenational
ltx::rni,1ues, sudomrtrics.
systems analys:s, and
so rial ecology
I4 l Practice as .socially
strun:~cd,shai:,ed hv
' ;

i ntcrprd: ve methods; di<.coLJrse.~ tradition:

clinical analysis, iutu,iew, . Qualitat:·,e, interpretivi:.
q·.. ,·s tionm1ire. di~ :ics, and hisll;ric;rl mclhod.,;
Jour:1als, ,elf·report, and discourse ana'.ysis and
ir:tro,pectinn I d:icume~.t analysis
llolh: (5) Pr.;,tkc ,rs socially and
Rc!kxive-c:alectical hi;torically ••..... ...• :. and
vie\'\• ,,r mr.je,tive- as reconstitulcd :iy h1,::'.1a11
0bJCCIM:
. ...,_......., agentv G:ld ,odal action:
,. ;1d connections Critical methods; dialectit,11
a::alys1s ( multiple 1m:tlmds)

1, to reach imtrsubjeai·,e agrce>rwnt as a basis for
2. muwal 11nd1?1·ft1mdi;;g ,e as to
3. reach an ur:f,,n:ed cor..,ensus about what w de in
the particular practical sit.:atim1 in they
find t"emsdvcs.
Communicative m:tion b the kind of action
that peopk iake when they lnterrupt what they
are doing (Kemmis, 1998) to [our particular
kind~ o;: questions (the four validity claims):
• Whether their understandings of they arc
doing 11,uke sense to them and to ulhers (arc
ccmprrhe,1sihlc)
• Whtlhcr these undcr,tand!ngs are m1e (in t:ie
sense of hei ng r1c,ura1e in accordance with what
e:se fa known)
• Whether these understandings are smcerel)•
lwkl ,md s1t1t11,i (authentic)
• Whether these understandings are morally right
,md apprapriatr unde· the drcums:~11ccs in
whkh they fmd themselves
[n Between Facts and Norms, Habcrm as ( 199:'>)
acded a fourth foaturc to !he urigi r:al list of three
feati:res of rnmr:iunicative action. He noticed
son:cl!:ing obvious that previously had been
overlooked, namely that mmmunicatfre action
also opens commwtir.ative space bt1ween people.
He gave thi., fourtl:: feature com:nunicative
action special a:ten:ion because he corn,iderec
that opening space for commw1kalive acl ion pro-
duces two p,uticular and sil:11.:Jta ncous dfecrs.
First, it builds solfdariiy between rhe people who
open their understar:dings to one another this
kind of communication. Second, it u::iderwrites
the understandings and decisions tha: peopk reach
with legitimac_v. In a world where communkatioi:s
 Kemm:s&
are frequer.dy cynical, aad where people feel
alienated from public dedsior.s and even from the
political prncesse~ of their world, legitimacy is
hard· won. More i1:1por1ant for our purposes here,
:mvrever, Habe:-mas's argument is that legitimacy i,
gw:mmteed only 1hrougl1 communicative action, that
is, when people are free to choose-authentically
and for themselves, individually and in the co:1-
text of mutual ;iarlicipation-to decide for them•
selves the following;
• Vi:iat ,s mm;m,hensi':ileto them (whether in fact
they understand what others are saying)
• What is tn:e in light of 1/;eir awu k::cwlcdge
(both their individual know:edge and the
snared knowledge represen;ed in the discourse
used by members)
• \'\'tat participan:s tliemse/ve; regard as sincerely
and trulhfully stated (individually ar:d in te~ms
of thei:- jcint cmnnritment to uncerstamling)
• What participants themselves regard as morally
·igr:t and appropriate in term, of their individ-
·~al a:id mutual judgment about what it is :ig~t,
:Jroper, and prudent to do under the drcum•
stances in which they fmd themselves
What :s projected here is not an ideal against
which actual commuriications and utterances
are to be judget; rather, it is somethir.g that
Haberma~ believes we normally take fur grar.:ed
about uttera:ices-unlfss lhfy ore del ibfrately
distorted or challenged. Jn ordinary sprech, we
may or may not regard any particular utterance
as suspect on the grounds 01 ,my or all of the four
validity claims; whether any partku:ar utterance
will be :egarded as suspect or needing doser c~il •
ical examination will depend on "who :s saying
what about what to whom in what context:' On
t:ie other hand, when we move into the mode of
rammunic.itive action, we acknowledge at the
outset that we must str:ve for inter.subjective
agreement, mutual understar.ding, and unforced
consensus aboi.: t what to do in this particular sit-
uatio:1 because we alreadv ic10w :hat one or all
:our of the validity dai ms' must be regarded as
?roblematic-by us here and now, for our situa•
tion, and in relation to what to do in practice
aboi.:t rhe matter at hami Th.at is, the validity
claims do not funclion merely as procedurn{ ideals
for critiquing speech; they a:so function as bases
fur, o, underpinr.Jngs of, the substantive claims
we need to explore to reach mutua: agreenent,
understanding, and consrnsus about what to do
in the prirticuiar concre:e situation in which a
particular group of people in a s'.1ared socially,
discursively, and tistorkully structured specific
communicative space are deliberating together.
W:1at we notice here, to reiterate, is that the
process of recovering and critiquing validity
claims is not merely an abstract ideal or prir.ciple
but also an invocation of critique and cri :ical se!f-
aware1:es, in C()>icrete a:1d practical decis'.on mak-
ing, In a situation where we are ger.uindy acting
collaboratively wifa others, and where practical
reason is genuinely called we are obliged, as it
were, to "retreatn to a meta-level of critique-com•
:imnicative action-because it is not self-eviden:
what should be done. Perhaps we simply do not
comprehend wnat is hdng talked about or we are
not sure that we unders':and it correctly. ?er'u1ps
we are 'J:1sure of the truth or accuracy of the facts
on which o·Jr decisions mighl be based. Perhaps
we fear that deliberate deception or accidental
self-deception may :ead us astray. Per:iaps Wi;. are
not sure what it is morally right and appropriate to
do in this practical situation in whicl: our a::tior.s
will, as always, be judged by their historical conse-
quences (and their differential co:rnequences for
different people arid groups). Jn any of these cases,
we need to ronsic.er how to approach the practical
decision before us, and we mi:st ga:her our shared
understandings to do so, l n such casts, we inter•
rJpt what we are doing to move into the mode of
communicative action, In some such cases, we
may also move into the s:oi,,,er, more concrftely
practical, and more co11creleiy critical mode of
participatory action research, aiming deliberately
and co]aboratively to investigate the world in
order :o transform it, as Fals Borda observed, and
to transform the world in order tu investigate it.
We lake a problematic v:ew of our own action in
history and use O'J r ac:ion in hi~to::y a, a "probe"
with which to i:westigate reflexively our own
action and its place as cause and effect in the
unfolcing history of our world.
 578 111 HAND!JUOK OI' QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-C!IAPTFR
Part idpatory Action
Research and Communicative Space
In uur v'ew,panidpatory action research opem
CNn.municative sp,u:e betweer: participa:its. The
process of participatory ac:ion research h om: of
mutual inquiry aimed at re-.id:i:ig intersubjectivc
agrccm ~:, t, mutual understanding of a situation,
unforced conser:sus about what to do, and a sense
that wnal people achieve toge:herwill be legitimate
not only for themselves b:11 also for every re-ison-
able person universal claim), Participatory
ac:ion research a: ms lo create circumstances in
which people can search together collaborative:y
for mor~ comprehensible, true, authe:itic, and
morally right and appropriate of i:nder•
star.ding and acting in the world, It aims to create
c:rc·J:nstances in whic11 collaborative sucial aclion
in hi.story b not justified by appeal m aut:1 odtv
(and still less to coerdve force); rather, as
Habernas put it, it is j ustifird hy the force of
better a,gumcnt
To 1:iake these points is to nnti.:c three things
about :'le social rela1:tn:s eugcndered through
the pru;:ess of action research, First, it is to notice
that u:rtain relafamships are appropriate in the
resoorch elemen, of the term "part:cipatory action
research:' It :s to :10ticc that !he social practice of
this kind researcl: is u prnctice directed deliber-
ately toward discrwering. in,;;stigating, and attaining
ir:lersubjectivc agr~ement, mutual understanding,
and unforced consensus about what to do. It is
aimed at trst:ng, dt>Vdopl:1g, and retesting
ments, unders:andings, and decisions against the
criteria of mutual comprehensibility, t~uth, truth-
fulness (e.g., sincerity, autne:iticity), and moral
r'ghtncss and appmpriatcness. In our view, par-
ticipatory act ian researi.:h pmjects comrmmicative
act ion imo the fie/ti of action and the n1aking of
hiswry. It dm,s so in ii de:iheratcly c:itical and
reflexive way; that is, it c:ims to cha;ige both our
unfolding his:ory and ourselves ;1:, makers of our
unfolding history. As scienc~, parlidpatory action
resl;;llrch is nOI to be 1nderstood as the kind of
science that gathers knowledge as a prect:rsor 10
and rrsou rce for controlling the t:n folding
events (the technical knowledgc-co::sUutive
interest characteristic of positivistic social
science [Habcrmas, 19721), Nor is i: to be under-
s:ood as the kind of scienc:e directec toward edu-
cating :he person to be a wiser and more prudent
ac:or in as yet umpedfied sit:1ations and drcum
stances (the ?ractical knowledge-constitutive
interest characteristic of hermeneatics and
int<'rpretive soda! science IHaber • as, l 972 ]).
Participatory action research is to be understood
as a collaborative practk:e of critique, perfnrmed
in and through a col lr.bo:ative practice of research
that aims to change the researchers themselves as
well as d:~ sndal world they inha',it (t'le emanci-
pato;y knowlcdge-cumtitutive :ntcrcs! charac-
teris:ic critical soda'. science !Carr & Kemmis,
I YHb; Habenm1s, 1972] ).
Sc,;on d.] th :o notice that, ir.iilar relationships
arc appmpriat~ in th,, ac1ior. element cf partidpa •
ro,y action research. It is to notice that the deci•
sions on wh'ch act'on is based must first hav1;:
withstood the tcsls of the resea,d: ekmen1 aad
1:iust then withs:and the :ests of wisdom and
pmdencc-t!m: people are will' ng to, and indeed
can, xasonahty live with the consequences of the
d~dsions hey :na:Se, and the ac:ions they
and the actions that follmv from these dec:sions,
rh:s is tu notice :hat participatory action rcse.1rch
generates not only a collaborative sense of agency
but also a colh1:)orati11e sense of /;igitimacy of
the decisions people make, and the actions they
takr, together.
'J'hird. it is to notice that part icipalory action
research involves :-elatio:1ships of participation as
a central and defining feature and not a$ a kind of
ins:rnrr:enta I or contingent value tacked on to the
term. In r:rnny vkws of actk,:i research, including
some of m:r earliest advocacies for it, tne idea of
"participation" wa,s tl:oi.:ght to refer to an action
research group whose members had reached an
agreement to research and act together on rome
shared topic or pru blem. 'fois view caused us :o
think in terms of"insidcrs" and "outsiders" to the
group and to the action :.:search process. Such a
view carrits resonances of discussions of the role
of the avant·garde in making the revolution, II
suggests that the actio1: research group constitutes
itself 1igainst csta';Jlished authorities or 'v<tays of
 Kemmis & M;;Tagga:t: Participatory Actior: Research • 579
wo,king, as if it were the role o" tile groJp to show
how thins~ can and should be done better despite
the cons:raints and exigenciesuf taken-for-grantee
of doing things.
The idea of participation as cenlml to partici-
patory action research is not so easily endm;ed
and encapsulated. The notion of fnc/uslon evoked
in partic'.patory action research sho'Jld not, ir: our
view, he regarded as static or :1xed. Par:ic:pato ry
action research should, in principle, crea:e dr•
cumstances in whici all those involved in and
affected hy the processes of research ar:d action
(a[ of those ii:volved in thought and action as well
as theory and practice) about the topic have a
right to 5peak and ad in trans::'orming thir.gs
fur the bcttr r. It is 10 say that, in the case of,
for exa:nplc, a parttcipatory action research pro•
about education, it is not only teachers who
have the task of improving the social practices
s.;hooling but also st w.lerits anci many others
(e.g., ?arei:ts, school con: munitiei:, employer5 of
graduates;. It is to say that, in proiects ~011cerned
w:th community de\·dopment, nol o:1ly lobby
groups of concerned dtizcr:s but also local gov•
ernment agencies ar.d many o:hers will :1 ave a
share ir: the cm1sequences of actions taken and,
thus, a righ: to he heard in the formation of
programs of action.
In reality, of course, not all :nvolved and
affeded people will partici ;:;ate i:'J any puticular
participatory action research p~oj ect. Some may
res:st ir.volvemen:, some might not be interested
because their commitmcn:s are elsewhere, and
sor.1e :night not have thr ncans to join and con-
tribule to the project as it unfolds. The point is
that a partkipatory action research project that
aims to :ransform existing ways of understand-
ing, existing social practices, am: existing situa-
tio:1s n:ust a:so trnm;form other ?eople anc
agencies who mighl not "naturally" he partici-
pants in the processes of doing lhc research and
taking a::ion. In principle. participatory action
research issues an inv:tation to previous:y or natu•
rally uninvolved people. as well as a self-constituted
action re~carch group, to participate in a com • on
process of commimicative adi1mj(Jr mmsformalion.
~ot all will accept the invitation, but it is incumberi:
on those who do participate to take into account
those others' t:ndcrstandings, perspecti \ietl, and
intcrests-e;:en if the decision is to oppose them in
the service of a broe.der pi:blic intersst.
Participatory Action Research and
the Critique of the "Social Macro-Subject"
these conments suggest, participatory
action research does not-or need not-valorize
a particular group as carrier of legitimate
political action. In his critique of the "soda I
macro suhjt'!ct" ir. '/'he Philosophical Discourse
of Mcdernity and Between Facts and Norms,
Habcrmas {1987a, 1996) argued that politic:li
theory has frequently been lee as~ray bv the r:mion
thal a slate or an organization can be autonomoLL~
and selfreg1:Jaling in any dear sense. The cir·
cum stances of late :node,nity are such, he arguec,
that i: is simplistic and mist., ken to imagine that
t:tc :nachinery of governme:1t or n:anagement is
ur:iflcd and capable of self-regulat'on in any
simple sense of "self." Governments and the
machinery of government, and managements ar,d
the rr achinery of contemporary org,in izat im1s,
are nowadays so rom?lcx, m·1itifaceted, and
(often} internally contradictory as ''systems" that
they do not opera:e in any autonomous way, let
alone in any way that could regarded as se]f.
rcga'.at:ng in rel atim: to publks they ain: lo
govern o, manage. They are not unified syskms
·:Jut rather complex sets o:' subsystems having
transact io:1s of vario-Js kinds with one another
economically (in tlle steering medium of money)
and admini~tratively (in the steering mecium of
power). Berween Facts and Norms is a ,rilique of
contemporary theorie.~ of law and government
that are based on concrete, histurically outmoded
notions of governrnentality that pre,;ume a single,
more or less unified body politic 1hat is regu:ated
by law and a constitution. Such theor'cs presu:r,e
that governmeuts can cr:capsulate and imposr
order 0:1 a soda! bodv• a~ a unified whole aero~,
many dimcmions of social, political, cultural, and
individual lite or lives. Many of t:1ose who inhabit
the wmpeting subsyster.1s of contempornry
guvernment and managen:ent in fact acknowledge
 580 Ill HANDllUOK Of QUALITATIVE RF.SEARCH-CHAPTER
:hat no such simple steering is possible; on the
contrary; steering lakes place-to the extent that
it ca:1 happrn at all-tli rough an indete:minate
array of established practices, structures, systems
of ir:fa1ence, bargaining, a:id coercive powers.
The same ls true of particbatory action
research groups. When they conceive of them
selves as dosed and self-regulating, they may lose
contact with social reality. In fact, participatory
action re,earch groups are internally diverse, they
generally have no unified ''ce:iter" or core fron:
which their power and auhority can emanate,
and they frequently have little capacity to achieve
their own ends if they r:msl rnntend with the wm
of other powers and orders. Moreover, participa-
tory action research groups connect and interac:t
with various kinds of external people, groups, and
agendes. In terms of thought and action, and uf
theory and practice, they and act 01: t of, and
back into, the wider soda! reality tr.at they aim to
transfom:.
The most morally, practically. and politically
compelling view of participatory action research
is one that sees partic::;iatory action research as
a practice through whim people can create net-
works of communication, that is, sites forthe prac-
tice of comrr:unicative action. It offers the ;,rospect
of orening com:nunkative space in public spheres
of the kind th at Ha berm as described. Based on
such a v:cw, partkipatory action research aims to
engender practical critiques of existing states of
affairs, the development critical perspectives,
and the shared formation of e:na:icipatory com-
:n itments, that is, comrn itments to overcome dis-
torted ways of u:iderstanding the wo~ld, distorted
practices, and d:stor~ed social arrangement~ and
situations, (By "distortec" here, we mean under-
standings, practices, and situatiom whose conse-
quences arc i:r.satisfying, ineffective, or m: j:1st for
some or all of those hvolved and affected.)
Communicative Action
and Exploratory Action
Participatory action researc'i. creates a com-
municative space in which communicative action
is fostered among ?a:tkipants and in wbch
problems and issc1es can he t;,ematized for critical
exploration aimed at ovcrco:ning felt dissatisfac-
tions (Fay, 1987), irrationality, anc inji:stice, It
also fos:ers a kind of"playfulness" about action-
what to do, At its best, ii creales opportur:ities for
partic: pants to adopt a thoughtful but :1.ighly
explora:ory view of what to do, knowing that their
practice can and will be "corrected'' in :he light of
what they learn from their careful observation of
the processes a:id consequences of their action as
it unfolds, This see1:1s to us to involve a :iew kind
of understanding of the notion of communicative
act:on, ]t is not just "reAecrio:in or "reflective prai:>
tke» (e.g., as advocated by Schon, 1983, 1987,
l 99 L) bt:: also action taken with the principal
purpose of learning from experience by careful
ohservation of its prucesses and consequences. It
is deliberately designed as; an e,v.ploration of ways
doing things :n this particular situation at this
particular historical moment. It is designed to be
exploratory actio11,
Partidpato:-y action research is scientific and
reflective in ~he sense in which John Dewe1·
de,cribed"scientifk method}"vlfriting in Democracy
and Education, Dewey ( l 9Hi) described the
essentials of reflection-and sc:enti fie method-
as toliows;
They arc, 'int, :ha! the pup[ has a genuine situation
of expe:ience-that there be a continum.:s activit}'
in whirr: he is ':iterestrd :or ils cwn ;a;,e; secor:dly;
th.lt a genuine prob'em develop within this sin;a-
tion as a stimulus lo thcught; l'1irtl, tha: possess
the informa:ion and make the obscrvalions needed
10 deal wit"i it; fourth, that suggested ,,a:utions
o,;;ur :o him which he shall be rrs;,rnsihlr for
developing in an orderly way; 'ifth, that he shall
have lhe opportunity and o~casion to test his ideas
by application, to make their :nE:aning c:ear, anc to
discovu for himself their validi:y. (p, 192;
For Dewey; experie ;1,ce and intelligent action
were linked in a Ed;ication, like science, was
to aim not jusl at filling the minds of stucents but
also at helping thl"m to take their place in a demo-
cratic society ceaselessly reconstruct:ng 2nd
transforming the world th rough ac:ion, ln:clligcm
action Willi a; ways experimental and exploratory,
 Kemmis & McTaggart: Partidpatory Ac1ion Research 111 531
conducted with an to learning and as an
O?portunity to lear:i :·rom unfoldir.g experience.
In our view, participatory action research is an
elaboration of this idea. It is cxplo:atory action that
parallels ar:d builds on the notion of ,'Ommunirn-
tive a~tion. It does more than conduct its :-ef.ection
in the rear-view mirror, as it we:-e, looking back-
W'arr. at wnat has happened to learn from it It also
generates and conducts action in an exploratory
and experime:ital n:anner, with actions :hem·
selves standing as practical hypotheses or specu-
lation, to be tested as their consequences emerge
and unfold.
ml Co:-IST!l'UTING PUBLIC SPHERES FOR
Co:.11,1:rN1cAnvE Acno~ THRO;JGH
PARTlUPA!llRY Ac10:,i REsF.ARc11
Baynes ( I writing on Habermas and democ-
racy, quoted Habi:rmas on tl:e public sphere:
!Deliberative politics] 1s bmmd tc tb.: demanding
communicative prcsup;iositions oi politkal arena~
1ha: do nnt mindde with instilulionalized will•
formation in :iarliamentary bodies but extend
equally to the politi~al p.iblk sphere and 10 cul-
hm!I context and soda! ba~i~. A dclibcr;;tive prac-
lke of ,elf-determinat:<m can develop or.ly in the
interplay ':ielwe.:::, on !he i!r:e hand, the parliamer. ·
tary will-formation ins'.itutior:ilized in kgal :1roce-
dures a11d programmed to reach decisions and, 011
the other, political opinion-buiiding in informal
circles of pol itirel co• munkat ion. (p, '
Baynes (1995) described Habcrmas's concep-
tualization nf the "stmng publics" of parlia • en-
ta~y and legal st:bsystems and the "weak publics"
of the "puhlic sphere :-anging from private.,,,,,,,,,,,.-
ations to t:te mass media located in 'civil ,;ocietv'
... Iwl: ich] assume responsibility for iden:ifying'
and interpret:ng soda! problems" ( pp. 2 I6-217).
Baynes addec that, in this connection, Haber:nas
"also de~cribes the task of an opinion-forming
public s:ihere as ~hat of laying siege to the for-
mally organized pnl irica: system by endrcHng it
with reasons wilhout, however, auempting to
ovcrthrm,, or replace it" (p. 217).
b p:actice, this has been the kind of task :ha:
mar:y actior: researchers, and especially partki-
patorr actinn researchers, have set for them-
selves-surrounding established institu:ions,
law.,, po:ides, and adrr.inist:-ative arrangements
(e.g.,goverr:mer:: depar:ments) with reasons that,
on the one hand, respond w co11temporary crises
or problems experienced "in the field" (h civil
society) and, on the other, provide a rationale for
changing current st met ures, ?olicies, practices,
;,roccdures, or other arrangemenb that are
implicit in causing or maintain:ng :hese crises or
problems. In response to crises ,1r problems expe-
rienced in particular places, participatory action
researc:iers are frequently involved in co • munity
development pmj eels and :nitiatives of various
kinds, including conm::unity educatkm, commu-
nity economic development, rnising political con·
sciousness, and respor:ding to "green' issues. In
one sense, they see themselves as oppositional,
that is, as p,utesling current structures ~nd furn:;-
tions of economic and adminis:rative ,y~tems, In
another srr:st:, although sometimes they art cun-
frontational in faei r tactics, they frequently aim
not to overthrow established author',y or struc-
tures bu: rather to get ;hem lo lmmform their
ways of working so that problems ar.d crises can
be overmme. As Baynes ohservtd, their aim is to
besiege autl:oritie, with reasons and not In
dest~oy them. We migh! also say, howtver, that
so:ne of the reasons that participatory action
researchers cr:1ploy are :he fruits of their practkal
exp<'rience in :na~ing change, They create coli·
crne contradictilms between e~lablishcd ur cur-
rent ways of doing things, on the one h:u:d, and
alternative w.1ys ,hat are developed through their
investigations. They read and rnmrost the nat'J7e
and consequences of existing wap of doing
binga with these alternative ways, aiming to show
tr.at irrntionalit:es, in; ustices, and i:issat isfactions
associated with the former can he overcome
practice by the latter.
As we i:ldicated earlier, the approach that par
tici patory act:or: researchers take to identified
problens or crises is to nmduct research as a basis
for ;nforn :ing tr.emse!ves and others about the
:,roblems or crises and to explore way:. in which
 111 HA'.'lDllOOK OF Q:JALl':'AflVE R"',EARCH-CHAI'Tl:R 23
the ;:,mb:1:nrn or crises might be overcome. Their
stock in trade is comm1:nicative action both inter-
nal!)'. by opening dfa:ogue within the g:"OU? of
researcher-panidpants, and ex:emally, by opening
dialog:ic with the powers-that-be alimit the natt:re
of the problems or c,iscs that participants experi-
ence in thei, own lives and about ways of changing
social structures and ?ra:t kes to ease or overco;n;;>
these problems or crises. Sometimes advocate, of
participatory action research (inc'.~ding oursell!es)
have misstated the nature of this opposi6:mal
role seeing themselves as simply opposed to
estahl ishcd aut!writies rafaer than as op::>osed to
part:cular strncwres or established practices. We
rccogn it,e that in our own earlier advocacies, the
la:iguage of "er:iancipalion" was always ar.1higu-
ous, permitting or encouraging the idea that the
emancipation we sought was from the struclUres
,mtl systems of the state irnelf rather than, or as
much as, emancipation from the real objects of
oi; r critiquc-seJ-dec;;:ption, ideology, irrntional-
ity, and/or i:ijJstice (,,s ou~ 1:iore judicious for-
im:!at'or:S descrihed it).
Hahr,mas's er: tique of the soda I macro•
,mhjrct sJgge;;ts that our for:nulation of the action
.15 a ki:id of ,mint-garde was always too
wooden and rigid. It eni.:out'aged the notion that
!here 'Ne,!! "insider,'' ar.d "outsiders" and :hat the
insiders could be not only sr-)f.rcgulating and
relatively autonomous but also effective in con•
fm:1ting a more o, less unitary,sdf-regulating,ar:d
autonomous or existing authodty. Iha: is, it
seemed to presume an integrated ('.mcontlktcd)
"core'' and an :n:egratcd ( unconflicted) politkal
obji::ct lo be changed as a consequence of the
investigations undertaken by the action groi:p.
In reality, we saw action groups characterized by
contradictions, contests. and conflicts within that
were interacti1cg with contradictory, rontesled,
and co:iflict-ridde11 social structur<'s without.
Alliances s:i Jted and d1,1:1gcd bo!.:1 ins:de action
g:-nups and :n be relations of members with ,truc-
tur<'s «nd authorities i:1 the wider social context of
wh irh they were a part I:idced, r:,ar:y participatory
action research projects c;1me into exis:en,e
becm,se establ ishcd slrn ctures and authorities
wanted to explore poss::iilities for change in
existing ways of doing thing.s, even though tb: new
ways would bt: in a cm1trndklory relationship wi:h
the usual ways of operating.
This way of understanding participatory action
restarch groups i~ more open-texture<: ar:d fluid
than our earlier advocacies s:.1ggested. In those
advocacies, we imagh:ed action group~ a~ more
tiyhtly knotteil, better integrated, and more "solid"
than the way in which we see them now. Now we
recognize the more open and fluid connections
between "members" of action groups and betwee~.
:ncn:bers and others the wider soda! cuntext ::1
which their investigations take plice.
Public Spheres
h Between facls and Norms, Hahermas ( 1996.
chap. ii) oi.::lined the ki:ids ,1f conditions umle1
which people can engage in cnmmunicativt! action
in the contexts of social action and soda! move-
ments. He set our to de;:cri br the na,urc o: what he
cal:ed publit spheres. (J,;ote that he dld not refer
solely to "the public sphere:• which is an abstrac•
ti Olli rather. he referred to "public: spheres." w;1 ich
are concrete and pniclical contexrs for com"
munication.) ·:·he public spheres :hat Habrrmis
had in m'nd are not the kinds of communicative
spaces of most nur social a r:d poli :ical corn mu·
nkaciotJ. Com mu :1ication in very m,my po:itical
contexts (especiallr in the sense of realpolitik) is
frequently di~lmted and disfigured by interest-
based bargainin{!, that is, hy ;miple .~peaking
and adng in ways that are g1ided by their own
(self-) intexsts (even if they are shared poli!ical
interests) in ti:e ,er·,tc:e of their own (s:1a:red)
:nrticular goals and ends. Wt· return lo t:iis in
,u, discussion of participatory action n:~earch
ar:d comn,u:1:-:ative ;;pace later.
From Habermas·s ( 1996, chap. 8) discnssim:
i:1 Between Fact, arid Norms. we identified IO key
foat ures of pu :i:ic spheres as he defined thc:1:.
In what follows, drnwinJ:! on other ,cccnt work
(Kemmis, 2004; Kemmis & flrrnmm Kemmi~,
2003), we dcscril:c each of these features and then
brie:ly indicate huw criticai participatory 8ction
research projecls might exemplify each feature.
i;rm:i Kemmis and Brennan Ker:mis (2003), we
 Kemmis & Mdaggart: f'artidpatory Action Research 11
also present comments indicating how two kir:ds
of social action projects di~piayed some of the
characteristics of public discourses in public
spheres, that is, how partkipatory action research
work can create more open and fluid relationshi ?S
than can the closed and somewhat mechanical
notions some! irm:s associated with action
research group~ and methodologically driven
characterizations of their wo:k To use this illus,
tration, it is necessary to give a brief introduction
to these examples. T:1e first is a:i example of a
participalury action research project in Yir,kala,
Australia, du:ing the late 19SOs ar.d 1990s. r:1e
second is an example of a large educational con•
gress held In the Argentine Republic in 2003.
Ex1impie 1: The Yirrkala Ganma Education
Project. Durlr:g the late l98Ds and 1990s,:n the far
nmth of Australia in the communi:y of Yirrkala,
North East Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, the
Yolngu indigenous people wanted to change their
s<::iools.' They wanted to make their schools
rr.orc appropriate fo, Yobgu children. Mam:awny
Yunupir:gu, then deputy prir:cipal at the school
and later lead singer of the pop group Yothu Yin di,
wrote abuul the problem this way:
Yo::igu children have difficulties in learning areas
of Balanda [white man'S: knowledge. This is not
because Yolngu cannot think, ii is beca.::se tl:e cur•
,iculum in the school:, is not relevant for Yolngu
children, and often these curriculur.: dnn1me::ts
are developed by Ralanda who are etr.:iocentric in
t':eir values. The way that B,danda people have
i::stitutionalised thei: way of livi :1g is t':ro:Jgh
mainta':::ng the social reproduclion process where
children are sent ta school and th.:y are taught to do
things in a particular way; Often the tliiugs :hat tbey
learn favour (!he interests of] the rich and powe:•
ful, because wher: they leave school [and go to
work] the control of the wo7kfurct" is in the hands of
the middle dass and the upper class.
An appropriate curr:culum for Yolngu is one
that is loaited in the A:ioriginal world which can
e::able the childrci to cross over into the Balanda
world. lIt allows] for identificalion of bits of
Ralanda knowledge that are consistent with the
Yolngu way of learning, (Yunupingu, 1991, p. 102)
The Yolngu teachers, together with other
teachers and with the help of their community,
began a jourr.ey of participatory action research.
Working together, they clumged the white man's
world of schooling. Of course, some:imes there
were conflicts and disagreements, but they
worked through ::,em h the Yolngu way-toward
conse:1sus. They had help but no money :o con•
duct the:r research,
Their research was not researcl1 abuul schools
and schooling in general; rathe:, their parlkipa-
tory a:tion research was about how schooling was
done in their schools.As Yunu:,,ing'-1 ( l 991) put it,
So here is a :m;damental difference compared with
traditional research about Yolngu education: We
star I v,ilh Yoingu knowledge and work out w -:at
.:omes from Yolngu minds a, of central impcrtance,
not lhc oth<'r \\"llY !a,rmmd. (pp. 102 103)
Throughout the process, the teachers were
guided by their own ccllabomt've research into
their problems and practices. They gathered
stories from t'Je uld people. They gathered infor-
mation aboul how the school worked and did not
work for them. They m.1de changes and watched
what happen ed. '!'hey thought carefully about the
consequences o:' :he changes they made, and then
they made still further cha:iges on the basi~ of :he
evidence they '.lac gathered.
Through their shared journey of participatory
action research, the school and the rommuni:y
discovered how to limit the C'Jlrnrally corrosive
o:
effects the white man's \vay of s,::hnoli ng, and
they learned to respect both Yolngn ways ar:d the
white man's ways, At first, the teachers called the
new form of sd:ooling "both ways education'.'
Later, drawing on a sacred story from tl:eir own
tradition, they called ii "Ganma education:'
Writing about his hopes for the Gan:n:a research
:hat the community conducted to develop
~he ideas and practices Ganma t'(h1cati on,
Yunupingu ( 1991) observed,
I am hopi :ig the Gan ma research will becilmr
crllkal educational research, !hat it will empower
Yolngc:, that it will emphasize emancipatory
aspects, and tha: it will take a side-jus: as t':e
 584 D HANTlBOOK Or QUALITATIVE RESEAJIC:-f-CEAl''. Lll 13
Balanda researd; has alway, taken a sidt but nt'Vf'r
revecled this, "·"'"'' claiming to be neu:rnl and
ob'edve,
,
shift th,~ balance of power.
.
!,Iv' aim ::1 Ganma is :o help, lo chani:;e, to
Gar. 111 a reseuch b abo cri :kal in t:it processes
we use. Ou· critkJI cmmna:1ity of action
working lOk•c:h,:r, reflecting, sh.1ring, and thinking
i ndude.s imporlant i'olngu elders, the 'blngu actior
gmup [teaciwrs in the ,,:hool:, Balanda :eachers,
and a Balanda rc;;carcher to help with the process.
Of ccurse, snc i5 invulved too; ,he care~ about our
pra1Jlems, land] ,he ha& a s'.akc in finding solu·
too is difte-ent from the traditinnal role
,if a researcher. (p. :o3} ...
lr is. I must sire!(,, important lO locate Ganma in
our broader de\·dn;:iment pfa::s ... in th;; overall
con:exl oiAboriginalisation a:id cuntrnl into whi,h
Ganma ::mst fit. l;i. 104)
Together, the teachers and the comrr.unity
fou:1d new way~ in whk:h to think about schouls
and schooling, that is, new ways in whid: to think
about the work of teaching and learning and a":m ut
heir com mun it y and its future, Their c:ollabora •
live participatory action research changed r.or
only tl1e school hit also the propk themselves.
Vie give a little ma re in fomrntlon about the
communicative relationships established in the
project as we dcsc:-ibe 10 features of public
sphere:; as discussed by 1fa bermas.
Example The Cordoba Edurntion.,1 Congress.
In October 2003, sor:ie 8,000 tead:ers gafaered
in C6rdo!Ja, Argentina, for the Congreso lnter-
nacio1:al <l1t Educaci•n (Congreso V Nadonal y III
Internacional).; We want m show thilt the con·
gress opened a sh are,: CO'nmunicat i,;e space to
explore the ic ,rn:re. coi:ditions, a;1 d possibi:itics
for change in tl:e soda 1 realities of educatio:1 in
Latin America, When participants opened th: s
communicative space, they cn:.:1ted llpc11·cyed
am: open• minded snc:al reh,tionsl:ips !n which
participant~ were jointly committed to gaining a
critical and self.critical gras;:, on their social real•
itks and the possibilities for c:iangi:lg the educa•
t[on al practices of their sd10ols and uoiversities
and for overcoming the injusti.;;;, im,,1city, irrn-
tionahty, ar. d sufferii:g endemic :n the societies :tl
whic:i :hey live. Altl:m:gh we are not da'mittg tha,
the case perfectly realizes th<c idea: type of t:ie
public 5phere, it seem~ tn us that the partkipan:s
in the Cordoba congress created the kine of social
arena that is appropriately described as a public
sphere. :'v:loreover, the congress. is also to be umier.
slooc as one of many key moments in a broad
social and edm;atiorn,; mu,;emen: at which partk
ipants reported on particular projects of diffor-
ent k:nds (many of :hem participatory action
research projects), seeing these particular pm•
jects as contributim:s to the historical, soc'al, and
po:itical process of t:-ans:onni11g education in
varioas countries in South A1m:rica.
Thr 10 fo11ti.:res of public spheres we men•
t'or,ed earlier are as follows:
works of commumcation among actuul partili-
pa11ts. We shoul,l not think of public s?heres as
entirely abstract, that is, M if there were jusr one
public sphere. In rca: it)', there are marty public
spn,·ms.
'
t.:nderstood in this way, participatory action
research groups and projects might be seen as
opea •lextured networks established for cor:i mu-
nicatiun and explt1ration of soch,I problems or
issues and as having relationships wi:h othe, net•
works ,ind organizations in which members also
partidpate.
The Yi::rkala Gan :na project involved a par tic
ular grnup of ptuplc in and armrnd the schools
ar:d cm:mrnnity at that time. It was a somewhat
fbid group tha~ was tucus,,o on a group of indige·
llO'Js teachers at the sc:iool together wilh cumm11 -
nity elders and other commun::y membe,s-
parents and o:.hers-aml students at the schools.
It also involved nonindigenous leachcrs and corc-
1,ea:-~l:era 1vho acted as critical friends to the
pmjc,1. The network of acm~: co:nmnnkations
among these peopk cor:stituted the project as a
publ:c sphere.
The f.ordoba congress brought together sume
8,000 teachers, sl udeuts, education oflkials, and
in,dltd experts in various fields, For the .3 ,fays
of the cnngress, they co nstit11ted an overla ;:,p:r.g
set ot networks of com m11nic;1tion that could
be regarded as a h:.it highly interconnected
 Ken: ::1is & Mcl,iggarl: Partidpat0ry Action Research
and then:ati7A'd se: of conv1;rsa:ions about
contemporary educadonal conditions and educa ·
t:onal practices in Lat'n Arr.erka. T:1ey were
exploring the question of now currer:, educa:ional
practices and instil utions con:inued :o contribute
to and ,epmduce ineq uitahle s,,cial re'.at;ons in
those countries and how transformed educational
practices and institutions might contribute to
transfo~ming those inequi:,1b] e social conditions.
2. Pu:ilic spheres 11.re seif:wrulifuted, They are
fo,med by peopk who get together ·;ulur1tarily.
They are also relmive/y autonomous; that is, they
are outside formal systems such as the adninis-
trativc systems of tl:e state, They are also outside
the formal systems of in L1e1:ce that rr:ediate
between civil society and the slate such as the
organizations that represent particular interests
(e.g .. a farmers' lobby). They arc composed of
people who want to explore partkula, problems
or issues, that is, around pa rl k ul ar tl:e:nes
for discus,iur,, Comr.rnnicative spaces or com-
munication networks organized as part of tl:e
com:nunkative apparatus of the economic or
administrative subsystems of government or
business would not normally qi:.ali:y as puhlk
spheres.
Participatory action research groups corr:e into
existence a:0und themes or topics that partici-
pants want to investigate, and they make a shared
commit:nent to col:aborating in act:on and
research in the interests of transformatio'.'1, They
cor.stit:.ite themselves as a group or project for the
purpose of mutual critical inquiry aimed at prnc•
tical 7ransfor mat'.m: cf existing ways of coing
things (p:-actkc~/work), existing understandings
(which guide them as prac:ltioners!worke:-s J, and
exisfr.g situations (pracrice settingsiworkplaces).
The Yirrkala Ganrr:a project was formed by
people who wanted to get :ogether to work on
changing the schools in thei~ com me nity. They
participated volunt a:-ily. They were relatively
autonomous in tne sense that their acivities were
based :h c scnoo!s but were not "owm£' by the
schools, and their activities were based in the
community but we:-e r:ot"ov,ned"by any commu-
nir1, organization, The project wa, held together
a 5/15
bv a common commitr:1e1:t to comn::u:ikation
' exploration o: lhe possibilities for changi:lg
and
the schools to enact the Ga1111:a (both ways)
visio:1 of Yolngu schooling for Yolngu s:udents
and communities.
People attended Cordoba congress volun-
tarily, [>espite the usual complex arrange:ner:ts for
people to fund t hei ~ atteudanc~ and sponso:Sh ip
of students ar.d others who could not ilfford tf,
attend (approximately 800 of the 8,000 .1cte:1d0es
received scholarships to ~·1hsidize their atten-
dance), the congress remained autonomous of
particular schools. educatio:i svs·terr:s, and stal1:s.
Th<! administrative ap?;uatus of the congress wa:;
not "owned" by any orga:1izatior1 or state, althou!\h
its core adm inist,ative staff members we,e based
at the Dr. Alejandro Carb6 :formal SchoGL The
congress was coordinated by a committee of edu-
cators based in Cordoba ar.d was advised :iy ar:
academic corr:mittee composed of peop:c from
many signif:rnnt Argentinean edi:cation organiza-
tions (e.g., :he Provindal 1cachcn-' Union, univer-
sities, lhe National Academy or Sdcr.ces based i:\
C6::<loba ), Arguably, however, the stru.:turing of
t!le congres~ as a sc:lf-financing econom:c enter•
p,ise (u.~ d:stl :,ct from '.ts connection with a
broader soda! and educationai movement) jeop·
ardized the extent to which it might properly he
dcsc,ibed as a pu·,1 k sp'iere.
3. Puhl ic spheres freq ucntly com,; into
:e:1.ce in response to legitimation defirits; lhal
they frequently come into cxisl,'11(:e herause poten
tia: participants do not feel that existing l:nvs, poli-
practk:as, or situations are legitimate. In such
cases, participa:it~ do not feel that they 'l\'Ould nee·
e&5arily have come to the decision to do things the
111,~.iys they are now being done. Their communi•
cation is ai;T1ed at ex:,loring wavs in wbch to
a ;
overcome :nese :egitir.rntion by finding
alternative ways of doing things will attract
their informed conser:t and commitment.
Participatory action research groups and pro-
jects :requently come into existence because
existing ways of worklr.g are regarded as lacking
leg::imacy In :hr sense that they do not (or 110
longer) command respect or because they cannot
 Jll HA!'.'Dl!OOK OF QUALITATIVE REShARCH -CHAPTER
be regarded as authentic for participan:;, either
individually or col:ectivel}~
The Y:rrkala Ganma project came into exis
tence because of prolonged and profound tisslltis-
fac:ion with nature and consequences of ~he
white man's way of schooling for Yolngu students,
ind:iding the $Cl1Se tl:at current ways of doi:lg
schooling were culti:rally corrosive for Yolngu
students and communities, As i:1dkated earlier,
Yolr:gu teachers and wmmunity members wanted
to find a'.:emative ways of schoolir..g that would be
more inclusive, engaging, and er..abling for )blngu
students and that would help lo develop the co:n-
munity under Yolngu control.
The people atteuding the Cordoba congre;s
generally snared tne view that curren: form, of
education in Lati:1 America serve the interests of
a kind of society that does not meet the needs
of most d tizens, that [s, that current forms of
scl:ool'ng are not legitimate in tern:s of the inter
. ' of students and their famiEes.
ests of the maioritv
They wante('. to explore alternative ways of doing
education that r..1ight better serve the i:tterests
of the people of Latin America (l:ence the theme
for fae co:1g:-ess, "Education; ACm,1mitment With
tl:e Nation"),
4. Public sphe,es are const ltuted for cammu-
nicarive act ion a:id for public discourse. Usualty
they involve :ace-to-face com:nunication, but
they could be constituted in othe, ways (e.g., via
e-mail, via the World Wide Web}. Public discourse
in public spheres :ias a sim[:ar orientation to
communicative act'or. that it is oriented toward
intersubjective agreen:ent, mi::ual understa:1d •
ing. and unforced consensus about what to do.
Thus, communicative spaces organized for es sen•
tially instrumental or functional purposes-to
commar.d, to in:luence, to exerci:;e cunlrol ove:::
things-would nat ordinarily qualify as public
spheres.
Participatory action research projects and
gro,ips constitute themselves fo~ co:nmunkation
orientt>d :oward inters1: bj ective ag;eement,
rr.•Jtua: understanding, and unforced consensus
about what to do, They create communic,don
networks aimed at achievir.g communicative
action and at proje,~ing communicative action
into p~actical inqJiries aimrd at transformation
of soda! p:-actices, prac:itioners' understancings
of their practices, and the situations and circum-
stances in which they practice,
The Yirrkala Ganma project was created wi:h
the principal aim of creating a shared comrr.u-
nkative space in which people could think, talk,
am! act together openly and with a comm: :me:it
to making a difference in the way in which school•
ing was ena,::ted in their corr: munily, Communi·
cations ir. the project were mostly face-to-:'ace,
but there was also much written co:nmunicatior:
as people worked 0:1 various ideas and suhproj•
ects within the overall framework of the Ganma
pmiect. They spent many ho1:rs in reaching inter-
subjective agreement o:i the ideas 1;1,11 fnimerl
their thi:lking about education, in reaching mu:ual
understanding about the cor:c:eptual framework in
which th,ir cmrent situation was to be under•
Mood am: about tne C.anma conceptual frame-
wo,k t'lat wou;d help to guide their 6inking a&
they deve:oped new forms of schooling, a:,d in
detern:ining ways in which to mnve forward
based on unforced consensus about how to p::o•
ceed. Althm:gh it might appear that tr:ey had an
instrumental approach and a dear goal io
mind-the development of an ir:1proved form of
sdmoling-il should be emphasized that their
task was not mere:y instrumental. It was not
instrumental because thry had no c'ear idea al the
beginning about what form th:s new kind of
schooling would take; both the:r goal and the
:11eans to achieve it needec to be critica]y devel-
oped through their communicative action and
pJ blic discourse.
In tne Cordoba congr~s, people came togetner
to expln:-e ways o: conceptlla.:izing a reconstructed
view of schooling and education for Latin America
at t:i!s critical n:or:ient in the history of many of
its nations. The point of tr.e cong::ess was to sha:e
ideas about how the current sit.Jation sl:ould be
understood and how it was formed a:1d 10 con•
sider ideas, issues, obstac:es, and possible ways in
which ta move fo:ward toward forms of education
and schooling faat might, on the one :1.lr:d, over•
cor:te so:ne of the problems of the past and, o:i the
 Kemmis & McTaggart: Participatory Action Research JI 5d7
other, help to s:iape fo:ms of education and
schooling that would more approp:iate to the
changed world of :he present and future.
Partidpants at the rongress pre;;ented and debated
ideas; t:iey ex?lorec social, cultural, political, ed1J-
cational, and economic problems and issues; they
considc:-ed the achievements of programs and
approaches tha: offered allerr.ative "solutions" to
these problems and issues; and they aimed to
reach critfrally j nforn:ed views about how educu -
tion and schooling might be :ransformed to over-
come the problems and ac!dress the issues they
ide:itified in the sense that they aimed to reach
prac:k:al cecisions about v,hat m:ght be done in
their own settings when participants ::etumed
home from the congress.
5. Public spheres aim to be inclusive. 1b the
extent that communication among particip,mts
is exclusive, doubt may a~ise as to whether a
sphere is in fac: a "public" sp:1ere. Public spheres
are atterr. p:s to create commu;1 icative spaces that
include not only :he parties most obviously
interested in and affected by decisions but also
people and groupi. peripheral lo (o~ routi:iely
excluded from) discussions !n relation lo the
1opks around wl:ich they form. Thus, essentially
private or privileged groups, organizations,
and communicative networks do not qualify as
public spheres,
Parlidpato;y action research projects and
groups aim tu include not on:y practitioners (e,g.,
teachers, community ,kvelopment workers) but
also others involved in a:id af:ectcd by thei ~ prac•
tees (e.g., students, families, clients).
:·he Yirrka:a Ganma pro;ect aimed to include
as many of the people who were (anc arc)
involved in and affected by schooling in the com-
munity as was possble. It reached nut from the
school to involve the community and community
elders, it indudec. noni:idigenous teachers as well
as indigenous teac:ters, and it ir.volved sl'Jdents
and their families as well as teachers in the
school. It was not exclusive in the sense that its
assertion of Yolng·.1 control excluded Balamla
{nonindiger.ous) peopli~; still, it invited Balamla
:eachers, advisers, and others to join t:ie common
commitment of Yolngu peop'.e h: :heir search for
improved fo:-ms of education and schoolbg that
would n:eet the needs and aspirations of Yolngu
people a:id tnc: r communil:es more genuinely,
The C<frdoha congress a:med to be hroadly
hclusive. It was a conoress tha: was described bv
"' '
its coordinator, Maria Nieves Diaz Carballo, as "by
teachers for teachers"; :ievertheless, it included
n:any mhe:i, invuived in and affected by educa·
tion and schooEng ln Latin America-students,
education officials, invited expC'rts, represer:ta-
tives of .i range of govern men: and nongovern •
n:en: organizatio:is, and others. It ain:cd to
include all tl:ese different kinds of people as
friends and contributors to a common cause-
creating :1ew forms of education and schooling
better snited to the nt'Cds of the present a:1d
future in Latin Ar:ierka and the world.
6. As part of their ;nclusive character, public
spheres tend lo involve communkation in ordi-
nary lcmgiwge, In public sphe:-es, people deliber -
ately seek to ·Jreak down the barriers und
l:ierarchies formed by the use of specialist dis-
courses am: the modes of address characteristic
of bureaucracies that pn:su me a r,mkinl!, of the
impnrtancc of speakers and what they 5ay in
terms of their positional authori:y (or lack
thereof). Public spheres also tend to have only
the weakest of d;stinctio:i s between insiders and
outsiders (they have relatively permeable bound-
aries and c;1angbg ";nem:1erships") and bet wt-en
pt>0ple w'io are relatively disintere,ted and those
whose (self-)interests are sign:fkantly affected by
the topics under discussior:. Thus, the commu-
:i kativc apparatuses of ma:iy goYemment a:id
business organiza:ions, and of organ [zatious that
,cly on the specialist exper:ise o~ some partki-
par:ts for thei: operations, do r101 ordi r,arily qua!•
J}· as public spheres,
While drawing on the :esources a:1d discour~es
of theory and policy ii: tl:eir invest:gations, partic-
';,atory action researchecS aim to ach:eve mutual
comprehension and create discourse communities
that allow a:1 partici p,u:ts to have a vo:ce an\ play
a par: in reaching consen~us abnut what to do. By
:ie,ess::)', they use '.anguage that all can use rather
 588 JI HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 23
thau relying on tl:e spedalis: discourses of soda;
science that might exdudr some from the shared
task of understa:iding and transforming s:..ared
everyday 1ive.s and a shared lifeworld.
In the Yi:rkala Gan ma projtct, much of the
rnn:mu11icat'.or. about th" prujecl nnt only was in
ordinary .anguage :1ut was also tonducted in t:ie
language of ~he· community, :ha: r,1/ngu-matha.
This not 011ly was a deliberate shift from the lan-
gJage in wh kh Balanda sd:ooEng was ust:ally
discussed in the cummun ity ( English and some
specialist edue1tiuua[ discm: rse) but also was a
shift to engage and use the conceptual framrwor;zs
cor:,munity and Yolngu mlture. On the ocher
ham.:', foe modes of address of the Yolngu cul:ure
rcq t.:ire :espect fo, elders and specialist forms
of language for "insice" matters (secretfsacred,
for :he initiated) versu~ "outside" matters (secular,
for tl:e uninitiated), so 1:iary discussions of the
Ga1:ma conceptual fran:cwork required partici-
pants to r.::spert these distinctions and the levels o:'
init:atio:1 of speakers and hearers.
Al the CL\rdoba .-rn,,,,,..,,., 1:1c.ny spe;ikers used
s::1ecialis1
'
educat:o • a: (a11d other'I d;sco'.lrses to
disc L:ss their work or ideas, but much of the dis-
cussion took place in language that was deliber-
ately intended to be inclusive and engagir.g for
participants, that to share iccas and open up
participants for ,:ebate wi :hout assuming that
hearers were fluent in specialist disconr.,es for
understanding either the sodopolitkal cor..1ext
of education in Latin America or the tccl:nk.il
aspects of contcm porar y eci u,ation i11 Latin
American countries. More particularly, the lan-
guages used at the wngr.:,s, including transla-
tions from English and Por:11 g'.1esc. were inclusive
ther were directed specifically mwa,d
fo~ter:1:g the shared comm it rr:rnt of part:cipants
about the need for c:'!ange and tr.e obstac.es and
C,
iwssihiiities aheid if participants wanted to join
the shared projec: of rcconsl::ucting education in
Argentina and elsc;vhe:e. Specialist discm:r,,es
were i.:sed to deal with specific topk,; (e.g., in phi-
loso;;hy, in social theory. in curricn'.am), but the
conversations a:ioL:t those soon shi:'ted
register to ensure that wc,e accessible to
any :nterestcd participants.
7. Public spheres ?resuppose c<)mmunicative
freedom. In public spheres. participants are lo
ocrupy (or not occupy) t:Je particular discursive
roles of speaker, listener, and observer, and they
are free to withdraw from thr ron:nrnnicative
space of the discussion, Parb:ipatlon and non-
participatiun are voluntary, Ttus, com:nunicah1e
spaces and networks generally characterized by
obligations or duties w lead, follow, direct. obey.
rc1:1ain silent, or remain outside the group cou:d
not be c:1&racterized as public s?hcres.
Participatory action research projects and
groups constitute themselves to "open oommu-
nicativc space» among participants. They :::011sti-
t11te themselves to give participants the rigtt and
opportuoit y to speak and be heard, to lister, or to
wal ~ away from th,:, project or group. Con:rary to
some of our earlier views, they are not closed and
self-referential groups in vvhich participant& are
(or can be) bound to some "party line" in tte
sense of a "correcf way of seeing thing,. Moreover,
they constitute themselves deliberately for critical
and se!fcritica/ conversation and decision mak,
ing that aims to open up existing ways of saying
and seeing :hings, tha: is, to play with the rel,.-
tionships between the ac:ual m:d ;:1e µos~:blc.
ln the Yirrka'.a Gan ma project, partic: ,,mis
were free to occupy the di:::erent roles of speaker,
listener, and observer u, to w[t:idraw from discus-
sions. In any particular discussion, some may have
occupied one or another of these roles to a greakr
extent, but over the li:e of the project, ;:,eople gen•
erally occupied the range of these ,nles ar one
time or another. As indicated earlier, some people
continued to o.:cupy privileged positions as
speakers (e.g., on ma:ters of inside kr:owledgt),
but the}' also ocCllpied roles as listcne:, in many
other situatio:1 s, responding with their s,;iedaHsl
knowledge whenever aud wherever it was appro-
priate tu do so. In general, however, the prolnnged
dis~ussitm s and debates 11hou1 gh·ing forn: to t 11e
idea of the GanmJ (both wilys I curriculum was
cor:ducted in ways that eni!bled participants to
gather a shared sense of what it was and cm.:.'.d lie
and how it might be rea:ized in practice. The di5
cussiom were consistently open and c,itkal lr: thr
sense faat all partki;:,ants wa:1ted to reach shared
 Kemmis & Mclaggart: Partic:patory Action Research • 589
understandings and agreerr:er:,s about the
1imitations of Bal ar,da educati 011 for Yolngu
children and communities and about tl:e possi-
bilitit·s for realizj ng a dJferent and improved
form of education for Yoln~u chi:dren and :heir
community.
The Cordoba congrrss rngendered conditions
of communicative freedom. Although the con-
gress progra:n and fmetable privileged particu-
lar parlkipants as speakers at particalar ,imes,
the vast conversation of congress, within and
outs'dc its fo,mal sessions and in both formalaml
informal communication, presuppo,,ed the free-
dom of participants lo speak :n. listen lo, oh5erve,
and withdraw from particular ciscus,io:1S.
Conversation, were open and cri:kal, inviting
participants to explore ideas aud possibilities for
char.gr toged1e:-.
8. The comnn:.nicat:ve networks of public
sph~res generate wmmunirntive power; :ha: is, the
positions and viewpoints de1,clopec through
cussion will mmrr:and the respect uf pa,ticipa nts
:iot by virti.:.e of obligat:or: but rather by the power
of rnuh:al understanding anc. consensus. Thus,
communication i:1 public spheres creates legiti-
macy ii: the »tro:1gest sense, that is, the sha:ec
belief among participants that th cy freely and
authentically consent :o the decisions they reach,
Thus, systems of command oc influe:1ce, where
dedsions are formed on the ':iasb of ohedirnce or
self-11:tcrcsts, wodd not ordinarily qualify as
public sphere,.
Partkipatory action researd: projects and
groups allow participants lo dcvc'.op 1:nde:-stanC·
ings of, reasons for, and shared commitment to
transformed ways of doing tr.ings. Th~y ern:mirage
exploration a.,d investigation of social prnrtices,
under,tandbgs, and situations. By the very act of
doing so, thy generate more a:ither:tic under-
stu.ndir:gs a:nong participants and a shared sense
oi the iegitlmacy uf the decisions they :nake.
Over the life of :he Yirrkala Ga:1ma pmj eel,
and in the continuing work a:ising fmm it, ;iartk-
:pants develo;x:d the s:rongesl sense that the new
i'>J.Y of th:r:iing about education anc. schoolir:g
that they were deve:op: ng was tin:dy. appropriate,
true to faelr cir.:ur:1stances, and generative for
Yolngu children and tl:eir con::munity. They ',Vere
dearly conscious that their s:1<!fed l'iewpoint, a~
wel: as their conceptual framework, contrasted
rr:arkcdly with taken-for-granted assur:iptions
and presuppositions about schooling in Australia,
ii:duding many taken-for-granted {Balam\,.) ideas
about indiger:ous education. The communicative
rmwer developed through the p:vject suslaineLl
partk;;:iants in their cor:m1itment to these new
ways of schooling despite the occasional ;e;;is-
tances they experienced when the Norfaern
lerritory ecucation aJthorities found that corr:r.m•
nity proposa'.s were counter :o, o: exceptions to,
uanal ways of operating in the ,ys:em. (It 1~ a trib•
ute to many non:r.d:genous people in the Northern
Territory who worked with Y'rrkala Co:mnunity
Schools ami :he associated Hmr:elands Centre
Schuols t:iat they generally took a constructive
and supportive view of 1111: community's pro-
posals evr:i wher: the proposals tell outside
estahlis::ed practice, The nlwinus and deep con1-
mitr:1er.1 of the Yobtgu teac:1crs and community
to the tasks nf the project, the support of credible
external coresearc:1ers, and the long-krm nature
of the prnject encouraged n:any r.onindigenou,
system staff :nc:n hers to give the project
benefit fae doubt" as an educational pmj eel
that had the possibility to succeec :n indigenous
education where many previous proposals and
plan;; developed by nonindigcnous people had
failed.)
:he C6rdoba congress was inttsed by a grow-
ing sense of shared conviction and shared com-
m: tment about the need and possibilities for
change in educator: in Argentina and elsei,;he:e
in Lati:1 America. On the other hand, the impetus
and momentum of the developing sense of share.::
conviction may have hecn mo:'E fragile an.: Iran•
sitory bemuse the congress was just a fow days
long (a:thoug.'1 building on the rr.omer.lum from
previous congresses and othenvork :hat p;::1idpan1s
we:-e doing :i..wa:-d the same tran,formative ends).
Seen against the brm1der sweep of educatio::i and
edncatior,al change in education i11 1.alin A1:1erica,
however, it ls dear that the rnngress was drawing
on, refreshing, and redirecting long-standing
590 111 HANPEOOK OF QUALITATfVi: RESEARCH-CHAPTER
reserves of critklll e<lm::a:[onal progressivism in
the hearts, minds, and work of many people who
attended.
The shared conviction that new way'S of ~'Ork-
ing in education are r.ecessary generated a power-
ful and nearly tangible sense of solidarity arr.ong
participants in the congress-a powerful aud
lasting shared commitment to pursuir:g the direc~
:ions sJggcs:ed by the discuss:ons m:d debates
in whkh they had participated. It also generated
an er.during sense of the legitimacy of decisions
r.1ade by pa_;!icipants in the ligh: shared explo•
ration of their situations, shared deliberatiou, and
shared decision making.
9, Public spheres do not affect social systems
(e.g.. guver:i mer.t, administration} direcrly; their
impact on systems is indirect. In public spheres.
participants aim to change the climate of debate,
the ways in which thi:lgs are :houg'1t ahom and
how situatio:1s are understood. They ai n: to gener•
ate a sense that alternative ';1/".l}'S of doing things are
possible and feasible and to show that some
of these a'.tem ative a;;tually work or that the
r.ew ways do i:1deed resolve problems, overcome
dissatsfactio:1s, or address issues, Groups orga
:1:zcd primarily to p:1:.ue the par:kdar interests of
partki;;ar groups by direct intervention with gov•
ernment or administmtive system,;, wou:d not or<li•
nariiy q'Jalify as public spl:eres. Sii:1',arly, groups
organized in ways tba: "Jsually serve the par;klllar
interests of particular groups, even though this
tnay happen in a concealed or "accidental"way (as
frequently happens with news media), do not ordi-
rmrily qualify as publlc spheres.
Participatory action research projects and
groups :arely have the power to legislate or coo•
pel change, even amor.g their own :11e:11bers, It i,
on:y by the force of better argurr.ent, transmitted
to authorities who mu;t decide for faem~elvcs
what to do, that t:iey influen.:e existing st:uctures
and procedure&. They frequently establlsh thern-
sdve~, and 2 re permitted to establish them-
selves, at the margins of tl:ose s1 ~ucturcs and
procedures, that is, in spaces constituted for
exploration and investigation and for tryir:g
out alternative way:; nf doing things, They are
frequently listc:1ed to hecause they have been
deliberately allowed to explore this marginal
space, with the tacit understanding tl:at what
they learn may be of benefit to others ar:d
to existing systems and structu:-es. Although they
may understand themselves as oppositional or
even "outlaw" (ln a r:,etaphorical sense), they ,re
frequently acting with the knowledge and
encouragement of inslit:i:ional authorities who
recognize that changes n:ight he needed.
A& already indica::ed, :he Yir:-kala Ganma
project was based in the sdwols but was not an
official project of tl:e sd:ool system or education
system, and it was based i1: the community
hut was not an official pro; eel of ,my community
organization, The schools ant\ the Nortl:ern
Territory ec '.!Cation system, as well as varicus
com:nunity organizations, kr.ew of the existe:ice
of the pmject and were gener.illy supportive. The
wor~ of the project was r:ot an ir:iprovement er
cevdo?mer:: project under:aken by anv of these
organ:iations, nor did 1he projecr "speak" directly
to :hese organizations 'rom within the fom:::tions
and operations of the systems as systems. On tne
contrary, the proJect ,1i1:1ed to change lhe way in
which these systems and organizations t'lmight
about and orga:ii1ed education in the comn: Jo ity.
In part'cuh!r, it aimed to change the conceptual
frameworks a:,d disrni:rses in whkh Yolngu
education was u:1derstood and the activities that
constltt: :ed it In a sen,e, :he transformations pro
duced by the ,roject were initia!ly "tolerated" by
these systems and organ:zations as exceptions to
usual ways of operating. Over time, throug'.1 tbe
indirect in Li e1:ce of showing that alternative
ways of doing things could work, the systems
began to accept them-even though the alterna•
t:ve ways were at odds with practice elsewhc:,;,
The project changed :he dimate of discussion and
the nature of the discourse about what constitutes
good edncation for Yo!ngu d:iidren and commu-
nifa:s. Because similar experlrr. ents were going on
e!sew1len' around Austra.ia (e.g., with the invu;ve·
ment of sra:f r:1s=m 'iers from Deakin Univen;lty,
the University o~ Melbourne, and Batchelo,
College), there wa& a sense w'thin education
systems that the r: ew experimtnt should be
 Kemmis & :-11::Taggart: Participatory Ac.ion Research 11 59L
perm::ted to proceed in the ho?e (increas'ng:y
folElled} :hat the :1ew ways of working might
prcve to be more effective in indigenous schools
in incigenous communities where edncalio:1 had
frequently prodi:ced less satisfactory outcomes
th an in nonindigenous schools and for non-
indigenous stJd,mts and communities. In a vari-
etv of small but significan: ways, education
systems began to accept the discuurses ''both
ways'' education ( reaJzed di:1erently In diffe::e:1t
:ilaces) and to eni;ourage different practices of
"both v,ay:t education in ir.digenous communi-
ties and schools with large e:1rollments of indige-
nous s;udcnts.
The C6:-dobn congress operated outside the
functional franeworks of education ar;d otatc
systeres and ained to c:1ange the ways in which
eciJcation and schooling were understood and
Practiced indirectlv' rather than directlv. No state
'
agency sponsor co111rolled the congress; as
indicated earlier, it is a congress created and
maintained by its organizers "by teachers for
teachers:' 0 n the other hand, st,ltr officials ie.g.,
the min:s1er of education for :he Province of
C6:-do!Ja IAn:dia Lopez!, the Argentinean federal
:ninister of edncation [Daniel Filmusl)
addressed the congress and encouraged pa:1:ici-
pants in their efforts to think freshly ,tboul the
educational problems and issues being con-
fronted in schools and in Argcntba. The sfae,
succe;;;, and generativity of previous congresses
was well known (be 2003 congre,s was the fifth
na~ional congress and thin! international co11-
gress held :n C6:-doba), and it ls reasonable to
assJme that representatives o: the state would
want to endorse the cong:-ess even if some of thi.'
ideas and practkes being debated and developed
by parlidpauts were at :he :ieriphery or even
mn:rary sta:e initiatives in education and
schooling. Of coarse it is also tn:e tha: many of
t:le ideas and practices discussed a: the <:ongress,
such as those concerned with social justice in
education, were generally in :he splri: of state ini-
tia~ives, a:though most congress pa rt'cipar.t s
appe;;,recl to take an activdy anci constructively
critkal view of the forms am! consequences of
contemporary state initiat: ves ii, schooling.
IO. Public sphere, frequently arise in p~actk:e
through, tir in relation to, t:ie communication net-
works associated with sociai >runem,mts, that
where volu:1tary gm:ipings o: padc:pants arise
in response to a legitimation deficit or a shared
sense that a socii:.l problem has arisen and needs
to be addressed. Nevertheless, the p'Jb:k sphe:es
created by some organizations Amnesty
International) can be long-star.ding and wdl
organized and can involve notions of (paid) mem-
berRhip a:id shared objectives. On the ofier hand,
many 01ganizatio:1s (e.g., po,itical parties, private
interest groups) do 1101 ordinarily qualify as
public spheres for reasons already outli oed
in relation to other items on this list a:id also
because tl:ey are part of the social order ratl:er
thar. soda: movements.
Par:ic:patory acho:i research groups and pro-
jects often ari~e in relatior. to broad social mm·e-
mei:h such as the women's :novement, the green
movement, peace movements, ~he civil rights
movement, a:id ot:ier movements for sod al trans-
formation. Th;;y frequently arise to exp'.ore alter-
nati~e ways of doing thir.gs in settings where the
impact of those moven:en!s is otherwise i;r:dea:
or uncertain (e.!!,., in the conduct of teaching and
learning in schoo'.s, in the conduct of sod~! wel-
fare bv familv and soc:al welfare agencies, in the
' '
co:iduc t or catchment management by grm: ;is of
landholders). They draw on the resources of those
sodal movem ems and feed back into the broader
move:nents, both in terms of the general political
potency of the movements and in terms of under-
standing how the objectives and methods of those
movements play oi:.: in the particular kinds of sit-
uations and settings (e.g., village life, schooling,
welfare prac:ice) being investigated.
As some of the statements of Yunuping·J
( l 99 l) quoted earlier suggest, the Yirrkala Gan ma
p;0ject was an expression of several inipor:an:
contemporary indiger.oi:s soda 1 movements in
Australia, particularly the land rights r:10vemcnt,
:he movement fur Aboriginal selt~c.eterminadon
and control, anri (for Australians generally) the
movement for rect,:1::iliation betwee:1 indigenous
and nonindigenous Australians. Arguablr, ~ome
of the ideas developed in the Ganma project have
 592 11 HANDBOOK Or QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-C!'JAPTER 23
had a far wider currency tha:1 might have heen
expected, li1r example, th rough the songs and
musk of Yunupingu's pop group, Yothu Yi:idi,
.
whid'. have resolu:elv. and consistently advocated
mutual recognition and respect between indige-
nous and no11indigenous Auslra:ians and have edu-
cated and e:1couragcc nonindige:1m:s lu.:Slralians
lo um:erstand and respen indige:10Js people,
knowledge, communities, and cu:tures. The
fom ma project was a mani~estatior. of these
indigenom righ:s movements at the local level
and in the parlkular setting of schools and was
also a powerful intellect:ial contribution to shap-
ing the wider movements, On the one hand, t!ie
project named and cxplllined ways in which
schooling was cult:irally corrosive for indige;rn~is
peoples; or: the other hand, it showed :ha! it was
;,ossible lo create and give ration al justifications
or al terna :ive, cJi tu rally supportive ways of doing
schmdng and education for indigenous people
and in i:tdigrnous con:munities,
b the Cordoba congress, the::e was a strong
sense of connection to a broad social muvemen;
for change in Lal:n American ed'Jcation and soci-
eties, En dernic corruption, ill-considered eco-
nomic adventures, antidemocratic practices. the
denial of h·.una n :ights, and entrenched soda:
inequity in a num her of Lat in American countric~
were oppo~cd and critiqued by manr progressive
people, indi;.ding many teachers and education
professional,, and there was (and is) a hunger for
alte,native fo,ms of education that rr. ight prevent
the tragic inheritance of :irevious regim~s (e,g,,
escalating national debt, fiscal crisc~, impoverish-
ment, the collapse of services} from being ;:mssed
on to r:sir1g gencm:iom, of sr.idrnts and citizc:1 s,
The negative/cr;tica, and posili.·e/constn:ctive
aspects of the education mOliement represented
i:i and by the rongress arc connected to a wider
soda'. movement for change, but they are also a
particular and specific so'Jrce of :ntc,lectual, rn'.-
tural, soda], political, and ernnomic idea$ ,;nd
practices that make a distinctive contnbmlon to
tl:e shupe and dynam ks of the wider movement.
The congress i:self is now something of a rallying
point for progressive and cri6:al teachers and
education professionals, but it remains deter -
mim:dly and po:itel y independent of the state and
commerdal spoi:sors that r:1 igl:t seek to ei.:erdse
control over or through it. Its organizers are rnn
vinced thal their best chance :o change the
di mate of thinking about educat:m: and society ii
to remaii: independcni the state machinery of
social order and to strive only for an indb,ct mle
in change by having a diffuse role ill changing
things "by the force of ·:ietter arg·Jment" rather
than striving to create change th rough the ad rr:l n-
fat:ative pnwer available through the machinery
of the SHH<: or (worse) thro·Jgh any kine o' ccer-
cive force, The congress also expressed, not only
Jn its written materials bi;.t also in its clirr.ale ,md
culture, a profound sense uf passion, hope, ar:c
joy; partkip,mts dearly regard it as an opportu-
nity to celebrate possihilitirs and il,hievements in
creating new forms of education ain:ed at making
(a:id speaking and writing into existence) a better
future.
These 10 fe'&tures of public spheres describe a
space for soda! interaction in whkh pco11l,:: strive
for intersubjective agreement, mutual under·
standing, and unfon:ed consens·Js about what to
do and ln ..hich lcgitir.tacy arises. Thes;; are the
conditions :mdcr which participants regan; ded-
s:01:s, perspectivts, and points of view reachrd
in open disct:ssi un as compelling for-and even
binding on-themselves. Such conditions are
very diffe::e:1t from many other forms of cu:n-
municalion, for example, the kit1d of fun,lional
com :nunication charncte~lstic of social st>,:ems
{which aims to achieve particular ends 'by the
:nost efficient means) and most interest-based
bargaining (which ai:t1s to n:aximize ur optim :ze
self-interests ret!ier tha:i to make t:'le best and
nost appropriate decision for all concenK'd).
T:icse conditions arc ones ;inde:: which practi-
cal reasoning and exploratory action by a com
n:unity of practice are poss:ble-theorizh:g,
research, and cnikctive action aimcd at chang:ng
practices, understandings of prc.clkes, and the
sedngs and sitmitions in wh:ch practice occurs.
They are conditions under which a loose aflilia
tion of people can gathe~ to address a common
them c based un co:1tc rnpornry p,nhlcms or
issues, aiming to inform themselves about the
core, practical question of"what :s !o be done?" in
rda:ion to tlte formation and !ra:isform atioi: of
 Kemmis & Y.cTaggarr: Partidt1atory Ai.:: ion Re,carch 1111 5'13
practice, practitioners, and th;; settings in which
practice occurs a~ part:cular times and in partic•
ular places.
As alceady suggcstcc1, such comrr. :milks of
practice sometimes come into existence when
advocacy groups bdieve that prohierr:s or issues
arise in relation tu a p: ugram, policy, or practice
and that change ls needed, An example would
be the kine of collaboration that occu~s wl:en a
group of mental health '""''"'' clients mrl't with
mental nealth serYkc providers and professionals
to explore wai's le which to 'mprove mental health
ser\'ice delivery at a particular site. A:iuther exam•
pie would be the pro~€Ct work of groU?S of
l~achcrs and students who conduc: participatory
ac:ion research ii:vestigatior.s into ~miblems and
issues in schooling. Another would be the kind
of citi2e11s' action ca:npaign that som cti mes
emerges in ~lation to issues of community well•
hcing and development or environmental or
public hca;th issues. This approach to the tra:1s•
formation of Factice understands that cnanging
pra clkes is rot just a mat;er changing the :deas
cf practitioners alone; it alsu is a ;natrer of d:ang•
':1g the social, cultural. discursive, and :naterial
co11dit ions under which the practice occurs,
induding char:ging 1lic idea, and actions of those
who are the clients of professional practices a:id
the ideas and actions of the commur: ity
involv~d ic and affected by the practice. This
approach to chnnging prac tke, th mugl1 fostt:ring
put.Ee discourse in public spheres, is also the
acproach to evaluation advocated by Niemi ar.d
Kermnib (1999 J under the n: bric of "com :n unica•
tive evaluation'" (5ee also Rya:1, 2003 ),
li!I. MYTHS, 1-ltSIKTERPRETATIONS,
A[\[) i\lhSTAKES REV l SIT:-. I)
In the ligh: the Habem:asian notions of system
and lifi'world (explored in our ;;hapter in the sec-
m:d edition of th:s Hm,dbock), the critique of the
sacial m,u::ro-sulryect, ar.d the notior. ofpublinpheres
developed in Between Facts and Norms, we can
throw new light on the myths, misi ntcrpretations,
and mistakes about cdtical par:ic: patory action
tr,r,m:h id,~mified earlier in this d:aptcr. I Ju:
fu[owillg comme:1ts prese1~t a necessarily ·:wk:f
sumr:u,rv' of some of the wavs. in whid: our
;mderstand ings of these :op ics have evolved
during recent yearn.
Empowerment
In the light of the llabermasia:. theory of
system and :i foworkL we came lo understand
the notion of empowerment neither sole!;' in life•
world terms lin terms the lifeworld processes
of cultural, sodal, and personal reproduction and
transrormatio:1 and r:1dr effects) nor solely in
sy~:cms ten:1s (in termii of changing ""r"""
strucL!res or Lrnctioning or 6rough ,,ff,.,t,
produced hy the steering m~dia of money and
~.dminisrratlvc power of organit.a,ions a.id inst!·
tntions). Exploring practices, our i:nder,tai:dings
nf them, and the settings h which we worked
from both liteworld and system perspectives ga~e
us richer critical insight into how pro:esst:s of
social furn,at'o1~ and transfo:-mation occur in the
contexts of particular pwjed ,. In,:rt',t~i11gly, we
carr:e to L: nderstand er:ipower:m,nt not only as a
lifeworld process cultural, ;,odal, a:1d pc;:mnal
de11elopr.1ent and transfornrnlion but also as
implying that pmtagonis:s expedem;eJ them-
selves as workir:g both in and agnimt sy~!em
structures and functions to produce effecs
intended :(l be read in changed systems structures
and fur:,;;t:on ing. From this stc rcoscopic view,
system .'llructures and functions arc r:ot only
sources or cm:stm' n: but also ~oun:es of possibil-
ity, and lifeworld processes of cultural, social, and
personal reproduction and tnmsfurmatior, arc
.
not onlv sources of possibilitv but also sources of
'
const:.iint on cl:ange. Thus, in real-world se:tings
incvitablv co:1st,ucted b, both, the notion of
' .
empowerment plays across the cor:ceptual bmm-
dary bct\\"een :ifev,orld and system, m:d ii now
seems likrly t'mt one would say that c1;1pmver-
ment had occurred or::y whrn tran~forma,lons
were e~· idcnt in both lifeworl d and system aspects
of a situation.
In light of Habennas', crit:q ue of the bocial
r.1acrn-subject, we increasingly recognized that the
r:otion of empowerment is not 10 be ui1dersmod
solely in terms of dosed organizations achieving
 59• 11! HAJ\D600K OF Q[A:JTAJ IVE RESEARCE-CHAPT1:Rl3
self-regu'.at'on (hy analogy with the sovereignty
oi states) as a process of achieving autonomy and
se11:determinatio11, whether at the level of indi-
vk :.ial selves or al the :t:ve'. of some collective
(understood as a macro-uself'). It turm out that
:1~ithe r indi\·idual aerors nor states can be entirely
and cnnerently autor:omous ,u1d seJ-regulating.
Thci r parts Lio trnt form Lnified and coherent
wholes but rather must be understood in terms of
r:otions such as di":'cnmce, cont:·adiction, and
wnl1kl a;; :nuch as unity, coherence, and inde-
pemlem:e. Ir: face of internal and external dif:
fere:itiation, p,•rbaps ideas such as dialogue,
interde;,cndt'tlce ar.c complementarity are the
positives for which one might ho?e, Dtop:te ils
rhctoricai power and its appa:-e:i.t political neces-
sity, the concept ot e:npnwern:em does n0t i:1
realitv pmducr autononous and hdcpendent
self-regulation; rather, it produces only <l capac:tr
for individuals, groups, and states to ir.tern::t
more col:t:renl'.y with om: anot1cr in the ceaseless
processes of social reprOihction a:id :ransfor-
mation. A: its best, it 1:ames a process i:1 w:1ich
peopl c, groups, and sta:cs c:1gage o:l~ another
more allll:t-ntically and with o""''"' recognition
and respect difference in makiug decisions
that they will rcg-ard a& lt'gitii:1ate ~ccause they
have participated in Ihem openly and frC'ely, mere
gemJ:iely com:niued :o mutual understanding,
intersuhj ccti ve agreement, and consensus about
what 10 do.
In the light of Habermas's commentary on the
public sphere, the ba~is for empov,:erment is 1101
to be ur.rierstood in terms of activism justi"iec by
:deological position taking; rather, the bas:s for
empowerment is tl:e communicative power cevel-
oped in ?uhli~ spl:eres through commJnicative
action and public discourse. On this view, the aim
of empowerment is rat'onal and just deci,ions
and actions that wiL regarded ~ legitir:iate by
those involved a:1d a:fedcd.
The Role of the: Fadlitntor
In the Eght of the Eabermasian theory o!
s~slem and Iifoworlc, we came :o ·Jn dcrstar.d tha:
'
facilitation is nol ,o be understood sole'.y '.n
system terms as a specialized with specialized
func:ions, nor is it lo be undernlood solely in Efe.
world terms as a process of p'.nmoting the repro•
ductio:, and :ranstbrmatinn of cultures, social
rdationships, ,rnd :dentities. lnslead, it is to 'le
understood as a process to be critically exp'.ored
from both pe:-spective&, The question of facilita
lion usually arises when there is an asymmetric~!
rclationsnip of knnwledge or power hetween a
person expecting or expected to do ''facilitation"
and people expecting o: expec:ed to be "fadJi.
tated" ill the process of doing a ,?roje,L I! is uafve
to believe tha: si:ch asymmetries will dis. pp ear;
sometimes he:p i, neeccd. At the sa • e time, it
must be r;,cognize(: that those asyn::me:rie;; can
be trouble,mne and that ,here is lillle solace i:1 the
idea that they can be ;nade "safew because the
fac:li:ator aims to be"neutrat:'On other hand,
it is naTvc to belie\·e tl:at the person who is asked
for l:eip, or to be a facilitator, will be an entirely
"equal" copart'.dpant along with others, as if the
difference were invisihlc. Indeed, the facilita:or
can be a copar:ic:pant, hut one with some special
expertise tiat may be he:pful to lb: 15roup in its
endeavors. The theory of system and liteworld
allows us to see the doubleness ,he rolt• in
terms of a specialist role and fun1.1:ions in critical
:ei:sion with processes of cultural, social, ar.c
personal reproduction and transformation th<1t
aspire :o achieving self-expression, self-realizatio:1,
and self-deten:1i11alion (recognizing tl:at the
individual or collective self in each case is no: a
ur.Hied, coherent, au:onomous, responsible, and
independent whole entirely Ca?able of self.regu-
lation). The stereoscopk view afforded by lhe
beory of system and lifework\ provides concep
t:ial resources for critical enactment and evalua-
tion of the role of the facilitator i:1 practice.
In the light of Habermas's critique of the social
mac:ro-s·.1bjert, we no longer understand the
people involved h collaborative participatory
ac:ion research projects as a dosed group with a
fixed mem bersn: p; rnthe:, we understalld them as
an open a:id inclusive network in which :he fad]
italor rnn be a contributing copartkipan:, albeit
with particular knowledge or cxpert:se Iha: c;m be
of help to the group. More0ver, at d:fferer.t times,
 Kemmis & '>1cfaggarl: Participatory Act'on Research 111 5,5
different par:ic: pants in some groups can and do
take the facilitator role in relation to different
parts of the action being t:ndertaken and in
relation to the participatc,y action research
process,
In the light of Habermas's commentary on the
public sphere, the facilitator snould not be under-
stood as an external agent olforing tecl:nkal guid-
ance :o members of an action group but rather
sl:ou.c be understood as somrone aiming to
establish or support a collaborafr,e enterprise in
which people can engage in exploratory action
as ;:;artidpants in a public sphere constituted for
cnrmmmicath:e action a:td public discourse m
response to legitimation deficits.
The Research-Action Dualism
In th~ light of the Habermasian theory of
system and Efc-world, act:on in participatory
action research should 1:or he understood as
separated fro:n research in a tecimkiil diYisio!1
cf labor mirrored in a soc'al division of labor
bet ween participcn:, and reseaxl:ers. Instead.
research and action converge in communicative
act ion aimed at :m1ctkal r,nd critical decisions
about what to do in the extenccd fo,m of <'xplo-
ratory ac:.ion, that pnctices of actim: am:
rest:'.1rch jointly projected through h:story by
action. Equal'. y, however, we do not undcrs,and
the :esear-h and actiun e:ements of par:ic:patory
action research as the "natural" realization of the
lifeworld processes of cultura:, social, and per-
so:,al reproduction and :ransformation. In partic-
ipatory action research, systems categories of
structure, imctions, goals, roles,and rules are rel-
evant when a group works on a "project" (:mply-
ir:g some measure of ratiuiul-purposive or
strategic actio:t). Herc again, participa:Dry action
,esearch crosses and recrosses the cnm:cptual
boundaries between system and lifeworld aspects
of the life of the project, and the stereoscopic Iii ew
afforded :)y the thtory of system and lifeworld
offers .:ritkal resources for explorin11, and evah:at -
ing 1he extent m which the project mig:it become
no:hing but a rational-purposive projecr and
the extent to which it risks cissolving into the
:i:'.:world processes of the im1:1p conducting it.
Both the research element and the action element
of the project have ~7stem ar.d lifevrorld aspects,
and both e:ements are candidalts ti.11 cxp:o-
ration and evaluation from the perspectives of
:1ystem and lifeworld. Indeed, we might now con-
clude that it is the commitment to conducting this
critique, ir. relation to the action, the :-esea:-ch, .:nd
the relationship between them, tnat is the
mark of critical participatory action research,
!n th.:, light of Habermas's er: :ique of the
social macro-subject, research and action are to
be u:iderstood not in terms of steering funr.t'or.s
fo1 au individual or for a dosed group (e.g., to
sktr the group by exercising administrat:ve
power) but rather as mutually co:rntitut've
processes that create affiliations and collaboru -
tivc action among peo11 le involved in and af:ected
by particular kines of decisions and actions.
In the light of Eabermas's commentary on
the public sphere, research and action are to be
understood :mt as ,epara:e fo:1.ctions but :-ather as
different momcnt:1 in a unified proc~ss i!I struggle
characteristic of soda! move:ne:1ts-s1,ugglcs
against irrationality, injustice, and unsatisfring
social cund :tions and ways :ife Ia unifi.:ation of
rciicarch for action that re~alls the msighl that all
social movements are also educat:011.:1] move-
ments)_ In the light of Ha berm,1,s's ( 1996, cha;i. 8)
description of the public sphere in Rerweeti Facts
aud Norms, we now mndude that the impulse to
u1Jdertake participatory action ,esearch is an
impulse to subject practice-social ac:.ion-to
deliberate mid continuing critique by rr:aki:ig
action deliberately exploratory ar:d arranging
things so that it will be possible to lrarn from
what 1:appens anci to make the proce,s of learni:tg
a collectiv.: process to be pun;ued through pu'.Jlic
discou:se in a public sphere constit utcd for that
purpose,
The Role of the Collective
h: the ligh: uf the Habcrmasian theory of
system ar:d lifeworld, the cnllecti ,e :s not tu be
unccr,tood either solely in systems le-nns, as ar:
organization or institutio:t, or sol cly in Iifewor'.d
 :.% 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 23
terms, as a social group co:1stituted in face-to-face
social relalionships. Imtead, it must be critkall y
explored from both perspectives and as consti-
tutl.'d by processes associated wifa each (on fae
syste:ns side: steering media; on the lifeworld
side: cultural reproduction ar.d transformation,
social reproduction and transformation, and tl:c
formation and transforrr.ation lndividual
ident1 :ies and capabili1 ies ).
In the light of Haberma s's critique of the
social macro-subject, the collective should he
i.:nderstood not as a dosed group with fixed
r:1em!Jership-a coherent, unified, autonomous,
i:ldependent, and self-regu:a:ing whole-bu:
ra,her as internally diverse, differentiated, a:id
sometimes inconsistent and contradictory. Nm
does a participamry actiun research group stand
in the position of an avant-garde in relation to
other p~uple and groups in the setting :n which
the resear,:h occurs, but it retains its connections
with those others, just as it retains responsibility
fur the mnseq i.:ences of its actions as they are
experienced in ~hose wider comnu;nitie., in w:ikh
they take place,
In lbe light of Habcrmas', commentary on tl:c
public sphere, the co:lective formed by a partici-
patory action research pmject should be under-
stood not a, a dosed and exdusi ve group
constituted to perform the particular organiz.a-
tiomll role, and functions associated with a pro-
ject but rather as an open and im;'.·Jsive space
constituted :o crea:e cor.ditions of communica-
tive freedom and, thus, to create wmn:u.1icalive
action and pu b:ic di ,course aimed at ad(;ressing
prob'.erns and issuc.s, of irrationa1i,y, injusdce, and
di.ssati sfacti1Jn experienced ·:iy p?.rtkular groups
at particular :imes. In our view, some of the most
interesting participatory actior. research projects
are those dirt'cdy connected with wider soda.
movements (e.g., green :ss ues; 's.sues of peace,
race, or gender), b·Jt it should not go unnoticed
that many participatory action rcseaxr: pmjec:s
constitute tht:mselves :n wnvs t11a! are verv like
' .
sucial movements in relation to local
although often with wider ramifications, for
example, by addressing i~sues about tr:e effe-:t& of
hyperrationalization of practice;:; in local ,ettir:gs
that frequently have much more widespread
relevance, For example, around the world th,m.:
arc hund:eds-probably thousands-of different
kinds of action research projects being conducted
by teachers to explore the potential and limitations
of various innovat:ve forms of teaching and !earn-
ing that address the alienat:ng effects of state
ulation of curriculum, teaching, and assessment
al every level of schooling. The multi plication of
sud: pmjects suggests that there is a social move•
ment ur:der way aimed a: recovering or revita:ii:-
ing educatiun in t'1e of t'lc very widespread
colonization of the lifeworld of !t:aching and
learning by the imperatives of increasingly mus-
cular and int rush·e ad mir: ist rath;e systems regu-
lating and com rolling the processes of schoolir:g.
Thes<' pro_iects in education arc paralleled by
similar action rcsearcl: projects in welfare,
health, community development, and other
fic:ds, Taken :ogcther, despite their differences,
they make an eloquent m1temen1 of refusal and
rernnstruc-ion in the face of a version of corpo-
,ate and pu hli c administration ~hat ?laces the
imperative of instituti nna 1 con:rnl above the
nornl and substantive imperatives and virtues
traditionally a ssoc:ated with the practice of :hese
professirms.
Ill REIMAGININC C11TJC1\t
PARTICPATORY ACTl(J'.'1 RESEARCH
The view of critical participatory action resca::ch we
have advanced in this chapter is sumf\vhat di:ferent
from the view of it that we held in the p~st 1wo
decades a1,1J, our pri:uary cli1:1 wa, :o envisage and
e:iact a well-justified fom1 of research to be
conducted by teachers and other professional prac-
titioner, into their ow:i practices, their ur:derstand-
ings of t:1eir p:-ach:es, and the situations in which
they ;,mrticed. Despite our critique of established
ways of thir:,;ing ahoul social and educational
research, certain remnant elements of conventiona;
:ierceptions of research continued to sun•ive in the
:imn~ of research we advocattc, tor example, ideas
about tl:eory, knowledge, and the centraHty of the
researcher in :he advanc:rr:cnt of knuwledgc.
 Kemmis & Mc'Iaggar:: c'arlicipatory Action Research 111 597
1\\lo decades ago, we :rn;ied for adva:1c;;s in
theory 1hrough action research that wmJd some-
how be similar to the kinds of theory convention-
ally produced or extended in the social and
edu;;atiorni!l research of time. We expected
that pract::ioners would also develop and extend
their own theories of cducaliou, bul we were per-
haps k,s c'.ear ahour what the nature and form
of those theories would be. We had admired
Lawrence Stenhouse's definition of research as
"systemafa: enquiry made public" (Stcnhouse,
1975) Jut had given less thm.ght to how those
theories rr.ight emerge in a literature of practi•
!'oner research. Now W<' have a dearer ic.ea that
sometimes 6e theories that rr:otivate, guide, and
ir.;brm pracfaioners' action are frequently in :he
form of collective 1mders11mdings that elude easy
codification iu the fonr.s conver.tioua:Jy used :n
learned journals am: books. They accu:nu:ate '.r:
conve:sations, archives of ev iden re, and the
shared knowledge of communitie, of practice.
'1'1-m decadt'S ago, although we had rega::ded
"knowledge" as a pmbkr:1 atic category and had
disti:1guished between :he pr:vate knowledge
individuals and the collective knowledge of
reseaxh f:elds ar:d traditions, wr probably valued
the k:1owledge outcomes of research over the
practical outcomes of participant research-the
effects of participant :-esearch in cha:1ging social
and educational practices, uncerstanding~ of
those practices, and 6e situations and ,ettir.gs of
practice. Kow we have a dearer idea that tr.e out-
co:-nes of partic: patoq· action research are written
in histories-the his!odes of practitioners, com-
n:unit:es, the people w:th whon: they interact,
and (again) communities o: practice. Ar:d we see
:hat the outcomes of participatory action research
are to ':ie read in trrms of histo:-ical consequences
for participants and others involved and affected
by the actio:i people have taken, judged nor on1y
against the criterion of truth but also against the
criteric. or wisdm:1 and prudence, that is, whether
peoplr were hetter off in terms of the .:unse-
quences they experienced. We ca:, ask whether
their understandings of tl:eir situations are less
inational (or ideologically skewed) than before,
whether their action is less unproductive and
unsatisfying for those involved, or whether the
soda: relations between people in the situa:ion
are less inequitah:e or unjust than before. '!he
;>roduct of pa rtidpatory action research is uot
j:1,1 knowledge but also different hi,tories than
might have existed if participants hac not inter-
vened to transform their practices, i:nde,stand-
ings, and. situations and, thus, trar:sformed the
histories that otherwise seemed likely to come
into bei t1g. We look for the p~oduc:s of participa-
tory action research in collective action a:1d the
making and remaking of collecrive histories.
1\¥0 decades ago, we were excited by participa-
tory research that V.lonected with social move-
ments and made changes i:1 particular kinds of
professional :iractkes (e.g., nursing, ec·,1cation,
community development, wel"are), but we were
less if\Vare than we are now that this kind of
engagement with social movements is a two-way
street Social mm·e1:1ent. can be ex pressed and
realized in the settings of professional prac:ice
(e.g., the powerful cor:ncctions made between the
womer:'s movement and health or ed1:cation or
between green and education ur commu-
nil y developn:enl), but social movemeds also
take strengt'.1 and direcfarn from participatory
studies that explore and cr:tically investigate
issues in the particular contexts of di ffe:ent kinds
of social practices. Social movements set agendas
around the broad themes that are their focus, but
studies of particular practices and lo.::al settings
also show how differently those broad themes
must he understood in :erms of issues ident'.fiec
in in-depth local investigations. l\ow ·we have a
dearer understanding not only that participatory
action research expresses the spirit of its ti me in
terms of giving life to social :novements in loca'.
settings or i:l relation to particular themes (c,g,,
gender, indigenous rights) but also that local
investigations into 1ocally felt dissati~factions,
disquiets, or concerns also open up themes of
broader il:terest, sometirr:es Iinking to existing
soda] movements but also bringing inm existence
r.ew moverrn:r. ts for transforrr:at:or: in profes-
sional fields ar:c in the civil life of communities.
~ow, in judging 6e long trnn success of partici-
patory action research projects, we art' more :ikely
 598 111 HANPBOOK 01' QJ;AIJT...\TlVt RESEARCH-CIIAPTl'R 23
lo ask about the extent to which ~hey have fed
collective capacities for tra mformation locally and
in the widening sphere of social life locally,
regionai!y, nationally, and even internationally,
as happened ir. the history of pa::tidpatmv
action resea:-ch as ii has contributed rn the devel•
op;nem of people's collective comm1mica1ive pQwer.
3fost particularly, nvo decades ago we vel •
orized the researcher. According to cor:ventional
views of research, researchers were the people al
,he center o' the research act-heme~ in the quiet
adventures of building knowledge and theory. We
encouraged partkipnnt resr,1rch that would make
"ordinary" practitioners local licroes of knowl-
edge building and theory building and collabora-
1ive research that would make heroic teams of
researching practitioners who produced new
understandings in their cu • munities and com•
nrnnities of practice_ lru::reilsingly, in those Gays,
we saw rtsearch "collect:ves" as key activist
groups that would rr:ake and change bstory.
We continue to advoca:e this view of participatory
as making histo,y by making
cxplora :ury changes, :qow, however, our critiques
of the research-actio:i {lualism, and our cbanging
views of the facilitator and the research collective,
encourage us to believe that critica: participatory
;;ct:or: research needs animateurs bnt that it alw
public- spheres in which people can ta'.{e
a varitty roles as researchers, questioners,
interlocutors, and interested observers. And j f we
:-eject t::te heroic view of history as being "m;::de"
by individuals-great men or great women
then we must see the real transformations of
history as t,ansformations made by ordinary
people working togrther in the light of emerging
themes, :ssues, and problems (e.g., via social
moveme:its ). 'vile now see a central task of part:c·
ipatory action research as including wid e:1ing
group.s of people i:i the of makir.g their own
history, often in t:1e face of establisb.:tl ways of
doing things am: often :o overcome problems
caused by living wit!: the consequences of the
histories others nake for us-often tile conse-
(Juenre;; of new ways of rioing things that were
intended :o improve things but that turned out to
have unexpected, unanticipated, and untoward
consec,.Jences for those whom the new ways were
inte.:'lded to help, A.s we hope we have ,hown,
Habern:as's description of puhlic discourse in
pub:k spneres gives us another way which
:o think about who can co "research" and what
:-esearch might be Hke if it is conceptua: izcd as
exploratory action aimed nurturing a:1d feed·
public discourse in public spheres. Now we are
less ind ined to think j n terms of ~eroes of knowi•
edge building or even of he:oes of history rr:ak·
ing; we are more inclined to think in terms
peoplt> wor,1.'ng together to develop a g:e,¼ter rnl-
le:::ive capacity to change the circumstances of
their own lives in terms of rnllec:ti've capadry
building.
Now, more ,"i rhan :wo decades ago, we are
excited by notio:1s of collective understanding.
co Hective research, comr:mnicative power, and
collective capacity. We are intere~ tcd in describ-
ing and ide:1tifying conditions under which
people can investigilte rl:eir own professional
fields or commun:ty circurr.stances to develop
wmr:mnkative power anc strengthen their col•
.ective capacity. In "projects" an,; nmvcmcnts
air:ieci at colledive capacily building, we see
people securing ;1ew wc,ys nf working on the
hasis of ratlecfive commitrm:nt. We see them
arhieving new ways of workil:g and new w<iys nf
being that have le,?itimacy because th~i~ deci•
sions are made in conditio:is like those we
described in the las! sec:icm · the conditions o:
public discuJrse in p~1blic spheres. Now, more so
tl:an two decades ago, we see partk: patory act:on
research as a process of sustained colkaive dtiib-
eration coupled with sustained collective investi-
gation of a topic, a problem, an is,uc, a concern,
or a theme that allows people to explore po,sibil-
ities in ac::ion, judging. them by !heir conse-
quences in hiMory and moving with a measure
of tentativeness and prudence (:n somt cases
with g,cat courage ln the of violence and
coercion} but also with lhe support that come,
w: th solidarity.
This account of w:iat we now value as out
comes a:id co:1scquen ces of part id parory ac:ion
research wel I-justified and agrccd•on collective
action tha: reduces the wo:Id's stock of ir:a:io,1ality,
 Kem mis & Mdaggart l'articipctery Action Re,ea•ch Ill 5<!'-J
injustice, inequity, dissatisfactio:1, and m:prod:u::·
tlve ways of doing tr: ir:gs. may seem a :ar cry frrnr:
the kind of justification for r:mch social and edu-
cational ~esearch. Perhaps more madestly, I~ at
r.:scarch make,; few da i:11s to cra ngil:g history for
the hcttcr and promises only improved knowl·
edge and theories th,11 muy mritriln::e to dearer
understanding and imprnve<l policy and practice.
That :s nu! necessarily the way it is used,
cnurse; so;ne:irncs ''scient:fic" ti:eories or find•
ings .ire u,ed lo ;ustify social programs, policies,
and of br~at htakiug foull:ardiness. Dur
advocacy of critical par:k ipalmy research is
intended partly as an antidote to such foolhardi-
1:ess but also to 'nsist, :n a:1 age of hyperra6mal·
ity and the tech:10'.cgization of everything, :ha:
people ;;an still, gaps and r:ii,wes notwithstand-
i:lg, have a hope of kr:owing what Ibey are doing
and doing w:1at :hey thi:1k is r'ght and, more par-
:icularly, doing less of what they think will :iave
Jntoward consequences for themselves and
ulJ,;f5. !>crhaps fa:s is tu take loo ''activist" a v'ew
of pan kipato~y action re~earch and to give up
01: the cor.ventional u nders:and ing :hat prople
shoukl wai, for expert~ and theorists to tel I them
what will work best-what will be best for tl:cm.
Jn 1957,in the Joornal of Bduc:ati,mal Sociology,
Hamid Hodgiinson preser:t.:d a critiqi:e of ac lion
research that regarded as ~y:nptum of the
times in which we live» (Hodgkinson, : 957,
p. 152). Agair.st i\rt\nr Foshay, w:iorn he quoted
a, sayir:g, "Cooperative ,iction rcst:arch is an
a,1,,niacl1 tL, making what we do consiste1:t with
w:u11 we believe'' (wl: ich we would argue fails to
acknmvledge lhe power of action re:;earch to put
our ideas to the test and correct what we hel'eve}.
Hodgkinson retorted,
Thi., i, simply not so, Action rc,car~h merdy
tnc11sesa:tcntion on the doing ant' eliminates most
the 1m:r,.sil y for believing. We are living in a
"do:::g" ag,\ ,md ac1ion research allows people l:1,:;
priv:lege of"doing" some:h::·,g. This me:hod ,,mid
e:isily iccome ;mend iu .. (p. 153)
1-:ocgki:non ii 957) believed that action
n::search would produce "teachers who spend • ufh
of their time measuring and figuring, playing
w::h what Dy;an Thomas would call 'easy hobby
gan:~s for liltlc cngincc-rs"' (p. 153 ). Ile held out
for 7he great sc:enl ific generalizations, based on
sound e:npirical and sratisti,:ai methods that
woulc provide a secure scientific hasis for what
teachers could or should do.
Those otter app,oad:es to research have pm·
duced rnmc justificat:ons for improvs;:d ways of
working in education, social work, community
development, and orl:er spheres of soc:al action.
They will cor::inue to do so. But tl:ey will always
crea~e a problem putting the scientist as
"expert» in :he position of mediator, that medi-
aring between knowledge and action and
throry and practice practitioners and ordinary
people. They will always create disjunctions
between what scien:iflc co • munities and poli,".}'•
makers believe to be prudent courses of action
and the coc:rses of ,.ction that people would (and
will) choose for t h~r:1 selves, know i:1g the conse•
qucncrs of thelr ar:ior1s and practices for fae
people with whom they work. For :wo dccad<'!i, wl
ha,e insistcc:. that pmctitioners' i1'.lerprctivc cate•
guril::S (not ;u,t :inw thev th'n;., aboul their v,ork
but also how they think about l::eir wo:U) :11;1,t
be t;:kt!n into account in deciding what. whc:1,
whe~he,, a:id how r,•scarrh shrmld be conduc:ed
into pm:es,;,:or.al practice and com:n~mity life.
Critical partidpa:ory action research is an exxes·
sion of this impulse, c.iid it has proved. 'n hnn-
dreds of studes, tu be a means by which people
have 1ransfor::1ed their worlds, Smneti:ncs, per-
haps, th:ngs have 111n tur:1ed out for the bi:t ler, Im t
many times ;i:::oplc have concluded that their par-
ticipatory action research work has changed lhdr
circumstances the better and avoide,: nnto·
ward consequences !hat they o:hc:.vise w01:.l'
have had lo endure. Thb has been tr Jc in rebnild-
ing edurnt'on in Sonth Africa, iri litcrncy cam·
paigns in Nicaragua, in t:evelopmer.ts in nursing
practice i1: Australia, in improving dassror.:n
teaching in lhe United Kingdom, in conum:rity
development in The Philippi:1es, in farmb :n
Sri Lanka, in community gnvcr:1,mce in India,
'r lmproving v1ater ,uppl ies i:, Sangladesh, and in
hu:idrcds of other settings around the world. These
are not "easy :iobby games for little cr.gi:1cers:' as
 600 111 HANDEl(XlK OF QI.JALl1AJ'IVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 23
Hodgkinson might have it, hut rather matters
of grrat human and social significa:1ce. Tncse
people r:1 igh t 1:01 have changed the world, but
they have changed their worlds. that not the
sa:nc thingr They might 1101 have changed every
thi:1g everywhere\ hut they have improved things
for part'cular peop!r in particiiar places and in
many other places where tl:eir sto~ies have trav•
cled. We do not think :hat it is too i:mnudest an
asp in: :ion to j ucge participatory action research
in terms of histo:·ic;;! rnnscc;uem:es. Indeed, ptr•
haps we j'.idge too much social and cducat io:1al
science against to(] low a bar. We are used to
expecting too little help fron :t, and our expecta•
tions have been met. Under such circmmlances,
we believe, ::,eople would be wise to conduct their
own research into their own practices and situa-
tioo5. Under such circumstances, there cominucs
:u be a need for critical par:kiparnry action
xsearch.
Ill No1cs
· . Th, quo:ut ion is frcm page of the German
edition or lla:iermas', I Faktizilut ,md Ge/tung
lrklwcm Fac:s ,.:1d l\cr:n;).
2. !'his de.~ci[llim: is adapted from Kemmis and
Brcm:w:; Kemmis (2003).
J. Tl1i, descripliou ii, adapted frrn:: Kemmi~
(.20U4).
J!I RF.FFRFKCl'S
Allr:chter, H., & (islettner, P. {IS97). Action res,earch: A
closed d1,1pter in the lustory of German soci.ll
~dercer In It Mc'laggart (E,~.'l. l'tmiciparary
actian rn,eurw; Internal ional n:mtexts arrd cam1'•
,,uences (;,p. 45-78). Albany: Slate Univer~ity cf
Xrw Ytirk Press.
C. t l 99()). Ovt•coming orgarrisflti,:mal d1'f1:11ces:
F:.;rilifming 1;rgatrisatfo11af !earning. Boston: A::yn
& lla~on.
Argr ri,, Putnam, R"' & McL,i in Srr. :th. D. ( l 985).
Aai,m ,ti,•110•. San Francisco: Jcssey-flass.
Argyris. & ~:ion. D. A. (I <)74J. Tiieory in pratrice:
lnt'reasing pr,~li:ssiu1111/ rffixtivcae.is. San Fnmdsm:
Argyris, C, & Sch ii::. D. A. (1978 ). Org,:m1.<ati1mu/
learning: A theory of ac1im1 perspec1111e. Reading,
MA: Addbou- Wesley,
Bavnes,
, K. [1995). Dem ocracv. and t:ie Rech.1st,iai:
Habeana.'. 1-i1ktizitti1 und Gelflmg. In S. K. Whb:
(Ed.), 11w Cmn/1rfdge comp,mitm to Habcrmas
(pp. 201 ·· C,1mhridge, lJK; Camb:idge
tnivcr,ity Press.
llourd icu, I:, & Wac~ua11t, L J. I), (I A,,
invitrition
to refiexil'~ sociology. Cambridge, :; K: Polity.
llravene, G. ( l9'lil). Refleclion on a ':ilad: woman\
managemer.t learning. Women in M1magr:ment
Review, 11(3), 1.
Brock• Utne, Ii ( 1960, Summer). What is cduc.iti1mal
aclinn research? Classroom A,·tiori Rese.. rch
Network Bulw!ir:, No. 4, ,p. 10-· 5.
3:own, Her~y, C.. Henry, J., & ,\kTa~garl, R. ( 19AA).
Act:on research: lm the nalional se:11 i nar.
In S. :<emmis & R Mcfagga,t (Eds.), Tire action
resear.h rt,ader (j:tl ed .• pp. .H-.J.,,, 1. Gee:eng.
Australfa: Deak::: University Press.
,,,~, & Kc:nmi,, S. (: 986;. llccomirig critical:
Fd;maian, knc ·41frdg~, activri researdr.
London: Falr::er.
Checklu:1d, R( l98l ).SyJtems th:,1ki11g,,ys1ems pra,·ticc.
Chid1es:cr, UK: Wiley.
Check land, P., & Sdmle,, J. I 1990). Sofr systems method•
.,fogy in acticn. Chichester, L:K: Wiley.
Cl, :-k, P. A. ( 1972 ). ACf/011 rese,irch c;nd org<1nisammuf
change. Loudon: Harper & ~ow.
Corey, 5. M. ( 1949). Action research, fundamcnt~I
research, and ed urnlional prnc: ice~. Teachers
College: Retard, 5'1, SU\l-514.
Co:cy, S. M. /I 953 ). Action r,smrch w imp,;:,,e sdwDi
prnaices, New Colt: mh; a Uni v.-rs ity,
'Jeacher.; Colle12,e
Dadds, M. ( i 995;. Passiomue enquiry and sdwol
opment: A story about t.:arher ac!ion research.
London: Falmer.
Davie,, L, & J.edinglon, P. (1991 }. lnfi1,matiun in
ac11ow S,ifi systems mctho.i(i/ngy. Basingstoke,
lJK: Macmillan.
Dewey. J. (1916;. Edw:aticni and cfcmomu:y :-/ew ~lrk:
MJcmi::an.
Elden, ~. (198:\1. Part idpatory re,carch a: work,
/r,um,1l of Oc:1;.patior.al llehavfor, 4( I), 1 i -34.
!!lliott. J. (1975-1977). DevelDping by;mtheses ahoLt
ck,5rooms from lt'ad1ers· prnctkal constructs:
An accou::t of the work of ford ".'ca~hing
Pro;ect Imerchmige, 7(2). ,{epri111ed in
Kemmis, & McTaggarl, R (Eds.). ( I'!ill\). The
 Kemmis & McTaggart: "'ar1 idpJtory Action Rcse,m;h
action rese,1rd1 1X;11der ;pp. l9':>-213). c;eeloog,
Aus:ral ia: D.-akin University Press.
Elliot:,;., & Adelman, C. (1973). Reflecting where the
action Tht (ksign of the runl 'leaching Project.
Edumlimr for foid1i11g, 92, 8-20.
Emc,y, r. F., !),; ·1 hnrsrud, f.. ( i 97fi ). Democracy at wa•k:
The aftlie Norwegian lmlustrial l),:,,,;;11,:ra,:v
Program, ,.e,:·,en. :{:therlands: Nijhoff.
Emery, E E.. Thms:·ud, & Tnst, ti. ( l%ii). Form and
wnietr! in industrial democracy: Some exp1,.1e11ces
frum !'1orw11y wrd 01/ier Fumpe;m .:mmtrics.
London: Tavistock,
:=:al,, Borda, 0. (: 979). lnvcstigat'::g reality in order
:t: t1ansforn: i:: The Cclombirn experien,·c.
Dial.:clic:il Anthropology, 4, 1J-55.
Fals B,mia, 0, ( 1'188;. K,wwradge mrd f•eoples power,
New De:::.: !11dkn Sodal Institute,
Fal, Borda, 0,, & Rah:nan, M. (1991). Action an.1
knowledge: flreakir;g ,1;., mmiopo!y with />artici-
patory action re;e11rd1. New York: Apex Press.
fay, I\. ( I 'l8t), Cri!fca 1soda/ sc:i<'nce: U/Jerati,m anti
lirr.,'rs. Cam~,:idge, UK: l'olity.
flood, R & Jacks~n, M. C (!WI). Ctr:ative p,~Ji;fem
so!·1ing: '!Nal systems intervcnlio•r. Chichester, UK:
Vl'iley.
l'<:rc,1er, J,, Pitt,]., & Welsh, I. {Eds.), (19931. Profiles
of parridpatory 11i'lwrr n:mirdiers. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell U::ivcrsily. :)eparl rr.tnl of Urhan and
Reg'ona: Planni:1g.
foster, M. (,1972). An introduction lo the lhe,;ry and
pn1ct:ce of ,1clio11 re&t:ar(:': in work organizations.
Ht.man f1&lafium 1 529-'.>66,
P. ( El82). Creati::g alterirn:ivc re,ea:ch 11:eth-
ods: Learning to ii doing ii. In Tl. Ha:J,
A. GE:em:. & i\, Ta11don ' C,ealing knowl-
edge: A morwpoly? (pp, 29-37). New Delhi:
Sudel y for Pa:1icipatory Research i 11 Asia.
Rcprintec: in Kemmis, & Mc'faggar1 R. (Eds.),
1 Pre~~.
( 1988 ). The acrfo11 re,eardr r:ader fpp.
Gs:dong, Austra:rn: Deakin University Press.
Greenwood, D,, & Levin, M. ( 2000 ). Recons:rudng
the rdation.,hips between uniwrsities anc
soci<:I y through ac:ior: ,esearch, b 'I. Denzm &
'i. :..in col n Hami/Jliok uf ,J1u1liiati ve
research (2nd ed., pp. 106). Thousand Oak5,
CA:
Greenwood, D., & l.evin, M. (2001 ), Pragmatk action
resean:': and the strnggk ;o tra :1sform uni ,crsi-
inlo lear~.: ng mmn:u nities. b e Reason &
H. Bradb11rr (Eds.), II1mdbo,1k of action ri!>eardi
(pp. :oJ-1 B) J.or.L\cn: Sasc.
11!1 601
Hahermas, J, (1972). Knowleage and hum,;,n interests
( ]. J. Sh.tpit'o, Trans,). London: Heinemann.
Haberma,, J. (l984). Th,mry of' rommimicative acticn,
v:1:. I: Reason and the rmianafiw,i;;n of sociery
(1: :vlcCarthy, T,ans, ), J.lt;s:m1: Beacon.
Haberr:iaB, J, (1987a), The phi/a;,;plucar discourse vf
modernity: Twdve [echt:"t'S (E l ,awrencc~
Trans.). Camhr:dge, ,,IA: MIT Press.
H11ber:11as, J ( 1987D ). Theory of ::ommunicalfre acffon.
Vol. 2: Lifeworld and ws/em: A cri:i(Jue of fun,-
tiona{is! ,va.,on n. .\kCz.rthy, Irans, J. i'los:on:
He:,,;:on,
lfabcrr:1as, J. (I 9g2~ ). Faktizitiit ,md G~lrung IBetween
facts and t:or::is). Frankfurt, Ger:n.my: S:.:h r:.:amp,
llabermas, J. (1992b). Paslmetaphy,iaii i/m1kin1i:
Phil:1saphfral (\,V: M. Hohengarkn, Trans,).
Cambridge, "1A: M:T Pre.~,.
llah,·rmas, J, ( 19%). f!em/ec11 Facts and Norms (Iran,,
William Rehg), Cambridge, Mas~achc setts: MIT
Eall, K, Gillette, A., &: 'fandon, R. ( 1982). Cm1ti11g
knowledge: ;I m,mopoly? New Delhi: So..:iety for
Partidpa1ory Rese,1rch in Asi;i,
'Henry, (I 99 l ), Ir research were knnis,
In 0, Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Artiar; lear.,ing
improi'cd performa~a:. Br:slla oe, Ausrm lia: Aebb
Publishing.
Hndgkinson, H, ,, Action research: A cri:ic,ue.
fr;urrrnl of Edurarional Socwrcgy, 31(4), l37 - '.53.
Horton, M,, wi:h Kol:], J,, & Kohl, H, I 19'10 l. '/'he fong
/:,ml. '.ilcw York: Dnn'Jlc,lay.
;a,·,.~or,, M. C (1 . ). Systen1s metr1vdoi11g;· for !he
mam,gem,nl sc;,mc,:s. :kw York: Plenum,
Kemmis, S, (I 98 l). Action rt.'scarch in 1,mspecl and
retrospect :11 S. Kemmis, Henry. C. Hoo~, &
R. Mdaggarl (fals.), The ,wi,m re,;earrh rec,der
{pp. : l G~elor1"1"\ustrnlia: Deakin Un iversily
Kerr:rnis, S. (1991), >\ctinn research and posl-
mode~ni~ms. Curric:1,/11m J'ers&ectires, !J \ 4 ),
59-66,
Kemmis, S. {19~~ ), Interrupt and say: Is ii worih ddng?
An interview with Stephen Kemmis, l,ife/ong
1.eamirig in t'!m:,pi!,
Kcr.imis,S, (2004. March;, Kru,wing pnm;.:e: Se2rching
Jor Hili,mcrs. Paper p~e,ented at :he ''Participant
K::owledge atcd Knowing Pra,:tkc" ccnference,
U!'.'led, Sweden.
Kcmr:::s, & llrenn~n Kemmis, R,, Oc:ohcrJ,
Making and wrii ing the history c~· :!ie future
Mgeiher: i'xp/o,a!ory ac/1011 111 parlfcip~tnry
602 Ill HAl'>'DBOOK OF QC\;,JTATIVE RESEARCE-CHAPTER B
auion research, Paper presented at the Co,,greso
Internacional de Educacion, C6:1foha, Argentina.
Kemmis, & McTagg.irt, R. (1 %Ba). Tire aaion
research plaimer (3rd ed.). Gcefong, Australia:
De.;kJ11 Universi:v Press.
'
Kemmis, S., & IV:rTaggart, R. (1988b). me actia11
resear.Ji reader (3,d ed.). Gcelong, Australia:
Deakin Uniwrsit}' Pres,.
Kemmis, & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory
action research. In N. De:i2in & v. I.incoln (!.:d~.),
H,:mdb,u1k of qualir~tive research (2nd ed.,
pp. 567 -605). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Kolh, D. (l 984 l. fa:periential leaming: Frtc"'"""""'" "' the
source of /earn/Hg amt d,n•elapmer;/. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Levin, M. (191!5}. Participatory ucthm research fn
Nor..yay Trondheim, Norway: ORAL
Lew in, K ( l 946 ). Action research "'nd minority prob•
lems. Jormu1 1of SGciaI 2, 34-46.
Lewir., K. ( l 9;,2), Grou\J decision anc social change. In
IM. Ne\\'tomb & f. E. Hart:ey (Eds.).Readingr in
socia! psyi:haiogy (ir;.459-473;. ]';ew Ynr,:: Holt.
.\:larika, R., Ngurruwutthun, ll, & Wh:te, L. fl9Y2J.
Always toget::er, YJka Participatory
xsearch at 'i:rrk,.:a as rail of the dc,,eJopmenl of
Yol ngu ecucation. Ca111M:1Jle:•1ce, t),
M,Guire, P. (1987). Doing partifipatory re,e1;rd1:
A feminist approach. Amhersl: l/11 iwrsi:y of
Massac\msett,, Center for Intema:i1mal Education.
1\.fcTaggart, R. ( 199 la). Action r~search: A sfwr! modem
lmtorJ. Gedong, Arn,t:-a: :a: IJeaki:: Univer~ity
Mdagg.:.:t, R. ( '991 b). Western institutional impedi-
ments lo Abcrigi::al educatitl~. journal of
Curriculum .~tudie~,
McTaggart, R (l;d.). (:9971, Participatory action
remurh: lnfern,uirma! rcmex,s ami cm:.,equences.
Alba:iy: State Un:vccsity ~ork Prcs5.
1kTaggar:, R. (2002). The mi~sion of the scholar in
actior: research. In 11. P. Wclfe & C. R. Pryo,
(Eds.), The mission of the scho;ar: Research 1111d
pmc!i,e (pp.1-L6). London: Peter Lang.
McTaggarr, It, & Gar'Jutchecn-Singh, M. (1986\,
Kew directior1s in action research. Curriculum
Perspectives, 6(2), 42-46.
l\iemi, H., & Kerr.mis, S. (1999). Communi\:;itiwevalu
arion: l,:valuatiun at t~,:: crossroaJs. lifelong
l.euming in Furopc, 4( I). 55-64.
Noflke, ( 1990).A,ticm research: A muitidimmsfrinai
,malysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Wisconsin-\1adi,on.
action resea:ch: Iowards historical analv,i,. l n
S. HoLlnsworth me.), Jntemational acticn rcseardr'
A ::au:book for edurnrior:a/ reform (pp,
London: Fahr.er,
Oliveira, R., & Darci, M. (1975), The n;i/it,mt ob,nver:
A Stltia/ogic,;l r1i1ern,1tive. lns:itute
d'Action Cultural.
Park, P;, Brydon rvliller, M., Hall, Tl., & fackson, T. (lids.,.
( 1993\, Voices of change: Parric:ipat,1ry rescarrl, in
the L'ni!ed St,m.- and Canad~. Tornnw: o:SE Pre,,.
l'as::mrc, W, & Friedlan.:er, E (:982).An a:;tion ,csearch
program for rncreasir:g emp:oyee involvement i11
problcm•solvi:ig. Ad1ni11istraiive ,\c!f:11ce Quarterf;;
27, 342-362.
"edler, '.let (Ed.). (J<J9JI. Action !1:aming in practice.
Akkrnhnt, UK: Gowe7.
K'3papcrt, It (1970). Three dilemmas in 2ction
researc:i. Hunum Relations, 499 51?>.
Re.1s.m, I' ( Fd.). (l 988 L Human mquiry frr action:
Dcw:lopmerits in new paradi,i;m resean h. Lnndon:
~ge.
Revans, It W [1980). 1lctiim /,..:irr:ing: New techniques
for m,:m11gement. Lor.don: !l:ond & Br:gg,.
Re,·nns, IL W. (1\181). The origins and growth of a,:rfon
/earning. Lund, Swtden: Studenth,tcratur.
Ryan. K. E. (2003, :-Jovem:ier) . •~eryfng public intere,is
in edui:ationa/ amnmtahility. Paper pre5e11:cd
a: the meeting of th;; AmericJn ;',vab11im1
As:,0ciation, Reno, N\.:
Sagor, R. (1992). How to amd;1,:t c,Jilalmmtfre aaion
re,,:ar(h. Aiex~ndria, VA: Assodation for Super-
\"ision and C:.i rricu:11m D,;velopn:ent
Sandkull, B. {: 980). Praclice of incustry: rv: ts-manage-
,!' enl o" peor:c. llr;man Systems Managr,r;l7tl.
I. 159-
Schon, f}. { 1983). The rejfocrfw pra,:titimuT: ffow pm-
j,:ssio11a/s thiu/,; in actwn. ~ew Bask Books.
Schon. D. A. ( 1987). b'tlumting the rejl~ctive pra,ti-
tioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Ba,s.
Schon, D.A. (Ed.), ( 199!). The r~flertive turn:Cast srud·
ie,; in 1111d 01; edumti,mal practir1t, New
Colum·Jia University, Teachers College Pre,,.
Stenho:.ise, L C An immdurtum 1a currimf,1111
WJJ?iln:I: and dn'f?lopmeni. London: Heinemann
Educatio :1al.
Taylor. C ( :99 !). The maiaiie of tt:odernily. Con~ord,
Ontario: ;io::sc of Anansi.
Torbert, W. R. ( l99 I). Th,; power o{ baianct:
Tri:msjormmg society, and scientific i11quiry
Newhury Park, Sage.
 Kemmis & \1cTilggart: Participamrv Acion Rcsc,ucb • i\llJ

Warmington, A. ( l9b!J;. Action research: Its m<thod,
ilnd its impliratiom. fmimal o( Applied
Arudy,is, 7,
Weiner, G. ( f'mt""'"'"" sel:·k nowledge ve:sus
~ocial .j·~stice: A crilirnl analvsis of the teacher-
'
researcher movement. Br£tl:,h Educa,:ona! Research
jaurn,1/, 15[1 ), 41
Whyte, W. F. ( J9$9), I:it,nducLion to ad ion research for
the twcn:y-flrst century· Participation, retl ection,
and pra,tke. American Behav iora/ Sciemist, 32,
502-5::2.
Whyte, W. f,. (lid,). (l99li. Participatory action
rrs,·ar:::h. N~wl>ury Park, CA:
Wittgenstein, L. (195ij), Jlhil&;ophical i11vestigations
(2nd G. E. Ansrnmbc, Trnns.t Oxford,
Basil Black""'lt
'iunupingu, M. ( !99 l; .,;. plan for Gann:a rtsearch. In
K Bun bury, Vl !!£,tings, j. H,•nry, & R. McT11ggart
(Eds.), ,lboriginal pedagogy: Almriginaf 1,·11rhers
spe"k out [pp. 98-105). Gcdong, Australia:
Dea::dn lniversity Press.
Zt:ber,Skt·rri::, n (Ed,). ( 1996). .Vrw direniom
acii,m research. London: ~aimer.
24
CLINICAL RESEARCH
William L. Ivlillcr and Benjamin E Crabtree
Undf:"r .; ;,ky Ifie color of pea soup sh,> is looking ,lt her work vr'"'"'
acti·,eiy, ti1ickly (ike grapevine, or pole- beans .:is things grow ir: ihf' rPa( ,vor/d,
slowly enough.
A
tornado approaches the fid,:s of our
dreams. How well :ms our clinical
research prepared th(' ground fo, the
comir:gwhirlwind? Jocelrn arrives to co:1sult with
her prtmary care d:1ici.:m. For 3 year;;, the 50-
year-old ]l>cclyn al)ficos ::.ome bL,rni:1g pain
"amund my heart" shortly after meals and when
sh(' lie~ down for C'Xt('nd!'d periods. ':'his pain is
frequently as,odated witl, a ''som taste in my
mm1th;' lh :he norning of her visit, shortly after
he, four:h mp of rnffee, stands by the grill al
work near:y doubled over by the paii t. She can tol-
erate the suffering no longer. 3y nearly cvcryci:e's
account, t::e dir:ical ei:counter that follows is a
s~1ccess. Ecr ,:actor qu kkly diagnose, gastroe-
sopl:ageal reflux disease (GER:>) and pres-:rib('s
Nexiurn, "purple pi IL The whole visil takes
only 6 minutes aml help, :he doctor to :neet
productivity quota. focel)•n, knowing about
pill frcr:i tclcvi,inn commercials, is wnrried about
1/:e diagnosis hut plea~ed ,,ith the simple solu-
t:on. AstraZcncra. which pruduces 'k:x ium, is
there
delighted. The office staff ac,i ?racticc gnr.1 o
n:anager arc happy, and Jun::] yn's t.'mployer at
fast-fooc. restaura:lt is g:ad th,ll Jocelyn his very
little tine lost from work. Clinical researd1ers.
proud o: their randomized controlled trials
demonstrating the cffcct'vcncss of esoi:ieprazole
(the gem:ric mune for :-Jexit:m ), feel viml'cated.
So, where's the tornado! If you a:.: a clinical
reseai-d1cr, ,ire ym1 worry :r:g about standard-
ized sirr.;->licity this story'
GERI) is the disease label affixed to a s,·n:?tmn
complex associated with the ,,.,.,.,,r,,,..,,..,. of hcart-
hu~n. GERD :s related lo the reflux gastric add
(important for immunity ar:d digestion; into the
csop:1ag1:s becaus1;: o: the inapp:upriate relux·
atio:1 ilf leakage of the lower esophageal sphincter
(LES) scparatrs the sto:11ach fror:1 the esoph
agus. The healthy stomach has a protccr;vc ,:oat•
iug, uf mucous sh iddi ng it from whercc.s the
esuphagus coe~ not ar.d often prnth:ce, alerting
symptorr:s such as hca rtbur:1 in :he presence of
add. Proton pu:11p inhihi,ors (PPls) s;1ch as
606 1!ll HA~D300K or QUAUTATIV:: RFSF,A'l.Cll-(EAP';'ER 24
N~xiur:1 block the cellular pui:1ps th;.t produce
norm,1 I acid in lhe stomach ,md, hy nearly el imi-
nating ~he pre\'cnt he:irtbt: rn (but not the
reflux of m:id lree stomac:1 jukes), Reflux results
frcr:i r:rnltipl e factors that weaken I'.1e LES, rel ax it
innppmpr:,nely. or create excessive pressure on it
These factors ind',tde ovf'rca:ing, bedtime snack-
ing, wearing tight ;;:o:hing or t'.ght clip on ear-
rings, rapid catiT:s, being o':-lese (esped,!lly with
abdominal girth l, rxpe~knc:ng emotional
sires,. and using several common drugs, caffeine,
w':;,:cm. and/or alcohol-in summary, an acquis-
:!i ve, materialistic mnsu :ner lifos t v;;;. These fa::
' diabetes ( Perdt:e, Stone, & Goslin, 2003 ). .\1il!ions
tors ,uc named and chided in a PP! commercial
where a p~:iem ce:ebrates hcing li:iera:ed from
the agony of IJ~style change simply by taking the
right p:IL S11c is now free to cnntinue whatever
lifcs:y'.e she wishes ai;d no longer needs lo won
der what else her bocy i& trying lo communka:e
thrm;gh thi: ,ymptorn u: heartburn. Sl:e is learn-
ing to ignort! the questions th,1: e:nerge from her
own cxpcriellces ,inc to pay ri:ore attcnticn to
rn1:sun1t'r-oriented :mswcr,; and rnrporaliun-
grn crated questions, These ~re quc~:ions of
instru~en,al ral iona:ity !hat are eagerly and
extravagantly f:.tnded by guvernmcnt-,ponsorcd
,cseard1 institutinns and the medic,;] technology
and ph.umaceut:cal industries and that arc most
commonly addressed 'ly current clinical research.
One by une, isl<111cs uf rock, with a solitary per-
son sta:1ding on cad1, loom into view as the sur:
pound& below. Each vnice urgently proclaims, "I
didn't kr.ow!" As the hi ddtn camera fades back,
the islands mcrg, together,eacr. person appear:ng
securely confident--protected by the pur;ile
pill-and tr:e erosive raging of the sea below now
controlled, Tl:e war ag;1inst ~he terrorism of stom-
ach acid pm;ring a~rns~ :ts ooundary h:to tnc
esophagus Im, het"n won, Millions r.f television
l':ewero, im::~1ding Jocelyn. watch this AstraZenc:a
cumrnerdal about newest PPI, Nexil:m. What
cidn't :hey know'! The vdled threat is that GERD
could leac to Da,rett's t'Su ?hag us and then to
adenoca,c: nonrn, ;;:ven though this connection ls
rare and uncertain and 's 110 evidence tha:
taking PP[,-; p rcvents :t (Conio et al,, 2003},
Thousands of physicians, fed by AstraZeneca
representatives, htve their AIFr,-c ch:ttered with
rnhlet s, pens, a:1d trinkets hibeled ":-Je~ii; m" and
have their drug cabinet~ stocked with Nexium
samples, How well has our dir:k,il research prc-
p,1:-eJ Jocelyn and her clinician, as we!: as every-
one else, for this gl oba: corporate tornado~ On
:heir dcsks or compuler screens appear article
xprints of dinica: research cxdaiming the effec-
tiveness of esomeprawle (Nexium} in controlling
tl:e symptoms <{ :ieartbur:1 (Johnson c: al., 200 l;
'Ihlley et al., 2002) bur none about what it mean,,
Sick:1ess pervades the landscape, Suburhan
sprawi contributes to obesity and the epidemic of
of soc i o,;conomicaLy i:npovcrished people are
dying or dead from A:DS, tuberculos's, and
malaria because economically colrnizcd cuun•
tr'es lack access to care and tb: necessary medi ·
despite supporting the profits of glohal
phiinnaccutkal corporations (Farmer, 200l: Kim,
Millen, lrwin, & Gcrsl:man, 2000). Sus~air.able
ways of living acrrn;s our globe are db:-uptcd and
,eplaced by capitalis1 market economies, l'eop!t:
who were once sdf-suffbent a,e now bound tu
wage labu:: :u:i:: assured the freedom to c:1oose
soft drinks. Creatiy 1t:duccd is their freedom to
choose: a loc~I vocation and way of life (Coote,
1996: Douthw11ite, l 999 ). Water, air, forests, soi:,
and the ecologies of whic.1 they a~e a ?art ~re
deteriorating (Gardner, 2003 ). The acid of
Western civilization's quc:sl for dorninat:on l,
pouri:1g across ils bou:1daries, ,cori:hing the land,
and consuming the earth's diversity. ';'he proposed
solul io:is are even more technology ar:d '::>usiness
as usual, a global purp;c pill for global GERD. Part
of what is going on hc1e ls the mrnplex interac-
:ions llf an expecta m and frightened public, the:
myo::ik a:-rogam:e of military and economic
power, and many (often •,vcl '.-intentioned) imli-
viduals Ira ppec in :heir own and the dominar.:
culture's webs of denial (Jen,en, 2DD2). Welcume
tr. the dinica: research space-
Meanwh ::e, amid a Mid die Atlantic landscape
of small faros, spra,;'ling ~uburbs, r:-owccd
urba:1 streets, and ~igid w,11:s of priv:lte property,
Joe el yn :s ti1king ,he purple pill every day, She is
co:1fuscd and worritd.Althoogh free ofhcarthum

symptoms, nothing else has changed in her life.
The heartburn began abou l I y,'nr a"'ter her
daughter's infant child died in ~.n auto accident
and 6 months after starting a new job in a fast-
food reslauran:, Over that year, Jo.:elyn resumtc
smoking, gained 30 pounds, aml was dri:iking
more coffee. The heartburn was getting worse
despite taking rr:any over-1hc-munter :nedicines.
Dur:r,g this saJ;te time, sht: worried about her son
serving i:1 the U.S. Anny in Iraq ,,nd about the
threat of t~rrorisJJ:. ls ii possible th a: parts of this
story are ~el atcd ta her syr:-1ptoms 7 To lht· global
issues noteC? What does the new diagnosis nf
GERD :nean 10 Jocelyn? What and whose qu<'s-
t ions were addn,ssed in her encounter? What and
whose qi:cstions we1·e :11 issi tig? Poor, frightened.
and 50 yea:-:; old, she knows that sonefaing is
wrong. Where is :he meaning in her embmJied
embedded lived experie1:ces? Her life, composed
of memor:es, child,en, career, loYers, and ar:tici-
pated hopeb, appears sh rcdded; she fears 110
or:c is listening. Now she is noticing some low
back pain. Her doctors hide their foar, and :ose
thei ~ ernp,d1y behind :he :atest tests and the
:iewest drugs and cJ;nici!l trial pmrocols. Working
"llamstc rCare;' :hey are ex:1 austcd turning
:neir wheels productivity (Morrison, 2000 ).
They feel tired, ovcrrcgulated, angry at the conti n•
ued err:;,b1sis on cost cutting am: eflk;cm:y and
on the :hrea; of malpractice, and inadequa:e in
the face of death, but they conceal their emotions
behi:id a wall of profess:or.al "objectivity:' The
din:cians a!so struggle to mediate guidelines,
multiple languages of spedaliuit:on, amb'guities
of new technological visions of the body, thei~
nw:i di::tica: knnw:edge and expericr.ce, and
patient values and idiosyncras:es. Me:mwhilc,
marketing reseaxr.ers for As:raZenern are cor,-
ducting focu:; groups :o karn :nore effective ways
of convincing addts and physid,,ns of Kex:ium's
value. Hut these are stories :·arcly known by the
"pi,Ec:' These stories are hidden, :f known at all,
bv con~cious concealment and bv the forces of
' '
uncomcious cultural prcfere:ice. The story told 's
tl:at GERD is dangerous :o you and tha: Ne:( um :s
tl:e safe and tcffec:ive prnda~t fix. The ecological,
sod al, and spirituul cons1;:q 1.:cnces are invisible.
Milkr & Cral:>lrce: Cli:: :ca· Research 111 607
This is a ty:,:;ical tale in clinical rned'cal
research. Suj)eri11g and imrmulit1 are: s/a ndard-
ized, commoditiwd, and marketed. The suffering
relatec to heartbur:1 is frameci as a :hrea:, that is,
a universal need for some r:iarketable product
that restores cor:trol. The story is frame(: as a
";eslitu~iun" narrative (Frank, I995 ). Everyone
has sometl:ing wrong wi:;i hin: or her; normal
now means inadeqnate in moral and standard-
ized such as the recent guidelines crrati ng
the new disease of prehypertensiun (Cl:obanian
el~.: .. 2003) and the guide'.i:ies on obes:l •· that
make most U.S. adults overweight or obese
('\Jational Hearl, Lung, and Blond Institute, L998 ).
The complexities, mult:plidtie.s, and individuali
ties of suffering a11d normality arc subsumed
within this technological and ;;ommerdal frame.
This is the tornado! lmportar.: voice,, ques:kms,
and evidence are rni,sin~. Knowing the etfa:acy
of :he drug-the internal validity is sufficient
to approve using all means necessary to convince
all people to "choose'' the pill as a rcq:tirement for
a safe and healthy :ife JI is assi:med that there is a
real material wo:'ld that is, :n principle, knowab;e
th rough scientific :ne::mdol ugy, especia'.ly tht'
rando:nized contro:Jed :rial, and nothing sl:ould
stand in the way of pursuing this lruth. Oat.side
tte swir'. of this neorealist tornado, there is so
much siler.cc, Jocelyn's experienre of laking a
daily pill thal labels her self and body as endan-
gered is missing. The voice~ llf her family
rr.emhers are m:ssing. Relationsh i?S and morn!
d:sco urse a:-e :nissing. The place and role of
powe, are missing. Feelbg, spirhuai ity, and ecol-
ogy are m;,sing. Depth aml context are reducec.,
simplified, or di minated, and relatioosbps are
isolated and alienated. What hnpe is there after
the tornado passes?
'fl:is is the clinical research space we tave
witnessed above ground-clln'cal research too
often working,, on behalf of the domir.ant cultural
tornado of global corporate capitalism. There are
alternatives! The stories of intt:rest and hope for
clinical researcher& are h what :s mis.sins and
!:ow the sw:-ks arc frau:ed. We :magi:ie clinical
rese.irch spaces where jocelyn and the many
communiti~s of :,al :ents and i:cighbors, dinici.ms,
 603 111 EANJBOOK OF QUALITA7IV!' RESEARCH-CHAPTER 24
am: resear6ers meet together and seek tra:1,for.
:nation. The suffering related to heartburn is
framed as broken-ness calling for reconnection,
generosity, and Juve. The story ls framed as a
movement I.rum "h c ans n to H c1:est" narrative
' mary health and medical care ar:d nursi:ig.
(Frank, 1995 ). v\le imagine at least two differer.,
and ceeply connected research spaces. One is at
grour.d level, visible, help:ul, and growing and
healing with in the doninant culture, at the places
where the questions of embodied and embeddcc.
lived experience clinkal reality and ct;_~.
n,nt institutional structures and procases. Here,
using a more participatory and mixed me:hods
approacn guided by the questions Iived experi·
encc, the grou:1d is tended and wteded and
opportunities for planting and nurturing
healtl:ier plants are identified ar:d enacted. T'iis
is the quest toward transformation that assumes
that even the o;,pressors arc oppressed. We do not
!,elieve that this will be enough. The tornado
already crea:es wastelar.ds based 011 ethnicity,
color, gender, and sexuality, anc it ravishes
:he life-sustaining rnul of our one eart:1-the
soil, water, d,, ,md ,r.:rkate web of 1nterdepen,
dent species. The tornado often leaves us in chaos,
wit!: co clear storyline ap::1aren:; there is only the
!:ope of ea.;h other. We propose a second space
below grnur:c out reach of the tornado.
\,\'ithin the burrows a:id enta:iglements of garde.:1
soil, clinician/patient. qualitative/quantitative,
acaden:y/practice, very different ways, cultures,
and technologies of knowing can :neet, converse,
and ereale a "solidarity" d:1ical resea xi: for :he
future that serves nascen, institutional forms.
This chapter explores both of these spaces and
cor.versa,ions.
This Handbook celebrates the qualitative
research community's conversations-the
nal discourse aboi:t our identify, what we do, and
the fai~h and hope for oJr own growth .1nd trans-
formation that is sustained the re. The opportu-
nity to translate this conversation 'n:o both an
expanded and a new alternative clinical research
space was never be:ter or more urgent Uistor:cal
calls for a shift away from a strictly ;msilivist
position a:id for seeking greater n,rthodologkal
di,ersity, i1:duding the use of qualitat've rese,arch
methods (e.g., Freyman11, 1989; McWhinuey,
1986, 1989; W.1itzkin, : 991 ), are being an:;werec.
QuaEtative din ical resea,c:i is finding its way
into func.i.:lg agency agendas, especially in ;,ri·
Patients I and d: n iclans are increasingly invi:ed
into researd: conversations. Methods are also
evolving; they are beginning to separate from
their parent traditions (e.g., ethnography, phe•
nomenology, grounded thoory} am: generating
new hybrids in the din kal research space.
Cnforrunatcly, this success :s also leading lo pow-
e~fnl effor:s from within the dominant paradigm
to co-opt qua!itati\'c methods despite a small and
articulate resistance (tvlorse. Swanson, & Kuzel,
200 l;. Tl:is is mos! evident in the development of
checklists fo, ensuring validity of qualitative
stndies (Ha:·bour, 2001). Vernio:i.s of this chaptl:r
i:J eadier editions of this Ha'lldbook we,c solely
about continuii:g and accelerating this successful
flow, :h,,: is, rl:e exploration and conversations "~
grou:1d level. We no longer believe this to be
sufficie:it Our own recent experiences at working
within the toxic embrace of the dorr inan: para-
digm and its forces of elite corpor<1te globalizat'or:
alert us to the addl:ional r:eed for work below
ground pre,aring for after the tornado passes,
The 1.:nderstanc:ings of diuical research pre-
sented here are gm·Jnded i:1 :he anthem' own
stories. Our rhizomes are deeply embedded
within the nexus of applied anthropology and
the pract'ce of primary heal:h care, particularly
family medidne. Both authors have appoint:ncnts
in departments of familv medicine and are
trained ir: anthropology. 0 ur soda] snem:e ro01s
were fed by the development of dinkally applied
anthropology dur:ng the 197Os (Ch:-isman, 1977;
Chrisman &: Maretzki, 1982; Fabrega, l976, 1979;
roster, 1974; l'osrcr & A.:iderson, 1978; Polgar,
1962) and were nurtured by the later work of
Kleinman (1988, 1992, 1995; sec al.so Klei:umm,
Eisenberg, & Gou!.', 1978 ), the Goods (Good, l994;
Goud & Goud, 1981). Lock (1982, 1986, 1993),
the Pdtos (Pelto & Pelto, 1978, ~990), and Yeung
( 1982a, 1982h). These roots are currently cbal-
lengeli by the poststructurali.st debate ( Hora wuy
et al., 199:; Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Haraway,

1993: Jackson, 1989) and critical theory (3aer,
1993; .',.forsy, !996; Singer, 1995;. One of the
authors (W.~,M.) has a busy urban family medi-
cine practice, oversees a residency program, and
chairs a clinical d1::;,,ulment within a large aca·
demk corr: mu nity hospital. The other author
(B,F.C,) directs a family nwddne resean::1 divi·
sion and is a national research consu::a:11, Both
authors actively participate in the politics and
discoune of academic b:or:u:dicine a:id academic
.social science and haVt' experience in interna-
tiona 1 health settings, "'."he biomedical intluence,
with its perceived therapeutic ir.1pcm:ive, steers
towa,d pragmatic bterve:1tions and the desire for
cxp:kitmcss and col::erence in information gather•
Ing and decision makin~ a:id high Ii gh t, the
appeal o: neorealist pastµusitivism and technol•
ogy. The actt:al relationships that emerge within
patient care reveal the uncertainty and particular-
ity ('vicWhinney, 1989) of dinical praxis and turn
one toward ~torytelling, relationship, and inter•
pretation, The ~ea Ii ties of power and dominant
cultural hrgemony are exposed in our efforts to
help uninsured patients receive appropriate care,
to orulect the health of local habitats, to change
internationgl health poli~y. to get grants fonded.,
to publish storied knowledge in biomedica:
journals, and to guide our d~partmenls thruugh
budget challenges and our institutions toward
pro'1tability. Growi1:g and dying within the muhl-
plkilies of our soils, we have come to realize the
rdativit y of all knowledge. The challenges a,c not
epistemo'.ogk:al but ra,he:- practical and moral,
We are pri,ileged white men holding positions
of power within the belly of the beas:; we are also
tricksters. The cor.versa:ions that we recorr:rnend
for d ir:icaJ research reflect these two stances.
• CLJNICH RESEARCH
/(f GRt1UNll LEVEL
Fl,:ht pcrsislenllr· as rhc, uccpL'r ilia•
llling., down the tree. Spread li.~c the
squa5ii plan1 that overrun,, r}m f{Jrden.
Cnaw in the dark and u,e rnn to m,1ke
sugilr, Weave real co1111ectio1:s, create real
Miller & Crabt:ee: Clinical Research 111 6C'l
nodes, build rea I /louses, Live a fifi, y,m
can endure: make love that is loving.
-Conlinu;;tion of M<1rge Piercy's
''T ,c, Se,en o: Pentacles"
Our guiding premise is that the questions
emerging from the embodied, ernbecded, and
mindfully lived clinical expcrirnce fraCTe cmn:er
sation and determine research design ( Brewer &
Hunter, I 989; Die::s, 1979; Mill er & Crabtree,
1999b), Clinicai researchers have ¾11 di~•
cemihle research styles available: (a) experimcn•
ta!, (b) survey, (r) documentary historical,
(d} field (qualitative), (el philosophical, and
(f) action/participatory (lather, 1991; see also
Madisor:, chap, 21, 6is volume), The di:lical
research space above ground needs to be open to
2:J of these possible sources and types of know l-
edge. They all con:ribute to the two p~imary aims
of clinical research at ground level, The fir,41 is to
deepen and co11textua!ize the practical and et/; ical
questions, concerns, and emerging ·Jnders~and-
ings for healers and their patients and policymak-
ets, A second aim is to trouble the waters and seek
change within thr clinical research wn,ld itself,
This section :s organized around the following
three goals: (a) creating a space for research that
opens am! cdebrah:s ,Jualilative and n:ultipara,
digmatk approaches to the din ical world, (h) pro•
viding tl1e tools and translations necessa:-y for
discovering and witnessing clink~'. ,dories and
knowledge within :his space, and (c) identifying
and describing the n:eans for telling the stories
and sharing the knowledge,
The e:nphasis is on the clinical text of\\'estern
biomedicine and the particular subtex: of p;i ·
mary health care because of the auilmrs' lo~alion
in t~at place. Portunatelv, the discussion is casi'.v'
;
transferred to oth:r clinical contexts sm:h as
nursing care, education, organizat:or.al manage-
ment, comr.1unity orgar:izing, ar:d international
ac:ivisrr. (see also Berg & £mitt, 1988; Bogdan &
B:klen, 1992; Morse & 1:icJd. 1997; .\foyer,
MacAllister, & Soifer, 2001; Roseland, I
Sapsford & Abbot!, 1992; Sc'.'lcin, 1987; Symon &
Cassell, 1998 ). In all of these arenas, qualitative
mt,'thods are more accepted, yet :he noise from
 610 111 HA'.'IDBOOK (}F QUAL[TAIIVE REShARCl!-CHAPTER
policymakers is for being mor~ v .ucu.c bil{ied
and outcorr:es driven with generalizability and
randmr: ized dt:signs prioritized. (See fac recent
"No Child Lefl Beh:nd" act for a11 exar:iple of this
in ,'durational [www.ed.gov/r.db/landing
.jhtml .) k education, for example, a recent 'con•
sensus» report sot:ght to ccti ne scientific r~s~arch
in ecucation and, like this ,:hapter, argutd that the
methods must fit the question. Cr.like th:, chap-
ter, be report prioritizrd the \·ah:e of randomized
studies and rxpressed doubts abot: t participatory
models. ·:·he report voiced no concer:is about 11:e
goal of evidence-based education (Shavelson &
"11:iwne, 2002). Wt: o:fer an alternative viewpoint.
Creating a Space
Tile dominar.t biomed'...::al world and tile
smaller quditative re.search com:nunily both
~end to maintain :nethodo:ogicai and academic
rigidity. (reat ir:g a clinical research space requires
bringing both groups into the gerden and devel-
oping common .anguage. The clinical questions
cm, the wmmon ground (Taylor, 1993) for creating
this space. These questions o.11 us tu rediscover
the missing evidcn ce ( 1he people, experiencrs.
ecnlogv, power, and context~) and the richntss
and depth of what "effectiveness" means. The
dinica: ,1 ueslions invite us to explore the l:u:nar:
imp:ications of rationing and cost issues, Jiotech-
nology, and genetic engineering and to enter the
conllicted landscape nf ahern.itive and crmven-
tio:111! me,iidne-1 he world betwern the "garden"
and fae «machir:e" (Beinfield & Korngold, I991 ),
The que,,tions beg us to locate, awn, aim, and
share the powers :nherei:t ii; di nical situations
(Brody, 1992). The vulnerability exposed by the
fully e:11bedded and embodied di nical experi-
ences that give rlse to faesc C:'.lestions also reve.a Is
the inadequad es nf a :1eorealis: epistemology (for
more details, sec Pcraky:a, chap. 34, this volume).
'.:'hree core strategies for creating and entering
this common ground aml trans:orm ing clinical
researcn are described. These consist of stepping
carefully and strategically into the biomedical
wnr:d, expa:1.ding the evidence-based med:cine
(i'HM) space, and democrati~ir.g l<.now.edge_
Three additional strategies-using tl:eory more
e,~plicitly, expanding cmss•disdplinary collabo-
rations, and applying the principles of critical
multiplism-are also :nent1onec briefly. These
strategies assu:nc thal change is more experience
based than it is ral iomd and tn.i: dir. ical par:ici-
par:ts must actively try :nethods if they arc to
adopt them. Thus, 6ere is an emphasis on din:cal
partidpants, including patients, a:1swering ::ieir
own questions Jsing methoc.s appropriate
those questions.
Entering Biomcdici:ie
Walking and working w:tbin the walls of tech•
nocralk biomedicine is exciting and daun:ing,
and :I frequently challenges ir:tdlcctual and per-
~oual i:Jtegrit y. ·:·hriv 1ng i:i Ihi, wn,ld requires
understandi:lg the biomedical rnltural context
while also dcarlv' artkulatim!~ a model tl:at
highlights the clinical implica:ions qualitative
dinkal rese.irch. This i<.110wledge, if also joined by
patients and other ,{lm;nunity part:cipants, facil-
itates oorgaining, n:ediation, :i.r.d tl:c formation
of rnmmon language that makes possible the cre-
ation of a new research space at ground level. This
is where, in languages understandable by the
existing c:i :1ical world and pc; :it::1ts, a space for
more expansive imagination is created, tools
for listening and seeing are shared, ,rnd the seeds
for t~ansfonning stories are sown.
The dominant biomedical paradigm is rooted
in a patriarchal positivis:n; comm/ through ratio·
nality r.md separatinn is the overriding theme. The
biomedical model is typified by the following
IO basic prcm:ses: (a) scientific rationaliry, {b) an
er:1p:msis o:i individual autorwm;r rathe, than
on family o:- com munil y, (c) the body as machine
with an emphasis on phvskochemical data and
0:1 objective numer:cal mcasurcmcn:, (d) mind-
body separation and dualism, (e) diseasl:'s as er;tr-
tit·s. (f) the patient as object and the resultant
alienation of p:1ysidan from patie:it, (g) an
emphasis on the vi,ual, (h) diagnosis and treat-
ment from 1l1e outside, (i) reductionism anc the
;;ceki:ig of universals (Davis-Floyd & St. Jo'rn,
1998; Go:·don, 1988 ), and (j) sqmmtirm from

naturt,. ':"hr evervdav
, ' characteristics oft he cli ni-
cal medical world that follow from this model
include (a) male centerecncss, (b) physician
centeredm:ss, (c) spec'alist orientation, rd) an
cmrhisis u:1 cred,;:ntials, high value placed on
memory, (f) a process orier.!at'm: accenluatii:~
ritua' with supervaluation on "science" and tech-
nologr, (g) therapeutic activism with a:1 emphasis
on short-tern: result,, (h] death seen as defeat,
(i) dvision of the dinical space bto "front" (~ecep-
tionists, bill:ng clerks, and office mauagers l and
"back" (docto~"", :rnrses, and phle:mtomists),
(j) the definition, importa ncr, ar:d sanctity of
"medical time;' (k) an ernph.,sis on patient satis-
faction, (I) prof::-driven syster:i. (m) reverence for
the privacy of the doctor-patient relationshi?,
(n) disregard of ecological and international
impacts, and (o) intolerance ot other modalities
(:>avis-Fioyd & St John, 1998; Helman, 2000;
Pfif:'erling, 1981; Stein, 1990). Tl:ese are the com-
mon [and o!len tadt) assumptio:i s, values, and
bel icfs that characterize the dominant voice of
the rr:cdiciil clinic and that currently define the
preftrred boundarie, of cl i11ical resea,ch,
Biomedical culture is reinforcec anc sustained
by comfortable fit witl:in :Ile prevailing cultural
nor:us of the United and an elite globalizing
corporate economy. These "normalizing ideulo-
gic," inc'.'.lde rnntrol nwr the environment, rational
determinism, future orientation, 11ft' as ar: ordered
and co:itinuous whole, and individualisn with
an emphasis on pmdu~tivity, perseverance, self•
determination, and selt~rel iance. They smfa,;e in
public discourse as f• 'Jr "market my lhs:' uan:ely,
that (a) growth be:1efits al I, (b) freedom is narket
freedom, (c) we are hmno economicus, consumeris,
ti dm11irum s, and (d) corporate and finance drive1:
globa:ization is inevitable (Moe-Lobeda, 2002).
T'.,e normalizing ideolog:es are also r:iar.'fcst in
daily discourses about "'amily, self, gender identity,
and aging. Hot :1 patients and phy,iduru; refer to
thr.-.e ideologies and their as..'lociated discourses
tn ndp them restore order and normality to the
disruptions of ,idme;;:, (Becker, 1997;.
Thi, reigning voice of biomedic'ne has now
been successfully corpurnlized in the United
States, a:1d its ap;n1re:n goals, aside from amassing
Miller & C,abt,ee: Clinical Research 11! 611
pmlits, art the elim(nation of pain, suffojng,
e,i;;eas.e, anc even deat:i. The research tem.Js lo be
product focused, hos'.:':tal based, and disease
' .
oriented. :n manv wavs, 1:le current s:; uat ion
re;:,resen ts the triumpl: of cor:unoditization and
universalism with an emphasis on cost cJstomers.
produc:s, U'.Jlcomcs, effcct:vcnoss, standardization,
and evidence, The reasoni< for focusing on cut-
comes are to inform choices (ma rkel approach), to
provide accountability (regulalory ,,p11roach;, and
to improve care (ma:1agemem app:ua,:h). Despite
:he superficial appearance uf hegemony and
coherence, the voice nf mtxlicine, wheu errncted
a11d wl messed, reveals many ":1id den" mult :-
;,!!cities (Mol, 2002). Fortu:rntely fo, quaJtative
re,eax:1ers, these vokes and actions are waiting to
heard and seen. lf these voices arc entered into
the comersaliun as evidence, the di:1'cal research
space is expanded, ,lominant pa:-adigms arc chul-
kngcd, and hope is reimagined.
Successfu1 1y enter: ng the biomedical world as
a c·Jalita!lve clinical researcher requires a many-
eyed rrwdel :y' m;1diat ion. Enter as j1:gglers
[rrey. 1994) with 11:alliplc perspectives. This
quaii7ative cli:lical model of mediation leatures
the fo:lowing : Opremises:
l, V<JLll ,>tCc, in the dinical wol'id, that in
:he ni the ,1:orm,
2. Focus or. t:ic q,,esticn.< :har dawn there.
3, Ass,m:e lmrii/tmd. Acknow:edge what is or value
in biomedicine u'!1 highlight what is missiq;.••
wh:1: is silent, invi ~ihle, or :gnorcd. Expa::d on
!he already existent tension between a:.: md
rnmpclence (Good & Good,· llnld c;uanli•
lalivc obj1:ctiv1,:ns in one hanc'. and q11z::1a1ivc
revelations in the other.
4. follow a natumi history path that .:hanK lnizcd
the early history ofWeste:n :1wdicin,, an,l :!:at is
still a:1 important of prhm1 ry hca:1;; c;;re
(Harris, 19$9).
5, Be p,midpm,iry h:dudc pal icms ,md :linicians
!ti yqur inqL'.:,y
6. l'rcscr,e and celebrate mrnm,1/J, th.•11 lhe dis-
:m·cr!c;; and da1a tha: not Am1:nalie~ ar~
fo: transformation.
6: 2 111 l-lA'JD300K OF QUAUTATIVE: RESEA:l..CH-(HAPTER 24
7, Allow "tLth" to he e•m:rgmt and ::ot pn:cm,,
ceived, defensive, or forceful.
cl, Respect the p:ea fo, clinical action and the per-
ccivctl need for coherence voiced hv nearlv all
' '
participants in the din ical world.
\i, Pra.:: ice '1,.,11ilit1; genemsity, ar:c p,mmce, l'iis
wC enable everything d~e,
Hl, Refuse silence wncn op:ircssion is e\'i,:ent o~
expo,c'd. l'rnctice testimony (Frank 1995).
Qualita:ive dinkal researchers !dng several
puwt:rful perspecfaes lo the d:nical encoun:er
that help ~urface the ui: seer. and unheard and
also add depth to what :s already prese1: t. These
i:1 dude understanding disease as a cultu ,al con-
struction (llergcr & Luckn:a:1:1, 1967); pos;;essing
knowledge of additiona'. :ned ical models such
as :he biopsydmsm:ial and humanistic r:mdds
(Enge'.s, 1977; S:nith, 1996), the lm!ist:c: model
( Gonion, 1996; 'Neil, 1988), homeopathy (Swayne,
1998 ), and non-Wester:1 models that i:1rl11de tm •
(:itional C:1inese (Eeinfa:Jd & Komgold, 1991),
Ayu,ved k (S:10 rma &: Clark, l 998 J, and sl:an:an •
ism [Drnry, :996); and recugniring tl:e face and
!mportance of spirituality in humal! life, Quah
', aIi ~r res,·archcrn als.o prrccive ,ha: the them peu.
:k or heal ir.g p,ocess occc rs not only in the
dinkal moment but also in everyday lite he:,,veen
clinical event;, Thus, the slUdv, o: eYe:·vdav' life
o::ers additional perspect: ves. :hi: is, additional
. EB~1 is the new wor:der cnild in clinical ca:e
voices to thr resea,.:h ,pace heing created at
ground level, Carrying the staff of ym:r many-
eyed model of mec iat in:1, you are rcac!y :u e:1ter
the dinic,
Tl:e d ink! :.- a p·.tbl ic sa:1etuary for the voicing
of trouble anc :he dlspensing of relief. Each clinic
participan I crafts meaning out of the "facts" and
"feelings" in:ierent :n each d nical encounter and
sccks to weave a comfort:ng doth of supp11r1.
]ocelvn ,
and her fa:niiv' come and meet faeir di:1:-
dan and his staff at 6e clinic, All of these partic-
ipan:s' past ghosts-the emotional, physical,
com::ep:ual, sociocultuml, and spintua: contin-
gencies-and the cor:1pr1ing demands of thelr
presents and the hopes ar.c fears for t~eir future~
are brought into the dhk. This is the ,eal world of
clinical practice involv: ng intentions, meanings,
intcrsubjectlvity, values, personal knowledge,
power, and ethics, Yet most published clinical
research s:ill com ists of observational epidemiol•
flgy (reinstein, 1985; Keisey, Thompson, &: Evam,
: 986; Sackett, 1991: Strvens. Ab,am~, Brazier,
Fitipatr'ck, & Lilford, 2001) and clinical trial
des:gns (Meinert 1986; Pocock, i983). These
studies involve separating the variables of interest
from their loca. eveq·day :n ilicu, cr:teriug them
into a controlled research environm~r.t, and ther.
trying to fit the results back ln,o ;~e original con-
text. for example, Jocelyn's dnkian is aware of
rnr.do:11ized controlled trials demonstrating din•
ical eflkacy for short-term bed rot in patients
with back pain ( Deyn, Diehl, & Rosenthal, 1986;
Wiesel et al., 1980 ), But the practitioner encoun-
ters diff:culty :n applying this ir. formation to the
partica'.ar back pain and disability experienced
by Jocelyn, The pieces of evi de:i cc needed to
info,m this e:1co u:1ter are :n a:1y. Ideally, :he
d tnical participants w:11 study themselves anc.,
thus, challe11ge their own situated knowledgei
and empower :hc:r own transformations. This
requires bri:ig'ng qualitative methods :o the din-
kal e:qieriem:e. Let us expand the EBM research
sp,ce.
Expanding Evidence-Based lvledidne
and clinical resear.:h. The premise is that individ-
ual d:nlcal eiqertise must be integ!'atec ~with the
best research evidence , , . and patient values"
(Sackett, Straus, Rk hardson, Rosenberg, &
Hayr.es, 2UU0, p. I). Randoml1.ed dinirnl trials
(RC1s) and meta-analyses (systematic reviews o~
multiple RCTs) are cor.sidered :he best external
e\'idence when asking questions about therapeu,
tic interventions, A11 inlcrnational group o:·
dinidans, methodologists, and consumers has
formed the Cochrane Collahomt'or. as. a means
of facilita:ing the collection, implementation,
and disseminatio:1 of such systematic reviews
(Fulkrtou-Smith, 1995), The group has created a
Cochrar.e Library that is available on CD, on the
ln:ernet, and in secondary publications through

the British Medical Journal. Major bitiatives are
under way to ensure that all physicians, especially
at t'1c primary care level, use this evidence to
g-.iidc their clinical dc:;ision mak:r.g (Shaughnessy,
s:aw,m:, & Bennell, 1994; Slawson, Shaughnessy,
& Be:1 nett, 1994;. T:ie pmlJeratiun of d: nical
practice guidellne, is one: resu:: of these initia-
tives. Another result is the rrlarive rrc uced vn!ue
of qualitative studies, But EBM actually offers
qualitative dinical investigato,s multiple oppo~-
tunitles for enteri :1g, expanding, challenging, and
adding varlet)' anc. honesty to this space. There is
so :nuch missing evidence!
The double-blind (dosed) RCT ha~ high
.
internal Yaliditv but dubious external val iriitv and
'
little information about cor.text or 111:o!ogical
consequences (Glasgow, Lichtenstein, & l'vlarcus,
2003). Re,id any RCT report, a:id the only voice
vou hear is the cold sm:nd o: the intervention and
faint echoes of the i:westigator's biases. The
cacophonous music of pa:ients, dinkians, insur-
ance companies, lawyers, government regulatory
bodies. rommc1er :ntexst groups, anin:als a:id
habitats, comn:1J:1ity agencies, office ~taff, corpo-
ra:e interests, and family turmoil is mute. Local
.politi.:s and cont radictorv, demands become thr
sound of lh:n hush, There is also little research
about :he individuui c/iniu1/ expertise the
EHM equation and about the associated areas
of relationship dynamics, comrnun:cation, and
pat :ent preferem:e. The,c is much to be learned
abuut how patients and clinicians actually imple-
men: "bes: evic.ence '.' How is the e;,idence i:1 cor-
porated into patier:ts' and cmr.:nunities' life
stories' In addition, there are many gra)' :tones
of clinical practice where the evidence aboul
compefng clinical options is incomplete or con-
tradictory (Narlo,, 1995). What constitutes evi
dence, anyway (W.:orse et 2001)? \\!ho creates
defines and judges itl Trouble the waters of
EB!i. certainty, Here are open:ngs for d: nical
researchers. We can enter the l::BM and RCT space
and expand and challer:ge its v:sion.
We recum:ne:1d replacing the metaphor of
"gold standard·' with. a metaphor of"andent forest
standard" !hat needs to im:h;de qualitative meth-
ods along with the RL7·. In addition to those areas
~tiler & Crabtree: Clinical Research 1111 on
already :1oted, qualitative melhods cai, help to
formalize the le,;1rning curve, test theory, inform
hypotl:e~is testing and fi;ture wmk, and enbrnce
:he rransforab::ity of the d ir:icaJ trial ir.to clinical
practice. "Gold standard" su11.gests a singular,
i:nmutable, and un:versal truth, whereas ''andenr
forest standard» suggests diversity, dynamk com·
plexity, and contingent multiple perspectives.
We propose conceptualizing a muitimethod RCr
as a coi:ble-st,anded hrlix of DNA-a double
helix trial design (Miller, Crabtree, Duffy, Epstein,
& Stange, 2003). On one strand are quali:arive
mc:th.ods addressing of cm:text, n::eaning,
power, and cun; plexity, and on the other strand
ax quanr:tative methods providing measurement
a:id a focused anchor. The two srrands are con-
nected by the research questions. The qualitative
and quantitative strands twisl and spiral around
the quesl!ons in an m~goir:g ir.teractio:1, creating
codes of u11derslandi1:11' that ge1 expressed in
~
better rlinka: care, If the qualitative &trand
maintains methodological integrity and ir::erprc-
tive relativism and co:rnec1ed to the e~1wri-
ences irJorming the research c·.1es1:o:1s, 1he
double hel :x aud its bonds rr: ight e;,en experience
breakage anc u:i.;tation and transformation
beyor.d :,ostpositivism.
We hope ~hat d ir:kal researchers will seek out
those doing clinka: trials on symptom manage-
ment, treatments, c:inical process, and commu-
nity inlerventiens am: will advocate for adding
the qua:ltative strand. ror exa:np:e, if a gastro-
enterologisr at your local r:ospital or academic
medical center is planning or conducting an RCT
concerning a new treatment option for GERD, yo:1
could offer to meet and propose adding a 91:al!ta-
tive am: to the study with the inten: of exploring
,my of ,everal pos:,:':lle questio:is, How do pa1ients
undersrnnd and im:orpo:-ate the diagnosfa into
their life stories? How do expenem;c
trea:mcnt? What is the ir.,pact nn t:ieir quality of
life, their work, their sexual activity, their family
anc social relations, the:r involvement in dvk
atla:rs, their sense of self, and thci r fears and
desires! How does th~ s:udy affect the
researchers? This work wi[ help to identify
new outcomes that transpose the emphasis on
 614 ll llANDROOK O[,QUALJ'!J\TIVE RESEARCH-CIIAPTER
ir:dividual cure and elim:nation of pain and
disease toward care, growth, qua.ity of lite, :iealth-
ier relationships, and more sustainable cmnmuni-
ties and ecosystem.~. Nonetheless, a double hcl ix
t~ial design is not ade,iuate for assessing ecologi-
ca. comequem::cs of interventions; th is requires
more longitud' nal, mixed method, and case study
designs.
Examples showing the way toward doublr
helix trial desig:is already exist. folly, Bradley,
Shi,q1, Smith, and Mant (1998 ), using RCT tech-
nology, tested a nurse-led interventicm to help
patients surviving heart attacks maintain a reha
bililatiun program :mri irr: p:uve health habits. The
qmmt'.tative Rl:T strand yielded statistkally
insignificant results; fortunately, Wiles ( 1998) had
also conducted a quaEtativc dep:h interview
sti:dy wit:t of the participants at 2 weeks and
5 months during the trial ar:d uncovered several
clinically valuab:e findings. At 2 weeks, most of
the pde:ns trusted the official accounts of whaJ
:;ad happened and wha: needed to be do:1e lo
?revent foti:re prohl.:ms. By Smontl:s, :nost of the
patients had lost tha.: trust b~causc the official
accou:its had not adequately addressed lhe expe-
rienced random nature ofhemi attacks, the sever·
l:y, at,d the level of recovery. Many of the patients
prrcclved survival to mean ,hat thelr heart
attacks were mild, and beca·J se the doctors had
reassured them that everything would be normal
i1: 6 wee:..s, the patient~ assumed that they cou:d
return to their original "normal'' lifestyles by that
t:me. A:1o~her example of the double helix desig:1
for RC'is concerns smokir.g cessation interven•
lions a:1d is fo·J nd in the work of Willms and
Wilson at Mc.'vfaster University. They learned foal
the meaning, that patients attribu led to tr:eir cig-
arettes we~e nwrc inf.uentia. ii: stopping smokir.g
than were counseling and ttie 1:se of n ico1ine gum
(\Viii ms, 199 I; Willms et aL, 1990; Wilson et al.,
1988). Let us also join in opening the imagination
inside tne genome with quaiita:ive queistions and
a?proaches (Finkler, 2000}.
What are !he di nically grounded questions
that serve as windows for opening imagination at
ground level? Cll n:dans and patients seeking
sup;>ort in the health care se:ting confront fm:r
fonc.amental questions of clinical praxis. ti rst,
what is going on wirh our bodies' Second, what is
h11ppening with our lives? Third, who has what
power? Fourth, what are the complex relritiomhip,
among our hodiea, our liv1:s, our ecological con·
text, and powerl These four questions also mir;or
the methods of r: ~ :nera,v, :itcracv, no:kv. and
l , - J
"eco;acv" ,,
(i.e.. thinking-. ecolo"'callv)
b •
(Ha:din,
1985), Each these qucs:ions !:as ~motionlll,
physic:11//behav ioml, ::om:ep1uallattributional, cul-
l uralisor:ialihistorical, and spiritual/ene~getic ra1:1 ··
ificatio:1s. rmm the story of Jocelyn, :he,c are
lindy questions ahoul support What are the e=no•
tions of :ivir.g with a fear of the long-term conse-
quenccs of GERD? Is Nexiu:11 more cffecl ive than
'.ifestyle change at preventing those conse·
qc:rncesf How will eithe~ impact r,m:il7· and social
bod:es? What is :he lived experience and meaning
of GERD for patients and clinicians? Whal is
penir:g b the office practice as a body tbat helps
or hinders Jocelyn's care? TI1ere are question,
concerning the sup;,o:t of ones life or biogrnphy.
Do explanatory models of GERD relate 10 the
expe~fonce and outrnme of risk? How dues one's
scif-concept relate to GERD and response to
Ncxium? What are patients' and d:nic:ans' hopes,
despairs. fears, and :mecurities conccrnlrig
GERD? How docs pasl cxper'.ence cm:necl to the
inn:1edialc experience nf GF.RD or participat:or:
in a di r1 ical trial? There are qJCStions of pov,-er
ahout how people are supported. What is happen•
ing when patients with GERIJ present to dini•
cians in differen: organizat:onal contexts of caret
r.ow is emo:ional dislre~i; surfaced or ,qllp·
pressed? What pattcr:1s exist in these d ifti:rcnt
settings? W:10 intlc.ences whom? H1wv is the power
of the patient or dinidan undermined or enhanced
(Fahy & Smith, 1999)¥ What are :he local poE:ics?
There ar, q1.:es:ior:s ahout the support of rela:ion-
ships. What actions in the clinical encounter
rnha.nc.: family relationshi?»1 Eow do tl:e individ'.! ·
als. the families, and the di:Ik function as com plcx
adaptive systems? Ho.., do the illm,ss a:1d its care
::elate to :he local ecology? Many of 6ese questions
are addressed acequately only if ctualitative meth-
ods enter i:!lo the dinical n:search •P'JCe and we
look toward an ancient forest standard.

This is tlw e1•it.lc11ce nerde,J!We can apply these
four question categories to the critically impor-
tant of the next decade such as the global-
ization of biomedicine, rationing and cost,
bio Ledrnolo gy and gencti c products, and the
of:en conflicted .aml scape where alternal ivc
med:ci:ic and b:o:nedidnc me!:'l. Huw does
rationing affect our hod ies? '"'hat are the emo-
tional. ph}'sical, concc:p:ual, social, and .~pirirual
consequencesl The same questions can be asked
of the many new (and ale J products of biotcch-
nolof!y. What is the ir:ipact on uu r Ii v;;;sr Where is
the power, and how is it used and resisted? What
are the relationships and corr: ?lex systems that
are affected and through which the tech:10:ogy is
depluyedi' What are the unant'cipated conse-
q~em;es? How do patients decide about therapies?
How do they j ugg:e seeing their bodies as hoth
garden a:1d inach'.ne? What metaphors are
used, and when and how do they change ollt-
rnmes' The ques:ions are i:1 finite and challenging.
Primarr ca:·c, at core, is a context-dependent
,.raft. EBM · context in its current :orrn; it
crirs om fur qualltative methods and alternative
pa:adigms. Let us get to work!
Democratizing Knowledge
Entering biomedicine and workillJ,; to expand
a:id cha ngc the EBM >'Pace also holds great risk
for qualitative ell nical re;;earchers '.Jt'i:1g m opted
by the dominant paradigm that they seek to
transfur:u; ::ms, there is a need for democratizing
knowledge. The assumption i, :hat the more
everyone and everything poteut;ally affected hy
any given knowledge and associated technolo-
gies and ac,ions h..1 s dedsion-1:rnki ng influence
and invo:vement in the production of that knowl ·
edge, the less likely the :-eseelrch w:11 he co-opted
by any single power, Partic:pa;ory research
approac:1el'>, supported by using a part:cipatory
wheel inqi.:i:y and ib four w;.iys knowing,
valuing variation and i:nprovisatiun, applyi:ig
precautionary principle, and pursuing slow
knowkc.ge, are proposed keys to democn11i2.ing
knowledge and opening the clinical research
space above grnulld tu tnmsformational hope.
Miller & Crabtree: Clitiit:al Resmrrh • o.5
l'ar ticip,itory research approaches all share
lht: d1aractcristics of collaboration between
the researcher and the researched, a redp,ocal
process whereby each party educale, the 01t1cr,
and the in:ent to rrrare local knowledge for
improving the conditions 11nd qua:ity of IFc
(,vlacaulay et al., 1998; Small, I Thesen &
Kui:el, 1999). Pli.r!:dpatoq• research promotes
the voices of communities in identifying he:dth
issues and 'ielps :n ensure !:lat social, cuhurai,
econorr:ic, and ecological conditions at<" included
(Jason, Keys, Suarez-Balcazar, 'Taylor, & IJavis,
2004). It also provides anutne:- entry into
cha[e11f,!ing and transforming the rese-,m:h space
,rnd brings us around, full circle, lo th;;; ,escarcl;
questions. We proposc that cii:Jkal researchers
inve.,tigate questions er.1erging fror:1 the clinical
experience with the dinkil participants, pay
attention to and reveal any underlying values and
assumpt'uns, and direct :he resulls toward clini-
cal participant, and policymak.ers, This refocuses
tl:c gaze clinical rcse,.rc:1 01:to the cj:iirnl expe-
rience and redefines boundaries as the ansi,;,\'r
to three qucst'01:s, :iarr:ely"Whose cuestion is itr:•
'~i\.re hidden assJmplions of the clinical world
reveal cd ?:' and "Fm whom arc the research results
il:tended?" (Le., wht1 are the stakeholders or audi-
ences!). t]ir.kal rcscarche,s sbm: owr10rship of
research with clinical ::iartidpants, thereby
·.mdermin'ng the patriarchal bias of the dominant
par:1digm ;;ml openir:g it& assi:mptions to investi-
gation. This is the situated knowledge, the ''some-
where in particnlar·' ( Hamway, 1991. p.
where space is created to find a larger and more
inclusive vision of c'.inical rese.irch. The opportu-
nity is created to redefine the mea r:ing of and
responsibilities for hca'th, to value iridigc r.ous
practices and knowledge systems, to der.1ystify
science and :echno:ogy, and to expand the
research ca padty of communities ('::andon,
1996). Patients and clinic ia:is are :nv lted to
explore persona'. andlur each other's que,tio:1s
a;1d con;;er:i s with whatever methods anc para-
digms are necessary.
Participatory ap;.,roaches bring .i divcrnc group
of people and ideas and wavs of knowing into a
con:mon space that cha;lenges :he rrnditional
 616 11 HANi)BOOK OF QUA,JTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 24
boundaries of science. Figure 24.1, a parricipatory
wheel of inquiry derived from the work of Wilber
( 1996) and Schurr:adter ( 1977), represents a map
fo, understanding and working with this d:versity
of IJ'aditions, experiences, and ;;ssociated meth-
ods (Stange, Miller, & Mc\'Vhin:iey, 2001 ), and the
six research styles noted earlier. This integrative
framework represents hur:ian knowledge a:mut
the natural YvOrld in four quadrants, with !ht: hor-
izontal axis representing inner a:id outer reality
and the vertical axis representing individuai and
collective kr:owledge. The right -hand quadrants
are the world as seen by materialist science-the
view fron: outside. This is the domain of third-
person "It" and "lts" knowledge based on
detached objective observation. The left hand
quadrants are :he inner or subjec:ive aspects
reality-r:ie domain of "I" and "¼'e" knowledge,
The left i& concerned with meaning, that with
beauty and goodness.The right i~ concerned will:
physical laws, The m·Jltiple ways of knowing and
associated traditions an<l met:iods may be classi-
fied within this grid (for a s:milar model, see
Kemmis & Mr'Jaggart, 2003 ). For example, both of
the right-hand quadrants, knowledge of exter:ial
physical and social real:ty, are studied .isiug
experimental and social science and epide:11io-
logirnl survey methods and a~e based primarlly
on the rraditional biomedbd paradigm and asso-
ciated reduct[onist assulclptions of materialist
inquiry.
For the domains of knowledge needed for
;-;ersurialized, prioritized, a:1d integrated clin:cal
care, a more participatory and ''su:,jective" way of
knowing based on intimate involvement with self
and other is rtquired. The interior-focused quad-
rants on tl:e lef.: represent such complementary
lrno'A'iedge basec on reflective participation. The
left Jpper quadrant, 'T' knowlecge, refers to wis-
dom gained throi.:gh t1e indv[dual accumulatinn
of pa:ticular experiences .. reflection on clinical
practice, diaries a:1d journals, and philosophical
methods. The left :ower quadrant, "We" knowl-
edge, is excmpH5ec by the theoretical work of
Lucy Candib. Cancib ( 1995) demonstrated the
connections among lhe developir.g feminist
literature on ways of knowing, the general
practice traditions, and the emerging literature
on qualitative research and the narrative mode
of thought She argued effectively for the impor-
tance of a "connected knowing" based on personal
experiences and rela:ionships that seek to discover
how the other perceives the world. Cunnectec
knowing is rooted in empathy and believabi:ity
and 1s lr:tereskd in context, relationship, and rime.
Tbs way of ~nowhg L:sually uses qualitative
("field" style) and participatory research strategies,
At the intersection of the four quadrants is the
c:inical craft or practice being informed by the
multiple nodes of inquiry ::ieing enacted within
a participatory framework. As a means of keeping
the wheel of lnq'.liry tnrr:ing and t:1e p;;rticipa-
tory space open, it is helpful m emphasize and
value variation and improvisation over sta:1dard-
iz.ition. Emerging understandings fmm complex
ity science and ecological science strongly suggest
that "nature" and life thr:ve on variation and
impmvisation (Capra, 1996, 2002 ). T:1e conven-
tional me,apho, of the "body as machine" reflects
the dangers inherent in standardization, Too
many voices are sileaced. The participatory wheel
turns wit:iin a sphere uf interpretive relativism
(see Peraky!a, dmp. 34, this volun::e). A more
robust metaphor, one that embraces all four
quadrants of human knowledge and values varia-
tion, is tile "body as organism in ecologkal con-
text:' This n:elaphor contains the seeds from
which a de:i10cratized knowledge and clinical
practice can grow. 'rhey will not grow, however,
unless the g:ound is fertile and not poisoned by
the priva:ized kr:owledge and :>roducts of global
corporations.
Much current din;cal research is the hand
inside the glove of co::porate interests .ind oper -
ates on a "first acl until harm p:-oven" principle.
when" proven usually means establishing a direct
cause-and-effect relationship. The result is the
co:itinued spread of d:emkal toxins, greenhouse
a11d cigaret:cs untii such nearly ;mpossibl~
proof appears aud convinces everyone. Older wis•
dom recommended "first dti no harn::?' A current
form of th:, wisdom, the precautionary prindp{e
(Raffe:isperger, Tickner, & Jackson, 1999), oi:ers
guidance cons:stent with better health and more
 I:✓, ill er 8: Cr2.htree; Clinical Research JI 617

4
INFORMATION
MASTERY

''lt'f
nr• Disease/Illness
Clinician or Patlenl ~arl history & epiC1em1:r ogy
Experience ol pat,enl Physiology & pathology
Reflection o' cl niolan Diagnosis & treatment
Life & literacy Body & numeracy

l l \
~ RE/A TiONSHIP INTEGRATION--· PRiORITIZA T/ON

l
CRAFT

\
··w, ..
Cl In lclan!P11tklnt
l
..HS"
System
Family/Community Practice orgarlzatlon
Connectec kncwlng Delivery system
CJltUra issues Health dlsnarltlas
Relations & ecoi'acy Power & po/!cy

2
'~
~ . JUSTICE
3

Figure 24.1. A Par::dp&tnry Wheel of lnq .ii ry

participatory resear~h ~paces, The precaut iona, y
principle essentially state;; that in :he preser.ce
of scientific ur.certainty and the plausibility of
harm, precautionary measi.;re, must be taken
(Raffen3perger. 2002 ). This principle shifts the
burden uf proof lo those who advocate or wish to
sell a potenlially harmful action or product and
must he open, infor:ned, and democratk, indt:d·
ing al I poten~ially allected parties. Thus, it opens
the r<:'scarch space to a more democratic process
,.r.owledge gei:eratlu:i and sharing. The ?IC·
caut:onary principle obliges us lo observe and
forese.: {as far"' seven gener;;tions) befo:-e act·
ing. This involves cxamimll ion of a full range of
alternatives, including no action, It begins with
seeking lo see the invi siblc, hear the unspeakable.
and touch the untouchable, Learn to hear the s:an;
and the trees and to lalk to turtles, coyotes, and
bears. Learn f::om children. Ren:emher who you
really were before the dominant cultt: re silenced
your deep awareness.
Participatory rcsrard1 a?p,oaches. ,,upportrc
by applying the partkipatory wheel of ir:qi:iry,
valuing var:ation and improvisatkn,and adhering
to the precautionary principle, all lead to slow
knowledge, that is, kno,~ ledg~ that is cnn,isket
with the rhythms oflife, sus:ainabillty, and appro-
priate (Orr, 2002). II assumes interdepen-
dence and 'Jncertai1:ty, :ind it acknow:cdgcs the
absurdity and hubris of seeking perfect'on. Slow
61 8 a. HANIHlOOK OF Q;JAIJTATl.VE RESEARCH-CH APTER 24
knowledge works with the corr:plt:Xities of reality
rather :han seekir:g to co:llrol lhtm, am:! it accepts
that so,ne mnffict and suffering are inevitable.
Ratl:er th:11, trying to el1nlnate them, slow knowl-
edge pnrsurs means uf comfort, care, rcco:dlia-
tion, resilience, and restoration tl:at optimize the
healthy embedded interrelationships of all lite,
one local place al a ti:ne. Slow know:edge ::;.hifts ,he
focus from outcome~ :o the nurturing of lifo
together. For focelyn nnd her ieartbur:1, slow
knowledge :nrans d,'emphasizing the PPI until
more is knmvn about mubple a:1d ecological
co:1sequenccs, Instead, there i~ more emphasis on
supporting Jocelyn a:id expanding her cor:imu-
nily of com.:em and on cha r.gir.g :he soda:, eco-
nomic, and lifestyle tactors cr('at:r.g the conditions
of GF.RD. This is more difficult c.nd slower work; it
is healing work. Slow knowledge is the result of a
clinical research of love ..1nd 1:0: instrumental
rntionality. Tbs is learning at the speed and scali:
where all of lift. can ;iartidpntf. It represents the
cemocrati zarion of knowledge. Imagine the possi •
:iJ:itics for c: inical research if govcmme:1t :'unding
priori tiled slow k1:owledgc. Now, e:1kr the world
of biome,l:dm: and work to expand th.: EBM
space, bu! du so as a ganle:ier with the tools of
?llrtidpato~y approaches and a wheel of inquiry,
valuing variation and improvisatior. and applying
:ie precautionary principle a, yoi: :end the plants
of slow knowledge. Thenry, wllaboratiun, and
cr':ical multiµlisrn are udilitiona! strategies for
hdping do clinical research above grnu:1d.
Using Theory
]11e do ublc helix proposed earlier abo
creates an opportunity for dinical resea:-d:ers to
reinlmducc theory into clinical research. Theory
is frequently nor explicitly sl!ltrd in itandard
quantitative din ical studies. This ofa:::1 results in
ungrounded a poster:ori speculation. Qualitative
da:a heb to su~facc hidden theoretic:il assumptions
and suggest new possibilities ar.d connecions.
Theory helps tu bridge co • inant hiomcdical and
orher cultural worlds. Recent :heoretical discus-
sions among medical anthropologists, phenome-
no:ogists, semioticians.and socio:ogists concerniJJg
the metaphor of the ''body" c:iallenge biomedical
assumptions aho ut the hi:m.in body and its
bouncarics and highligr:t the culturally and
socially co:istructed aspects the body that
extend far beyond its corporeality (Csordas, 2.002;
Johnson, 1987; Kirmayer, 1992; Macnaghte1: &
Crry, 2001; Martin, l 994; Scheper-Hughes &
Locke, 1987; Shildr'ck, 1997; S:rathern, 1996;
T'Jrner, 1992). There is an individual ·::.ody,a social
oody, and a hody politk. There are medical bod-
:he ear6 as body, and comrr.unicat:ve Indies.
Bodies arc imagined as flexible, lea,zy, ~asdes,
:nachi :1 cs, gardens, or etrervescer::, and thege
imagha1io:1 s both shape a:1d arc shaped by the
social body, the body politic. and :he world body.
Arthur Frank, for example, described the use of
story:el'.ing as a m.:ans of resloring voice to the
body (Frank, I995). Bodily symptoms. arc under-
stood as the infolding of cu::ural trnu:nas into the
body; as these bodies create history, tnc symp-
torr:s outfold into social space. Because of their
complexity, social bodies (e.g., practi cc organiza-
tions) are often be,! c:iarJclerized using metaphor;
such as "brains;' "n:adlines;' "organisms;' anrl
"ugly faces" (Morgan, 1998). Qualitative methods
become a primary source for hear:ng these stories
and their assoda1ed met,mhors, caring in rela-
tioJJships, and resisting the c11lo11izing narrative
of institu :ionalized medicine (Mattingly, 1998;
Sandelowski, 2002). The study of bodies and
their place :n the production and ex!lress!un of
sicknrss and health becomes a core strategy for
clinical research tl:at enables the bndg:ng of par-
adigms and opens the clinical resea:-cl: space
wide also resisting the standardization of the
body as corr:modity.
Cn1lal;orati ng Across Disciplines
This opened clinical research space requires
cullaboralion that emphasizes rr:ultip!e linkages
and different types of cross disciplinary relation-
ships. :.in kages occur vertically wl:cr.: one moves
up and drown 1hrough different levels or
such as the mo:e,ular, indiYidual, local, and regional
lev1::ls, L:r:iages are also horizontal ac:oss difterent
sectors at the sar:1e level of social organi1,a:inn

sJch as medical practices, schools, and local
busbesses. Linkages also m:n:r over time o:· at
different times. Finally, tht're are multiple aca-
demic J:nk<'.ges, including those with the "pub\ic;-
with practitioners. with ;:-oli.::ymakers, and with
research participants (Miller, 1994).
Critical Multiplism
Orchestrating this type of multimethod, cross-
disciplinary researd: requires the skills anc
mir:d-set of a generalist resear<.:hc:- u, ing a frame-
work of critical rnllltiplism (Coward, 1990; Miller,
: 994 ). The skills and perspectives of rhe general-
researcher consist of r.egotfalion, translatim:,
theoretical plura'.ism, r:1ethodolog'cal pl uralis n:,
a community orientation, and comfort with and
motedness in clinirnl practices. These are suc-
crssfully implemented rhrough a critical multi-
plist framework. Cr:tical mult:plism assumes that
multip",e ways of knowing are necessary and that
these options r;;:qui:-e critical thought a:id choice,
"Multiplism" refers not only tu :nultiple methods
hut a \so to multiple triangulation, multiple stake•
holders, :nul:iple studil'>l, ,md multiple paradigms
and perspectives. "Critical" refers to the critical
sc:ection of these options based on local history,
ti:~ role of power and patterns of domination, and
r.ow the d'fle:-ent metl:ods complement each
other. Sii principle!. help to gJide critical multi-
:ilists in their complex work:
L Know why you choose to do ,omi:,hing.
2, Preu,rve methud and paradig:n integrity.
3. Pay a:tcmion to unit~ of analysis,
4. Remember the re:;ec,,ch qucs:ions,
:;, Ensun: that lhe slreng:hs and weaknesses of
each ,e:ec·ed option complerr:ent each other,
6, Continually evaluate met:iodology throughout
thtstudvr
Critical multiplism is a particularly powerful
fra:nework for doi:ig pa:-ticipatory dinical
research and provides discipline as 01:e moves
within the participatory wheel of inquiry.
Miller & Crabtrer: Clinical Research 11:1 r,19
Revealing :he n:any kinds of evidence requires
the EBM space, developing cross-
di sciplinar, collaborations, J sing multi pie :neth •
ods with 11 critical multiplist com.:ep:ual:zation,
using bridging metaphor,, and theories such as
"bodies;' and often enp:1asizing participatory and
advocacy approaches and democratizing know1•
edye, With tl:ese strategies, the clinic;;; researd1
space opens fo:: the tools uf the gener,dist clinical
reseorcr.er. Qualitative resean:hers have M:ct:n and
neard tl:e ~tories a:id sufferings of Jocely:1 and
o:hers like '.1er, but they have often been retold in a
larguagethat patien:s and clinicians do not under•
stand Fisher, J986; Fisr.er & Iood, 1983;
Lazarus, 1988; Mishler, 1984; West, 1984; Williams,
191<4), Neither clinicians nor patien:s know lhe
language of "ethno1:1ethodology;' "hermeneutic.,;'
"phenomenology:' "sc:niotics;' or "interpretive
interactionism:' Much qualita:ive clinical research
is published in a language and in places that
bene~lt only selected researchers ar. d not the
patients and pracrit'n:iers. Qr:alitative researchers
have askec clinida:is join, '.istrn to, and speak
the "voice oi the Hfcworld" (Mishler, 1984). 'Ne
ask clinical t]ualitat ive researc':iers to do the
same, and we recom m12r:d the wurl< of Carolyn Ellis
and Acihur Frank as powerful examples of dear
and mov'.ng text (Ellis, 1995; Prank, 1991 )-
I'll PROVIDING ·:·t1E
TOOLS AND T,1,ANSLATIONS
Th:s section presents the tools and tra:islations
necessary for bringing qualitative methods and
traditions in:o the clinical research space at
ground level. It begins by comparing the qualita•
1ive research process with the d:nical process.· fhe
nearly direct correspondence enables the clinical
researcher to make qualitative methods transpar-
ent to dinkians and patier:ts. This is :'ollowed by
a brief overview of qualitative methods and hO\v
lo create mixed method 1;,,search designs in the
dinkai setti:ig, Finally, we pr.it it all together with
an t'xample of clin:cal research that uses some of
the strategies discussed ar,_d share tips for wri:i ng,
demonstrating credibility, and getting pJblished.
 620 • HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 24
EXPLOAI\IG UNDEfiS-ANDING
d •ease & illl1€SS th(, whole perso"
fiXp@rie"'l:CA &
roollh story
Physical, nislo·,.
PERSON
lab
Patient - - ; , - ~ ~ ~
+P,asents-.. li"'11h
Slc,y 2__Story='------'~ ...
lll"'0$S
Id.,,,,. exp,,cto11ons.
!ool1°gs. effoot on
fooction
Clin,cll'ln SELF·AEFLECTION &
lntJition
Figure 24.2. Relationship-Cer:tered Clinic~! Mc:hod
Research Proci;:ss
The clinical research space is created hy focus•
ing on lhe que~tion~ arising fro.:n the dinkal
experience and oprr1s many possi:iilltics for using
tl:e full range of qualitative data-gathering and
analysis :nethods. Many of these ,pa;itative
approaches are presented elsewhere in :his
Handbrwk and •re discussed i:1 more deta ii i:1 a
text tor primary ca,e qualitative resea,c:1c,s
(Crabtree & Miller, 1999). Theci1allenge is to pre-
serve :he integrity of the question~ and to tra;\S·
late ,1ualitative coiled ion and analysis methods
i11lo dear and jargon-tree language wilhollt sacri-
ficing the metlmds integrity rooted tl:e soil
of disciplinary cor.versatior:s. A fundamental
tenet o" the proJ1osed translatio:1 is that the qm:s-
tion and clinical contc,,r t1rt primary; methods
must adjust to the clinical setting and the dinical
questions, Inter?retivc soda! science trndilionally
has :eared mixed methods became this ust:ally
meant :reating qualitative as only a method su·J•
servient to :ht positivist paradigm or materialis-
:ic inquiry. We not only imagiue a clinical
,ese,;.rC::t space where qualitat:ve methods are
empowered and where const:uctivis: a11d criti-
cal/ccologica'. parndigms are accepted bnt also
1:ote that it already exists. The key is to recognize
"INDtNG
common ground
•
CONTEXT
Concer"'s
Goals
\lu:ual
Roles
/
the si :nila:ity between the qualitativr ,escarch
process and the cl lnical process, particularly as ii
pr;:ser:ts itself in primary care.
Figure diagran1s an idealiz.cd relation
s:iip-centercd din icaJ mebod propo.,ed as ~
model for family medicine (Stewart et at, 1995;
Tresolini, 1994), Notice that the overall method
co:1.sists of fuur separate p,ocesses: explorir:g,
understafl(::ng, :foding ronumm 1:1,round, and
e:1gaging :n self-reflect ion. These fo t;f processes
flow ~"½ uentally, 1ml they all iterate witr. each
other and the whole process usually cycles rr. Jlti·
pie times over tine for any given illness episoce.
For example, chronic ilh:ess ca:-e will occ·J :- over a
lifetime visits, whereas an episode of ear infec·
tion 1:1 av ni,]u ire onlv two visits (i, e., two i:era•
' '
tions of tbc clinical q'de). four clin:cal
processes direct! y correspond :o the four
?rocesse~ of qaalitative research, m:d th,·sc
lel processes arc illustrated in Figure (The
clinical equivalents are italicized brackets
above t'1 e research processes.)
Tl:e dinkia11 begins by gathering data using
µu,poseful or information-rich sampling. The
dinkian fiK·.ises his or her interviewing, obscrv•
in!'!, and touching around possible explanations
related to the pat:ent's ;)resenting concern or
opening story. Tl:c exploration seeks "disease"

information following the biomedical i:10del, but
the proces~ abu searches for :mde,~ta i:ding of
tht patient's l:ealth story and illne~8 experiem:e,
tspcc'a[y the patie:.t's ideas, expectations, and
feelings about his or he, concern and its effect on
everyday living, The c'.inician almost immediately
begins lo ana'.Y7£ data while continuing to
gather ;;,:ditional inform:llion, This analysis
to understand the patient', concern wit:iin :he
context his or her lilewodd personal, family,
and co:n munity s:ories, Tl1 :s understanding is
organized arm1:1d sensitizing co:1 ccpts, diagnostic
.:atego:ies, pcr~onal experience templates or
scripts, and connections looked lor and then cur-
robo=ate,; against the known e, idrncc. Using a
par:ic::iatory framework, the clinician pe~iodi-
shares the em crging understanding wi:r1 the
patient (o, others), a:id together they a corn-
m m1 inlerp:-cta:ion. Throughout this :te,ative
process, the din:cian is usi:ig sdl~ ret1edion,
sonal foelings, and inmi:Jan to inforr.1 the gather-
ing, analyzing, and interpre:ing, Tb? vi sit ends
when :he clinician and patient agree that they
have sufficient dal a (i.e., saturatio:1) lo implemei:t
an init:al course of actiou. The oulcome is a:1
eng,iging p'.an for the patie:n and a report
describing the encounter writt<'n (or dictated I by
the dinician. These repor:s occasionally undergo
peer review. This souncs like, looks like, and feels
like qualitative research, Howe,er, most clii:icians
co :mt know :t. Use diuirnl la::1guage to translate
q;1alitative methods and standards, Lc::t ·Js get
wworkl
H nally, notice how clinical ca,e also mirrors
the double helix RCT, ln both, simplified coher,
ence for action ("disease~] :s in c:yi:amic tension
with person,Jfsocial/cultural complexity t"ill-
ness" and ''hc-,dth story") and the tension is held
through the quest for care, that i,, thrnt:gh the
research quest:cr.s. Th is i~ more 1:;.,e1y when the
didcal or research proces~ is sim1.!1a:1eously par
ticipatory a:id cognizant of the power imbalance.~
inherent the rt:hitionships and in :he greater
heal ti: care system.All of the many voices must be
.sarfaced and atten:iun mu~! be paid lo them;
we r.1 t:st protect the q;iestions ,; nrl prevent them
from being co-opted and changed by hierarchy
Miller & Cr.ibtrt'e: c::nk:~l ~cse,1rcb 111 621
a:1d the ·oiomec ica1 ?a radign1- This :s the work
of de:nocratizing knowledge. Out of this fabrk of
relational nm;e;,, wifain gi ,en biocultural bour.c:-
a:-ics, are wuve:1 sen~e~. The methods mus~
lel the clinical process and provide sdf-critique
a:id correction. Tl:ls is the intersectio11 nf doing
sden~c and reflexivity.
Research Design
Research designs in di:, :.:al research inherently
require multimethod thinking and critical ,wJ!ti-
plisr:1, wit-: the particJ!ar combinations o" data-
g<1thering and analysis!interpretalion approaches
be:ng driven h)· t:te researd1 quesllon and the clin-
ical conteKt. T:1cre are intbite possibilities for
integrating qualitative ;;nd quantitative methods,
with the design being cre-atcd for each study and
the qualitative aspects often evo'.ving as a study
progresses in response to the emcrg'r:g ques:ions.
P..i.rtidpatory research appmaches, in particular,
ust:ally in~olvc a more emergent design prnccss, In
c1bical research, research desi"r.s,, n:av' be whn:1>;'
qualitative (Shepherd, Hattersley, & Spt:rkes, 2000)
or qusntitative, ii:duding the use of a 3[ng,e
method, but are incrcasingly combinations of
these in what has bet:n refcrrcc: to as r:iixed meth-
ods (Buri.an, 2004; Crcsw,•11, 21103; Creswell,
f,etters, & lvankova, 2004; Tashak~ori & Teddlie,
:998). Clinical researchers must n:aintaii: multi-
method thinking and remain free :o mix am:
match methods as driven by particular clinically
based qm.'litio:1s.
There a,e many q ucstions and contexts 1:1.at
require only a single method; however, sir.gle-
n:cthod d~igns should still be consicered within
a multirm:::hod context. w:,en the ir.vest:gator
slal'ls with the qi:estion and considers all possible
rr:ethods before deciding that a single method is
appropriate for the question, he or she is main•
talning r:rnltimchod thinking, :Vfost c'.inkal
research questions arc n:ore complex anci recuirc
mi:ltiple approaches. Particular mixed inet:1.od
combi r:a:ions of qmCtative and quantitative
mcthods an: genernll y prrsented in term~ of
typologies of multimethod desig11s (Cresweil,
2003; Stange, Mi:le!, Crabtree, O'Connor, &
 621 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 24

(E:<plorlng Process) \Re!lection!lnlul!ion)

Gathering Process Reflexivlly Process +-,.
/ .- -----------"" "'"'

'
Samplngl

I
C::,,loctlng

(Finding Common Ground)

Interpretive Proceu
, , . - - - - - - - .. - - 1 - - - - - - - .. - - - -
____ !___________________
'' -
•
' \'-- '
(Docume,latior)
\
'
Descr,blng
- 7' , Representirg
the account
. . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · 1 ··,..,,....,.., , _ ,

Analysis Process
/

''

I
Connecting Corrobora:ing
J
Leglllmaling

Figure 24.3. Qualitative Researc:i Proces, ar:d <Jinkal P~rallels

Zyzanski, I994 ). !n actual practice, typolo- multifaceted an<l cannot be addressed in a single
gies are too prescriptive and ter.d to oversimplify study:' lo constructin!!v the desif,in, the dir.kal
C

the complex dance of the research process. I11 con-
ceptualizing a study, the dinicnl investigator cre-
ate~ a design from the full range of data collection
and analysis tools, much like a child makes cre-
ations from the sticks and wheels of"Tinker Toyi,"
or parts fro • a "Lego" set There are airplanes,
cars, windmi!ls, and buildfogs, bu! they are rarely
exactly alike.
One dimension of multimethod design is
!he longitudinal nature of the resea:cl: process.
Most dinica: resea:ch questions are complex and
researcher is constantly balancing t:1c desire to
folly ad dress the question with the foasibility of
being able to complete th study. Narrowing the
focus potential:y comprurnises the integrity of the
Guestion, whereas trying to accomplish too much
can be overwhelming and possibly no: fund-
able. Thus, in conceptualizing study designs, the
resrarcher rr.ay do a series of studies :n a longitu-
dinal process that fits the larger research agenda.
How a design is finally put togethc'r depe:ids on
the questions and t~e set:ing. Snadden and Brown
D991) wondered how stigmatization affected
adults with asthma. Amwering this question
required two stt>ps. Fi rs:, they identified patients
with asthma who felt that tl:ey were stigrr:atizcd,
and then they explored the ~1erceived effect of that
stigmatizatiun on the patient~' lives. The design
solw;.'<l these issues by initially using a question•
n,iire mcasur ing at:itudes com:e,ning asthma to
it:ent :fy resp on dents reporting high levels of
stigma. These individc1als we:l' thtn :ntervie,..,red
'.nterpretivc interview and analysis methods.
Multl?l~ methods can alsc be directly
grated w ilhin a single study in a number of w~ys,
Fm example, sometimes it :nay be nelpful to con-
d:ict two inde?endent studies conrn,rently on the
same study popJ!ation and then to rnnverge the
results. Ths is the approach reco:nmeoded fur
the double heb: RCT (\\'iles, 1998; Will:ns, 1991 ).
Another widely :iscd apprnac:1 to designing mu!•
timethod research :s to integrate multiple mcth·
ods more intimatdy within a single research
stLJdy. for example, Borkan, Quirk, a:1d Sullivan
( 1991) r:oticed that b::eakir:g a hip was ofte1: a
turning point toward death for many clde rly
patient,. They puzzled about what distir:gui.,hed
those persons from other; who had recovered
with minimal complications. The research litera-
ture d:d not reveal any obvious traditional bio-
medical fucto:s. They wondered whether patter.ts'
s:mics about fae fractures had any connection
with the outcomes. Thev• used an epidemiolo~:cal ¥
cross-sectional design with a sample of hospita: ·
ized elderly patients with l:ip fractures. Multiple
biomedical indicators we:-e measared as indepen•
dent variables along with rehabilitation oi.:::ome
measure~ as the dependent val'iab:e. There was
nothing unusual here, ar:d this design would
ensure acceptance by the intended clinical audi-
ence. Wnar distinguish es this study is that the
researcherli also conducted depth interviews with
each patie:it concerning how he or she understood
:he hip fracture w:fiin his or her life story. Several
distingui~hable injury narratives emerged. These
were coded and entered as another :ndependent
variable in the stat:stkal outco:ne modelbg. The
narrative type was :he n:ost powerful predictor of
renabilitation ou:::ome.
\'Vhen discussing qualitative research design
with clinicians and patients, we have s[mpHfied the
jarg(J:1. The data•galheri:ig method~ are diviced
into inlerviewing, obs er, ing, and reviewing docu-
ment, (indurling video1apes). Interviews are fur-
ther subdivided ir::o de;,:h, focus grm:p, and
ethnographic (or key informanl) (M:tchdl, 1998)-
Participant observation is described as either S:'lort
term or prolonged, Instead of using the jargon of
grounded t henry, phenm:1enology, ethnography,
and herrr:eneutks, we frame the :nany traditions
and technique, of ,malysis as a "dance of inte:--
pi-efation" in which tl::ree idealized organizhg
stylcs-i:mnersion/crystalliza1:on, editing, and
template (for delaib, s.:e figure and .V: illcr &
Crabt:-ee, I999a)-promote the dynamic, creativt::,
iterative, yet disciplined cmft of qualitative inte~•
pretation. All th rec organizing styles may be used
at some time during the diflcrent gatl:ering!inter-
preling iterations of a particular re~can:h project.
Putting It All 'fogeth er
To further L'.crr.m:stratc the u~e of a muhi-
melhod framcwo,k, we provide an overview a
lungitudii:al series of four federall;' fonced stud-
ies fucu sing on family medic' m: p,,t:e,n~ uf ca,e
and change (Crabtree, Mi:lcr, Aita. Floc;i:e, &
Stange, l 998; Crabtree, Miller, & Stange, 200 I;
Goodwin et al., 2001; S:ange el al, 1998). These
studies all were fm:ded <er;,ar, by large fode,al
grants, providing evidenc1: uf w:der acceptar.cc of
fae multimeth od approach (for n:ore details on
funding qJ?J::ative research, see Saukko, chap. 13,
t:iis volume).
The ~atior.al Cancer Institute funde{: the
Direct Observatior. Primary Care ('.:>OPC)
study. The DOPC study was designed to illumi·
nate the "black box" of di :1 kal ~,,, .. ,,.."' by
describing patient vis:ts to famLy physiciar:s :n
comm uni :y practicrs with a special emphasis
on the delivery of prcver.tive hea'.:n ,ervkes. This
largely quanlita:i\·e ,ro,s-seclional descriptive
study :ocused on the content and context of the
!lutpatie::it visit. Data were obtained through the
dirc,:t observation of pafamt vi~ils using ,1 variation
the highly structured Davis Observation Code
 624 111 IIAND'lOOK OF QUALITAl'IVl: RESEARCH-CHAPTER 24

Immersion/Crystal 11:mth:m Editing Template

Interpreter Temolatef
lnterpreler
(Editor) code b:rok
(Reflectl11e Particlpantl
L •·
l •.
j
Aepon -
, • +
TEXT
legitimallng ,.. ,_ t -
Corrooorati,g/ :::Jaoort 'I\: I ;:;;XI _._._.,..,.,., V
leg11,matlng
' V

R
epo·t ._
TEXT
-
Corrob:ratingf
le gill --;at:ng
Identify

V
u.,11s
r lden:ify Units

i
De\/elop Revlsetoon
cal,igories categories

i: I
Crystallize __,/
Connecllons
L
Revise/sort
catagorles

i
Conrecl ng - - - '
i
Conm;cting

Figure 24.4. Ilfag,ammatk Representa1 ion o: )ifferent Organir.ing Styles of Amllysis

Soc:rcc: C1,1btree ,md Mil:er (1999).

(Callahan & 3e rtakis, l 991 ) along with checklists
o:· t:1e patient v:sit, patitn: exit quest:or:naircs,
:necical record reviews, billing data abstractions,
ar:d pl:yskian questionnaire~. To supplement and
enhana; these quantit:dve riata, research n:irses
di.:tutcd observ,donal field notes im • e&atcly
after each \ii&it :o provide richer descriptions of
the variables ur:der study. This ethnographic data
were irr: pressiodst le and focused on describing
the ;,ractice in terms of key features such a:, the
pr ,1,tice location, o:Tic,; relationsl:lps, a nc. how the
practice :·unctioned. Tiese data ev!"ntually totalt.'l:
more tian 2,000 pages of field notes from obser•
vation of 138 physida11S in 84 diffe:ent fa • ily
medicine offices. The quant::ative descrbtions
provided valuable insight;; into the overall con-
tent of farr:ily medicine (Stange et aL 1998) as
wdl as '.n:o many other facets of fumily medic:ne
(see the .May 1998 issue of the /ournal of Family
Practice), The qualitative field nt1tes identified a
long list nf key features that appear to be impo::-
tant for understanding how practices operate on
a day-to-day basis, particularly in the deli very
of prevcf'.tive service~ (Crabtree et al, 1998 ). 'T'l:e
qua'.ita:ive data were also used to formulate a new
theoretical model of practice organization based
on complexi:y :hcory that now provides the b;;sis
for subsequent federally funded studies (M illcr,
Cra·:i:ree, Mdkniel, & Sta :ige, 1998).
The Prevention and Competing Demands ln
Primary Care (P&CD) study was funded by the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as a
follow-up :>OPC study to provide a more
in-dc:plh look al how t~e prnctke and the people
in the practice worked together. In the P&CD
study, 18 practices were purposefully selected lo
include some that were doing really well in deliv-
ering prcver:tive services and others that were
doing less well. lrained observers spent wee:<s in
each pra,tke observing, taking detailed notes
about how the organization functioned, and talk-
ing to people using key in formant and depth 11:ter
views. They observed 30 encounters with each
clinician and dictated fie;d notes in the form of a
chronology what went on during the ern;oi.: ll ·
:ers. Th is la:i,;Jy qualitative study helped lo refine
the theoretical n:odel developed in the l)OPC
study (Miller, McDaniel, Cm:mec, & Stange, 20:H).
The DOPC and P&CU stuc.ies ,Erectly c:ial·
lenged the iceology of standardization and

commocificat:on of health care. Mulliple analyses
elucidate(: the tremendous var'.at:m; that exists
in practice organizat:on and clinical care. Much of
,his variation was beneficial along with some
p:uble:natic variation. ·· hus, we see dinidans pr:•
oriti:r.ing care in ongoing continuous relationships
with patients (Flocke, Millcr, & c~abtree. 2002)
ar.d opportunisticaLy rn:Joring tobacco coun
seling (Jaen et aL, 200 l) while at the srcme time
overp:-escribir.g anti:iiotics fo:: upper respiratory
infections (Scott et aL, 200 l) or failing to manage
ohvious depres~ion (R11binso:1 et al., ZO(JI ).
Practices themseh•es, as co:nplex organizationo,
exhibited much variation, hcluding how faey hire
and use staff (Aita et al. 2001) or respond to hos-
pital ownership (Tallia et al., 2003 ). Usbg con-
cepts from family systems ('.\AcGoldrick, Gerson,
& Shellenberger, 1999), it was possible to identify
different w·;1ys in which practices organize them-
selves and to diagra,n pat:erns of c,1mmu1; kation
in a "practke genogram" (Mcilvain, Crnbtree,
Medder, Stange, & Miller, 1998). Urban practices
were very different frum I ;.1nd practices, which in
turn were very different :rum suburban pract:ces
. .
(Pul, Rouse, Zvzanski, Rasmusse:1, & Crabtree,
200 I). The larger heal:h care sysiem also created
variation a:1d s1.:;rprise. For examp:e, 24% of
patients i:1 :nanaged care had to cha:,ge their
physicians during a 2-yl!'.ir pedod in the DOI'(
study, creating disrnntinuity in care of many
patients (Flocke, Stange, & Zy;,,anski, 1997).
Based on insights from the DOl'C ai,d P&CD
studies, we cevc:oped an urgar:izational change
model for tailoring intervendons to be foca: con·
text that incor;niratcd characteristics of patients,
clinicians, the dinkal encounter, the praclio,,
,'.,e community, and the larger health system.
This model was based on our emerging under-
standing of complexity theory anc was initial!)·
tested in a 'lational C.mcer Institute-faaded clin-
ical trial called the Sti;dy to Enhance Prevention
by Understanding Practice (STEP· UP). The
STEP-UP interven,ion 7llndomized 80 practices
in Ohio and 11sec an initial 2- to 5-day mixed
methods assessment of tl:e practice to provide
insights for tailoring feedback to the practke (an
example of a double helix trial design). Based on
Miller & Crnbtree: Clinical Resean:::: Ill 5Z5
the assessment, a facilitator would go back to the
practice, show the :>ractitio11ers their genogra1:i,
give them a si.: mmary report, and then negotiate a
prevention-orknted :1:tervenfam. The STEP-UP
intervention resu'.:ed in a significant enhancement
in the delivery of global preventive services b the
interventiun prac:kcs (as opposed to the control
practices) over a 12-month period, a change that
has been sustained fur more than 3 y,;:ars the
intervention (Goodwin et aL, 200 I ).
An analysis of the qualitative field notes
recorded during the STEP-'JP intervention was
used to develop a xfined model of orga:1:zational
change that seeks to s:imulate self-re:lective and
ongoing '.earning in pmctice,. This a1:alysis, which
'ocused on discovering why the inter11enti on
worked in some p;aces and nor in others, led to
the >lational Heart. Lung, and Hlood Irutitute
(NHLBl)-fonded Using Lea:ning ·1eam, for
Ref:ective Adaptatirn: ([IJRA) study. The UI:fRA
study is a collaborative partcipatory research
.;;tudy using a couble helix design. In this study,
an initial asse,sme:1t of the organization by means
a 2-week multime:hod assessment process
(MAP) is used tu stimulate a reflective adaptation
process (RAP), whkh is an i:~;ative team-building
process conhining asses~ment feedback with
fad Ii :ation of learn:ng tt'ams in the prarti ce.
Patients are required as participant& on these
lear:is. The hypothesis um::erly:ng the UIJRA
stucy :s th.it change in overall pradice processes
will simultaneously affect a wide range of out-
..:omes, including the organizational rnltnre and
dir: ical care si:ch as smoking ressati on connselir:g
and the n:anagement of chronic illnesses (e.g-,
hype,lipidemia. hypertension, diabetes, asthma).
A research design has evolved from this series
of studies that might best be character'.z:ed as an
in-dept!: rnrr:parative case s:udy of family medi-
d11 e offices using ethnograph le techniqi:es and
a multimethod participatory cJ:iirnl trial using
,omplcx' ty theory to guide an intcrvent:onal
s:ralegy. ·:he potential for mull isite, mriltimethod
collabora:ive studies at grour.d level is demon-
strated in the progressior. from a multimclhod
obsrrvatior.al study (DOPC) to an in-depth
comparative case study (?&CD), which then led
62ii Ill HAl\'OROOK Of, QlALIJA:flVE RESEARCJ-l-CHAPTER
to an intervention tria; that is grou11ded in
insigh:s from the previous work (STEP-UP). T;1i~
finally resulted in a participatory collaboration
with practices rnd paticn~s (UITRA).
An impo:1:am asprct of all of these studies is
their use of a collaborative resean::h team (Miller,
1994). The teal'!'. indi.:des phy,cidans, nurses, cpi-
der:1'ologis:s, s1a1isticians, psychologists, an!hro-
po:ogists, ccm:omists. and sodo:ogists. We design
the s:udy together, meet frequently during 1he study
to ~eview the qual:tative c.ata a:1d make adjus:-
mer.lil to study,and do ir.tensive :-eflexivity work
(Barry, Britten. Barber, Bradley.& Stevenson, 1999).
This long-term collaborative tea:nwork has enabled
the g1uLtp to expa ,1d ii~ use of qi:a litative :nrthods
and its opemti ng paradign1s.
Wriririg Srra1egfe,
Tr.ere are so:ue sped '.tc writing strategies that
facilitate con:municarion of and re.:ept'vity to
qualitative di:Jkal research (Ric:iardson, :990:
Wolcott, l 990). The rno,t important is avoiding
jargon and keeping lang:iage simple and concrete.
Usiq;; typologies and continua a, rhetorical
f~ames is helpful becaase these in'tially appear
to be rntional .;nd measur,,':)ie-quaEtles valued
by tradtional c:inkal r>'.~,~~ ·,,·r Interpretive
aspects can be r:uiir.tai ned by emphasizing cul-
tu ,al/historica I andfor inductive cm:structior,
and by grounding in lived clinical expe~icnce. It is
also useful to com:nunkate either iJ1 the biomed-
kal:y dominant visua: mode, through the use of
rabies, charts, diagrams, and data matrices, or
through the dir:k:ally familiar na,ralive mode of
case reports, Narrative reports often taie the form
of first-person ,,oice pathographies (:!fawkin,,
1993) or first-person accoun:s by phrsicians of
their patient encounters (Loxterkamp, 1997;
Sacks, 1984). The strategy of autl:oeth :1 ography,
where ~he voice of the researcher as deeply
personal subject is explicitly woven into the co:i-
text of social issues hci ng researcht:d. ~!so
resonates with the chi,ical narrative mode
(Elljngson, 1998; Ellis & llocnner, 1996).
The dominrmt audience for d:nical research
perceives the issues of"validity;' "reliability;' and
''gencralizabilit( as ~dentific famlamcntalis;
dngrm, resulting in heightened co:1ccrns nbou:
h i11s. ·:·hr collaborative multi:ne:hod study of
Oaly and McDonald ( 1992) descibcd the impac:
of echocard:ography on patients' pcrce:,:ions o'
self. Their story described how difficult it can be
:o till :he soil: "The biggest problem was that
physicians saw qualitaLive research me~hods
as ... prone to bias. Highly structured methods
of analyzing c_"Ja: i tative data were effectively
used ... and are proba ::ily necessary for 'covering
one's hack' in 11:ui:idisdplir:ary teams" (p. 416).
They pre1,ented stra~egies for (Jt:11litative
resea~chers to translate their insights and bu:'.d
1t1rnado-pmof hedges around their fid<l s. The
methucologkal guidelines for quaJ1ti:ative meth-
ods are not re;evant for qualitative d inical
re,,earchcrs. The er'. kria for qualitative clinical
research can be translated for din ical audic:1 ces
in the for:n of telli:lg methodologio,lly, r11etori-
ca:Iy, and dinically co,1vi r.cing stories.
Methodologirnlly crmvillci rrg sMries amwer
the question, "How was the rese<1rch des;gr:ed
and duue?" II is import.ml to make explkit how
and wl:y the re:;carc.h design, sar:1pJng strategies,
and data collcct:01, and analy;;fa techniques flt
qucstioc and research context as discussed earlier
in this chapter. It is helpful to mention when tl:e
rese11rch desigu is cmss-sectiona:, prospective,
case-cont:ul, or s' r;iila r lo some other design
Imm observat:onal epidemiology (Ward, 1993)_
S::,edfic tec:rniques SJCh as triar.gula:ion,
member checking, .end searching for d'scon firm-
ing ev idc r:ce shoa:d also be addressed when
applicable (Malternd, 2001a, 20!1lb).
Relationsh:;:; is essential to the dir: ical experi-
ence, Kahn (1993) propu,ed that a :anguage of
relationshi;i be used to judge the methodological
11dequacy of clinical ,1nal itati ve research.A method•
ologka:ly conv:ndng story addresses three differ-
ent relationships; [a) lhe iiwest~,;itor's relationship
wi1h irrfi,rnumt~. :10:ing how each inlluem:es the
otb:r du,ing the :esearch process, (h) the reta1fon-
s'1ip wirh the d,ua, partici::arly the circularity or
ltcratlvt> aspects of the research experience, ,:r.d
' with the readers, so that the
(c\. the relatfl:mshitJ
researd1er's authorial intent is de-.ir,

One popular approach to he.pir:g primary ca,c
clinicians hern'Tle "inforrr:atinn rnaslcrs'' imulves
teac'.1ing them to recognize patien:-orier:red evi-
dence that mattes (POEMS) (Slaw~o:1 et aL
1994). The first step is to scan an artidc's ah,t:-ac~
and determine whc::icr the results relate to out•
come, that are cnm mun or importan: in everyday
clinical prac:ke .i:1d matter to patient, a:id
whether tile results wou Id 1,otcntia]y change
.
, currentv do in practice. If the answers
what vou
are then the second ;tep is to read the art:de
and decide wl:cther the wndus:or:s are method-
ulogkally sound. There are simple rme-page
checklists for q m1ntitative studies. The following,
b an effort to en brnce accessibility and quality
while avoidng the checklist format that we con•
ccmned earlier, was dcvdoped by the authors and
is cur:-e:1tly liei:ig used for evaluating qualitai:ve
artidcs:
L Is the merhod apprnpriatt: for 1hc question?
2. ls the ,amplir:j,! adequ;Jle and i nforma:iDn r:ch?
3. Is th,· res,:;~rch p:-oc:ess iterative?
,;, Is the .:1terpretive process thoroJgh anr dearly
drs,ribed?
5. ls retl.:xivit:, addressed?
'Ne hope t:iat by ush:g a qui;;slion format and
leaving space for interpretatinn, there is lmth ~.1:·-
ficient flexibility for creativity am: sufficienr gnid-
a:1cc for assura:1ce of quality. A methodologkally
convincing story ls not one tha: pleases a positivist
or a pos:pllsit:visl; rather, it is one that pleases
qua] b,tive research peers, clinicians, and p:;titnts,
Thu~, the use of explicit guidelines a11d checklists
is problematic and mm,t :ie tempered with a large
dose of flexibility so as :10t to put off the dnlng of
quafaative research [Chapple & Rogers, I 'i9l'l). Th:
preceding approad: is consis:ent with Althck.e
and ]o::mun's ( 1998) idea of''va;idity-as-reflex:ve•
a::coimtiny;' where the re.scarc:1er o: team, the
sense-making pmcesse~, and :he question ur :opk
are in interaction v,ith a focus on how meanings
are ::onstructed. This :s also a good dcsc=iption of
the validity process in clinical care.
Miller & Crabtree: Clinirnl Rt:>semch • ,,n
A rhetoricali:1 convincing ;tory
/ '
answers the
quest:or:, "How believable is t'i is tcxff' :he read,
ers are d~awn :ntu the story and begin imagining
that the story is ab,nt t'ie:n. \'Jhen this occurs, the
conclusions make more sense for the readers. The
language and style of writing need to be familiar
to the audience. Some of the quotatio:1s and
observatio:1, selected to illustrate inter::irerations
also need :o retlect the readers' cx,>i:rie:1ce and/or
va'.Jes. A rhetorically convindng story assures the
readers that you have "w,tlked ir. their shoes!'
Jlunge ( 1961) rev:e.ved some of the fcatJ res t:iat
cha:-actcri,c a be:ievahle storr,
A dinirni/y convincing stor; answers the qucs•
tions, "Does this study make di:1:cal sense?" am:
"How does this study help in the care of patients?"
(Giacomini & Coo;.., 2000) A story is clinically con-
vincing if it successfally add,esses three teaturet>
that are important in the clinica: research space.
The question must matter lo dinical participants,
and the results n:ust spedtkally tiddress that ques-
1'.on. This us'Jally ,;1eans that :;tter:t:o:i is dirct.1Cd to
the pragmatic i:,~ervcntion and policy focus the
clinical wor:d. audience or stakeholders are also
diuical participants for wh(J:n the :esults matte~.
and this should be obviou, in the text. Finally, the
text reveals assumptions about the physicalibdmv-
loral, socia/er:1ut'.o:1al, cultural/historical, rmd/ur
spiritual aspects of dinkal participants' bodies,
lives, a:id/or power. It is 1r,ade dear to :he readers
who ber:efits most from the story:
,'\ clinically cmwincing story is alw one that
enriches :he poss::ii:ities for a narrative medici nc
(Brody, 2003; Greenhalgh & Hi:rwirz, . 998), [n
narrative-based the clinician l!iews his or
her primary task as part:i ering with the patient
to create new s:ories from the bmke:i lines. '.:'his
:nvolvcs lcarr:i:lg the patient's language and dis-
covering ,he life coi:texts ar:d plan~ that n:ake
sense of it (Launer, 2002), This sound, like gm1d
clinkal research. When pus,ihlt:, anicula~c this
connection, es?ecially ir: the discussion section
of a manuscript The work of Prank 0995) and
:i is concept~ of rc:stit utioo, qnes:, a:id chaos
narratives dted earlier are also quitc rdevaut here.
Q1mlimtive clinical ~eseurch is convincing if
the methods are appropriate for the qi:estion and
623 11 HA~DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 24
the investigator's relationship with informants,
data, and audience are dearly addres,ed; if the
audien,e recogniies itself in the findings; and if
the que~lion and results matter to clinical pa:-tic•
ipant.~. AII of these criteria are more ea~ily satis•
fled if a collaborative team does the research.
When this team includes clinical partidoan:s,
it creates a corr:munity of discourse where con-
versations at ground level can grow (Jenz-Pen hey
&: M·Jr<loch, 1993).
Even when the writing is dear and the results
are convincing, It is still a cha[enge to find a pub-
lishing venue. Fortunately, the opfons are
improving. Qi:alitative clinical research is widely
presented and publisheci in p,imary care internal
medicine and family med.id ne, nursir.g, socia I
work, and edu rntior:al researc.1 books and jour•
nals. Much. of th is success over the past two
decades ha.s :ieen due to specific efrorts to trans-
late am: introduce qualitative resea::d: in work
shops within professional meetings, through
r.ewsletters, and fa rough methods' ?Uhl kations
emphasizi:lg clinical usefulness. Qualitative clini-
cal research is now appearing in clinical journals,
espedally in the fie:d of primary care, Qu,1/itative
Health Research; Culture, Medicine, ,md P5ychi-
atry; Health; and Social Science and Medicine
serve as ·:iridge-b;iilding publications with a
:iearly exdusive or significa:it er:1phasis on quali-
tative din:cal researc!J.. A[ of the primary care
journals have reviewers trainee in qualitallve
research and publish qualitali ve studies. The
Annals oJ Family Medid11e provides space on its
½i.>b site to ''publish" supplementary materials,
thereby making it possible to cur.dense articles
into the space requirements of medical journals,
The next steps are to improve ways of cor:1muni-
cating results to the patient population and inter-
national community. The use of the Web may
bewme a valuable means of presenting findings
to patients and tr.e broader community.
ml CuKTCAL R1:1SEAR• 1 BELOW GROUNI)
Connect/om are mad,! slowly, sometimes
they grow undergmund. You canno! tell
aiways by- looking what is happening.
,'vl?re than h,iff a trC<: is ,rm,,v1 out in the
soil under your Penetrate quietly as
rhe earrhwonn that hlows nn trumpet.
--Continuation of Marge Piercy',
"The Seven of Pentacle,"
Still, the tornado approaches. When it will
arrive. within our generation's lifetime or that of
our grandchildren, is difficdt to predict. Wh.at we
believe is 1ha1 :he cu ,rent destruct'on of the
earth's life support systems, the widening gap
between the rich and the poor, and all of the pow-
ers and structure~ that currer.1:y maintain this
oppression of our eart'i com mun: ty are ultJn:ately
unsustainable and self-destructive, This m our
opin:or., the most i:nportant di.:lical and hea:6
pro':ilem for our tin:e, Acknowledging this, how
do we, as indi v '.duals and clir,kal researchers,
respond? We are not sure. We are not confident
tr.at the clinical research ahm1e groJ:!d is suffi-
dent to brir.g about the necessary cbange, We are
mora[y uncomfortable with leaving that cbange
to o~he,s. In tbs section, we i:wite you into our
conversation underground-into our own per-
sona: stnggles, from positio:is of power, to main-
tain intcg:-ity and to be citizens work'ng for :he
democracy and health of all life. Join with us, in
so:idarity as dinka: researcl:crs and as love:s
of the t:arlh, on our burrowing toward whole-
ness. This is "ecological identity" work--ushg
direct experience wltt: natu::e and others ''as a
framework for ?ersonal decisions, professional
chokes, political actions, ar.d s;,iribal inquiry"
(Thomashow, •996, p, xiii), Our name for this
pilgri r:iage below ground is solidarity research.
Clinical research above ground is opportunis-
tic, challengbg, l:elpful, and prn:ective. It is
public; it complicates and addresses in::;iortant
clhirnl questions and works for change. It is.
about career, rr.aki r.g a livi:lg, getti:!g published,
holding positions of power, and openly challeng•
ing power, It seeks to :nix method$ and create new
rel "tion,hips, to surface tl:e hidden, and to protect
th.e miracle of life (Berry, 21100) where possible.
These efforts at optimizing the abi;ity to :unction
within a dangerously ':iroken system are critically
i:nportant, ar:d (it seems to us) :hey will nut be

enough. The research plants that bloo:n in tr.e
sunshine, our works above gro.:nd, are only as
healthy as the roots and ri,i:mmes that sustain us.
What supports our per,er.al integrlty a:1d whole-
ness, keeps our senses opc:i to the cries of suffer-
ing and aler: to hidden danger, nourishes our
vi&:or: and deep inlerdependem:e, and helps us
to image ar.d experience t:ealth as 1:1embership
(Be:-ry, 2000)r We suggest that t:iese :asks call for
clinical research below grour.d. ibis could be a
solida:ity research that nourishes the work above
gmund. tenaciously grounds us to our earth com-
nmr. ity ( Rasmus5en, l996 ), and ensures an
qmitc soil and seed for life before and atrer the
tornado ;:;asses.
Solidar i:y research might he the proactive
work building preparing for the foture. This
could be our r.ight wor~, j,faybe this is where we
,ioin with resistance movements and new alten:a•
tive structures arising around the world a:td,
using 01:r research skills, we work, learn, and grow
with them to create a life tl:at can emerge before
and after the tor:iado (Perlas, 2000). This is soli-
darity research. The nan,e derives f:um the coop-
erative economics in Brniil currnl'c:ing local
alterr.at:\les togNher to create netwo:-ks of resis-
tance to elite corporate globatzation that is called
economit. $O!idaria, that ls, solit:arity econorr.ics.
We propose that solidari :y res,ear,c-:i represents
:nquiry and learning that increase ,olidaril y with
our selves as whole persons and increase solidar -
itv with our earth communitv and with other
' '
communities of resis:a:ice. lt is generating hetter
questions "br our above ground resca:-cr:. It is
story sharing, It is relationships and building
rnmrr.u:iity, It is mysticism-the p:-ayer, :nusic,
ar:d poetry that enEvcn comrr:unity and give it
spirit It is growing love.
Foundational sources for our currer.t under -
standi;ig ar.c development of solidarity research
indJdc the work of Paulo Freire, !van l!Ech, and
Vandana Shiva. Freir~ ( 1970 l emphasized the
importa:ice of words as praxis-as part of an
actitn!reflection cycle-and of working db:ctly
with oppressed rhroagh "dialogics" with the
of der.1ocrati2ing culmre and raisi:lg critical
co:1sciousness or .-onscicmizai,:ao. We mus: "learn
Mit:er & Crnbtr,:c: C: ir1kal Rc,earch Ill 629
'.1ow and what the people know:' We r:11,st "learn
w1t:1 oppressed the indisper.sable ,opes of
their resistance" ( l'rcire, 1998, p. 27 3), 1J'.ch ( 1970,
l 976} highlighted tl:c i:nµorlam:t'. of creaLing
alternative local systems of mutual support to
resist 6e current d isempowcri ng ir.sti:ul ions
of education and hea:~h care. Sl:iva ( 1994) articu-
lated ami demonstrated, wi•.:, her work i:1 India,
the power of linking ecology, feminism, and social
iustke concerns to local resistance efforts against
corporate globalizatlo:i threatening their habitat
and way oflife.
The resistance to global cor;:iorate capitalism
and the work of solidarity economics and politics
is present, in i;ome form, :n nearly every nation
(Notes From Nowhere, 2003), People dreaming
and xweavl1,g the power to choose and shape
al~e~nativc ways ofliving net'd the s~:lls of clinic-al
researchers to help them 11ame, track, and learn
from the stories of their jour:iey~. This is where
we, as solidarity researchers, can )Oin in the
reclairr:ing and can help "to ,ipen a crack in
history" (Ponce de Leo!'., 2001, p. 21 fi).
Solidarity research, as we curre1:(y t:1:der-
stand it, involves no new method, or gra:id new
scheme; it :s quieter than that. It docs build on the
co:-e concepts related to democratizing k:mwl-
edge, and it emphasizes at leas: three related
assumpfons, namely that (a) lite is in1rrdepe11-
dent, diverse, a,wavs ~hanging, and sustainable;
(':) l all action, induding doing science, is moral
activity; and (c) mora: activit11 s:10:1ld sus:ain the
common good, Co:11mon good is um.!erstood
to mean those plura]stic, soc:a[, a1:d ecolugkal
conditions and ?rocesses that seek tr:c good of a]
and are arrived at thro·wgh public interaction that
expresses dif:erences and seeks to in elude the
perspec~iYes the mo:-e vulnerable-tr: other
words, participatory d.:;:nocracy (Moe-Lobeda,
2002), Solidarity researd1, we propose, is abou,
local, participatory, community-based inquiry
and learning faat is connected with , i:n liar activ-
ities around the globe. This work i~ not usually
funded a11d often occurs after hours, but i: can
of:en be woven into existing projects a:,d every-
day activities in the workplace. It is mor<:c aboJt how
we and our families and colleagues live our lives
 630 111. HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCE-CHAPTER 24
and with whom and what we are in relationship
and growing solidarity. Some of the purposes
of solidarity 'Cscarch could be the :ollowing:
(a) learning from other.:; who are in different
ci,cumstances, (b) documeming ar:c trutr telling
(tl:c acts of tcstir:10r.y and wit:1css )1 ( c) restoring
and ourlur:ng :>ersonal and local community
health, a:1d (d) weavii:g con :iections wllh other
con:munitie~ uf resistar:cc around the globe. All
four of !htse could inform, support, and maybe
even tra nsfo,m the dinka; research that we do
a·::iove gmund. So, what cou:d solidarity relicarch
actually look Iike?
We suggest a three-step process: identify,
com:ccl, <Ind create in solidarity. Solidarity
rcsc,1rch could begin br ldentff'yi ng alternative
kind.s of reforionships and clinical practices occur-
:ing in our own commm:ities. W'here are people
already meetir.g their clinical needs through prac•
ticei, that vabc democ:atk participatio:1,coopera
till:i, divcrsi:y, sustainability. testimony, and direct
experience with nature~ Exampleg 'rom our own
exprrirrm: include local organic farming coopera·
tives, do:nestic violence shelters, drur:i:ning dr·
des, a conservancy grrn.:? working to restore ar:d
protect a k1cal faith-based groups
workiug with the horr.eless and malnourished,
and cm:ummity groups helping to meet tl:e health
care m:eds of latchkey children and recent
His;:,anic immig~;mts. ::nag:1:e the possi;Jfaties if
these gmups could connected!
The next ~tep, after .ioining with identified
groups, could be to rnrmcct them with each other
and begin the p,ocess of developing relationships
of r.ntual support. Prc:re's dialogk approach
might be particularly helpful in facilitating learn•
ing cor.nections that are empowering rather than
paternalistic. T::esc connections should be about
building mc,mingful and accountable relation·
ships from which concrete and practical exchanges,
ne>n questions and research a;)proaches, and strat ·
egy devc:op:nent e:uerge. The work of solidarity
research might be :o :iclp discover and document
the intercunnections between and among the
group~. How doc, the health u[ the :ocal river
relate to domestic viole:1,:e, homeles,;nes,, :11a]m; •
tridon, and hralrhy food sources' How coes
improvisational group drum:11ing help lo create
conum.nit y? O:ice local connect ions are estab
lished, consider connecting with similar commu·
nities and activities elsewhere in 1he larger region
and world. We have not yet foi::nd a place where
?eople are r.ot working to heal the wound, and
brnken-ness res dting from the inhere11: excesses
of colonialis:n, industrialis:n, and m'iirn.rism a:id
l:s current form as global corporate capita lis:n.
We are ir. the ea:ly stages of developing cormec-
tions with comnunitics of resistance in Maine
and Brazil, but the possib iIi ties are probably
un:i:nited. Keep expanding the circ~es of idenlifi·
cation from self to local neighborhood to global
commons.
It is hoped that, through the newly connected,
emergent, and dynamic networ'.<s, we can begin to
crea/e alternative institutions and economies, new
initiatives and cu1runm1i[y information systems,
and refreshed :maglnations. The specific role of
dinkal cesearchers would be to support all three
steps by witnessing what is occurring, growing
new embodied and em·:,edded knowle,ii;e, and
siaring in the empower:nent of all participants.
We c..111 ~hare lne s:ories and use them to enhance·
our dfr1ical resea.rch above ground. Just maybe,
solidarity research is the small-scale, human-
scale, local work interdependent with others
around our earth that we do together, subver·
sively. below gro'Jnd to reda:1::1 our homes and
selves as spaces and bodies of love, healing,
growth, ar:d solidarity.
Let t:.s imagine together. Jocelyn still works the
grill at a fast-food restaurant 1roile she takes
classes at the community college a degree in
aocia! work.Sl:e reads Fast food Nation (Schlosser,
2002) and no longer eats where works or at
any other fast- :ooc. restaurants. Her fan:.ily phys:
chm purchases a share in a local organic farm,
am: Jocelyn is able to barter for food at the same
farm by agreeing to help during harvest season.
The farmer also connects ier by v,ay of e-mail
wib a.1 organic cuffee collective in Chia11as,
Mexico. That cor:espondence connects !:er
with women's collectives in Ch:apas whose
members help to awa~en Jocelyn to the relation·
ships amor:g her life situation, heartburn,

fast-food resta•Jranls, :he ?urph: pill, and the
threat to the livelihoods and way of life o: her new
friends in Mexko. A dir:kal researcher in the
nursing department at a local ur:ivershy is a guest
lecturer at Jocelyn's cor:ununity college dass,
becomes interested i1: b:r story, and agrees to
help focelyn and her :a1:1ily p:1ysic'a11 establish a
hearrhnm recovery group. T:1e researcher is now
working with that group and the women's group
in Chiapas to design a collaborative parridpa-
tur y research project. Is this a story of solidarity
re~earch! Are you connected?
Ill Sm,tMARY
UvP ,is if you likr:d vour~el{, a rid ir
happen; re,, di out, ln,•ep reaching out,
kf!t!/J /,ringing fn. Thi, 15 how we are going
to liw, for a fong timf•: no! ativa~'S. for
ever)' gardener kn(:ws th,n ,lfter tllf' dig-
g!ng1 afrPr the plamir,g, aftu the long sea,
,011 !f:m.litig ,rnd gruwrh, rile
comes.
-Condud in g ,lanza of 'vlarge p· erc,-'s
·•Tho Seven of Per tac PS"
There are n:any clinical worlds. Each of th err:
is a 11 lacc where suppor: is sought and power is
i:woked. Tne clinical wo~ld and people's need for
support occ·Jr in nursing, primary healt'.1 care,
specialized medi rnl care, admin 'stralion and
management, education, soda! work, family ther-
apy, :r:ental health, public health, engineering,
law, comn:u nit y organizing, and international
activist work. In each of 6es~ worlds, tne,e are
questions emrrging fro:n practice. These arc the
questions, the settings, and 6e participants for
doing qualitative clinical research. This is where
the conversations start. Cli r.kal research is disci-
plined inquiry regarding t:1e condi:ions imd
processes that support and :iinder the restoration
and growth intcrdepe:-ident and sustahable
lif(',
People continue to meet in dinics, hoping to
weave a comfort:ng doth of support, but the cre-
ated rdatim:ships anti patterns are now more
varied, more co:r'using, and often too expensive.
V! ill er & Crabtree: Clink al Research Ill 63 l
Cor:cerns about access a:id cost r.iatter bur are
not adequately addressed without facing the abu,
.~ive and dismembering expejence of being a
woman in the clinic, the pervasive de;egitimat ion
of patient experience, the clinicians' increasing
sense of helpless imp:isonment, ar:d the mount-
prohlems, discontinuities, and cultural con-
within loca: comnunities. Knowing the
probabilities i, not enough and is often inappro•
p:fate. Ignoring the powerft:;, and often uncon-
scious, impa.:ts of elite corporate globali1.ation
and its ideology is morally dangerous (Coma rofi
& Comaroff, 200 i; R'tzer, 2001). The stories,
uniquenes~. and context are also esse:1tial tt,reads
iII the fabric Without tbem, care and moral dis-
course remain na:-rowly defined, our bodies and
lives remain fragmented, and power is imposed.
Jocelyn remains isolated and dependen: on her
purple pill. She and we need the breath of quaE ta-
live research. S'le and we need relationship
restored to the dinica: wor:d.
A decade has passer.. Joce:yr. is now a member
of a comm .mity health advisory rnuncil tbu pm
vides guidance fo, several loe<.l prin:ary care
pra,t ices and a regional hca: th network and
hosp; tal system. They are n,eeting with an
disdpli:iary !cam of researchers, clinicians, local
employers, p'rnrnmceutical indu,try representa-
tives, and a fd:ovr from the National Instimtes
of Health (NIH). This group is designing r, new
regional research initiative, jointly fonded by the
NIH and a lucal foundation, tnat will test a
pror., ising new approach to the care o[ GERV
using a douhle helix RCT design :ha: includes :he
elltensive use o: qualitative m,\thods. Tie analysis
of the qualitative data will o::cur independemly
from the RCT analysis and will be or.going
tl:rough the trial. Jocelyn is a me:nber of the qual-
itative a:1a:ysis leam, She has authority to end the
study for an)" r.:ason ilt any time. lmc~ine the pos,
sibil itv that "'.\lexium" becomes a nexus fo, bring-
' V
ir.g people :ogether to create ronsdentiza,iio.
Qualitative :net:iods are r.ecded now more
faan ever, but with a participatory, collaborative,
narrative, and mu:timethod twist. Qualitative
dinkal researchers must engage the d inical expe-
rience and its questions and :n:.ist practice humility
 111 HANDIJOOK 01' QUALITATIVE R85EARCH-CHAPTRR
and fidelity within a .:omr;mnity of discourse at
gmu nd lew-i. This is a d,,ngrrous-but excit: ng-
COll\'er,a1lon bcc"u,;e i1 promises that no one can
stav tht same. Beware the idol,,trv of cor.trol, that
' '
is, the idolatry of measuremer::. If meas·Jrement
is required, insist on iw,iting the patients and
dinkians into the research process, insist on the
precautionary principle, and insist on measuring
suffering and love. Conplicate the out com es.
Measure the da1:ce of atta;;:h:nents and
detad11nents, of mystery and and of
breathing and the r:1y1 hms of lite. Measure the
p~ncess of hea'. ing. Seek a heallhier story. Our
research needs to risk restoring relat:or:ship to the
clinical world, Clinical research can hea! by trans·
forming into [n time, all ideologies crum·
ble, power and healing begins, We cannm
prevent lor:1adoe~. Thank heaver:,, It is muc1
better than that. Go ir:m the woods or beside the
ocean. Join Jocelyn for the hi\r\tSI at the local
organic farm, l'raciice solidarity research! Do clin-
ical research above grou:1d that helps clinicians
and patients now, and work to tnmsfonn and
heal. Let our din'.cal research also be tl:e waters
tr.at break aper, fundamentalisms and flow
bciween dualism3. At night, below ground, heg:n
tc grow a sustainable lifo together, When the su 1,
rises, bloom!
Iii NOTES
I, "Patiellt" derives io:n thr, talin word pmicns
("to ,11ffer"} and fro!ll the Latin t"almost") ~nd
pemma ("need"). People ct. ... u,uJJ> bcc,wsc th;;y
lrnw needs and are suffering. Thty arc ::c longer com,
lack adequate support. People come to clin-
icians because they not perceive thcrn:.elve, as
eqoal andloc who:e. They arr "patients" in need of
moverr:ent row·.i,d who:enes,.
2. ''Clini~" t:er:l'1<:s from lhc Creek words klinilws
a bed") and /amrem ("to lean, ,eci,,,,,,.. ,, From thh
sen,c. a clinir i1 ,, i•hysirnl, emotional, c.m.:eptua/,
social, llrui spirilua/ pl1w, jor those in of support.
(This suppor: Oii:l be mcdk<1l, managcr:al, educa·
tio,:al, legal, economic, rcligio:.:s, nursing, social, or
psyclio:cgical.) This undm,tanding cefines clinic 3',
bo11nd,·d lex: :or research.
Aita, Dr,d cndor f, D., l.c:1,11, k, I., Tallia, A., &
Crnbm:c, B. (200 IJ. l"Jticnt ,ar~ staffing p,mcrns
and 1olc, in c;;rnmunitrk:;ed family prncliu~.
Journal afFamiiy Practice, 50, Bl!\/,
Althdde, I). L, & )ohru.on, J. ,\1, ( I993 ), Cri:er:a filr
a,,e,srn,; :nterpretive validity qualitative
research, In K, Denzin & Y, S, L::irnln (Ed\,:.
Cullr:1:fi,;;g ami interpreting q1u1lita/ive maleriuls
(pp. llB-312). Thm:sa::d Oaks, CA:
Barr, IL A. (l 993 ). How rritkal ran dnkal anth m;ml-
ogy her Medic,1! Anrlr mp11/:;gy, 7,
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checkli.s:, for improving
rigour ':1 q,alitati,e reseaxh: A case tail
wagging the dog1 llritisf: Meilicai fo;mu,i.
:11s 1:
Barry, C A,, Britten, llar:ier, N.. Bradley, &
Stevenson, F. (1999). reflexivity to optimize
tea·11work in qualitative resear,;b, Qr.miitative
Hc,ifrh Jie,,carr·h, 9(: ), 26-44
Becker, G, (" Disrupted !iws: How paop/c create
meanins fr, a ,·/;m!lic w;Jr/d, Berkeley: !Jnivcrsi ly
ofCa:Jorn:a
llein:io:ld, R, & Komgold, I'. (l'l~l}, Belw<'en heii•.~-n
and earth: A guide M Chifm•J,,,med!dne. :Jew
Ballantine Bcoks.
Berg, D. N., & Smith, K. K, (Eds.). '.I 988), 11ie selj· in
socil,l ini:uiry: Rrsermhing metho.ls, i\twbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, P. L, & L~ckmann, 'L (l 96 7;. the s1Jcuu con
,!rnc!um realily: A trr,1tm, in thr sodo/ugy ,if
krwwl<'dg,•. Gankn Ci:y, 'J l': Anchor.
Berry, W. (2000). Life is a miracle. Washington, DC:
On1n:er,1,1int.
(Juaifraim,
re.,,,an;J, fvr e.auanrm,; An ir:tm,iut:tion w
and metho,ls. Bwri:011: ,\llvn & llacon.
l:lorbn, J, M, (2004). Mixed methods ,tudies i1: pri
mary care, Am1a/s of family Me,tm!m, I), 4-6
Ht,rkan, I. !,L, Quirk, M., & S11llivan .½. ( 199 I). l'ind ing
meaning after the fa 11: Injury narrative, from
elderly hip fracture pat ie11ts, Sociar Scier;,1;
Br!:w1:r, J,, & Hun:er, A. ( 1989). ,W111limethod re.mud,:
,\ ,y11thes1s of stylf,, Newbury Park,
Brody, H. (1992). r.~c healers power. New Haven, ..
Yale Ue :ve:slty Press,
a Brody, H, (2003). rn·k""" (211d Oxford,
l;K; Oxford University Press.

!lunge, M. II 9(i l). The weight u" sirnpl idty in th.:
constr Jction and assaying of sden:ific theories.
Philosophy cfSci1111ce, 211, 120-149.
:lorawoy, M,, Burton, Fe:gu,un, Fox, J.,
Gar::son, L Gartrell, '.Ii., Burst, L., Kurzrr.an,
SJlzinger, L, Schiffman, J, & Ui, S. ( 1991).
Etlrnography unliound: l'uwcr and re$l>t1mce in the
•ni!J,1rn metrcpoli,. flerii,,le, t: nive:-s' t y of
Calilornfa P,css.
Callahan, ll. J,, & Bc;tak is, K. Ll ( l ~</: ). lkveloprr ent
and validation of the Davi, Observation Coce.
Family ,Wedicine, 19-24.
Candih, L M. ( 1995 ). lii:,Hcine awl tl.e j~rniiy: 1\ femi•
nist ,vaspective. New Yor~: Basic !:looks.
Capra, E ( 191/6 ). The wf11 of life: A nfw cmder·
ql/lnding 11f living systems. New York: A:.cho,/
Ooub:cd,1y.
Capra. E ( l002 J. Ille 11 i,itic,: comrections: ltrlegmti,ig
1/10 biological, cogreitite, and sec/a/ dimemfrms
life /nm a ,n,·i:c• mst11itrnbility. ."J~w York:
Douhieday.
(;·,apple, A., & Rogers, A. ( fa.piici: 15uiddim:s for
q1.alitative researcn: A step m the rig:it direction,
.: defence of the ";;uft" option, O; a of sncio-
logkal imperialism! J-'tlm1iy Pn;;cttc·e,
Chrism,tn, N. J. (1977). I he health seeking -,m,·.. "· An
3:Jprvach to naturnl history of illness. Lultvre,
1\.fcdici,ie, and Psydnalry, l, 351-377.
Chrisman, \I, I, & ,\farctzki, T. W. n9a2).
Clinical~• applfo,J umhmpci"!IY Antliropufogifls i11
health .,dena, seuings. Boston: D. Reidel.
Chubani,1 n, A, V., Bakris, G. L. Dla~k. H. It, C':.shman,
W. C., Green, L A., lzw, J. L, J-., Jone,, D. W,
r,fa:crso::, R. ;., Oparil, S., Wr:ght, J. T.. Jr., &
Rocu::lla, J. (2003 ). Report ol the Joint lsational
Commillee on Prevention, EvaLiation, and
'!reaL:ncnt of l:igh l:J:m,J Prcssurr {INC 7).
Journal of the Amerimn MiidicalAmJl',lllilm,
1:i~ll-2572.
Clifforrl, I,, &)farcus, G. /1986). ~Vriting culture.
Berkeley: t:niversity of Califn;nia l'rt·ss.
Cmnaruff, I., & Coma,off J. L ( Eds.). (200 I). Milfmniai
capi talfrm ami t.~e culture neolibm,Usn:.
)urham, NC: Duke t:niver,ity Pres,.
Cunio, l,L, B.anch:, S., Laperlosa, G., Fc,raris. R.,
Sa:i!ich, R., Marchi, S., !)'Onofrio, Lacchin,
laquin:n, Ylissale, G., Rawlli, P., (cs1ari, R.,
Benedetti, Mac:i, G,, Fiocca, R., Muniui, E, &
Filiberli, J{. (2003}. Long-:er:r1 endoscopic sur·
vei]ance of patients with lkrrett's esophagus:
Incidence of dyspll!s[a and adenocardnoma-A
Miller & Crabtree: Clinical Res~arch 1111 63J
prospective study. Arm:riam' Jmm111/ of c;,mrc
emerology, 98, 19~1-1939.
Cuulc, £1. ( I996 ), The trup: Pavrrfy mid t/1e g/ob,1/
ccmm1>d;ly m1rket. Ox'brd, UK: Oxfom UK &
Ireland.
Cow,1rd, D. D. {1990 ). C:il:ical multiplism: A re~earcl,
strategy for nursin!l ~cl',::cc, lmwge: /ournal llf
Nursmg Scholars/rip, 22, l i,3- l f:il
Crabtree, B. P, & Miller, W. L (Eds.;. ( 1999). Daing
qualitati,•e researcl; (2nd 1'::mmmd Oaks,
CA:
Crabtrec,.B. f,,, Mi.Jer, W, L, Aita,\',, Flo<:kcc, S.A., & Stange,
:( C. (1998). Primary care p:actb: organization
.md p~eventive serv'ces rl?liiverv· A quali1a1lve
analysis.Journal of Family Practice, 46. 403-409.
Crabtree, ll. Miller, W. L, & Stange, (Eds.}. (2001 ).
from the Prevention a::d Competing
Dc:nands in P,imarv Care .~rndy. Journal of
1'ami/y l>r11r1 f.:r, 50,
Creswell, J. W, ( 2003 ), .rk,earih desixn: Qu~iilali,·t,
quantitative, and mixed metlwds approaches {2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., rdt,•n;, M. D., & lvankova, N. V. (2004).
Desig::ing a mixed metbod, ,t:,idy i r. primary
,;are. Ammls of Family Medicine, 2(1 ), 7-12.
Csordas, T, ]. [21l02}. Ho~y/M~a11i1:g/Hea/i11g. New fork:
Palgrave 'vlac:nillun.
)aly, J & :VlcDonc.:d, ;, (1992). Covering )'Om
5t:'.ltegies for qualitative resea~d1 in c.inka!
Q,rnlitati,,e fN,1ith Rnearch, 2, 416-438.
Davis-Foyd, IL, &. St. john, G. (199il). Fmrr: doctor
to healer: 1'/w trur.sl&1·m~!iv1: Journey. Ne',"'
Brun,wkk, :-JJ: Rutgers University Press,
Dtnz-Pc:ihey. H,, & Mur1fod1, J, (l'l9J), Service
delivery for people wifo d:;0r.ir fati!!ue .syn-
dmme: A pilot action rcsc,1rch siudy. Fa1t1ify
Practice:, JO, 18,
JJcyo, It A., D:ehl, A. & lfosenthal, :v'.. (1986), :.io,,,
mrn, davs of bedre,t for aa1tc low back pain?
' '
A rando:nized cl i11 ical trk.:. ,1\'ew Engiimd Journ,il
of111.!rlidne, 1064-1070.
Diers, D. {1979). Researd1 in nuriing pr..clic,?,
Philadelphia: J, B. Lip}1i11mtt.
Dou:hwaitt:, R. (1999), Th,) grmHh i//1m'on (rev. ed.).
Gabrklla Island, British Co:umbia: New Society
Publisher,.
Dr u~y, N. (1996 ). Sh,ur,,mi,m. Sh afte,bury, UK:
Element Books.
FJ.ings,m, L L (l '1'18). "Then yo~1 know how I feel'':
Empathy, identity, and r<:llexivity in fieldwork.
Q;;alitalin: Inquir;, 4, 492.-514.
634 II HA!'l'DllOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CH APTER 24
Ellis, C. ( 1995}. f'imli negatiations: A siory of fove, loss,
mid chronic illness. P!:iladdphia: Te:nple Ur.lversity
Press.
Ellis, & Bochner, A. P. (Ed,.}. (1996). Composing
ethnograpliy: Alrernati,e forms ofqualil.ative w, it-
ing Walm:1 Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Engels, G. L. (1977). The need for f. r.ew medica:
modd: A c:iallenge biomedicine. Science, 196,
136,
Fabrega, H.• fr. (1976). The fund~n cf medical ca.re
systems: Alog:ca: analysis. Perspectbes in Biology
,mdMedicim:,ZO, 108-: 19.
Fabrcga, H., Jr. (I 979), l'be e:hr.1Jgraph}' of illness.
Soria( Science and Medicine, 565-575.
K., & Smith, I' C99'1}. Fro::1 the sick role to
subject positions: A new approach to the medical
enrnnnter. lieairh, Ji I).
Fanner, P, ( 200 I), lnjeciians ,md im:quu!i1ie;; The
modem pfagues {rev_ ed.). Beckeley: L:niversity
California Pres~.
Feinstein, A. R. (1985 ). G1inical epidemiology: The
archite,-ture of clinical researr:h. Philadelphia:
'N- ll. Saunders.
fink:er, K_ (1000). Experiend;,g the new genetics:
Fami/v , and fdnsliir,' or. tl;e medical , fre11tier.
Philadelphia: Univers:,y of Pennsylvania
Fi,ha, S. '.1986 ). in the: patiem's best interest; Women and
rhe politics a( medical decisi,ms. New ikunswick,
NJ: ilutgers t:niversity Press.
Fi she~. S.. & Toad, D. (Eds.), (I 983 ). The .wci1/
orgonizatfrm of docWr-palie!!I communication.
Washington, DC: Center for App:.ed Linguistics,
Flocke, Millrr. W. L, & Crabtree, B. E (2lJU2).
Relationships between physician pcactice ~tyle,
pa!ienl salis:acl io:i, and attributes of pr:mary
care. Journal of FamilJ Pruaiu, 835-340.
l'locke, Stant,e, K- C, & Zyzanski, S. J. I 19':17). The
impact of insurani:e type and forced discontinu~
ity on the delivery c,f primary care. Journal
F.;mily Practi,e, 45, 129-135.
Foster, G. M, {1974). Medical an:l:~opology: Some
contrasts with medical sociology- Medical
Afllhropolvgy Newsletter,~. I 6_
foster, G. M., & Anderson, B. G. (1978), Medical cmthm-
pology. New York: John Wiley.
Frank, A. '.'v. (l~'L). At the wi/1 o( th£ body: Reflections
on iiiness .llo:s:0;1: Houghton Mifflin.
Frank,A. W.{ l995).11ie woumled;!oryte/ler: Bady. illness,
and eihics. Chicago: :Jniversity of Chicago Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B.
Ramos.1rar:s. ). New York: Continuur,:, Puhl ishi:1g.
R (; 998). Pec'agogy cf the heart In A, M. A.
Frei:-e & D. Macedo (Eds.), The Awio Freire reader
(pp. 265-282;. Ne'..v York: Continut:~ lnte:"national
Puhli,hing Group.
Frey, It (l 994 ). r,re jugg/ir.g: Seeing /lie wcr!d ihrvugh
a looking glass arid a glass prme- l.an:1am, MD:
t:niver,ity rxss of Amer:ca.
l'reyman:., 1. (;. ( 1989), The p.1blic's healt:-, .::are ;iara
digm is shilling: Me,::,;i11e musl sw:::g with ii,
Joumaf of General fntemal Medicine, 4, 3: 3-319,
Fuller:cm-Smith, :, ( 1995). How members of ;he
C.ochrane Collahoratton 11rei1are and maimain
systematic revie,11s the effects of b.:alth -:are.
Eridence-Based Medicine, 1, 1-8.
Gardner, G. (I'd.), (2003 ). Stale of !he world 2003.
Nrw York: Norton.
Giacot,1i:1i, M. & Cook n_ J (2000). Q1m::rn1ive
researd1 in hl:alth care: What are the results and
bow do Ibey help me care for ::iy paticn:s~ Jmmral
of iht American ,We1lital AmJciatian, 284, 478~482.
Glasgow, R. E., Lichtc::,tc:::, K, & :V:arrns, A. C. (2003 ).
Why don't we sec r::,xe tran5latio:: of health pro-
motior: in research to prnctict? Rcthinki::g the
efficacy-lo•cfleclivcncss lr~r:sition. Amcriam
Journa! of Pub!k He,ilth, 93, : 261-1267.
Good, B, J. (19941. Medicine, rationality. and l'Xpi:rience.
Cambricgc, t:K: Cambridge tnivcrsity
Good, 11 J., & Good, M. D. (198)J. meaning of
sympto:n,: A cultural hermene•~t[c model for
clinical prnctkc. In L l'isenhe75 & A. M.
Klei::man (Eds.), The relevanre of social science
for mcrtiii115 ( pp. 165-196 J. 3o,tun: D. Reidel.
Good, B. J., & Gm,.:, M. D. (1993)_ "Learning medic'ne'':
ThE mnstr·Jcting of medical knowlecge at Harvard
Medical School. Jr. S. Lindenbaum & M. l.ock
(Eds.;, Kmrdedge, power, and practice: The rmthro-
pology of medici11e rmd e·lf:ryday life {pp. s: - I 07),
Berkeley: Unive,sity cf Califor:;ia PC"ess.
Goodwin, M. A., Zy1.a11ski, S, J., Zro:iek, S., Ru:ce,
M,, WeJer, S, M., Konrad, N., Esola, D., & Stange, K.
C. ( 200 I). A clinical trial of tailored office syste::1s
fo7 preven:ive service delivery: Thr Study to
Enhance P:-e1'e;1tio11 by J;nderstar.ding ?roctice
(STEP-UP). Ameri.:a~ Touma/ of Pr,mm,iFe
Mediwie, 21. 20-28.
Gordo~., ll R. (1988)_ Ten~cious aS-s.ir::;,tkms in
Western t:1edici ne. In M. Lock & D. Gordon
[fa.ls.), ,%mzedirirre ex'1mirmi (pp.
Boston: D. Reidel.
Gon:on, J. (1996). Manifesw for a new medkine: K•~r
guide to healing par:rrerships and the wise use of

altem~/i;,e rfrm1.pws, Reading, MA: Addiscn-
Wesley,
Greenhalgh, I., & HJrw'tz, R '.19911). Nam1tir~ based
111edici1w: Dialc,;:110 and mscoi:rse in dinica/ pmc,
Lo::don: BM I lh,oks.
Hara~,ay, l), j. ( 1991 ), Sf,1,i,:m.,, cy!mrgs, ,md women: Tht
reinvention of ~an.re. London: Routledge,
Haraway, Ll. ;. (19931. The biopoiitcs of postmodern
bodies: De:er:ninations o: ~elf in irnm:::;e system
discourse. In S. Li11dc:1baurr. & M, Lock (Eds.),
.Knew/edge, power, ,md prarri.:e: 11re anrn~pology
medil,'/rte mrd everyday iiji: (pp, 364-410 ).
Univeriity of Califom ia Press.
Hardin, G, {1985). t'i!ters :,gaimt Jolly, New Ymk:
Pengt.::n Books.
lfa,ris. C. M. (1989), Seeing su;;f,ower,, Jo11mul of ,he
Royal College rfGimerai Practitione,,, 39c 313-31\1.
Hawkin,,, A. H, (1993). Rewnstrurting iil11e,s: Studie,
in pallwgraph;c West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
l:niver,ity Press.
Helrr.an, C. (21100). Culture, !te,:ilth, Wne.,,, (4th
ed.), Oxford, Flu:ter ..'Orth Heint'::lan11.
Illich, I. (1970 ). Desdmoiing ux:iely, London: Marian
Buyars.
Illich, L (I 9761, .\frdira! nemesis: The explora' im1
hn,llh New York: Pantheon Book,.
Jackson, M. ( 1989), Paths toward a dearmg: Radical
empiricism and ethnngmphit inquiry. llkm:nington:
l:idiana U:iiversity Px,~s.
[aen, C, Mcilvain, H., Pol, Pl::llip~, R" Jr,, Flocke, !i.,
& Crabtree, B, (2001 ), Tailo,ing tobacco ro·;nsel-
ing to the -:om;:,eting cernands in tht din:ca:
encounter./mmia/ cf Family i'riu::rce,50, 85'1--8i6J.
Jason, LA., Key8, C. B., Suarei-Balcaiar, Y., Taylor, R.R.,
& Davis, M. L (Eds,), (2rnl4). Participatory c,m,-
rn1mity re,earci1: Theories ,nu/ methods in art itm,
Washington, !JC: Arr:er:can Psychofog:cal
Association.
Je:sm, '.l (2~02), 'f,!ie culture of mCike bei,efe.
New York: Context Books.
Johnson, Lt A., 3enja::iin, S. B,, Vakil, N. B.. Goldstdn,
J. L, Lame:. M., Whipple. J., Damko, 0., &
Hamelin, I\, (200 I;. Esomeprazcle once daily for 6
months is ef~ectivc therapy for ma, n:aini r.g
healec erosive esophagitis an.I control:::ig
gastroesophageal rrilux disease symptoms: A
randomized, tiouble-bliod, placebo-controlled
studv of e:lka,v and safety, American Journal of
' 1 ' "
Gas!raetileroloi()\ 96, ll-34.
Johnson, M. (I 987). The lit1dy /ti the mind. Chicago:
Universitv o: C:1kago
Mil:er & Cr,,b11,~e: CliniCcd Rc,earch 11 035
J1:lly, K,, Flratl:ey, E, Sharp, :=.mi1h, E ., & M,inl, Tl,
(1998;, Follow-up care in grni:ral ;rnctic~ of
pat:ents with myocardia' inforctin:1 or angina
pcctoris: Initial rcsdts th~ SHIP Hal, Familv
Practice, 15, ::,,i,s-c,::,.
Kahn, D. L. ( 1993), Ways of discussing v.;.:'dity in ,11ml ·
itative nursing TL'Search. U:!>slern Jourmil af
Nursing Research, ]5, 1 : 26.
Kdsev, /, :,,, Thomp,on, W, Tl, & Evans, A, S. ( 198(,).
Methods in wsern;tiona/ ep,Jemiofogy; New Yor:c
Oxford University Press.
Kerr.:nis, & lvk'lliggarl, R. '.2003). Par:;dpn:ory
action xsearcl:, l:1 N. K, Denzin & Y. S. Lincu::1
(lies.), Stra,egies cJ qualir2tive i11q1ury (2nd ,·d.,
pp. 336-396). Thuusand Oaks, CA: Sag,f,
Kim, I. Y.. Millen, J. V., Irwin, A., & C.ershman, ;, (Ed,,),
(2000}, Dying for growth: Glob,.! i.~equai,t)' and
health of the poor, Monnie, ME: (mnmor:
Courage Pres~,
!<irmayer, L, ], ( I 992). The body', ins:stence m,
rr.eaning: Metaphor 11 s pre,entatio:1 ,H,d rep:e-
sentatb1 in illness experience. Media,/
;\11U1rnJ10/ugy Quar!er!y. 6, .l2J-.l4b.
Klcin:,1a11, A, :,,1, {'. 9881, 'fhc 11arr,11iw:s·
Suffering, lmrfi>:g, ,md :he hum,m amditim1,
New Ynrk: llask liMks.
Kleinman, A, M, {1992), Local wrdr;, suffering:
An in:crpersonal focus for et:1::ographics illness
experience, Qualitativ,· Healt~ ilcm1rrh, 2, : 34.
Kleinman, A. M. ( 1995). Writin.;: at the >:1ar,~in:
Discou<>e be!1+em anthropofoi;Y and rr:edic:iue.
Berkeley: [niversity ,,f Califomfa Press.
Kleinrr:an, M., Eisenberg, L, Sc Gond, B, {',978).
A,
Culture, illness, and care: Cllnkal k,sons from
anthmpologk and c:c,s~•CUltural research.A.nrwls
of lnterni:;J Medicine, 811,
L<>,.• ,c,, P. (199 l ), Getti11g mrnr!· l'm:inist resrarrh and
pedagogy wi1hli11 the J>oslmodern. '.'Jew York:
Routledge.
Lar::icr, J, (2002), 1'larrative-based prtmt1ry care: A prac-
ti.:al guide, A::ir:gdon, UK: lladcliffr Mt·dlrn'
Press.
Lazarus, E. S, ( 1988 l. Theoretical considerati1;ns for the
~tudy the doctor-patient relatio:'.ship: lnw·.i.
:ation:; of a perina1al stucy. Medical A11thropofogy
Quarter!)', 2, 34-58.
:,ock, M. (19d2). On revc.iling the hidden curriculum,
Medical Anrhrnpolcgy Quarter/;; 19-21.
Leck, M. (l 9116 )_ a~,th rcpological study t:1e
Amcrk:an medical s;,~em: Center and periphtry:
Social Sdence and Mi,lfdne, 22, 931
 r.36 11 HANDBOOK OH}UALJTATIVE RESEARCH-Cl APTER 24
Lock, M, (1993). Cultivating the :iody: Anthropology
and ep iste rr:ologics of bodily pruc:ke and
,;::owledge. Amw;;/ Re views of Anlhmpology,
JJ3-156.
Lmm,rkamp, D, ( 199itA mt!'asur.• ofmy days; The jour-
nal of II munrry drJCW~ Hanover, KH: University
England,
J,tacaulay. A. Commamla, L Freeman, W, L.,
Gibo:c, K, l\~cCabc, fie. L, Robbins, C, M., &
Twohig, P. L (1998). Respomlble research with
rnn111: uniti;:s: Pank[patory research ;,, primary
care publication nf the K'orth A n·i;•nrnn
?rima~y Care 'l.csearch Group], Retricvo:d
October 27, 20!)4, from i:ttp:f! narcrg.org, ui,
,html
Macnaghten, P., & Un y, J, (Eds.}, (2001), Bodies of
nature, Loncon: Sage.
Ma:rerud, K. (200la). The art and science of di1::c,.:
lrnowledgc: evidence beyond measures rn<l
m1mbcr,. Lum:et, 397 400.
Malterud, K. (200'.b). Qualitaliv,e research: Srnndard~,
c;:a!kngcs, and guide:i;1e;;. L,m.-:et, 483-488.
Martin, E. ( 19'>4). f1cxible /J11£1'i,c;• Tit, role of imm1mi(r
in America11 culture from ihe days of'polio to £he
ofAIDS. llrn,ton: Beacon.
Mattingly, C. ( 19911), !feali11g dram.;s a11d dinicul ,v!ots;
The 1tartlll111e stmctme ofexperie,u:e. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Pre,:,s.
McColdrick, M., Ger~:1.1, ll, & Shclfonb,·rger, 5. (; 999).
Genogrums; l1sse,sm1ml and intenerifirm (2nd
cd,), New Ye; rk: Norion.
Mdlvflin, 11., Crnbt~ee, B. F., Mulder, l-, Stange, K, & Prnnd.co: Jossey-Bass,
Miller, W, L, (l 998 ). ;;sing "pract:re genrigrams"
lo 11ndernta11d :!csuibe prac:tce coofigurn-
tiom. Famiy Madici11e, JO, 490-496,
MrWhinney; L 1, (1986).Are we on the brink of a :najo:
tran~for1":" at ion of clinical method? Cm:aJi,m
,tfedicaf /1.<~ocitJlicm Joum,1/, 873-878.
Mcwhinney, I. R. \ 1989). An acquai::tance with partic-
ulars, Family Af~dicine, 21, 196-298.
.1.1einert, C:, L. (l 986). Cli11icul triats: !Jr,ign, rnndua,
and ~m,{rsis. New York: Oxford University Press,
1Vli0.-,, \'V. I.. ( l 994 ). Common space: Creating a collabo-
re:,e,Jr('h mnver,\ation. In F. Cra:i!,ee,
W. L. M!ller, R. II. Addi~on, V. /. Gilchrist, & A. Kuzel
(Eds.), Exploring wlfobilrafive research in primcrry
,-arc (pp . .,"6':>-~'8"u), 'J'L.
11t)l,S'1:'.C:. 0 akS, CA:
Miller, Vi. L, & C:'Jbece, B. E {l 999a)_ The da::cc of
i tnerprernlion. l!: B. E r:r~btree & W. L Miller
I F,ds.;, Dnir.g qualitatfr~ research (2nd ed.,
pp. ·. 143 ). Tlmu~and Oa:.:s,
1\lille~, W. L, & Crab:ree, It E (199%), Primary care
re.~ean:h: A:11ultimethoc 1ypology and qual ital ive
rnadtnap_ 111 B. F. Crabtree & V¥'. L Miller (Eds.).
Doing qua!it{,j/iw, re,eurch i.xl., pp,
Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage,
Miller, W L, Crabtree, B. r, Iluffv,M. l:J., Epstein, It \L
& Stll::ge, K. C. (2003 ). Research guidelines for
a~se,sing the ::upact of healing relationships in
di:::ca] medicine. Aiienuitive 'ifa•rnpie:£ iu Health
and :Wedidne, 9(3, s~ppl.),80A~95A.
Miller, W I.., Crabtree, B. F., 1klr,H::el, R., & Stange,
K, C (I998 ), t:ndcrst.ind[ng ::hange in pr: ·11ary
care practke using rumplexity thenry. }oitr11al
Fami1Y Practice. 46, 369-376,
Miller, w, L., McDaniel, R, Crtbtree, ll r:,, & Stange,
K. C (200 I). Prac:i::c jau: Lnd<'r~tanding varia-
tion in family practice~ con:plexity ,,.;p,n,·•
Jm,rnal of F«mily Practice, 872-878,
rv:i;;hler,E. G. (:984). Thediscoursco_f medici:ie: JJialec/il,
ofmedical interviews. Nmwood, :-IJ: Ablex,
Mi:,he:J, M. ( 19911). Employing qualitative mtthods
in rlit pr/Yale sertur. Thcusand Oaks, CA: Sage.
:Vloe• lobeda, C. ll, (20D2), Healing a l1roken world:
Glol:aliwlicm a11d god. Minneapolis, MN: fortrt.ss
Press.
\fol, (2002). The bod_v muirivle: Ontology in medic,,1
pmclfre, lk:ham, NC: Dulle u~ ivecSity
MorgJn, C. ( 19981. images of ,rrganizati1:m: T,~t! excc~-
!ive- editim,. San l'randsco: Brr,e1t-Kochlcr.
Morrison, I. I. (2000). ffqalth care in 1hc r:ew 11;i/ien-
Visilm;;, vwlue,,, and leadership, San
Morse, J, M., & Field, I'. A. (1997). Frimiples of'qualita-
mefl,ods. Thm:sa::d Oaks, CA:
Morse, J, ~1,, Swanscm, J, .M., & Kuzel, A. J, (201)1) The
miture quafit~live ni1lenee. Thousand Oak~.
CA: Sage.
.Mor,y, S. A. (1996}. Pclitical economy med;ca·.
:mthrnpology. I:: C. F, Sargent & T. W.. Johnso~
(Eds.;, Medkai am!ir:!pology: Contemporary
111-,r,ry and meihod :rev. t(L. pp. 2]-40). Westport.
CT: Praege~.
i\h1'er, U,, MacAllist~r, J,, & Suiter, S. (2001 ), D(ling
democrncy: The MAP model for organizing
mov,mients. Gabrioia Island, Hr'tish Columbia;
Kew Society Pnbli~hern.
Natlo::al Hearl, Lung, and Blo(:d Institute. (1998).
f;/inical g111deline.1 ,m the id,mtifimtion, evalua-
tion. mui ireatment vf overweigl:r cmd ob~s1ly in
adul:s: The evidence uport (NIH Publication
98 4083 ). Bctliesdla,MD: Author,

Na1•lor, D. (1995), Grey zones of dini,al praaice:
Some llml!s to evidence-basrd m~xlidnc. Lancet,
840-842.
.'lotes from Nowhere '.Eds.). (2003). We are everywlwre:
The im:sisti/Jle rfa,~ nf' !{i1Jbal mu icupituli~m.
London: Ve :-so.
Orr,ll, W, (2002). The nature o{.;es111r:: Htology, ,ul111rc,
,md lumum intenrim1. Oxford, EK: Oxfo:d
llnivtrsi! y Prrss.
:'dto, r J., & Pelto, G. H. (1978). Anthropological
research: The slructure of fr,quiry (2nd C,'.,).
New York: Cambr:cge University Pre,,.
i'elt;,;, l~ f,, & Pe.to, G. H. ( 1990). l'ield methods in med•
ical anthropo'.ogy. In T. M. John:;on & C. l:' Sargent
[eds,), Medical antlm1p,~iogy: Cor:temporary
rli.wry and method (pp, )!i<;_·;,q; hew York:
l'racgcr.
Perdu~, W. C., Stot:c, I,, A., & (;;istin, L. 0. (2003). 1 he
JJi!t environment ,md its relatirmship I!: the
public's health: The legal irnmework. Amer ium
fm..rnui of Pwblic Health, 9J, 1.190-1394,
Perla,, ;:; . (2000 ). Shaping globaliwtfon: Uri/ society,
wltural pow,·r, an,J thrm!{olding, Quewn City,
Pr.:Hppines: (',.•ntcr for Altemat ive Development
Initial ,es.
Pfifferling, [, H. (]~8:). A cultural ;m:scr'ption for
medicccentrism. In L. Eisenberg & A, Klt'immm
(F,h,), The re/e,,,;;m:e ofsocial sdc11ce fi1r medicir.e
(pp. 1~1-•u,,1 Hoston: D. Reidel.
Pier;;y, M, (1994). Cides 011 //;e water: ,.,f,,,,,d of
Marge Pie1·c~. 'Jew York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pocock, S. ), ( I9/t3 ). Clinical trials: ,1 praafra/ approach.
New York: John Wiley.
Pol, L., Rouse, ),, Xyzan~ki, S., Rasmussen, D,, &
Cni.btree, B. (2D!J; ). Runil, urban, and sl.'.burban
comparisons of prevent ivc s~rvicts in family
pr11ct :.:e di nics. Journal cf Run,/ Health,
ll4-l21.
rolgar, S. (1962), :!ealth am.: h-Jmun behavior: Areas
of !merest comm;1n to wdal and medical
sden,es. Curn:.m ltnlfm:,pafc&,; 3, :·:iil-·20:5,
Ponce Le6n,:. '.Ed.), ( 2{JO I ). Oiif work is :,,,r weapon:
Stlected writings, mhrnmmund,m!i• /11s11rge1,,e
Marcos. '\Jew \brk: Seven Storks Press.
Ra:Tcnsperger, C. (2002}. The precautio::ary pr::idp.e:
&:aring witne,s to and alkv:aling snffer:ng.
,4/!ernai i~e Therapies, 8, 11 l- l l':,.
Ra!ftnspcrger, Tickne~. J., & Ja,:kson, W. (1999).
Pmtectmg pull!ic ltea!tf, and the en >mmmenl:
lmpfomenl i ng the precuutivrnuy pr im.1pla.
Washington, DC: lsic :-id Press,
Mille,&. Crabtree: Clinirnl Research 111 :37
Rasmu.~sen, ( 1996 ). Earth :-e1mm1mity. earth -c1hi1,.
Marykrn,11, NY: Orb.is Hooks.
Richardson, L (: 9~0). Wri1i11g strategies: Read1i11g
,1iv,~rse ,:mdiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
Ritze,, G, I 200 I). Expl,,ra,iom: in ihe sociology :if
i:mmmrpfion: fast Jovd, credit rnnis, ,md eomncs,
l.ondo:1: .Sage,
Rohi nson, IJ., !';est, L, Susman, J., Ra,musstn, D.,
Rouse, J., & Crabtree, I!, {2001). Technidar1,
friend. de:ective, and healer: l:'amily p::yskians'
responses to emotional distress. Jo11mal ofFami~:
Practice, 50, 664-870.
Roseland, !If. (1998). ·11mard su.,tairwblc mmmrmilies:
Re,wurcli/Sfi1r citizens and their J,'i!Vi:mme•rts. Ga brio.la
Island. British Colwnh'a: New Sud et y l'ubli3hcrs,
Sackett. fl. L. (1991 ). clinical epidemiology: A ba,1c
science fnr clinical medimre !2nd ed.). Boston:
Little, Brown,
,,,,-ke",, P. Straus, S. Ii., Richardson, W.
Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. {1.000), Evid,mre•
based mdfdna; Pow to pm<'tice al!d teach EBM
(2nd ed.). tone.on: Churchill Livingstone.
Snck,, 0. (l 9s,~ ). A to st,md 1m, '.llew York: SJ mm it
!looks.
Sandclowski, M. (2002), Reembodying qi.:ahtative
inquiry.Qu11/itafive Health Research, 12, I04-l IS.
Sapsforc, R., & Abbott, P. (1992). Research meihads fur
nurses and caring pr,;i:ssions. llri;t,il, J>A:
0:,cn University Press,
Schein, E. H. (1987). TTie r!inicaJ per$pective in fie/d-
·.,,urk. Kewbury Park, CA;
Schi:pcr•Hug':cs, & Locke, M. ( mindful
body: A prolegomenon to future wo:k in medial
anlhropobgy, ,l.1tdic:.i Anthropology Quarterly,
I, 6-41.
Schlossff, :ic-02), F~;, food na1fct1: T'1c dark side of
,he ail-America11 me,i/. :few fork: f-larperCo:::n.s,
Schumacher, E. F. \1977). A guide far the perplexed.
'Jew York: Harpe & Row.
Scott, J., C!lhen, D., DiCicco-Bloum, B., OrzJno, A. L,Jaen,
C, R,, & Crabtree, ll, E (200:). Antibiotic u,e in
ao:e respiratory infeclion.s and the ways pa~ients
pre~.¼ure physidans for a prescription. Jo;m1a/ of
Family Practice, 5/.i, DJ•-o;,o.
Sharma, 'i., & Clark, C, ( ' Conlempor-i~r ayur,
wda: i\1Jedicine a11d ffstardt in maharishi ayur•
i:eda. Philadelphia: Churchill Livings:one.
Shaughnessy, A. E, Slawson, D. & 3ennert, J. H
( 1994). Becoming an :nformat:o:i master: A
guidehook t:: the medical info:malion jungle,
f,1un,al ()f Family l'raclite, 39, 489-499.
 638 11 HAJ;;IJBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 14
Shavelson, R, /., & Towne, L (Eds.). (2002;. Sciemtfic
resemt:h in edurntir.n. Washing:0:1, DC: Natim:al
Academic P:ess.
Sh.:pherd, M., Hattersley, A. I. & Spllrkes, A. C. (2000).
Predictive genetic testing i:: diabeti:s: Acase study
o:" multiple perspectives. Q;.nrlitatin, Health
Re.search, W, 242-259.
Shildrkk, M. (I 9'J7). I.eaky bodies and bout1danes;
Feminism, pcsmwdernism, aud (bio)ethic.,.
Lo11don; Routledge.
Shiva, V. (1994). Uose to Imme: Women rec:mnect e,a/-
,., •...•
,JgJI r:Ltl 1,1, , anu, tlete,cpment
• ,. • 'dR··.
i~ot! uie. G,ab no
· la
!sland, British Colun:bia: l'i,·w Socitty Publishers.
Singer, M. (1995). Beyond the ivory IOwcr: Crlt ical
praxis in :rn:dicJI anthropology. Medica!
Anthrapdt1gy Quarterly, 'J, 80- I 06.
S:3'\vson, D. C., Shat:ghncs,y, A. F., & Bennett, 1. H.
( 1994). Becoming a mfdical informalion masttr:
Feeling good about nut k::owing evert·th i ng.
JotimQ/ of Fami~1 Practice, 38, 505-5 I3.
Small, S. A. [1995). Ac1:on-orie11ted research: rv:odds
and met:inds, /@ma/ ofMarriage and the Family,
57, 941-955,
~mith, R. C. (I 996). I'he patienl's ,tory: Integrated
pmient-doctor imen•icwing. Boston; little, Brown.
Snacden, D., & Brown,]. B. (1991 ).Asthma and stigma.
family Practh·e, 8, 319 ·· 335.
Stange, KC., Mille,, W. L., Crabtree, B. F., O'Ccnnor, P, J.,
& Zyzanski, S. J. (1994). MJ]l!mdm,:: re.search:
App~nacr.es for inte1;rati ng qualitative and (Juan•
lila:ive mefaods. Journal of r.,mera/ lntemal
Mcdidm:, 9, 278-282.
StanJ!e, K. C., Miller, W. I.., & Mr Whinuey, I. (2001).
'.Jew'.oping the k::cwledge base of :'amil;· prnc-
1:ce, Family J,Jedicine, 33, 286-297.
Stange, K. C. Zyzans!,:m, S. J., Jacn, C. It, Calhfrian, E. J.,
Kelly, R. B., Gillanders, W.R., Shank, J.C., Ch:io, J.,
Mecalie, J. H., .V..iller, Vt. L., Crabtree, B, E, Fluckc,
S. A., Gikhrist, V. J., Langa, D. M., & Goodwin,
M. A. (1998). Illumin~ting the "black box": A
des,ription of 4454 patient visits lo 138 family
phy,iciaiis,/uurna/ ofFamily Practice, 46, 3,7-389.
Stein, H. F. (1990). American medicine as culture.
lloi.::der, CO: Weslview.
Stever.s, A., Abrams, K,, Brazier, /., Fitzpatrick, R., &
Lilford, R. :~:d.,.). (2001).1headm11ced handbook ,!f
mc'thod, In e'lidence ba.ied l,mithrare. Londm:: Sage.
Stewart, M., Brown, J.B., Weston, W.W., McWhinney,
l. R., McWilliam, C. L, & Freeman, IR. (1995).
P,uient•cente,·e,i medicine: Transforming the rlini-
cal me,hod. T:iousand Oaks, C1\: Sage.
S1ra1he:-11, A. J. (19%). fkdy thcught;. Ann Arbor:
Univer;lty of Michigan Press.
Swayne, J. (1998). Homeopathic merluuJ.· lmplimflons
for clinical practice and medinil science. Londor.:
Church ill Livingslo:ie.
Symon, c;., & Cassell, C, (fds.). (19:18). Qualit~lill!
methods and analysis fr, orga.1·,izatio,ial risearc/1:
A pmctf.:al guide. Lond,m: Sage.
'falley, 'J. )., Venables, T. L, Green, J. It, Armstrong, 1>.,
O' Kane, K. P:, Giaffer, M., Bardhan, K. D.,
Carlsson, R. G., 1:hfn, S., & Ha:;;;elgren, G. S.
(2002). Esomeprazole 40 !;lg ar:c 20 mg is e:fica-
cious In the long-term mancgement of patients
w::h endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophagral
reflull. disease: A placebo-controlled trial of 011-
demand therapy for nmonth,. European Journal
of Gas/roer.ter,;/ogy 1111d Hepatalogy, 14,
657-863.
R, /r., Aita, V,, Mi!ler, ,,.:,
'fa Ilia, A., Stange, K., f\f.cDanie:
& Cn:blree, H, (2003). Understanding organi1..a-
tional dcsigr.s o: primary care practices. Jourual
of Healtlmm Man;;,gemcnt, 48, 43-58.
landon,R.( 1996). The historical mc~sand contcr:,purary
tendencies in parrici!latory re;;earr;h: l:nplications
for hcalt:icare. In K. n,, Ko:i'ng& rv:. Martin (Eds.),
Par1icipator1 reseanh in hc,Jlth: T.mie,· and experf-
mces (pp.19-16).London: Zed Sook;;,
Tasl':akkort A , & Teddlie, C (l 998). Mixed metiwdoi-
agy: Combining qw,lirati?e and quantitative
approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA; S.tge.
Taylor, B. ( 1993). Phenome:mk1gy: One way to under-
s:and nursing prachce. Ir,terrwlioriai /m,mul of
Nuriing Str.u/ies, 30, 171-179.
The sen, ]., & Kuzel, A. ( 1999). Par ti dpatnry inquiry.
In B. E Crabtree & W. L, Miller (Eris.), Doi11g qual-
itative research (2nd ed., pp. 269-290). Thcusand
Oah, C1\: Sage.
T':umashow, M. (1996) Ecological idmti!y; !1ecorni1,g
Q refle,·ti1•~ emircmmentalist. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Trernlini, C. P. (: 9'J4 ). Health professions education ,md
relat,on,liip-,:entered care. San Pranc'sco: Pcw
Health Professiur:s Ct.m: ::iission.
Turner, B, (1992;. i<egulati11g bodies: Essays i11 medical
s~ciology. New York: RouthlJ:;e.
Waitzkin, H. (1991 ). The palitic.s of medical meo1mters:
Hc;w puticnts and doctor, deal with social problems.
New II aver., Cl': Ya1e Unlversit y Pre,,.
Ward, M. M. ( 199 3). Stl:dy design i tJ q ualilalive
research: A guide re assessing q·~ality. Journal of
General lntenrnl Medicine, 8, 107-109.

Weil, A, ( 1988 ), Health mu/ lie~iirig. Bo,tun: Houghton
Miffi:n.
West, (I 984 ). Routine complicatirms· 'iroublf!.> with
talk between dortars and pariants. Bloomington:
fndic.:ia University
Wiesel, S. W, ,,u,,r;,1,c,, J. M,, DeLuca, F., Jones, E, Zeid.::,
M. S., & Rothmm, R. F. '.1980). Arnie low ba;:k
pain: A:: chjectivc analysis of conservative thcr•
Spine, 5, 321 330.
Wilber, ,: 1996 ). .', brief 1,istor;r of •"er,thiug lloston:
Shambhala l'ublicalions.
Wiles, R. (1998). Patients' pcrce;:H;on5 of their hearl
.mack and rea:vcry: The lnlluence of epitlemio-
logkal "evidence" and personal experience. 5.!ciui
Scie·m:e and Med:cine, 46, 1486.
Williams, G. {1984 ). The ge::csis of chronic illness:
Narrative re-:omtruction. Socfology of Heaiih
1md !!/11ess. Ii. I
Willms,), G, ( I 991), A new ;.!age, a new life, Individual
Sla:cess quitting :,n:oking, Social Science and
1'.1edidne, 33, 1365-1371.
/\flier & Crabtree: Clinical Research 111 63'!
Willm.s, D. G., lies!, J.A., Taylor, n W., liilhert, J., Wilson,
:1, :.indsay, & Singer, J, (1990). A systematic
approach for ·Jsing qualitative methods in
pri mny pn,ventiou research. Merirml l,nthrc-
pology Quarterly, 4, 39l-409,
',\iils(ln, D. M. C, Taylor, D. W,, G'ihert, l R., Best, j. A.,
Endsay, E, A., Willms, D. G,, & ). (19881,
A randomized trial of a family J'F:}'::iician
ven:ion for smoking cessation. Jm,rna/ the
America,; Medical Amuiation, 260. 15,0-1574.
Wolcott, H. E (199D). Writing up qualitarive resean:Ji.
~ewhury Park, CA:
Young, A. (I 9!Ga}, The anthro?ologies of illness and
sickness. ln B. Siegel, A. Beals, & S. Tyler (Ed,~.).
Anirual retiei. of a11thropo!ogy JJ (pp, 1.,1-L,~'>I.
Palo Alt.\ CA: Annual Rel':ews.
Your,g, (191!2b ). When rational men fall An
in,] uiry into some assu::ipt:ons made by r::edbtl
anthropo:ogists. (,u/ture, Medicine, and Psychiatry;
5, 317-333.
Part IV

METHODS OF COLLECTING
AND ANALYZING
EMPIRICAL MATERIALS

N
o:hing stands outside represen:ation. Research involves a con,?lex '.Xllitks of
:-cpresentation. The socially siti:aled researcher creates, through interacti!n
and material pnclkt'S, those realities and representations that arc the subject
matter of inquiry. :n such silcs, lhe interpretive practices of q:rnlita:ive research are
impk·mer.:cd. These methoc.olo{!i01l practices represent different ways or
gc:1crating
a:id representing empi,ical 1m11er!als grounded in the everyday wurld, Parl IV of the
Handbook examines t:Je multiple pract'ces and method, of ,nalysis thal (JUalitative
re,earche:s-as-mcthodologicr.l bricoieurs now employ.

Ill '.'JARRAflV:' {J-,;QUIRY

Io day narrative inquiry is ~ oJrishing; it is everywhere. We know the world t:,rough the
s:orks that are tole abou! !t. Even so, as Susan (Chapter 25) remi r.ds us, narrative
inquiry as a particular type of qualitative inquiry !s a field in 6e :itai<:ng. Cia.se de:lnes
narra:i;;f as retrospective meaning making and defines r.arrntive :nquiry as ar. "an:algam
ofinterdiscipl:r:ary lcnses,diverse disciplinary approac:ies,and both traditional and i:mo•
vative methods-all revolving around an interest in biographical particulars as narrated
hy the one who Eves them}' She provides an excellent histurical ovcrv iew uf this field,
moving from the sociologists and anthropologists in the fl mt ha:f of the 20th century who
championed the life 11:story method, to !he second-wave feminists who "pouced new life
;nto the sti:dy of personal narratives;' to sodolingt: ists who treated oral narrative as a :brm
of discourse, to contemporary scholars whu turn the use of interviews into the study of
:iow persons perform and tell stories about the • selws.
Narrath·cs are socially constrained forms of action, ~odally situated performances,
W.lf,i acting in and making sense of the world. Narrgti've researchers ufte11 wr:te

11 641
642 J11 HANDBOOK OF QUAL!rAT!VE RESEARCH

in the first person, thus "e:n ph asizing their own narrative action:' Chase identifies
se\•eral distinct ap;,:'.Oaches to narrative a:1alysis, :ndudi:Jg psychological, sociological,
anthropological, autoe:hnographk, and perforrnan",s ,I udies nf identity. She th,n outlines a
series of issues that must be addressed in any narrative inquiry. These involve interpretive
authority a1:d "hearing" the story that is being told,
Narrat:ve inquiry can advance a social change agenca. Wounded storytellers can
tmpower others to tell their stories. 1esrlmonios, as emergency narratives, can mobiEze a
1:atlon against ~ocia: injustice, repression, and violence. Collective stories can form the
basis of a sodal movement. Telling the stories of n:arginalized people can help to create a
public ~?ace requiring others to hear w:iat :hey do 1101 want ro hear.

Ill ARTS-BASED lt,.;QUIRY

A,ts·based inquiry uses the aesthe1ks, methods, and practices t:1e literary, perfor-
mance, and vi~ual arts as well as dance, theater, drama, filn:, collage, vldeo, and plmtogra-
phy. Arts-based inquiry is inte,tell.tuaL It crosses the bon:ers of art and research. Susan
Finley (Chapter 26) writes a h:,lory of this methodology, locating it in the postcolonlal
postmodern co:1text. She as~esses the usefulness of activist art (e.g., photographs of
refugees of war, children and street arr, street theater) when political activism is the goal.
She shows how activist arr can be used to acdress issues of poE tical significim:e, im:::id-
ing engaging community participants in acts of politkal self-expression,
When grounded in a critical perfo~manct: pedagogy, arts-based work can he used to
advance a progressive political agenda that addresses :ssues of social inequity, Thus do
xscarchers take up their "cameras, paintbn:shes, bodies, and voices" i:; the name of social
ji.:stice projec:s. Such wo,k exposes oppression, :a,gets sites of rcsistan.:e, and out:ines a
tran~:ormative praxis that performs resistance texts, Enley shows how she n:akes this
commitment to transformative praxis work by offering moving examples from her At
Home At School (AHAS) program for kindergarten through eighth-grade (K-8) children
who live in shelter and transitional housing.

II THE TNTERViEW

We live in an interview society, ln a society whose members seem to believe that interviews
generate useful in:ormation abour lived experience and its mear.bgs. The interview has
becor;ie a taken-for-granted tearnre of our r:1edlated mass culture, 1:k:t th;: interview is a
negotiated text-a site where power, gender, race, and class intersect, Stealing a nar:ative
line from the film Memento, which begins al the end with a murder, Fontana and F,ey
(Chapter 27) begin their review of fae history of th: ir.tervicw in the social sc:ences oy
starting in the prese:it. They work back and fort!: in time from Kong, Mahoney, and
Plummer's (2002) essay, "Queering tbc: lnterv:ew;' This essay shows how the ir.,erviev;
jecarnc "'too; uf modernist democratization and ultimately of soda! rcfo,m.
Wo,king back from the prese:it, For.tana and Frey note lhe interv Jew's major forms-
:,1ructured, unstn:ctured, and t'pen-ended-whi:c showi:Jg how the tool is modified and
changed during use. They discuss the group (or focui:;ed) interview, :he o:"lll history
imc,view, creative interviewit1g, online interviewing, and gendrred, feminist, and post•
r:iodern (or multivoiced) actvc interviewing.
 l'ar: IV: Methou:, ~" Collecting and Analyzing Empirical Materials 11 643

The interview is a rnnversatlo:1-the art of asking questions and listening. It is not

a neutral tool, for at least hvo prople create the re,i:it y uf the in:en·iew situation. Ir. this
situation, answers arc given. Thus, the interview produces situated understandings
grn·Jn<led in spe,'fk interactional episodes. This method is influenced by the persona!
characteristics of interv'.ewer, ii:duding race, dass, eth:iicity, and gender.
Fontana a:1d Frey review the importar.t work of feminist schoiars on the intrrview, espe-
cial!)' the arg:;i:nents Hehar, Reinl:arz, Her lz, Rkharcson, Clough, Col: in,, Smith. a:1d
Oakley. The 3ritish sociologist Oakley (1981 ) and other :em in ist scholars have identified a
major conlradkt:01: between sdenti::lc posilivistic re~,•arch, which requires objectivity and
detachment, and feminist-based interviewing, v,hirh requires openness, emotional e:1gage-
men,, and the dcvdop1m:11l of a potentially long-ter:n trust:ng relationship between the
intcrviewer and the subject.
A feminist intcrv iewing ethic, a~ Fontana and rrey si;ggest, rcde-'"ines the inte1·v'cw
si!'.1atio:1, This ethic transforms interviewers and responde:iJs into coe4uals who are
carrying on a conversation aboi;t mutually relevan:, often biographically critical, issues,
This na;rntive, performative, storytelling framework challenges the informed consenl and
deception models of inquiry db,ussed by Chr'st:ans (Chapter 6) :n Part I. This ethic
changes rhr interview into an im1iurtant tool for types ,rnuc.u and applied action
research discus;;ed by Kcmm's and Mc1aggart (Chapter 2J) and Miller and Crabtree
(Chapter 24) in Part HI. This ethic a1so turns thr interview into a vet.ide for social cha:ige.
as noted in Chasts (Chapter 25) discussion of the interview as a site for storytelling.

JI RF.CO\'TEXTLAI 17JNG 0BS£RVATIOKAL 11ETHODS

Go:ng into a social situation ,md looking is another importm:t way gatb:ring ma:~rials
about the socia'. ·,rorld, Drawii:g on previoLL, argumenrs ( Angrosino & Perez, 2000),
Y.irhael A;1g,11sino (Chap:cr l.8) fundamentally rewrites ;he methods and 1>mctices of
::atura'.istk obsen;at:or:, Al I observa:ion involves participation in :he world being studied,
There is r:o pure, ohjecfrve, detached observation; 6e effects of the observer's presence
can never be erased. Furthermore, the colonial concept uf the subject {the object of ~he
observer's gaze) is r.o lcnger appropri2:e. Observers now ft:nction as collaborative partici-
pants i:l action h:quiry settiniis, Angrosino and Perez (2000) argue tha: observatioria'.
interaction :s a tentative situational process. It is shaped by shifts in gendered identity as
well <1s by c>xisting structure~ uf pow~r, As relationships unfold, participants validate the
cc:e~ generated by others in ;he sitting. Firn11ly, during the observational process, people
asst:1:1c situational kle:1tities tl:at rr:igh: not be soda]y or cultu:-aHy nonnative.
Like Christiam (Chapter 6), A:igmsino offors compelling criticisms :nstltution,d
review boa:<h:. (IRBs), :io:ing that positiv:stic soda] scientists seldom rccogniic the needs
of observational ethnographers. At many universities, the official IRBs are tied In the
exper:1m:'1~tal, hy?o':hesis-tesling, so-called scientific paradigm. This paradigm creates
problems for postmodern ob1>e:"vcr, for :be scholar who becomes part of the world that
is being studied. To get itppmval for tl:cir research, ~,hofarn might have to engage in decep•
1;on (in this instanre of the IRB). This leads some ethnographers to daim that t:-ieir
research will not be intrusive and, hence, will :rnr muse harm, Yet interac:ivc observers are
by deLnition intrasive. Whcr_ collaborative i:1quiry is undertaken, subjects bccmm: stake-
1:olders, persons who sha;ic 1he inquiry itsc:f. What thi, means for consent forms-~:ind for
644 11. HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCE

forms of pattkipatory :nquiry more broadly-is not dear. Alternative forms of

ethnographic writing, including the use of fictionafo:ed stories, represent o:ie avenue fo:-
addressing tllis fthical quandary,
Angrosino offers an elhic of "proportionate reason." This utilitarian ethic attempts to
balance the benefits, cosrn, and consequences of actions in the field, asking whether the
:means to an end are justified by the importar:ce and value of the goals a~tained. This
rthic is then translated into a progressive social agenda. Thi, agenda stresses social (not
commutative), dist,ibutive, or '.egal justice. A i;ocial jus tke ethic asks the researcher to
become directly involved with the poor and the marginalized, to become an advocate,
,rnd to facilitate empowerment in mmrnur:ities. A pedagogy fo, social justice :iased on a
i;ervice learning model is outlined.
Angros:no demystifies t'ic o·:lservation me:hod. Observation is no longer the key to
some grand analysis of culture or society. Instead, observat:onal research r:ow becorr:es a
method that foci:ses on differences, on the lives of particular people in concrete. but con-
stantly changing, hi:mari :dahoi:ships. The relevance and need for a fominist ethics of care
and commitment become even more ap;>arer.r.

Ill REIMAGIKJNC V1s:.r.o.L METHODS

Today visual sociologists and anthropologists use photography, motion pictures, 1he World
Wide Web, interactive CDs, CD-ROM,, and virnm: reali:y a, ways of forging connections
between human existence and visual percept'on. These forms ofvisua; representation rep-
resent d!fferer.t ways of recording and documenting what passes as soc:al life. Oflen called
the m'rror with a memory, photog:-aphy takes :he re~eard1er into lhe everyday world,
where the issues of observer ide:itity, the subject's puint uf view, and what to photograph
become problematic, Douglas Harper {Chapter 29) examines the s~atus of visual thinking
in the sucio!ogical comm:mity, the impact of tew technologies on vis:ial methods, the co:i-
tinuing development of tradiriona'. forms of visual documentary, and problematic issues
surrounding ethics in the visual resea:ch world. Journals have becone more sophisticated
in :Ile prcse:itadon of visual materials, and new technologies and skills using websites have
created new ways of prcsen:iag visual matuiafo. These methods have bern taker: np by
experi :-oental, rel1ex:ve digital ethnographers. Harpe wisely notes tr.at these developments
exist within an unstable and constantly changing electron'c world. The software and the
computer;; that deliver the!\e developments have short lives.
Historically; visual sociology began within the postpositiv isl Irad:tion., prnvidi ng visual
i:iformation to support the realist tales of traditional ethnography. Photographs were a
part of the unpro:ilematk: "facts" that constituted th.: "truth" of these Now visual
sociology, like ethnography, is in a period of deep questionir:g and great cha:1ge. Visua'.
sodology, Harper contends, must find a place in this new ethnography. Drawing f:om his
own rci;earch, Harper illu,strates the vntue of photo elicitation in the study of the mear.ing
of change in the dairy industry h northern New York State. In photo elicitation studies,
photos are i:sed to stimulate a quality of memory that won:-based interv:ewing does not.
Harper discusses the use photographs to observe public life. lRBs have been reluc
tanl to give permission to photograph tne public without :nforrned conse:,t, But many
visi:al sociologists base their ?hotographic researrh on the model of documentary
phutography and photojournalism, where the right to p:iotograph tl:e public has been
 Part . Methods of Collecting and Aoalyzi r:g Empi~ical Materials Ill 645
guaranteed by amendments to the Constitu:ion dealing with the freedom of expression.
Visual sociologists point to these preccder.ts and argue that harm to si:bjects is unlikely to
occur from "showing nornal people doing normal things" in public.
]RBs :nsfat that confidentiality be mainta;ned, that su·;,jccts remain anonymous. But in
mrmv cases, subjects are both willing and pleai,ed to :ie identified; furthermore, their very
idemifiabiliry may be critical to the research project, ln st:ch situations, the researcher is
urged to develop an ethical covenant wi:h those being studied so t;rnt only :nutually
agreed-on materials w'll be publishtd.
We need to l.:arn how to experiment with visual (and 1:or,visual) ways of thinking.
We need to develop a critical v'sual sensibility, a sensibility that will allow us to bring the
gendered material world into play in critically Jiffercot ways. We need to interrogate criti•
call}' the hyperlogics of cyberspace and virtual realities. The :·ule, and methods for
establishing truth that hold these worlds toget'.ier mw;r also he better understood.

ii AurEOETHNOGRAPHY: NfAKIKC THE PERSOKAL Po:,:r1cAL

Stacy Holman Jones (Chapter 30) shows how autoethnography can be nsed to make
the personal political. Her essay is about autoethnography as a radical democratic prac-
tici:, a po'.itical practice intended to create a space for dialogae and deba:c almnt issi;es of
injustice. Her chapter, like Madison's !Chapter 21) cont~ibution on ethnography as strert
performance b Part IIl, tells by ~howing. Autoethnographic performances breathe life
into Hie ethnographies.
Personal expe,iencc refa:cts the f:ow of thoughts and rne-aning,~ peopie have in their
immediate situations. These experiences can be routine or problematic. They occur within
the life of a person. W'len they are talked about, they assume the sr:ape of n story or a nar•
rat:ve. lived experience cannot be studied directly beca:Jse lang·Jage, speech, and sys:ems
of discourse mediate and define the very experience one attempts to describe. \Ve study the
reprt'sentations llf experience, not experience itself. We examine tb.e stories people tell une
another about the experiences they have had. These smries may be personal experience
narratives o:- self stories, interpretations :nade up as the person goes along.
Many now argue that we can study only our own experiences. The researcher becomes
the research subject. This is the topic of ai::m,thnography. Holman Jones's text reflexively
presents the arguments for writing reflexive personal nacatives. lndeec:, her multivoiced
text is an example of such writing; it performs its own narrative reflexivity. Holman Jones
masterfully reviews the argun:ents for studying personal experience narratives, anchoring
her text in the discourses of femin:st posrstructural ism and pust• odernism, especially the
wor:<s of Ronai, E'.lis, Bochner, and Rkl:ardson.
Holman Jo:ies reviews the history of and arguments for ~his writing form, the challenge
to create texts that unfoic in tl:e life of the wri:er whUe embodying tactics that e:1act a pro•
gressive politics of resistance, Such texts, when per:ormcd (and writing is a form of per•
formance), enac: a politics of possibility. They shape a critical awareness, they disturb the
statJs quo, and they probe questions of ident:,y. Holman rcmes writes out uf her own
history with this method, and in so doing she takes readers to the Alexander {Chapter 16)
and Madison (Chapter 21) contributions on performance ethnography and critical
ethuog,dphy in Part Ill. In a r:uwil:g passage, she sl:ares a poem/letter she wrote to and for
her dead grandfather.
646 II HANDBOOK OF QUALITAflVE RESEAllCH

ln ht'!r concluding sections, Holman Jones embeds !he performance mr:1 ir. the
history of progressive theater. She the:1 invites readers to perform the tesrimony and
witnessing of personal stories, to stage improbable impossible encounters of possibility,
to create disturbances and chaoo, to stage arguments, and to use words in ways that
move the world.

II ONJJNt ETF.NOG1Al'l!Y

Annette i',larkham (Chapter 31) argues that computer-mediated cons:ruction of self, other,
ar.d sod.il structure constitutes a unique phenomenon of sludy.Offline, the borly is present
and urn be responded to by others. Identity construction is a ,itua :ed, fa;:;e-to-face process.
Online, in contrast, the body is absent and interaction is :nediated by computer rrchnology
anC: the produc:ion of written discourse, Mark;ur:1 examines many cf :he i;;sucs that can
arise in the qualitative study of lnlernct mediated situat:ons. ·;'hese are issues connected
to definitions of what constitutes the field or boundaries of a text as well as what counts as
lex.I or empirical rnat.:rial. How th0 other is intcrpre1 ed and given a texti:al prese:.ce is also
11ro::i!ematic, as are rtnical issues tha1 are complex,
Ethical guidelines for Internet research vary sharp:y c:cross disciplines and nations,
Markha:11 contras:s the utilitarian lRB eth kal model ?redominant l n 1he United States
with the deo1:1ological o:: com munitar:an stance predomi:'1.int Europe. Ii: :;ome nations,
ci:izcns enjoy a greate~· protection of privacy regarding data collectio:i ar:d use. Under the
usual IRB 11:odcl, onllne ethr:ographers wrestle with sccudng infor:11ed consent, and with
maintaining su·'.lje,I anonymity, wh:'.e protecting subjects from harm. l:1:cer a commm:l•
tarian, femin'st etr.ical model, resear,;hers enter into a collahorative relationship w:th a
moral community of on line interactar:ts. Attempts are r.iade to rstablis:1 agreed-on under•
s1amlhgs concerning privacy, ownership of m,1terials, the use of ?ersonal names, and the
meani:1g of broad p,inciples such as justice and benefice:ice.
Mark hum wisely conduces, "Because the Intemet is new, ii widespread, and has the
potential for changing the way in which pcoole live their everyday profe~sional and per·
sonal lives in a globa; society, it is essential to rd1ect ca!'!!folly on the ethical frames that
in:'luer,ce our studies and the political po,sibilities of our re,earch."'

1111. ANALYTIC PERS!'ECTJVES

In a powerful programmatic statemenl, Paul Atldnsor: and Sara De!amont (Chapter 32)
argue that social activity a1:d representation have their owr. i:idigenons modes of n:gilni
iatiuu, These modes indude la:1guage, discourse, narratives, visual styles, ami semiotic
a:id cultural codes, Qua:itative researchers must ren:air: foiH:fal tll this intJigenous orga:i:•
zation and deploy a:1alytic strategies tl:at are fitted tn it. We need rigorcus work that pays
systematic attention to the systemic relations ar:10ng :he interaction order, orders of talk,
representational orders, and the organized properties of material culture. Atkinson l!nd
Delamont endorse the rlisciplined use of such analytic perspectives and appnmches as
d:scourse, narra:ive, mid semfot:c analysis.
bquiry must also be concerned with forms of rnllec!ive :mt inrlhildual-soctal
action. l'urthermore, an engaged social s:1011ld remain faithful to the worlc and
 Part IV: Meth,;,ds :;f Collecting and Ana,yzing Empirical Materials Ill Ml

its orgar: izatior.. Atkinson and Uelamonl reject cer:ain pos:modem positions that free
qualitative analysis from the convcntions academic: writing. We need more pr:n.::pled
and disciplined ways llf accounllng for the world and its organization. The authors' pe,•
spective restores a partk·J:ar sense of tradition anc rnnt:tmity rn the q'.lc:Jitativc
research project, con:iecting it back, at one level, to the Chicago School of the 1930s
and 1940s,

• FOUCAULT'S ME'.'t:OD(LOGIES

It goes without staying that Michel Foucault was one of the giant intellei::ual s of the
20th century. The meaning~ of hi.s legacy for the humanities and the social sdences arc
multiple and unfold::ig (see Holstei1: & Gubriurn jtbaptcr IY in Part III] and Perakyla
·Chapter 341). At one level, as Karr.hcrelis anc Dimitriadis (Chapter 35) note in thicir
contribution on focus groups, Foucault's project represents an attempl lo under.land how
any objec~ has been constituted out of a particular in;ersection of forces, d'scuurses, and
inst:tutions. A genealogy maps the comp] ex and contradictory ways in which tiirces and
:;mcesses come together to produce a ..:er~a:r: set of cft,ect's. Foucaull's genealogies are no~
'1.istories of cat;~es; mther, they are histories of effects of consequences,
Foucau::'s work has trn<lition,1lly been civi<led into three sequent:al phases; archaeology,
genea~ogy, and care t~e sci£. Jar:ie.s Scb:nrkh and Ka:hryn Bell McKenzie (Chapter
focus on the firs: two phases, offering a masterful reading Foucault's methodologies and
his use uf axhaeology and genealogy, foucaul: or.ered nothing less than a sweeping critique
of rhc modernist view of tl:c human sciences am: of tr.e human s.:bjcct ( man ·1 as the objecl
of inquiry. He moved back and forth between sys terns of discou rsc, w'l.at callee: savoir
(e.g., implicit knowk•dge, everyday 01,inlons, commercia: practices), arid formal bodies of
learning (comzaissance), including spedt:c disdplincs such as ?reudhm psychoanalysb.
S~voir provides the discursive conditi01B for the development of connaissance. For
example, an understanding of the history of osychiatrr ,is a discipline requires the study of
the ,elations ar:10:1g rales o: jurisp,udem;e, norms of industrial labor and bourgeois mo~al •
and opinions of :nad:1es, in daily lifo. Foucault's archaeology focused on the analysis of
these local discourses, whereas his genealogy forn sed on Ihe transformafan: uf sud: kno;vl •
into more formal disdpli:iary Scheurkh and .\kKenzic u;;efolly outlir:e lhe
interpretive rules advocated by ?eucault in his archaeologies and genealogies.

Ill ANAT.YZ:NG TALK TEXT

Qualitat:ve rc~carchers slw::'y spoken and written records of l:u:nan experience, i:icluding
transcribed talk, fil:ns, novels, and photographs. Interviews give researchers accounts of
the issues be: ng sn;died. The top ks of ~esearch arc not imerv iews themsdves, Research
studies us~ng natural:y occurr:11g empirical tnaterials--tape record:ngs of mundane bter•
action-constitute topics of inquiry in their own right. This is the topic 11f Anssi Perakyla's
(Chapter 34) cur.tributio:1.
With Chase (Chapter Fontana and Frey (Chapter and Gubrium and Holstein
(Chapter l9 in Part I:I), Perak yla treats intt'.rv iew materials as narrative accounts rather
than as true pictures of reality. 'lext:: are based on lra:rn:riptio:i~ of :nten·iews and other
648 II HA\JD3001( OF QUALITATIVE RtSEARCH

form, of talk. These :exts are soda! facts; t:iey are produced, sharro, a;id used ir: socially
organized ways. Prmkyla discusses semiotics, discourse analysis, critical discourse analy·
sis, and historical discourse a:1alysi~ as approaches to undcrs:anding naturally occurring
textual material,.
Perakyla also discusses membership categorization analysis i)A.CA) as a less familiar
forrr: of narrative amdy,i::.. Drawing on the work of Ha:-v~y Sacks [Silverman, 1998),
Pe,ilkyla illui;trates the logk of MCA. With this method, the researcher asks how pcrso:is
use everyday ter:m and categories in their in1erac1ions w:th others.
Peti!kvlli . of There are two :nain social sde:1c:e traditions
' turns neX! to the analv,is
that inform the analysis of transcripts: conversation analys:s (CA) and discourse analysis
(DA). He reviews and offers examples of both traditioi:s, arguing th.a: talk is socially orga-
nized action tl:at cre.ites and maintains intersubjective reality. Drawing from his own
research on AIDS and its trea1rr.ent, Periikyla notes that in observing the "skillful practices
through which AlDS counselors encourage tl:eir clients to talk about their subjective
expcr'cnces, we were also observing the operation of an institution, involving powerful
relations and bodies of knowledge, at a particular rr: onent its historical development;'
I11 sum, texl•hased docnmcnts of experience are oomplex:. But if talk constltute, much
of what we have, then the forms of a:rnly,is outlined by Per1ikylli represent significant vroys
of making the world and its words more visible.

lil focus GRO:JPS: Pi:nAGocv, PouT1cs, AND INQUIRY

Kamherelis ~nd Dimitriadis (Chapter 35) significantly advance the discourse on focus
group me:hodology by showing how focus groups have been used in market and military
rcsea~d:, in emancipatory pedagogy, and in firsl•, second·, a:id third·ge:ieration feminist
i:iqdry. Bu II ding 0:1 Foucault, they place these :iree genealogies of focus group activity in
dialogue with. one another.
Ka:11:ierelis and Dimitriadis cuntrast the dialogical, critical theory approach to focus
grm;;:;s with the use of such groups h propaganda and n:arker research. In the marketing
mntext, focus groups are used to extract information fro:u people on a !liven topic. TI1is
ir: fo:-mation :s ther: used to manipulate pco?le more effectively. Critical pedagogy tbeo•
rists, s:.1ch a.;; Fre:re and Knzol, use focus groups for imagininl! and enacting the ''cr:1 anci·
patory ?Olitical possibilities of co:lectivc work;'
Kan:berelh and Dim ltriadis con:rru;t these two approaches witli the history of fo.:us
groups in feminist inquiry, noting the use of such groups in first•, second-, and third•wave
femirlht for:nat:01:s for m:iscious:iess-raisbg purposes. They draw on Madriz (2000), who
offered a mode: of focus group intervk"l\·ing:ha, emphasizes a fcmir:ist ethic of err.power·
ment, moral community, er.1otional engagement, and the development of Iong-ter:11 trust-
ing relationships, 1:1is method gives a voice to women of color who have long ::ieen silenced.
l'ocus groups facilitate women wr it:ng culture together. As a Latina feminist, Madriz µlaced
focus groups within the context of collective lestinonies and group resistance narrat'ves.
Foe.:, groups red nee the dista r:te berwre:1 the rese11rcher and the rcscarchec, 'I h: multivo-
cality of the padripanrs Ii miu the control of :h.e researcher over the research process.
Within this history, focus groups have been used to elicit aod validate collective tes:i•
monies. to give a voice to the previously silenced by creating a safe space for sharing one's
life experiences, The critical bsighls and pr,Ktices of consdousness-rui~ing grm:ps ha\'e
 Part IV: Met'.10ds of Coll~,t iug and Analyzing En:pi rical \Jate~ials 111 6·19

hcl;:,ed us to move :1wre deeply into the praxis-oriented commi1r;ie1::s of th.: seventh and
eigh:h moments. In these spaces, as the w0rk of Radway end Lather and Smithies docu-
ments, focu~ gmups ,an become fie vehicle for allowhg partki?ll!'.'.S to take nver and own
the research. ln ;h1:se ways, groups become the sites where pedagogy, politics, and
inter;,retivc inqui::y interse.;t and inform one another.
\Vhen this happens, a, in the projects ,:iscussed by fine and Weis (Chapter 3] in
Part I, inquiry become, dirertly '11volved in the cmnplc.~ities uf polil:cal a.::tivism and
policymaking.
Madi iz, Olesen, l,adson• Bill:ngs, and Don nor remh:d us tha; women of color experience
a triple subjug,.:ion based on class, race, and gene er oppression, Critical focus groups, as
discussed by Kambcrelis and Dimitr;adis, create the conditfons for the emergence of a crit-
kal r.;1cc rnnsdm:sness, a oonsdousnes~ focused 1m soc:al change. It seems with criti-
focus groi.:.ps,cr::kal race theory and progressive politics have found their methodulugy,

Iii CONCI USJON

T:ie rcsearcher-.is-mc:hfidological brknlcur should have a working far:1iliarity with each

of the methods of collecting and anclyzing cr1pirica'. r:rnterials presented in thh> parl of the
Handbook. This farniliar:ty induces underst,mding the history of r.,ch n:etho,l am: tech
n'.qt:e as well as possessing :iands-on experience with each. Only in this way can the liini·
tatio:1s a:id strengths uf each me:hod a;:id technique 1)C fully apprec:ated.At the same time,
the lnve,tigntor will see mu~e dearly how each, as a set of material ir:terpretivc p~ac:kes,
creates its own subject na:ter,
In addition, it mr:st be understood that rach p.:radigm and pers?ective, as 1m,sentcd i:1
Part II, has a d :sti net histor;· wi1h ! hcse methods rese,irch. AIthough methods as-tools
.
arc somewhat unive~sal in applicatio:1, thev, are not used u tl iform:v lw' researchers from a: 1
pamdigms, and when Lhcy are used they are fitted and adapted to the partkular:;ies of the
purac igm h q1:eslion. However, rese.rchcrs fro •: all paradigms and perspec:ives can prof,
itab:y make use uf each of 1hcsc n:ethod, of collectir:g and analyiing empirical materials,

ii Rm 1:tu,NCES
Angmsinu, .\,1, \t, & Perez. {2000), Rethinking observatio::: !'mm mc:::od to context In
N. Dcnzio & Y. i, Lincoln (Eds,), .'lrm,tlwck of ,1u1ilitmiw r.miarch (2nd J)!), 673 ··· 702 ).
·th.1•~~11nd Oaks, CA: Sage,
T,S. M,hone,, Plummer, IC(,2~02). Queering the interview·. In I. Gubrium & J, Holstein
( ~d,, ), fl,mdbaok :Jf qua 1ifafr1t, research: Om text a,!d mell,ad (pp 239-2511 ), T:1ousand Oaks.
(:A: Sage,
M,,driz, Ii. (2000). Focus g~imps in teminist research, ln N, K Denzin & Y. S, Lin,;oln (Eds.),
l!a11dbook of qu,,iitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835-850). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Oakley, A. (1981). In;,erv iewi 11g women: A contradicti:i:i in il'rms. In ll Roberts Il:d ,l, Doing femi·
uist resrun/i (pp. 30-61 ), Ltm,'un: Rout.edge.
Silverman, Ll ( 19':IB). f[,.rvey Sarks: ,'focial scietta! a111f amvcrsatioJ1 ana~>sis. Oxford, UK: Polity.
25
NARRATIVE INQUIRY
lvlultiple Lenses, Approaches, Voices
Susan E. Chase
D
uring the early I990s, as I struggled to
in:erpret and represent as narrative my
i:lterviews wifa women sdmol s·Jper-
intendents, 1 relied on a rkh interdisciplinary
tradit'on defending the study of individuals in
their social and histo:ical context That tradition
ind udes works as divers;; as Thomas and
Znaniecki's ( 1918! 192 7) The Polish Peruanl in
&trope and America, Garfmkel's ( 1967) c:bno-
methodolog:cal 11tudy of Agnes, a:id the Pcrso:ial
Narratives Group's (1989) :emir.is, explorations of
women's journals, life histories, and autobingra•
phic,. IIl this 11ad:tion, researchers begin with the
biographical leg ofMills's (1959) famous trilogy-
biography, history, and society. Mills called faese
three "the co-ordinate points of the proper study of
man"(p.143). Of course,J was also w:iti11g after:tu:
narrative tum, and so Barthe.s's (I 977) drama:ic
words-"narrative is presl'.'nt every age, in every
place, in every society" (p. 79)-had a:ready infil•
trated sociological theory. And yet J found few
empirical sociological studies based on interview
material that could serve as methodological mod
els for the particular way in which I wanted to treat
the women's interviews as narratives. Most he:pfu:
:o me was Ricssman's (l 990) approa6 to interview
material in Divorce Talk.·
These days, narrative inquiry in :he soda!
sdcr.ces is flourishing. Signs of this burgeo:1ing
include an interdisciplinary jour:ia:
called Narrnlive Inquiry, a '.;,ook series on The
Narrcuive Study of Lh1es, and professional .,;oofer•
enccs spccifirnlly showcasing narrative work. 1
Nonetheless, I s:ill get the sense that narrative
inquiry is a field in the making. Researchers new
to this field will find a rich ·Jut diffuse trad:tion,
multiple methodologies in various stages of
development, and plenty of opporkuities for
exploring new ideas, methods, and questions.
In preparation fur writing th:s chapter, I gathered
ar.d read as many examples of 1t>'hat might be called
nJ.:rative inquiry as I could, and I wrestled with var•
ious ways of delini11g the oontours of narrative
inquiry, both past and present Although qualitative
researchers now routindy refer to any p:usak data
(as oppo:<ed to dose-er.ded or short-answer data) as
"narrative" (Poikinghorne, 1995), I present narrative
inquiry as a particular type-a ~ubtype-of quali·
tative inquiry. Contenporary narrative inqu'ry can
be characterized as an amalgam of interdisciplinary
analytic lenses, diverse d:sc'.plinary approaches, and
both traditi<lnal and innovative methods-all
renJlving around an interest biogiaphkal pank-
idars as narra;ed by the one who lives them.
111 651
 652 JS HA:-:llllO(}K QUALl'~'ATIVE RESEARC:1-CHAPTER 25
In what follows, I begin by defining some
pivotal terms and then discnss the preciecrsso:'11
of contempora,y na ,rative xsearchers: sociolo-
gists and ant11ropologists who championed the
life history method during the first half of the
20th ccn!ury, secom:!-wave feminists who poured
11e-,\' lifo into the sbdy of personal narratives, and
sociolinguists who treated ora: narrilt:ve as a
furn: of discourse worthy of stuc.y ir. itself. After
that histor:cal overview, ! turn to contemporary
narrative inquiry, articulating a uf analytk
lenses through which narrative researchers view
en:?irica! matedal and outlining several current
approaches lo narrative research. Next come
explorations of specific r:1 efaodolog:cal issues in
contemporary narrathre inquiry. For researchers
who coiled narratives through intensive inter-
views, a central question is how lo treat the
interviewee as a na;rnlor, bnth during interviews
and while interpret:ng therr:. For all r.arrative
researchers, a centra: question revolves arour:d
whid: voice or voices resear~hers should u.se
as they i:1tcrprel and te?resenl the voices of
those they study. And although all qualitative
re::,eard1ers address the question of the relation-
sUp between the relatively small "sample" they
stndy and sum c larger whole, th is questki,1 is
particularly poignant for narrative researchers,
wl:o often pre.,s::nt the narratives of a very small
number of individuals-or even of just one
individual-in their p1b'.ished works. 'i'hc subse-
quen: section addressc, tr.e relationship between
:1arrative inquiry and soda. cl:angc. In the con-
duding paragraphs, I ske:ch some questions
that arose for me as I workeci OIi this chapter,
questions :hat l hope narrative inquirers wil I
explore during the coming years.
Bil FOUNDN'.'10,,,.,._t NIATTERS
AND H1sromcu BACKGROl'ND
Pivotal Terms
The :erms that r.arratlvc researc.1ers us= to
describe the e:n pirkal material the>· s:udy have
flcxib;e meanings, beginning with narrative itself.
A narrative nav be oral or written and mav be
' '
elicited or hea~<l ,hring fieldwork,an interview.or
"naturally occurring conversation. In ar.y of these
sitt.ations, a narra:ive may be (a) a short topical
story about a ;mrticufor event and sped tic charac-
ters such as an en counter with a friend, boss, or
dorlOr; (b) an extended stOiy about a significant
aspec: of one's life such as schooliug, work,
rr:arriage, divorce, childbirth, an illness, a t:auma,
or participation in a war or social movemcn::
or (c) a narative of one's nHire life. fmm hirfa to
the prcser:t.
hiswry is tl:c r:1ore specific term tl:at
researchers use to describe an extensive autobio-
graphical m,rrat:vc, in either ora; orwritlen form,
that covers a:J or most of 3 Jifo. But life hiswry can
also cefer 111 a wdal science text that presents a
person's biog,aphi,; In ,hat case, life sto1y may be
m,ed to describe tl:e autobiographical story in the
persods own words (for the com;dexity of thcs.,
terms, see Eertaux, 1981; Frank, 200n). Yet some
researchers treat th-: ter:ns life history a:1d life
stoq as interchangeable, definh:g :ioth a< birth·
to•prese:it narratives (Atkinsor., 2002), :or still
others, a lite story is a narrative about a ,pecilk
significant aspect of a person's life, as in the
secui;d definilior: (b) in the pre.:eding para-
graph. A life story may also revolve around an
epiphanal event (Denz:r., 1989} or a turning
(McAdams, Josselson, & L:eblkh, 201)1) i:1 one's
life, Instead of life story, some re;earchcr, use per
sonal narrative :o describe a cmnpe:Jing topica 1
narration (Riessman, 2002a)_ They may use this
term to indicate that they are :1ot talking about
literary narrat:ves or folklore (bu, see Narayan &
George, 2002, for the interm;ngJng of personal
narra,ive and folklore), Personal narrutive can
also refer in a more generic sense lo diaric:s,joi,:r-
nals, and lelters ;;s wdl as to a;itobiog~aph ical
stories (Personal Karratives G,oup, 1989),
Hislurirms use oral history to describe
inttrviews in whkh the is not on histori-
cal events themselves-historia:,s' traditional
inlerest-but rather 0:1 the mean i r.gs that events
hold for thosr who lived t:imugh them (McMahan
& Rogc~s, 1994; Prnmpson, 1978/2000). A tesii-
monio is a type of oral 1,;story, life history, or lire

story; it is a:1 explicitly political narrative that
describes and resists oppression (Beverley, 2000;
Tierney, 2000; :;ee also Jlcvnlcy, ~hap. 22, this
volume), ror the past few ~:.;!cadcs, testinwnio
been espeda[y associ::.:ed with the (usually oral)
narratives of Latin American activi ,ts ln revoh:-
tiunary moYemcnts (c.g.• 1fenchu, : 984; .\foyano,
2000; Ramlall, 19R I, 1994, 2003). Finally, a perfor•
manee narrative trm:sfor 1:i., any oral or written
narrative into a :JL.blic performance, e[ :he, on
stage (.Madison, 1998; McC&] & Recker, 1990) nr in
alternative textual forms such as pocr:is ar.d fic-
tion (Denzin, 1997, 2000, 2003; Richardson, 2002}.
Sociology and Early Life Histories
The predecessors of today's narrntive
researchcro include the Chicago School sodol O·
gists who collected life histories and other
sonal doct: mer:ts during lhe 1920.s and 1930s.'
Thomas and Zr:anl~cki's (1918/1927) The Polish
Peasant is freq 'Jent! y cited as the first sign ifi-
cant sociological use of life history, In the final
300 }'ages o[ the second volume, Thumas and
Znaaie~ki presented ::1c "life record" of a Pol'sh
immigrant, Wladek Wiszr:icwsk:, whom they paid
to write his autohiographv (;>. :912). The sodolo
gi, ts' voice preceded the life record with r:earl y
800 pages on the disorganization and reorgani-
zation social life in Poland as wel! as the orga·
nization and disorgani,atiun of social I: fo after
imm'gni:ion to :he United States, They also added
ex?l:matory footr:otes throughout \\liszniewski's
life record.
In ei;:plaining their interest :n life records,
Thon:as a:1d Znaniecki ( 1918/ 1927) stated,
A . .
social ins:::ution can be (:;:I• uncerstood onh: if
we do not limit n~1rselv1:s to the abstract study of
formal organizatio::, but ar.;llyze the way in 1,hich
ii appears in :iersonal cxperirnce of var'ous
mcmbcrs of tre grnup a:id follow the intluer:ce
which it has upn:: their lives. (p, J:133;
Indeed, they dc.imcd, ·'Personal records, as
complete as possfrile, constitute the pr,fect type
of sociological material" (p, 11!32). h their view,
Chas!:': :-/arrativc lnquiry Ill 653
social scientists tu med to other materials ar.d
methods because of practical difficulties; :: is too
time-consuming 10 gel sufficient numbers. of life
records on every sociological issue, am: it is too
ti mc-consuminJ! to analy,e them. Nonetheless,
som~ sociolog!sts, especially in i'olaod, made the
effort Jozef Chalasinski, a follower of Znaniecki,
cha:npio:1ed thr mctl:oc of Jsing publk competi-
tions to solicit hundreds of ord:nary people's auto-
biogrnphies. His research demonstrated 1hat Mthc
formation a:1d transformations of whole sucia;
cla,1scs (peasants, workt:rs l could he described am:
understood by analyzing sets of autobiographies"
(Rcrtaux, 198:, p. 3; see also Chi,:asi nski, 1981) .1
The Polish Prnscmt was followed by other
C:1i,,;ago School studies based on life histories,
especial! y of juvenile delinquents and criminals
(e.g., Shaw, 1930/l966, Sutherland, 1937), These
sodologists had some interest in the i:idividual's
subjective , but they were prin:arily
:n:ercstcd in expla:ning the individual's behavior
as an interactive process betw;;:en the individ-
'lal and his or her suducullu:·al cnvimn:neo:,
Although studic, of u,ban boys' and mrn'.s lives
are freque:1tly cited in reviews of :he ii fo history
r:iefaod, Hagood's ( 1939) ivfothers of th,i South:
Portraiture af 1he Whize 1emmt Farm lVi.mum also
ofter, a11 eitarr. pie of early narra:ive methods,'
During the 1940s and 1950s, mainstream
Amrrka11 sociology favored abstract theory along
with survey and statistical research me:hod,, and
Ihe ii fe r. istory method was marginalized, At this
point, sociologists I'l'ere n:ore interested in posi-
thrist methods that use single s:udies to confirm
or disconfirm predetermined hypotheses than in
research based on the "mosaic" mocel offered by
the Cl:icago School-studies that mar prod:.Ke
no defin':ivc conclusions of their own bnt that
contribute to a larger collective rcsC"ard1 er.deavor
(1:ieck~r, 19(,(,, pp. viii-ix. xvi-i;;viii; llcrtaux, 1981,
p, I; Denzin, l 97(), p, 219),
Anth mpology and Early Life Histories
Antr,ropologkal use of the life history method
c:11e:;ged early in 20th cent·Jry, mostly as. a way
of recordin~ American h:dian cu::ures that were
 654 1111 HANDBOOK OF QrA:,JrATIVE RESEARCE-CHAPTl:R 25
assamt'd to be nearly extinct 0 During the 1920s,
life history became a rigorous imth :npohigical
method wifa the publication o' Ra din's ( 1926)
Crashing Thuruier (Lang:, ess & Frank, 198 l,
pp, l 7-18, 20). Crashing Thunder, a middle-aged
Winnebago man in fir:ancial difficulty, wrote his
autobiography for a fee ir: two sessions (!,ude,
I961, p. 92). Radin ( 1926) supplied the .:ultural
context and heavy an notations of the life record.
During t:1e early period, anthropologists
gathered life his:ories as a way of understand :ng
cultural facts, choosing to st'Jdy people whu they
a,sumed were representative of their culturai
group (Langness & Frank, 1981, p, 24). By t:1e
mid-1940s, under the inf.uence of Ee ward Sapir,
Ruth Benedict, ar:d Margaret Y.eac, many
anthropologists had developed c stronger interest
in inciv1d1.:als pcr se and especially in :he rela ·
tionship between cultu:al context and distinct
;,ersonality types (Langness, l 965, pp. II, :9;
see also DuBois, 1944/1960; Kardiner, l 945).
Anthropolugist~ also used lift histories to present
insiders' view,, of culm re and daily life, as exem-
plified by Lewis's (196:) publica:ion of the life
stories of the members of one Mexican fam:ly b
Tile Children ofSanchez. [u this and other worb,
1,ewis also deve:Llpcd !he cnntroversial concept of
"the cultt: re of poverty" (Langness & !'rank, 19d I,
pp. 24-25). Finally, anthropologists have used
life histories to study cultura: change. as brought
about either by contact between different c1lrural
gmups or as th" res:il: of revolutionary move-
mems (Langness. l965, p. 16; Langness & Prank,
1981, pp. 24-27). Althoug,.i the majority of early
anthrnpologkal lite histories were studies of
r:,en, some anthropologists-mostly women --
used life h:story methods to study women's
lives ( Watson & Watson-Franke, 1985, chap. 6).
Feminism and Personal ~arratives
The liberation movements of the 1960s and
1970s helped tu reinvigorate the :ile history
method. For example, tbe civil rights movement
Ieri to renewed interest in slave narratives,
many of which had been coUected from l':136
to 19 JR by unemployed writers working with
the fedenil Writers' Project of the Works Projec:
Administration, More t::tan 2,000 oral histories of
former slaves had been deposited in the :.ibrary of
Congress, but only a glimpse of them was available
to the public :11 Botk'n's (1945) Lay My Burden
Down: A 1-'olk History of Slavt!ry. 1\,•o and a half
decades later, activists and academ:cs returned to
these narratives, and sociologist Rawick (1972)
published them b their entirety in 18 volumes of
The Americ,m Slave; ,4 Composite Autobiography.
In the introductory volume, he offered a beginning
toward a social histo:y of bla,k corr:munity life
under slavery, based on the narratives, countering
pre, ious academic treatment of slaves as voiceless
victin:s (p. xiv).7
T:1.e second wave of the wnmerrs movement
played a major role in th~ renaissance of !'fr history
n:ethods a:1d ti1e study of persona: narratives such
as journals and ai:tob:ugraphies. 1 As feminists cri•
tic;·.ied rhe a ndrocentric assump:ions of social
science-that mens live~ and activities are more
impor:ant than those of wumen and!m constitute
the norrn from which women's live~ ar:d activities
devia1e-t:iey begau to treat wo:nen's personal
narratives aB "essential primary documents fur
feminist research" (Personal Narrat:ves Group,
1989, p. 4). By listening to previously silenced
voices, fem:nis: researchers challenged social
science knowledge about society, culture, and
bistory {Belenky, Clinchy. Go'.dbcrger, & Tarule,
1986; Franz & Stewart, 1994; Gluck, 1979; Gluck &
?atai. l 991; Personal N'arratives Group, 1989;
Relnharz, 1992, chap. 7; Reinharz & Chase, 2002;
Watson & Watstln-Franke, 1985, chap. 6), 'rhroug.1
the influence of working-clas< feminists and femi•
nists of coior (among others), race, ethnicity,
nationalil y, social class, sexual orientation, and
disab::i:y came 10 the fore as central asi,ec:s
of women's lives (for an extensive overview,
sec Geiger, 1986; see also Olesen, chap. 10, this
volun:e). The decade or so of sernnd-w,ive
academic feminism procaced many examples
of fem in :st research based on life histories and
personal narratives (c,g,, Babb &Taylor, I':181; Hunt
& Wi ncgar:er., 1983; Jacobs, !979; Ruddick &
:::>aniels, 1977; Sexton, 1981; Side!, 1978; thr an
extensive list, see Reinharz, 1992, chap, 7).

The exp:osion int,m',,t in women's personal
narrat:ves was m:cmn;:1,mied b~· feminist challenges
to conventional assumptions about research rda-
t ionships ar:d resc,m:h methods. Thomas and
Znauiecki (1918/; 92 7), and manv who followrd in
!heir foot~teps, had said litt:c ahou: how they gath-
ered their materials, :1oting onlr that they moti-
vated people to write th~ir life b istor:es duoi:gh
monetary rewards or public contests (Langness &
Frank, 1981; Watson & Wa:son-Fmr,ir, 1985). In
addition, despite the early E:e historians' apparently
humanistic benl (e.g., Shaw's l1930/1966] interest
in amelioratir:g the miserable conditions of
Stanley's l:fe as a jm·enilc delinqu~:it and anthro•
pologists' bterest in recording what they ass;uned
were disa?pearing cultures), from a femini,t poirl
of view, the people in these li fo histories appeared
,t, distant"others" m ceviant"o:ijects" of social sci•
entist intere,t. It is i:nportant lo in mi:1d1 of
course, that the early llfe historians were writing jn
posltiv ist times, during which the sucial sdences
were struggling to gain recogr:itinn as ,denceo.9
feminists res;sted :he idea that life histories
and other personal narndws were primarily
useful for gathering information about histu1 ical
even:s, cultt: rnl c:hrmge, or the impact of sudal
struct:ires on individuals' lives. R,1ther, they were
i:iterested in wo:ncn as social a, 10:s thci, own
ri1:1,ht and in the subjective meanings that women
assigned to events and condifams in their lives.
lmporta:itly, these fe:ninis: lenses opened up new
undc,,randlngs of historical. cultural, and social
processes. Furthem::ore, as fcminis:s approached
women as subjects rather than ,,s objects, they
;;,!so began to con.side: their subjectivity-the
role bat re;;eard1ers' inlert:sls and social locations
play in the researc~ relationship. V{hose questions
should get asked and m:swered? \'\'ho should get
the last sav? How docs powe: operate in the
research relationship? And as :'en::i:1 lsts inrorpo•
rated postmoderr: influences, they began to ask
questions-wh:ch are still pertinent :oday-
about voke, authe:1tkity, interpretive authority,
and representation. \\fhat does it mean to hear the
other's voice! In what sense lo-or dun't-
wo:nen's )jfe histories ar.d personal narratives
"speak themselves"? How do imeractional,
Chose: Narrative Inquiry 'II 655
social, cultura:, and historical condi :ions nediate
women's stories? In what ways a:e women's voices
muted, mult:p'.e, and/or contradktOr)·? Under
what oonditior:s do women devdop "counternar •
ratives" as they narrate their lives? How should
researche:s represent all ,hese voices and ideas
it1 their written works? (Anderson & Jack, 199:;
McCall & Wittner, 1990; Personal Narratives
Group,: 989; Ribben~ & Edwa;ds, 1993).
Sociolinguistics and Oral Narratives
The mid· 1960s saw tl:e developme:11 of another
line of inquiry that has influenced contempor«ry
narrative research. Al this time, anthro:iologis:s,
sociologist1i, and socioli:igui,ts (e.g., Ervlng
Coffo::a n, Harold Ga~finkel, John Gumpe:z, Dell
Hymes, Harvey Sacks, Emanuel &hcgloff, William
labov} were explor:ng a ":-«nge of subject r.1atters
a: the intersection of language, interaction, dis-
course, practical actio:i, and i:J:rn,uce" (Sciegloff,
1997, p. 98).
A :967 artlde :ly 1.ahov and Walelz'.,y,
"Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personid
Experience;' is often cited as a groundbreskir_g
presentation of the idea that ordinary people's oral
narratives of e\·erycay experience Ias opposed to
full-tkdgnl life his7tiries, wr::te;: narrnl:ves, fo)k.
lore, and literary narratives) are worthy of study in
themselves, In thi~ article, Labov and Waletzky
(1967/l997) arg·Jcd that oral narratives arc a
s;n:c1t1c :orm of discourse characterized by certain
structures serv lng sped fo; social fur:ctiuns. Us:ng
data from indiviJual a:1d focJ& group bterviews,
they clai:nec that narrative discourse consists of
clauses that match the iempora: sequence of
reported even:s. They also identHied five s0cioli11-
guistk features of oral narratives: Orientation
(which informs listene,s about actors, t' me.
place, and situatiun}, Complication (the r:1ain
body of the narrative-the action), EvalJafam
(the point of the story), Re,qoJution (the re,mlt of
the action), and Coda (whkr. remrns the lister.er
to the currer:t mome::it ).
I:! 1997 1 the Journal <if Namifrn: and Life
lli~tory reprinted Labov and Waletzk)"s '.967
artide a long with 4 7 then -curre:it assessments
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALJ'l'.0:1':VE Rl'SEARCH-CHAP'fER 25
of how it had influenced linguistica]y infor • ed
narrative inquiry since it was first published,
Bruner ( 1997), for ir:stance, suggested tha: Labov
and \l'kletzky's "fivefold char.1<:le~ization of over-
a:l narrative structure tra11sformed the study of
narrative profoundly. I: ser many of us thinking
about the cognitive ,epresentation of reality
imposed narrative structure on our expe:ience
of the world and how we evaluate that experien1.-e"
(p. 64). Reterrir:g to his own int1uer:tia 1 distinc
lion between logico-sdentific and narrative
modes thought-wh'ch he had articulated in
Actual Minds, Po:,sib/e Worlds (Bruner, 1986)-
Bn:ner (;997) added, "I happily admit that it
set me thinking about na:-rahve not siu:pl y as a
form of text but as a 1r.ode of thought" (p. 64 ).
Many of the assess:nents nf the 1967 artide
;mint to limits of Labov and Waletzky's nar-
rowly struct11ral ist for • 'Jlation. For example,
Riessman (1997) gave them credit for helping her
attend to the fundamental structures and furn;;-
tio:is of oral narratives in her resenrc'1 on people's
experiences of divorce. But ,;he found their defin-
it:on of narrative much too narruw, and so she
developed a typology of narrative genres such as
tne habitual narrative and the hypothetical narra-
tive (pp. I 156), These helped Ries~man to
show how people recount their divorce experi-
ences differently and to discuss thr connect'.on
between the for:n and function of their speech.
ln a different vein, Schegloff (1997) critigJed
Labov and Waletd-y's failure to take into ac,ount
the interactioual cooteKI in which oral narratives
are elicited and received. Over :he pa~t three
decades, rnnversation analyst~ such as Sd::egloff
have explored (arr.ong other things) how stories
arise ar:d how they fonct:on in r:aturall)· occur-
ring conversatlons (for an overview, see Holstein
& Gubrium, 2000, chap. 7). Other sociolinguisti-
cally oriented researchers have investigated the
research interview i:,el( us a particu'.ar kind of
discourse or communicative event in whkh
narratives may he di.scouraged or encouraged
(Briggs, 1986, 2UU2; Mishler, 1986). Furt:iermore,
although Labov and Waletz.ky assumed a one-
to-one correspondence between a narmtive and
the events it describes-between narrative and
reality-mos: researd:ers since then have
resisted this referential view of language, A cen-
tral tenet of the narrative turn is that speakers
construct events through narrative rather than
simply refer to events.1''
Despite the Iimitations uf the original formula-
tion, the atter:tion that Labov and Waletzky
devoted to the; ingub fa strudure~ and functions
of ordinary people's oral narratives servec as a
launching pad for diverse explorations of the
soc:olinguist:c features of oral discourse. Many
contemporary narrative researchers embrace the
idea how i:1divid·J,ds :i.arrate experience fa
as importa:1t to the meanings they communicate
as is what they say.
l!l CoNTE~tPORARY NARRKnvE lNQ;.JtRY
Turning to the preser.t, l begin by OJtlining a set
of five analytic lenses thro·Jgh wh:ch contempo•
rary researchers approach empirical material.
These lenses reflect the infl ue11ce uf the hi.stories
just reviewed and, taken as a whole, suggest tne
distinctiveness of narrative inqui ,y-how it is
different from (if connected to) other forms of
qualitative research.
Analytic Lenses
First, nar:--.itive researchers :reat narrative-
whether oral or writren as a distinct form of
discourse. l\arrative is retrospective meaning
making-the shaping or ordering of past experi-
ence, Narrative is a way of understanding one'i;
own and others' actions, of organizing events and
objects into a meaningful whole, and of connect-
and seeing the consequer.i.:es o: actions and
events over time (Bruner, 1986; Gubr'um &
Holstein, 1997; Hinchman & H:nch:nar., 2001;
:aslett, 1999; l'olkinghorne, 1995). Unlike a chron-
ology, v,hich also reports events ov-er time, a
narrative commun:cate; the narrator's point
view, including why the uarralive is worth telling
in the first place. T'.1us, in addillon to descr:bing
what happened, narratives also express emotions,
thoughts, and interpretations. Unlike editorials,

poHcy statemer:ts, and doctrinal statemer:ts of
bel;ef, all of which also express a point of v[ew, a
narrative makes the seJ (the narrator) the protag·
onist, either as actor o~ as interested observer of
others' actions, Finally, unliki:, sdt:ntilk discO'Jrse,
which also explains or presents an understanding
of actions and events, narratlve discourse high·
lights the uniqueness each human action and
event ratner tha:1 their rommon proper:ies (Bn:ner,
l 986; Polkinghume, : 995 }.
Second, narrative researchers view narrat:ves as
verbal action-as doing or accomplishing some-
thing. Among other things, narrators expfa in,
entertain, inform, defend, complain, a:1d confirm
or challenge the status quo, Whatever the particu•
lar action, when someone tells a story, h" or she
s'lapes, constructs, and perforos the self; expe~i·
ence, and reality, When reseaxl:ers treat narra
lion as actively creative in this way, they
emphasize the narrator's \·oice(s), The word voice
draws our .ittention to what tl:e narrator com mu•
nkates and :10w he or she commui:kales it as well
as to the subject posit:on, or social locations frnm
which he or she speaks (Gubrium & Holstein,
2002 ), This comb:nation of what, how, and where
makes the narrator's voice partic:1lar, Further-
rr:ore, when researchers treat narration as actively
creative and the narrator'~ voice a.s par:ic•Jlar,
they move away from questions about the factuai
nature the narrator's statements, Instead, they
h'ghlight the versions of self, rea:ity, and experi-
ence that fae storyteller produces Ir.rough the
telling. Although narramrs are accountabl1: for the
credihility of their stories, nar:-dlive researchers
:rear credibllity and believability as som e:hing
:hat storytellers accor:1pJsh (Holstein & Gubr:um,
2000; Lincoln, 20ml).
Third, narrative researchers view stories as
';ioth enabled and constrained by a range of rncial
resonrces and circumstances, These incl udc the
possi':ihities for self and reality constr'Jctio:i that
are inteGthle within the narrator's community,
local setting, organizational and social member•
ships, ar:d cultural and h!storkal location. \'\lhile
acknm'l'ledging that every ins:ance of narrative is
particular, researchers use this lens to attend to
s:milarlties and differences across narratives, For
Na,rative loquiry Ill 657
example, :hey emphasize patterns in the storied
se:ves, subjectivities, and realities :ha, nar::ntors
create during particc.iar times and in particdar
places (Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 200 l; Brune,,
2002; Hatch & Wisniewski, B95; Holstein &
Gubrium, 2000).
Fourth, narrative researchers treat nana:ive~ as
socially situated irteractive performances-as
produced in this particular setting, for this partic-
ular audience, for these particular purposes. A
story tole to ar: i:lterviewer in a quiet relaxed set•
:ing will like! y differ from the «,ame" s:o:y told to
a reporter for a :devi~ion news show, lo a 11rivate
jou ,nal that the writer assumes will never be read
'Jy others, to a roomful of people who have had
similar experiences, to a social service counselor,
or to the sarr.e interviewer at a different time, Here,
rescard:ern emphasize that the narrator's story is
Bexihle, va riahle, and shaped in par: by interaction
with the audience, 1n otb,r words, a r.arrative is a
joint production nar,ator and listener, whether
the i:arrative arises ir. naturally occurring talk, an
interview, or a fieldwork setting (Bamtan, 1986;
Briggs, 1986, 2002; )Aishkr, 1986).
Fifth, na,mtive researchers, like many other
contemporary qualitative researchers, \·iew them
selves as narrators as they develop interpretations
and find ways in which to present or publish their
ideas about the r.arratives they studied (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000). This mear,s that the four lenses
just de,cribt:d make as much sense when applied
to the researcher as they do when applied to the
researchec, Breaking fro:u traditioral social
science practice, narrative researchers are likel7· to
use the first person when presenting their work,
thereby emphasizing tl:eir own narrative action.
As narrators, then, researchers develop meaning
out of, and so:ne sense of order in, the material
they studied; they develop their own voke(s) as
they construct others' voices and realities; they
narrate "results" in ways that are both enabled and
constrained by the social resources and circum-
stances embedded in their di~d plines, cultures,
and :,istorical moments; .J.nd they write or per-
form their work for parti cuJar audiences. The idea
that researchers are narrators opens up a range of
complex issues about voice, representation, and
658 111 HANDBOOK or QJALI'::ATIVE R:OSEARCH-CHAPTER 25
in:erpretive authority (E1:iihovich, 1995; Hertz,
1997; Josselson, I 996a; Kriege:, 1991; Tierney,
2002; Tie:ney & Lincoln, 1997}.
Tl:eoretica:iy, it is possible to treat these five
analytic lenses as disti net. Hnwcv~r, as researchers
go about the busi ne.~s of hearing, rolleL"ting, inter-
pret' ng, and represer.ting na~ratives, they are well
aware of the interconnectedness of the lenses. As
11:ey do their work, researchers may emphasize
one ur another lens ur t!:eil' inlerseclim1s, ur they
may shift back and forth among :he lenses,
depending rm rhei, specific approaches to empiri-
cal narrative naterlal.
Diverse Approaches
Although narrative inquiry as a whole is
interdisciplinary, specific approaches te:1d to be
shaped by interests and assumptions embedded
in researchers' disciplines. Without claiming to be
comprehensive or exhaustive in my categories,
I briefly outlir.e five nmjor approaches :n contem-
porary narrative inquiry. i 1 It is here that we sec
diversi:y anc nultiplicity in this field 0f :nquiry.
Some psychologists have developed an approach
that focuses on the relations:iip between individ-
uals' life stories and the quality of their :ives.
especially their psychosocial development. 12 In
additiun to gathering ex:ensive life stories, 13 these
rese-arcliers sometime., use conventional psy•
cholog:cal tests. For example, in a study of adults'
narratives about turning points in their Eves,
McAdams and Bowman (2001) found :hat those
who score high on conventional measure& of
psychological well-be:ng and generativity (i.e.,
commitment to caring for and contributbg to
future generations) are likely to tell ":iarrative, of
redemption;' that to construct negative even:s
as having beneficial consequences. Conversely,
those who score low i:1 terms of psychological
well-being and gener.i.tivily are more likely to tell
"narrative~ of conta:nination;" that i,, to present
good experiences as having negative outcomes.
Wbik acknowledging that biographical, social,
ci.:: tural, and historical circumstances condition
the Storie, th"t people tell about themselve,,
n~rrative psychologists look for evidence (e.g., in
a persons score on conventional 1:ieasures) that
the stories that people rell atlect how they live
their Eves. Tiey emphasize ''the for ma:ive eth:'.cts
of narratives" and propose that some stories
cripple, and others enable, un efficaciow, sense
of self in relation to life :;mb!ems or traumas
(Rosenwald & Ochberg, 1992, p. 6).
[n their interpretations, these psychological
researdiers tend to emphasize what the story :s
about-its plut, characters, and sometimes be
structure or sec_uendng of content. Along these
lines, McAdams [ l 997) argued that the content of
a life story c:n ::iodics a person's idcmity and that
both develop and change over ti:11e. This idea was
exemplified by Josselsoo's (: 996b) longitudinal
study of how won~en revise faeir slories and their
lives as they move 7hrough their 20;;, 30s, and 40s.
A second approacn has bee:1 developed by
sociolotsts who highlight the "identity work" that
people engage in as they construct selves within
specific inst: tutional, organ '1.ational, d:scursivc,
a:id local c'Jltural contexts. Uni ike the psycholo-
gists just described, who conccptJalize the lifo
,tory as distinguishable iom-yc1 having an
impact on-the life, these researchers often treat
narratives as l:ved expe:ience, T:ius, they .lre as
inte::esled in the hows uf storytelling as they are in
the whats of storyte:ling-in the narrative prac-
ticr", hy which storyteller, m2k,.-. use of available
resources to construct rccognizah:e selves, They
o'ten study nartatives that are produced b specific
o:-ga:i:zational se:tings such as prlsoos. rou:ts, talk
shows, human service agencies, self-:1elp groups,
1.u:d therapy ce:iters (Gubrium & Holsteir:, 2001;
Hols:ein & GJ h:-ium, 2000; Miller, l 997; Poliner &
Stein, : 996)_ For example, in her study suppmt
grnnps for womei: who have experienced dome,-tk
vlolem:e,Loseke (2001) showed how group facilita•
tors often encourage battered wome:i to transform
their narratives into "forrr.ula stories" about wife
abuse. She fo'Jnd thut muny women resist the
counsefors' version of their experience and resist
identifybg them~elves as "battered women;' and
she suggested that the problem may lie Jess b1
•,vomen's psycholog:cal denial of their victimizil-
tion and murt iu the formula story's failure to
encompass tl:e cor.iplexitie, of lived experience

(p. 122), As part of eve,yday live<! expe:-iencc,
narratives themselves are nessy and complex.
A major cor:cept.1al :ouchstone in this
suciological approach is the "depr ivatization"
of personal experience. This approach high·
light~ the wide range of instilu tional ar:c organi -
zational settir,gs-snme more ,md some le,s
coercive-that ~:iapc "tb, selves we live by:• A
n<"'so,f, movement across a variety of settings
c:'l:,ttes further rnnslrn:n:s as ,,-c: l as a plethora of
options for narrntir.H the se"if in a ::,ostmodern
world (Holstein & Gubrlum, 2000).
The third approach is also soc:oloj!ical. 14 Here,
narrative researchers share fae h:rerc11r in the
hows and whats of storytelling bu: their
inquiry on intensive interviews about
aspect~ of people's lives rn6er than on corwersa•
tions in spec'tk organizational contexts, These
researchers are bterested in how people commu-
nicate mcar:ing through a range of linguistic
practices, how their stories are embedded in
the interaction between researcher and narrator,
how they make sense of per~onal experience in
relation :o c1:lturally and h:storicall y specific
discourses, and how they craw or:, resist, and/or
transform those discourses as tbey narrate their
selves, experiences, and realities.
Exampk, of ti :is appwach :r:dude Langellier's
( 200;) study of how a woman performs tht>
and resi,ts mec ioil discourse as she comes tu
ter:ns with ':,reast ca '.!,er, Mishler's ( 1999) explo-
ration of adult identity formation ir. cra:'t artists'
work histories, Poley and Fairdoth's (2003) s:udy
of how midwives buth use and res:sl: rr:edical dis•
routse to legitimize thei:- work, Ric,sma:i's ( 1990)
ex~.mination of women's and mc:.'s divorce s1orles
in re'.atio:1 to discourse about marriage a:1d gen·
der, Bell's (1CJ99) exploration of how diethylstilbes ··
trol (IJES)-ex?osed daughters negotia:e tc:nsions
between .scientfic and fem:nist disrnurses,
l;Jttrell's ( 1997) analysis of the gendered and
,adalized identitie; of working-class mu:he:s who
return to school to get general cqi:ivalem:y diplo
mas ;GEIJs), a:1d ::..empert's (1994) analysis of how
a woman surv:vor of domes,k violence narrates
self-transformation in relation to her phys:cal.
psychological, social, am: cultural environments.
'.'Jarralivc lnq ui ry Ill 659
These researchers ofte:1 produ.:e de:ailcd
transcripts tu study :n:crndiomd prc,cesses \:1
t:,e interview as well as Iingu;slic and thematic
patterns throughout the :1arrntive, A major goal ot
c, is sociological approad: is s:,r,wi ng that people
,Teate a range of narra:ive s·.rategks in relatio:i to
their discursive envin::m:nents, that is, that indi·
viduals' stories arc constrained but not deter•
mined by hegemonic discm:rses, Another goal is
showing that narnitivcs prnvide a window to the
contrad:ctory and ,hding :iatcre of hegemonic
cl scourses, w:ikh we tend :o take for granted as
stable monolithic forces.
Anthrnpologists have led lhe way a four:h
appro~.ch rn na::rative inquiry, Some call this
approach narrative ethnography, whic~ ls a trans•
formation of hotb the ethnograp:1k and lite
'listory method,, Like traditional ethnography,
this app::oach i:woh-cs long•term i:1Volveme:it
in a culture or community; like jfo hi,lory, it
foci.:ses hravily on or.e individual or on a sma II
number of individuals. \·Vhat ma kc~ narrative
ethnography distinct is that hoth the researcher
and tb, rescarchcc presented
within a single mcltiv!lcal text focused on the
character and process of the human "n.;:ouoter''
(·1·Cd! 0(k, J<"'"' ... ,
JCh, :l. Y111J.
Myerhoff', (1979/ 1994) Numb,,, Our Dt1ys is
an co.:·ly exa • ple. :n this study of a co:nmunity
of elderly immigrar,t Jews in Californ:a, Myerhoff
highlighted the lifo of Shmuel Goldman, ;; tailor
an<l one of t:1e most learned membc;:i, of tr.e
cor:ununity. At the sane time, she anz.:yzcd her
subjectivity as well as her relationship with thoRe
she studied, Althougl: lvlyerhoff presen:ed page
after page of Shmuel's life stories "verbatim;'
also showed how her questio:1s and intertllp·
tiorn, 6hapcd Sh:nud's narrativi:, And she went
further. She described :ier dislustc on observing
selfish bkkedng {JVer food at a mm :nunity
lunch, and then-with the ht'lp of a dream- she
reinteryreted :hose actions as reflecting the ~ocia'.
and p5ychologkal conditions oi community
members' lives (pp, l 189). When Shmuel diec
durl ng the course of the s:udy, Myerhuff wrote a
conversation she imagined she and Shmuel
would have had abo:.1t ilr:o:her co:11nmnity
 660 11 HANl>l!OOK OF QGAUTATI\'E RE:iEARCH-CHAPT!iR 23
mer:1':iers ceath (pp. 228-231 ). Finally.she told her
own story of how her grandmother's stories il:t~u-
enced her own life and research (pp. 237-24~).
fa more rece:1t narrative ethnographies, resear-
chers are even more explicit about thr intersub.iec•
tivlty of the researcher and the researched as they
work to under,tand the- othe~'s vo:ce, life, a:1d
culture (Behar, :993/2003; Frank, 2000; Shostak,
2000b ). A maj (If goal of narrntive ethnography
is moving tu :be ce:ner of empirical a:1thropo•
logical work the issues of voice, inre,subjectivity,
interpretive aurhor:ty, and representation.
A fifth approach to narrative lnquiry is found
in autaetlinogrllphJ, wl:cre rese,m;:hers also tum
the analytic lens on the1:1selv;;s and their inter-
actions with others, but here researchers wr'te,
iuter;:m,t, and/o:' pe:form :heir own narrat:ves
about CJ!turally significant experiences (Crav,ley,
2002; E!Hs & Berger, 2002; E]is & Bochner, 1996;
Ellis & Flahe,ty, 1992; see also Holman Jones,
d:ap. 30, this volume). Autoethnographers who
,hare an interesl ir. a :oplc sometimes engage in
rnllaborativr research by conducting interviews
with each other, tape-reco:ding conversations
w: :h each other, and/or writing ser,arate ac.:ount&
of t1:ei r experiences, For ex,ample, Ellis and
Bochner ll 992) narrated separate and joint
accounts of their experience of Eilis's anwanted
pregnancy and subsequent abort:or.. And Ellis,
Kiesinger, ,rnd Tilbnann-Healy ( 1997) used an
interactive i:iterviewir:g method to investigate
Kiesinger's and Tillrnarm, Healy's experiences of
bu'.i:nia and Ellis', responses to :he:r aco:mnts.
Autoe:hnugraphers often present :heir work in
ahrrnative textua: :'arms such as layered accounts
(Ellis & Berger, 2002; Ellis & Bochner, 1996),
and many !:ave experimented with pe~forming
frleir narratives as plays, as poe:ns, or io va:ious
other forms (Denzin, 1997, 2000, 2003; McCall
& Becker, 1990; Richardson, 2002). Sometimes
auloeth:mgraphers resist analysis altogetl:er,
leaving interpretation up to the audiences of
their performances (Hilbert, 1990), The goal of
autoethnography, and of many performance
narratio:es, ls to show rather th.u: to tell (Denzin,
2003, p. 203) and, thus, to disrupt the po:itics of
traditional research ~la tionshi ps, traditional
forms representation, and tradi :ion al social
si.::ence orientations to audiences. '5
1111 .\1ETHODOLOGICAL. f S..<;UES IN
Cn:'f:'l'MPORA::i.v NARRATIVE I:-JQUUff
The Research Relationship: :ilarrator
and Listener in Interview-Based Studies
All nar:-ative researchers attenc to the research
relationship, but those whose stucies are based on
in-depth ii:terviews aim spccifiaill y at transform-
ing the inlerviewe~-interv:ewee relationship into
one of narra:n:- and listener, This hvolves. a shift
in understanding the nature of interview
tions and answc,s, These researchers often illus-
trate th is shift by telling about how they initially
ignored, grew impatient with, or got thrown off
track by interviewees' stories-and later realized
thei, mistake (Anderson & Jack, 1991; Mishler,
1986; Narayan & George, 2002; R:essman, 1990,
2002a). For instance, in Narrating the Organiza-
lirm, Czar:iiaw,ka ( 1997) described how she used
to a&k questiom that encouraged interviewees to
generalize and compare tr..eir experiences, for
exa:11plc, ''What are the most acute prohlems yuu
are experiencing today?» and "Can you compare
your present situation with that of 2 years ago?"
She found, however, that most people "won:d
break :hrough my structu:e» by ofering stories
about thr background of current circumstances,
"This used to b,ing me to the verge nf pan :c-
'liow to bring them to the point?'-whereas now 1
rum: at least learned that this is the point" {p. 28).
The moral of Czarniawska's account, and of
s:milar accounts.is batt!:e sto:ies people tell con•
stitute t;ie empirical material that interviewers
neec if they are to understand how people crea:e
meanings out of events in ::ieir lives. To think of
an Interviewee as a narrator is :u make a concep•
tual shift away from the iC:ea that interviewees
have answers to researchers' questions and
toward the idea that interviewees are narrntors
wi:h ,t.iries to tell a:id voices of their own.
Let me pause to say that th:s idea need not
reflect the roi:1antic notion, critiqued by Alkh:son

and Silverman ( 1997), faat "the open-ended
interview :he opportunity for an authentic
gaze into the soul of another" (p. 305). Similarly,
Gubrium and Holstein (2002) critiq t:ed the
:rn:ion of a ;rnrratnr's "ow:;" voke, wh'ch lmplies
dw: narrators' stories are 10: socially mediated.
I contend that conceiving of an interviewee
as a narrator is not an interest ir: the other's
"authentic" &elf or i:nmediated voke but rather
an interest in the other as a r:arrator of his or her
particular biogra:ihical experiences as he or she
understands the:n. Although any narration is
ahvavs, enabled and constrained by. a host of social
circumstances, duril;g inten•iews the r:arrative
researcher needs lo orient lo :he particularity o::
narrator's story and voice.
Tr:is conceptual shift has consequetces
for data collection (as well as for interpretive
processes, which I will get to next). W'len
r<:'searcllers conceive of interviewees as nar rnton,,
they not only allend to the stories that people
happen to tell during interviews but also work at
invirir.g stories. Alt:.o·Jgh ~ome interviewees te[
stories whether or not researchers want to hear
them, other ir:terviewees might not take up the
part of na,rator unless they are specifically and
carefully invited to do so.
Paradoxically, assampt'.ons embedded in
our "interview society" may discourage intervie•
wees from becorr:ing narrators in the sense tr.at
I am develop'ng that idea here, L>enzin and
Lincoln (2000) suggested that we live "in a
society whose members seem to believe that
intcrvii:ws ge:1erate usefu: information about
lived experience and its meanings" (p, 633; see
also Atkinsm: & Silverman, 1997; Gubrium &
Holstein, 2002). Yet :nterviewees often speak in
generalities rather than specifics, even when
talking about !heir experiences, because they
assume (often acrnrately l that researchers are
imerested in what is general mther than partku·
lar about their experience (Weiss, 1994). As
Czarniawska ( 1997) s:ated,researcher.s often "ask
peop:e in the field to compare, to abstract, to gen•
eralize" (p. 28 ). Sacks ( 1989) called these "socio·
logical ques:itms" questions that a~e organized
aro11nd 6e researcher's interest in general social
Chase: Narrative Inquiry 111 661
processes-even though the c1estions raay be
coucbed in everyday language (p. 88). When
researchers sociological questions, they are
likely to get sociological answers-generalities
about the interviewee's or others' crperiences, Tie
interview questions that qualitat've researchers
include in appendixes to their studies show how
often they encourage inb:r v;ewe~, tu S?eak
generally and abstractly."
How, then, do narrative researchers :nvite
interviewees to become narrators, that to tell
stories about biograp:iical particulars that are
meaningful to them? I have described th:s as
a matter of framing the interview as a whole with
a broad question about whatever story the 11arra·
tor has to tell about the issue at hand (Chase,
l 99 Sb, 2003 ). This requires a certain kind of
preparation hefore interviewing; it requires
knowins what is "storywur!hy» in the narrator's
soda! sett!ng, an idea that is most easily grasped
through examples from non- Western cultures,
Grima (: 99 I), for ins:ance, found that Paxtun
¥;omen in Korthwest Pa;cistan attributed :he most
value to stories of ,ufferi ng and personal hard·
ship and that these stor:es were intimatdy con·
nected to a:i honorable identity. If a woman had
no such experiences, she had m> story to relL
Similarly, in Rosaldds (1976} anthro?o'.ogical
fie:dwork with Tukbaw, an Ilongot man in the
Philippines, th..: researcher told of realizing that
he had cume dose to "assuming that every man
has his life story within him" a:id that the narra
tor himself "should he ('le subject of the narra·
tiv1:" (pp- 121-122 ). Although Tukbaw had plenty
of stories to te:l, these Wesler:1 assumptions about
na,ratives were unfamiliar to him,
Although broad cultural assumptions condi •
tion narrators' voices and tbe stories they have to
tel:, so do specitlc institutional, organizational,
and/or discursive environments (Cubrium &
Holstein, 200!). In my study of women school
superintendents, for example, the :hat they
are highly successful women in an overwhelm-
ingly whi:c- and n:ale-dominated occupation
shapes their work narratives and makes them
storyworthy in a particular way, Their work nar•
:atives revolve around the juxtaposition hetween
 662 11 HANDBOO;;;: OF QL:AUTATIVE RESl'ARCH-CHAPTER
their individ1:al acco mplisbnents, on the one
l:and, and the gendered and racial inequities
they face in their prnlession, on the mhcr, and
this juxtaposition makes their wo,k narratives
ir.:eresting not only to re;,earchers and the gen-
eral puhl:c bur also to themsc:vcs ((hase, 1995a,
PP- A-15}, Once a researcher has a senbe of the
broad parameters of the s:ory that lbe narra!m
has to tell-of what is s:orf''\'Drlhy given the
narrator's sodd location in his or her culture,
commu:1ity, and!or organizatiunal setting-the
restarc'.ler can prepare for narrative interviews
by Jevelop ing a broad question that will inv '.te
the other to tell his or :icr s:ury (Cha~e, 1995b}.
The pni m. of course, is not to ask for a "formda
story" (Loseke, 2001 ); in;;tcad. the researcher
needs :o know the parameters of the story that
others s:mi!arly situated couiti tell so as tn invite
this person's story.
Jn some cases, it may be easy to figure out
how lo frame :he inlerv:ew as a w:1o;e; it r:1ay
be e!lsy to articulate a broad open question that
wi:1 invite a personal narrative_ ;n my study of
women s·Jperintendents, the question abo11t their
career hi~tories Iu,ned 0111 to be pivo ta:. (! confess
tha: I did not understand it this way at ttte time
a:id that my coresearcher, tuI:ecn Bell, and
I asked ple:iry sociological quesdons along the
way.) But it is not always so easy to know what
the broad question will For example. Sacks
[1989), i:1 her cthnogrnph:c study of working
class won:1m',, militancy and :cadership in the
workplace, cnncucted int,:,rvicw.s to undrrsta:1d
thr connection between what wome:i learned
from their families and r':om their work?lace
miiitar.cy, After her sociological interview que,5-
tions prodnced dead ends, she finally began to
ask "how :hey learned about wu::k am::. what it
mt".int to them:' She realized that this question
invited stories that showed how "family learning
,u
empowered women rebe:" (p, 86),
Being prepared to invite a story, however, is
only pa~I of the shift :n the resear,h relationship,
Burgos ( 1989) described a transfo:m;diou that
may occur when an interviewee takes up the
invitation to become a narrator:
A life story ,umc, uE successfully when its carrator
e,ercises her power upon the 11ers0;: whu is m,trn-
s ibly conducl,::g :he ·nt,erv1,w by derealising his
interventions, rnpturing his a1tention, ntJ'.'.'alizing
his will, arousing h:s desire to learn son:~thing else,
or something ::iore, ban what would be allowed hy
the logic of :he narrative (p, 3:\;
'this Mat,'ment offers a stro:1g version of
narrator's voice as well as o:' the researcher's
listening; :n speaking from and about bio-
graphical particulars, a narrator may disrupt
the assm:1ptioas that the interviewer brings to
the rrseaxl: relationship. Thus, narrative inter-
viewing invo:vcs a paradox. On the one hand,
a researcher reeds to be well prepared to ask
good questions that wi!l invite tho other's par-
:ic ular story; on the other hand, the very idea
of' a particuiar story is that i: ca:mot be known,
predkted, or pre;:rn,ed for in advance. The
narrator's particular storj' is r,ot identical to-
and rr:ay even depart rad:cally from-wl:at is
"~:oryworthy" in his or her social contex:.
An example can be found in my own research.
As Colleen Be:J and I interviewed a woman super-
ir:tendent who was leaving her joh for a pres-
t:gious and less stressful position, she showed
us family photographs and began to tell stories
abou1 a family rr:er:iber who had a serious
phys:cal disabil'ty. At the lime, I experienced this
a~ a digression from her work narrative, ar.d
I waited ?at icntly for her to get back to it_ Later, as
I revieweri the :n:erview tape~, J rea:ized that her
sharing of family photos and stories was integral,
not ::;:,eripheral, to her work narrn'.i ve; her career
move "down;' away fton: the exhau."ing atci very
public work of the superir.cendency, wc.s for her a
move toward a n:orc ha:anced work-family rda•
tionship, If I had been open to understand:r:g the
family photos and stories as central to her work
narrative, I might hav;; prompted for and heard a
fuller acco1111t of the p,ulicular way iri which tbs
won:ar. 11arra:ed her career history, She was
speaking in a ci:Terent voice, or from a different
subjcc: position, from w'lat [ had anticipated; she
disrupted my asrnnption about the "logic" a
career narrative,

The rnterpretive Process
in Interview-Based Studies
W:u:n it comes to interpreting narratives hc-ard
during interview;;, n.irrative researchers begin
with narrators' voicts and stories, thereby extend-
ing fae :1 arrator listener rclatiom,hi? ar.d the
active work of listening into the interpretive
p:-ocess. This is a move away from a traditional
thc • e-oriented r:1ethoc of analyzing qualitative
mat"ria!. Rafaer than locating d:stinct faemes
across l:1terviews, narrative :-esearchers listen first
to the vnicr;; within each narrative."
r ~ealizcd the :m pommce o" this shift as l
interpreted the women ,uperintendtnts' inter-
views. At first, I tried to organize ,he transcripts
intu themes about work (e,g,. asp' rations, compe•
ter:ce, confidence) and themes about inequality
(e.g., barrie,s, discrimination, responses). Bui l
soon founc that it was difficult 10 separate a
woman's talk about work and her talk ahm1t
inequality; rina]y it dawned 0:1 me that there was
a connection between a woman's construction
of self in ooc- story (e.g., about her individual
st:-ength as a competent :eader} and her construe•
tion of self in other stories (e.g., a'iont her indi ·
vidual strei:gth :n fighting discrimination). Thi:s,
I began lo focus er: connections a:nong the vari·
ous stories that a woman tole over :he course of
the inrcrview. I u~ed the term narrative strategy to
refer to the S?edfic way in wr.kh each woman
juxtaposed her stories abonr achievement and
he1 stories about gendered and/or :-acial inequal-
ities, that how she navig,,:cd the disjunction
het.veen indiv:dualistic discourse about achieve-
ment and group-oriented d :scourse about
inequality '. Chase, 1995a, pp. 23-25 ). T"ie term
narrative strategy draws attention tll the com-
plexity within each woman's voice-to the various
subject positions each woman takes up-as we[
as to diversity among women's voices bC1:ause
each woman's narrative strategy is par,ki:lar,
Na::-rative researchers who base their work on
intervk'\'.·s use a variety ()f methods fo: listen-
ing 7o-for imerpreting-complcxiry and rnulti-
iicity within :1arrators voices. For example, in
Chi:se: Karrntive Inquiry 111 663
their sti.:dy of adolescent girls ~at risk" for early
pregnancy and dropping uut of school, Taylor,
Gilligan, a:id Sulliv.in ( 1995} described an explic-
itly feminist Listening Guide that require:. reading
each interview four tir.1es. ?irst, they attemied
to "tl:e overall shape the narrative ,md the
resean;;h relationship"; second, to the narrator's
first-person voice-how and where she uses 'T';
third anc fourth, to "contrapuntal voices"-vokes
that exp:css psychological development, on :he
one ha:id, ,me psychological risk and lms, oe the
other (pp. 29-31). In contrast, Barr:berg (1997)
focused on three :evds of narrative pos:tion ing:
how narrators position self and other;; (e.g., as
protagonis:5, as antagonists, as victims, as per?e•
r~ators ), hm, narf'<1tors position self in relation to
the audience, and how nar:arors "position them-
selves to themselves;' that construct [local I
an~wer to the question 'Who am (p..337}.
Ii: one way or another, then, narrn tive
researchers lis:er: to the narrator's voiccs-:o the
subject positions, ir.terpr<'tive pmct!cei:, ambigui-
ties, and complexities-wirliin each r: armtor's
story; This p:ocess usually i ndudes attention to
the "narrative '.i:lkages" thr.: a storyteller develops
between the biograph:cal particulars of bis or her
life, on the one hand, and the resources and
cons:raints in his or her environment for self
am: reallt y construction, 011 the othe (Holstein &
Gnbr: :i m, 2000, p. 1(}8 l. Rather than t: nitary, fixed,
or authemic selves, these researchers suggest that
narrators construct "nmmnitary subjectivities"
(Jlloom & Munro, 1995), "revised" identities
(Jossdson, : 9'l6b ), "permanently 11:isettled identi-
ties" (Stein, I 997), and "troubled identities"
(GJbrinm d;; Ho;stein, 2001),
Researchers' Voic1:s
and Narrative Strategies
Implicit in my discussitn; of how the
researcher listens to the narrator's voke-both
during the interview and while :n:e,preting
the researchers voice. He:-e, I return to issues
I raised under the fifth analvtic 1er1s--1ssi:,,s of
voice, interpretive aJthority, and rcpre~enlalion.
 664 11 HA'\'DROOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-C!iAPTfR 25
To sort out a range of possibilities. I d~velop a
typology of three vo:ces or narrative stralegies
that contemporary narrative researchers deploy
as they wrestle with the question of how to use
:he:r voice(;;) to interpret and represent the nar•
:ator's voice(,). My typology is not an exhaustive
and rigid classification of every possible narralive
strategy; rather, it is a flexible device for under·
standing the diversity in narrative researchers'
voices. In practice, researchers may move back
and forth among them.
The Researchers Authoritative Voice
Many narrative researchers de\'eiop an aathor-
itative voice in their writing, inch:rling those I just
described in the section on interpretive processes
in interview-based studies and those I descrihec
previous:yin the sec:ion on diver,e approad1es as
taking psychological and sm:iologka. approaches
(the first three approad1~s), Tl:is r:arrative strat-
egy connects and se?aratcs t:1.e researche!"s and
narrator's voices in a particcJar way. Sociologists
ust:ally presen: long stretches fro • narrators'
stories or long excerpts of naturally occurring
conversation, followed by their interpretations.
Psyc:10logisls are more likely to offer long ,t:m •
maries of narrators' stories, followed by their
interpretations. In each case, in tb: texts 6ey
create, researchers connect or intermingle :heir
voices with narrators' voices,
At the san:e lime, these researchers separate
their voices from narrators• voices :hrough the!:
interpretations. They tissert a:1 authoritative
interpretive voice on :he groi:nds that they have a
diffe:ent it1terelit from the narrators in the narra-
tors' stories. Fo, example, during an ir.terview,
both narrator and listener are interested in devel-
oping 6e fullnes:; and particularity of the narra•
tor's sto,y, b:.it when it corr.es to interpreting, the
researcher tur:is to how and ·A!hat questions
open up part'rnlar ways of unders:anding wha:
tr:e narrator is communicating through his ur
her story. These questions are about narrative
processes that narrators ty?ically take for grantee
as they tell their stories rnch as their 'J se of cul-
tural, institutional, o, organizational discourses
for making ;;ense cf experience, their developmer.t
of narrative strategies or :iarrative Ii nkages i:1
relation to cnnflkting discourses, their co:nmuni·
cation of meaning through linguistic features of
talk, and/or their reconstruction of psychological
i~sue.s through particular :netaphors or subju-
gated swrylines {Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001;
Capps & Ochs, 1995; Chase, 1996; Gubrium &
Holstein, 1997; Hinchman & Hinchman, 2001;
Holstei:i & Gubrium, 2000; o,:~berg, l 99(i;
Rosenwald & Ochherg, 1992),
By wr:ting with an authoritative vok:c, these
researchers arc vulnerable tu the aitid sm that
they "privilege rhr ~.nalysfs listening ear" at the
narrato,'s expense (Denzb, 1997, p, 249)_ After
ai:, as narrators work to n:ake sense of their expe-
riences thro:.igh narrntioi;, tl:cy do not !alk about
selves we live by;"'identity work;' "r:or.u:1t•
tury subjectivities;' "discursive cons:raints;' or
"hegemonic dfaconrses:' Nor do researchers talk
this way as ftey narrate stories in their everyday
lives. But I prefer (in part because my work fils
here) to understand these researchers as making
visible and audible taken.for-granted practices,
?:-Ocesses, and structural and cu ltnral features of
ou, everyday social worlds. The soc:o:ogical con-
cepts that researche,s deve:op serve that aim.
Oc:iberg (1996) art'culated this point from a psy•
dmlogical perspective: "Interpretation reveals
what one [the r.arrator I mighr say :r or: 1y one
could speak freely, bt: t we can see this only if we
are willing to look beyond what our informants
tell us :n so many wurdsn (p. ':18),
By ta;,,ing up an au:horitative sociological ur
psychological voice, the rescarchs:r speaks differ-
ently from. but i:ot disrespectfully of, tr:e :i•rra-
tor's voice, Czamiawska (2002) suggested t~ at
"the .iustke or injustice done to the original nar-
rat:ves depends on tr:c attitude uf the researcher
and on t11e precautions he or she takes" (p, 743),
In ciscussing "narrative responsibility and
respect:' she recommended that researchers
allcnd lo dh•ersity ir: the stories that va:ious nar•
ralors tell, In dominant and !'.1 arginal reacings of
narrators' stor:es, a:id to narrators' :esponses
(including opposition) to the researchers' ir.tcr•
pretatiuns (pp. 742-744).1' It bears emphasizing

:bat wi:er. these researchers present extensive
quotations from :tarrntors' s:ories, they make
room for readers' alternative inlerp:i:tations
(Las:ert. 1999; Rkssman. 2002).
The Rese,ircher's Supportive Voice
At t:ie other end of an imag'nary con:inuum,
some narrative researchers develop a mppor..ive
voice fa at pushes the narrator's 'mo the lime-
lig:it. This is charncter:stic of Latin A:nerkar. tes-
timnnios, For e:<ample, in l Rigoberta Menchu: An
Jndian lwmum in Guatemala (Menchu, 1984),
translator,Ann Wright, offered a short preface, and
anthropologist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray wro:e an
introcuct'on ir: which she described how ,h c mn•
ductec. and edited the i:iterviews with Menchu.
But tr.e majority of the book consists of Menchu's
uninterniplro stories. Diar:a Miloslav:ch Tupac
developed a similar'.y supportive voice as editor
and annotator of the work am: ,r.llohDgraphy of
t:1artyred Peruvian activist Maria Elena l,foya:io
(Moyarrn, 2000). Significai:tly, these two test-
:monio, named the narrators-Menchu am:
Moyano-as the bocks' authors. 0th.:, ks-
timonios, especially those that include two ur r:mre
narrators, name the resea,chcrs as the authors
(e.g., Randall, 1981, 199t,, 2003).
Researchers w:10 publish oral h:stories or lite
histories may also use a muted ~upportive
For instance, in Shootak's (1981/200lh) ir:t:uduc·
tion a:1d epilogue to Nisa: The Life and Words of a
!Kung Woman, sl:e described her research with Nisa
and :he !Ku:1g people, and sl:e began each chapter
with anthropoloi,;ical commentary. But the major•
ity of :he book consist. of Nisas stories a.so
31auner, 1989; Gwaltney. 1980/1993; ·:erkel, 1995).
When resea~chers present performance nar•
:.itives, they may also deploy supportive vokes.
~or exarr:ole,Mad:son ( 1998) <lescribed a theatr:-
-:al j}crformance of the personal narratives of
two women cafeteria workers who led a strike
for bctrc~ pay and working rondilior.s at the
University of North Carolina. Although the strike
took place in '. 968, the public performance of the
narratives took face 25 years later to a packed
audienee durit:g the university's blcentennlal
Chase: Nirra:ive lnq·Jiry 111 665
celebrat:or.. Both women were in the audlence,
and after the pcrforr:mnce they received "a
thu:1derm:s and :engthy standi:ig o,;at:or." (p, 280)
as well as atkntion fro1r: the media. On the
occasion of tl:e performam;c. the researcher's voice
as interviewer and edilor of the women's narra•
tives was muted; the perforn:a:ice high lightec
fae women's voices and opened possibilities for
politkal and civic engagement on the part of the
women, the audience, and the performers/1
ln each of these cases-tt:~timonio, o,al
I: istory, life history, and performance narrative-
th c researcher {and translator, who is so:ne-
:imcs-but not always-the same person}
makes c.ecisio:is about how to translate and trar.-
scri be the narrator's story, which parts. of the
story to include in the fi :ud pmduct, and how to
orga:1ize a:1d edit those narts into a lexl or pe:fur•
mance.And hecause the goal of this na,mtive
strategy is to hring the narrator's story to the
public-to the :1a:-rator's story heard-
researchers do not i.:suallr dwell on how they
~ngaged i:J these inlerpreti vc processes. Or if 1hey
do, tiey do so elsewhere. Por eirn:nple, in an arli
de written after Nisa was puhl'shed, Sho,lak
(1989) discussed the co:nplcxitlcs of these in:er-
pretive decisions, including the way in which sl:e
presented three voices in the book: Nisa's
persml voice, Shosrak's anthro?ological voice,
and Shostak'$ voice "as a young American won:an
ex?eriencing another world" (pp. 230-2 31 ). A'.or,g
.somewhat diffe:-ent '.ines, 11adiso:1 (I 998,
pp. 277 -278) explained th<:' idea of the "perfo:--
mance of possibilities;' which undcr:ies perfo,.
mance narrative~ and which provides a strong
framework during the perform.mcc itselt:
These researc'iers rr:ay encounte:- the criti·
cism that they romanticize the nar,ator's voit:e as
"authentic" (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997). At its
best, however. this rarratve strategy aims not
for establishing authenticity but rather for creat•
ir.g a sclf-re']ective and respectfu; distance
betwee:1 researchers· and nar,ators'voices. There
is a time and faere is a place, thcsr researchers
might say, for hig.hlighting narrators' voices arid
moving tem?orarily to the margins the ways
:n which researchers (alor.g with a host of social,
666 Ill HA)llJJJOOK 01' QUAUT/\T!VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
cultural, and Hstorical circumstances) have
already con di :ioncd those voices.
The Researcher's lnteraaiw Voice
A third ;1 aru Ii ve ;;trategy displays the
cnmplcx intenu:lion the intersub;'ectivi~y-
between researchers' and narrators' voices. These
researchers exa:11ine their voices-their subject
pos'l io:1s, sucial locations, interpretations, and
personal experiences-through lhe refracted
medium of JJarrators' vokcs. This r.arrative ~1rnt·
egy characte~izcs narrative cthnogrnphies as well
as some au1octh11ographies.
Frank (2000) used thh narrative strategy
in Ven us (JII Wheel.s: Two Dea,des of Dialogue
,m IJi$abi!itv, Biography. and Being Femuie in
Ameri,a, in w:uch she presented her long term
relatiomhip wi:h ::>iane l}fVrics, a woman who
was :mrn withm;: arms and legs. Fra:1k not only
presented De Vrics's stories abool Ii ving wit!: her
disability but also imrcstigakd own h:terest in
DeVries's stmics:
In c:mosing :o w:ite about the life of Diane DeVric:;,
I ::a,I to ask my~elf how it was tha:, as an anlhr:l-
pulogisi, I chose not :o 1r1vel to som.; rcmott place,
but to ~lay at home s:uJy one individual, one
with a congenital ,bsencc of' limbs. (p. 85}
Through reflection on ,,,.w,,.,., ,."' of others'
cisabilities, her own disabilities, and e:notional
lack and los, in her own life. Frank realized thar
"I had e"pected :o find a vict:m :n Diane" but
ir.stead "ound ''a survivor" (p. 87).
I:i :eres tingly, in Ret11m to Nisa, Shos :ak
(200/Jb) l'evdoped the ,amc narrat! ve strategy
while moving in the opposite geographic direc·
tior.. Whereas Frank needed lo u:ide::stand why
she chose tn at homt1;' Shostak :ieeded to
uncerstand why, after being diagnosed with
hrea,r cancer, she felt coi:1;,elled to leave her
htL~band and tl:ree young chiklrcn to spend a
moot!: in Botswana with Nisa and the other
!Ki:.ng people whm:1 she had not seen for
14 years. In Rernrn to /liisa. Shostak wro:e not
only about Nisa's Ji 'e duri r.g :he intervening
years hut also abm: ~ her own conplex interest in
reconnecting w:th ~isa, who (among other
things) is a well-respected healer.
In narrative ethnographies and autoetl:nogrn•
phics, researchers make themselves vulnerable in
the text (Bebn; 1996; Kr:eger, 1991). :'hey indude
extensive discussions nf their emol ions, tl:0".1ghls,
research relationships, their ur.stable inter-
p:etive dedsions. Th0v include err:barras,ing and
even shameful 'nck.ents. I:,deed, these researchers
are vulnerable to the criticism that they are
indulgent and that lhey ai~ <lirty hmnJry that
:iobody ,,rants lo see. Yd they grmmd these prac-
tices in the idea th • t researche,s need to under-
stand themselves if they are to understand how
they in:erpret narrators' stories ,wd that readers
11eed to m:derstand researchers' stories (about
their intellectual arni personal relatiom,hips with
r:arralors as we!: as with the cultural phenomena
at ha:id) J readers are !O understand :1arrators'
srories. These researchers aim to undern:ine the-
myti'. of the invisible omniscient author (1'ier:1cy,
2002; Tierney & Lincoln, 1997).
The Particular and the General
Despite dJferences in their narrat've s:rategies
for 'r:terpreting anc. representing mlrrators' voices,
narrative researc:u:rs have in con:mou pradice
of devoti:ig much more spac;: in the:r wrillen work
lo fewer individuals thar: do other qnalimtivc
researchers. Many anthropologists have writ:en
books based on one bdividi:.als life storv
Beh..r, l 993/2UU.3: Crapanzano, 1980; l"rank, 2000;
Shostak, 198JJ200Ua, 20UUb).2J And ::1any sociolo-
gists, psychofog:sts, and other niclrralive researchers
have based books, book chapters, and artides m: a
sn:all number of ;iarrntives (e.g.. Bell. 1999; Bobe!,
2()()2, chap. I; Capps & Ochs, 1995; Chase, 1995a,
2nm; De Vault, 1999, cha;:i. 5; Ferguson, 200 I,
pp. 135-161; Josselson, 19966, chaps. 4-7;
Langellier, 200 L; Lempert, 1994; Lfobow, 1993,
pp. 25:-309, Li:ttrcll, 2003, chap, 4: .vlishler, 1999;
Riessman, 1990, chap. 3; Rosier, 2000; Stromberg,
1993, chaps. 3 6; Wozniak, 2002, rhaps. 2 and 9}.
The question of whether and how ar: li:ci-
vidual's narrative (or a small group o:' individuals'
na,rativcs) represents a larger population goes

back to lhe Polish Peasant. Thomas and Znaniecki
( L918/l927) argued that sociologists should
gather life histories of ind: viduals w:10 represent
the popula:ion being stud:ed \pp, 1834- l835).
They defended thrir exte:1,ive use ofWiszniewski's
life record by claiming that he was ''a typka I rep-
resentative of the culturally passive rnau w:ikh,
under the present cor:ditions and at the present
s:age of social evolution, rnn,litutes in every civ i-
lized society t'te enor:nom majority of the popu-
lation" (p. 1907L in evaluating The Pofoh Peruar.t,
however, Blumer (1939/1979) claimed that
Tl:omas and Znaniecki had failed to derr.onstrate
1Niszniewsk:'s representativeness and faat it
wo:!lc have been difficult for them lo do so anyway
(p. 44).
Contemporary nurative researchers occupy a
different soda: ar:d historical location. Onder :he
auspices of the narc:ative turn, they ,e; ect the idea
that the small nur:1ber uf nar:-atives they present
m1st be generaliz:ihle to a certai:1 PO?Jlat:or:.
Some researchers do this by highlighting the
particularity of fae narratives they present and
by placing tl:em in a broader frame, For example,
Shostak's !Visa is about one woman's narrative, but
Shostak ( 1989) used the stories of the other !Kung
women she interviewed, as well as previous
ar.tr.ropologkal studies of t:le !Kung people, to
show how Nisa's story is at once unique in some
respects and similar to other !Kung women's
stories in other ""ays.
Many contemporary narrative researchers,
however, make a stronger break frorr: Thomas and
Znaniecki's (l918il927) positivist stance ~egard-
ing ,epresemativeness. Given "narrative elasticity"
and the ra'.lge of"narrative options" in any partic-
ular setting ( Holstein & Gubrium, 2000 ), as well as
cunstant flux i:1 social and historical condit'or:s,
these researchers propose taat the rai:ge of narra-
tive possibilities within any group of people is
potentia:.'.y limitless. 'lb make matters more cont-
plex, as Gubrh::n and Holstein (2002; suggested,
"'Jreating subject positions and their associated
voices serious! y, we might find that an ostensibly
single interv:ew could actually be, :n practice, an
interview w' :'1 :-everal subjects, whose parlicular
identities may be only partially dear" (p. 23).
Chase: Narrative lllquiry 1111 667
Thus, many contemporary narrative ,.,,,c.,,c..,-
ers approach any narrative as an irist,mce of the
possf:,le relationships between a narrator's active
construction of on the one hand, and the
soda:, cultural, and :iislorical circumstances that
enable and constrain that narrafr,e, on the other.
Researchers often highlight a range uf possible
narratives to show that no one part•cular story is
determined by a certain social location, but tl:ey
do not claim ~hat their studies exhaust the poss'.-
·:iilities wi:hin that ;;ontext (see, e.g., Auerbach,
2002; Bell, 1999; Chase, 1995a; Mishler. l999 ).
From this perspective, any narrative is significant
because it embodies-and gives us insight
into-what is possible and :nteLigible with in a
speeific social context "1
JIii NARRATIVE INQUIRY
A'/D SOCIA;, CHAl,;GE
As outlined by Denzin and Lincoln, a major goal
of this edition of the Handbook is exploring how
qualitative research can "advance a democratlc
project committed to social jnstice in an age of
uncertainty" (personal communication. July 7,
2002 ). With that goa: ir. mind, [ r:ow turn to ques-
tions about the relatio:iohip bdwcen narrative
inquiry and social change. "v\'hat kinds of narra•
lives disrupt oppressive social processes? How
and when do researchers' analyses and represen-
tations of others' stories encourage social justice
and democratic processes? And for whom are
these p:ocesses disrupted and encouraged?
Which audiences need to hear which researchers'
and narrn.tDr.s' stories?
For some people, the act of oarrati1:g a
significant life event itself fadli:atcs positive
change. In d:scUllsing a breast cance, surv'vor's
narrative, Langellie, (200'.) wrote, "The wounded
storyteller reclaims the capacity to te!L and hold
on to, her own story, resisting narrative surrender
to the medical chart as the otlkial story of the
illness" (p. 146; st'e also Capps & Ochs, 1995;
Frank, 1995}. Along similar Encs, Rosenwald and
Ochberg (l 992) claimed that self-narration can
 668 111 HANDBOOK 01' Ql'ALITAT:VF: RESEARC!i-CIIJ\PTER
leac tu personal ema:ici?ation-ro "better"
stories of lite difl:kulties or traumas. In these
cases, the narrator is his or her own audence, t:ie
one who needs to hear "lternative versions of his
or her identity or li:e e\·ents, and the one for
who:n changes in the narrative can "stir up
chauges" in the life (p. see also Mishler, 1995,
pp. 108· .09).
}or other narrators, the urgency of swrytelling
arises from the r.eed a:id des: re to have othiirs
hear story. Citing Rene Jara, Beverler (2000)
described testimoni(is as "emergency na:-rativcs"
that involve
a problerr: of repression, pm:er:y, ma rgi:Jalil y,
exp!o: tat ion, or sin: :iiv survival. ... The voice
that spea:.:s to lhc ·es'1er through (he :exl ...
Itakes J the form oft. n l that demands to rec-
ognized, tlm: wants or needs to stake a daim on
our attention. (p.
But it is not only J.atin Amer:can testimo-
nios that are na:-rated with this urgent voice. The
stories of many rm.rginaliied gmu?S have changed
the contemporary narrath>e lai,dscape-to name
just a fe,.v, the stor:es of transgendered people,
people with disabilities, and the survivors of gen•
dered, racial/ethnic, and scxuai violence. lndeec.,
"giving voice" tu marginal :zed people am! '·nami :1g
s'.!enced lives"have :,een primary guals narrative
research for ,evcrnl l:eC<.ides (McLaughlin &:
Tierney, 1993; Personal Narratives Group, 1989).
If a ::irevio usly silenced 1:arrator is to challeng;;
an audience's assumptions or actions effectively,
the audiem:e mW't ready to hear the narrator's
,tery-·or must be iolted into listening to it In
writing about empathetic listening, ?rank (2000)
slated, "Taking the other's perspective is a neces-
sary step in constructive social change" (p. 94 )_ In
a similar vein, Gamson (2002) arg·Jed that story-
tell:ng "promotes empathy across c:i tlercnt social
locations" (p, 189}, Although l:e was w~iting about
media discourse on abortion, Gamsons argument
:s relevant to the narrative a?pmarhcs l have been
di ,cussing. Gamson resl sted the critiq c1e of
American popular media :iewspapers, tele-
vision) that they are too infused with personal
narr~tives. Becat:se a:1 ·,mwanted pregnancy is
ultimately a woman's problem, excluding stories
abou1 that "existential dilemma" from media and
pofay discourse silencrs worne:i in pa:tknlar.
Thu~, he argued :hat "nernonaliz• titm ... npens
discursive opportunities" (p. 189). Gamson had in
• ind "deliberation and dialogue in a narrative
mode;' which (unlike ab;,1ract argument) "lends
itself more easily lo the expression of moral com-
plexitt In this ss:nse, "storytdli:ig facilitates a
healthy democratic, public life" (p. 197 ).
During recent years, many na:rative researchers
have pushed bey-ond the goal of eliciting previously
silenced :iarratives. Tierney's (2000) description of
the goal life history re::earrh applies to otb,..'f
forms of narrative research as well:
Life i isto:ies arc !lclpful no: merely because they
add to the mix of whal alrcad}· exi."s• but beca·~se
nf tl:elr ability to refashion identities. Rather t:,an a
conservative goa: based on no,1algia fir a paradise
lost, or a Hbc:al one of enabling t::cre people to lake
their pla,to.s al hu r.1,mity's :able, a goal oflife hislory
work in a postmodc:n age is tc hreak the strang:e-
:mld of -:1danarrn lives that establi,,hes rules of
:ruth, l""i:i:nac
~c, , The wor" of lifo
,v, and i<lenlitv.
:::story ·Jeeomes the investigation of the medfaling
aspeets of wltt:,e, the interrogation of its gramr:1ar,
and the dcccn:cr:ng n:i:-ms. (p, 546)
These statements offer a stror.g version of
wt.at I descrlbcc. earlier .-:s the researcher's
authoritati,>e voice, When researchers' interpretive
stnatcgics reveal the stranglehold of oppress: ve
metanarral ives, they h<'lp tn ope11 np possibili1ies
for social char.ge. 1n this sense, atu:Hences need
ro hear not only tte narrator's story, but also the
researcher's explication of how the narrator's
story is constrained by, and strains against, the
mediating aspects of culture (and of institutions,
organizations, and sometimes the social sciences
themselves). Audiences whose rr:embers identify
•,vith the narratnr's story nigh he moved by the
rcscarcr.er's. interpre:ation to understand their
stories :iew and to imagine how they
could tell their stories differently. Audie1:ces
whose members occupy t.ocial locations ditli:rent
from the narrator's might he moved through

empathetic listening to th i:1k and act in way;; that
benelit the :1arrator or what he or she advocates
(flfa.dlson, 1998, pp. 279-282).
What if the audience is h()stile? DeVault and
!:ig:aham (199\l) broached this issue: ',\ radica:
challenge to sikm:i:ig is not only about having
a sav,' but about talkil!"0 back in the stmr:.iest
~
sense--say:ng the very things that those in power
resist hearing" (p. I84J. When the audience is
both powerful and :nvcsted in the status quo-
invested in oppressive mctanarrative,-narra-
tors and narrative resear~hers may turn to
"cullective stnriesr which connect an individual's
story to the bmader story of a marginaEzed social
groap (Richards,m, 1990). In diiicussi:1g the col-
'.ective ~tories of sexual abuse survivors and gays
and '.esbians, Plumr:1er {1995) wrote, "For narra-
tives to flourish, there :nust be a community to
!:ear.... For cornmu ni:ies to hear, there must be
stories which weave lugethcr -::heir h:slory, thc:r
identity, th('ir politics. The one-community-
feeds upon and into the other-story" (p. 87). rn
the face of a hostile and powerful audience, narra-
tnrn strengthen their communities through narra-
tives and simultaueo:isly ,eek to broadi:n thei.:-
rnrn rnuniry of listeners. Thu,, collective stories-
or testimonios-become integral to social move-
ments (see afao Dav:s, 2002). However, it is
import,.nt tn heed Naples's (2003) Cf.utionary
note, In !:er analysill of how personal r.arratives
function in the social movement nf childhood
sexual abuse survivors, she argued t:iat we must
dete:-mine when a:1d where varim:.s strategies
of ,peaking fror:1 personal expe:ience arc more
effective and less effective in challenging oppres-
sim: (p. 1152J.
Ailhough discussion of social movements
and :eslimo11 ius e\•okes tl: e need for large-scale
social change, we also need to consider thi: role
of narratives and narrative research in small-
scale, locali,ed social change. ror exa:nple, in
Auerbach's (2002) study of :at:no/Latina parent
:nvolvement in a college access progra r:i tor
:he:r higl: ,chool chikren, sae heard ma:1y
parents tell of poor lrcatmen: at the hands nf
school personnel. Auerbach also observed tl:al
the program gave parents some opportunities to
1'arra1ive lr:quiry 11 669
share their stories pu':ilkly with each other and
that sometimes this public performance of their
stories led to ,ollectivc problerr: solving (p. 138: ).
Equally :mporlant, Aaerbach pointed to the
oeec for such programs to create third s:iace"
that "disrupts the official discourse and scripted
behavior that normally dominates school even:s
parer.:s, just as it does in dassrooms for
students" (p. 1386). In other words, such pro-
grams ho!d the promise of c:eatin g con di-
ti ons :hat woulc allow school acministrato:-li,
teachers, and counselors to hear parents' narratives
~o tr.at school staff can be jolted into ,esisting
metanarratives tha: usua'ly prevail in their work
environments-immigrant families of color arc
uninterested in their children's educatior:, immi-
grant childrer. of color have limited educational
potential. and so furth (see also Rosier, 2000).
A1:erbach sugges:ed that :esearchers can help to
create peb'.k •·».-,., i11 whic:i. r.1arginalized
people'; narratives can be heard ever: by those who
normally do not wan! to hear them.
II NARRATIVE l~Q'JIRY:
A FIELD IN 1-fAK:'IG
In rny narrative, I !:ave at:~mpkc :o give shape to
6e :na$Slve material t:iat can be called narrative
inquiry, identifying ils contours and complexities
and argt:ing for the idea that it constitutes a sub-
field within qualitative ir.quiry even amid its mul-
tiplicity. Here I raise sume issues-in 6e form of
a set of relationships-that I believe are pivotal to
the ft: mre of th is field.
F:rst is the :-elationsh:p betwecr: theore
tical and methodological work wilhin narrative
'nquiry. Karrativc theorists point out that narra-
tive research is embedded in and shaped by broad
socia'. and his:orical .;:urrents, ?articularly the
ctbiquit y of ptrsonal r:arratives i:1 conten: porary
Wester:, cultlre and politics-from television
talk shows, to politicians' speeches, to ,elf.-help
groups. Clough ( 2000} warned, however. that
the «trauma cultnre'' we currently inhabit encour-
ages pruliferation of personal :iarratives about
trouble and suffering without offering a theory
670 111 HANDBOOK 01' QUALJTA7TVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 15
and pofaics of social change, A1or.g similar lines,
Atkinson and SilYe~man ( 1997) and Gu brium and
Holstein (2002) poii:ted to the powerful tug of ou~
"inh:rview sociel y~ and they warned researchers
agains: the romantic .issurr::.tion :hat narrators
reveal "authen~ic" selves and speak in their "own"
voices, as if their selves and voices were not
already mediated by the social contexts in whkh
they speak, I argued earlier that treating interYiew-
ees as narrators does not mean succumbing to
those problematic assump:ions, Fiere, however,
~ suggest th at r:arrative researchers need lo do
more, collectively, to integrate a critiqt:e of the
trauma cuiture/interv:ew society with
of methodological isst:es invulved nniducti ng
empirical research (e.g., inv!:iug and interpreting
narmlors' stories). How do the;;e two activities-
one theoretical and the other :nethodological-
support each other and serve a joir:t pu:pose?
V'{nat specific research practices produce narra·
live research informed by a ';)road sudal er: tiq ue
and a poli:ics of social change? Given the central-
ity ot· personal narratit,e in many pdltical, cul-
tural, and soda I ~.renas, narrative researchers
have much work to do and .:rmch to offer byway of
empirically g,ounded analysis and social critiq ;,ie
ICrawley & Broad, 2004; Naples, 2003 }. ::,.Jo one
theoretical o~ empirkal project can do every·
thir.g, of course, hur it seems to me that one key
lies ir: more conve,sation among narrative
researchers across theoretical and methodologi•
cal interests,
Second is tl:e relationship between Western
and mm-Western narrative theories and prac-
tices, Cubrium and Holstein (2002) suggested
that the interview society 'las gone glo':ial-that
people arou:1d the globe know w:,a: it means to
interviewed. Even Kisa, a member of the (until
recently) hunting and gathering !Kung people,
;mows how to place herself at the cen:er of a life
story (Shostak, 1981/2000a, 2000b}. At the same
,ime, narrative researchers need to understand
cross-cu !rural diffe~ences more fully, What do
Western narrative researchers (and Westerners in
general) have to learn from the ,'lays in which
non-Westerners narrate the seJ, narrate group
identi:ies, or integrate folklo,e .oarrar£ves into
personal narratives (Grima, l 991; Narayan &
George, 2002; Riessman, 2002b) ~ lf ~elf or identity
is not the ce:itral construct in (at least some) non-
Western narratives (Rosaldo, 1976), what is? What
do non-Western narrative researchers have to
leach their Wester:i counterparts abo·.it the kinds
of narratives that r:eed to 'Jc heard and about
inter:iretive and narrative ,trategies fm pre~nl ·
ing and perfor:11 ing them? What is the rel!ltion-
ship among narrative, narrative res.:arc~, and
sndal change ir. non-Western societies 1 f;or
example, what impact do Latin American tcsti•
monios have in the local communit'es from which
they arise? I am nut ~uggesti11g that Western nar·
rnli ve researchers should take up residence in
non \Vestem locales; rather, lam suggesting that
we r:eed to understand more fully how ur:r
research is 'mbuec with Western assumptior:s
about sdf and identity, Anthropologists may
be ahead of the game here, but :nuch American
narrative research remains unreflective about its
Western character,
The third issue revolves around 6e rclatio;i-
ship between narrative inquiry and technological
innovatio:i, Although it is hard to imagine narra-
tive researchers g: ving up the domain of tace
to-face interviewing and on-site gathering of nat•
urally occ'Jrrlng conversation, some researchers
have already rr.oved into tl:e domain of virtual
researc:i and many others will follow in their foot-
steps (Mann & Stewart, 2002; see also Markham,
chap. 3L :his volur.1e ). How are e-mail, chat
groups, online support groups, ar:d instant mes-
saging changing the mea:iing of"naturally occur-
ring conversat[or!'? How are they creating r:ew
arenas for narrating the self and fo:· c01:structi11g
ident'tles, realities, relatio:,ships, and communi-
ties? As narrative resean;hers ~;~µlore these new
opportunities to hear people converse am: m
interview individuals ,.nd groups, what new risks
and ethkal issues will they encounter? \'Vhat new
furms of knowledge will emerge?
Fourth, researchers interested in the n:laliou-
ship betwee:1 narrative and social change neec
tu do mnre to address the issue of audience
(Lincoh, 1997). We need :o think more about
who could benefit from, and who needs to hear,

QUr research :1arratives. Marginalized people in
the comim;nities we study? Power brokers and
gatekeepers in the communities we s:udy?
Policymakers? Students in our class,:s, The
public a~ '.a:-ge? Other researcher11 with:n our dis-
ciplines and substantive fields of study? Eqaal:y
important, in my view, is the ne,•d for nar,ative
researchers to explor<' ,he po~sible points of
contact between riarrntors' stories and various
audiences who need to hear them, 'What kinds
of s:nries (and what kirds of researd: narra-
lives) incite collec:ive action? And to what effect?
When do previously silenced narrators jolt
i;owerful-and initially hostile-audiences to
join in ';.1:.:aking the strangle'.10'.d of oppressive
rnetanarrative,5? And how can researchers nelp to
create the conditions of err: pal~ etic 1istcni:tg
across ~ocial loca:ions?
Alor:g these lines, what do we have to !ear;'!
<rom Ensler's (2001) w:ldly succes~fd Vagina
.\:Ionologue$? How did Ensler transform inter-
views with women about their bodies it1:o perfur-
rnances that have sparked a mat,sive internalional
movement against violence against wom!:111 21
Sinilarly, what do we have to learn about writing
for the public from Ehrenreich's (200 I) best-
sdler, Nitkel and D1med: On (Not; Getting By in
lw1erica? In this mixture of u:1dercove, reporting
a:1d narrative ethr.ography, Ehrenreich wrote
both seriouslv and humorouslv about her ef:orts
' '
to make ends meet for a montl: at a t:me as a wait-
ress in Florida, a house cleane: ir. Maine, and a
Wal-Mart employee in :V1iirnernta. Many of my
srncenrs claim !hat this text disrupts their attach-
ment to indiv:dualist idco:ogies ir: way& that o:her
texts do no:. I am not suggesting that we should
all aspire to off-Broadway pcrior111a:1ces or lo
best-sellc:-dom for our work;rather, 1amst:ggest-
lng that we need to faink more concertedly and
broadly about whom we write for a:id speak to-
and how w~ do so, Fur many o( us, this may rrean
th:nking about how to create public spaces i:i our
local communities where the pe::sonal narratiVt:S
and collective stories of marginaEzed people can
be heard by-anc can jolt out -0f fteir compla-
cency-those who occupy more powerful sabiect
positions and social locations,
Chm,e: Narrative ln,Juiry Ill t.7 l
Fir.ally, narrative researchers need lo a,tend to
the relationship between nur wn~k ;u:d that of our
soda] science colleagJes who work within o:her
traditions of inquiry, We need to treat o:her soda!
scicrKe scholars as an :mportant audience for ou:
work We neec m der:10nst:atc that 'mmersion in
the biograph :cal leis of Mills's lrilogy-b:cgr a?ty,
history, and society--prod·Jces new signific:ml
:once;:its and analvses that other researchers in
. '
our substantive areas and disci?lines need to do
their work well. For example, Lose;,,e',, (200 I) con-
cept of tl:e "formula story" of wJe abuse, and her
analysis cf its ii:adequacy in capturing w1.n:1en's
complex stor:es of domestic violence, ls crucial
to work of other soda) sder1:ists-,-.. whether
qua:ltitative or qnaliti:ive-who study the suc-
cess or fail urc of battered women's shelters ir: help-
ing women to leave abusive pi:rtners. Ge:ierally
speaking, narrative inquiry's contributions to
social scirnce haw to dn with concepts am: anaiy
ses bat demonstrate two things: (a) the creativity,
complexity, and variability of individuals' (or
groups') self and cons! ructions and (bl the
power or historical, social, cultural. organiza-
tional, discursive, interactionul, antl!rir psycho-
logical drn:.mstances in shaping the range
of possibilities for self and reality cons:tLJction
in a:iy particular time and place. Narrative
researchers need to confidently assert their con-
tributions to, their interv,,:11!io:1s i11, and their
transformations of soda: scit'rKe sdmlarship.
As narrative :-es.ea:-chers grapple with the~e and
myriad other i,sues and questions, it is hard to
imagine argu:nent for the joint investiga-
tion ol biography, society, am: history going out of
style. \-\1hat exactly that mear;s, :10wever, w':J likely
undergo many further permutat:ons, disrupti rig
assmnptio:is that many us now ho;d deat
Iii NoT:::s
J. I tbmk Norman Denzin, Y\'rnma Lincoln, James
Hu:strin, Ru:hclle:1 Josselscrn, a::d (ath~rine Riessm,m
for their comments on earlier dr,d, uf :his ~hapter.
2, The Journal of Narrative and Lije History was
created in 1990, and it be,;a:ne Narri:Jti~e Inquiry in
 672 VI HAND[lQQK OF 1)UALITAl'IVE R!'Sf'.ARCH-CHAPTER
1998, As jmt two exam p:e~ of confotem:e;, in February
2003 the Ame ~ican liducational R,-se,m:h As.~ociation
hdd a Winter lniititJ:e on Narrative lr:quiry in Social
Sc:cnce Rt::m1rc,: at the Ontario Inst :!me for Studies in
Edm.:aliun, and in Iv'. ay 2004 second biannual
liarralivt· Matters conference was hdd al St "'hmna,
Lnivc·rsfty ;~-, Ne,,' Rrunsw:ck.
J, for overviews of <!atly Hfo history methods In
soc 11u,1£v, se;: Becke~ (I %6 ), Berl aux (1981), Denzin
(l'l,!Jl,anc. :,Jummer '.1983).
4. The life history and life story appmru:hes con•
tinue to be internatin,rnl iz: The }00j Board
or Biograph)' and SodC'l y, a research committee of the
International 5odological Ass,,ciation, i:·dudec
researchers frcm many European countr :~ a,,, wel I as
frnm Japan, South Afrka, ,md Russia.
5, I11 ad,faion to summarizing interview da:a
gathered from W(m1en about childbearing,
child rear, ng, m:irriage, housework, fa Id work, and
comnmni:y parlidpalion, llagnod (19:19) pre;enlcd
n,o wome".'s life stories in depth. This allows rcades
to see the :·npacl on these two wr,men:, liveq of Ihe
social and ;::rnnon:;c wnditions de,,c~il,ed in
the ho:,k,
6. ovcrvkws earIv, life h istorv, n:..:thods
ir. c.:ith ropology, sec La11gness (1965 ), l,a11gncs, and
l'r,rnk (1981 ], a:1d '"/atsor: and Wat~on-Franke ll\185).
7. Two volt: r::cs of i11e American Sl~w consist of
irtervi,·ws n:ndu,:cd a: 0 is:, University before :t:e
Federal '.\'r:tcrs' l':i:jcn wns neated. D.J:ing lhe b!te
l %Os ,md c,irly 1970,. Lester (1968) a:id Yetman ( l 970),
,unong olt:crs, were pu:;lil;hing parts of and 111r'ting
,1bou t ti:,' ,lave narratives. After the pJbliu1tion nf The
American Slaw_,, Rawick ( 1977) ,ind other researchers
searchc'l:I for, tbu11d, ,md fYJb]ishcd m,,:iy lllh;,r slave nar•
ratlvcs l':al had deposite,:' in s:atc :ollcc:ons and
libraries. ?\ot surprisingly, they fcund ,,viitie11ce that smJJe
of the Mtl"o!ivcs had been tamp.:red with, pre.,u:nahly to
sup1m,s. ntgatill(' portrayal~ of whites.
8, For owrviews of ear]v, scco:id,waw fo:11i11ist ' oriented to inviting narratives.
u,,, oflifo hi,tory personal narratives, see Armitage
(1983 }, Gcij,!er ( 1986), Gluck (1979, l ':lfB ), :'ersonal
l\'arr,Hiv,s Gro:1p i 1989), and Rcinhan: (I 992, chap.
'l, hen before feminism bccamr a major :·,:lu-
cr.,x· in social ,de nee rescar·d:, there we~e e,;ce,it' r
In thi., panern of met::odofogical indiffermce and
ob;sx:tificatirn1 of rese,ir.:h p11rrki?a11K ~or a;ample,
in Alountain IV;;lj r',bman: Sisler oj Crashing 'f'l11md1;~
Luri,· ( l '16 l) addressed mnny mc:hodological iss,Jl'S
and described in dela :l her rdatio:ishi:J with Mountain
Wl'!f\Voman,
Hi, Sec Mishler (]995. ;:p, 90-102) on various
ways in »'iid1 na:nlive ,,,,,,:irrh,,,,, conn,:cl :he
"telling" and the "told."
IL Polb.:::ghome (1995) and Mishler (19~:.>; abo
made dlslinctiuns among type5 of narrativ~ rc-sc.i:ch
in the :,odal ,cic:ices, hnt beccuse they e~dudcd wmr
kin,is of wo,k that I wan: :o in,;;udc land bcc~t1,c tbcy
indudcd smm ~:nds that I war:t to exd·,:t'c), I con-
struct my own <'.f.1'.<'l!~rics bere.
lkrnuse quantitative m0des o( inquiry :m,
so domimrnt in psycho:ogy, semi: psyd1ulogisls ::cat
narrative inquiry as synonymous with q,:alitative
inq,Jry (Jossrlson, Lieblich, & M,Ada::is, 2il!B).
Nonetheless, I tr :ed to scparale 0111 a psy,:hologi-
;;a[ apprm;ch thc1t uses analytic I h~vr artk-
t:latcd at:d .,o is ~ot 1denfo;a] to s_ualila:iw resc·md1
i:: genmd.
13. For interview guides used by psychu'ogical
who take a n.inatiw apprnach, see
.\kAdarns and Bown:an {200 I. P?· 12-13; and Iosselsott
(1996h, pp. 26:i-2721.
14. Same :he resr,m:hers l include 'n this
approach are not s,iciologfats. for exar::ple, Mishle·
is a in,ychologist and L« r:ge::icr :s a communication
schola:. NonetheleSll, their approac'i " ,ociologi~al in
the ways described hc'rc.
IS, Some:imes memoirs,;;v,'n :hose not written by
,de::tists, haw ,ulocthnograph:c chc,acte,is
tics, For examp.c, ill Lm'""w the Co/t!r l.im,: RtKe,
Pare11tfng, 1md Culture, .Keddy ( 1991} investigated her
e,p1:rie11c.::, as a ,, hile wnmar. rr.arrled to an Afrkan
,\ rr.erican man and as the mM>.er of two bif'.idal
th:ldrcn, Sht' ~hoivrd how these raciali,ed rclQ,ion-
disrupt,J her 'dentity as a white wcman and her
,md ~rstanding of racial issues in the $Ocfal world, The
w,!ting ilsdt: :1ow,"!er, i, nnt experimen:a 1in :he same
way Iha! much m1tnethm1graphi.: W7lting
J6, Ch.;se ( 1995h, 2003 l for " rnr.:parison
of sociological interview questbns and question;
17, lhc int:uen.:e nf narrn[i,,e inquiry can be ~een
in the dif'crence hetweer: Rubi n's (1976) World, uf
Pair!· life ir. thr l'im'kiiig Fami~' and Rubin's
(1994) families on rl1e Faultli,r,i: A1w,ritas 14hrking
Cla,; About ti:,: Pamig; the Economy, a,ui
E!lmidf): In the earlier book, Rubin '.1976) pn:sen:ed
monyn:ous excerpts from a range of interviewees to
rcprc.~ent various 6eme.s. ln contra SI, <l.:ibin : I 994)
the more recen ~round the ;1ories of
,;pecific families, beg' :ming ,nd md '::g hook with
lr.c same fimr fami:: es,

I8. :lee also O;::iberg ( 1996) on the wai-s in whkh
researche:s ",orrvert what we ha>re bcen toid from one
kind of account into a11othcr" (,:i. 110). In addition,
Jossclson (1996a) Dffered an interesting discussion of
the aniiety, guilt, and .,hame thal n:ay arlsc when
"writing other ;ieople's lives" and sharing interprela•
tions ,,,ith :hose people.
i9. Ferguson's (2001) Bt1d Boys: Puh/ic Schools in
the Making of Black Masculinity offer, an elllmple ,;fa
res;tarcher mixing narrative strategies. For the mo,I
rar:, Ferguson wrote wilh an au:hon:ative voice. But in
the mi de.le of the book, she shifted to a supportive voice
whet: she im;;;uded a 27·page transcript from ar: inter•
view with an African American mother wbosi: attempt
10 disdp'.lne her son was itself disciplined by police,
courts, and social service agencies. Ferguson s:ated,
«You must read what .Yiariana hi!d to say aloud. You can-
not u:1derstand it unless you hear the words" (p. BS).
20. For many ofaer examples, see Koehler (l'l!L,
?P. 89-93), langnes~ and Frank (1981), and Watson
and Watson Franke (1985).
21. Focusing vn ins:ances ~a:her than represent<l.·
tive cases is not :.:nique to narrative inquiry. but be
issue may seem rr.cre urgent in :iarralive research
because of small number of narratives that
re,eard«·rs p,esent For broader discussions of the
relation between the par:iculll: and the general, see
Blum and Y.cHugh (1984, p. Jrnzin (1997. p.245),
and Psathas {1995, p. 50 ).
Tile V.,ginu Momilogues w.s originally an off
Broadway pmduction basec. <m interviews with 200
P.mer:,ca:i women. It has been perfo,med in many
and communities across the l:nited States as well
as around the globe. When performed in conju~ction
with the "V-day" movemer:t, protlts are donared lo
orgmiiations fighting violence against wo:nen.
JI R.f FEREKCES
Anderson, IC & Jack, D. C. ( 1991 ). Leaming :o liste:i:
Ir,terview techniques and analyses. In 5. R. l:Juc;c
& D. Palai (Eds.), Wome11s 1Mrds: The feminisl
practice of oral h[~tory {pp. I Kew York:
Routledge.
Arm'tag~, S. H. (1983). The nnl s:ep. Frorui1:rs:
A Journal~( Wome11'.; Studies, 7, 3-8.
Atkinson, P., & Sil\'ernrnn, D. ( 1997). Kundera's
Immortality: The i:: :erview socie:y and t~e
invention of the self. Quali!ativr Inquiry, 3,
304 325.
Chase: Narrative l!lquiry II 1,73
Atkinson, R. (2002). T'le life story interview. In
J. E Gubriwn & J. A. Ho'stein (Eds.), Handbook
of interview research: Conte.tr ar.d method
(pp. lll-140), Thousand Oaks,CA:Sagc.
Auerhad:, S. (2002). "Wily <lo they give t:ie
good classes to some and ::ot to o:hrr$'"
Latino parent narratives of struggle in a w;.c11,
access program. 11:adwrs College Record, 104,
1369-1392.
Babb, J., & Tuylor, P. E. {1981 l. Border he,,ling woman:
71ie story of fe;wei JJa/Jb. ARUin: University of
Texas Press.
Bamberg, M. G. W ( 1997). l'osltioning bet.-een struc,
ture ar:d per:'orr.;ance. Journal o_( Narrative and
Life fliswry, 7, .l:i'.l-::14'1..
Barth es, (1977). lmage, musJr, texr (S. Heath, Trans.).
1"ew York: Hill & Wang.
Ba·~man, It ( 1986). Story, performance. c;nd event:
Contextual studies in .:Hai ncim:i/ive. Cambridge,
UK; Cambridge l:niversity Press.
Becke:, H. S. (1965}. :mrorl1:ction. In C R. Shaw, Tlie
;acieroller: A delinqueni boy'.; awn sto~r. Chicago:
:Jnivernity of C:iicago Press.
Behar, R. (1996). The vulnerable ol•~en•er: AnrhropologJ,'
t~at bre1.ks your heart. Boston; Beaton.
Beha;, R. ( 2003 ). Translated woman: Crossir,g the border
with Esper.ir:zas s:ory. Bost,m; Beacon. (Original
work published in 1993)
Belenky, M. Clinchy, ri. .\'I., Goldberger, X. R,, &
11lrule, J.M. ( 1986). Wamtn~ wayso_(knawmg: The
d,r1eivprnen1 af self. voice. and mind, New York:
Basic !looks.
Bell S. E, ( 1999.;, Narratives and lives: \','omen's neal,h
politi<;s and the diagnosis of can,er for DES
daughters. NarratiVIJ Inquiry, 9, 347-3$9.
llertanK, ;). (E,I.). (1981}, Biography ami ,tlciety: The
lifii 1c:s1·or11 uppratlci, in the social scirnces. Hc~erly
Hills, Sage.
3everky, J, (2000). lrstimonio, subahernity. and
nu,rative authlirily. N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
linmln (Eds.), Handbook ,if qualitative n:s,?Wt:h
(2nd ed., pp. 555-565}. Tnousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Blauner, B. ( 1989). Black live;, w.~ile lives: Three de,ades
of riu:e relation, in America. Berkeley: University
of f.alifomia Pres~.
Bloon:, L R., & Munm, P. (1995). Conflkts ol
No::·~n::arv, suo1·ectivitv' in wo • en adminis-
trators• life history :iarrat:ves. In 1. A. Hatch &
R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history artd narrative
(pp. 99-1 i2). Londo;;: Fa,mt\r.
674 111 l!Ai'\DllOOK or QUALITATIVE RESEARCII-CIIA!''l'~R 25
BL::n, A., & i',,kl-lugh, P, ( 1984 ). Se!frejlectian the ,rls
Clr!iI sciences, Atlantk :-lighlan,h, NJ: Hu:nanities
Press.
Blumer, (I979), Cril iques of rcs.um;h m the wcial
sciences: ,4n appraisal of T1!omas and Z r11:miccl:i~
The Polish l\"asanl in Furope and America. New
Brunswick, '/J: 7rnnsm:::fon Books. (Or:ginal
work pu:il:shed in 1939)
lfobd, C, 1200l). 'the par.id,,,t (if m,tun:;l motliering,
l'hiladdphia: Iet::ple University Pres~.
Jh;kin, ll.A. (Ed.). :1945). l.ay /nmfen down. A fi'/~
history of s!.. ,•ery. Chicago: t.:niversity of Chicago
Press.
Briggs, C L : 1986 ), Learning lww t,, ask: A saciclin-
guistic appraisal of the mie 1if the interview in
w,,u.,m,·;;1.crcsearch. Cambridge, 'JK: Cambridge
l'niversity 1:m,s.
Briggs, C, L. (2002), l:.lervicwing, power/knowledge,
and social inequali1y, ln J. E G.ibriur:, & J. A.
Holstein (Eds. l, llandboak oflmerview ""'"'""
Cm:texr and 11wtharl (pp. 911-922). Th,,usand
Oaks, Sage,
Brockmeier, l,, & Carbaugh, ll. (Eds.). (2001), Nair.itii,e
and identity: Studies in a11tcbiagraph;, Ic>/f, 1md cul•
wrtt. ,\ msterdl!:".'l, Netherlands: Jchn Ber. jami ns.
Bruner, J. (l986). l'.ctual minds, pos,ible worlds.
MA: Eanard Univi:rsitr ?res~.
Bruner, J. (1997). Labov ,ind Walttzky: T:iirty years on,
Journal of Narrative aruf Lije HijfOr), 7, 61-68.
Bruner, J. (2002). Making stcries: Law, iiienwm; life,
N<:w «Jrk; Farrar, Stram,, & Giroux,
Burgos, M. (1989). Life sto:ies, narralivily, and the
search for the self. Ufe :,tarf,'5 [ RlciL< d1,
5,
Capps, (on;tructing
The t1iscaurse of agoraplwbi,1, Cam':iricge, l;,,lA:
Harvard University Press.
Chalasins:,i, J. (19iC). The life records of ·,he vout1~
' '
generatio:c of ?olish peasants as a ::,anifost,i:ion
of conterr.porarv culture. l:i IJ &rtm:x (Ed.},
Biography and .iorlr,y: The life hi•tary 1pprllach in
1he ,oci'al scieiice, (pp. l 19- Beverly Hills,
CA:
Chase, S, .E. [1995a), Aml,ig,mus empowerment: The
work m,rratiw:s of women school superintt'11dems.
A:nhcrs!: t.:niwrsity of Massadu;;etts Pres~.
Chase. S, E. (199!\h). Tak:ng narrP.:ive ~er:ously:
Consequences fo: :netlmc and theory in inter,
view sludi1."S, ,~. R. Jos,elson & A. :.iebEch (Eds.),
lnltrpreting experirnce: Tiie narratbe snut
1 (if'
lives (pp. l-26). Thousand C,\:
Chase, S. E. (1996 }. Persona I vulnerability
interpretive authority in nar;;t: \ll! research. in
R, JosseL,on (Ed.), Ethics a:nd pr01:ess in !he raim,·
live study of lives (pp. 45-59). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Chase, 5. E. (2001). Univrrsitics as dis,ursive
environments for ident:ty construction. Ir.
J. E Gut,rh.:m & I, A. Holstein (Eds.), lnsWutiona!
selves: 1i'oubled identities i11 (! pastm,uiem Mirld
(pp. 142- 1 57). New York: t1xford Universiry
Press.
Chase, S, E, [2003 ), ; .e;;:ning to· Narrnlivs: pr inc:·
pies in a qualitative research methods course. In
R. !osse: 30n, A, l.ieblirh, & D. l' McAdam, (Eds.I.
Up r:lmt and pers,mal: TTie teaching and /taming
of narrutiw re.mm.:h (pp. 79-99). Washi::gton,
DC: Ame~i can Psyd:m:ogical Associa:icn.
Clougr:. P. I, (2000), Comments ,m setting criteria for
npc:imen:al writing. Qualitati>e Jnquir;;\ 6,
278-291.
Crapanzano, V. (1980'.. fo,'iami: Portmit of a Moroccan,
Chicago: Universi:r of Chicagc Press.
Crawley, S. L (2002'.. "Ibey still m,dcrntand why
I hate weari::g dresses:" An autoethnographk
rnn: on dresses, boats, and butdmess. Cu/1ural
Studie,, Cn:,caf Metlrodolcgies, 2, <,9-'ll.
Crawley, S. L & Broad K. : .. [2004). "lk your(,eal
les·J:an )sdf' · lvlobil!zlng sexual formula &lo:ies
thmugl: personal (and po:i;ical} ~tm 1tdling.
/oiirnal of C.:mtemporary f:i/mogrnph;; JJ, 39-71.
Cza:niaw,ka, Ii (l 997), Narrating the ,,rgam'.:rntion:
Dramas of i.~s!itutloual identity. Chicago: t:niver-
Ch:cago l',CSS,
(:71,•niav;•<b B. (2002). Narrative, inlerv iews, and orga•
nizatio:is. b I. E Gubrium & J.A, ,lolstein (Eds.),
Handbook of imerview re,;earch: Cnmext and
methad (pp. 733-749). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, ] E. (Ed.), (2002). St,•ries of clumgi': Narrative
and ;ociul mowme•1t,. A,b.iny: State l:niversity of
New vork Press.
l)e:1zi11, N. K, ( 1970), 1'he resecm:h ac1:A 1he()retiw!intro-
ductian to socialogi,u/ methods. Chicago: Aldi ne.
Denzin, N. K. ( l 989), /nterpretive biography. Newbury
Park, CA: Sa1:e.
Denzin, K. (1997). imerpretive e1/mography:
Elhnogn,phic practirn, _fi.n the cemury,
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Denzin, K. K, (2000). The ?tactices and politks nf
interrce1atio11. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Harulbook ofqua!frati1'e resmrc/; (2nd ed.,
pp. o':11'-922 Thou,and CA: Sage.

Demtin,N. K. (2003). The cal; to perfoniance.Symboli;
lntm;.·tion, 1
Denzin, N. K., & Lincol 11, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: T'lc
discipline and practice qualita!'vc research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. :,inmln (Ecs.), Handb(}(Jk of
quaiiiative research (2nd ed., pp. Thousand
Oak,,
DeVault, M. L. ( 1999). li/Jerating metliod: Feminism and
social rese11rch. Philaddph:a: Tern ,1le University
Pre:.~.
DeVault M. & ln1Faham, C. (1999). Metapho:1!
of ~:Jenee and voice in fom:11: st thought. In
M. L LkVault, Uhcrating method: Feministn 11ruf
social r;;.,i;arch (?P· J 186). Ph iladelpnia:
Temple U:iivcrsity Press.
DuBois, (: 960). The peop(e of Alo,: A social-psycho•
logical stu,ly ofan East Imium island. C8:nhr'dgc.
MA: Harvard Gniversity Press. ( Origin el work
puhli,,hed in 1944)
Ehre;·.,eic:1, B. {20C l), NfrJ:el aud dimed: On (,rot) getting
~l' ;n 1tmeria1. New Y:d: Metmpolitan Hooks.
Ellis, &, llergcr, L. (2002). Their story/My story/Our
storv: [nrlmling the resea7chcr's ~xperie:mi
in interview rrscarch. In J. E Gubrium & J. A.
:folstein (Ells.), Handbook of interview n,;search:
Canl,xt and metl.od (pp. 1'149-875). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
dlis, & Boc::ner, A. ?. (1992 ). lell:::g and perlorm-
pec5omil ,turics: The ccns:ra of choice in
abortion. , :: Ell:s & M. G. Hu:-.erty ( l'ds. l,
lt!vt.;tig.iting subjtctiviry: Research on lived expe-
rienfe (pp. 79-1 (J: ). Newbury l'ark, CA:
!:Ufa. C., & Boehne,, I' (Eds.). ( 19%). Composing
ethnography: Altermrtiv.r fimns of qualit~;ive
writing. Walnu: C:-ttk, CA: Alta Mira.
Ellis, C, & Flaherty, M. G. (Eds.). ( 1992). lttN!Stigat-
ing su/1jeah•ity: Research cm frved experience.
Newbury Par:S, CA:
1W:s, C., Kiesinger, C. E., & :illmann-Healy, L. M. (1997).
lnn:rncrive imen•iewing: Tal~i11g about emotkir.al
e;;:perirn,e. !t1 R. Hertz '.Ed.), Reflexivity and voice
(pp. '.19~ 1491. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ernihovich, C. ( 1995). mstandng passion: Narmrive,
in soda! """"e. In J. A. Harcb & R. Wisniewski
(Eds.), Life history ami naml!ive (pp. 37-48).
Lone.en: falme,.
t:nsler, E. (2001 ). 71ie vagina mmwiogues: 'fhc ~•-day
editi,m. 'lew 'iork: Villard/Random
Ferguson, A. A. (2001 ). Bad boys; Public sclwals in
tl1e making o_f blad: masculinity. Ann Arbor:
:J:::vcrsity of Mi.:higan Press.
Chase: Narrative [nq·;;ry Ill 675
Foky, L., & Faircloth, C. A. (2003). Medidne as
c'.iscursive rrsource: tcgitima:ion in the work
nar:l!tivcs 1;. idwive;;. Sociology tJj. Health
llhie!i!, 84.
:rank,A. W. ( I \195). The wouftded s1oryreller: Bo,iy: illness,
and ethics. Ch ici:.go: Univer$l:y of Chicago Press.
Frank, G. {2000). l-enus on wheels: Two decades of di.i·
(ogue 011 disa/Jilit)1 bi,,grapiiy, and beirigjerm.i!e in
.
America. Bcrkelev- Universitv' of California !'res,.
Franz, C. £., & Stewart, A. /. (£d,.), (1994). lwm;en
creating Idemities. resilience, and resistance.
!ln:1:Jer, CO: We,tview.
Gumson, W. {2002}. How ,!orytelli11g .:an he
empowering. In K. A. Cerulo (Ed.), Culture in
mi,id: 1biw.rd a scrioloKY of rni!llre 1:md mgr.it/on
(pp. 187-1911). New York: Romlcdge,
H. (1967) Studies in ,,1/momethodciogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NI: l're:itice Hall.
Ge;ger, S. N. G. (l 986). Wcmen', life '::stories: Method
ar:c: content. Signs: fmmial of Wome!l in Culture
and Society, 11, 334-351.
Gluck, S. (I 979). What', so spc:cial about women?
Worr:en's history. Frontier,: A Journal of
Women's Studies, 2, 3-1 ·.
Gluck, S. B. {: 9~3;. Wo:neo's Jral history: Tile second
decade. Frontiers: A, journal ,if" Women'., Stu,fies,
..,
i,
Gluck, S. II., & l'ulai, D. ;Ed,.). ( 1991 ). Women~ war.i's:
The feminist practi,:e cf 1m:if hi~tor;i New Yr.rk:
Routledge.
Grima, ri. (199 l ). The role of suffering in womens
perfon::ance paxto. In A. Appac t:n i,
F. 7. Korom, & M. A. Mills (Eds.), Gender, genre,
and power in Sou/~ .A slim expressi Vt! iradi•
(pp. IOI J. Philadelphia: University of
?ennsylvania Pn:s~.
Gubrium, J. [, & Holstein, I. A. (: '197). fhe new far.
guage ,,j qw,Jiilltive method. New York: O:i:ford
University Press.
Gubrium, J. E, & Hol,lcin, J. A. (cds.). (20DI ).
Ir:sliruc/or.al .,efv.,s: Th;ublcd identities i11 a post-
modern world. New York; Oxford L:nivcrsi ty
Press.
G•~briut:::, ). F., ill Holstein, J. A. (2002 ). from the
ir.c:vidual i ntervicw 10 t':e interview sociely. In
1- :, Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Ed,.), Hmidli,,ok
of imer.1iew researcl:: C,mt<!xl ~ria meihod
(pp. Thousand Oaks,
Gwaltney, J. I, (Ed.). ( '.993). Dryiongsa: A sel(-parirair
ofBl,u:k Amerb1. ~ew York: New Presi,. (Origillal
work pablishe<l in 1980)
 676 Ill HANDBOOK OF Ql;AT.ITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
Hagood, Ill.. /. (1939). Motlu:rs •?f the South: Portraiture
of the whfre ;enm:t farm womm;. New Yor~:
Greer.wood.
Hatch, J. A., & \·\'imiew,ki, R. (: 995;.I.ifi: .~i;tory
and narmtive. Lo::don: Palmer.
Hertz, R. (Ed.). (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sag,•.
Hilbe:t, R. (1990). The efficacy of perfrm:1anre
science: Comment 01: .'.1,1d:all and :lcc,<er. Social
Pro/1/em.<, 37, 133 • BS.
Hinchman, L P., & Hinchn:an, S. K. (Eds.). (2001).
Meuu,ry, ide.1tity, commwiity: The idea of mrra.
fr," in !/;e l,uman s,fences. Albany:
t,;niversi ty of Yn:k
Holsteb, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F, (2000). 11le seif we live
hJ•: N,.rratiw ider.tity in 1, postmod,7n worM.
New Oxfurd University Press.
Hunt, A. M,, & Winegar;en, R. 0983). I am Annie l,lae;
An extraordinary black Texas wom,m in her awn
words. Austin: Uni11ersity of Texas Press.
]ll!cbs, R. H. (19 79). Life after ym,1h: Female, jiirty-
W'h.it next? llo,ton: Bea,on.
Josselson. R. ( l 9%a]. On wr:ti::g other people's lives:
Self-a:ialytic rdlections of a narrative researcher.
:n R. Jossc'son (:Cd.), i'thics an,J process in
nwrati'le study of live, (P?· 60-71). Thousand
Oaks. CA: Sagt:.
Jnsse!.,cn, R. (I '196b). Revising 1.erself: 'fhe story of
·.vomen\; identity from collt'ge IO midlife. Kew York:
Odon! University Press.
Jossclson, Lieblich, A,. & McAdams, P (Eds.).
(WOJ ). Up cio,;;, and personal: The teac!iing and
ieumir,g of narra/iye usearcl:. Was'i i ngton, DC:
America:: Psychological Assodatinn.
Kardiner, A. lJ 945 }, The psyc~ological frontiers
society. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Koehler, L ( 1981 ). Mallve women of the Americas:
A lliblingra phy. From ier,: A journal of Women~
Studie,, 6, IOI.
Krieger, S. (1991 J. Sac/al s·cience and the self: Persona/
on an iltt fiirm. :-.lew llrunswick, NJ: Rutgers
t:niversity
LJbo,, W., & v\lalelz:;y, J. (1997). Narrr.itlve 11::aly,is:
Oral versions of :ic1-sor1a: experience. Jcn,rrrni of
f..;am,tive arid Life History, 7. ( Original work
publis:~ed in 1967)
Langellier. K M, (200 l). marked: Rreasl cancer,
tattno, and the narrative performance of iden:i:y.
In 1. Ilrc,ckmeicr & D. t:arbauj!h (Eds.), Narratiw:
idmrir;·: Studies ir1 autobiogmph,y; self, and
rnlture (pp. 145-184). Amsterdam, :-.lct:~crfands:
John Bcnjan:ins.
Langness, L. L. I 1%5 ). rhe life /:isroiy in an/.~ropo/ogi•
cal science. :-'tw Ynrk: Holt. Rinehart & W::iston.
Langnes,,:. L., & Frank, G. (: 9111 ). lives: Arum!lm:ip,i-
fogirnl approach to biography, Nov,!to, CA:
Chandler & S':arp.
Laslrtt, I\. (I 999). l'er:m::al narratives as sociology.
Comempamry Soriolo;;y, 28, 391-401.
: .em per:. L. B. (1994 ). A ::arrative analysis ,1f abu,1':
Conncch::g the pernunal, the rhetorical, ,md the
slrutlmal. Journal of Contemporary Etluwgraplry.
22,4L-441.
Lester, J. (19611). To be a slave. New York: Srholastk.
Lewis, 0. (1961 ). The children of Sdnchcz: l,:utobio
gr11pJ1cv of a Mexican family. New York: Randon:
:fo:.:sc.
Lie:iow, E. (l 993 ). 'leii them who l am: rhe lives of
iiomeless women. :,Tew York: Pl!ngu:::.
Lincoln, Y. S. (19971, subject, audirnce, text: Living
at :he edge,1«ritingin the marglru. Jn W.G. Tierney
& V. S. Linmlr: {Fd,.), Represmtation and the text'
Reframir,g the 1,arn11iv1? voice (?P· .37-5.5). AL1any:
Stute Univer,·ty o' :,.lew York Press.
Lincoln, t ~. (2000). l\arrative mtho1ily "'· pe:jured
tcsti::1onr Courage, v:.:lncrability, and truth.
Qual.itative Studies F.ducalimi, 13, 13 l-138.
Losekc,D. R. (2001 ). Lived realities and formula stories
of "bat:erecl won:cn:' ln J. E Gubrinm & J. A.
Holstein ;F.ds.), lnstiluiiom;i selves; Tmu/Jled 1deu•
1ities in a postmodern world (pp. : 07 · 126).
New York: Oxford t:nivcrsity Press.
Lurie, N. O. (Fd,). (l 96: ). Moun rain Wo!f '.Vt:1ma1i· Sisler
of Cras/img 'fhun,:ler. Arn: Arhor: Uni,,crsity
Michigan Press.
Lut:,e\l, W. ( 1997). Sthoo/.sraart and mother·wise:
Wbr~ing-c/ass women~ identity and schooling.
;llew Yer~; Routledge.
Llltt7ell. W. (2003). PTl?gm;mt bodies, fertile minds:
G1:ndl'r, nm:, and the schooiit1g of pregnant teen~.
N'ew York, Routledge.
,\.fadison, D. S. (19\lll). Performance, JJersonal nar:,1•
tives, ar:d rht ;,c Ii tics nf poik5ibility. In S. J. Dailey
(Ed.), The future of performance studies: Visiom
and revisio11, {pp. rn--,;:~,o, Annandalr, VA:
'lational Communication As~ociation.
Mann, & S:rnmr:, E (2002). Internet ir.tcrvicwing.
In J. F. Gubrimn and J. A. Holstei:: (Eds.),
Handbook of interview researcl:: Context and
metlivd (pp. 603-627), Thou.s~nd Oaks, CA: Sage.

\kA<la:n,, 1>. P. ( 1997).slarics ct·,' live 11;,: Persnrial
1J11?
myths and the malrill;; nf t.~,: st!/: New York:
Guilfo:d.
McAdams, '.l P., & Bowman, P. ). ( 200 I). N,u rnl:::g life'.,
turning poir:ts: Redempti:i:: and contaminat;on.
In ll P. McAdams, R. Jo&,e:son, & A. Liebl id1
(Eds.). 7'urns in tire mad: Narrative studies
trunsi,iiln (pp. Wa,hinglon, DC;
American Psi•chologkal Association.
McAdam;, D. f:, Jossclson, R,, & Lieb:ich, A. (Eds.),
(200 I). Turns Ir; the road: bfarrtitiV1' studies of
lives in rransi1if•n. Vvashiogmn, IJC: American
Psychological Assodation.
McCall, M. M., & Becker, H. S. (1990]. Performance
sc1e:1ce. Serial t'rolilems, 37, I: 7-132.
McCall, M. M., & Wlllne,, J. (1990). Th,· good news
abr:ut life :iism 0 ; In H. S. Beckec & M. M. McCal I
(Fd~. ), Symbolic im~rar'fon ,md cultural studies
( pp. 46-89 ). Chicago: t:nlversity of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, D., & Ticr::ey, \'{ G. (Eds.). ( 1993 ). ,"luming
siie11.:ed lh·es: Personal 11.arratiYes arid proces~es
educarf(ma! c/;ange. New York: Rm:tkdg'-'.
Mc.Mahan, M., & Rogers, K. L (Eds.). (1994'..
interactive oral history i111ervie1;h1g. Hilhdalc,
NJ: Lawrence Erlha·~:ci.
Me:1chi1, R. (1984). l. /Ugo&erla Me11ci11!: Ar. JmJion
woman in Guatemala ( with an i:i:roduc:io:i
by E. B::rgos-Debray, Ed.; A. Wright. Trans.).
Londo;;: Verso.
Miller, C. ( 199?). Becoming r,rimde workers: languuge
1md mea11i11g in brief tlwrapy. New York: Aldinc
deGrnyte:-.
Mills, C W. (1959). J'he svrioloxical itt!agim1tion.
:.ondon: Oxford University Press.
Mishler. I.!. C. (:986), Re.earch interviewing; Cvr:textand
Cll m:iri::ge, MA: Ha.-vard University
Press.
.\1 ish:er, E. G. ( 1995). Model.s r,f narratilf<' analysb: A
rypolugy. Journal of Narra,i,e and life Hi£tory,
5, l23,
M',':ler, E.G. ( :9'J9). Storyii11es: Craft ,lrtim' narratives of
ideniity, Cambrir:ge, MA: Harn:ird Univcrnity P:-ess.
fl-'.oyano, J.L E. (2000), T/;e m,wbivgrap/;y of .l,1arla
13/eria Mayano: The life aud deuth of ,1 Peruvian
aetivi,t (ll M. Tupac, Ed. and Anno:.). Gainesv:lle:
Univrrs:ty Press of Aodda.
Myerhr.f~ B. (1994). Numl1er ,1ur days: Culture and
wmmunily 11m,mg dderlv Jews i:: an Am,>ricar1
ghetto. Nt.·w York: Mer:dian/Prnguin. (Original
work publish,xl in t 97g)
.
Chase: Narrative lncuirv' 11 677
t,;aples, N. (2003). Dc<:o::,lructing and :(1cating
survlvo;- disrnune: Dynamics of narrative,
emp0werm mt, and resistance fo, survh,ors of
chilc::ood sexual abuse. S.ig11S: Journal of \vbmen
in Cul/lire an,f Society, 28, 1151-1185.
N,irnyan, & George, K. lvl. '.2C02). fle:,;onal and
:olk nar,ative as cultural represent,:.:io::. In
/. F. Gubr!c::11 & 1- A. llolstein (Eds.), H,mdlwok
cf inlerview research: C1•r,!exl mid 1t1etlwd
(pp. 81 I). Thou~and Oni;s,
Ochberg, R. L. (1996). lnte:prt:tir,g lifo storie.,. In
R. Jcssclson (Ed.},Erhics and pr1;c,-s.< m :!:e nar>r1•
tive sllldy of lives (pp. 97- l 13 ). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Personal Narr~rives Group. ! 1989). Jmer1•re1ir.g
11 (mien~ lwe,: Feminist theo,y arJd pemm,11 m;rra-
1
tives. Bloomingtcn: lndiat:a L:niversity Pres.~.
Plummn, K. (:983). nocumerm of life: An lnlrductfrm
lo the prob/ems and li!eraturc vf a hum~nist:c
method. London: Gemge Allen & t:nwir:.
Plummer, K. :1995). Telling ;ixu,:,,/ stories: Power,
change, and social worlds. l.o::don: l{ou1kdge.
Polkin 1,hornc, U. ;:;_ ( 1995). Nar~utve con:1gumtion in
qualitati\ic analys:s. In J. ,\. Hatch & v,i.nicwsld
(Eds ), ""'''"'' a11d 1wrratiw (pp.
Lnndon: 1-'almc:.
Pcllner, M., & S1d1:, J. (199nJ. Narrnliv,, mapr,i ng
of social voke ,;f cxpcrirncc in
Ako h,ilics Anu-nymou~. ,;.,,.,,,1,,"lir inlerac, ,;:n,
l9, .w.,-,..t..',
Psathas. (,. t 199,). Co1111,~!ation 1r1r1/ysfa: Th~ ,i1aiy of
talk-in-it•umtt!,m. Thousand Oaks, CA:
R11di r,, P. (Ed.). ( 1926 ). Crnshln,,: Thi.ndcr.· 711e autobiog-
ra,•rry an American lndw1. New York: Appleton.
Randall, V.. I 1981 i. 5mufino's d11ughters: ·11:.rrimome.,
Nicaraguan w:nne•1 in _,iruggle. Vll!lcouver, l!ri1hh
Columhia: New Books.
Randa::, M. (. 994). Sandino':; dm.1ghters revisited:
Feminism in NicaraguCl. New Brunswkk, '.'JJ:
Rurge;a t:niversity Press.
Randall, Y.. (2003;. When J laok ii;/() the mirror and ,ee
you: Women, !error. and r1:sistmu.1,. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers U:::vesit~· Press.
Rawick, C:. P. (197£). n,r American A composite•
a11tobiog•t1ph)\ Vcd. I: flwn; srmtiown ta su1mp-
The making of the biuck commu11iO( We~t,mrt,
CT: Greenwood.
!fawick, G. P. (: 977). General inlrcduction. In
C. Rawick, J. Hillegas. & K. Lawrem.:e (E<h.), 1Ju:
Amerinm .slave: A wm/n•silt! autabio1;mph;,
 6711 111 HAN OllOOK OF QUALITATIVE RfSLARU ! -CH APTER
Supplement, S.:r. I, Vot I: Alabmtm narmtives
(pp. ix-li). V'1cstport, CT: faeenwnod.
Re.:i:y, M. T. (1994), Crossing the color lirre:
parenti•tg, tmd culture. New llrnnswi,k, NJ:
Rutgers Ullivrrsity l'rc,s.
Re;n~ar~, S. (1992). feminist malwds in social
research. fork: Oxford [:nJversit}· Press.
Re:nhar1., & C'mse, ~. K (2001). lmcrvicw:ng
womer:. :r. I. E Gubrium & T. A. Holstein (Lds.),
H,mdhock rf fr,!erv/r11 r,•secm:h: Comex• und
m<?lhod (pp. Thousand Oaks, C,\:
Ribb ens, I., & l:dwards, It ( l'ds.). (l 998 J.
dilmimm in a,,11/itative a:se~rch: PuMi. iwowl-
1:dxe and />rivate lives. Lnn,fon: &11c.
Ridiardson, L. (19,0). Narrative and sociclog)c/rnrnal
t!/ Contemporary fthnugn,phy, 19. 116-135.
Richardson, L. [.2001). Poetic re1m:sentalior: of inter-
In J. E <,uhrium & J, A. Holslein ( ELis. ),
H,mdbook of fritcniew research: Con/ext and
methC1d 892), Thousand Oaks, CA:
t(ts:ss,mar:, C K. ( : 990), DfvQne /a/k; Women and mm
make sense of persmu1I rela!io;;ships. New
Bmnswkk, -;J: Ru:firr., Univrrsil y Press.
Riessrna r., K. ( l .:\ short sti::ry abm1t !.mg
swncs. Juurrrai of N11rr;,tfre «nd Life fli.w:ir;,•,
7, 155<3H.
Rie,Sllill:l, C K. (2flfl2a}. llnalysis pcrwnal ,:arra-
tivcs. J. E Gubrlum & J, A. Hol~t.dn (Eds.i,
Ham/buuk. uf ir1tervfrw r,'Search; Context
•m:t!wd (pp. 695- 7: 0), Fcus,md Oa:<s, Ci\:
Ricssman, C. K. (2002b). ?osil ioning gender identity i::
nar:,nives pf inf<":tility: S,,ulh Indian wor:ie!l's
iivcs ((mtex:. lt1 M. lnhom & E van :lalen
,,~y"'" /11/ertiliry around the globe: Nrw thi11king
on child/esmrss, gimder, a11d reproductive tech·
no/ogles (pp. 152-170). Bcrkdey: ;.Jniversity of
Califo:nfa Press.
Rosaldo, R. ( 1976). The story of '.hkbaw: "They ::sten
as he orates?' : n i', F. Re~ nollls & ll Capfs (Eds, l,
The biograpliica/ pr11wss: S1udie, in !•,e history and
f!",vch~iogy af re/f.~ion (pp. 121 · l .5 l }. The Hague,
Netherland,: Mm1tcn.
Ros,•nwald, G. C., & Och·'.1crg, R L. (1:ds.), {1992).
Src:rir1f ii ""s: Tfrn cultural politics ulf· ,mder,
standhl". Ne'," Haven, Cl':
" .
[niversitv Press.
Ro,ier, I<, It f 2000 ). M,,Jher ing inner-city child:an: The
early sclir.,,J years. New llrum,wick, NJ: Rutgers
lJniversi:y Pres~,
Rn Jin, L.B. (1976). ivi1rids of'pain· Life it, the ·,;'Or/cing•
cl11ssf11mi/y, 1'c11, \ork: !looks.
Ru.J'n. L. ll. (1994). J.'amilies cm faultline; Amcrka;
w,1rkiug clas5 speak, about the family, the economy,
race, and ethrtidty. l\ew YCJrk: EarperPerennfal.
lh:ddick, & D,mkls, P. (.Eds,). Working it
out: wom,m wri!trs, artists, scirntist,,, and
scholars ta!k a/1ou1 t/11:ir lives caul work. \lew fork:
Pantheon.
Sa,h. K, B. ( 1989), Wha:', a life ,tory got to do with :1 1
ln Persot:al t,;air,iliv[s Group lritcrpn:ling
Mnnms lives: Feminist theories and personal
,rnrratives (pp. 85-'l5). Hloomir.gton: l'niversity
cf Indiana Prc-ss.
Sd:egloff, E. A. {1997). "Narrr.tive anal;•sif' thirty
years la:er. Jotmwl of .Varmti,,e a,,d fije History,
7, 'l7-106.
;,e:no:n, P. ll 9111}. Tiu: new .Vix;htinga/e_i: Hospimf
·¥or¾ers. :mfrms, new won:en~ issues. l'iew York:
En,piry Pm;s,
Shaw, C.R. (1%61. D,e jack-rolfer: A delinqnenl bajs
,1w11 $Mry. Chicago: Universi:y of C,1icago Press.
(Orlgina. w(irk published in 1s30}
Shosta~, M. ;,1989). "Vlhat the wine won't take ~w.iy'':
The genesis of Nisa-J1ie ar,d
a /Kung w.:m;,w. ln Pe:mnal Karrat:vcs Grm:p
(F.ds.), /nterprcfing wamn1~ livf!.< Femiui,11/ir:lr)I
und per,onai r.arrariws (pp. 228-240).
l!loom:::gton: Indiana Univer,ity Press.
5host~k, .M. (lUOUa). Nisa: The life and ward,: o(" !Kung
wcm,m. Cam hri c:g<', \4 A: Harvard t:nlv(·:; it y
Press. ( Original work puY shed in 1911 l)
S':ostak, M. ;2000h). Retur~ to ,Visa C.1mbridgc, MA:
Harvard Universi;y Press.
%kl, It ( 1978;. 1:rhan sur viva/: The world of workir.g-
dass wom,m. lloston: Beacon.
Stein, A. ( 11rriJ sensibi!i11: Stories of 9, lesbian
generation. Berkelej'·: Un iv,;:rsit~ of Califo; nia
Seomberg, P. li. ( 1993). l.tmguage ,ind self1n:msf1:m1111-
ti1m: A study of tire Christimt rm1wr,ilw n,ar:rat,,v,.
Cu:nbr'cige, [K: Cambridge t'nivcrsity Press,
Sutherland, E. H. ( 1937). The prcifi!ssion.:d fl1ieJ:
Chkag,i: 1:11iver.sitv of Chlcaoo f'n·ss,
- ; "
Taylor, ,. M., Gilligan, C., & S.illi~,,:i, A. M. l 1995).
Between v<,ice and silen:,:e; WOmen ar.A gin.:, race
and relatfonsl11p. Cm1brid15e, .\-IA: Harvard
Un ivers'tv' Press '
ledlm:tl, I!, ( 1992). Tiu: bcautlf'u/ ,!nd ti;, d1111grm11,:
Encour;ters w11h the l1mi lmlians. New York:
Viki 1:g/Pe::guin Rooks.
le:kel, 5. ( 1995). Cmmng o( age: rl,e story vf our om-
by wfw'w iivtd it. New itork: New Press.

Thomas, W. l., & Znaniecki, E (1921). rl:e Polish
pem,ant in Europe an,i America (\f/Jl. 2), 1'ew Yor~:
Alfred.>\. Knopf. (Original wo~k pub'.ished in :918)
"fhor:ips1m, P. (2000). 1'he voice of the past: Oral !:islary
(3rd ed.). New Yer~: Odord l:niversity Press,
(Original work publ:shed in 19711)
Tirrnty, W, G. ( 2000 ). Undaunted courage: Lifo his:ory
and the postmodern chal'.enge, In 'I. K. Denz:r.
& Y. S, Un coin (l:ck), Jlm1db1;ok of quali!alfve
res,:ardt (2nc ed.• pp. 531-553), Thm:sa1:<l Oaks,
CA:Sagr.
Tierney, W. G. 12002), Get Reprei;enting reality,
Quaii!aliw Stu1lics in fiducatforr, 15, 385-398,
Tierney, \\\ G., & J.incoln, Y. S. (Eds,). ( 1997). Rep re·
srntalion and the text: Re-(ruming the narrative
Chase: Narrative Inquiry 11 67\1
voice. Albany: State l:ni vers i:y /ll ;'/ew Yurk
Prtss.
Walsun, L. & WatsDn-Frankt", M·lt (1985).
lnterpre1 ing life h i!ltori,,s: An amhwpological
inquir;: Kew Bmn~wick, NJ: Rutgers Cniver,ity
Press,
Well,,, IL S, [1994), Le,miir,g from strangers: the art
and method r.f qualitative inierview m,dies.
New York: Free Press,
Wozniak, D. F. (2002), They're all my d:iidr.•n: Fow:r
mulhering in America. New York: l\ew fork
lniversily Pres;:.
Yetman, N. R (1970). I.ife uridr, th1, ''peculiar institu
tio•t": SelectionsjrQm ihe slave narm.tiye collection.
York: Holt, Rinehart & Wi1:ston,
26
ARTS-BASED INQUIRY
Performing Revolutionary Pedagogy
Susan Finley
T
he focus of this chapter is tl:e usrfulness
of arts-based approaches to doing cuali-
tative inquiry when political activis:n
;s the goal. References were chosen lo include both
theoret:cal discussions abm:x arts-baser. inquiry
mefaodologie, and examples of arts-basrd repre
sent.dons as well a, to underscore the notions of
u,efnlne,s and political activi~;:1 that are served
by arts-basec inqr.iry. In this review, special
tion is given 10 arts-:iased researd1 that is posi-
tioned toward :uturc developments in the field of
soda;;y responsible,politically activist, and locally
useful research 1w:thodologies. Fm:n an l:istorical
perspective and for !he purpose of Jefi:1:ng arts-
based researd:, the chapter addresses co:1cer:1s
and issues that have dominate,~ rl'scussions about
arts-based reseaxh methodologies. c;:imately, it
is argued that arts-based research rnn con:ribute
greatly to "a radkal ethical aestnetic ... Ithat I
grounds its represcrtations of the world h: a sel of
i:iterpretive practices tnat implement critical race,
c_Jeer, and Tl:ird World postco'.onial theory"
(Denzin. 2000, p. 261).
This chapter begins wi :h a description of
c:iaracteristics of arts-hasec re.searer: that render
it u:1 ique among !he various forr:1s of post:nod-
ern qualitative inq·.iiry_ Following t:iis ,'.har-
acterizat'oc of arts-based researcl:, it presents a
s1-eletal outline o: broader social feature, that
provide a contextual backdro;:, for a radical,
ethical, a;1d rl"volntiunary .iris-based inqui:·y:
Finally, the chapter condudes with an example
of communi:v-ha,ed,
'
The genealogy of arts-based resea:-c:1 that I
.
activist, a:is-hased imJi:irv.
haw cho.;;en :o follow is couched in the widely
shared belief tha: ~ocial science inquirv' is alwavs .
mo:-a 1ar:d political, and I further inler?rel this as
a timely prod ar:ia :ion rhar its prnctiti one;&
should, therefo~e, be purposeful in pe:forr:1 ing
bquiry that is activist, engages in p~b:k criti-
cism, a::1d is rrsistant to neoconservative dis-
courses ::1at threaten social justice. Moreove;,
I heEeve :hat th i~ purpost:ful IL: rn to a revolution-
ary, performative :-esearch ae~thetics facili:a,es
critical race, :ndigeno·1s, queer, leminist, and
border studies.
111 68L
682 1111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITA".'TVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER UJ
JIii POSTMOl>ERN INTEGRATIONS
OF Aerrv:sM, SouAL Sc1ENr:R,
Al,D ART: DEF!:sf[J.;G THE
FEATURES mi ARrs•BASED INQUIRY
Ar:s-'::>ased inquiry has emerged in pos:colonial
?OSlmod<crn contexts. woven from complex
:hreads of soda!, political, and pnilosophical shifts
in perspectives and practices across multiple dis-
course com mun ':ics. lt has surfaced in the context
of a reflexive turn that ma::ked be social sciences,
pb ilosophy and literary criticism, science, educa·
tion, and the arts, and it is evidenced in particular
bv the narrat:ve turn ii: soci,Logical disrnurse.
· Arts-based in,niry is one :nethodological a:1d
theoretical genre among many new fonns of q;ial-
itative inquiry: It is siti:ated withi:1 what Lincoln
(I 995) des:ribed as an emergir:g t,adition of par-
ticipatory critical action research in soda! science,
Pract::ioners of inquiry i:i this '.ine propose rein
terp:<'tation of the methods and ethics of :ii:man
social research and seek to construct action-
oriented processes inquiry that are useful
within the local conununity where the researc:i
orig:n,ite~,Arts-based inquiry, as ii is practiced by
academics doing human sodal research, fits
toricallywit:i:n a postmodern framework 1ha1 fea-
tures a developing activist dynamic among both
arti,ts and social researcl:ers,
T'uee historkal stories are usec here lo
recount the genealogy of a radical aesthetic
inquiry: ( a) the turn to activist social science,
(b) the eme:genct' of a:1s-based research (anc
the turn to activist a:ts), and (c) the tun: to a rad,
ical, ethical, and revolutionary arts-based inquiry
(and the emergence of revolutionary pedagogy).
The Turn to Act iv isl Social Science
Postmodern foundational shifts brm::g'lt about
new conceptualizatiuns of how research works,
how meanings are :nade, and what social pu,-
poses resea~ch might serve. Soda\ scirnti,ts
bt'gan to act on t:ieir realization that tradi1io:1al
techniques of research were r.ot adequate to han-
dle the many qncs:ions that needed to be asked
when the frame was shifted to take on new and
diverse perspect:ves. for instance, writer, such
as Guba (1967) 'dentified the proliforatioo of
new questions as a profound movement in social
research away from q ucstions conee ming tes:h-
niq ue to ques:ions concerning theory, a:ic l:e
foresaw a reformist movement that would bring
"art" to inquiry (p. 64) as researchers sought
in which to merge theory and pract:.:e . .'l"ew
questions prompted new ways of looking, and
the transformation uf social science research to
include qualitative methodologies bcgar: full bore
by the ear:y 1970s (Schwandt, 2000).
Two primary issues arose to create a space
for arts-based social science inquiry. firs:, the
dialogue turned lo ethical issues that occur in
the refatio:iship betwet:n researcher, and tl:e
communities in which they wurk. Qua:i:ative
rt'searchers had embraced new practices that
redefined the roles of researchers a:1d research
participants-who no longer were subjects but
instead were collahorators or ever: co:iesear:hers-
so that tl:e :ines between the researcher and the
researched hi urred. In the context of this type of
locally meaningful inquiry, researchers and par-
t id pants were acti\·ely developing an ethics of care
that ultimately became a qua'.ity standard in the
new paradigm for social science research (Linrnln
& Reason, I996). Rather than following the quan-
titative scientific model of objectivity, qualitative
social science inquiry was :ncreasing; y defined as
action-based lmJuiry that takes its fo:ms through
interpersonal, politkal, ~motional, moraL and
ethical relationa: skills that develop and are shared
between researchers and research participants
(Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Reasor:, 19%)_
Second, questions and issues arose in this
new stance of researchers as rnmmunity partners
and i:iitia:ed a "crisis of representation" ( l)enz'n &
Lineol n, 1994) that prompted questions from
researc'lers. How should rt'Search :Je reported Are
the lradil:or:al approaches ro dissemination ade-
qu!lte for an expanding andience th at includes a
local community? How do researchers "write up"
their u:iden,:andings without "otl:ering" their
research partners, exploiting them, nr leaving
the1:1 voiceless in the telling of their own stor:cs?

What forms should research takd How can
rcsearrhers make their work avai:able and useful
to partidpan:s rat'.\er than prodace repo~s in the
tradition of acade:11ics writing other acade-
mics or policym;;kersi
>!untraditional mefaods revised ,tan-
da::ib for cvaluar.ing research cmerged fro:n ~hese
questions and ir: 1995 gave rise lo the publica:iun
of the journal Qualitarive Inquiry {edited
Norma:i Denzin and Yvonr:a Lincoh:) as a loca •
tion for ongoing discussior:s aboul the practices
a:1d rrn:thodologies that take place in partidp,,·
tory, crttirnl action fo;ms o: resea,ch (for a review
of first 7 years of publication of Qua/ itative
inquiry, see Finley, 200:la}. Writing in Qualitative
Inquiry, Uncoln (1995) and Uneoln and Reason
( L996) identified part: cu:ar skills that had
emerged in the new tradition of i:iq1.;.iry. The skills
that were increasingly r:ecessary tu r:ew p.iradigm
researchers included interpersunal, political,
emotional. moral, and ethical con:petence; intcl·
lectual openr:ess and creativity; and spirilual
,1ualities rdated to empathy and understanding
whe:i confronted with human experience.
In thts context of research reform, Eis11er
1991/1998) also a,gued tl:at successful :r:sean::hers
ir: the new social science genre require a different
;_ind of skill base than was p:ev:oi.:sly expected
among soda'. researchers. He yruposed a graduate
school curriculum tbl1 values otudent&' develop-
ing skills of imagh1ation, perception, and inter -
pretation of the qualities o: things as well as
mastery of skil:s of artist:c represe:itation. To
address the representational crisis, Eisner encou,·
aged reaching into the existing fields of ans and
lrt;ers: "Art, music, dance, prose, and poetry arc
some of t:-ie form6 that have been inve.1tec to
perform this fu:1ctio:i' (p. Likewisi::, Seale
(1999) visL.aHzed a srnd io apprenticeship :node I
for learning a wide variety resc-arch skills "in
much the same way as artists learn to paint, draw,
or sculpt" (p, 476). Simila::ly, Tierney ( I\198, l 999)
acknowledged that authors' a:templs to include
multiple textual voices called :or narrativ~ range
as wide and experimental as offered in literarn:-e,
Wr':ing in a spe::ial issue of Qualitative Jr1,p,1iry
devoted tu Efo history rese.irch that took its forms
Finley: Arts-Based lnqulr~ llll 6ij,l
in literary genres, Tierney ( 1999) ubserved,"What
these authors are struggling over is how to get out
of the representationa: s:raightjacket that soda]
scientists have been in fo~ most of this century"
(p, 309). He cont:r.;1ed, ''l'he authors want to
create greater narrative flexibility in time, space,
and voice. Their assu:11ption is that rather than a
standard proof akin to the r:alt:ral sdcntists,
readers make meaning from emot've and
tive aspec'.s of a text" (pp, 309-310 ),
7hu s, fae turn to activist social science
was simultaneous and mutual with the turn to
nar:-ative sudal science research, Casey (l 995)
explained that methodological shifts in researd:
approaches are tied to ;m:itical or theoretica:
interests charged by social and :iistorical cin::um-
stanccs and rha: nar::ative research is politically
situated in that it "cldiberately defies the fo,ccs
uf alienatioll, anomie, ai:dhila tiun, author[tarian•
ism, fragmentation, rnmmodification, depreca-
tion, and dispossession" (p. 213), In the context of
activism, what is called for is expressh•e research
that portrays t:ie multidirr:cnsionaE:y of hun:ac1
life as compared with trulh finding, pmofs,
and condusiv: tv, i11 tra<l itional social science.
Recognilion of the power dynamic between the
researcher and the researched called for the
adaplalion of lite,ary forms to serve the purpnse
of research texts :hat represent, as vivid! y as
possible, fie words as well as the wodds of par-
tic:ipants. The prev.: ii: ng ctl: ics of care among
new social scitnce researchers moved narrat' ve
discourse {i.e., storytelling) to the forefront of
social sdencc research.
Working in this politically and ethically
charged context horde;' crossing, activist
researche::s broke new ground, offering research
narratives in multiple literary forms, Denzin
(2004) wrote,
Experimental, reflexive ways of writing :lr,l-per$on
ethnographic texts are now CD::1n10np'.ace, Critical
::arrativc perspective, have become a .:m::"J Ifoaturt
cf cn·Jnltr• hegemonic, d«n1oniring mNho,'ologies
(Mu:ua a::d Swaciener, 2004, p, 16). Sociologists,
anthropulogists, aml educator:, continue lo ciplore
ne" ways of composing ethnography, and cultural
cr:licism is now acce;ited practice. (p. I)
684 111 HA:-llllOOK QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 26
Indeed, Columbia University now offers its medical
s:udent, rnt1r,;e,; in I::rratu:-e, litrrary theory, and
creative writing as part of its Program in Narrative
Medicl:le (Thc:ns:rom, 2004).
The Emergence of i\ rts-Based Research
Withi:l the rnntext (lf 61:rgeoni ng new prac-
tices that merged activist social science and
narrnt ive art forms, Ei~ner ( 1981 ) expounded
on the differences bctwec:1 sdentific and artistic
a pproac:1e,; m qualitative research, giving rise to
arts-based cducati onal research, One of Eisner's
important contributions was insistence on the
power of form to :nfor m Iha! indudtd a call to u8e
many difforent art forms dance, film, plastic
arts) as we:l as :he various narrative forms that
have proliferated in the new social science para-
digm, Eisr.er's :heories are couched in the histori-
antecedenL, of 2,rt ists and wdal sden:ists
whose works seem virti,:ally interdumgeable-
;;rt tlm: is ~ocial science and social science that
is ar:ful. They are espedally respectful of the
contributions :ha: artists have made to under•
stand: r.g soda! life. In the new ronstruction of
social ,r,,en,-,,. border, were crossed, hut bound-
aries were ,i :nilarly breac:11:d hy posLm odem
artists seeking political vnke and power and
aud'ence-par:i,'.:pant inSurnce ir: the construe·
tion of soda! ,2;ucs.
Cul:ural, historical, a:id politka: contexts that
shaped the reform of sue:~! :,ciem:e research sim·
ilarly invigorated political activism among artists.
ror cxar:,p]e, l;elshin (I 995) argued that activist
art rook hold in the context fem in 'st •driven
pan:.digmatk shifts that cn:erged du1·:ng the
1970s and :hen expanded and institutionalized
ove~ tl:e subsequent 20 years. Fcl shin traced the
particul::;r influence of paradigmatic shifts on the
rn:" of artists in society. She poir.ted out, for
j nstancc, that whereas act: vist art add.:esses a
broad spcclrum of social issues-homelessness,
AIDS, violence i1gainst wo:ne:i, enviror.mental
neglect, sexism, racism, illegal immigrat'on, ar:d
other :opics-comn:on methodologie6, formal
strnl.:gies, and activist goals are shared by new
paradigm activist artists.
Activist an. ir: this ~elf- ,d1cctive, early
postmodern phase, according to l'dsh in {1995), ls
characterized by six traits:
• I:rnovative use of 1nhlic space to address :s,ucs
of ,udopolitical c;,::t'Jral significance
• Encaungement of co:nn:unity or public parlk-
ipation in ar;s mak'::g as a means of dfecting
dunge
• l'ni~ageme::: community partidp,rnts i11
acts nf ii<:h-expre,s',m or self-repn:se::1a1fon
,15 a way of promoting voice and visibilil y
amo,11'.i ~1ar,icipan:s a;:d of n,aking !ht ptrsonal
political
• Use uf main st ream media tcchniq ucs
billbGards, posters, subway bus advcrti;;ing,
newspaper '::serts) :o cor.::.:.:t 10 a audi,
en ce and to subvert 1he u~m;: 'Jses mmmer-
cial forms
• Immersion in co:n • unity for preliminary
rese.uch and collaborations among ,;rtists and
,cmm1111itieslconstitu,·ncic, s:iarc a pcr-
:;onat sh:~c in the ,l(:,'resscd
• Conscious use o[ pulllk bpaccs to cont.-xmali,£
artworks and to em;ou:,i:,lt ,mdi,·nu·, to Llrfinc
ther:· ~elves nol as passive sp<'t!ato:s but rather
as active !lartkipanls in the~ rtworks
b sum, Fetshin defined ''new puhlic art" in terms
tl:at xcollect Lincoln's ( 1995} descriptions of
developing trends 'n "new soda\ sdence:' In this
borde:--crossing dynamic, new work that has
been created stands neither ins:de nor outside the
realms of social science or art; instead, this work
is located in the spaces formed by emotionality,
intrllrct, and identity,
In arts-based :-esearch, paracigrns for mak•
ing :neaning in tbe contextual realr:1 s of art and
social science co:Jide, coalesce, and rcs:ructurc
to become something that is not strk:ly id<:'ntifi-
able as either ar: or As t:lmer (1994)
observed, "'lo do hcuretks is ro :mss 1he dis-
co·Jrsr,s of art ,md theory" (p. 81 ), Ileuretics
ro creative processes of discm•ery and hvention
such as those that have been enjoyed by a:-ts•
based rese<1rchers who b1ve cons du usly brought
the methodolo!,lies uf the arts to define new prac·
tices of human social inquiry. Eisn cr offerrd
seven organizing premises that rnake .:xplidt

h:s defir:i:ion of arts-based inquiry, a1:d his
formative book, The Enlightened Ey1! (Eii::1er,
I99 If: 998 ), is presented as a:1 argument ir. sup-
port of e,:ch of tl:e seven foundations:
L 'Thrre arc multiple ways in which the world can
be known. Arnst,. writers, and dancers, as wdl
as ,ci,•nli•"-have impcrtant things to trll ahm1t
thewn:ld.
1. I luman k11owk-dt;e i:: a con,tructed form ol
rxpcri<.::1ce and. therdort, is a reflection d mind
a, wdl as uf nature. Knowledge 1s made ,,ntl not
s'::iply c:scovered.
3. The terrc:s bm::gh whk'~, hum2::s rcprc;;enr
their conception of the world t:aw a :m,jor
in nue::ce on wha: are ,1hle tu say :1boie: :t
4. The effuctiv;_: use of :my form thr~ugh which
the w,irld i::; known and repn:3<!::led require,~
inteFiience,
5. The se:ec::cn or a form fmmgh wnich the world
is tn he repre,,•n;ed nnt (mly inllurnces what
hll m,m, ,:an say but also intlurnccs what
are ::kely to ,,,,r,--r,,•n,·a
6. liduc1lional i11quiry w:ll be ::10re complete and
i11for:llalivc JS hm112::s increase the ran gr or
way~ in which thry dPscrfoe, ·:terpret, and
evaluate !he educatim:al world,
7. The pr,rticu',ar fom:s of representation lhal
become a,,ept'1.bk iu th,; educational research
~ommc::1 ity are as mu,h a political matter as
they an, ,m e1,isternolug:ca. onr. New fonm oi
repn:scnta;io11, wh<'n ,icccrable, w'\l reqmre
new compete:•,des.
Eisner's argument rests in a 1,mltlple intelli-
gences stance that holds that there arc varied ways
in which :he world can be knovvn and that broad-
ening foe mnge o: perspt:ctives available for
constructing k nowkdge increases the i nforma-
tive vai .1e of research. A rt,-hased researchers ;;re
:1:,:reasing';y wing art forms that includt visual
aud performing ar:s as well as forms borrowed
from literature, This preser !s a btr.1mkry cross-
ing among arls-bastd res1;arc'icrs; it critiques the
privilege of language-based ways o:' knuwing, a:i d
I-inky: Aris-Based l nquiry 111 6ijo
it further challenges status quo responses to the
que~'tion "what :s researc'.1?" There is a poli:ical
d:allenge in Eisner's foundational construction.
Here again, he not0c: that who does re8c,m.:h and
w:1ether Jt is ~ecognized as research when it is
presented in art forms is a ?OE tic al issue :i:1 kcd to
educaticn, lf research is to become a silc for tl:c
implementation crit:cal race, :'eminist, and
Third World methodologies (aiming uthers),
researchers need to empr:asizc anc confront ;he
power issues 1:nderscored Hisr.cr's. fmmda-
t'01:s. There arc multiple sodallr constructe{'
ways u[ knmving the world, a:id diversity is
achieved in ?.nd through tht: voices of c.iverse
11"ople hroi:ght forward in :he act of doi:ig
research as well as in representing iL As I bwe
said elsewhere,
It i5 ;m act nf pulitical cma11cipa:inn fn:m the
,luminant parac.:gm of s,:ence for new paradigm
researchers to say "I am doin!\ art" ,md rn mca:1
«I am do::1g re,,earch··-or vice ve :;;a. I11 dthcr
utten:u:cc, t':at art and rc,c,irch are common acts
makes a poliiical ,talemenl. (l'irney, 2C(Ua, p. 290)
On the 0:1-= 1-mnd, a cormmmal experience of
requires that in formation-gathtring
am; analytical processes of inquiry be communal
in nature and upen to participation among
111 cr:1be,s of the commr nity that the research
intends to scrv,', On rhr other hand, the rnmm·J-
nity of care en com passed in the research exp er i-
en ce also indudes the audie:1ces to research.
Making an is a passionate visceral activity that
creates opportunities for commu:1ion among
participants, researchers, and lhe various aJdi-
ences who en counter the research tex L Arts-based
res ea rel: c,osscA the bmmdark;; of ar: and
research as defined by conventions formed in his-
torically, culturally bounded contexts of tne in:cr-
national a:-t market and in t:ie knowledge market
dominated by hig:1er education.
It is importanr to acknow:edgt: here that both
art with political purpose and soda! inquiry with
artist:c qualities have long a:1d rich histories. In
the arts.-bascc research example, howevr:-, what is
profoundly different and staridy political is the
 686 1!1 HANDBOOK 01' (JUAl.l TATIV E RESEARCH-CHAPTER 26
effort to daim that art is equal to-i:1tleed,
sometimes even profoundly more appropriate
than-science as a way of understanding, Arts-
based research is ooe of manv svsremk studies of
' '
phenomena undertaken to advance human under-
standing-not exactly art and ,;ertaidy not
sdence. As Slattery and Langemck (2002) stated,
arts-based research takes place in "sy:ithetical
momen:,-experiences of profound insight that
merge time, space, and self in seamless transhis•
torkai moments Inot] . , , easily discernible and
not clearly categorized within the rigid disciplinary
boundaries" of art and science (p, 350). A primary
concern for arts-bast'li researchers is how to make
the best use uf their hybrid, boundary-crossing
approaches to inquiry to ':,ring about culturally sit-
uated, polit'cal aesthetics tliat are responsive to
social dilemmas. The :esponse has been to create
and encourage open her • eneutk texts that cre-
ate spaces for dialogues that blur boundaries
among researc:iers, participants, and audiences so
that, ideally, mies reverse and partidpan:s lead
researchers to new questions, audiences revert :o
questioning practitioners, and so forth as all inter-
act within the text In this instance, the text is
defined its broadest ;xissible terms and invokes
all of the ac:ions in the world that can be "read:'
lntertextuality refers to a kind of play (full•
ness) between :exts. One text plays with the next
text; that is, the play of inter:ex!Jal'ty is the
process of reading through which one text refers
to another text in the process of cultural produc-
tion (Barthes, I970fl974), lntertextuality in
research display points to the more dynamic
aspects of cultural proc:iction, The meaning
of social science include all things that car: be
read, can be inter!)reted, or are the ret,,ren:ts to
which people make mean'ngs about their world.
Thus, personal identity is created within social
structures that are the:n selves "performance
texts'' that play :n:o ongoing and always changing
soc:al and cultural constructio;'ls, For example,
Garoian ( i 999) and Finley (200 l ) have separately
produced examples of rollage-assem;:ilage art-
works that are self-conscio,1sly autobiographical,
drawing into their represer:tative furms textua;
referents m soda! constructions such as ethnicity,
gende,, socioeconomic status, and rultu,al
hisrnry. Although these works are profoundly
personal accounts of ''becoming" the people we
are, they are also commentaries on cultural his·
:ories a:id the texts that shaped and fo;med us.
The concept of intcr:extuality goes a long way
ir: ex ?iain:ng why cui: ure and other social con-
structions are always dynamic.
Aspects of intertexh:ali:y form the basis for
arts-based inquiry, Ir: the hyphen that comieds
"arts" and "based" is a textual reference to the
arts as a basis for something else, something that
is ~not art." Connecting activist n:ovements in
ar: and research is one of the fundamental acts
of intertextual reading :hat forms the fonndatior.
for arts-based research, Among the particular
skills of the a,ts-hased researcher is the ability
to play or, perhaps more accurnrely, to construct
a field for play; thert is a phrskal dimension to
making some: hing, a con flue nee of mind and
body applied efforts to understar.d (see also
Butler, 1997, : 999; Finley, 200 I; Fox & Geichman,
2UU I ). For Richard son, th is phy,ical dimension
to cogr1ition imp!ies a "kinesthetic balance" that
moves t:1e au dir:icc/reader to :,ome kind of
actio:1 (Rkhardson & Lockridge, 1998). Moving
people tu action can be tl:e purpose of arts-
based research. T:1e primary cb arnc:eristics of
arts-based researcb provide a formula fo, a
:adkal, ethical, and revolutionary qualitative
inquiry.
This genealogy of arts-based inquiry exists in
the identification of intertextual con::iections and
tensions (i.e., discon:1cctions) among"new '"1itve"
soda) snem:e researchers a:1d storytellers, poets,
dancers, pair:ters, weavers, dramatists, ar.d film-
makers who have situated themselves and their
work it: dy:iam ic and diverse postmodern social
stn::ctures. A postr.1ode:-n rewriting of the story of
arts-based inquiry methodologies Dlays out in
discontinuous, discordant, and intertedual am
structions. That there :s a shared urge to use their
work to pm:note revolut:onary social justke that
brings artists and soda! sde:itists into collective
discourse is just one such construction.
As Earor:e (2001a) noted, arts-based ii:quiry
evidences eleme:1ts of deoign that am aesthetic in

character and Iha!, w:th variat:on according to
art form, are "selected for their usefulness in
recasting the con:ents of experiei:ce into a form
with the potential for challenging (sometimes
dee?ly held) beliefs and valm,s" (p. 26). £magi•
nation, com:nunity, and cor:mmnal experience, as
well as perceptual, c:11otional, and sensual aware-
ness, all contrib;Jte to the aesfaetic dimensions of
arts•based research. In arts•based research, the
artfulness to be foand in everyday living com-
the aesthetic (Ba:one, 2001a; Barone &:
Eisner, ! 997; Dewey, l9J4fl958). Denzin (2000)
and others have encouraged researchers to focus
on the vernacular and to capti;re the visceral
ephemeral momer::s in daily life, Vernacular,
expressive, and contextualized language forms
open narratives :hat pron:ote er.1pathy aad care
(Barone, 200 lb), These entreaties to :he ve:-nacular
for the purpose of broader audie11<;:e/;:,artid ;:,ant
voice, representation, and appeal, us wdl a~
the pr.:losophical appeal 10 regardng people
equally, recall Tolstoy's (1946/l 996) comments
about art:
We ,m, a,clllltomec to understand a,t lo be only
what we hear and see in theaters, concerts, and
elthibitons, together with buildings, statues.
po,•ms, and novels, . , , IDu: I all hum,m li(c is filled
w:tb works of every kind-from cradlcsong,
jest, mimkry, the ornamentation of :icuscs, dress.
and utensils, to ,;hurch services, building monu•
ments, and triurr:phal processions, It 's al; artistic
activity, (p. 66)
Ir: its use of everyday, localized, and personal
language, and in its reliance on :exts that are
ambiguous and open to interpretat:on, arts-:>ased
resea,"Ch draws people into dialogue and opens
the possibihy for critical cri1i..;ue of soc:al struc•
tures (Barone, 2001a, 2001b). Performativity is
the ivrlting and rewriting of meanings faat con•
tinuaUy disrupts the authority of texts, Resistar:ce
is a kbci of perfo:mance that holds up for critique
hegemonic texts that haw become privileged
stories told and retold. All knowledge daims are
dependent on ascrip:ion w[thin power structures
(storks) that are performed with'n culturnl
boundarie,,
Fin:cy:J'.:1s,£1ased Inquiry II, (,87
This connection among political resistance,
pedagogy, and perform anee has emergec as a way
of understanding, a:1d it represents an arts-based
methodological approach :o, interpreting and
taking gction (for a more comprehensive discus·
sion of the "dramaturgical tum;• see Denzin, 1997,
2003), Dramaturgy as a research form draws from
the r:ch history of politically motivatec, activist
theater used to resist oppression, Cam:an ( 1999)
a,gued that perfbrman.:es in tht, genre can he
used to "critique cominant cultural assumpt:or.s,
to construct identity, and to attain political
agency" (?· 2). Garoian def:ned the human body
as a "contested site" !p, 23) where the activity of
the play enables culturally disenfranchised acturs
to push against trad' tion, hegemo:1y, and do:ni-
nant s~andpoints, W'th echoes of Felshin (1995 ),
Garuian drew on the feminist arts movement as a
site of activist performance art, particularly with
relerences to lhs: perforn:ar.ce artist Suzanne
tacy. Broadening his definition of performance as
pedagogy, Carolan observed,
lLacy's] art work :s performativc curriculum
because it ()prns a :'mimil space, within whkh a
comnuml:y can engage a crilii:al discourse, a space
whe~ein dedsi,ms a:-e ron:i::gcn: upon lhe collec-
tive desires of its citizens, a; well as an ephemeral
si,ace because i: is applicable to tht par:irnlar time
and place for which it ha5 bc1::1 designed. Th>Js. for
Lacy, communities are mmestcd sites, Jnd perfor-
mance a,t i& a function uf communit;· deve:op-
ment. (p, 128}
The community aspects of Lacy's \.\-ark are
accom p:ished by the involvement of diverse
commun:ties of participants as exr1erts and
actors examining their own oppression, where
ex?ertise is defined by :>artkipants' lives in the
community. The participants in her W\,r~ arc
coresearchers, critiquing and challenging them-
selves to understand their community and to
overcome cultural oppress:or:s :hat oCCJt there,
Thcs, art, politics, pedagogy, ai:d inquiry are
brought together in performance,
ln t::-adng be evol·Jtion of performance as
a primary site for revolutionary research method-
ology, Denzin (2003) explained,
688 11!1 HANDBOOK OF QUALJ'l'A'CIVI' :l.ESEARCII-CHAl'T ER 26
Ethnograp11y hi:c tG be taken cut nf a pu:dy
mcthodolog'.ca. framework and located first •,vith in
a p:rfo:mwve arena and the:1 within :he ,r>,ccs
of pcdagoJ\Y, 1,;hcn: it was undt•r:,tood that th,·
pcdagogkal l, alw11y, pol::kaL We rnn mm sec th,1:
inlcrpret:ve ethnugruphy's subj,·ct ma:ter 's set by
a <iialectical pcdagcgy, Thi, pedagogy connects
opprc,snrs and the op?,essec in ~apitsl's liminal,
t:piphn 11 ic ,,1m,,.:,.( p. 31 )
The Turn to a Radkal, Ethical,
and Revolutionary Arts-Based In(;uiry
With referer.ce to writers who have advanced
the notion of critk:al performance pedago g}',
such as l'reire (1970/2001), Giroux (2000,2001 ),
Kincheloe ar:d McLuen (2000), Conquergood
( 1998), Garoiar: (1999), Pincr.J (1998), and Hill
(l 998), Denzin (2003) pr:t forward a mocel of
performance c, hnogra ;:ihy "that moves from
interpretation and emotional eyocation to praxis,
empowerment, and social chailge" (1,. 133).
This turn by Denzin (. 999) to critical perfor-
mance dcl ivered un his charge to critical ethno•
graphers that performative pedagogy is needed
lo mnfro:11 race relations and incqJalities in the
gloha' i,.ed capitalist derr:ocratic system. Dcnzi n
(2003) exp.ai1,cd that, :hrougb an ,;:volutionary
process, the field uf eth nogmphy has reached
its current crilirnl, performative pedagogical
moment; it 's II point i:1 time when performi:ive
ethnogrnphy can be cnl!c:eci as critkal social
practice. A ,Titical performance pedagogy should
e:iable oppre~sed persons tc1 "unvei. the world of
or,pression a:id through praxis rnrnmit thcr:1-
,el ves to its transfo,mation" ( l'reirE, 1970/200 I,
µ, 54, c: tee in Denzin, 2003, p. 30).
lt is a shift in perspectivf' and a ca'.! to act ion
demanded hy the cultural, social, and govern-
mcnlal e,mch in whic:i we live. As Mc Lar1;c11 (2003 J
sta:ed, there is renev.'<'d intensity :ri pl~as to take
reformativs: action today in the face of gluba liwc0
oppression and ;cpressive po:i7kal structures.
These "dark times" ilS .\klarcr, (:999) ca:led
them, dcma:id th2: practitioners and theorists
w:10 hase their work in an ethics of car,' and
social re:,ponsihi lity will take critical pedagogy
to fae heights of poli:kal actio:i. Revolutionary
perfirmam:e pedagogy must movr heyond the
dialogical tasks of refo:1:11ing, rcfu nctioni ng,
and re posing quest ions a:id formulations of
knowledge tr.at chara1,ierize crit;cal pedagogy
in preference for act on ( p, 81. [nslead, be call
to "evolution i:; ethical: "to :nake :ibemtion and
the abolition oi human suffrrilg the goal or the
eliucative entcrprisen (p. 5 ).
Rel'olmionary pedagogy, .is described b;t
McLaren ( 1999, 200 I, 2003], does the following:
• Re~ists heteroge1eity in discourses and 1epre•
sen1.:11io,:s of history, cultur<', a::d ?Olitics that
ignore the tensions and aintrari:~tions lived
throug:: raced a :1,! gendered difference
• Names and gives voicc:o nonparticiirant, ·- the
power .~trucrurcs derived from world capital ism
~rid colonic:Jst p:'.iflkts
• Cuntests various assrmlts en protections for the
pocr, fo: women, and for people of c:okl,
• Challcng~s ;he 11ssump:ions m:d iceol
~nactro in sd:onling and attempts to refashion
,l politics nf cd11CJtion to :h0 :arger universal
valnes of social dcn:cuacy
• Offtrn a :iroYisiomi: a new ,nci<:ty
:re.xi from r'ie bondage pl.st
• set against the subjc,·•
l11:t:2ti()11 of CH:rvdav "'m.?~i,,nn,and ris;;
' .
lo an e ·11;1owcrd way of ~1cir11s by rec,;1g11,u:r1g
and nat11ing, ir: 2.:1 uncomprum ising criliqr:e,
the eve,yduy signifiers of power and practices
of cc ncealmcnt that typically prevent stJf.
knowledge and hy discouraging ~aming the
ten~ions .ind contradklions wrnught by capital-
j;;r mlonin::st llr,ctices
• Dire,;;t:y conCnm:s differentalt•d totalities o''nm-
tem porarr society and their hi,,to,kal imbri-
cations in t:ie world svs1t<crr1 of glnbal capitalim7:
by e11gag,,m,·m revol utitmary transformation
(rnnccivc,I as an opposilion tn s0da I justice
reforr::s)
From a postn:odem perspective, Ulmer ( 1994)
si :nilarly arguec :or a rcvo: Jtionary pcdagog;1
that make.~ ii s h!SA the transformation of institt: ·
lions by using tr.e formalizing struclu:cs or ihe
institution itself to rxperimentally -earrangi"
:x-ality tor critical effect, Ue cited Eco (1984, p.409}
to make his case for cng.,ginJ:! i:1 "r~volutionary"

::1krvenl 1omst that entertai:1 po,~sihility,
as in an ideal "g.:crilla" semiotics, of«changing the
circumstances by vir:uc of which receivers
rhoose their own codes nf reading, , Th is prag•
:narir energy or semiotic consdoumess shows
how a drscriptive discipline cm also be an aclive
:,rojcci' (Ulmer, 1994, p, 86).
Social crisis su1~ge,sh that the next phase in
:he development of arts-b,u;eLI research wi 11 bring
in:(1 focw; t:1c potent:al for arts-based inquiry to
confront poslmocicrn polit:cal issues 1,,1.:ch as
diversity and globali7ation and prac1111011-
ers to ir:1plen:ent c,itical queer, and post•
colonial ep:slemologies,
h performance, the emphasis is on doing,
Thus, pe:formar:ce creales a specialized (upen and
dialogk) space that is ~imultanrously asserted
inquiry and cxpress:on. Performance requires
sumt: sort of i mag:r.ative interpretalior. of events
and th.: contexts of their occurrences. A perfor•
mancc text redirects attention :u the process of
doing research mlher than looking for tru:h,
ar:swcrs, anc expert knowledge in a fina'. :-epmt of
tiodings from the researcher, "Open :exts rnnnot
be de;.;ontextr:alizeci; their (now unpredictable)
meanings emerge wilhir: the sociology of space
a:id c.re ;;om1cctcd w: ::iin the reciprocal relatior: •
~hips that exist ·'.)cnveen people and !he ;:0litk:al,
dynan:k qualities of place" (Finley, 2003a, p, 288).
Such performances arc possible in any art form,
inc:uding vfoual arts, 11:usk, dance, poet:y, and
narrative, 1:1 posing questions. analyzing infurma-
1ion, :r,tking discoveries, and/or engaging in ruEt -
k~I action, thr perfonm:tive !ext is a politically,
sccially, and contextaally gruundec work (in the
example of r:i usic, see Das pit, 2000; Feith, 1996).
It is in this lim:r.al space t:iat distinctior.s are
made between private a:1 d p'.ih:k sp:ieres, thereby
rendering persor.al identity, culture, and social
orccr unstable. indeterminate, indmak, and
amcnahle to change. Giroux ( 1995) argued, "It is
within the tension be:ween what might be called
the :rauma of:dentity formation and the dc:11a:1ds
uf public life that cultural work :s both theorized
and mace per formal ivc" (p, 5, cited in Garnian,
1999, pp, 40 41 ). Fro:n within th upimings that
are createci by arts ~cscard1, people-just ordinary
Finley: Arts &sed I::quiry 111 639
peupie, ·you and me, ""''"""·''"" as ?artkipa:its
as audiences-can imp'rment new visirns of
dignity, care, dernoc~acy, and other ,:iostrnio:iial
of being in the world,
Ii!! ARn- BAs1:11 INQUIRY AS "GuE1n1u.A
\'VARFA RR"; TAKl:'JG BACK T: IE STRbi:TS
IJ~n:iirl ( 1999) crged a r:eW movement in <cualila-
tive inquiry ir, whic:: researchers take up their pens
(and t:ieir ca • eras, paintbrushes, hm.Ues, and
voices) so the,: we r:1:ght "conduct our own ground-
level guerr ilia war fan: i:gai:ist ;he oppressive
structures of our everyCa)' (p,. 568, 572).
Following freire ( 1970/200 I; see also d:scussion of
this point in Deu:tin, 2003), there are two primary
tasks that ure the specific aims of human social
inquiry in the context of ,1 revolutionary arts-based
pedagogy: (a) to ·.1!wcil oppm.s'on and (b) to
trar:sfor!T'. praxis, W:ial tollov,s is a discussion of
lhos\: two tasks am: an exarr::i·,.c of radical, ethical,
and revolutionary arts-b<1sed inquiry, Th :s inquiry
has iaken ?lace (ar.c is confa:ui:ig) amm:g vtdous
diverse comrnun:tics of ec1,r:omically poor,:~ :k.rcr1
and their 'ilmiEcs [both sheltered ,md onshd-
tered), youths (unacco:npanied mi1:or,,run-
away ,ud throwaway d1ildrcn, travelers, am: otl:er
people be:ween ,7 and years uf who liv<'
on the st:eets). and Lent communities where
unhouscd people govern faeir own lives. It also
indudcs the experience uf Eeld-based, comn:ur.ity •
centered research among college sti,:ents, leachcrs,
shelter workers, and o~hc; soda] ,e,,.:-,,, providers
as well as the com:nunity more bmau:y, The
disc\lJ:Se community is intentimrn'.iy hroad so
as to invnl\'e as many individuals and role repre-
scn:atives as I ca:i draw into dialogur, ,:ritirni
cr'::iquc, i:lcpiry, a:id social ac:ion around issues
of poverty and homelesbr.ess as they influence the
educational lin:s and ex;:ieriences children,
youths, and adult~, (to~ examp,;;s, ,ee f:nky.
2000a, 2000b, 2003b; Fi:1lry & Finley, 1999. For a
discussion of Finley, 2000a, as part[cbatory
performance ir:qi:iry, sec Denzin, 20C3. For an
adaptati!i:1 into II performance of these
and other resectrch ?cblications in line of
 690 111 HAN::mooK m: QUAUTATIVI:. RESEARCH-Cc!APTER
social research, see Saldana, Finley, & :inley, in
p:ess. Fo~ discussions of ethnome:nodology, see
Saldana, 1999,20U3.)
"Mystory" Performances
With the intention of empowering children
living in shelter and transitional ho~tsing to
become active learner, in classrooms, the At Home
At School (AHAS) program that I organize brings
together K-8 (kindergarten :hrough eighth grade)
children, their families, and prese:-vicc and inser•
vice trnrhers in a t:eld-based community project
All us are s:udents; we are both the researchers
and the researd1ed followiu{! ar. arts based
inquiry model or new p:iradigrr: human studies.
Childrer. expcrie:1re arts-hased literacy instruc-
tion (hma1:lv conceived) tn roughoi:: the school
year dur:ng after-sd:ool educational enrichment
and in an intens:ve 6-week surrm:er school ?m-
gram. Ooing drama, litera:ure, visual arts, ga,de:1 •
ing, and com?u:er technology are the mainstays of
the d1ildren'., p;0gram. leaches lea:n frrsthand
what it means fo, dilldren to live in a shelter or
temp,Jra:y apartment, :hey experience the encum-
hrance; of poverty to educat:on :nore closely than
:nos! iave experienced previously, and they learn
:m:thods for integrating arts across the disdpEnes.
Chilcren in fais setting have ex:::,erienccd crim-
inalizat:on of homelessness in America, r:iarg:md-
iza:ion in schools, and disruptec lives in dianging
homes and schoo'.s as :hey a:ic their families search
for afforcable housing. Of con rsr, some are :urther
inured to the vagaries of addictions. imprisonments
of parents and siblings.and other social manifesta-
tions of poverty in a rr.inimum- iva~e emnomy.
While enrolled in AHAS. children who reside
in shelter and transitional ho·Jsjng live in a system
tl:Iat :-egulates their time-with r:iles for when
they can ba:ie, sleep, eat, and so forth-simply
·:iecau$e of faeir status as i:nhousrd (longtime or
recently) and eco:10:11ically poor person.~.
VarioJsly, in addition to strengther:i:lg acade-
mic perfu,mance as a means to build self.esteem,
my goal with the ct.ildren who attend AHAS is to
draw thci r atlention to t:1 e relationship be:wren
t:iemselvcs and society so as to help them redirect
the anger tr.at they sometimes feel at themselves
and t:Ieir parents back mward the ,ystem of
sustained poverty that subverts the:n. The goal is
for the child,en to embrace their understandings
of themselves and society in terms of polilici!I
struggle and, in so doing, to encoJ rage them to
imagine all that they can do and he in their
lives-and to dis.pllte what :nig'.1t seem to be a
destiny of lifelong poverty. .My task is to provide
tools for constructing new autobiographical
images and tl:en to en courage ongoing practices
that these chiidren and their fam iEes might use
to trnnsform thei, lives.
Eqaaily important i& my goal of proYiding tools
for K-12 ecucators to recognize that tl:eir own
compliance w!ch a syster.1 that degrades a:id dise:1-
fram:l:ises these children lea\/1:s "blood on the:r
iands." The goal is lo encourage them to fine vmys
in w:1:ch :o assist students tuward newly formed
life s:o:ies built on the notion of a caring cornmu •
nity that includes educators who, while part of the
system, wlll use the system in it~ own transforrr:a-
tion. Because art is a visceral and personal experi-
ence that gives expres~ion to affective ways of being
and knowi:ig, I introduce ar:s-based inquiry b
this curriculum as a way fur the childre1: and their
teachers to create their own "mystories." Mystory
perfur:na:ices are personal cultural texts nar-
ratives, paintings, poetry; music) tl:at contextualize
important personal experiences anc :iroble:ns
within the institutio:1al settings and historical
moments wl:rre their authors (e.g., p-«inters, col-
lagists, dramatists) find thcmseh•es. They attempt
to make sense of seemingly senseless mor;1ents in
lire, to capture frustrations and turmoil and open
ther:i for critical critique. They oper: a liminal
space, and create a:1 open and dialogk text, where
a diverse group of people ca:i be brought to collec•
:iw umlerstar:d=ng of the sites of power, of .:onflicts
between the empowered a.:id the powerless, and
from this pol ot of understanding can begin to
address the need for social change (for further dis·
russions of the functicns of r:iystory, ,ee Denz:n,
2003; Ulmer, 1989).
Teacher-led projects ir. which child:-e:i bwe
crea:ed r:iystories that !:ave taken place in the
context of AHAS i:1dude an extended effort at
portraiture during whic.li children ;Jainteci their
life histories first by learni:lg to work within

symbolic ,an guage of colors, Ii ncs, and space a::id
brush work wh ilc worki111, with charcoal, pens,
and water a11d acrylic paints. Over a period of
rnugl:ly 3 months (shelter stays arc :h1ired to
90 days, so there was a changing population nf
children, with som<c' attending all of the ses.;ions
and Mime ,mendiug only a few), dur:ng weekly
sessions child~e:i painted self-portraits, pictures
objects, ,rnd so forth to tell life stories. T:ie pru
ject cJ!rninated wit:i a day of con:munal painting
five mural panels (4 feet by 4 foct) with the
the:ue of"the story of Again, lhe children fol-
lowed up the session by verb"lly pmccss i:lg the
meanir,gs they intended whe1: they began paint•
iog and by defining the meanings they cun-
struc:ed c·J:-ing the process.
Amid likenes5es of •·sponge Bob;' lrecs,
peace symbols. and American :iersonal and
cumrr:unity st;irieti e1:1erged, One child who had
practiced and then p2btec. u very pleasing
blackrd it oul wi d, other paint so that it was no
longer eve11 visi":ik ou the cai:vas, and two o:he,
boys joined him i:1 his "scorched earth" efforts.
When the child expressed his a1:ger and fr:1stre.-
tion with multip:e heart surgeries th_it lert him
physirnJly smalle, than his peers-a ;;ersonal
story, but one that h<".d community tit>s--his
teachers were ::ietter prepared to understand his
oc,;;asion;il displays of seemingly L:.nfounded tem-
per. Telling his lifo story.he found compassion and
m,derstamling an ong his peers and teachers, and
he bega1: to a1:e11d tutoring sessio:1s each week
with absolute regularity, had fewer outbursts,
and began (over a period of several months) to
his scl:uol perfo,mance.
In this same sett;ng, three girls had :iainted
a s.:ene in w~ich two [ge:ider-ncutral) couples
walked among trees aml flowers, On dose inspec-
tion, or:e coupl<' held hands wl:ile the t,ther
couple dk :1.01, and tr:c couple not holding hands
had tea:, flowing from their eyes. Thcs<' girls'
storytelling turned to personal remembrances of
tlivmce, of grandparent& left :n other states as a
or
result of moves, and fee:i ngs of he:ng discon-
nected from peers when at school. From tbll
point, bcginni r.g with thr girls who had pa:n:ed
the scene but a:so involving other children, a ron-
ver,;;tio:1 grew about loving their own :nothers
!'inky: Arts-Based l:iquiry 111 c9I
but wanting to build la~\ ing relat:onsh ips in their
ow:, lives. l'.lecause the scene took a mural
very dose to a l'..S. flag, next lo whk:I: another
,tuder.l !:ad written "give ;.H::ac1; a chance" and
,evenil I: ad drawn peace signs, conversation
shi:ted again, now having moved from the realm
of personal experiences of divorcr and separation,
to a discussion of world instability and l-.s, domi-
nano;:, and 1111: instabili 1y to chi ldrcn's Jves intro-
duced 'Nar. Nothing was rcsolvcd-ther.: were
1.li&agrrements as to whether the United Stat~s was
right or wrong tll go to v,ar-but mos: import3nt
was that there was a conversation aholll the ,,·ar at
all; childrer were ex:xe:,sir1..: ,he:r opinions ahout
wo:·ld events and were confident faat thci r ideas
mattered. I cm:!d r:o: hdp but think tha: sti.:dcnts'
understand:ngs wrought by ,eJing mystorics
wo:dc carry twer,at least n:nimal ways, to life ill
school,
Painted portraits are jus: one way for the
children to tell "the story of us:' We also haVl:' had
occasions for movie making, writing. and ptr-
forming rap and ·:)l :tes, and we have con,trnctcd ;i
commm1ity in which personal storytcUng is
rewarded. Against tl:is backdrop unvei:ing
personal and S}stcmic events have shaped
the lives uf th;: :;hildrcr1, two events :hat have
occurred convince rr.e t:iat we are achie~ing
trnnsfo rmatlve prax.is in AH AS_
l'irst, a rule prohibited people llvi ng it1 the shel-
ter from fraternizing with peop:e living in transi-
tiunal housing by going back and fort I: to each
othe~'s places of ;u,·,wt:, Two 12-ycar-old
girls-,me who lived in a transitiona: housing
apartment and thr orhcr who was housed at the
shcltc~-beca:ne very dose friends dming tutor-
:ng. While the girls were making !)lans tu •:'sit one
another after the prog:am al the aparm:ent of one
o: :he girl,, another ;,i.:dent reminded them of the
rule and that if ii were enforct:d, the gir'.s' fa:nilies
would he asked to leave. This was followed bv, a
discussion among thi> chilcren in w::kh t:1cy rec-
ognized how unfair the situation was. '!hey
decided that they had to c.o sorr:ething about it.
Their solutio;1 was 1o wdc in their; ou :-nals about
the siluatiui: ,rnd then :o show me what :hey had
written and enb1 my help i:i challe:1gbg the n:le,
They cisputed the system, and they took action to
 692 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITAT7VE RESEARCH-CH APTER 26
try and change the :ule. In the end, because of
their problem solving, the rule was changed.
Second, the painted murals were h:mg, along
w: :h excerpts from the narrative sessions, in the
gallery of the S:udent Services build:ng at the uni-
,ersity where I teach. I took a c:ass of 11 practicing
teachers (who were enrolled in mv advanced
children'.s E:erature course} to see the display. Of
these 11 teachers, 5 ·,egan volunteer :utorir:g on a
weekly basis and several carried over beyond the
end of the semester. In addition, they conducted
book drives at tl:eir schools so that every child
could take a book home with him or her. Most
important, all of the teachers 1:1ade statements
similar to thJs commer:t offered by one:
I haw always had these children in ,ny classes, and
l have always rc:;ented them being tl:tre. I have seen
them a;, unprepared, [as] unde:-par::nted, and 2.s a
waste of my :ime, [ :iavc changed. I'm J good
to a lot of the child :en. My goal now is-
ll"ac:1er
trnly, not just ES mere r'letork-to :iecome a
teacher of all ,if the child:en in my classroom.
These children are nc,w my children.
ln si::m, although the painting of foe portraits
aflected these children's perceptior.s of the ••
selves as leame:-s and in both their curre:it and
future participation in society, what is perhaps
more profound is the impact that the children
have had, through their paintings ane_ stories, on
other children in similar circun:stances who will
attend classes taught by tr:e teacher, anc preser•
vice teachers wlio have adopted activist pedago·
gies and practices.
As an educator,, want to encourage chilcren ro
learn early lo become lifelong activists who a;e
equipped for guerrilla warfare against oppression
by virtue of their ability to na:ne faeir oppressors,
dispute oppressi\'e practices :hat are s:ereoty,ed
or systematized into seeming r.ormality, imagine
a life lived otherwise, and then constr.ict and
enact a script that shif:s them i:itn an alternative
space. Art, in any of its variou.-; forms, provides
media for self-reHection, self-expression, and
communication betwee:1 and among creators and
audiences. Performing social change begins with
artful ways of seeing and knowing ourselves and
,he world in which we live.
The AHAS example demonstrates that art can be
the catalyst for audiences :o see therr:selves <fr'for-
ently, to receive messages, and to find a '.evel of
u:1den,1anding about peop'.e that they would have
ignored in different circumstarices. Knowing these
children through their artful expressions of them-
selves motivated a group of adults to embrace :heir
empathetic emotions and to give something of their
lime and expertise as teachers. Yet once they were ir.
direct contact with the artists, the teachers became
s:udents of the sod al struc:ures they helpec to per•
petuate and hega:i to write small scripts :iaseii on
the need change, with book drives and gi:t~ of
books being the foundation for char.ge in the e-mo-
tiornil and physical spaces in which teaching and
learning occur in their schools and classrooms. For
the teachers, it takes a sustained effort at learning to
use the tools that are available to crea:e and revise
their own self-portraits; practice is req:ii:'eri. Artful
performance in Lhe community w:11 occur if
teachers look deeply er:ough into themselves and
can pa:nt their way to a more humanistic and co1:1 •
muna: portraiture than schools typically ailow:
In these examples, the children have become
researchers aod artists 11f their own lives. Other
examples, oot giv1:n here because of space consid-
era:ions, would demonstrate the arts-based
impiry that teachers have experier.ced in this
context. Sti[ another g::oup of examples would be
my own inquiries into the experiences of AHAS,
some of which have been coauthored and copre-
se:1ted wit:1 K-12 students, teachers, street
youths, and street artists. Ir. this schema, arts·
ba,ed research 1:1akes possible the erasure of
distinctions between the researcher and the
researched. We al: are inquirer, into our experi-
ences and collaborators in efforts to cre<!:e a
be:ter space to share our lives.
A major dilemma for arts-ba,;cd researchers has
tmerged around definitions of quality criteria.
\.\/hat is. good arts-based research! }s it incumbent
or: arts-based research to demonstrate bes: in
:erms of artistic skill and ,raftsmansh ip? And, if
dernoustrntions of artistic skill are necessary to
arts-based research, can quality arts-based inqt::ry
be achieved by mmmunity-members Ie.g., children
and teachers, as well as university researcl:ers) who
are not edncaocd in the art-form chosen as I.he

representational text? How far ca:1 arts-based
researchers go in becoming "community partners"
where distinctions between 6e roles of rese-Jrcher
lnd resea::d1ed converge? Wbo is an artist?"Who is a
researcherl These are questions faal underscore the
postmodern turn in sociological research, but they
have become somewhat polarizing issnes among
arts•bas-~d researchers. Some practitioners of ar:s•
based inquiry argue for the need to develop an
established resea,ch traditior: that has coherence
and integrity :n its melr.odulogkal and epistemo•
logical commitments, whereas others take the
position I have taken in :his chapter that quality
control efforts force a singular way of '.:mowing and
shut off the possi":iil: ties for diverse voices and
expressior.s. Performativity is :he quality cri:erion I
have emphasized in this chapter as being necessary
to achieve art11-based approaches to inquiry that is
aL1ivist, engages in pu:ilic cr:tid,m, is resisrant to
threats to social justice, and purposefully ln:ends to
facilita:e crilkal race, indigenous, q·Jeer, and ::emi-
ni~t and border studies as entrce to n:ultiple, new,
and dh•erse ways of understanding and living in the
world.
Ill REFERENCES
Ba~one, :·. (2001a). Science, ari, and the predispositfo:.s
of erL:rar'onal researchers. Etlucatior,al Researcher.
JOi7), 24-28.
Barone, T (2001b).1huhing 11temily: li;e enduring ,mt-
comes of teaching '.'i£w York: Columbia Univernity.
Teachers College Preas.
Barone, T., & ( l 997). Humllmok or; com,r1lemen-
t117 methods for educationul re.sean.ir (R, Yeager,
Ed.), Washi:igton, DC: American F.ducational
Research Asrnciatinn.
Burthes, R. (l 974), (R. Mi:ler, Trans.). J\ev; Ynrk:
H:11 & Wang. (Origina: work published in 1970)
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable sp~r,h: A politics of the
performmive. New York: Routledge.
Butler J. :I~99), Revisiting bodie, and pleasures,
Theory, Culture, Socfory, 16, ll-20.
Casey, J<. (:9\15). lhe new narrative ~escarch in
ed·,;cation. Review of Researrl1 in Education, 21,
211-253,
Conq ucrgood, D. (1998 ). Beyond lex!: low,m.l a
performative cult,.; ral politics. In S. I. Dailey (Ed.),
111e fulWl! ,if performance studies: Visions and
Finley: Arts-Ba,ed kquiry 11 693
rev;isfo;ijs (pp. ;.:;,--cm,,. Wasbington, DC; Nalion~I
Comm·Jnicatio:i Association.
Dmz:n, N. K. (1997). Performance texts. In
W G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), !~epresrm
laii,m !ind Ille t;:;,;/; Ke-ln,m111v the narratfre
voice (pp, 7 ). Alba~y; State L:niversity of
New York Press.
Denzin, N. K. (I 999). Two-ste;iping in 90s.
Qualitalin: lr.quiry, S, ,01:1-,1.:.
Denzin, N. (2000}. Aesthetics and the ;iracti:e, of
qualitative ir.quiry. Qualitative Inquiry. 6, 256-265.
Denzin, 'L K. (2003). Perfimmmce e,hnagraphy:
Critical pcdagog,v 1md the pQ/itir, of culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Demin,\/.K (2004). f/1;1 firs/ Intematto,u,J C,mgress of
Qwilitali~einquiry, Rtlrie,.'ed Noverrbrr 15, 2004,
from www.qi2005.org/index.html
Dem in, N. K., & Lincoln, LS. (Eds.), ( 1994), Htmrltoak
of qualilative 11;seanh. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Dillipit, 't (2000). Rap pedaizogies: Bringing the
knowlrdge b(lm in the rnkro;ihone to riidical edu-
cation. In 'J: JJcspit & J. A. Weaver (EdsJ, Popular
culture arrd i:ritkal pe,Jasogy. Reading. crmstrua-
ing, co1111ectir;g (pp. 153-IBZ). New York: Garland.
.
Dewev, L {19 58). Art ,1s exoeriente.
" . Ncw York
Capricorn. (Original work p11bi:shcd in 193?)
f,;o, U. (: 984). La structure absente: lmrodu,tion a la
recherdu! semiutiqu.: (U. Esposito-Torrigian :,
Trans.). Paris: Mercu:retl de F:"an.:e.
Eis~,cr, F.. W. (1981). Or. thr difference betweer.
sdentifk and artist'c approaches to qualital: ve
research, Educatiamd Res,,ard1er, 11)(4),
Eisner, F- W, (l '198), The e1;/ighte11ed eye: Qu,ifitatfve
inquiry and the ,ml1a•u:ement of edunllirma!
practice. Upper Saddle R:ve;, NJ: P;entke H,d:.
(Original w;irk published in 1991)
Felshin, N, [Ed.). (1995),But is it art? fhe spirit ofart ,is
activism. Seattl<:, WA: Bay Press.
Finley, S. (2000a). ";)ream child": The mle nf poetic dia-
logue in homeless resear,;;h. Qua/itati1•e ln.Juiry,
6, 432-434.
Finlev, S. (2000b). Fr::i:n the S!7eet, to the dassrCJoms:
Street intellectUl!l.s as teacher a:luzatL1rs, colklbo-
ntions in ;evolutionary pedagogy. In IC Sloan &
L T. Scars (Eds.), Democratic currirnlum theory
and practice: Retrieving pulli.: space, (pp. 911-
113). Troy, NY: EduClltor's :nrernarional Press.
Finley, S. '.WO!). Painting life histories. four'!ul of
Curriculum Theo•·izfng, 17(2), 13-26.
l:'inley, S. 12003a). Arts-based inquirv in QI: Seven
years from crisis to guerrilla warfare. (Jualitati~e
Inquiry, 9, 28:-296.
 694 111 :-lANDl!OOK Of QL:AUTATIVE RESEARCH-CIIAt'TER
fin:ey, S. (20U:lb). The dign:ty: Rethinking the
of hor:,dc;sness and pove ~ty :r. America.
(/ualit11,i·JC Studiil!i in b'duca!!Gn, M, S0'f-53 L
l'inl;:y, S., 1k Finley, M. (I 999). Sp'ange: A research story.
Qualitative fllquirJI 5, ,,,a,-,;.n
l'nx, C. T, with Gei.:hman, J. (21!0 I). Creating res,,an:ll
questions :mm strntegie, and ptrs11cdivcs of
rnntempornry ut. Curyiculum fr,quiry JJ, 33-49.
freire, P. '.2G(l1 ). Pedagogy vf li1r oppn:sF1,d.
C:o~tinuum. '.Original work ~ublished it: :970)
l'r:t:i, s. ('. 9%). Performing rites: On the value ofpopular
nm,ic. Camb:idgc, ,\1A: llarvard University Press.
Garni:m, C. R (i \l\l\l}. J>erforming pedagog;,: Towar,I
m, ,ir/ of 1,oiitics. A!hanY: State Univcrsll v of
a " ;' f
New York Pre>S.
Giroux, H. A. '.l 995). l!a:derline artisu, ,u1tuml work-
ers.am: the crisis of democrJc): lr: C. (&I.J,
,,
Ille arli51 ir: ,,;,ivlw Riohls, .
amJ lt?S();ms,bili
(pp. 4-14). Chicago: l\ew Art ::xamincr.
(;i roux, R. A. ( 2000 ). Impure aft.,: The pmctirnl poi1tics
of cullural s,udirs. New York: Routbigr.
Giroux, ft A. (2001). Cultural ,tudies ;is pcrlonna:ivr
polilics. Cu!tuml ~tudies-Crtlic,il Me,lwdolu,~ies,
I,
Gu!Y.i E. (1%7). The expar.ding concept research.
Theory inw /'ra,;tice.
Eill, !l ·i: C. (h998). Perform.;m;e pcdagugy acro,,s
the Cl:::ricu:t::11. l:: S. J. Dailey (Ed.;, the f1dure
of prrjrirma::,e muiics: Visions and revisiom
( ?P· 141 >H). Washington, llC: Natimrnl Com-
munication J\;.scciatio11,
I<inc::cloc, J. :,,, & 1'vl,;Lareu, E (2000). Rethinking
critical theo 0 rnd qualitillive r,·sean:h. :n N. K.
Dcnz.'n & Y. S. !Jr.coin (Ed,.), 11,mdtwok ofqw:ili-
lative resean:h (2nd 1:d., pp. 279 313). Thm1sa11d
Oaks,CA:
Li::coln, Y. S. 0995). E111ergi11g criteria fo: quality in
qualitative and interpret: ve rc;;earch. Qu~!imth'J
inquiry, l,
L:nco::,, Y. S., & Rea.son, P. (Eds.). {l \196;. Qt:.ality in
hm:,a n inquiry [spedal issue j. Qualitative
Inquiry. I).
Yc.::Laicn, P. (1999 ), Conte-sting wpital: Cr'tirol peda
gogy and glo'.Jalism. C'i.rrc11t issues ir: ()impumtive
Education, /(2). Rclricved January:•, 20C4, from
www. :c.rnlu mbia.cdu/ck.ofvO 1111 r2/a 1152.htm
Mclaren, P (2001). Che Guevara. Pat:lo F,eire, and
the politics of hope; Redai1:.iq; ..:ritii:al pc<la·
gogr Cultural Sludies-Critiml lvfeilwdofogie;,
I, l C!i-1 :<I.
McLaren, P. (2003). Towards a critical rrvokliona,y
ped,11,'l:•gy: Ar. interview with Pell:7 McLmm hr
Michael Pozo (I'd.). St. Jahn~ Uni·1ersiry Hwuanii;es
m•vie·.v; 21 ll. Retncvcc Dt·,1.:::,ber 16, 200,t, from
www.axi,nflog'c.com/cgibin/cx.-c/view,pl larchive
=38&n·Jm=.,8D I
:,Jutna, K., & Sw,1de:11er, B. 3. (2004). lntmdi.:ction. In
Mct11a & B. B. Swmfonet· (Eds.), 1Jen1!rmizing
m cros,,cu/tur,;/ comexts: Criti.:,il
persor111l 1rnm11iws (pp. : Alhany: Staie
Univers iiy of New York l're,;,,_
Pimma, E. l., !1998). Performance stcdie, across
tl:e curriculum: i:'roblcms, po,sibilities, ,rnd
pm;ections !n S. J. Dailey (Ed.), ne future
of performance studies: Visirms mui revisicr,s
lPf'· l Was::ington, DC: Natior.al Com
municatiou Assodatien.
Richardsor. L., & Lodcridgc, E. t 1998). Fiction and
ethnography: A c~::ve~.atin:i. Qualitat:'re rnquiry,
4, ,,,, ,,,.,
Saldaiia,J. ( 199()). Ph,yw;iting wit:1 darn: Ethnogmphk
p.:rlormancc lcxb. fouth Themn' lo1m1ul,
ri0-71.
Saldana, ]. (20C3;. '.)ramati?i:1g data: A pri1t1,'r.
Q1mlilr1U,·e !r:quir;.•, 9, 2 " , ..m.
Salda iia, J., fin Icy, & l'inh,y, M. ( in press). S!rcc·l rat
In j. Sald;,r.a (Jd.), J:.timodrama: Arr ,m1hology
lheatr,:. WE:::111 Creek, Alm M:ni.
Schwand:, T. (2000). ·1 hree epi~temologkal s1.111r,·s for
qu,ililalivc inrn iry. I11 :,; • K. De111.i n & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.l,11amlb,,r;k nfqua!itmive research (2nd ed.,
pp. 189-113). 1;1ou,and Oaks, &lgc.
C. {1999). Qualitv in arts-bfl set: m,e;m:h.
'
Qualitative inquiry, 5 46:\ 471:l.
Slallcry, l'., & Langer1Jck, K '·""'""'· BL:ring art and
science: ~ynthetk:al moments on thc borders.
Cu,-rirn!um Jt1q11iry, 349-356.
Th,·rns:rom,M. (2004,April l The writing cure: Can
ur:dt:rstamJ iug narrative make you a better doc
tor? Tile i\'cu, York Timi., lvtag11zim:, pp.
Tierney, W. fi. (: 9gs). i.ifr hislory's t:'st(lry: 5uhject,
:~m·tol1l ()1111/itativc Inquiry, 4, 49- 70.
Ticmev, W. G. ( l 999), GJesl ,:dilor', ::.tnxlu.;::on. Vvril ing
life's history: Qualillllive Inquiry, 5, 3ll7-312.
'lh:smy, L (l 9% ). Whal is (A. '.vfaude, Trans.).
York: Pc:1g11in. (Original work published i rt
1946)
Uir..er, G. I l 989). Tdd1tor1: t,,cw York: Routledge,
Uln,e,, G. (1994). Th,· :icurctks of decon.,trc:ction.
1:-: I~ Brunette & fl 1Nill, (Ed,.;, Ormm:ructioN
the visual .iris: A.rt, me,l/11, ,m:1,ircciure (pp. 80-96).
New York: Camvridge IJ: ..versily
2
THE INTERVIEW
From Neutral Stance
to Political Involvement
Andrea Fontana and James H. Frey
T
he mov;f ,\fomenw hcgi11s at the end,
s:1owing a killing end then backing ur, to
the heginning scene by s,-..,nc. We do not
go that far here; after ,;E, this is not a thriller but
rnthi:r a ch,1ptcr ahout interviewing, Yet we cut to
the chase, hegir:ning w'th the rnwr-~dgc of
in:ervinving and th('n hack:ng up to : he olc cays
a:id pmg:-ess:ng to od r day, 6mugh the c:u: p:er,
witl: fa!: knowledge of where we arc going. :f ym:
think that this wLI spoil the ending, ,kip the first
sect ic,:1 and read ii las:,
We have no a.:mal kilhag here, bu: mctaphori-
callv,
,
traditif1nal intetviewing-as i: is .:cr:rnmnlv'
understood-docs gc: killed. The perpetn' :or.~
liberators, depending on your point oi view)
2,re Kong, Mahoney, and Plummer (2002), the
coauthors of "Queer:ng the I:1tcrvic,1t They focus
mi the changing ?Li'Jli,; pen;qtio11 of a:id
foshi:t:ts in :he United States during the ?ast few
dec,tde.s ar:d r. n how dm: changing pcrccptin:1
altered the tone of interviewing :hose groups.
Decades ago, wl:cn were "homosexuals~ the
irrlerv1t:w dearly an instrumer:: of palholog-
kal diagnosi,;' yet when the miEeu became one
of social reform, "the interview became a too. of
111odcrr:ist dci:mcrati:tation and i:imatdy of
mcial rcfnrnt (p. 240).
What this; tdl~ u;; about interv'ewing is !hut it
i, ir:exti-kably ai:d ;1:1,woidah;y hblorkally, politi-
cally, and co1:textually bound. This boi:nded1:£'80
refutes the whole tradition of the interview of gath-
ering u'Jjs;;ctive data to be used neutrally fo~ scien-
tific purposes. If que,,ring the interview Genie, it,:;
prir:iary goal. whut should he done? We could reject
interviewing alto!!cther. That is hardly 'casf;1te
in loday's society, which has been tabbed as "tl:c
interview SCH;ietv:'w'lere
, evervone
' e<>els interviewed
and gels a moment in the sun.even if only :o reveal
dastardly abcr~a:.imrn m: the Jerry Sprmxer show,
We certainly do no: w,mt lo trivialize the interview
in the same way :1~ the 1:1ass 11:.xlia ha vc ki:ded to
do. What should we do? Very simp1 1, some sodolo ·
gists have turned the timetabic and rc:urncd the
scope of the interview lo thaLI !he prcdeccssor3 of
internc:io11ism, the pragmati:,ts, fornsing 0:1 soc'al
ameEorn:ion. If the interview canuut be a JJeut ral
tool (and we will scr that it never really was), why
not turn it in:o a walking stick to he'.r some people
get nn their feet? This is where the interview is now,
and we outline this development next
696 111. HAXDllOOK Of QLAUTAllVE RRSFARCH-CHA?TER 27
1111 EMPATHETIC fNTERVlEWIKG
"E:npathetic" emphasizes taking a stance, con-
trary to the sdcnt:fk image of interviewing,
which is based on the con ccpt of :ieu :rality,
Indced, m11ch of tradtional interviewi:1g con,"n-
trates on the language of sci enlit1.: neutrality end
rbe techniques to achieve it U;iforn;nately, :he,e
goab are largely mythki.iL
cia1:y have a;gucd convil:cingly (Atkinson
& Silvc,man, :997; Fontan.;, 2002; Hertz. I':197,;
Holstcic1 & Gubrium, 1995; Scheurkh, 1995).
interviewing is :iot merely the neutral exchange
of asking quc·slions and getting answers, Two
(o, more) people are involved in this process,
and tt:elr eKchanges bid to the creation of a col-
laborativr effor: called the interview. The key here
is the "ac:ive" 11ature of this process (Hobtcin &
Gubrium, 1995) that leads to a mntexlually bound
and mutuall r created story -the ir.tervlew. Some
have :1 :ghl;ghted the problemi :ks of the irner-
view, Atkinson and Silverman / 1997) drew
tion to the asymmetric nature of the intccView <1ml
:o the fact that the fir.al prnd·.i,I is a pasl'che that
:s pul together by fiat Scheurich ( 1995) observed
:hat the intcrviewe: is a person, historically and
wntextually located, carrying unavo;dable con-
sdm:s and unconscious rr:o~ives, des:res, feelir:gs,
and bi ases-hardlv a neutra'. tool. Sd1eurich
'
1:1ai11tained, "The wnv1::1tiom, 1
, positivist view of
interviewing vastly u:1derestimate, the complex-
ity, :.mique:1ess, a:id indeterminateness of eacr.
one 111 one human interaction" (p. 241 }.
if we pmceed :'rom the belief that neutrality
is not possible (even assuming tr:at it would he
desirable), then laking a stance becomes unavoid-
a':,;e. An increasing number of soda! scientists
nave rea: i;:ed that they nted to interact a, p,~rso:is
with the interviewees and acknowledge that they
a,e doing so, tong ago, Doug1as ( 1985) advocated
revealing per,~onal ::eelings and private ,ituations
;o the interviewee as a ,1uid pro quo of good faith,
Yet Douglas, despite his ope1111ess, still pl ared
p,imary :mporlam:c o:i the tmdltional nm ion
of o·:ltaining better and mo,c com?:-ehensive
responses; he fa''.cd to see that his openness was
n:ercly a technique tu persuade the ;ntcrviewee
to reveal more ar:d be more honest in his or her
responses,
Kev, empath.etic approaches in interviewing
di:"'er from :he cm:ventiomli approach; they sec
tl:at i: is time to stop treating the interviewee as
a "clockwork ora:ige;' that is, looking for a better
juicer (techniques) to squeeze the juice (answers)
out of the orange (living perso:i/interviewee),
Scheurich ( 1995) cum:urrcd: ~The modernist rep-
resentation is not sheer fahr:cation, hut all of the
juke nf lhe lived experience has been sc, Jeezed
out" (;,, 24 l). The new empathetic approaches
rake an ethical stance in favor of the individual or
group being studied. The interviewer becomes an
,,.:'.vocate and par:ner i:1 the study•.,oping to be
able to use the results to advocate social policies
ar.d an:elimate the conditions of the interviewee,
The preference is to study oppressed and under•
developed gr01.: :.s,
Kong and colleagu<"s (2002), as mentioned
e-J.rlicr, showed that lhe change toward empathy
migh: not be so much of an individual decisior: as
it is the result of c:iangbg bisto6:al, poli:kal, anc
cultural perspectives. They disc·.1ssed changes ir.
interviewing regarding same-sex experiences,
They showed that dur:ng the pllSt few decades, as
Ame~icar.s underwent a profounc change from
"homosexuals»to ~gays;' "the sensibilitit$ of inter•
viewing are altered wilh thr changing social
nomena that constitute the "interview" (p. 240,
italics in original;, Thus, interviev,,s changed from
"instruments of pathological diagnosis" (p. 240)
to become much more hum,11:ized in the wake of
social rerorm, Interviews became "a methodology
of friendship" (p. 254), Kong and colleagues co:i-
duded that the interview is bonnc in hislorkal,
?o'.irical, and c:iltural moments and that as those
:noments change, so does the intcr,iew, The w(1rk
hy these three coauthors was radical in that it
collapsed decades of alleged "o,j ective interview
findings," As thev c:ear'.y stated, framing the inter-
view with in specific parameters {i,e,, ''We are
interviewing pathological, sick, deviant individu-
als" vs. "We are interviewing individuals who
shm.:ld not be ostra.;: zed because o: their diverse
sexual sensibilities") will Ir.ad IO entirely different
res·.1::s. These res;1;ts will be anything but neutral;

they wiL be polit:cally lacen and used fo, or
agai:1~! group studied.
Researchers hive strongly emphas i,.ed the
removal of barriers between t te in lervicwer and
tl:c interviewee in the pro.:es;, of ir, '. erviewii:g
women. Many female 1·escarchers advoca:c a
partnership between the rcsearche and respon-
dents, wr:o should work :o get her to create a
narrative-the interv:ew-t :ial ;;ould be benel1-
dal to the grffJ? studied. Most re~e:ard:ers
address factors hero:1d that of gender. Hertz am:
Ferguson (1997) add,esse,: the plight of single
mothers-both heterosexuals and le,i,ians.
Weston ( 1998) also attended to groups same•
.~ex prelerences in academia_ tollins ( 1990)
added the element of being black to that o~
being fomale. Dentin (2003a, 2003b) extended
:he in:ercst ii: a:neliora lion of oppxssed groups
:n
:u that reporting the rest:lts of ::ic stud;~ He
ma !1::ai ned that Iracitional reporting modes are
ill equbpec to capture the a:tention anc. hearts
of the readers (sec at~n Behar, 1996). Denzin
(2003a) issued a "manifesto" calling for perfor-
mance ethnography: "We need to explore per!l)r.
man cc ethnography as a vehicle for enact: ng a
perfom:at;ve cultural politics of hope" (p. 202).
Some researchers are bcrn:ning keenly
a:tunec 10 ;he fact that in krowing "othr:o;' we
come to know "omselve~:' Holstd 11 and Gubr'" m
( 1995) urged researchers to be ref.exive oot only
aboJt whut the i:iterview accomplishes but also
abri.1t how the interview :~ accomplished, thercbr
uncovering the ways in which we go a::;ou: c:-eat ·
ing a text. V.'asser:all (199 3) r:med that ever. when
the researcher ar.d respondents are women, if
there is a discordant view of the world (in her
study, ~ po:itical one), there is a great divide
between the two, She ac:ded that, despite dai • :s to
4
friendship and cooperation;• it i;; the researcher
who ultimately cuts and pas:es together th~ 1:ar•
ratlve, choosing what wUI become a part of it and
what will be ci::. Similarly, El-Or II 992) pointed
to a gap bctv,een ;he researc:1er and respondents
created bv rcfo•i1ms differences {in
. "
when a r:m; re:ig:oi:s ethnogra ?her studies an
~tud,,
' and l,ow carefully w-e report or code t:ie answers.
ultrn-orthodox ~mnp). El Or a:,o rellexively
addressed the notion of "friendship" between the
:'om~na & Frey; The Intervitw 111 697
researcher • m: reHponde:its a:1d concluded that
it is flccti ng anc somew hal ill usoryc "We can't be
friends bccaus~ she lth: respondent I wa~ the
object and we hoth ki:ow (p. 71 ), Atkinson and
SL verm an (1997) alrn emph<1sized self-restraint
and self-reDcxivity in warning th;;I researchers
should not replace a false god (the aulilorial
monologue of dm,siral sodol rigy) with ano:h e,
(the n:onologu e of a privi Iegcd speaking res?011 ·
dc:1t). Researchers sho.;]d not privilege any ways
r,f Inok i:1g at world ur al ,'. particc'.ar tec:i-
nique bL:t should instead conli:11.1e to question,
que.,1ion, and questirm.
Atkinson and Silverman's (1997) chilly warn-
ing can be :urned on the proponents of the cmpa•
thetic <!?proach because they strongly privilege a
method of inquiry over a'.l others. 'iet as Denzin
(2003a) observed, "Syn:bnlk i:tteraclionism '.sat
a cros,;;road. We :1eed to red a' m the ?mgressi ve
heritage given to LI s by DuHois, Meac, Dewey,
and Blumer" 202). Fontana (2003) pointed
oul, perhaps Denzin (and we ..:ould add all of the
others) is bcir:g a pnslmuden1 Du:1 Quixote i:1
approach, ye l Ihe windmills of rn cism, sex:,m,
and ageism are not mere shadows i:1 our r:iinds:
rather, they are very and very oppr,'ssivc. T:1c
empathetic ,ipproach is nnt merely a "method of
friendship"; it is a :nethod of mural:ty because
it a:tempts to restore the sacredness of humans
before addressing any (1eoretkal or n:ettodolog-
ical conce:-m.
We too have "queerec" the :hapter to follow by
l:-amiug it in the light of today's developm c:it ano
Ile\'.' awareness in i:1terviewi::Jg. us tum the
ti:ne back and stc how interviewing ha& come to
he where it is.
Iii INTERVIEV.'l'.'\G IN PERS!' !!CTI VJ-:
A,klng questions and getting answer, is a much
huder ta,k that ii may seem at fir,t. The spoken
or written wtm: always has a res id ae of ambiguil y,
no matter how ca !'efully we wmd tl:e questions
Yet interviewing is um, of the most con:mon amt
?OWerfL:: ways in whicl: we try to ui,derstand our
698 a HASDBOOK OF QUALITATIV!i RESF,AR(H-CHAJ>TER
fellow humans. Interviewing includes a widc
va:iety of forms and a multiphcil y of uses. The
most common form of interviewing involves
individual, face to-face verbal interchange, but
intervie1,\/ing can also take the fo,m of face-to-face
group :nt,m:hange and telephone surveys. It can
be struct·J:ed, se:n !structured, or unstructured.
Interviewing can be usec for marketing research,
political opinion polling, therapeutic reasons, or
academk analysis. It can be used for tl:e purpose
of measurement, or its ,cope can be the under-
standir:g of ar. individua: o, a group perspective,
An interview can be a one-tine brief exchange,
such as 5 minutes over the telephone, or it c.rn take
place over multiple lengthy .sessions, at times
spanning days as in life l'.istory interviewing.
'l'~e use of interviewir.g to axquire informa-
tion is so extensive today that it has beer. sa:c
that we live in an "intervie>,v society" (Atkinson &
Silverman, 1997; Silverman, 1993). lncreasinglr,
qualitative :-esearc!lers are realizing that inter•
views are not neutral tools of data gathering but
rather active interactions bet.."een two (or more)
peo:;le leading to negotiated, contextually based
resu'.~s. Thus, the focus of :n:e~views is moving
to encor:1pass the hows of people's lives (the con·
structive work involved 'n producing order in
everyday life J as well as die traditional whats
(the activities of everyday life) (Ckourel, L964;
Dingwall, l 997; Gabrium & Holstein, 1997, 1998;
Holstein & Gubrium, 199 5; Kvale, 1996; Samp,
1996; Seidman, 1991; Silverrr:an, 1993, :9CJ7a).
Interviews are moving toward new electronic
forms and have seen a return to tl:e pragmatic
ideal of political involvement,
In this chapter, after discuss;ng the interview
society, we examine interviews by beg; nning wit!:
s,ructurec methods of interviewing and gradu-
ally moving to more qualitative :ypes, examining
interviews as negotiated textli and ending with
eie<tronk interviews and new trends in inter-
viewing. We begin by briefly outlining tl:e history
of interviewing and then turn to a di~cussion of
the academic uses of interview:ng, Although the
focus of this volume is qualitative research, to
dcrnonslrate the full import of interviewing, w-e
need to discuss the major types of interviewing
(structured, group, and unstructured) as well as
other ways in which to conduct ir:terviews. Om:
caveat is that, in discuss/ ng the various ir:terview
methods, we use the language and rationales
employed by practitioners o:1' these methods; we
:m~e our differences with these practitioners and
our criticisms la:er in the chapter ir: our discus-
sion of gendered and other new types of s;,ialita·
tive interviewing, .Following our examination of
structured interviewing, we ocldres, in detaii the
varions elements of qualitative intervioong. We
tten discuss the prob!ems related to gende:i:d
interviewing, as well as issues of interpretation
and reporting, as we broach some considerations
related to ethical issues, Finally, we note sor;e of
the new trends in qualitative interviewing.
a THE bnERVIl'W SOCIETY
Before embarking on o.l:' journey tluough inter-
vielVing per se, we comment briefly on the tre·
mendous reliance on interview'ng ;n the U.S,
society today: This reliance on interviewing has
reached sue.'! a level that a number of scholars
have refer:ed to the I:ni:ed States as "the inter
view society" (Atkinson & Silverman, I997;
Silverman, 1993 ).
Bot:. qualitative and quan:itative researchers
tend to rely on the interview as t'le basic method
of data gathering whether the purpose is to
obtain a rich, in-depth experiential account of
an even1 or episode in the lifo of the resp or: dent
or to garner a simple point on a scale of 2 to 10
dimensions_ There is in:1erent faith that 1he
resu::s arc trustworthy and accurate and that
the relation of the interviewer to the respondent
that evolves di:ring the interview process has
not unduly biased the accour:: (Atkinson &
S:lverr:ian, 1997; Silverman, 1993). The commit-
ment :o, aud reliance on, the interview to prod:.i::e
narrative experience reflects and reinforces the
view of the United States as an interview society.
It S('t:ms t:iat evervone-:10t just social
' '
researchers-relies on the interview as a source
of information, wilb the assumption that inter•
viewing results is a true and ;iccnrate picture of

the respondents' tdves and lives, One cannot
escape being '.n:en'iewed; hterview1, are every-
where in fie forr:1 of political poils, questionnaires
about visits to doctors, housing applications,
forms regarding social service eligibility. college
applications, ta!~ shows, news programs-the list
goes on and on. The intcrview as a means of da:a
gathedng is no longer Ii mited to use by socia:
science researchers and ?()!:Ce detectives; it is a
"universal mode of systematic inquiry" ( Hols~ein
& fo1brium, 1995, p, I), It seems that nea:-ly any
type of questinn-whether personal. sensitive,
probing, upselling, or accusatory-is fair game
and ;,ermisstble in the interYiew setting, :ilea:-ly
all interviews, no matter their purposes (and these
can be variec-to describe, to interrogate, to
assist, to test. to evaluate, etc.), seek va::ious forms
of biog~aphical description, As Gubrium and
Holstein (I 998) noted, the intervie\v has be.come
a mean,; of contemporary storytelling in which
persons d:vulge life acmu:its in response to inter-
view inquiries. The media have been espedally
adept at using this technique.
As a society. we re: y 0:1 the interview and, by
and large, take it for granted. The interview ar.d
t:ie norms surround:ng the enactment of the
respondent and researcher roles have evolved to
the point where they are institutionalized ane, no
longer require ex tensivt: training; rules and ro'.es
are known and shared. (Howeve:, there is a grow•
i:ig group of individuals who increasingly ques-
tion :he ,raditional assumptions of tr:e interview,
and we address their concerns later in our discus•
sion of gendered interviewing and new trends in
interviewing.) Yiar.y practitio:ier, continue to use
and take for granted traditional interviewing
techniques, [t is as if interviewing :s now part of
the mass culture, so that it h~ actual1y become
the :nost feasible mechanism for obtaining infor-
mation about individt:.als, groups, a:1d organiza.
lions in a society characterized by individuation,
diversity, and specialized ro:e relations. Thus,
many believe that it is not necessary to "reinvent
the wheel" for each in:erview situation given that
"interYiewing has become a mutine technical
prac:ice and a pervasive, taken-for-granted act iv•
ity in our culture" (Mis:1:er, 1986, p. 23 ).
Fontar:a & Frey: The l:1terview 111 699
This is not to say, however, that the interYiew
is s,1 lec:mical and the procedures a:'e so stan-
dardized that interviewers can ignore contextual,
societal, a:id intcr;icrsonal elements, Each inter-
view context is one of interaction and relation,
and the result is as much a product of this soclal
dynamic as it is the product of accura~e accounts
and replies, The interview has become a routine
and nearly unnoticed part of everyday Efo. Yet
response rates con:inue to decline, indicating that
fewer people are willing to dlsdose their "selves"
or that they are so burdened by requests for inter-
Yiews that they are much more selective in their
choices of which :nterviews to grant. Social scien-
tists are more likely to recognize, however, that
interviews are interactional encounre:a and that
the nature of the social dynamic of t'.'.te bterview
can shape tr.e nature of the knowledge generated.
lnterv:ewers with less training and ei,:;pe~ience
than social scientists might :10: recognize when
interview pacticipm1ts are "actively" const;1Jcting
knowledge around questions and responses
(Holstein & Guhrium, l 995L
We now turn to a brief history of in:erviev,ing
to fra:nc its roots and development
lilt THE HISTORY OF lNTERVIEV>'l~G
At least one form of interviewing or another has
been witb us :or a very lo:1g time. Even ancient
Egyptians conducted population censuses (Babbie,
:992). During more recent times, the tradition
of intervie'lving evolved from tlvo trends. First,
lnterview:ng found great popularity and wide-
spread use in clinical diagnosis and counsel-
ing where the concern was witl: the qua:ity of
respom,es, Second, during World War !, interv'ew•
ing came :o be widely employed in psychological
tes:ing, with the emphasis being on measurement
(Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954).
The individual genera!:y creditec! with being
the first to develop a social survey relybg on inter-
viewing was Charles lfoo:b (Comerse, :987). Jn
1886, Booth embarked on a rnmprehensive survey
of the economic ar.d social conriitions of the
people of London, publishec as Life and Labour of
 700 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE :l.£51:,\RCH-CHAP''.l'R 27
the Peopl<' in l,ondon (300th, l 902-1903), In his
early stuciy, Sooth embodied what were to become
separate interviewing methods because he :rn:
only implemented si;rvey resca~ch but ulsu
triangulated hi, work by relying on unstr Jda:-ed
interviews and ethnographic oJservations:
The datu were che:ked und suppiemcm.:d by vi,,its
to many ncii:;hburt:uod,. streets, wd homes, nnt
by ronforrncc, with va:-ious wdfan, Jnd u,i::rn u-
nity leildcr,;. f'mm ti 11, e lo li:,ie Booth lived a~ a
loJgcr ind lstrkts wl:ere 1e wa, not known, so thr.1
he coald become m,m, in:imatdy a:quai::ted wir':1
the lives a::d hah ::s of the :ioorcr c:asse,;, ( Pc: ,ten,
1950, pp. 6-7)
Many other surveys of Lond or. a:1d nth er
Englis:1 cities followed, patterned after Boot r.'s
example. l:t the Unil1:.'tl States, a similar pi: tern
emmed. ln 1895, a study atten: Ted to do in
Chicago what Booth had done in London
(Converse, l987). In 1896, the Ar:1 eric;;ir. sociolo-
gist W. E. B. DuBois, who acmittedly wa& follow-
ing Booth's lead, s:udied the black pt1?L1la:i,m of
Philadelphia (DuBois, 1899). Surveys of cities and
small towns followed, with the most notable
ar:10:1g the • being the Lynds' Mid,J/ctoivn (Lynd
& Lyml, 1929) and Middletown in Transition
(Lynd & Lynd, 1937),
Opinion polling was another early for:11 of
bterviewi:ig, Some polling took place well before
:he start of 1he 206 crnturv, but it reallv came
! '
ir.m its own in 19 35 •,vith Ihe forming of the
American Institute of "t:bl c Opinion ·:iy George
Gal'.up, Precedii:g Gallup, in bot!: ps)'drnlogy
and sociology during the 1920s, there was a
movement toward the study (and usually the
meas ure:nent) of atti 1udes. W_ L ·rhomas m:d
Florian Zr.an :ecki used the documentary rr.ethod
to introducr the sti.dv' of attitudes in socid psv- , their mental and 1:motional lives ',¥ere reported in
c:10\ogy. Thomas's influence along with tha: of
Robert Park, a former reporter whu believe.:
that ,ociolugy was to be found ont :n the fielri,
sparked a number of com :11 unity studies ar the
L:11:vcrsiry of Chicago tl:ar came to be kr.own
collectively as t:1c works of the Chicago School,
l\.1a11y utl:er rcscarc:1ers, such as A Ibio:i Small,
George H, Mead, E. \¥. Burge,s, Everett C, Hughes,
Louis Wir:h, W. Loyd Wan:er, and Ansdm Stnm si,
were also greatly influential (for a recent disci,s-
sio:1 of the relations and intkc11ce o: vurious
Chicago School members, sec Hecker, 1999 ).
Althmgh :he memhers of 1he C:1kago Scl:ool
are reputed to have used the e1hnug:-aphic method
in their inquiries, ,o:11e disagree and have noted
that many of the (:hicago School studies lacked tl:e
analytic component of modern-day ~tl:r:ograp~y
~ml so were, at bcsl, "firsthand descriptive studies·•
(Harv1:y, 1987, p. 50). Regardlc,, of the correct
labd for the Chicago School members' fi~ldwork,
they dearly relied on a combi natio:1 of o:i.scrva •
tion, personal (:ocuments, and inforr.1<1l intervi<:l'l's
i11 their studle,. foterv icw~ were e~pecially in evi-
dence in t!':e work o~ ': hmsher ( 1927/ 1963), who
:n his study of gang membe:s relied primarily on
some 130 qua!i tative h1tervie1vs, and in that of
Anderson ( I923 ), whose classic study of l:obL1s
reiied on informal i:1-depth cm:versations.
It was lefl to Iltrbert Hlumcr and his former
student, Howard Bec;..er, to formalh::e a:id give
ir.1prt:1s to socio:ogkal cthr.cgn,!,hy dur:1:g the
1950s a:id I 960,, and interviewing began to
lose both tl:e edect'c flavor g:ven to it by Boot:1
and the qualitative accen1 of !ht: Chicago S.:hm1I
mem b ~rs, Unders tandir.g gang r.1 cm bers or
hobos th:-ough interviews lost importa11ce;
instcac., what became releimnt 1V"as 1he use ot
intcrview ing in survey research as a tool to
quantify data_ This was not n1:w given that
opinior: pulls and markcl researc:1 had bcrn
doing it for years. But d:dng Wor:d Wa:- ll, thc•rc
wris a tremendous increase in si:rvey research
as the t_S_ armed forces hired great numbers of
,odologisrs as su~,,ev' re~earchern. More lh;m a
<
half millicm American soldiers wrrc interviewed
in one :nar.ner or another (Young, 1966). and
a four-volume survey.Studies in Socia! Psychology
in World Vlrir fl, th<" first ,·wo volmr.es of which
were d:rected JY Sar:rnel Stodte, and titled 'fh,
Am,·riam Soldier. This work had trcmcncm:s
impact and led the way to widespread use of
systematic S'.trvcy rt:se,1:ch,
'.¥bat w,is new, how1:ver, wa~ that quantitat:vr
survey rcsear~h moved hto a,'.adcmia and came

to dominate sociohigy as the method of choice for
tl:e r:ext three decades, Au A;istriao ir:1Jnigranl,
Paul 1,izarsfeld, spearheaded this nove. He •Ncl-
comed The American Sold/a wilh enthusi•
a,m. h foci, Lazarsfcld Robe:t Merton edited
a :wok of rel1ed ions on The Americar; S,;ldier
(Merton & Lazarsfeld, 195() ). Lazarsfeld moved to
Columbia in l \140, \aking with him hi, mari:<.el
research and other ap;iHet: grants, arid he becan:e
ir:,rn mc:1tai in d lrrct:ng the Hu ,cau o" Apolied
Social Research. lwo other "survey orga:1izations''
were also formed: the Natio:1al Opinion Rcscar~h
Center (formed in 1941 by Harry Field, first the
Unh·ernitv of Denver and then at :he :Joiversity of
C:1:cago) rnd the Survey Researc:1 Center (formed
ir. :Y46 Rensis Likrrt 2nd Hs group al the
;Jnivcr,ity of Michigan),
Academia at tht> tin:e was dominated by
theoretical m11cern;, am' there was sor:1e res's-
tance toward :his applied, number" bascc kind
of sociology. Sociologists ancl other humanists
wece critical of Lazarsfeld and the other survey
re sea rciers, Herbert Blumer, C. Wright Mills,
Arth n; Schlesinger, Jr., ar:c Pitirin Soro;dn were
among those who voiced their disple,:,ure.
According to Co:werse I l 9R7), Sorokin re:; t:rnl
•'the new emphasis 0:1 qua:1ti1ativc work was
cbsess:vc, and he called the new practi:imiecs
'l111a11topl:,cnic,'-with spedul xfo:ence to
Stoufftr ;;,nd Lazarsfcld" [p, Converse
cuuted Mills: "Those: in lbe grip of tht method•
ologic,: inhibit ion onen refuse to anything
about modern society unless it has been throug:1
:he fine little :11ill of t:ie Stutistkal Rinial" (p.
Co:wcrsc faat Schlesinger called the survey
researd1crs '',mci.d n:fotiuns hnckstcrs" (p.
Bill the survey researchers also had power:':,il
allie:; rnch as Merton, who joined the Ht: rcau of
Applied Sodal Research at Columbia :n 1943,
government monk.~ were hecom:1:g inceasingly
available for survey research. The 19 50s saw a
g,nwt:1 of survey research i:1 rhe universities and
a prnli:crntitu of sun:ey research texts, Gradi:alJy,
.mrvey research increased its lie main over sodul·
culm 'nating ln l 960 wilh fac election of
Lazarsfold m the presidency of th,~ American
Sociolog:cal Association. Tl:e :nethodological
Fontana & l'rey: The Interview 1111 70.
dor:1:nar.cc of survey research continued uiahatcd
,luoughout the IY7Us, l %Os, aml :990s, although
o:her methods began tn erode the promine!'.ce of
survev' rt:llearch .
Qm1lit:11ive interviewing mnt!m:e<l to be
;:iractked hand in hand with part:cipant observa-
tion methods, but it too assur.1cd so1:1e of the
qU,'.ntifiable scientific rigor prenccupkc. sur•
vey rc~carch to a gre,n extent. This was ;;,pcdally
visible in grounded thof)' (G:aser & Strauss,
I 967), with irn painstaking e1;1p:1~sb on coding
data, and in e;hnomr:thodology; with its c:iesl
for inva:iant properties of so:::al action (Cicourtl,
1970). Other qualitative ,cscarchers suggested
variations, Lofland ( 1971 J er it icized grounded
thc()ry for ;:mying too lil!le attention to data-
gathcri ng tec:miques, Douglas ( 1985) suggested
le1cgt:1y, existential one-on-o:1c in:crvirws that
lasted at least I day. Sprad :ey (1980) tcicd to
chuify the diffcrcncr betwee:1 ethnog,aphic
observation and ethnographic interviewing.
Recently, postmodcrr.isl cthnograph<'rs have
concernt'd themselves wi,:1 ,mm!' of thr assnr:1p
tions present in intervie,\ ing at1d with the cot:-
trnllir:g role of :he intt:rviewcr. Tr.cse mnceri:,
have led lo new directions :n qualitat ivc :1~ter-
vit·..vin g focusii:g on incn:ti£ed JI :er.tion to the
vo:c.:s the r!'spondents (Marcu ~ & Hschcr,
1986), the int!'rviewer-res;m:ulenl re'.al ior:ship
(Crapanzano, 1980), the importance of 1he
researcher's gende~ in :nteviet,ing (Gluck &
Patai, 1991), lhe role of otl:er elements such
as race, social status, and age (Sc idmau, I991).
Platt (2002), in her recent chapter on the
history of interviewing, correctly :1orcd that the
inlcrv:cw encompasses so many different prac-
tice, thal i: ls extremely hard ro derive mea11ing-
tul generalization about it and that the changes
that ha\'<' t,ikcn pla;;cs over tine are driven partly
by methodological com:crns aJJd partly by so,io-
politin,I motives.
111 STRUCTURRD !J,TF:RVIEWIKG
b strut.1ured interviewing, the viewer asks
all responder: ts the same- series uf preesh1blishec
 702 111 HANDBOOK 01' QUALJTATIVE RESEARCH-C:-!APTER 27
qJcstions with a lim:,ed set of response categories.
There is gene:-ally :ittlc room for variation in
response except where open-ended qi:estion s
(which ,,re infreqLcnl l rnay Je used. The inter-
viewer records the responses accorcing to a coc-
ing scheme that has already been established by
the project di rector or research ->nv1<,1r The
ir:ten'iewer controls the pace of the intervie;v
by t:-eati ng the ques:ionnaire as if it were a the-
atrical script lo be followed in a standardized and
straightforward manner. Thus, all respondents
receini the same set o:
c_uestions asked in the
same order or sequence by an :nte:-vicwcr who
has been trained to treat every interview situat:or:
in a :ike manner. There is verv, little flt:xibilitv. ir:
the way in which questions are asked or answered
in the structurec imerview setting. Instructions
to intervievvers often include some of the fo:low•
ing guidelines:
• Xever get invo'.ve,: in explana1:ons (he
study; use the standard cxplar:ation provided by
supervisor.
• Never deviate fro::i 1hr study introduction,
sequence of questions, or question 'NO,ding,
• Never let ano:her person ':iterrupt the inter-
view; do net let anot::er persc n answer for Lhc
respondenl or offer his or he7 opin ten L'O :he
que,lion.
• Never sug;~esl c:: arn:;wer or O; disagree
with an .answer. Uo not give the respond..:nt any
of vo·.:r p,•rsonal views on the topic cf the
queslion or su:vey.
• Never i:itcrprct the :11e.;::: ng of a ': ucstion; j·~st
repeat the qm:sti:c and give instr::ctions or
darifkat io:1s l::at are provided in !,aining or by
the supervisor.
• Kever improvise such as adding an,wer cate-
gories or rr:aking wording chan;c,.
Telephone interviews, :ace-to-face :nteviews
in huuselmlds, inte,cept interviews in malls and
parks, and interviews general;y associated witn
survey research are most likely to be induied in
the structu:-ed inte:view cateaorv.
ti '
This interview context call, the intervie,,·er
to play a neutral role, never :ntetjec:ing his or her
opinion of a respondent's answer. The interviewer
must establish what has been called "balanced
rapport"; he or she must be casual and friendly,
on the o:-ie hand, :mt must be directive and imper•
sonal, on the other. The interviewer must ?erfect
a style of "interested listen:ng" that rewards ,he
respondent's particbatio:1 but does not evaluate
these responses (Converlie & Schuman,; 971).
It is hoped lbat in a structured intervle,.v,
nothing ii, left to chance. However, response
effects, or nonsampling errors, that can attrib-
uted to tl:e questionnaire administration process
cot1monly evolve from faree ~oarces. Tl:e first
source of error is respo:-ident behavior. The
respo1:dent may deliberately try to piease t'le
interviC'll'er or to prevent the interviewer from
learning something about l:im or her. To do
this, the respondent will em beIE sh a response,
give what is described as a "sodally desirable"
response, or o:nit certain relevant information
(Brae jurn, 1983, p. 291 ). The respo:idenr may
also err d;1e to faulty memory. The second source
of error is fuund 1:1 the nati:re of the task, that
is. the method of questionm,ire administra-
tion (face-to-face or te:ephone) or tl:e seque:ice
or wording of the quest:ur:s. The third source of
error is the interviewer; whose characteristics or
i:;·Jestion:ng techr:iqucs rr:ight impede proper
communication the question {Bradburn,
1983 ). It is the degree of error assigned to the
in:erviewer that is of greatest concern.
Most ~t~uctured interviews leave Ettie room
for the interviewer to improvise n, exercise i:'lde-
pendent judgment, but even in the most struc-
tured interv:ew situation, not every contbgency
can be anticipated and not every interv iewi::r
beha~es according to th~ script (Bradburn, !983;
Frey, 1989). fn a study of ir.terv iewer effects
found that inte:viewers changed the wording of
a~ mar:y as one third of the questions (Bradburn,
Sudman, & Associates, 1979).
In general, researcr_ on interviewer effects
has shown interviewer characteristics such as
gender, ~nd inter viewing experience to have
a relatively small impact on responses (Sbger &
Presser, 1989]. However, thrre is some evidence to
show that studen: interviewe:s produce a larger
response effect than do nonstudem interviewers,

higher sta:us inlt>rvicwcrs produce a larger
response cfect than do lower ,t,1tns interviewer,,
a:i<l the race of interv:ewers makes a difference
only on questions specifically related to race
(Bnidburn, l Hyman, 1954; Singer, ha:1kel,
& Glassman, 1983;,
The relatively minor i:;1pact uf :he in:crvicwer
on response quality in strm:turei: intervic'>v
set1i:1gs is direc:'.y allri'.lUtab:e to the inflexible,
standardized, and predetermined nature of t:1is
type of inte~viewin!!, There is simply little room
for error, However, those who are advl!cah:s of
structured in:cn•iewing are not unaware that fae
interview is i soda] interaction context ,md that
it is inLJer.ccd by that context. Good interview-
ers n:cognize this fact and are se:1sitivc to how
interaction can intlue:1ce response. Conve:-se
and Schuman (1974) observed,"There 1s no single
interview style t:\al firs every uccasion or all
respo:idents" ( p. 53 ). This mc,111s that intcrvkw~~s
must aw,1rc of respondent differences and :na,t
be ab:e to make the p~oper adj c:stmcnts called for
by nnr:ntic:ptitt.xl development 6, As Gore en ( 1992)
stated, "Interviewing skH!s are not simple motor
skill, J:ie riding a hicyde; rather, they involve a
:i igh-order corr1bi nation observation, rmpludc
sensitivity, and intellectual judgment» (p, 7),
It is not euuugh to undcrs:and the mechanics
of interviewing;[; is also important to ;i:1de:s1and
the respondent's world and forces that rn :gt, 1
,1imulate or retard responses ( Kahn & Cannell,
1957). Still, the structured interview proceeds
unde: a ~timulus-response fo:-mat,assuming
the re,pundent will truthfa:;y answer questions
pr.,vlously deterrnincd to rev.:al adequate indica,
tors of varh1ble in question so long ,is those
quesi ions are phrased properly, This kind
interview often elicit, ra! io:ial responses, tlut it
overlooks nr inadec; :iately assesses the emotional
dimension,
Deve;o?mcnts in compu le,,ass:sted inter,
viewing (CoJper et aL, : 998) have called into
qursrion the d: vision between traditional rm1dcs
of interviewing su,h as :he survey interview ~.tld
the mail si:rvey, Singleton and Straits (2002)
noted that today we are really looking at a contir."
uum of data-collecting metr: ods ~ather :han
Po :1tana & f,ey: !he lntcrview 1111 7(::1
dearly dividec method$; 'n fact, as these authors
observed, mm: y &uncys today incorporate a
varic:y of data-gathe:-ing methods ,iriven by
concerns such ,is time constrair.ts, flm,ndal
dcmands, ai:d o:her prnrtkai cktm,nts.
Iii GRU uI' I \'TERVI EW!t\{;
The gruur interview is es~e 1:daily a q" alilati vc
data-gathering technique that relies un t:te sys•
tcr.1atic questioning of several ind:viduals sh;1d-
tancously in a formal or in:ormal se:ting. Thus,
this technique strnddes the line between fo,mal
ard irJo~m,11 interviewing.
The t:sc of the group interview has ordinarily
been associated with markctir:g rrscarch ·1nder
the label of f<JCUS group, wl:ere the purpose is to
gather consumer opinions rn: prodm:t characteris-
tics, advertising themes, aud/ur ,erv i.::e dei ivcry,
This format has also been used to a c:ons!uerable
extent by political parties and rnndlcate.~ who are
intecestcd in voter ~eactions to and policic£,
The g,oup interview alst, heen used ii: socio-
logical re~carch, Bogardu; (1926; :cstcd his social
di~I dncc ~calc durii:g :he mid-1920,, Zuckerman
(I 972) i111erv icwcd Nobel lm:reales, Thnr:1psm1
and Dt:merath {I 952) ;ooked 111 11:anagcmc111
problems the 111::ttary, Morgan and Spat1ish
( l984) studied health issues, For.tana and rrey
( 1990) :nve~tigakd reentry illto the older worker
la:ior force, and Merton and his associate, stt:d :ed
the impact of propaga :1:la t:sing group interviews
(se~ Frey & rm:ta1:a, 1991). In fact, Merton, Fiske,
and Kendall ( l956} coined the term "focus group"
lo apply to a s:ruation where the researcher/
interviewer asks very specific questions abou: a
topic after having completed considerable resear~h.
There is also some evidence that e~t,1blished
anthropologists ,·uc~ as Mali nawski used this lecl1-
niquc but did not report it (l'rcy & Frn:tana, I991),
Today, all group interviews are gcncri:::ally desig-
nated focus gmup interv:ew,, even though there is
considerable variat:on in fat nal we and types
group interviews,
In a group irtervirw, the i:tten·ie½<e~/nmdcrator
di~ect.' the inquiry and the in:eraction among
704 111 HAND3001< OF QUALn'.ATlV:c' RESEARCH-CHAPTER
respondents in a very structured fashion o, in
a very unstructured manner, deper:dlng on the
interviewer's purpose. The purpose may be
exploratory; for example, the researcher may
bring several persons :oget:1er to test a method-
ological technique, to try out a definition of a
researd: problem, or to ide:itifv key informants.
An extension of the exploratory intent is to use
the group interview for the purpose of pretestbg
ques:ionnaire wording, measurement scales, or
other eleme:ih of a survey design. Th is is now
quite common in survey research (Desvousges &
Frey, 1989). Group interviews can also be used
successfully to aid respondents' recall or to
stimulate embellished desc:iptio:is of spec:flc
events (e.g., a disaster, a celebratior:J or experi-
ences shared by member, of the group. Group
interviews can also he used for tri,rngulation
purposes or ·Jsed 111 co:1 junction with other
data-gathering techniques. For exa:nple, group
interviews could be helpful in the process of
"indefinite trianguiation" by putting individual
res?onses ir.rn a nmlext (Ckourel, I 974 ). Finally,
phenomeno'.ogkal purposes may be served
whethfr group interviews are the sole basis for
gathering da:a or are "Jsed in assodatior: with
other techniques.
Group ir.te:views take diffe:i:nt forms,
depenc:ing on :he:r purpu,e,. They car: ·::ie brain
storming ir:terviews with :ittle or no structure or
direction from the imervit"lver, or they can be very
st:i.1ctured such as those in nominalfdelphi and
marketing focus groups. In the latter cases, the
role of the :11:erviewer is very ;:irominent and
directive. Fieldwork seltings provide both fo:mal
and informal occasions for group interv'ews. The
field researdier can bring respondents into a
fo,mal setting in t:ie field conrext and ask very
rlirerted questions. Or, a natural field setting, such
as a s:reet comer or a neighborhood tavern, can
be conduc:ve to casual but purposive inquiries.
Group interviews can he compared on several
dimensions. First, the interviewer can be
formal, ,aking a very directive a:id controlling
posture, guiding discussion strictly, and not
permittl ng digression or variation from topic
or agenda. Th:s is the mode of focus and
nom:naltdelphi groups. In the latter case,
participants are physically isolated but share
views through a coordinator/interviewer. Tl:e
nondirective approach is more likely to be imple-
mented in a nal urally e,tablished field setting
(e.g., a street ;:orner) or in a contmlled setting
(e.g., a ,esearch laboratory) where thr research
purpose is phenomer.ological to establish the
widest range of meaning and interpretation for
the topic, Groups can also be differentiated by
question format ar:d pu:pose, which in the case of
group interviews usua:Jy means exploration, phe-
nomenologkal, or pretest purposes. Exploratory
interviews are designed to establish fam i!iarity
wi:h a topic or sett' ng; the interv i~ver can be very
directive (or the op?osite), but the questions are
usually unstructured or open-ended. The same
format is Jsed in interviews with phenomenolog•
ical purposes, where the intent is to :ap inte:'liub•
jective meaning with depth and diversity. Pretest
interviews are generally structured ir: a question
format, with the interview being directive in
style. Table l compareti the types of group
interviews 011 various dimensions.
The s;;.ills that are required :o conduct the group
in:erview are not significa:itly different fro:n those
reeded for the individual :nterview. The inter•
viei.ver :rrJst be tlexible, objective, empathetic, per-
suasive, a good lis:e!'ler, and so forth. But the group
lr..terview does p:-esent so:ne problem, r.ot found
the h:d:vidual interview. Merton and colle-agues
( 1956) noted three specific problems, namely, that
(a) the interviewer must keep one person or small
coaiitim1 of persons from dominating tht> group,
(b) the interviewer must encourage recalcitrant
responder.ts 10 participate, and (c) the interviewer
must o·:irain responses from the entire group to
ensure the fullest coverage of the topic. £11 ac:di:ion,
the interviewer must balance the directive inter•
viewer role with the role of moderator, and this
calls for management of the dynamics of the gro'.lp
being interviev,ed. Furthermore, the groi:p inter
viewer must simultaneously" worry about the
script of questions and be sens::ive to the evolving
patterns of group interaction.
Group interviews have some adva:1tages over
individual interviews, narr:ely, that (a) they are
 Fontana & Frey: The Interview • 705

Table:27,l. Types of Gro;,:p Interviews and Dimensions

1ype Serting Purpo;e Role of Interviewer Question Form~t Purpase

Focus group Formal. pre;el Directive Structured Ex;iloratoq~ pre,est

Brnin,tor:ning Formal o; infor:nal Nondirective Unstructured Exp:oralury
Nomim,:JDelphi formal Directive ~ ' Exp,oratory,
,..1., --·-•-·-

exploratory pretest
Field, r.atural Informal, Moderately Very Jlxploralory
spo::tanecus mmdirective unsln:ctured Ph<":mmenological
Field, formal P:.:set Somewnat Semistructured Pnc:iomer,ological
In f:eld dirediw

,, p.184).

relatively inexpensive to conduct and often pm·
duce rkn data that are cumulative and elaborative,
(b) they can be stirr.ulating for respondents and so
aid in recall, and (c) the forn:at is tlexible, Group
interviews are 1:ot, however, wifaout problems.
The res'Jlts cannot be generalized, the emerging
group culture may interfere with individual
expression (a group can be dominated by one
persm: ), and 'groupthi nk" is a possible outcor:ie.
The requirements for interviewer ski'.ls are greater
than those for indiv:dual interviewing because
of the group dynamics that are present Neverthe•
less, the group interview is a viabl<' option by both
qualitative and quantitative research,
Morgan (20112) advocated a systematic
approad: to focus grm;,? interviewing so as to ere•
ate a methodological contim.ity and the ability
to cssess the outl:omes of focus gzoup research,
Ylorgan sJggested that, just as social scientists
were originally i::tspired to use focus groups by
the e:;rample of • arketing,it mignt be time to look
at n:arketing again to see what is being done and
u,e marketing exampl.e to i11 novate in the field
of social sciem;es.
r:alure. b ll1is section, we discuss the traditional
type of unstructu:-ec interview-th,; open-ended,
in-depth (ethm)graphk) imerview, Many q'.!alita•
tive researchers differentiate between in-depth
(e~hnographk) intervif'ving and partkipant
observation, Yet, as Lofland (I 971 J pointed
the two go hand in liand, and much of the data
gathered in partitipant observation come from
:nformal interviewing in the field. Consider the
:allowing report from Malinowski's (196711989)
diary:
Satu:day 8 (Dccembe~ 1917] (jot u~ la:e, felt rotten,
took er:emu, At about I J went o;;t; l heard cries;
.people fro ml Kllpwapu were bringing uri to 'leyava.
I ;;at with the na:ives, t11lkrd, tock pkrures. Went
back. Billy corrected and supplerr:ented my notes
ahot:t wasi. At T.:yava, an old man ta:ked a great deal
about fishes, but I did not ·~:,derstand him too well.
Then we moved :o hls bwaymna. Talke,;: ab(lul lili'u.
Tl:ey kept questior::::g me about the war-In :he
eYening I talked to policem,m about f, waga'u,
!ili'u. and yoy,1·1,1. I was irritat1:d by their langhit:g.
R'llv again tnld me a number of i me resting t'lings,
Took quioine am: calornel. (p, 1

Malinowski's (1%711989) "day in the fic'.d''

1111 Ut.:STRt:CTt:RED INTERVIEWING shows how very important unstructu:ed
viewing is in the conduct of fieldwork and dearly
l'nstructured interviewing can provide greater illustrates the differenre between structured
breadth than do the other types given its qualltative interview:ng and unstructured interviewing.
 706 \Ill 11:\ND:lOOK OF QUALl!)\rlV:: IU'SEA1CH-CHAP,HR
Malinowski had some gene:,d topics he wanted
to know about, but he cid not usi; close ended
qu.:stions or a formal approach to interviewing.
\,Vhat is more, he com:nirtcd (as most field·
workers du) what struc:urcd interdewers would
see as two ''capita
' I o1·r,enses," F'irst, he a:1swcrei.:'
questio:is a,ked hy l:le respom: enls. Secor:d, he
let his persomJ leelinr,s influence him (as all field
wo;ke:"l> do}; thus, be deviated "'rom tl:c "keal" of
a cool, dist,mt, and n::ion:;l btervicwcr.
Malinowski's example capti:rcs the differe11ee
in structured versus unstructured inte;viewi:ig,
The fonner aims at capturing pre,ise d,it,1 Df a
codab\e nat1:re :;o as to cxpla:r, behavior within
preesta::i!ished categories, whereas the la:ter
attem1Jts to 11:1drrstand the cumplex behav:or
members of society without impos:ng any a priori
categorization tha: may limit the field of inquiry.
In a way, :vfalinowski's intcrvicwi ng is still
st ructur,;d to some degree: there is a scu:ng, there
arc identi5ed informants, and the respondents are
dearly discern:bie. fn other types of interviewing,
there might be no sett: r:g; for i:lstance, Hertz
(: 995, 1997b, I9':l7c) ~ocus,:c o:J locating women
in a historic moment rather than in a place. In
addition, in their study of single motl:ers, Hertz
and Ferguson (: 997) interviewed worc1en who did
:rn: know each other and who were not part of a
single group or village. At ti mes, informants are
not re;idily accessible or :dent fiable, but m:yone
the researche:· meets rm,y become " valuable
source o: information. Hetlt and Fergusrm relied
on tradespeople ,rnd frii;nd s to identify single
motl'.ers in the study. Foniana and Sr:1ith ( 1989)
found that respondents were :iot always rc-.idil y
identifiable. In st u,lying Alzlu:: me r's disease
patients, they discovered that it was often possi-
ble to co r: fuse caregivers and pat ienls during
the early st.ges of the d:seasc. Also, :n Fontana's
( 1977) research cm the poor elderly, the researcher
had no fixed setting at all; he simply wandered
frora bend: to bench :11 the park ·where the dd
folb were sitting, talking :u any di,hevded uld
person who would ta:k back.
Sprndley (1979) aptly differentiated amon~
,·ari ons types of intervirwir.g_ He described
following ir:terviewer-res;,rnndcnt :nteraction,
which would be unhinkab:e in trnditior:al
sociological circles yet is tl:c very <'ssrnce of
unstr'J,·tured interviewing-the establishment
of" human-to·human re!ation ,vith the rcspor:denl
a:id the desire to umierst,wd rather than :o e1:pfoi,1:
Prcsmtly smikc,, pres,ed hand 10 !lerchtsl,
,md said: "'lsetchwe:' It was her name. ''Eli,abcth;'
I poiming lo myself, "Ni,abe;' she .mswcrc-J.
, , . Then, h,win5 surely su~pected thal I was ,1
wor::an, she pnt her hand :n Ill)' breast gravdy, and,
!i nding :l:JI thnt I was, ,he :ouched h2r own hrca~r.
.\fany Bushmen do thi,; l<J i:·,,m ,11 fa1ro;m111,
look ;,lik,-. "'lasu (women), she said. Then afl,·t
a momcnr's pause, Tsetchwe bi:gm: lo ·.each r:1c,
(pp. 3-4)
Spradley (1979) wcr:I on to discJss all of
the thi:lg,q that a:1 i:lterviewer lea,ns from the
natlvr~-their .:ullu:e, t:ieir lang·Jage, their ,~·ays
of J:fc. Although each and every study is d:tfercnt,
tl:csc are some Df the ·,asic demrnts of unslruc-
ti,:red inter, 1ewing. Thc:se c:cn, cnts have been
diocu,sed in detail alreadv, and we need ::ot
efahorate on them too mucl: here [for detailed
accm:nts of amtrncturcd interviewing, see
Ada •, & Preiss, I96C; Lofland, 1971; Sprac.ey,
1979 ). Here we provide brief synopses. Rem cm her
that tl:csc ,uc pres~:ned cnly as hem ist ic devices;
every s:udy uses slightly d iffere:1t d L,r:1 ent s and
often in dii:erent comb in at ions.
It lmpurtan: to keep in mbd that the
following description of interviewing is highly
modernistic in that it presents a ~tructured
fornMt and definite ste?s lo he foi:owed, ln a
wav,' it mim:cs strncrured interv:ewinll'. ,, in an
attrmpt to "sc:cnlize" the resear:h, albeit by
using very diffete11t steps anc rnncern,,. Later ill
this chapter, in disrnssing new trends, we dccon-
struct ,hcse :10:ions as we frame the i:11erview
as an ,lctive emergent procc&s. We ,or.tend that
our mler view society gives people instn:ctons
on how to com ply wirh t hesc heuristics (Silver-
111 an, 1993, 199711, 1997b;. Similarly, Scheurkh
(1995, 1997} was openly critkal of both pos•
itivistic and interpretive inten·iewi1:g because
:hey ar, based un r:1oclerniMic ussamplions, Po,
Schcurich ( 1997}, raber than hcing a proce~s

"by the mn:1bers:' interview' r:g (and its l,mguage)
is ''persistently slippery, unstab:e, and ambiguous
from person to person, froi'.1 situation to situ.ition,
r~orn time tn time" (p, 62!,
A: though puslmu(:e:·u resea rehers follow
Scheurich, r:1ore tradit:onal ,oci(llogists and
researchers frorr: oti,er discipline;, still follow this
"how to" approach to i ntcrviewing. wht.'re the illu-
sion exists that the better they execute the ,·,:rious
steps, the bettt:r they w'll apprehe1:d tr:e rea:ity
that they assume is out there, r~ady to be plucked,
Actessing the Selling, How do we "get in"l Thal, o•
course, varies according to th<: group that one is
attempting to study, One might have rn d'srobe ,,r.d
casually st,oll in the m:de J he or she is doing a
study of nude beaches (Douglas, Rasmussen, &
Flanagan, 1977), or one might have to :,uy a huge
n:otorbike and frequent seecy bars i:1 ,enain Inca•
:io:1s if he er she is attempting to befr:end and
;tudy the I ldl's Angels (Thompso:1, : 985 ), The dif-
ferent ways and attempts to get in va:-y tremen-
Jcusly, hut they all ,hare the ~ommoi: goal of
gaining accc~s to the settin!,I, Some: imcs there is no
,elling prr S<', as when Fontan.J. (: 977) allcmpted
to study the ?Oo, e:derly on the s: rects and had to
gain access anew with each and every intcrviewre.
UndersJanding the Lcmgu,,ge ,md Culmre of the
Respomiettt;~ Wax (I 960) gave perhaps thr most
po:gm111t des.;riptior: of lean:ng the language and
culture of the re,;;por1dcnts in :1e1 study vi~disloyal"
Japanese in concentmtion camps in America
bctv:cen l 'l43 and 1<J45. Wax h,1d to overcome a
number of language and ct1ltural problem~ i:l he~
s1~dy, Although respondents may he fluent in tl1e
la:1guagc of the interviewer, there arc different ways
of ,aying things-o~ i:1dced, certain things that
should :mt be s,.k at all-lii:ki:1g la:iguagc and
n:'.n:,a: :r.ani fostar!ons. Wax made thi~ poinl;
I remarked thill J would like to see the kite;', Tt:t
s1l~nce that fe[ on ltl<' c;:atting grou;:, was almo,1
palpahlr, and the embarnis,ment of :he hosts W'J;
painful :o see, The J~ux p11s was :101 asking to ~ee a
le\ler, :or ]etlers wrn: !,MSStd ,ibout rather freely, It
rested on th: fact that one did not give a Caucasian
a ltt:er in whk:1 the "disloy~l" .~l,lftme~t of r. friend
mighr he e~pre;;sed. (p, 172)
'•outa,'a & Frey; The l::terview Ill 707
Srn1:e re,earchers, especially in anthropological
intcrvi<'ws, tend to rely on interpreters arnl so
become vulncrahlr 111 added layers ui mea:1i ngs,
biases, and interpretatio:1s, and th is may lead to
disastrous misi:ndersfancings (Freeman, 1983L
At !;m.:s, specific ja:win, sue~ a~ the :11eckal
metalanguage ot physicians, may be a code ::u: t is
hard for i:01:members Lo t:ndcrsta1:d,
Deciding How to Pre,eut Onese!( Do we present
ourselves as representatives from a~ademia
stud>·ing medical student~ (Becker, :956)? Do we
approach t':~ interview as a wuma rHo-11,oman
discuss'or: (Spradley, 1979)~ Du we "dress down"
to look H;;.e the ,csponccnts (Fontana, 1977;
Thompson, 1975 )? Do we represent the colonial
culture (.Malinowski, l 922), er do we humbiy
present ourselves as '':earners" ( Wax, l 961l)?
This is very impo~tant because once the inter-
viewer'~ prcsentationa: self is "cast:' it leaves
a profo·Jnd i:n prcssion on the respondents and
has a urea! influence of the success of the stud v
" theri:vr;. Sometimes i::advertently, the'
(or !ack
rrs<'archer's p:esenlalional sdf :nay be misreprt:-
scnted, as Johmon (19i6} discovered :n st,dyiag
a welfare off:ct wbcn som,' of the employee~
assumed that he w-as a "spy" for management
despite l:is best efforts to presen; himscJ to the
contrary.
Locating an Jnfiirmam. The re,earcher r:1usl
fii:d an i:lsider-a mcmher of the gnmp being
studied-who is willing to be an informant and
act as a g·,iide and :ranslato, of cultural mores
'
and, at times, u: jnrgon or larguagc, Alt::tr.igh
lhe researcher can comh:ct interviews without
an in:'ormanl, he or she can save much Ii :rn; and
avoid mistakes if a good :nformanl beu:1mc1,
,wailable, The"classic"sodological informant was
Doc in Whyte's ( 1943) Street Corner Sodety
Without Doc's r. elp ,m ..~ guidance, it is doubtfu;
tr:al Whyte would have been able to access his
respondents :o the level he d :d. Rabi nrnv's ( 1977)
discussion 11f his relation ;,:th his main infor-
rrant,Ahd aJ •.\faJ:;z ben Lahccn, w,1s vrry im;rr;1c-
tive. Malik acted as a translator but also provided
Rabinow with acc:c,s to the c:iltural ways of the
 708 !I HANDIIOO:< OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
respor:ce nts, and by his actiuns he provided
Rabi now with in sights into the vast differences
·::ietween a L:niver,ity of Chicago researcher and a
native Moroo:ar..
Gat"ning Survey ·e,earchers as,<ing respon-
cenls whether they would or wouki ;wt favor the
estab:isbment of a nudea~ dt.:mp in 6eir state
(Fn,w, I993) do not :;ave too much work to do in
lb: way o:' gaining trust; :-espondents have opin-
ions about nud ear durr::is anc are very willing
to express then:, ,,,, ,., 0 < forcefal!y. Bu: it is
dearly a different slur y if one wants to ask
about people's frequency of sexual inte,c0t:rse or
preferred metl:oci ofhirth cont,ol. The interviewer
needs to establish so me trus: with the respon•
dents (Cicourel, 1974}. :lasmussen (l '189) h,;d
to spend months as a «11.alltlower" in the waiting
mom of a massage pa~lor before any of the
masseuses gained enough trust ir: 'Jim m divulge
to him, in unstructured :n,ervicws, the r:ature
of their "massage" relation with clients. Gain:ng
trust is essential to the success of the inlerv:ews,
and once it i, gained, tr,1,t "111 still be very frag-
ile, Auy fau~ pas by the researcher may destroy
days, weeks, or montr:s of painfullv gained trust
fatabli.shi11g Rapport Beca:ise !he goal of unstruc-
tlued intervic;ving is und,rstandirig, it is para-
mount to establish rapport with responder.ts; that
i~, t:ie :-csea:,her must be ahle 10 take the role of
!he res;:io:1dents a11d attempt to see the situation
from their vie;vpoint rather ::1 .t1; superimpose
or her work of academia and preconceptions on
them, Although a dose rapport with the res?on-
dents opens the doors to more informed research,
it mav create pmblem, in that res<'archer mav
' '
become a ~pokc~pcrwn for tne group studied, los-
:ng his or her di stance and objectivity, or may 'go
nafve" and :,ecome a member of the gro:ip and
forgo :1 is or her academic role, At times, what the
researcher might feel is a good rapport !1'rns oat
to not lo be, as Thompsun (I 985) found out in a
r:ight:narish way when he wa, subjected to a bru-
tal beating by t':e Hell's Angels just as his study of
them was com i:1g to a dose. At the other end of the
spectrum, some res,ear,:hers might i:eve~ foe] :ha:
t!:ey have establish<'ri a good rapport with their
respor:dents. Malinowski (1967/1989), for example,
alwa}'li mist:usted the motives of natives and
at t:mes was troubled b)' their brutish sensuality
or angered by thfir outright lying or deceptions:
"After lunch J (carried] yellow calico and spoke
about the ba/oma. I rr:ade a small sag.iii, ;'lavavile.
I was fed up with tl:e niggers" (p. l 54).
Co/Itel ing Empirical MateriaL Being out in the
field does. not afford one the luxu:y of video cam-
eras, s,nndproof rooms, a.:id high-quality record-
ing equipment Lofland ( 1971) provided detailed
information on do:i:g and writi1:g up interviews
and on the types of ficld notes that one ought to
takr and :iow 10 orga:iize them. Yet field-workers
often mt:st oake do wit!: what they can have in
the field; the "tales" of their methods used ran8e
from :iolding a miniature tape :-ecorcer as incon-
spicuously as ?Ossib'.e 10 taking mental notes and
then rushing to the privacy of a bathroom to jot
dowr: notes-at thr:es on toilet paper, We agree
w:th Lofland that, regarc.less of the circum-
stances, researdiers ough: to (a) take notes regu•
,e
larly and promptly, (b) wr: down everything no
matter how unimportant it migl:t seen: at the
time, ( c) try to be as inronspicuous as possible in
note taking, and (d} ana'yr.e :10:es frequently
Other Types of Lnstructured Interviewing
We consider the issue of interpreting and report-
i:lg empirkal material late~ in the chapter. In this
subsec:ion, we brielly outli:ie some d:fferent types
of unstnct1:red interviews.
Oral Hi,tory
The oral history dif:ers from other unstri:c•
tu:-ed interviews in purpose but not rr:ethodolog-
ically. The ontl collection of ni,tori.;a: materials
goes back :o andent times, but its moderr. day
formal organization can be traced to 1948 when
Ail an Nevins began the Oral History Project at
Colun:bia University (Starr, 1984, p, 4), The: oral
history captures a variety of forms uf lifo, from
co:nmon folks talking aboi.:: their jobs in Terkel's

11975) Working to the historical recollectio:is of
Presiden: Harry Truman :n Miller's (:974) Plain
Speukmg also Starr, 1984, p. 4}. Ofre:1 oral
history transcripts are not published, but many
ma>· he found in libraries. They are :ike silent
memoirs waiting for someone to rummage
through them and briI:g their testi • ony lo life.
Recently, oral history has found great popularity
in the feminist movement (Gluck & Patai, 1991 ),
where it is seen as a way of understanding and
bringing forth rhr history of wome:i in a culture
that has traditionally relied on masculine inter-
pretation: "Refusing to be rendered historically
voiceless any longer, won:en are creating a new
history-using our own voices and experiences"
{Gluck, 1984, p. 222).
Relev,rn; to the srndy of oral history (and, in
fact, to all 1nterview:ng) is the study of memory
and its relation to recall, ro~ instance. Schwartz
( 1999} exan1ined the ages at which we :ecall crit·
ical episudes i:i our lives, amducing that ''bio-
graphical men:ory .. , i~ better t:nderstood as a
sodal process" and that "as we look back, we find
ourselves remembering oi;r lives in :enns of our
experience with others" (p. 15; see also Schwartz,
1996). Ellis (1991) resorted to the use of "rndo-
logical :n:rospection" to reconstruct hlogmphical
episodes of her past lite. Notable among EIiis's
work in th:s genre was her reconstruction of
her 9-year relationship with her par:ner, Gene
Weinstein. Ellis ( 1995) described lhe emotional
negotiations the two of them went through as
they coped with his dowm,tard-sp' raling health
untll the final negotiation with death.
Creative lnter.,iewhrg
Close to oral l::istory, but used more conven-
tionally as a sociological tool, is Dougla~'s (1985)
"creative interviewing." Douglas argued against
the "how to" guides to comluct:ng interviews
because un.structured interviews take place in the
largely situational everyday world of members
of society; Thus, interviewers must necessarily
creative, must forget "how to" ru:es, and must
adapl to tl:e ever changing situations they face.
Sim :Jar to oral historians, Douglas described
Fontana & Frey: The !ntervi.::w JI 709
interviewing as co]ecting oral reports from the
members of society. In creative interviewing,
these reports go well beyond the length of con-
ventional unstructured interviews anci mav
become "life histo:-ies;' with interviewing taking'
?lace in multiple sessions over many days wM1
the respondents.
• PosTMODERK INTERVIEWl:-JG
Douglas's ( 1985) concern with the imporra nt role
played by lhe interviC'iver as humar:, a concern
that is also shared by the feminist oral historians,
becar:,e a paramount element in the interviewing
approaches postmodern anthrnpologists and
sociologists during the mid-1980s. Marcus and
Fischer (l 986} addressed ethnography at large,
but their discussion was germane to unstruc.
tured interviewing because, as we have seen, such
interviewing constit'.Jtes the najo:- way of collect -
ing data in fieldwork. Marcus anc Escher voiced
reflexive concerns about the ways :n which the
researcher influences the sudy, ':mth in the :11eth.
ods of data collection and in the techniques of
reporting findings. This concern led to new ways
of condm:ti:ig interviews in the hope of mini-
mizing, if not eliminal':1g, the interviewer's
influence. One such way is through polyphonic
interviewing, where the vilices of the respondents
are recorded with mininal i11f'.Jence from the
researcher and are not collapsed together and
reported as one through the interpreta:ion of the
researcher. Jnstead, the multiple perspecth·es
of the various respond ems are reported, and
differences anc problems encountered are dis-
cussed, rather than glossed over (Krieger, 198.3).
Inrerprerive ir.teracti,mism follows in the foot•
steps of creative and polyphonic interviewing,
but borrowing from James Joyce, it adds a new
element-that of epiphanies, wl::cb Denzin
(1989a) described as"those interactior:al moments
that leave marks on people's Eves :and J hil\/e
the potential for creating transformational expe•
riences for the person" (p. 15 ). Thus, the topic of
inquiry becomes dramatized by the focus 011
existential rr.oments in people's lives, possibly
 710 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESliARCH-CHAPT:2:R 27
producing ricl:er and more mea::ingful data,
Finallr, as postmodern:st, seek new ways of
understanding and reporting data, we note the
wncept of "oralysi~:' which refers to "the ways in
which oral li1rms, der:ved fro:n rveryday ;ife, are,
wit:l the recording powers nf video, applied to the
analytical tasks associated wit:1 Ii ternte for ms"
CC:mcr, I989, p. xi), In oralysis, the tracitional
product of 1111!:niewin g, talk, is coupled with the
visual, providing a prnducl con.so:mnt t+.'ith a
society :hat is don: inateri by the med iur:1 of tele•
vision ('JI mer, 1989 ).
• GENDC:RED l'JTERVIEWTN,,
The howsewifo goes into a we[-stockcd store to look
for a frying pmi. 'ler th inking probably does not pro·
ceed exactl>· this way, hut i: is hdpf.:l to thin~ of the
many posslbk twu-,,vay chckes ~he might make: Ca51
i rnn or alu:ninum? Thi,k or lhin? Me:al or wooden
:iandlei Covered n~ not~ Deep or shallow? Large or
~mall! This brn nd nr that? Reasonable or too high in
xice< To buy or not! Cr.sh or charg~ H,we it delivered
er carry i:? , .. The !we-way ,1ucstit1:i is sim;illdty
'.!self w~en i: mr:1es to recording answi:r~ and :abu-
:atin~ th,·m. (PJ'Yne. 1951, ?P 55-56)
The prece:dinr, i:'JlW: represents the p,evalent
paternalistic attitude toward women in interview•
ing (Oakley, 1981, :i. 39) as well as the <1,m,dig·
ma:ic conccrr, with c(;ding answers am:, therefore,
with pres,;:nhng limited dichotomm:s choices.
Apart from a tende:icy to be condescending to
women, the traditional interview paradigm does
not account for gendered diffe,e:1ces, In foe:,
Babbie's ( l 992) classic text, The Pra.:tice of Social
Re5earclt, briefly referenced gender 0:1 Iy three
ti mes and did not even mentinn the influence o:'
gender on interviews, As Oakley (1981) cogently
pointed oul, hoth the interviewer and the respon•
dent arc considered to he faceless and invisible,
and they must be i:' tl:c paradigmatic assump-
tion of gatheritg va:ue-free data is to be main-
tained, Ye:, as De:nir: (1989a) told us, "gender
filters know ledge" (p, 116): that is, the sex of the
interviewer and the ,ex of the rc,po nctnt make
a diferencc because the interview takes place
wilh:n the cultural boundaries of a paterr:alis:k
soc:al syste:n in whicl: masculine identities an:
di "ferentiatec from teminin cones,
In the typical interview, there exists a hicrar-
d1kal relatior:, wit'i the responden: being in :he
subordinate position. The interviewer :s instruc:ed
lo be ,ourtro1.,s, friendly, and pleasant:
The ir:;:ervi ewer's ma :rncr shtdd :1e lriemlly,
courteous, .:onversalional, and ur.biased, He shoJd
bt ncithe~ too grim nor too effusive; nei:hcr :011
ta:kative nor 100 timid. The idea should be :o ptlt
the re,pondenl a1 case,,l' that he will talk/i·,,,:!y umJ
fully (Selltiz, Jahoda, Dcu:sc::, & Cook, I965, p. 576,
emphasis :1dded)
Yet, as 11:e !~st Ii ne of this quote shows, this
demeanor is a ruse to gain i:1e :n:st anc co:1'i-
dc:1ce of the respondent without reciprncating
those feelings in a r:y way. The interv:ewer is not to
si ve his or her own opinions and is to evade direct
qJestions, What seems to ·:ie a ::onvcrsation is
really a one-way pseu,loconversation, raising
an ethical dilemm11 (Fine, 1983-1984) inherent
:n the s:udy of people for opportunistic reasum,
\Nhc11 the respondent is female, the interview pn: ·
sents added problems because the prees:ah:i.shed
format directec at information rr:eVant for the
study tends both to ignore the respondent's ow:i
concerns and to c;1rtail any attr:m pis lo d igre,;;s
and elahorate, T:iis format a:so stvmies ;mv reve·
'
lation of personal foelilll!S a:1d emotions.
;
Warren (1988) discussed problems of gencer in
both anthropological and sociological fieldwnr:,,
and many of these problems are also fom:d i:1 the
ethnographic intervinv. Some of faese problems
are the traditional ones of en~re~ and trust foat
may be he'ghtened by the sex o~ the interv :ewer,
espedally in 'iighly sex-seg:egaled societies:
I 11,:vcr witn,•s;;.•d Jny ceremonies that were barred
t~ women. Whenever I visifc,J rnmpmmds, I ,at
with :he women while the men gathere::' in h~
,1arlors or in front of the compound, ... l never
ente:t:d any of the places w:wre m,:n sat arn:1 nd to
drink beer or pa!m wine and to chat, (Sudar·,asa,
1986, quolnl i,: Warren, I 988, F,, hi)

Solution;; to the :-;~ubler:1 hive been to view the
female antl:mpologist "s nncrog;·ny or to gra:it
!:er honorary r:1alc statu~ the durati 0:1 of
!:er researcl:, War rcn {J988) also pointed to
som.: adv ant tegcs of tbe researcher being tcmale
and, therefore, bei1:g seer: as :iarml.:s;; or invisi•
bk. Other ;iroblems arc associated wil:1 the
resca,·crrr·.~ status and race and with the context
of th: interview, and again these problems are
:r,agn'ficd for female researchers in a patemalis•
tic world. l'cmale interviewers at Lmes
:he added burdrn of sexua. overtures or covert
sexi:al hiissk's (p.
Feminist researchers are suggesting 1'1'.1ys in
which to circun:vent the traditional inlervkwing
paradg:n. Oakley (1981) noted that interviewing
is a masculim: paradigm that is embedded in a
rm.sn1I inc cnlmre a:id stresses ma8culint trails
while at the same time txdudir:!'1 traits, sach as
sensitiviiy and emotionality, arc ,:ulturally
viewed as fem in inc traits. However, there is a
g:"llwing reluctance, especially among female
researchers (Oakley, 19/ll; Rei1::1Jri, I992; S:11 ith,
198 7 ), :o cont i11ue : ntcrviewing women as
"objects" witb little or no rcgarc for them a~ bdi-
\'iduals. A'.though this reluctance ,tens from
moral and ethical reason,,, it is also relevant
methodologically.As Oakley ( 1981 ) painted out, in
interviewing there is '·:iu inti :nacy without r.:ci·
prodty" (p, 49). 'l'hm, the emphasis is sl:ifting lo
allow the development of a closer relation benveen
the interviewer and the respor:dent. Researchers
arc atte:upting to 11:i:iimize status difference.s
a:1d are du:ng away with the tradition;;: hierarchical
sin:ation in in~erviewing. Ir:tcrviewers can show
their :11,:.man side am: c.:in answ~r questio:i,s and
express feelings. \.fe:hodologically, this new
a;:i;:iroach provide& ,. grcate, spectrum of responses
and a greater insight into the lives of :hr ,cspon·
dents-or "participants:· to avoid lhe hicnm.+tical
pitfall (Reinhar,, 1992, p. 22)-because ii encm:,•
then: to control th,· seq1:encing am' langm1ge
of the inte:View while alsa allowing them the free
dom of open ·ended res;ionscs (Oak'.ey, l 98 I;
Rcinharz, 1992; Smith, 198 7). 'lb wit, "'Wmr:en were
always ... encouraged :o u112.: "'' into details uf
their personal hi~tories a:1,i to recount anecdotes of
funlarrn & Irey: The Interview ll 711
their wor'.<i ng lives. Muc:1 important inforrr:ation
was gathcn:.xl in this wa( IYt:ani.lle, 1984, quo:ed in
Rcinhari. 1992, p.
Herl, ( 1997a) made the self of the researcher
visible .1nd suggested that it is 01:'. y une of many
selves that researcher :akes to t:le fie:d. She
asserted lhat interviewers need to be rcf'.exive;
that is, they need to "have an or:goi11g conver,a·
ti on ahour experience while si m ultancous:y
living in :he moment" (p. viii). By doing so, they
will heighten the u:ide:,tand:ng of ciffercnccs
of ideologies, culture, and politic, between inter•
viewers and interviewees,
Eertz also :.mderscored the imporls1nce of
"voices~-how W? ( as ,ra:horn) express ar.d write
our stories, which daca we tr.elude a:id which data
we exclude, whose voices we choose to represer:t
and whose voices we choose not to represent. The
concern with voices is ?.!so found, very powerfully,
in Vaz's (1997) edited Oral Narrative Researd1
Wit.~ Black \'1iomcn. One of the cnn:ribuwrs, Ohbr.
(l 997 ). stated,
chJph:r is a inocest c,c;"'" in giving CXJ)TCS·
;;ion to women's voices and in rtsc:ng '.heir pc r,,,-ep·
liom ,;r:d c~perie:1ces being mere :n;mr.urs or
badldrop lo ;iclitical. social, and ~ultural happe::-
ings. Women'~ voices have been devalued male
chru::icks of .; J:ru ral :,istory evei: the :nen
acknowk,'gc frmale •~for;11ams; thry arc ove:shad
owed by ,h,:; voice of male authority ,rnccnJarm:
in ~,,.:ctv, (pp. 42-43)
This commit::ner.\ lo ma'ntaining the htegrity
of the phenomena and preserving the viewpoin:
of the r.:spondents, as expressed in their everyday
:anguagc, is very akin to p:1enomc11ological and
existen:ial sodolngie, (Douglas & Johnso:i, 1977;
Kotarba &: Fontana. 1984) a:id also reflects the
concern of po~tmodc:-n ethnographers 1. Mun:·Js &
Escher, 1986). The d'ffo,e:1ces are (al the height-
ened mor,il concern fo, re~pomlents/par'.kipants,
(b) the attempt to redress the male/tenale hier ·
ard1y aml exis:ing paternalistic power strnctme,
ar:c. (c) tl:e paramount importa:ice placed on
membership bernu se the effectiveness of n:ale
researchers in inter,;ewing femalr respondents
bee:i largely discredited.
7l2 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITAT[VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 27
Behar ( 1996) addressed the ambiguous nature
of the enterp~ise of interviewing by asking the
following questions. Where do we locate
researcher in the :ieli.:? How much do we reveal
ah out ourselves? How du we reconcile our d :ffer
ent roies and positions,? Behar made us see that
interviewer, writer, respondent, and interview are
not dearly distinct entities; rather, they are inte:-•
twined i:1 a ceeply problematic way. Beha, and
(;ordm1 ( l995) also cogently pointed out that
the seminal work by Marcus and Fisc:,er ( 1986)
broke ground wit!, modernistic etlmography but
remains an example of paternalistic sociology
because it did not address women's co;icerns.
Some feminist sociologists have gone beyond
the concern with interviewing or fieldwork in
itself. R:charrlson ( 1992a) strove for new forms of
expression to report the fir.cings and preser.ted
some of her fieldwork in the form poetry.
Clough ( 1998) questioned the whole enterprise of
fieldwork under the current paradigm and cailed
for a reassessment of the wl:o!e sodological enter-
prise and for a rereacing of existing sociological
texts in a light that is not marred by a paternalis-
tic -,ias. Their voices echoed the concen1 of Smith
(1987), who eloquently stated,
T:ie problem (of a research .,reject} and partic-
-Jlar solution are analogous tc those by which fresco
?ainte:s solved the problems of representing the
ciffcren: tempor11.: moments of a stary in the
:ar of the wall. The problem is to produce in a
:wo-dimensional ,-pace "'rarned as a wall a world of
action and lclOvcment 'r: time. (p_ 2~ I)
A growing nwnber of researchers believe that
we cannot isolate gender fro:n otl:er irr.portant
elements that also "filter knowledge:' For exa:nple,
Collins (1990) wrote eloquently about the filtering
of knowledge through memberships-of being
hlack ar:d female in Amerkan culture, in her case.
Weston ( 1998) made just as powerful a case for
sexuality, contending th at it shou Id r.or be treated
as a compartmentalized subspedalty because it
underlies and is integral to the whole of social
ences. It is dear that gender, sexuality, and :-ace
cannot be cumidered i:1 isolation; race, da.~s,
hierarchy, status, and age ISeidman, I991) all are
part o: the complex, yet o:ten ignored, elements
that shape interviewing.
11:11 FRAMING AND
JNTERPRETI:,JG lNTE:l.VIEWS
Aside from the problem of framing :eal-life
events in a two-dimensional spare, we face the
added problems of how the framing is being done
and who is do:ng the framing. In sociological
te:-ms, this means that the type of interviewing
selected, the :edmiques used, and the ways of
recording information all come lo hear on the
results of the study_ Ir. additio:1, data must be
ime,preted, and the researcher nas a great deal of
influence over what part of the data will be
reported and how data will be reported.
Framing Interviews
Numerous volumes have been publisl:ed on
the terhniques of structured interv:ewing (see,
e.g., Babbie. l 992; Bradburn et al_, 1979; Gorden,
1980; Kahn & Cannell, 1957). There is also a volu-
minous literature on group interviewing, espe•
dally 011 marketing, and survey research (for a
comprehensive revkw of literature in this area,
see Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). The uses of
group interviewing have also -::)een linked to qua!·
itative sociology (Morgan, 1988)- C'nstructured
:nterviewing techniques also have been covered
thoroughly (Denzin, : 989; Lofland, 1971; Lofland
& lotland, 1984; Spradley, 1979)_
As we !:ave noted, unstructured ir.terviews
vary widely given thei~ informal nature and
depending on the type of the setting, and some
eschew the use of any preesta::i:ished se: of tech-
niques (Douglas, 1985). Yet there ar" lechni<;-.ies
involved in interviewing w!lether the interviewer
is just beir:g "a nice person" or he or she is follow
ir:g a forr:-iat_ Techniques can be varied to meet
various situat'o::is, and varybg one's :echniques
is known as using tactics. Tradi:ionally. the
researcher is ir:volved in an informal conversa•
tion with the respondent; thus, the researc:1er
r:rnst main:ain a tone of "friendly" chat while

trying to remain dose to the guideEnes of the
topics of '.nquiry :hat he or she has ;n mind, The
researcher begins by "breaking the ice" with
general ques1ions 1111d gradulllly moves on to
more specific ones while also-.is inconspicu
ous:y as possible-as;.:ing questio:1s intended to
check the veracity of the respondent's state-
ments. The restarcher should avoic getting
involved in a "real" conversation in which he or
she answers questions asked by the respondent
or provides personal opinions on the mat:crn
discussed. The researcher can avoid "gett l:tg
t,&pped" by shrugging off the relevance of his or
her opinions (e.g., "It doesn't matter how I feel;
it's yoi:r opinion that's important") or by feign-
ignorance (e.g., "I ,ea:Jy don't know eno.1gr.
about this to say anytl:ing: you·re the expert").
Of course, as we have seen in the case of gen•
dered interviewing, the :·esearcher may reject
these tech:dques and "come down"to :he level of
the respondent :o engage in a "real" conve:-sa-
tion with give and take and shared e:npa:hetk
understanding.
The use of '.anguage. particularly that of spe·
df:c :erms, is importar:t to create a "sharedness
of mE'anings" in which both intt::viewer and the
respondent understar.d the contextual nature of
specific referents. For instar,ce, in studying nude
beaches, Douglas and Rasmussen (1977) discov-
e;ec that the term "nude beach virgin" r.ad noth-
ing to do with clta,t:ty; rather, it referred to the
fact that a person's buttow were white, indicat •
ing to others that he o, she was a newcomer to tr.e
nude :,each. Lang·Jage is also importan; in delin
eating the type of question (e.g., broad, narrow,
leadlr,g, instr i;.ctve),
Nonverbal technigi:es are also irr.:io~tant in
interview:ng. There are four basic • odes of
nonverrn1l communicatior.:
Proxemir mm::1unic,r'on is ;he .:se of i11terper-
~onal space ID com:n•~nkate attitud.:-s, cnr,onem1c
commun icatio:: :s the use of 1>adng cf speech an,:
lc:igth of silence in conversation, ki,w,it corr: ::mni-
cation includes body n:ovemen:s or poM ures.
and parafi11g11istk communicatio:: ir.dudes all the
irJriations in volume, pitch, a::d c;uality of voice.
(Gorden, 1980, p. 335)
Jio::tana & f7ey: The Interview 11 7U
All four of these modes represent importan:
:echniques for the researcher. :n addition, the
researcher shOL:ld carefully note and re.:or<l
respondents' use these modes because intt'r-
v'ew dala arc more than verbal records and
shonld incbde, as much as possible. 1101ive,hal
features of the interaction. fim1J:y, tedmiques
vary with the group bring interviewed; for
ins~ance, interviewing a group of ch ilri ,en
req uircs a di:':'erent approach faim the cme that
the interviewer may 1.1te when imerviewir:g a
group of elderly w:dows (Lopata, 198()).
An inttresting iiroposal for framing interview&
came from Saukko (2000), who asked, "How can
we be :me and respect the inner experiences of
people and at the same t:me critically assess the
c.il:ural discuurses that form the very stuff from
whkb cur exper'ence, arc made?* (p. 299), Using
the metaphor of patch,vork q·1ilts (which have no
center l, Saukko patched and s~itched together the
s:ories of five anorexic wome:1. This, she rejected
the idea of frarr.i:ig charade:, as monological and
insrear., borrowing from Hakhlin (I \186), pre-
se:1tcd the:11 as "dialogic ch amcters" {Saukko,
2000, p. 3U3 l-
Jnterprcting Interviews
Many s:udies that use unstructured inte:views
are not reflexive enough about the in:erpre:ing
pra,cess. Co:nmon platitudes proclaim tr.at datu
speak for themsdvc'S and t:rnl the researd:er ls
neutral, unbiased, and "invisible?' Tl:e data
re;::-orted tend to tlow nicely, there are r:o ~ontra-
dk:tory data, and there :s nu mention of what data
were exdndec: a:1<l why. Improprieties never haµ-
?en, .and the ma'n concern seems tu be the p~opcr
(if r.r.reflexivr) filing, analyzing, and reponing
of events. But a:Tyone who has rngagecl in field-
work knows better. Ko 1r.alter how org3niied
the researcher may be, he: or she slow'.y becomes
buried under an increasing mountain of field
notes, :ranscr: ::,ts, newspaper dippings, and audio-
tapes. Traditior:ally, ,,.,,;er< were presented with
the researcher's inte,prctation of the data, cleaned
and strea:nlined ar.d collapsed ii: a rational non-
contrndictory account. More recently, sociologists
 714 11 flANLJBOOK OF Q(;AUTATlVJ: lU:.SfARCH-CHAPTER
have come :o grips with tl:e retlex:ve, problematic,
and sometimes con! radk:tor)' nature of dutu and
with the tremendous, if unspoken, influence of the
researcher as author, \\11a; Van Maane:1 (1988}
called "confo,s:onal style" :icgan in earne,1 during
d:c 1970s {Johnson, 1976) and co:1tinued
unabated to our days in a soul deans ing by
resellrchers of pro '1lc r:1 at:c foe lings and sticky
situation, in the field, Although perh,,?,; somewhat
ovcrdo:w at ti mrs, tb:se "confes.,ions" are very
va:uahle because they make readers aware of the
rn:uplcx and 1,1lmbersome aature of interviewing
pell pie in their r:atura: settings and lend a :one
of rcali~rn ar.d veracity t11 stud:es. Malinowski
( 19671]989) provided a good exampk:"Yesterday I
slept very late. Gt,t ap ,iro:.md 10. The day before I
had engaged On:aga, Koc1pa, .ind a :ew otl:crs, They
didn't come. Again I fell into a rage" (p, 67),
Showing the human side of the r,;scarcher and
the p,LJbk,:natks d u:istrw.:t~!:1.'d ir11er, lewing has
taken nc'N lorms in decnm;tn:ction:sm (Derrida,
1976). Herc, tl:e influence of the author is brought
under scru :inv,' Thus, the text crea~ed bv, the rendi•
:ion €venh by the r, s:e,11Yh.er i:; "deco1:$truc:cd";
0
the au1°w,'s biases ar:d taken-for-granted notim:s
arc C1'post:d, and some! ime~ nlt,miative ways of
look'ng at the da: a are intrnd11ccd (Clough, 1998}.
?ostmodcrn scdal researcher,, as we have
seen, attempt :o expose the role of the researcher
as field-worker anc minim:ze his role as au:!mr,
For ir:stance, C:,1:>am:arm (1980) repor:ed Tuhamis
accuums, whether they were sociohistorica! ren-
dition,, dreams, or outright lies, bee ause they al:
consti:utcd a ;,art of c:iis J\fo:uccan Arab respon-
dent's sense of self and :iersonal history, l n inter-
view:ng Tuhami, Crap,mzano learned :iu: only
about his respondent but also about l:i:nself:
Tul:ami:~ i nterlo;; ,nor, [ became an active t>arcic-
i?,illt in his history, even though I rarely appear
d::1:.:tly in Not cnly did my· prcst•nn·,
and my q:.:e,t:ons, prepare him for the :.:r,t he was m
pm duce, hut the,· produced w::at I re:id ,ls ,, "'a11i;c
of rnnsrinu,ness in ::im. Tl:ey produced a :h,1ngc of
rnnscuusnes, ln me 100. V,e were both jostled from
our a;.sum ,ih:ns
. about the :iature o• the cvcrvdav
' .
world and m,,.,,,,1 v,,., and groped for rnmmtl:1
ence peints wil:iin this limbo of interchange. ( p. I : )
No longer prelem:::1g to he a faccles.s respondent
and an invisible researcher, Tuhami a:id Crapanzano
wcrr portrayed as individual lu;mans wit!: their
own personal 1iisto:-ies and idiosym:rasies, and
the readers learn about Iwo people and two
cultures.
Gubrium and Holstein (2002) acrn,lly CO:'l-
sidered thr in1rrview as a contextually based,
mutually acco:nplis:1e,: story that is reached
through collaboration oehveer: researcher am!
the res?ondenL Thus, just to rel: what happened
[the wh«t) is not enoagh because the what
depends gcently on the ways, negotiations, and
other interactive e:en1cnts that take place bet1xecn
:he ::esearcher and the respomlen (the how),
Others have addressed the same concerns, at times
enlarging the one-to-om: i1:teraclirm lo intern.:-
tinn ',e:ween the researcher and a whole wmn:u-
niry or outl!ning the various type,; of coJi1borat:ve
interviewing (Ellis & Berger, 2002).
The discoverv of rcflciivitv proved to be an
' '
epiphanic mo1:1ent for llanist~r (1991.JJ. 011cc
she was able to realize that her study of 1:1idlifo
women resonated strong personal notes with r:er
midl'fe experience, Banister acknowledged that
the she was not ;·Jst a witness to her respondents
and came to see Jim in al: ty of her position.
Thus, she was ab:e to understand the women's
midlife experience as well as her own and to rearh
a deep ethnogm~'.hic understandin11.
Another powerful way in w:1ich to accentuate
retlex:v'ty in interviewing is through narrative,
wl:cre in trying to unC:erstand the "other" we learn
about (ou,)"selves;' 1·eaching lhc hermeneutic
drde, that is, tht> circle of understanding IRa,inow
& Su:livan, 1987; Warren, 2002). Deniin (2OO3b)
noted that writers can gain knowltdge about
themselves by b,i11ging forth :heir autobiog:-a•
phicai pa st; in a way, they a:re bringing the
?ast into die present (Pinar, 1994). Denzin (2003a)
?roposed that this perhaps can best he achieved
through the use of perfom:ances rarhcr than tm
citional writing modes as a way in which to reach
acrn~s the divide and extend a hand to those who
have been oppressed. In performance, we infose
powerful feelings and try to re..:reate a way in
whid1 :o t:1,derstand these we study and ourselves

in our relationship to them, that is, not merely to
create new sociological knowledge but also lo use
that hand to grasp and pull the downtrodden out
of the mire in which :hey are rnfocating.
Ill EnucAL Co:>1SJ)l'RA-:-mws
Because the objects of inquiry in interv'ewing are
humans, extreme care must be taken to avoid any
harm to them. Trad:tionally, ethical concerns have
revolved around the topks of informe,l consent
(receiving consent by the respondent after having
carefully and truthfully informed him or her abou:
the research), right to privacy (protecting the icen-
tity of the respondent). anc protection from harm
lphysical, emotional, or any other kind).
No sociologists or other social scientists would
dismiss these three ethical concerns, yet there
are other ethical concerns that are less onani-
• o·Jsly upheld. The controversy over overt/covert
fieldwork is more germane to participant obser-
vation but could include the surreptitious use
of tape-recording devices. Warwick ( 1973) and
Douglas ( 1985) argued for the use of covert
rr.ethods because they mirror the deceitfulness of
everyday-life rea:ity, whereas others, including
Erickson ( 1967}, vehemently opposed the study of
unlnforr.1ed respondents.
Another problema:ic issue stems from the
researcher's degree of invn:vement with the gmup
:1:1der sti;dy.Whyte ( 1943) was asked to vote more
:han once during the same local electior:s (:.e., to
vote megally) by fae members of the group to
which he had gained access and befriended,
thereby gaining the group members' trust. He
used "situational ethics; that is, judging the legal
infraction to he minor in comparison with the
loss of his fieldwor;.: if he refused to vote more
than once. Tr.ompson (1985) was faced wit;; a
more serious :,o,:srn.e legal breach. He was terri-
lied at the prospect of having to witness one of
the a!leged rapes fur which the Hell's Ange:s
had become r:otorious, but as he reported, none
took place during his research. The most
famous, and widely discussed, case of questio:i-
able ethics in qualitative sociology took place
Fontana & frey: The Inlrrview • 715
during Humphreys's ( l 970) research for Tearo<>m
Trade, Humphreys studied homosexual em:oun-
ters :n public restrooms in parks ("tearooms") by
acting as a lookout rwatch queen"). Although
this fact h: itself may br seen as unethical. it is
the following one that raised many academic eye-
brows. Humphreys, unah:e to interview the men
in tl:e tearoo:11, recorded their cars' li,;ense plate
numbers, which led him to find their residences
with the help of police files. He the:i interviev,ed
many of the men in their homes without belr.g
recognized as having been their watch queen.
A twist in the degree of involvement with
res?om:lt:nts came from .i controversial article by
Goode (2002) in which he summar:ly dismissed
years of research with the fat civil rights orgar.iza-
tion as a "colossal waste of time;' Goode discussed
the problematics of sexual intimacy between
researchers and re,pondents and acknowledged
that he had casual sexual liaisous with some of
the respondents. In fact, he farhered a child with a
person he hac mer at research meetings. Goode',
article was pi:blished along with a number of
respor:ses, all of :hem very critical (ir. different
ways) of Goode's cavalier approad: I He:i, 2Dll2;
Marmi:1g, 2002; Sagui, 2002; Williams, 2002}.
Perhaps t'.1c following quote fro:n Williams {2002)
best surr:marizcd the feeEngs of :he scholars
responding to Goode: "I would hope and expect
that sociologists wd their audiences could under-
stand public discrimination without sleeping
with its victims" (p. 560).
Annther ethical problen: is . 'ly the
veracity of the reports made by researchers. For
example, \.\'hyte's ( 1943) famoc.s study of l:aEan
street comer men in Boston has come under
severe scrutiny (Boelen, I992) as some have
alleged lhat Whyte por:rayed the men in derr:ean-
ing ways that did not reflect their visions of
tl:emselves. V.byte's rasc is stlll un:esolved; :t
illustrates the delicate issue of e:hical decisions :r:
the "lelc and in re?o:ting field notes, even more
than 50 years later (Richardson, 1992b).
A growing nu:1i:ier of scholars. as we have
seen (Oakley, 1981). feel ft.al most of traditional
ir.-depth i:1trrviewing is Jnethical, whether wit-
tingly or unwitting'.y. :-he techniques and tactks
 716 • H:\Nlll:IOOK Or QUAUTATIVI' RESEAHCH-(IIAPTER i.7
cf interv;ewhg, they say, are ::eall}' ways of
mar:ipulating the res?ondents while treating
t:1em as objec:s or number, rather than as indi-
vidual l:u:nans. Should the qu!C5t for objectiv'ty
supe:-sede the human side of those we stt:d y'
Con sider the following:
One day while doing research at the mnvalesccn:
cent;: r, I wa:; lalkir:g to one ,Jf the aides while she
was hegi 11 ning to ch,mge the bedding of one of the
pat:erits who had Jrinatrd and soaked the bed,
He was :he okl, blind, ex-wrt'stle~ ccnfind in the
emergenry room, Smk:enlr, the wres:ler decided he
was not going lo cm>pernte with ti 1e ~ ide and
striking violently al the air ahout him, fortunately
mi,~ing the ~ide. m,hody else was around, I
had no .:ho:cc butto hnld the patie~.t piom,c down
to : he be<! while the aide proceeded to ch,mgc the
·,e.kling, It was not pleasar:t: The pal:cnl wa~
,quirming and yeW::g ho~rible threats al the top ,if
:iis vokc; tht add .s:":11;11 L. :'inc was mmscating; I
was slowly· hisi1:g gr:p 0:1 the m,1ch stronger
:1ati~::l, while all alnng le,:li ng horrib: y lilre Chief
Rron:d,"n w'len he suffocates the lobotomized
:,,,.1ac~lutp:'ly in Krn Kesey's no\•el. fin/ I/Jere W!i5 r.o
"""m': one j;m could uor luuk and wk;; twi~
wlrd, tire ,tmtieFf! tore aparttr,e ~idc, (fontu:ia, 1977,
:1. J87, cmp:ias:s addec l
A d1apter (E.:'.w,irds &: Ma;,ithner, 2002) in a
recent edited volume (:,,1au6:ier, 3irch, Jessop, &
Mille,, 20D2 l presented new insight cm :he ethics of
fen:inist rcseaxh, &wards and Mauthncr (2002)
out:incd the various models of ethics c:1,rently
cxist:ng; the univ.:r,alist models based on ~,miver-
prindpies such as honesty, jus:kc, and resprct"
or based on "'goodness' of outcomes of research"
(p, 20). In cont;ast, a rhird model is based on
"contextual or simational ethical posit:on" (p. 20).
The aurhors noted rha: a majority of feminist
researchers (if not of them) have focused o:i
care and responsibility, that is, on cor:textually
based ''feminist-informed social mlurs" (p. 2 I).
The aut:iors lauded the wo;k of Denzin (I 997)
for applying these fenl nist prind~les to social
research, Howevt·r, they found that some of
Dem:ins ;deas could be refined to :;ume degree, tor
instar:ce, Denzin ( 1997) advo-:a!ed a ~yn:mctrical
relation between researchers and respondents,
whereas others (e.g., Young, 1997; critici:;;ed this
as "r:either possible nor dcsirnble" (Edwards &
Maulhner, 2002., p. 26) and called imtead for
"asy:nmetrkal redprocitY:' I:1 rhe words of the
'Edwards and .',fa11t:111er (2002}, "Rathe:- than
ignoring or blurring power pus[tions, ethical prac-
tice needs to pay allention to them" (p, 2'i).
Clearly, as we move forward with sociology,
we cannot-lo paraphrase what Blur:1cr sail: so
many years igo ······· :et :he nethnds dictate our
images of humans. As Punch ( 1986} st:gj:!eSted, as
field-workers we nerd to ext:rcise common sense
and responsibility-and, we would like to add, lo
u;u respondents flr:st, to the study m:xl, and to
u:irse]ves last. As Johnson :2002) empi:hkally
prodai mcri, regardless of what criteria we wish
to adopt for Interviewing, "the most important
ethical imperative is to tell the truth'' (p, 116}.
111 NEW TRENDS l:-l INTERVJEWJN(,
The lates: trends in lnterviewl :1g have come some
dstar.cc from stn:ctured tJuestions; w..: have
reached the point of t!:e :ntc~view as negotiated
text. Etl:nographe:s have realized fo~ quite some
ti me that researcher, arc not invisible neutral
entil ks; :-athcr, they a re pa rt of the i:1teras:tion
lhey seek to stucy, and they influence tha: inter-
action. A: last, intervie,;ving is being brought in
line with ethnography. Tl:ere is a growing realiza·
tc1: that intcrviewers are not the mythical neut ml
tools rnv;sioned by survey research. Intrrvi ewers
are incrt"asingly seen as active par:icipants iT: ar:
interaction wltr. responcents, and intcrvi ews are
seen as negotiated ac,om ?Ii sI: men ls of boll:
i111en iewe:,; a:id responccnts that are shaped ::iy
the contexts and st tuations in whic:1 they take
place. Schwandt ( l 99i) noted, "It has beco:m,
increasingly common in ,:militat:ve s·ud ies to
view the intrrvirw as a form of dsmurs~ between
t'lm or more speakers or as a linga'stk eve:. Lin
whi~h the meanings of questions and respor:ses
are contex:ually groundec and jointly mn.str Jcted
by inlenic:wer a1:d respondent" (p. 79). Vie are
beginning to realize that we ca:mo: lift the results
of ir:ten•iews 0111 of the contexts in which t':tey

were gathered and claim them as objective data
with no strings attm:hcd.
The Interview a.s a
l\cgotiated Acco11:plisluncut
Let us brieflv recall !he two :radi,ional
' '
appro;icht'l:l to the i11tervi1:w, fo:lowing Holstein
a:1d Gubriurr. ( 1995, I997). The authors Jse
Converse and sc·:rnman's (1974) Convt'rm,i,ms at
Random as an exemplar of the interview as used
in survey research. In this context, ::ie interviewer
is carefully :nstrncted to rc::rni:l as pass; ve as
possible S{J as tu reduce his or her intluem:e; the
scope ofthe interviewer's function is tu ,Kcess ll:e
respcnc.cnt's answers. :bis is a rational type of
interviewing; it assu:nes that thrrc is an objective
knowledge out there and if that one can access it
if he o: she is skilled enough, just as a skilled sur•
geon cr.r, remove "kidney frou: a donor and use it
in,, d:ffecent context (e.g., fo: a patient awaiting a
1ra11splirnt;.
Holstci n and Gubriu r.1 (I 995, : 997 J regarded
Do·.ig:ats ( 1985) creative interviewing as a
romanfaist type of interviewing. Douglas's inte~·
viewing is hasi.!d 0:1 jf,clings; it assu:nes that
researchers, as interviewers, need m"gel to know"
the respondents bc:1cath tl:eir :ational fornde,
and that resean:hcrs can ,each responden:s' dL·cp
well of emotions by ,;:ngaging them and by ,har-
ing foeliogs and thuughts with them. Douglas's
in1ervicwl:~ is ce:1ainly r:1o~e active and far :ess
neutral than Converse and Schuman's Interviewer,
but the assu1r. r':ions are still 1~ c smne-• t h:it
tl:e skills of the interviewer wi[ provide access tu
knowledge and that there is a core knowledge tl:at
the researcher ca:1 acecss.
HDbtein and Gubrium ( l995) fin,dy consld·
crcd fae :1ew type of intcrv:ewing, although
"new" isn't exactly accurate given that their refer-
ence for this is the work of lthiel de Sola Pool,
published in 1957. :-o wit, "Every interview
:, ... an interpersonal drama with a dcvc:op:ng
?:ot'' (Pool. l9S7. p. 193, q;ioted in Ho:stein &
Gubriu tr. 1995, p. 14 }. Holstein ,ind Gubrium went
o:i to discuss :hr:: ,o far we have focu,ed on the
whats of the in1ervie1,v (the substantive ifocings)
For.tana & l:'rcy: The lnteniew 111 717
and that it is now time :n pay attent:on to the hows
of t:ie inten·iew ( the context, partkalar situation.
m:am:es, manners, people involvo:I, etc., in which
ii:terview interactions take place}. This concept
harks back to ethnomet:iodology, according :o
Holstein and Gubrium: "To ,ay that the interview
ls an interpersonal drama wit!: a develo?'ng
plot is part of a broader dai:n that ,ea lit 11 is rs.
ongoing, interpretive accompEshment" (p. le).
Garfinkel, S<1cks, am: o:h~rs deady sl.lted during
t:1.e late I960s that reality is an ever-cha11gin1,,
ongoing accomplishment based on the practical
r:asoning of the members of society. It is time to
consider the interv:ew as a prac:ical p,oduction,
the n:eaninti of which is accomplished at the
htcrsection of the interaction of the interviewer
and the rcsponden:.
In a later essay, Guhrium and Holstein ( 1998)
contim:ed their argi:ment by looking at inter•
viei¥s as storyte11ing, whicl1 they saw as a pra.:ti·
cal production used by n:crr.bcrs of society to
acco:np: ish coherence ir. :heir accounts. Once
morr, 1:1cy ennmrnged m lo examine the hm,•s as
well as t:1c whars of storytelling, Simil.irly, Sarup
( l 995) tnld us,
F.acl, narrative has lwo parts, a story (lihwire) and
a discour5e ;discour:'e). The s:cry is the mn:rnt,
or chain of eve::ls. The story is the "wha:" in a m:r•
rative. the di,cc.ur,c i, the "how." T",e discourse i,
rnther like a ?lot, ::ow the reader becon:es aware of
what l1appened, fa1:i! l the order of appearance of
t:1e events. (p. 17)
Gubrium and 11ulstein arc :1ot aloi:e in
advocating this ret1exive ,,pproach :o interviews.
Rot!: Silverman (I 9':13) and Dingwall {1997)
credted Cicourd's (1964) classic work, ,'vfethod
and Measunmienl in Sociology, with point :ng Lo
the interview as a soc:al encounter. Di:lgwall
( l997) noted,
If :he in:erview i, a wdal <'ncmmtcr, then, lcgicall)·,
i: 1m:st be an.dvsed in the samt wav as anv o!htr
' ' '
sod al en co 1: ::ler. Tr.e products flf an intcrvic;,· .:re
the 011tcomc of a s,,1dallv sit:,:ated ad:vitv when: the
' '
responses are passed through the rok-playing and
irr:prcs,ion man~gement nf hc,r:: the interviewer
and Inc r~sr,ondenr. (p. 56)
 718 • HANDliOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 27
Seidman ( 1991) discussed interviewing as a
relationship by relying on a principal ir:tellectual
antecede:it of the ethnomethodokigist Alfred
Schutz. Seidman analyzed the interviewer-
respondent relation in terms of Schutz's (1967)
"I-Thou" relation, where the two share a red•
procity of perspecthre and, by both being "thou"
oriented, crea tc a "w;!' relationship. Thus, :he
respondent is no longer "an object or a type"
(Seidman, : 99 I, p. 73 ); rather, l11e respondent
becomes an equal par:icipant in the interaction.
To recapin:Jate, we must find someone w1lling
to talk to us (Arksey & Knight, 2002}. Then we go
through many creative stratagems to find more
respondents (War:e:i, 2U02; Weiss, 1994). Then,
we talk to the respondents and attend to t:'le
meaning of the stories :hey weave while interject-
ing our ow:i perspectives. Warren (2002) puts
it beautifully: "In the social interaction of the
qualitative interview, the perspectives of lhe
inte:viewer and fhe respondent dance together
fur the moment but also extend outward in social
space and backward and forward in time" (p. 98)_
Finally, we try to piece together the kaleidoscope
of shapes and colors into a col:erent story-
something that has sone meaning ar:d, in the
comn:ot understanding tha: we achieve, brings
us all duser toge:her (Atkinso:i, 2002).
The Problematics of New Approaches
Some the proponents of the ethno•
rm::thodologkall y informed interview are critical
of both interactiunisl and posith•is~ intervirw
methods. Dingwall ( 1997), as well as others,
spoke of the ro:mmtk movement ir. ethnography
(and interviewing)-the idea that the nearer we
come to the respondent, the closer we are to
apprehending the ":ea! self' This assumpt:on
neglects tl:e fact that the self is a process :hat is
eH:r :1egot:ated and acrnmp;\shed in the interac-
tion. Dingwall also faulted the "postmodern"
mm; that is, if thex is no real self, tl:en there is
110 real world and so we can create one of our
own. Finally, IJingwall was troubled by the
"crusadinf nature of the romantics and as:<ed,
"What is the value of a scholar:y enterprise that
is more concerned with being'right on' than with
being rightt" (p. 64).
In a similar vein, Atk!noon and Silverman
( 1997) rejected the postmodern notior: of "poly-
phonic voices;• correctly noting that the in:e,•
viewer and the respo:ide:it collaborate together
.
to create an essentiallv monoh:wk ::, .
view of real'tv.
This san:e rejection rould be made by using
Sclrntz's '"
' · 96-) . "I" an d "thOll"
1 argt:m en,, t hat is,
create a unified ~we" ratber than two separate
versions of it.
Ethnomethodologically informed interview·•
ing is not, however, immune fro:n critids1:1 itself.
Schutz (1967) assumed a reciprocity of perspec-
tive that might not exist. Granted, in our Interview
!;ociety, we all know the commonsense routines
and ground rules of interviewing, but in other
societies this mig:1t not be the ca~e. Bowler (1997)
attempted to interview Pakistani women about
their experience wi:h materr. i:y services and
:imnd a total lack of understanding of the value of
social research and in:erviewing:
I 'lad told lhe:n Lhat : was writing a book rm my
findings. Yams, who spoke the better English, Iran~·
la:ed this •,,;ith a lcok of disbelief on her face, am'
the:: they both ,!issnlved into laugh:er. The :~o~;,i-
tals were very gt:od. There weren't any prob:em~.A[
was well. ([J.
Bowler was fo:I:ed :o con dude that interv iew;ng
might not work when there is no "shared nmlon of
the process of research" (p. 66).
Silverma:i (1993} envisioned a different prob-
lem. He seemec :o feel that some ethnomethodol-
ogists have suspended their interest in substantive
concerns of everyday life, daimi:!g t:i ..t they can-
not address them untL they knew :nore about fae
• ways in whkh lhese realities are accomplis:ied.
He no:ed, "Put simply, accord!r.g to one ;eading
of Cicourel, we would focus on the conversadonal
skllls of ::ie participants rather on the con~
tent of what they are saying and its relation to the
world outside the interview" (p. 98).
Cicourel (1970) stated that sociologists :1eed
to outline a workable :irodel of the actor before
engaging :n the study of self and society. Garfinkel
held sim[ar beliefs. For ir.,tance, in his famous

study of a transsexual nae1ed Agnes, Garfinkel
(1967) examined the routines by wh:ch wdeta:
members pass as males or females; he had iittle or
no interest m ;ssJes transsexuality ptr se. Thus,
it would :'ollow that, according to Silverman's :-ead-
ing of ethnomethodology, we should learn the
conversational methods before attempting to
learn substantive matters :n in:t~\'iewing,
• Fun;RE DIR!iCTIO>JS
Tb borrow from Gubrium and Eolstein (1997),
''Where do we go from (p, 97), We
witr, these two au:hors a concern with appreciat•
ing the ne,.v horimm; of post:nodemis:u while
simultaneously remaining conservatively comm:: -
ted to t'!e en:pirical description of everyday life.
Gubrium and Holstein ( I998) introdcccd a tech-
nique called "a:ialytk bracketing" to deal with the
multiple \eve;s of Jnterviewir:g (and ethnography):
We mav fo,u~, for example cm lww a story is being
'.•~Id, while tempor.rily defe:Ting our co::cern for
1he various l!'hats that are involved-for example,
the substan,e, slru,ture, or plot of the story, the
context within which it is told, ()f ,he audie nee to
whic:i h is acccunlau:e, 'Ne ca;: later r~tur:·. to thest
issues. (p, 165)
The use of this analytic 'Jracketir.g allows the
authors to analyzr interviewing in its coherence
and diversity as an event that is collaboratively
acl:itved and in which product and p:ucess a,c
mutually constituted,
A pressing pmblem in interviev,ing concerns
the kl nds of standards that we should ,1pply to
these new and different types of interviews,
To assume absolute rclativis:n l!i not the ,:;olutiun
because it would lead, in Silverman's (1997b l
words, to the "sociology of navel-gaz:r:g" (p, 24()).
Sil vcrman proposed an aesthetics for research,
rejecting attempts to use literary forms Ill sociol•
ogy: '':f [ want to read a good poe:n, why on earth
should I turn to a social science journal?" (p. 240 J.
Silverman's cr:tiquc of interactionist sociology
and p:uposal for aesthetic vah:es seemed m focus
on the following three points, First, he attacked the
Fontana & hey: The : t:terview Ill 719
grandiose political theorizing of British ,mdology
and invoked a ,eturn to more modest, more
minute goals, Second, he rejected the romantkist
notion of eqi:atir.g experience (frcr:1 the members'
viewpoint) with allthentidty, Third, he noted that
in sociology we mimic :he ma,, media of t~c
interview society, thereby succi,:r:1hing :D the :riv-
ial, the kitschy, the gossipy, and the :nelodramatk
and ignoring simplicity and profundity.
Silverman's ( 1997h) notions that we should
pay attent:on to mimite details in socinlogical
studies. rather than embarki::g or. grandiose
abstract projec:s, in a way was not diss.imilar
to Lyotard', (19tl4) appeal for a return :o lm;a:
elements a:1d away from metatheorizing. l;or
Silverman, the "minute" delails are tbe sma:1
details that go on in front of our eyes in our
everyday llfe-vcry similar to Garfin kel's mun
dane rm:~ines that allow us :o sustain 6e world
and interact with each other.
We agree with Silvem:an that we need to stop
deluding our,elves that in our partkufor n·.s:tr.oc,
(whichever it may be), wr 'rnvC' tbe key lo the
1:nderst.ir.cing tbe ;,elf. \Ve also agree that it is
impt:rative we look ncv.: stancards given
that we are quickly d'.gressing into a new form of
;he theater of U:c aJsurd (and w: :hout the '.iterary
t1a'r, we fear), Rut we tannot vr.iit lo find a model
of the methods usr(: hy partidpants in interviews
or i:i everycay life Jetorc we proceed; Cicourel's
(I 970) invar:ant p:operti cs of interaction turned
out to be so general as to be of little use to sodo•
logkal inquiry.
We need to proceed hv looking at the subs:an-
tive concerns of the membc:-s of society while
si • ultaneocsly examining the conseuctive activ-
ities used tu produce order in everyday! ifo and, all
along, remaining reflexive aboJt how interviews
are uccmuplis:ied (Guhrium & Holstein, 1997,
I998). Forinstance, as ;laker (1997) pointed out,
a rcsearche:- tel'.ing a respm:dei,t th al "I am a
mother :hree" versus 1elling the respm:dent
that "I am a univers: ty professor" accesses differ-
ent categories and elicits different accounts. We
need tu move on w: th sociulogica: inquiry, even
tl:01:r,b we reali;.e that comlil iuns arc less t'ian
perfect. To paraphrase Ro hert Solow, as citec by
 720 'Ill H4NDBOOK Of QUAIITATIVE RESliARCH-CHAPTl:'R 27
Geertz (I 973), just bcGJuse complete ascpsis is
i:npos~ihle does nnt mran that we may just as well
perform sur15ery in a sewer.
A different kind of future direc:ion for inh:r-
viewing s:err.s larg,;ly from the new fer:1ini.s,
interv'ewing practices. The tr.1d::iona: interview
has pa:nstakingly a:tempted to maintain neutral•
ity and lchieve ohject'vi:y and has kept the
role of the h1tervie,11er as invisib:e as possible.
Feminists instead are rebelling against the
tkc c,f exploiting respondents and wish to use
inten:iewing for ameliorative purposes. To wit,
'r.s res~archers wit!: a commitr:1e11t to chcmgr, we
must decenter llurselves fron: the 'ivory tower' and
construe: more pa,licipatory, democratic prac•
tices. We must keep pwJ•ie and politirs at lhf' center
of our rese,m:ir" (Benmayor, 1991, ?P· J 72-1
emphasis add~dJ. Dellzin (l 997) refertl'c to tnis
ap1:1rnach as the "feminist, cornmm:itarian c:hical
moder' (see al,o Linmln, 1995) and told us,
The fomi1::.st, commun ilar:an researcher does nol
:nv.,dc the privacy of others, use informed umscnl
fort:1s, sdcct ~::bjec.s ra ncomly, or ::1eamrc
resear('h d,•sigic.s in terr:: of thdr \.':ilidity. This
'r, m,,work presumes il n:s,:,m:::er whn builds ::ol•
labcrnlivc, :e.:i~m,,,J, trusling, and frie·1dly rcla-
l ion, with those studie,'. , .. It i.s als<J understood
rhal those studied have dain:s of ownership over
,mf mr.terial, thal an, pmdnrec in the research
prnce,,, inc:uding fkk: notes. ( De 11zl n, 1997, p. 275 l
Ct1:nhi ning the rnles of the scholar and the
teminist may be proJlematic and sometimes may
lead to co:i ~l ic l if the researcher has a differer:t
polit1cal orientation from thal of the people stud-
ied (Wasserfo.11, 1993), bu: this appmach m,q. also
be very rewarding in allowing tl:e researcher to
sec po:;itive r~a: ts ,temr:1ing from the resea,d:
(Gluck, .99 l ).
A thirc kind of future direction, one that is
a:ready here hut is likely :o expand greally iu t:re
nea:: fature, is that of performance 1c1:d poetics.
l cumhine Ihe two because they stem fror:1 the
same concerns for speaking with tb, voices of
the respo:ider.:s and taking a helping stance
towan: them. Also, they both possess an expres-
sional t~upe that goes beyond the trnditional
one of social sciences-prose. Dentb (2003a)
championed performance to the 1;1tdu::.io11 of
other modes of rdating social science (ethnog-
raphy anc interview). t>erformance does not
bccorr:es fixed in a written t.:xt to be read later;
r<1ther, performance is doing, is now, and has
feelings., passions, joy, tears, despair, and hope,
Pe:formance car reach to people's hearts and not
only their m:nds, Performam:e can be a powe:ful
instn11:1ei :t for so~ial reform, for righth:g sorr:e
wrongs, and for helping those ii, need. Perfor.
ma nee relates to penple in our media society;
it draws interest, draws attention, and leads to
qucstioninJ::.
Poelics upemks in a similar way by e:1capsu-
lat:ng in a we:ter of feeling._~ and emotions a !iii:
story, an epiphanic moment in the life, a tragedy,
a moment of sorrow, or a mon:cnt of utter joy.
Consider t~ e reply o:' Louisa May, a ~ort of avern!l-e
woman from Tennessee, wl:rn her partner asked
her :o terminate he: pregnancy:
Jody May's father said,
"Get an Abortion:•
I told him,
''I would nev;;:r :narry you.
I would never marry you.
i would never.
ram going to have this cl:ild.
I am going to.
I am. I am,
Richardson'$ (199 7) mas:erful poem captured
the soul of Louisa May, and through !he poem we
come to know that womar:, we know h.:1 fi:ejngs,
and oi.:r heart goes out lo her.
:lichardson (2002), in speaking about poetry
poi:Jted ont tl:at prose is privileged only hccause it
is empowerrd hy the l'urrent system, yet it is only
or.e of many tropes of expression, :ncluding per-
fonnance and poetry, in a m:,vly fragmented world
which not only ine!a!heories hut also ,nodt's of
expre,sion hcve heen fmgmcntrd.and we can now
speak in many voices and in different tropes.

Electronic Interviewing
An other direction currently being taken in
ir:terviewing Is related to the changing technolo-
gies available, Tl:e reliance on the inrerview as a
r:1eans of information gathering most recently has
expanded to electror:k outlets, with question•
r:aires being ad:ninistered by fax, electronic mail,
and websl:es. Es~imates suggest that nearly 50%
of all hot.:seholds have computers and that nearly
l:alf of :hese use the Internet. Sofrware that allows
resea:chers to schecule and archive interview data
gathered by chat room interviews is now available.
The limited populat:cm of pote:1tial responcients
with access to computers makes surveys of the
general population ir: feasible, but electronic
interviewing can reach I00% of some s;,edalized
pop•Jlatlor.s (Schaefer & Dillman, 1998).
It is now possible to engage :n ;,virtual inter-
viewing;' where I:1term,: connections are used
synchronously or asynchronously lo obtain infor-
ma:ion. The advantages include low cost (1m tele-
phone or :nterviewe, charges) and sp<."ed of
return, Of course, fa.:e-to-~ace interactio:1 is elimi•
nated, ai, is the possibility of both the i:lterviewer
and the respondent reading nonverbal behavior
or of cueing from gender, mce, age, class, or other
perso:ial characteristics. Thus, establishing an
interviewer-interviewee «relationship" and "livir.g
the momen:" wh:ie gathering information (Hertz,
I9\l7a} is dfficult if not i:::npossi"::>le. Internet su:--
veys make it easy for rcsponde:its to manu:actnre
fictional social realities without anyone knowing
the difference (Markham, 1998)_ Of course, inter-
viewers can deceive respondents by daiming to
have experiences or characteristics tha: they do
not have in hopes of establishing better rapport
T:1ey can feign responses for the same purpose by
claiming "false nooverbals:· for exa:nple, te!Eng
re~ponder_ts that they "laughed at" or '"were pained
hy" par:icular comrr:ents. Markham (1998), in
her autoethnography of lnterr:et interview:ng.,
repartee: that electronic interviews take longer
than their traditional counterparts and that
responses are more cryp:ic and le.ss in depth; how-
ever, the interviewer has time tn phrase follow-up
questions or pro'::ies properly.
Fontana & Frey: The Interview • 721
It ls also virtually impossible to preserve
anonymity in Internet e mail s:.irveys, but
chat rooms and similar sites permi: the use
of pseudonyms. Although e!ectrunlc interviews
are currently used primarily for quanlita tive
research and usually employ structured
tionna(res, it is only a mattcr of lime before
re.searchers adapt these techniques to q'.rnEta:ive
work, just as they have adapted electron le tech•
niques of data analysis. For example, Matkham
(] 998) :mmersed herself in proo:ess of
engaging with varitlUS elecl:unk or Internet
formats (e.g., chat rooms, llstservs) to interview
other part id pa:1ts and to docament her journey
in the virtual world, learning the experience of
cyberspace and the i:ieani:igs that participants
attached to their online lifestyles. She asked an
intriguing c;.uesliou: "Can I have a self wnere my
body does not exist1" ( p. 8l.
The future may see considerable ethnography
by mear:s of computer-mediated communkat;or:,
where virtual space-rather than a !iv ing roorr:
or workplace-is the setting of the interview, It
remahs to be seen whether electronic interview-
ing will al'.ow researcheri, 10 obtain "th:ck descrip·
tions" or accour.ts of subjective experience~ or
whether such interviewing wJ; 1 prov'de the
"process co:1text" that is rn ir.1portant :o qualita-
tive interviews. In addition, researchers cond :.Kt-
'ng such interviewing can never be sun' that tl:ey
are receiving ar:1,1vers f;0m desired or eligible
respondents. Interviewing by way of the Internet
i.s so prominent today !hat researchers are study-
ing its effects u11 response quality: Schaefer and
Dillman (1998), for exarr.ple, four.d that e-mail
surveys achieved response rates si :n ilar to thuse
of mail surveys but yielded better quality data
in terms of item completion and more detailed
responses to open-ended questions.
There are dearly many unaruwered quest:or:s
and problems related to the use electronic
interviewing. Tl:is mode of interv:ewing will
ob;riously increase during the new millennium as
people rdy increasingly on electronic modes of
co:11mun'cation. But just how much Internet
cor:1munica:ion will displace face-to-face inter-
view h:g is a r.1 atter that only time will tell.
 712 Ill HANDBOOK or QUALITAT! VE RF.SEARlH-CIIAPTER
Ill. [O'ICLUS[O!\
In this chapter, we have examined the inter-
from structured types of inte::view to the
interview as negotiated text. We outlined Ihe
history interviewing, wit!: its qualilah ve and
quantitative origi:ls. We looked at structured,
group, and various types ur:structured inter-
viewing. We examined :he importar.ce gender
in in:ervicwing and tl:e ways in which framing
and interpre:ing affect interviews. We examined
the importauce of ethics in interviewing. Finally,
we discu~sed the newt rends in :n:erviewi ng.
We have included discussion of :he whole
gamut of the Interviev,, despite the fact that th:s
book is concerned with qualitative research,
because we believe tl:at ~esearci1crs mi.;sl be cog·
::iizant of all the various types of :nterviews, both
n:odern am: posrmoder:1, if they are to gain a
dear understanding of :n:;:rviewbg. Clearly, cer-
tain types oflnervkwing are better si:ited to par-
ticular kinds of situations, and researchers must
be a,wui of the implirn lion$, pitfalls, and problems
ifthe types of inten,iew they choose. If we wis:1. :o
find out how many people oppost> the estab!J;;b.
ment of a m:rlca, repository ir: thci r area, the:1 a
structurec type of interview, such as that used in
survev ~esea:·ct:, is our best tool; we can quanlifv
' '
and code the :esponses ar:d can use mathematirnl
models lo tcxplain our fi:1dings. ff we arc inter-
csted in opinions about a given product, then a
focus group imerview will provide us
most efficient results. If we wish to know aboul
the lives of Pales1i:1:a:1 worr:en in the resistance
(Gluck, 1991 ), then we need to :nt.erview them
at length ur.d in depth in an unstrncure<l way.
In the 'lrst example just c':ed, • nd perhaps in
the second, we can speak in tl:e fonnal language
of scientific rigor and wrifo1bility of findir:gs. In
the third exarr:ple, we can speak of understanding
a negotiated way of lice.
;\fore scholar5 are realizing that lo pit one type
of imerviev,ing against another is a fut[e effort-
a leftover fror, the paradigmatic quantitatlve/
,:;ualitativc hostility of past generatlo:1.:1. Thus, an
increasing number of researchers are using a mul-
timct:iod approach ta bruader and often
be lier re;ults. This rmJt imethod approach is
refe:-red to as triangullltion (Denzin, 1989b; Flick,
1998) and allows researchers to use difforenl
me:hods in different combinations. ror ir:stall(;e,
group inter11i;;,ving has long been used to comple·
men: survey re~earch and is now being used to
rnm plcmcnl participant observation (Morgan,
1988). Hurt.ans are con,p'.cx, and their lives arc
ever changing. The more methods we use to
study them, the bette, our chances will be to gain
some understanding of how construct their
lives and the stories they tell us about them.
T:u: b,ief jmime>· we have taken rhroJgh the
world of interviewing sr_udi. allow u,; to be better
info,med about, and perhaps more sensitized to,
the problematics of asking questions for sucio•
logica'. reasons. We must remember that
individual has his or own social histnry and
an indi vie .rnl perspective on :he world. Thus, we
cannot take onr rask tor As Oakley
(1981; noted, "lntcrviev,ing is rather like a mar-
r:age: Everybody ;:nows wha: it is, a:1 awful lot
of people do it, and bd1iud e"Jcl1 dusd front
<loor the:-e is a world of secrets" (p. 41 ). was
quire .:orrcct. We all think that we know how to
ask questions and talk to pen;:ile, from common
everyday folks to highly qualified quantoph n::1; k
cxper!s, Yet to learn abot::. peop:<?, we mus: treat
themas peo?le, a:id :hey will wor.< with us to help
u, crc:ate accounts of their lives. So long as mar..y
reserm·hers continue to treat respondents as
unimportant facell:'ss individua:s whose only con•
tribm:ions are to fill more boxed res.ponses, the
answers that researrhers will will be cu1:1:m:n-
surable w;:h the questfons thev' ask Jr:c rl:e wav, in
whkh they ask them. As researchers, we arc no
different fro:n Gertrude Stein, who, wl:ll e on her
deathbed, asked her llfelo:1g rnmpan!nr: Alice B.
Thklas, "What is rhe ans'.ver?" Whe:1 AE,:e could
not briog her.self to speak, Gertrude asked, "In
tl:at case, what is the questim1?"
JI REFERENCES
Adam,, R. 1, ., & Preiss, J, J. (.Eds.). (J %!)). H1mrnr1 orgiJ-
ni-;.afi,,wa/ re1card1: Field rehuiom t;;dmique;,
llon;ewood, IL: llorscy.

Atide rsnn, N. ti rlie hobo: tl,e sociology of
th? Jwrneli:ss m,m, Chic:ago: Un.v~:,ily
Press.
Arbey, H,, & Knight, I' (2002). fmerviewi11gfor ,ocial
sdentisfj: An intmducMr)r- re.101Jrce wlth exampfos.
Thousand CA: Sage.
Atkinson, P, (2002), life story inlcrview. In
J. Gubrium & J. Ho.stein (1:ds.). fiamf/:wok of inter.
,·i,~ n,;,•arfr:: Canrext and method (pp. 12'.-l,«J),
ThauS<md Oa:,s. CA:
Atkinson, P:, & Silvc:rn1 an, D, '.1997).
lmmort,iilly: The interview society and :he invt>n•
lion the self Qua/it111ive I11quiry, J, 304-325.
!'hlbbic, E. (I 992). Tile practice of sod.ii research
(6th c&). Belmont, CA: 'Nadsworth.
(1997). W.,ernbersh:? ct.:egorizafam and
in:crview ,1ecci-nls, Ir: D, Silverman (Ed.), Quali•
tmiw rese,m:h,• Tf.eory, metlwd, ,md ::mew:,•
(pp. 130-143). London: Sage.
J:h1khtin, M. (: 986). Sperrh genre,; aml other late em1ys.
Austin: University P~es,.
llanis'.cr, l:'. M. (l 9'19). Evo: ving reileKivity: Nego,iat ing
mca ning wmncn's mic::fe experience. Qllilfi
tative !nquir,}~ 5.
""'"'"· IL S. : fg56). lnlcl\'icwing mcdk,.I stude:1ts.
,1merican Journal ~f Sociology, 62, 199-20 L
Becker, IL S (l9'l<J). The Chicago Sdiool, so-called.
Qua:ifratwe Sociol.>g;;
lleh,::; It {1996). 'the :·1d11eu.b!c t•b""' 11er: Anthropology
tlrnt breaks your heart Boston: B,;;i.:or:,
Behar, R., & Gordon, IJ. {Ed,.j. (1995). Mn,mr wril/t;g
c11lt11r<'. l!e:kdev: IJniversitv of California Press.
' '
Bell, S. (2002). Sexuali,ing :u~irrch: Rcspmtsc :o E6:h
Goode. Q1wii1ativt! Sut.fohigy,
llenmayo:, It ( 1991 ). Testimony. ac:ion rcscard:, ,ind
empnwe:ment: Puer:o Rica:1 we men and pt,pul.!~
education. In S.1.1. Gluck & U. l'a:ai (.Ed,.), Womer,;
w,mi,: 1'.~c Jim; inist prali iu: ur;./ history
(pp, 159-174), :-;ew York: Routledge.
R.1clen WA. M. (1992), Stceet c:1rner ,odety: Cornervi];c
1 Denzin, :-1.
revisiti:c, Jourr,al ry C,mlerr,po!",uy Ethrw~ruJ,J~y,
11-51.
Ilogardus, E. S. ( 1916 ). The §'~oup interview. /mmwl of
.A.ppiied S11dofo,;;;i, /0,
Beoth, C, ( 1902-1903).1.iji:. and Iaboiir oft/I, people iJ1
lon,ior,. London: Mac mi:: an,
llowkr, I. ~l 997'.. Proble:m with interviewing:
Expcricnccs with ser111cr j}rovideri; and L, "'''"·
In (;, M :ler & ;{, Dingwall (::ds. ), <.'onre~1 and
method irr •111a!ilative nm•nr:.h 66-7:,).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fo:;tana & frcy: The Interview 111 723
Brldburn,".\'.M,(1983). Responseeffocts, In P.H. Rossi,
J, D. Wr:ght, & A, B A:idcrson (Eds,), Hand/1:)ak
of research (pp. 289-.~28). :-Jew York:
1\cadcmic !'res,.
Hmdbum, N. M., Smlman, & Associa1es. !197~}.
lmpmving inrerview mtihvd and questionnaire
desil]n. San Fr.Ulcsco: [osscy-f\ass.
Cin:urd,A. (1964). Melhod ami mN1sw1•men1 in .iadaJ,
f'.lew Ycrk: Free Press.
Cin:urel,A. (1970;, '!'be acquisition of wdal ,lrudurc:
luward a dc:vdopmcnlal s0ciok,gy of langu.;g,,:
and meaning. In J. Ll. :Jo;Jgias (Ed.), l'mierst.md,
ing 1:veryday life: '/award a n,amstrucfim1 of sowil
k11owle.Jge (pp. 136-168). Ch:cai.n:,4Jdinc.
Cinmrel, A. L 974). Uuwry r,mJ method m a stud;v of
,4rge11ti11efertility. New York: John 'vli:ley.
Clough, PT. (1998). The md;s) ethnagmphy: Fram
realism w soci11l ai11ct:,m (2nd ed.). New Y(Jrk:
Lang,
Collins,?, I l, ( 1990), Black Jt:r!iir,ist thought: Knowl,·dp:,
cm.1sao;1,,ne:;s, and the politics ,{ empcw2mient.
\/ew York: Routledge.
•
(,onverse, J..I,I . ( I ~"",
0 ••
!. ..~urvcy '1.l!i11an:•f1 ·m t/·,e umteu
, ' ' .,
Stale,; Roots aud 1u11crgence ! 890-1960 Berkeley:
·,J 11 iversity of Calilhrnia ?n,ss.
Converse, J, M,, & Schiima::. H. ( 1974). Cor;·1ersaticm;
at ra11dmn: .,u,vev res,,,:m:il as intc•1·frwcrs ,ce i,.
\few York: I"hn Wiley,
Couper, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., :--:icho 11s,
W., 11, & O'Reilly, J. (Eds.). (: 998). Cmn;.,uter.
assistt'ii i11fnr,r,atim1 mllec,icn. New YLlrk:
John Wiley.
Crapa:wano, \~ (:980,l. Tuhami: fortrait of a Afomccan.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dem.in, :',!, K. (l<l89). The re.-,,ar,:.~ act: A thevre/ica 1
!mraduai,m 10 .,ociological merliod, (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall,
Denzin, N, (I 997). lnterprctiw ethnography: F.t1mG·
gmpl.ic pmclices fiir /hi! 2l.il century. I.on don: Sage.
(2UU3ol). The call to ,JCrlcn:mu1ce.
Srr,bulic lmernct icn,
llrnzin, N, K. (2uU3b ). PerJamum,'r! ethrio graphy:
Critical pe,l,1gogy and 1/Je po/ii ifs if culwre.
'l'housaod Oaks, CA:
Derrida, j. (1976), OJ gramm,110/ogy (G. Spivak,
'Jrum,.). llalli:norc,MD: Johns Eopkius University
?ress.
Desvo;1sges, W.11.,& Frey,!. E. (1989). lnt,..,grnting forns
group, and surveys: EXi!mplcs from environ·
menial Jo;;,m,I iJ{ OJ}ifia/ Sla'il:'lltS,
:,, 349-363,
724 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALi TAlIVE RESEARCE ~ CHAPTER 27
Dingwall. R. (1997). Accounts, interviews, and
observations. In G. Mil:er & R. !Jingwall (F.ds.)
Context and method in q,mlitative research (pp. 51-
65 ). Thousand 011ks, CA: s~ge.
Douglas, J. D. (1985). C'Y'atit•e ir.terviewing. Beverly
Hi.ls, CA: Sage.
Douglas. J. D., & Johnson, ]. M. 11977). Existenlfoi
sooology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Dout5\as, J, J}., Rasmussen, P., witr: Fla::agan, C. A.
(1977 ). J11e nude beach. Beverly Hi:i~, CA: Sage.
DuBois, V-{. E. B. ( 1899). 1he Philadelphia Negro: A
social study. ?hiladelphia: Ginn.
Edwards, R., & Mauthne:, M. (2002). Ethics and
feminist research: Theory and practce. In
M. Mauthner. M. Birch, ]. le,sop, &. I ]\,filler
(f'ds,), Ethics in qualitative research ( pp. 14-31}.
l.o:1don: Sage.
E:lbi. C, (1991).Sociolugkal immspedon and emotior.al
exper:em:.c.Symbolic J111eractim1, 14, 23-50.
Ellis, C. ( ;99S). Final negotiation: A story oflov~, ioss, and
rhnmic i/lm:ss. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Ellis, C., & .Berger, L, (2002). Their story/My 5tory/O·~,
story: Including the re5earcher's expcriem:, in
ir.tervicw ~esearch. In J. G;;bri·Jm & J. Holstein
(Eds.), Handbook of inrer·liew research: Car!!ext
and method (pp. 849-876). ThouSilod Ouks, CA:
Sage.
EJ.or, T. (I 992 L Do ym: really know how tl:e;· make
love1 The limits on intimacy with ethnographic
inforr:umts. QualitatiW! Sod11logy, l .5, 5.~-72.
Erickson, K. T. (1967), A comment o:i d:sgt.:ised
observation ::i sociology. Social Problern.1, I4,
366-373,
Fin~. M. (: 983- 1984), Coping with rape: Crit'<:a: per·
srective, on consdousne5s. lmrigination, Cogni
tion, and Personality. 3, 2-.9-267,
Flick, U. ( 1998). An i,r!rod:iction w qualitative Tl?$tilrdr:
11.eary, method, and applicatitms, London: Sage.
kmtana, A. I1977). 11ie last frontier; The social meaning
OJ•growmg 1' Bevery
• o.e. I 1-1·11 ~
I s, LA: '
Sage.
Fonta:ia, A. (2002). Postmocier:1 :~ncs in inter-
viewing. :n J. Gubrium & J, Ho:srei:: (Eds.),
Hamibook of qualitmi,te rese/lrc'1: Context and
method (pp. 161-l 73). Thou,anc Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fon:ana, A. (2003). The windmills of mornlity,
Symbolic lttteraction, 26, 209-216.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J, :i. { 1990). Postretirement work-
ers in the labor force. Wi1rk and 0,T:upations, 17,
355-361.
Fonte:1a, A., It Smith, R. ( 19119). Alzheimer's disease
vk1imb; The "unbecoming" of se'.: and 1hc normal•
ii'.illion of competence. Sacioiogirnl Persp1xtives,
32, 35-46,
Free:nan, D. ( 1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The
making a11d unmaking ofan amhropological myth.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univers:ly Press.
Frey,], H. (1989). S1,rvey researd1 by ielephone (2nd
ed.). Newbury Par;;:, CA: Sage.
Frt.',Y, J. H. ( 1993). Risk ;ierception assodated with a
high· level nuc,ear waste rep,,si:ory. Socit!logical
Spectrum, 13, 139-lSI.
Frt}; j.11., & Fontana, A. (1991}. The group interview in
soda! research. Social Science Journal, 21:1, l 75- l 87.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) • .~wdies in ethnmn,~thodolofiy.
l::nglewo,Ki Cliffs, NT: Prentice Hall,
Gurtz, C. (l 973), Thick descriphoos: 'fowan: an in:er-
pretive theory of culture. Jn C. Geertz, 1'1:e inter•
prctatfon of cultures: Sdt:cted 1•s.,ays (p;i. 3-30 l.
:-lew York: Bas!" Books.
(;laser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discorery of
grounded theary: SI rategies for qua/ita ti,e
research. Chicago: A]dine.
Gluck, S. 3. (1984 ). What's so ,pedal about women:
Women's era! b:story. ln D. Dunaway & W. K. Baum
(F.cs.), Oral histoty.· A.n int.erdisci,&linary ~nrhology
(pp, 221-237). Nastville, ·:·N: A:nericm Associa•
tinn fo: State and l.ocal History.
Gluck, S. B. (1991). Advocacy oral history: Palestink::
women in r~sistance. In S. B. Gbck & D, Pate:
(Eds.), Womens J,ords: The ;"i:minist pr1Wice ofoni!
hiSlory (P?· 205-220). :-iew York: Routledge.
Glu,k, S.11., & l'atai, D. :Eds.). ( 1991), Women5 wards.·
The fetr.imst practice of oral history, New York:
Routledge,
Goode, E. (2UU2). Sex::al involve1::enl and social
resee,ch in a fat dvil rights organizatior.. Qur;Ji.
111tive Sociology, 25, 501-534.
Gorder:, R. .'..., (: 980). lnterviewing: Strateg:i1 techniques,
and tactics. Hnmewood, II.: :lorsey.
Gorden, R. I. (1992). Basic imerr,fewing skills. lrasca,
IL: l'earnc~.
Gubrium, /., & Holstein,]. ( 1997). I'lw neu l,mguage of
qualitative methods. New York: Oxford Univeri;ity
Pres.~.
Guhrium, J., & Holstein, J. (I 998 ). Narrative ?ractice
a::d the cohere::ce of personal stori1:s. Sociologici1I
Quarterly, 39, 163-l87.
(;ubrium, J., & Holstein, I. (Eds.). (1002). Handbook af
inren,iew rcsear,:h: Context and method. Thousand
Oaks, CA: &ge.

Earvey, L, \1987). Myths of !he Chkago School of
Sociology, Aldershot, UK: Aveb;iry.
Hertz, R. (1995). Separate but simultaneous ''1ter·
viewing hns·~ands and wive,: Making sense of
rheir s:(1ries, Qualitati;e Jnquiry. 1, 4Z9-451,
Henz,R (1997a), Intmduction: Rcllexiv11yand voice.ln
R, Hertl :Ed.), 11.eflexivity and voice (pp. vii-xvi:').
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hertz R. (I 997b). Reflexivity arid '<'oice. Thllusand
Oaks, CA: Sage,
H,r:z, R. (1997c). A typology of a,;proaches to chilc'·
care: :he cente:piece of organiiing family life
for cual,carner cou;iles. Journal of Faini/Y ls,ues,
18, j))-j!)).
R., & fergu,on, 1' ( 1997), Kinship sir alegies and
sdf,suffidency am:,:,g single n:othcrs by choice:
Postmocern family t'es. Qualita;ive Sociology,
20, 13-37_
Holstein, (.• & Gu ::>riu:11, J, t1995 ). Tl;e active interview,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hn:stein, j., & Gubrium, J, ( 1997). Activl'. interviewing.
In D. Silverm~n (Ed.), Qualitative resrnrch: Thecr;h
method, and pra,1ice (pp. 1l3-IZ9). Thousand
Oaks,CA:
Humphreys, L. ;1'170). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex
in public J•laces. Chicago: Aini nr,
Hyr::an, H, H. (.954). lmerriewing in socia! research.
Chicago: University of Chicag•J Pres,,
Johnson,(, ( 1976). Doing.lield researd1. 'Jew 'fork: Fxr
Press.
(ohns(m,J. (2002). lr:-dcpth interviewing. In,, Gubrium
& J. H(i!stein (Eds.), Hari.f/;ook of iruer;·u:w
re:mlrch: Conte.ti and metlwd (pp, : D3~ L'I).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sagt.
Kahn, R,, & Cannell, C F. (1957}. The dynamics of
interviewing: rlle,,ry. ttchniq,ies, an,t cases.
New Y,,rk: John Wiley.
Kong, T, S. K,, Ylahoney, D.. & Plumrr.er. K. (1.002).
Queerbg the interview. In J. Gubr'.um & J, Hols:ein
(Eds,). Handbook of qualit,!live research: Context
a'!d method (pp. 239-258), T'lousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kot~rba, J A,, & Fontz:ia, A. ( t.,ls ).1. l 984), The existen
rial self in society. Chicag.o: University of Chicago
Press,
Krieger, S, (1983 ). The mirn>r ;iance: ldentily a fo!ervlew: A mam;ai of pmbiems uml pr(!i,erlures.
womens community Philadelphia: Te::iple Univer-
s'ty Press.
Kvale, S, (1996), fmerVie·,..s: An inlroduction w quali•
ta11ve re;;earclt interviewing, Thousands Oaks,
CA:Sage,
J'ontana & Frey: 'The : r;terview Ill 723
Lincoln, V, S. (1995). The sixth n:umen:: Emerging
prohltl'.':S in ,walitative research, Studi1cs in
Symb(!/ic ll:!IL'factfrm, 19,
Lofland, I, (J Am1lyzinF1 ,rtt•'"'" lldmcnt,
CA: Wadsworth,
Lo[and J., & Lofland, L ( 1984). A11a!yzinx ,ocia/
s.:rtinxs: ,\ guide to quafi;ari;,e 1•/;s.-rw,rfou m,11
,uutiysi! (2nd ed.). Belmont. Wadsworth,
Ln:1a1>;, H. Z. (1980), Interviewing American widows.
In W, Shaffir, R, Steb~1::,s, & A. lbrowet, [Eds.),
Pie!dwcrk' e.tperie1:ce: Qw1lirarive 11pprnud1e,
to social resear:11 ( pp. 6R-B 1). Ntw 51,
,\,furtin's,
Lynd, It 3: Lynd, H. M, (1929). ,\1hddletow11: A study
i11 Americim cul,ure, NCI'/ York: Harcourt, Lirace.
l.y11d, R. & Lrnd, H. M. (1937). Middie,r,wn ir, mw
sitiou: A study iu ruil11ral co11fficts, New York:
1-'arcuurt,
l.yotard, J, E { l \lS4}, Tire postmodern conditimr: A report
GI! lmoiviedge (G, Benninp,tor & R, Ma,s1::ni,
Tram.). Minneapo::s: Univers' ty of MinnesotJ
Prei;s,
i\,fac,otiy, I'. E., & Macco'ly, ::.J. (! 954), The interview:
A tool of social science. :r: G. Llr.dzev(F.d.), H,wi•
botlk llf so::ial p.1ydmlo!l,y, VoL I: Thmr;, a~d
merl;od (p?, 449-487). Rcadillll,, ~IA: Addiso,:-
\i\>esley,
Mali noswki, IL t I\l21}. Arg,m,1•,,.< of f/w lV,"r,m, Pacific
S'ew )brk: E, I' Uutlrn1.
l\fal i nr.w,ki, B. (I '11:19 i, A diur_, in the ,trier ,e1m: t1{
'he term. Stanford, S1anford University Pret\s,
t Original work Fublishtd i:1 l %7)
Manning, I' (2002). fat ethk;: Res[ionse to Erich
Goode. Qualitative ,,,,,·:1,1,,rn·.• 547
Marcus, G. & Fisc11er.M. ~. J.: I';186). Anrhrop,Jl,1gy
as .:ulturaf ailiiJue: An exper imeni,11 moment
m the ,~;;man scimc.-s. Chicago: Un iversilv of
Chicago Press.
Markham, A. N. (I 998). Life 1mli11e: ReH:wching
real experim,e m virtual space. Wa!nul Creek, CA,
AltaY,i,a
Mamhncr, M., Birch, M., ]essop, J,, & ,\1iller, T, ( Eds, J.
(2:}02). Ethi,-s iu 1:.ialilaffre '"·''"""n. London;
Merton, K.• Fiske, M.• & Ke'.';call, P. ( 1956), 'filtt j,,n.,,i!d
Glencoc,IL: Free Pre,~.
& La,arsfeld, P, E ( Eds.], ( 1950).
Con;inuiltes fn sodi1l research: SttuUes in the :.-c:ape
mui method of"The Arn!erican ,1Jldier."Gle11mc. IL:
P:ee P:css.
 726 JIil HANDBOOK OF QUALIJATIVF: IIFSEARCH-Cl!Al'1 ER 27
Miller, M. ( l 57•). Plain ypeaking: iln oml biogmphy
af Han 1 S, 1ruman, l\!:V; Yurk: Futruim,
Mi,hkr, E, G. ( 1986 ), Remuch in!en,u:wing: Context ,md
11arr<11/J,e. Cambridge, MA: lfarva::d University
Press.
fltkrgan, D. (: 988 ). fl,rn, groups ,u 11ualitatfre research.
Newbury Park,
\forgan, D. (2llfJ2). Focus grou, i::terview'ng, In
J. Gu :iriu:n & J. Ho·srei n (Eds.), Jfandbo,1/,: ,,f inier•
re,eard:: C.mt,u:r tm!thoJ t,µ. 141-159).
Thot.~,, nd Oak,,,
.\1org,m, Ll,, & .'i[)amsh, M. I ; 191!4}. Pocus group,:
A 1ww lnol for q ,rnlila:i,c re5earch. Q11a/1Jath·,t
Svciciogy, 7. ""·' ,., u.
Oakley, A. (I 9811. ln:eniti\vlng women: A comradic•
lion '.:1 tt>rms. !11 H. Robert> ( /Joingfeminist
research (pp..10-61 ), London: foutledge & Kcgan
1
Paul.
Obbo, C. (1997). Whal do women knowl .. ·:..i,, I was
saying!'' 111 M. Vaz (Ed,). Oral ,wrra/i,e n>m,rdr
with black wom.m (?P· ., , •-;,J• 1, Thousand l)a;;s,
CA: .Sage.
Pa rl,·11, M. ( 19 50). Si.rvi'.)'.,. pnlls, and s,,m;,Jes.
\/cw York: Harpe~.
Payne, S. L. (195 I:. Tiu, ,ul 1Jj ,utir,g m,.,,.,,,,,,,
Princeton, t\J: Princeton University Press,
Pimr, W. ( 1994), 1\uwhiogr,;,phy, pnl!:ics, 111,d sexuality:
in eurric,i/1un theory /992. New Yo:k:
l'e:er Lrng,
Pfatt, [. (2002). The ::btory of the i11h:niew. lJJ
J. fo1bri11111 & l.' Holslei:1 (Eds,).H,m,iboak of inter•
'
view resc,1rd1: Context and tm:rhod (pp. 33-54).
Thou.,a:id Oak;;. CA: Sage.
l'oo:, r. S. ( 1957), A crir :que or the twentieth
annivcrs~ry issue. fublu: Opi•,ion Quurter{;;
21, 190-] 98.
Punch, !vi. (1986). t'he po/it;,., and ,!thics 1~fid.iwcrk.
Newbury Park, CA;
R,.binow, P. ( I97i), xeflecticm, 0•1 fie/dw01 k Morocco.
!lerkeley: Univc'Tsity of Cali :crnhl Prc,s.
,fabinow, P., & Sullivan, \'I, (F.ds.). (19117). lnrerpr.,tiw:
soda/ sn,:.~ce: A s.:amd /{)(JI(. Berkcle1: University
of Califomi11 Press.
R,1smcsscn, l'. (19119). M,u,agi> parlor prostituiion.
New York: lrvingto,·.
Reinharz, S, [] !'T,m111m rmcthod, in .wciuf
•"r!!:',>urch '.'l cw York: Ox fore University Press.
ltcha~cson, L. (l 992a ). The ;1c;etk representatio:: of
Iiv(•s: Writing a postmodern sndolngy. ,r,.,iu,, in
:;ymbufic Interaction, 19-28.
Richards mi, L, (J 992b ), '!rash nn the rnrne r: tthksan<l
terhnoc"racy. /01m1al of Cariternpor.iry SadologJ;
21, 103-!19.
Richardson, I, (1997), Fi~lds of play: Cm1s1:ructmg 1111
arndemic !i{i,, New 3runswick, \lf:
University Press.
Rirhr.:ifaon, l.. (2002). Peetic reprcsenlatio:: of inkr•
views. :r: J. Gi:brhim & J. Holstein (:'ds,), Ha1:1d-
book interview •«s1Ct1rrh: f.rmtax:I ,md me/hod
(pp. 877-892), Thou,and Oak,. CA: Sage.
Sagui, A. (2002). Sex, ir.cquality, and ethnography:
Re:monse to E:'ich Gm,de. <}ualftal/·;e <iocio/11,<;1,
549-556,
Sarup. M. (19%), Identity, rniture. 1111d tire pcslmadem
·,vm'/d, Athens: ~iniversity of Geol'gia Press.
Saukko. P. (2000}. Between vnire a;id discourse:
Quilting inlcrvitws on anorexia. Qualitmive
inquir,11 6,
Schaefer. D.R., & Dilbr.an, D. ~.. I l 998), Ilevdop:.,eot cf
a st,1:1dard t:· mail methodology. Pul,/ic Opinfo1;
Quar:erly,
Scheurkh, ;, I. (1995). A pc,;;tmod~misl critique of
research interviewing. Qur;;li:aii~<t S/udic; in
fducdrlon, B, 239-252.
Scheurk:h, J. (1997). Il~<ea!"f'Ji metJwd in the p,,st,;:od-
em. Londo:i: falmer,
Schut?., 111e pJ,erwrrwnology of the u1cial
1vorlil. Evans:m1, IL: Nor:hwcstcrn Lniversity
Press.
Schwandt, T. A, (1997), Quafitaii,~· inquiry: A diaio•
ne,tt)' ofterm,. F,ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwarlz, !:!, (l 999). Memory and thtt uf
,ommitment In It Glassner & R. Hertz ffcs.J,
Qual!rative sodolcgy as e,erytfay life (pp, 159-
168). Thm.is~nd Oaks, Sage.
Sd:wartz, Il. (Rd,}. ( 1$96}.' ·"'""''"~ memory [special
i:m1e]. (Jiiafit,itiYi Saciaiogy, 1913),
Scidm a:1, I. E. ( 1'l91 ). lmervi~winx, as qualitative
rcs,,1.m:·h. New \ork: Columbia University, Te~d1cr~
College Press,
&lltr., C, Jahoda M,, D~11lsch, M., & Ccok, S, v.: (I%:-),
Jiesearch m,'lhods in sarial relatfrms. Lon,lon:
Methuen,
Silverman, ). (1993). lr,terf•reting qua/i,afr,e datfl:
Method,· 111111/ysi>rg talk, imeraclio",
Londor,: Sage.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). (l 997a), (}ualfrative l'!,5e,m:h:
Ti1ear;,, mcthc1i a11d prat.!ice, Lom.fon; Sage.
Silverman, D, (1997b), 'lbward~ ar, 0 ~•·• : , , , . of
research. In D. Silvcrm an (Ed.;, Qualilal iPc

rese,,rr·h: T'icory. merhad, and practice (pp, l-'1' ,::,, 1.
London: Sage.
Singer, E., Glassman, YI ( 1983), The
or, ·n ,., I\' . &
effect of ,::terviewer d:arndcrislk:s and
tat :ons on re,ponse. i'ub/ic Opinia11 Quarrerly,
83.
cm:~cr, E , & Pre,ser, S. (l 98~ I, Survey research methods.
Chicago; Univei,ity Chicago Press.
Singleton, R. A,, Jr., & Strails, R. (2002). S·.irvey
intcr,iewing. In J. Gubrium & ;. Holstein (Eds,),
H,mdboo1. of jn/erview resean:li: Context and
method (pp. 59-112 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Smith, D, E. [ J987 ). The everyday world as probfe1ru1ti:::
A femimsr sociolcgy, Bos:on: Northeasrern
Uniwrsil y Press,
Spradkr, J. fl (1979). ethrwgraphic ittteniew.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wins:on.
Sprndley, J. P. ( 1980). l'l:micipatU ob.,ervation.
New Ycrk: Holt, Rinehart & Wins:on.
S:arr, L, (1984), Oral hislory, :n D. Dunaway &
W, K. Bau::i (Eds.;, Om/ history; An interdis-
ciplinary anthology (11p. 3- 16). Nashvi[e, TN:
American Assnciatlon for State and Local His:ory.
S:ewan, IJ., & Shamdasani. P. (1990). focus groups:
Theory ar,;i practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
S:Jda~kasa, N. (19116 ). In a wor:d of wmne::: l'idd work
in a rumba comm·.:::ity, fli P.Golde (Ed.}, Wmnc'II in
thefidd: Anthropoiogica! experiences (pp,
Berkeley: :Jn:versity of California Press,
".'erkel, S, ( 1975 ). Working, New York: Avon.
Thompson, H. ( 1985 ). Hell's Angels. New York:
Rall amine.
Thompson, [., & Dem era th, M. J. (1952 ). So::icc experi-
em.:es with the group inlerview. s,,cial fr:>rtes, Ji,
154.
Thrashet, F. M. ( 1963}. The gang: A _,ri.dy oj 1,313 ga1:gs
in Chicago. Gniversity of Ct'.::ai,o Press,
,.u.w~,v.
(Original wmk published I927)
Ulmer, G. ;1989). Iidetheory: Gmmmatolagy in an age
of video. New )\1rk: Rou:ledge.
Fontan, & frey: The Interview 11 727
Maanen, J, [1988). of tr.e jie/d; On wriling
etlrnogmplly. Chical!o: Ln iversity of Chicago
Press.
K. M_ (Ed.). {I 997). Oral 1111rra1we research with
bla,k wo,ncn, T:.ou~and ()ah, CA: Sage,
Warren, C. A. II. (1988 ), Gender i11 Jield r.:search.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Vl"arrcn, C. A. B, (2002). Qualitative imervicw;:1g. In
;, Gubrium & J, Eolstein (Eds.),Hamibookof inter-
re,earth: Come.rt and meaning {p;:,, 83- '.O I j,
T"lousand Oa~. CA: Sage,
'Mirwkk, D. I' (1973). Tearoom trade: Means anc
ends ':; sod~I re;ean:h. Hastings Center Studies,
l, 27-38
Wasserfall, ( 1993). Refiexiv:ty, feminism.and c::'fer-
ence. Quaiilative Sacfo/ogy, f6, 23-41.
1
.l\lax, R. ( I 960). Twelve years later: An analysi~ of fitld
exp:,r:er1,es.Ju N, Adam5 & J. J, (Eds,),
liumau organizalum researc/1; Field relc.tiom and
teclmiques (pp, 166-178). Hori:ewood, IL: Dorsey.
Weiss, R. S. ( l 994). Learning from stra11gers: The art
and mttho.i of qm1fitative inrervicw studies,
~ew free
Weston, , 1998}. LongJ!owbmi: Se:,:uality and saria!
''""'' New York: Routledge.
\;,,ryte, W. l'. ( 1943;. Sin~•! cmner soci?ty: TIie social
strucmre of 1m Italian slum. Chicago: Univer~ity of
Chicago Press.
WilEams, C. (20U2). To know me is :a love me?
Response tr, Eri.:'i Goode. Qualita,i~e Sodo/agy,
Yeandle, S, (1984 J. Womens working lives: Patterns and
slralegies, New i'.ork: Tavisto.;:k.
Young, : , M_ (I 997'.. Irrrtrsecting J)ilemrm1s of
genr:/,7, political p/rikmiphy, ,md policy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Young. Jl ( 1966 ). Scientifu: social surveys and resear,;h
(4th ed.). Englewood Ciiffs, '.'IJ: Prentice Hall.
Zucker:rian, H. (1972). Interviewing an ul:ra e:ite.
Public Opimon, 36, · 175,
28
RECONTEXTUALIZING
OBSERVATION
Ethnography; Pedagogy; and the Prospects
for a Progressive Political Agenda
Michael V. Angrosino

0
bservatiun has been cha,acterue,l as
"t 11e fundar:1e1:ta, base of all research
methods" in the ,,odal and behavioral
sciences (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 389) and as ":he
mainstay of the ethnographic enterp:ise"
(Wt:rne: Sd,oept1e, l 987, p. 257). Even studies
that rely mainly on interviewing ,is a data collec
:ion tech :1ique employ ohservational methods to
note bocy lanj!uage and lither ge5rnral cues that
lend IT.caning to thr words the persons he:ng
interv:cwed, Social sdent ists an: oh.servers both
of huimm acri,·:ties and of the physical sett:ngs
in which such activities p!a..:e. Some such
o:,servation mar pluce in a laboratory (Jr
di nk in which case t'.1c acth•ity may be Ihe resu It
of a coatrolled experirnen:, Or: the othrr hand,
it is ,,h;o possible to conduct oh~ervations in
scllings that an: the "natural" Joe' of those a::ivi-
ties. Sl)me scholar, have c-itkizc...:: the very con-
cept of r11e "natu,al" setting, 1,arcicui<1rly when
fieldwork is ,:;onducted ln Third World locations
(or in domestic inner-city sites) that arc :he
products of i11;1erently "unnatural'' colonial
relaliuns:iips {Gupta & Ferguson, 1996, p. ti), but
the designation is sli;J prevalent thro:tgnout the
Ji:omture. fn that case, it is proper to ipc:ak of
"11aruralls1ic obscrration;' or :1eJdwork, which is
the focus of this chapter.

Author~ l>iotc, 1:,,, cha Fie: li;ri:m on the e,sar," Rethiulchg IJb,crvation: ,rom Methcd rn Ccmeif' (Ac:gro.,i w & rtre1, WDO),
whid1 appe<.rcd ir :::c ,earnl ,·di!ioc of this F!amllmok. Ir. :'al ch~pter, we argued the! 1Jb;,;,rva:Hm lmsd cthrwgrnph ic
re,carc~ is not sc, ::ttJCh a sp,cific m,1:hod m•JU;ry as a mntclt: b which new Wil)'S nf conducti11g q1ulitati1·e rcsea~:11 are
emcrgbg. I suggest,;<! :hat rcse,ir,he.-• •~1i1·'tie, were ,'e1doj1lng ill rcsp,mse !{) ,l cocsciou, 11ess of ,:·ru,1:im111I identi-
fe,. !he,·thkal demands oflh,: 1r:odern rese,m:h ent<"rpris,,, and rd;;tfo:iships :,f relative p"wer :n the fide: setlirg. pa;licu'arly
: n tcforencc w srmiics dcaliug with ge;:ucr, scxualit}, an<: )X!,>p'.e Gil the ~odo~ul:ural 11a~,1ns (e.g., peopie wi!' dl,abilitie' ;.
The ,urrcnt dmptcr cxpkres th.c rami!icatio,:,, of scei r:g ob,,crvational rct;ea~ch .is contcx!, with "" em1iha•s1s O>: a omve,,;c,:ce
of i<'dago~~ am'. political acti<,n in to a :m11cressiv,;socla: a11<s1us.

Ill
 730 11 H1\NDSOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CRAP7ER 28
Observations in natural settings can be
rendered as descriptions e::he through open-
ended narrative or through the use of publi-
shed checklists or field guides {Rossman & Rallis,
1998, 137; for an historical overview of this
di,;::notom}, see Stocking, 1983a). I:, either case,
in the past it i...i.s generally assumed that natural•
ist ic observa:ion shou Id r:ot ic1terfere with the
people or activities under observation. Most ;;oc:al
scientists have long recognized the possibility of
observers affecting what :hey observe; nonethe-
careful l'<:searchers were supposed to adhere
to :-igornus standards of objective reporting
designed to overcome potential bias. Even cultural
an thro;,ologists, who have usual:y thought of
themselves as ''particioant observers" and who
have dehberately ss?t out lo achieve a degree of
subjec:ive immersion in the cultures they stndy
(Cole. l 983, p. 50; Wolco,t, 1995, p. 66), still claim
':o be able to maintain their scientific objectivity,
Failure to do so would mean that they had "gone
native;' with their work conbequent:y being
rer.dered suspect as scie:itific data (Peito & Pelto,
1978, p, 69). The achievement of the delicate
balance between par:kipatior: and observation
rer:,ains the 'deal of a:1thropologists (Stocking,
1983b, ?· 8), even though it is no longer
"fetishfaed" (Gupta & Ferguson, 1996, p. 37).
Objectivity remains central to tl:e self-images of
most practitioners of the social ar:d hehavloral
sdem:e,. Objective ,igor has most of.:en been asso-
ciated with quantitative research methods, and the
harmo:1ization of empathy and detachment has
been so important that even those dedicated to
qualitative methods have devoted considerable
effort to organizing thrir ohservational data in
the most neariy objective form (i.e., the form tl:at
looks most quantitative) :'or a:ialysis (see,
Altheide & Jol:nson, 1994; Bernard, I 988; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Silverman, 1993).
Adler and Adler ( 1994 J, in fact, suggested thal
in the future observational research will be found
as "part of a methodological spectrum;'but that in
this spectrum it will serve as "the most powerful
source of vallcation" (;:t 389). Observation, they
claimed, rests on "something researchers can £ind
constant:• mean:ng "their own direc: knowledge
and their own judgment" (p. 3!19), In social scitnce
research, as in :egal cases, eyewitness testli :10:1y
from trustworthy observers has been seen as a
particularly convincing form of verification (Pelto
& Pelto, 1978, p. 69 )_ In actuality, the production of
a convincing narra,ive report of the research has
most often servec as de facto validation, even if
the only thing it validates is ethnographer'&
writing skill and not his or her observational
capacities (KJklkk, 1996, p. 60).
Postmodernist ar:alysts of society and culture
certain;y did not im,ent the ci:rrent critiqi:e of
ass:imptlor:s about the objectivity of science
and its presumed authoritative voice, but the
preva'.enc:e of that analysis in cnntempmary
sc:10,arship hos raised issues that all qi:alitative
researchers :ieed ro address. The postmodernist
cr:tique is not necessarily d:rected towa:-d the
conduct of field-based observatio:ial research.
but it is impossible lo consider pos:modern dis-
course on the product:01: and reproduction of
kno1'11edge withom taking into account t::te field
context from wl:kh so much of o:ir presumed
"data" are said to emerge. Earlier criticisrr: of
field-workers might have been direct.:d at parlic•
ular researchers, with the question being whether
they had lived up to tl:e expected .standards of
objective scholarship. In the postmodernist
milieu, in contrast, tl:e cr:ticism is directed at the
standards themselves. Ir, ef:'ect, it is now possi•
ble to question whether obse:Yational u·:,jeclivity
is either desirable or feasible as a goaL Clifford
([983a}, who has written extensively a:id criti•
cally about the study of culture and soc'ctr,
even called into question the work of :he revered
Rronislaw Malinowski, the archetype of the
scientific participant observer who, according
to Stoc:-ing (1983a ), is the scholar most directly
re,1Jonsible fo~ the "shift in :he concep:ion of the
ethnographer's role, that of i:iqulrer to that
of participant 'in a way' in village llfe" (p. 93)_
Perhaps more sr:rprisingly, Clifford ( 1983a) also
questioned the research of the ve,y influential
contemporary ir:terpretivist Clifford Geertz,
whom he took to task for suggesting that the
ethnogra;,ber, thrm:gh empathy, can describe a
culture in teni:s of the meanings sped fie to

members of that t:ulture. In other words, the
ethnographer, as a distinct person, disappears-
just as he or she was supposed :o do in
Malinowski's more openly pos;tivistic world.
This assessment ms echoed by Sewell (1997),
who pointed out that Geertz did no; expect
field-workers to "achieve some miradc of empa•
thy with the people whose livfli they briefly and
incompletely they ;m; u:re 1;0 pre:ernatural
rn.?adty to think, feel, and perceive like a native"
(p. 40). The problem is r:ot that Geertz failed to
ac:iieve some sort of idealized empathetic state:
rather, the question is whether such a state is even
rdeva:1t to e~hnographic research and whether it
is desirable lo describe and/or interpret cultures
as i:' those depictions could ex:sl without :he
ethnographer's being part of the action.
The postr:1odernis~ critique, which emphasizes
~he import.Ince of understanding the ethnogra•
pher'~ "situation" (his or her ger.der, class, ethnic-
ity, etc.} as part of interpreti1:g the ethnographic
product,i, par:kular:y salient bc:ause the remote.
traditional folk societks that were the anthropolo-
gist's stock-in-trade have virtually disappearec..
Most cultural anthro;iology now is carried out in
communites that, i:: not literate themselves. a:-e
parts oflarger l: ,crate societies that are fa em selves
parts of global cor:, municatio:i and transpm, ation
networks. Like sociologists, anthropologists now
''study ·Jp" (i.e., faey conduct research among
elites), if only to help ther:1 understand the
predicament of the poor and marginalized people
who remain their special concern, l>oing so over-
comrs some of tl:e problems associated wltr. the
lingering colonialist bias of traditional ethnogra-
phy (Wolf, 1996, p. 37), but it raises new is~ues
regarding the position and status of the observa-
tional researcher. for one thing, ethnographers
car: no longer claim to be the sole arbiters
knowledge about the socielit.'l! and culture~ they
study because :hey are in a position to have their
ana'.yses read and cuntes:ed by those for whom
they presume to speak (Bell & Jankowiak, 1992;
Larcom, 1983, p. 19 I). In effect, objective tr'Jth
about a societv or culture cannot be estab:ished
' field have
because there are inev: tably i!,Uing to be con Ilicting
versions of what ha;,pened_ Sociologists and other
,\ ngmsir.c: Rtcontextm11izing Obscrva1i1m 111 :~ I
soda\ scientists were working in such setti:igs
:or.g :ieforc ant:iropologists came onto the scene
anc. were al ready beginning :o be aware of the
problem& inherent in claiming :he privilege of
objective aulhoritatiw ;,,nowledge when there are
aII toe many "natives» ready and a:>le to chaLenge
the:n. As Wolf ( 1992) wryly co:n me:m,d,
We nm no longer assume that an ,so:awd v::lagc will
not within ar, amazini;ly sh,irt perind of timt 1mm,
into :he ~ircuit of rapic social economic d:angc.
A bare fool village kid us:'<! to trail along afkr
you wi!! one day show up on ;-our do(1rstep with an
Oxford degree your lmok in b:~.d. (p. I
The val:dity of the traditional assumption-
that the truth can be establishec thrnugh carefnl
cross checldng of ethnograp::crn' und ins:den'
reports is :10 longer universally granted herause
contemporary social and behavlo:-al scientists are
increasingly inclined to expect dif:erer:ces in test'·
mony grocr:dcd in gentle~. class, ethnicity, and
o:her factors that are not easy le mix intu ,I con-
,ensi:s. Eth nograpb :c truth has .:ome tu be ~es:u
as a thing of mai,y rarts, and r:n rn:e rer;;pective
can dairr. eJtdusl ,·e privilcge :he represen:a-
tion thereof. Indeed, :he result ethnographic
re,earch 1:eve~ recudble to a form knowl·
et'.ge that can bt packaged in the monologic voice
of the ethnographer alo!!e" (Marcus, I p. 92).
Ethnographers of variu'Js cisdplines have
responded to this new situation by revising the
ways in which they conduct observation-based
research and present their analyses of tl:is
research. No :anger ca1: it be take:i for ~nm:ed that
,dmographers operate at a dis:ar:ce :rom their
human subjec:s. Indeed, the wry ;erm subj,•cr, with
its implldt coloniaiigt connotations, ii: no :onger
appropriate. Rather, there is said 10 be a i:iialague
between researchers and those whose culn:rcs/
sodetie.s are to be describe.:. "Di,,logue'' in
ser;se does not liter.div mtan a conver.,ation
bern·een two parties; in 'practice, :: often wnsisls
of mult:?le, even contmdict0ry, voices. As a re~u lt,
discussions of efanogra:,:icrs' own interaction~,
relationships, and emotiona: sta:es while in the
moved from their tradit:onal
discreet place in acknowledgments or 5::n,,rords to
 111 EAN)llOOK QUALlTATIVB RESEARCll-CllAJJTE:~ 28
:he centers of the eth nogm;>r.ies themselves. The
'ncre,1~ing accept2r.re of autoethnogmphy and
pcrformance• '.lased cth nography has also resulted
b a greater personalization of the activi:ies of
the '"""""··'"''·' Bochner & Ellis, 2002;
see aim Holma:1 lons::s, chap. 30, this volume).
Although these practices have certainly opened up
new horizons in ethnographic reportage, they
mi se fur1 '1er :nei:- own. For example,
bc1:,u:.se it is likely to be the ethnographers who
wri:e up (or a: ltast cnllatc or ed::) tile r.:sulL, o:
[eld studies, do they not Cl•ntinue to claim the
imp!kit status of arbiters/mediators of soda,/
cultural kncwfodge (Wolf, 1992, p. 120)? Ethnn•
gra phers may assert that they re?resent the many
voices involvec in fae resea::ch, bi: t we stilJ
only their assumnce t:rnt such is the case.
Nonefaele~~. we now function in u cuntext of
"collaborative" reseaxl:. r:ollalwratir:m no lo:iger
refers only to the conduct of multklbciplinary
teams of professional researchers; it often means
the presumably cq ual participation of pmfo,.
b:01:al researcher,, and erstwhile "subiects''
(Kuhlmann, 1992; Wolf, 1996, p. 26). J\/,atsumoto
(1996). for example, sent a p,epared '.ist of que,s•
tions to the people she was interested in :nter-
vkwiI:g for ,m oral nistorv' prokct.
~ . She assured
them :h,i: any questions to whkh they ubjeckd
woi:'.d be eliminated. T::~ po lentia: responden:s
reac:ed favor Jbly to this invitation to partic ipatr
in the fnrm1:'.ation of the research de:1ign. As s·J;;h
situa:ions become more cumnon, 'tis important
that we rcthi:1:, our c·Jrrent notio:1s about"obser-
vatio:i"-what it is, how il b; dn:1e, what role it
plays i11 the generation of ethnographic knowt-
edge. To that e11d. it might he ·.i scfol to shift from
a concentration uo observation as a "rr:etl:od" per
se to a perspective rba: emphasfaes observation as
a c,mtext for interaction amcnJl tl:ose involved in
the resecrch collaboration.
Ill 011sF.R\~\T10:-:-BAs1rn
RES?.ARCH: TRADIT:01\AL ASSIJMl'TICNS.
Observational resea~c:1c~s trndi1 :onally have
atlempted to see events througl: the eyes of the
prople bei~g studied. They have been attentive to
secn:i:1gly mundane details and to take nothing
in the fie:ci settbg fo, granted. Tl:ey were ~aught
to conle.x:ual:ze data derived [mm nbscrvalion :r;
the widest ?O~sble social and historical frlme,
all without overgeneralizing from a nete~sarily
limited (ai:d prohahly statistically nonrepre·
sentatiire) sample. Their researdl design usually
involvec the use as many .11eans of l~ata
col:ection as were fe-.asible lo s upplemerll pi:rely
observational da:a. Although ohse,v,uional
research has played a part in many different
schools of social theory; it has been :nost promi-
nently associated with those or:cntations that
seek to construct explanatory fr,.m.:works cdy
.
after careful analvsis of ob1·cctivelv, recordec d~ta.
There are three main wnrs in which social
scientists have conducted observation•h2sed
researc::, Despite considerable overlap, it is
possible to distinguish among (a) particip,mt
observation, groum:ed in fae establishment of
considerable rapport 'Jetween the researcher and
the host community requiring r:ic long.:erm
immersion of the researcher in the everyday life
of that comrr: 1nity; ( b) reactive observation,
associated with controlled settings and :nsed on
:he assi:mption that the people be;ng studied are
aware of :icing observed and are amenable to
inte;acci ng with the researcher only in rcs?0:1 se
to elements in the researcn design; and (c) unob•
trusive (nonreactive) observation, co:1ducted
with ;:ieople who are unaware of being studied,
All fur ms of observational research involve
three procedures of increasing levels of s1Jed
f'city: (a) descriptive observatior: (the annota•
tio:i a:id description of all de,a ils by an observer
who assumes a neatly child:ike stance, elimi•
nating a:1 precor:ceptions and taking notr.ing
for granled ), a procedure that yields a large
amount of data, sume of which will p;0ve to be
irrelevant; (b) focused L1bscrvc1tion (whe~e the
researcher looks only at mater:al that is pertbent
to tl:e issue at hand, often cor:centrP. :ing 011 well·
defir:ed categor les of group activity such as
religior:s rituals and political elections); and
( c) se kcti ve obs er vatior: ( focusing on a spc·
cific form of a more general category .%.ch as

initia:ion ritua:s and city coun~:I electiunli), (For
an elaboration of these puinls, see Werner &
Schoepfle, 1987, pp. 262-26,;.)
Underlying these variom, methodological
points was the assumption that it is both possible
and dcs:miil;;: to ceve'.op standardized procedures
that can "ma:dm ize oJser vatiunal efficaL-v, mini-
' A so:newhat different perspective is rcp:e-
mize investigator bias, and allow for replicatior:
andior verification to check out the degree tt1
1'1lica these procedJ:es have enabled tl:e inves:iga-
tor to p:udu;;e \'alid, reliable data that, whe1: incor-
porated into his or her p:ib[sbed report, will be
regarded by peers as objective fbdi ngs'' (Guld,
1997, p. 397). Troe ohj.,ctivity was held to be the
:esult of agreement between participants and
obse:,crs as to wha: is really going on in a given
situation. Such ;;igreemcnt was obtained by the
elicitation of feedbatk from those whose bebav•
ion, were being repor:ed, Eth nogrnphy 's "self.
correcting invcs.t:gative process" !:as typically
induded adecuale and appropriate sampling pro·
cedures, systematic tcch:1(qi:es for gathering and
analyzing data, validation of data, avoidance of
oboervcr bias, and cocmr:entatio:1 of findir:gs
(Clifford, 1983b, p. 129; Gold, i99i', p. 399]. The
ma: n difference between sociological and anthro-
pologkal practitioners o: ethnography seems to
be that the former have ge:1erally telt the need to
validate their eyew(:ness .1cwunts thro:igh othe,
forms of do::ur:1cntation, whereas the latter lia,e
tended to use participant observt1lio11-"rdatively
unsyster:i.atized" as it mignt be-as 1he ulti':nare
realitv, cneck on "all the other. mo~e refined
resean:;h techniques" (Pelto & Pelto, 1978, p. 69}.
One classic t ypolo1w (Gold, I ':158 l divided
naturalistic researchers into ''complete partici-
pants" '.highly subjective and, hen,e, scien:ificaLy
questionable), "par:id ?a1:ts-as obst"rvers" (insid-
ers with a li1 :;c bit of sden:ific tra'ning but still
not trnly acceptable as scientists), "obsrr'l'ers-as·
par:icipants;' and ''complete observers." Gold
(I 997) went on to advocate a form of ethno-
graphic research that seeks to culled data that are
"g::ounded in the infotn:a:'lts' actual ex?t:ri c1:ce"
Ip. 399). He insisted on the cnmin~ing ir:,por-
tance of maintaining standards of reliability and
validity through "adequate a:id ap:i:upriate
Ang:usino: Recnntextualizing Oll,c:Yation 111 733
sampling procedures, ,yster:iatk te::hr.l ques for
gachc~ing and ,1r.a yzing data. vajdation of
data. avoidance of observe~ bia&, and documen-
tation of tkcings;' although he admitl<!d that
such goals are met in ethnographic research "in
ways th at differ from ronventiona 1 (witis:irnl)
procedures" (p. 399),
sented Adler c-nd Ad'.e, (1987). who cmpha-
s ized a rar.ge of "membership roles" as opposed
to roles defined relative to some presu:ned ideal
of pure observation, This shift was occasionrd
by the rea:izatio:1 that pure observation was,
first nearly impossible to achieve xac:ice
and, second, ethically questionable, ;nrticularly
in light of the evolving pmfessional concern with
informed co:'l,em. '"'.nerefore, Adler and Adler
wrote ahuut (a) peripheral rr.embe:- rcs<'arc'ien;
(:hose who believe they can develo;i a desirable
insider's perspective without participating in
those activ:ties lhat constit.1te the rnre group
mem brrsh ip ), (b) ac tivc mm: '.Jer res~ardiers
(those who become involverl with tne cenlrnl
activities the group, sometime, even asst:m-
ing rc:spons ibi Iitie; that ad vam:c the group with-
out necessarily fa]y committing t'ter:uel\'cS to
rr:embers' values and goals), and (c) complete
rr.ember researchers (those who s(udy settings
in w l:ich thev, ue alreadv, members or with
which they become fully aft1liated during the
course of research). In the scholarly world prior
to the ascendancy of the po~:moder:iist 1,,,·i:iquc,
even complete member researchers, »ho vvere
expected to celebra:e the "subjectively lived
experience~ were stil: enjoined to avoid using
their insider ,tatt:s to "alter the "low of inter-
actim: u:rnaturally" (Adler & Adler, I :,194, p. 380).
ml 0ESEII.VAJIO>J- BASED
RF.SEARcu: CURRRNT AssvMPLOr:-;s
Contemporary observation-based social re~earch
m.iy be chara~terized by the fot:owing trencs.
First, thel'< is an increasing will ingr:css on the part
of rthnographc'r, tn affirm or develop a":ner:1ber-
shlp" ide:11ity in tl:e mmmunities they st;,idy,
734 111 HANDBOOK OF QCA'.,IIA11 VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 21!
Second, rese,arche:s recognize the possibility that
it may be neither feasible nor possible lo harmo.
nize observer a:1d ir.sider perspectives so as to
achieve a consensus about "ethnogm ,hk tri.; :h."
Th:is, there :s a recognition tr.at our erstwhile
"~ubjects" have become collaborators, although
tl:ey oftt>n ~peak in a voice difforent from tl:at of
hegen:onk authoritat' ve science.
Traditional researchers' concern with process
and method, therefore, has beer: supple:ne:1ted
with (b:it :iy no mean, supplanted by} ar. in:erest
in tht: ways in whk:1 e6nographic observers
interact with, or enter into a dialogic relation-
ship with, members of the: group being studied.
In light of :hese :rends. an carlirr incarnation
of this chapter suggested that observation-based
ethnographic research 1;1,,as not so :nui::h a spe-
citk method of inqulry as a context in which
new roles for the q~iaiitative researcher were
emerging. Research roles we1-e said :o he develop-
ing in response lo a greater consciousness of
sitnational identities and :o the perceptio:1 of
relative power, particularly 'n reference to ~tud-
ies dealing with gender, sexuali:y, and peoplr
on the sociocultural margins (e.g., pt'Qple with
disabili:ics), (For a de:ailed review of research
illustrating these trends, see Ang:usir:o & Pfrei,
20UU, pp. 678-690.)
At this point, however, it uo longer seems
fr~1itful to go or. a:guing the case for rcll:inking
ohsrrva:ion. The m::nerous studies cited by
Angrosino and Pere1 (2000) demonstrate quite
p:a:nly that the new ?erspcctive is already part
am' pa reel of t:1c conceptual fra mcwork and
methodological toolkits of a wide range of con•
temporary qualirntive researchers. 1 If the battle
cannot be said to have :ieen definitivelv won,
'
there is no longer any doubt that the t~aditio:ial
view-with its fixation t•n objectivity, valida-
tion, and repHcability- is now simply one point
on "contim.:um and not the unique voice of rep-
utable social research. The pressing question
that r:ow faces us is the following: How do we
n1ove this new perspective beyond tl:e confines
of academic d'scourse and ensure its relevance
ways that he! p us w advance a progressive
social agenda?
1ll!I THl! ErH:CAL D1Ml'NSJON OF
OesE,{'iATION - BASl'J) RESEARCH
Before answering the question at the end of the
previous section directly; we must first consider
the matter of ethics as fr bears or. :he conduct of
observat:or.-based research. Ethics rnncerns us
on two !eve;,. F:rst, we must taie into account the
current standards operative in mos: univers: :ics
a:id ofaer research institutions that govern 1he
ways in which we work. Seco:id, <UJd µerl:aps
:nore important in the iong :un, is the ma!ter of
what we mean by a "progre.~sivc social agenda:•
[n other words, what values may we invoke to
explain and justify the ways in which we seek to
use rm: ethnographic knowledge?
] nstitutio11al Structures
0 bscrvation was once thought of as a data
co!iect'o:i technique employed primarily by
ethnographers who thought of themselves as
ub~ective researchers extrinsic tu the soda! set:ings
they srudieci. It has become a cor:teU in which
,esearchers w:10 define themselves as memhers of
those social settings interact with other rr.embers
of those settings. This transitior. has also effected a
shiCt in the pa:ameters of research ethics,
For good or ill, virtually social research
onr rime is governed b1 the structure of institu-
tional re,iew ooa:ds (IRBs), which grew om of
federal regulations, beginning in the : 9fiUs, that
mandated informed consent for al'. those par-
ticipating in federally fondec research, Rules gov-
erning rhe use of human subjects are ''rooted iu
scandal" (Gunsalus, 2002, p. B24 ), 5pecifically the
scandal of experiments tha: led ;o injury or even
death of partlei pants. The perceived threat was
from "1n:rusive" re&earch (us;Jally biomedicai},
The new :ule~ were designed so participation
such re~ea~ch would he uncer control of the
"subjects:' who had a right to know what was
going to happen to tl:em aud who were cxpec:ed
to agree formally to a:l provisions of the research.
The right of informed consent, ai:d the IRFls that
were eventually crea :ed to enforce ir at all ins ti•
tutions receiving feceral moneys (assurr:i:lg a

function originally carried oJt centrally by the
t:.S. Office of Managen:ent and Budget), radi •
call y altered :he power relatio 11ship between the
researcher and the human subject, allowing both
parties to :iave a say in the conduct and character
of research. (For more cetailed reviews of this
history, see Fluehr•lobban, 2003; Wax & f,assell,
!979,) Although few would criticize the move
toward p:-orect[on of lmmar: su bjecl:; ar.d the con•
cern for their privacy, the increasingly cautious
approad:: of IRB.s and their tendency to expand
their ji:risdicion over all aspects of the research
process have turned IRBs into "de facto gatekeep-
ers for a huge amount o:" scholarly inquiry"
(Guasalus, 2002, p, B24).
Ethnographic researchers. however, have
always been unco:nfortable with this situa:ion-
not because they war:ted to conduct covert harm-
ful research but rather because they did not
believe bat their research was intn:.sive, Such a
claim stemmec fron: the assumpt:ons typical of
the observers-as-participants role, although it is
certainly possible to inte,prct it as a relic of the
"paternalism" that traditional researchers often
adopted with regard to their hun:an subjects
(Flueh:-Lobbar:, 2003, p. 172). Ethnograp~ers
were also co:1cemed that the proposals sen: to
IRBs had tc be fairly complete when it came to
explicating t:ie r.iethodology so that all possibili-
ties of doing harrr. could be adequately assessec,
Their resea:-ci, the)' argued, often g:-ew and
changed as :t went along and could not always be
set out with the kind of predetermined specificity
that the lega: experts seemed to expect. They
further poir.ted out that the statements of p:-ofo~-
sional ethics promulgated by the relevant discipli•
nary associations already provided for informec
consent; thus, fae IR Bs were being redundant :n
their oversight
During the 1980s, social ~cientisls. won fro:n
the r.s. Department of Health and Human
Services an exemption from review for all social
research except that dealing w::h children, people
with disabilities, and others defined as members
of «vulnerable" popnlatio:1s (Fluehr•Lobban,
2003, p. 167). Neve:-theless, lega: advisers at many
universit:es (including the University of Sou:h
Angrosino: Recor.textualizing Observatio:: 11 735
Florida lUSF], where I am based) have opted for
caution and been very reluctant to allow this near
blanket exemption to be applied, Indeed, at USP,
proposals faat may meet the general :ederal crite·
ria for exemption must still re,'iewcd, although
tl:ey :nay ':le deemed eligible for an "expedited"
review. Even proposals that are complet.ely exempt
(e.g., studies relying on on•the-remrd interviews
with elected officials about ma:ters of pu:ilk pol-
icy) must st::! be filed with the !RB. It is ironk that
one type of observational ~esearch is explicitly
:nentioned ir. tl:e "exempt" category-research
6at i5 "publk" (e.g., studying patterns of where
;eoplc sit in airport waitbg rooms). Th is is one of
:he increasingly rare remaining classic ";l'Jre
observer" types ethnography. The exemp:ion,
:iowever, is disallowed if the researcher intends to
p;ib:ish photos or otherwise identify the people
who make U? the "public" behg researched.
USF now has two IIUls: one for biomedical
research ar.d one "behavioral research."
Because the latter is dominated by psycholo·
g:st& (by far the larJ:leS t de?artmcnt in the social
sciences division of :he College of Arts and
Sciences), this separate s~atus rarely works 10 the
satisfaction of ethnogra;,hk researchers. The
psychologists, who are used to dea'. ing with
hypothesis•testing, experimental clinical or h,·,.
based re.search, have been reluctant to :ecogniie a
subcategory of "observational" research design.
As a result, the form cmrcntly required by the
bel:avioral research IRB is couched in terms of
the: ndividui human subject rather than in terms
of populaliom or communities, and it mandates
the statement of a hypothesis to be tested and a
"protocol for the experb1ene· Concerned etrmng·
raphers at USF have discovered that some othe,
institutions have developed forms more congenial
to their particular needs, but as of t:iis wciting
they have had no success in convincing the USF
authorities to adopt any of :hem as an al:e~aative
to the current "tiehav ioral research" fur m for
review. I:ldeed, the bias in favor of clinical research
seems to have hardened. For exar_1p:e, of the many
hundreds of pages in the federal h anribook !or
lRBs. only II paragraphs are devoted to behav-
ioral research (Gunsalus, 2002, p. B24 ). Moreover,
736 !111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 28
it is now rnand ated that all principal investigators
on IR a-reviewed research projects take continu-
ing ed·Jcation on evolving federal ethical .stan-
dards. It is possible to do so over the Internet, but
during the 20UI -2002 acad~r:iic all of the
of training modules were drawn from :he
realm of hea::h serv:ces research.
Issues fur Contemporn:y
Observational Researchers
Ethical ethnegrnpt1er, who adopt more dearly
"mern bnship" -oriented iden:ities, therefore. are
caught between two ecJa!ly untenable models
of research. On the one hand is the official IRB,
whkh is tled to :he hypothesis-testing, experi-
mental clinical model. On the other hand are
t~ ose ethnographers who, i:1 thci, zeal to win
exen: ?tion from irrelcva:\t and :i me-consmr.ing
stricures, appear to be dai ming that their
research is nor-or should be considered-
intrusive at all. Yet the interactive, membership-
oriented researchers rm- by ,./efinition inrrusive-
11ot in the negative sense of the word, :o be sure,
but they are still dee?IY :r:volved in the lives and
activities of tl:c community n:embers they ,tidy,
a stance fraught with al: sorts of possibilities
for "harm." The dilemma bewmes partimlarly
difficult w:1en we attempt to move beyond acade-
mic resc,m:h to the application rescarc.1 m
service tn a sm:'al agenca. Such action would
seen to require interventio:i and advocacy-or
even conflict in so• e cases--to bear fruit. A.~
such, there is certainly the poss;bi:ity of harm, bm
it is difficult to anticipate what form ti'.at harm
might take. fn p,inciple at least, it might be possi-
ble to say that because research coilaborato,s are
no ;onger "subjects;' hy definition they have as
much power l!S do researchers in s;1apir.g 1he
research agenda; they do not need to be warned
or protected. But in reality, tl:e researd1er is still in
a privileged posit ion, a: least whece actually co:1 •
,bcting the research and disseminating its results
an: coucerned. The cm: te:n porary researcher
pro!")ahly does 11oz want to re!reat to the objective
cold of the '"'"'"'·· observer, but neither dues he
or sh~ want lo sl:irk the responsibility for
doing everything possible to avoid hurting or
embarrassing people who have hcen trusting
part:iers in rhe research endeavor. (f'Or another
perspective on 6ese matters, see Kemmis &
McTagga:-t, c:iap. 23, tl:is volume.)
a VALuEs AND ruE soc1AL AGENDA
Ohsrrvat:01:al rese11rch, as it has e,olved during
recent times, is essentially a matter of inte:per-
sonal interaction and only rarely is a matter of
objective hypothesis tesling. As l'luehr-Lobhari
{2003) suggested, tl:is turn of events rr:akes it
more i:11perative that we be mindful the rela-
tional ethic, implied by the informed consent
process (pp. 169-172). Ethnogr<1phers should not
try to exempt themse:ves from monitoring; we
can, ir. contrast, work toward a !ess burdensome
and more appropriate se: of ethical standards. It ;s
[mpormnt to keep in mind, however, that human
a.,1ion must always be interpreted in situational
context and not in terms of unive,sally applicahle
objective "codes:' Angrosino and Perez (2000)
suggested a method of "proportionate reason" as
uue way fr: which to link social research to an
ethical framework (pp. 692-695). This positiu:i,
associated with the phl:osophical writings of
Cahill (1981 ), Curran ( 1979), Hoose (1987), and
Walter (l 984), aSllesses "the relation between the
specific value at stak;,> and the ... limitations, tne
harm.. or the inconvenience which will inevi:ably.
come ;1bout in trying to achieve that value" (Gi.:la,
1989, p. 273). In other words, although it is cer
ta inly 'mpurtant to weigh the consequences of
a:1 action, we must keep in mi:id rhat conse•
qucnces are only one ?art of the total meaning of
an action. Pmpurtionote reason defines w.1at a
person is do: ng in an actio:1 (e.g., an ethnogra-
pher engaged in an observational context); the
person and the action are bseparable. (The nppo ·
site, of coc:r~e, would be the old notion of the
ethnographic obser•:er as ex:rinsic to :he aclion
hi: or she is recording.)
·:·here are thrre criteria thal help us to dedde
whether a proper relationship exists between the
specific value and fae other elements of the act

(McCo:mick, 1973; Mc:Corr.ikk Ramsey. 1978).
?irst, the means i.sed wi/! not cause rmm: h,1 nn
than nernssar:; to achil'l'e th.: value. In traditional
moral tcrr:is, thr encis cannot be said to justify
the • eans. If wr take "the valL.c" to refer to fae
production of som c form of eth 1:ogra phy, we
· :r:ust he care~al to c:1sure that the means used
(e.g., inserti:ig or.eself into a social network,
;ising photographs or oilier persm:al records) do
r.o: cause disprnportim,ate :rn:m. '•Nt: might all
agree that serving a, comadre or compa,lre to a
child of tl:e comnnnity :hat one is studyi:lg is
sufficiently proportionate; ir. contrast, we mighl
welt argue al:iout whether becoming the lover of
someone in that cr1rnmu11:ty (particularly if that
sri::ual '.iaison is not imended to last b~yond the
time of the researc:1) does r:rnre harm than an
e:hnograpnic book, art'dc, or ;:;restntalion might
be worth, Volunte~ring as a dassroorr. tutor 'n
a program that serv.:s adults with mer::a'. retar-
dation whom one is interested in "bserving
and interviewing is pm bably sufficiently pro-
portionate: in contrast, becom:ng a hi:J-paying
benefactor to indi:.ce cooperation among such
adults in a grou11 home would be morally
quest'onahle.
The s,:mnd criterion is that no harrr!ful
.
·,vav to .{)rOfe,-t rf,e value rnrrrmlv
"
exists. Some
n:ight argue that observational research always
and inevitably compromises persona 1 :irivacy,
such that 110 :orm of research can ethically protect
:hat cherished valut. But must research2rs would
prohahly reject such an ex:reme view cnd instead
the position that there 's ,ea I value :r: dis-
seminating the fruits eth nographk research so
as to increase our knowledge and understanding
of cultural diversity, the nature of coping strate-
gies, or any number of curren(y salient soda]
justice issues, Granted that ull methods have the
pote:itia I to harm, we mus: be sure :D choose
those tr.at do :Ile least amount of harm ;mt that
s,iil enab:e us to come up with the sort of product
that will he effective in communicating the valu-
able message. The s:ratcgy of wri:ing e:hno•
graphic fiction, for example, migl:t one way in
which to make sure that re,'.der~ do not know
exactly who is being described.
Ar:grosino: lkcunlc:duali:dng Observation 111 ;j7
Th€ third criterion is I:rnt thl! means u,ed lo
achieni the value wi/1 no, undermine il. If one sels
out, for example, to use research 10 promote the
dig:iity of people defined as :nei:tally disabled,
one :nu,t make sure that the research :ech-
niques du not subject t:io,e people to ridicule,
Videotaping a g:-oup of pell?le wilh mental retar-
dation as they play a game of softbail might
conceivably result in ,.onfirming the pmmlar
stereotypes of such people as clun:sy or inept-
u::ijects of pity (at bes:) or of seem (at worst)-
rather thi!.n as tligi dfied individuals. Videotaping
as an adjunct to observational research is itself
etnically neutral; its appropriatenes, mi:st be
evaluated in this ;iropor:ionate contex:.
McCormick (1973) suggeste,: three Ir.odes of
know:ng wheG1er :here is a proportionate rea$on
to carry nut a suggested action. First, we know
that a proper relation exists between a specif:c
value ar.d all other elements of an act through
extum·en,:e. which sometimes amounts to plain
common sense. Far example, although we
think that it b important to encmirage individual
elt pression, we know fm:n experier:ce that doir:g
so it1 the rnntex.t of a trad::ional rnmrm:1: ity,
where the individual is typically subordinate to
the group, will do real vio ,e11ce to the precepts b)!
which the people we are intent or. stucying have
histor!cally formed tb,mselvcs into a cohesive
soc'ety. Experience might suggest that we reth:ni
a decision to collect pe:1oonul life histories of
people in sud: com :nunities in favor of focusing
on the collective reconstrJct lo:i of remembexd
common activities or events.
Second, we :nigh! know that a proper relation-
ship through our own intuition lbal some
actions are in hcrenlly disproportion ate, even if 't,e
c.o not h,rve personal experience of :he:r be:n8 so,
ror example, we should intuitively know that pub-
lishing information of a personal nature collected
ion: undocum entcd migra :1t workers n: lght
mean that such information could be i;sed against
:hem. Our righ:eous goal of improvbg the lot
of :he migrants m:ght we:1 he undern:ined by
giving autl10rities the ammunition to harass
them further, A perception of what could happen
(the result of intuiliun) of course, different
 738 a HA~Dl:IOOK (JF QUALrI'.>\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 28
from a perception of what will happen (rhe result
of experience}, and we are dearly :10: well served
by drearr.ing up every conce:vable disaster.
It serves no purpose to allow ourselves to be
paralyzed beforel':Gnd hy overactive guilty con-
sciences, Hut there is certainly a commonsensi-
cal hierarchy of plausibility that occurs in such
cases; some faings that could happen are more
;ikely to corr:e about tl:an are others.
Third, we know through trial and error. This
is a mode of kr.owing that would be con:pletely
impossible under currenl i:1stl tutional ethical
guidelines. Bu: the fact is that we do not, and can-
:10:, ::Snow all possible elemer.ts in any given
l:u:nan soc:al interaction, and the idea that we
can predict-and thereby forestal'-all harm is
naive in the extreme. An ethica! research des:gn
would omit (or seek to rnu.ii:y) that which expe-
rience and intuition tell us :s most like'y to do
harm. We can then proceed, but ody on
understanding tilat :he p,an will be modified
durbg the coi;rse of the action when it becomes
c,ear what is feasi!Jle and desi.::-a hie in t~e real·· life
sitaation. For those u11comfor:able with the inde•
terminm:y of the term "tria: and error:• Walter
( 1984) suggested "rational ar:alysis and argu•
ment" (p. 32}. By gathering ev:dence and fon:iu-
lati ng logical arguments. we try tu give reasons
to support our choices fo:- certain actions over
o:hers. But this way of knowing does indeed
involve the possibility of committing errors, per-
haps some that may have unexpected harmful
consequences, It is nonetheless disinge1:uous w
hold :hat all possibilities of ha:-m can be ant:ci
pated and that any human action, including a
research project based 0:1 interpersonal inter-
action, can !:le made risk free. The moral advan-
tage of the proportionate reasoning strategy is
that it encourages researchers to admit to error~
once t'ley have occurred, to corra;;t the errors so
fur as po~sible, and :o move on. The "objective"
mode of re~earch ethics, in contrast, enrou rages
researcher, lo believe that :hey have eliminated
al: such problems, and su they are disinclined to
own up to problems that crop up and, hence, are
less capable of repairing the damage, Those who
work with people with developmental disabilities
are familiar with the exvression ":he dignity of
risk;' which is used to describe the habilitation of
clients for foll participation in the comm'.lnity. To
deny dient, the possibility of rr:akbg mistakes
(by asst.ming that a~! risks can be eliminated
beforehand anc by failing to provide trainir.g in
reasonable problem-so:ving techniques) is :o
deny them o:ie of the fundamental characterlstics
of responsible adult :ivi ng. One either lives Jn a
shelter, protected "rom ~rs;.: by objectified code.~,
or !Jves real life. The ethical paradigm suggested
here does nothing more than allow :he o·:iserva•
tional researcher the dignity of risk.
The logk of propo~tiouate reason as a founda-
tion tor an ethical practice of soda! research might
seem, at first glance, to slide into subjcct:ve rela-
tivism. Indeed, the conscience of the individual
researcher plays a very large part :r: de:ermining
the rr.orality of a given interaction. But proper pro-
portionalism can not be reduced to a proposition
that an action can mean anything ~n individual
wants it to mean or that ethics is simply a matter
of personal soul searching. Rather, the strategy is
basec on a sense of community; individual
rr:aking the elh~cal decision must ultimately be
guided by a iiud of "communal discernment"
(Gula, 1989, p. 278 ). When we speak of "experi-
ence;' for example, we refe: not only lo personal
experience hut also to the "wisdom of the past"
embodied in a oommun itys traditions. As s·Jch, it
demands b;oad wrumltation to the experier.a:
and reflec:ion of othe:s in crder to prevent the influ-
ence o• self-interest from b'asing perception and
j udgn1e;:t. t:sing prop~:-tionalism requires more
moral mnsultat:on with the community than wodd
ever he required if the morality of act,ons were based
on only one as?eCt ... apart from rrlJtion to all
:he ... features of the action. (Gula, i 989, p.
That beir.g the case, the ideal JRB would not be
content wlth a mi'.itarian checklist of presumed
conseC:uences, Rather, it wuuld constitute a circle
of "wise» peers with whom the researcher could
discuss and wor~ out the (sometimes conflktbg)
demands of expe;ience, inmition, and the poten-
tial for ra:ional analysis and argu1:1ent. The essen-
tial problem with current ethical codes, fror:1 the

standpoint of the qualital ivc observational
researcher, is rhat they set t: ::> ar: arbitrary-and
quite 1:nnecessary-adversar:al relationship
between researchers and the rest of the scholarlv
' the boards i( 1hr researcher con:es to idemify
community, The iamework of proportior.ate
reason in:?lies that ethical re~earch is the product
of sharec discourse and not of a specie~ of'"'°'<"-
cutorial inqnisirion.
Ill El.EMENTS IN A SUGCF,~ED
PKOGRESSIVE Soc:AL AGENDA
Tb: abstraL'tions of fae ;,rupor:ionate rrason
framework can be ;ranslated into a progrrssiv~
social agenda to gu'dc the researcher. Progressive
politic~ seeks a just society, altho:1gr. trad::ional
:noral philosophy speaks of four different types of
~ustkc: (a} commutative justice, which is related
:o the cor.t:-actual obligations between individuals
involving a strict righ: a:id the objgation of resri-
tu,iun re,g., when ore persm: lends another persor.
a sum money, the bormwer is obliged to return
that money ~ceording to the te;1ns of the
mcnt): (b) distributive justice. which is !'elated to
the obligation of a governmf'nt toward its dti1ens
with regarc. to its regdation of tile b-1rdens a=id
benefits of societa: life (e,g., a governn:ent may
tax its citizens but must Jo so ;ai rly, according
to :heir ability to pay, and must distribute the
proceeds according ,,1 need); (c) legal ; uslice,
which i!i related to d6tcns' obligation toward the
gove:11ment or society in general (e.g,, citizens are
obligated to pay serve on and possi-
bly serve in the military, although they ::eserve
the right to engage in amscientiou.~ ohjectiun-
or even civil di~u bediem:e-if they deem the
demands of the government unjtL~(); and (d) srn:ial
justice, which is related :o the obligation of all
people to apply moral principles to the systems
and institutions of society (e.g., individual~ and
groups are urged lo take an ac:h·e interest in
neceti&'lry soda! a:id economic reforms). My own
perso:u1l vision tends to emphasize the element
of social justice, and I suggest three ways in
vmkh :esearchers can work toward the p,inciples
embodied ir. tl:e cur:cept of social justice,
Angrcsin,J: Kecontextuab:ing O'Jservation 111 739
;'i:st, the researcher shoulc directly
cunna::ed to poor and margina:ized. Helping
rhe latter n:ighl well involve intensive study of
pmver eH :es, ~llll a progressive agenda goes by
with those elites anc secs the poor simply as a
'·target population:' Direct connection necessarily
involvcs 'le coming a par! the everyday lite of
a community. The midd:e dass res.\1rchcr wlw
chooses to live wirh the poor and mherwise mar-
ghali,ed in our society (or wi:h entire sodi'lie~
that .ire poor and marginalized vis-a-vis larger
global powers; is, of course, in a di ffcren;
position compared with rcsidei:ts uf such commu-
nitie, who have no choke :i: the n:atkr, Bi;:
researc:i in service :o a progre;;sive agenda flows
from a degree of empathy (:1ot simply"rapport" :n
the way that term was used by traditional partici-
pant ob.5crvers) that is not available to thme who
do :mt even t:-y tu nrni:1ta:i: such ongoing cont:act.2
Second, the researcher should ask qut·slions
and search tor answers. This rr:igr.: seem like an
obvious thing for a researcher to do, but we are in
the of a,king quest io:1> based primarily
on our ,chulady knowledge of the literatu~e, We
move '.n a more prnductive direction J we begin
10 ask questicns based on our ~xpcr ience of lite
among the poor and margir,alized rather than on
our experience of what others have written or said
about them. 'ly the sar:ie token, we m·.1st avoic the
s~nhme=ita. condu.s io:i that "the peoplf' h,m: all
the answers, ji:st as we shun the as:;i.:rnplioo that
"the ex:)erts" kr.cw what is hest for the people.
Asking the relevan: ques:ions might lea<l us to
look within the comrm:nity for answers drawing
on its own nntapped resources. or it might lead 1Js
to eKplorc options beyond the commu:1:tr
Third, the researcher should become an
advocate, Adrncacy might 1r:ea11 becoming a
spokes;,erson for causes or i~~11es alread;· il~fincd
by the community. It also migl:t mean help:r:g
the people to discern and 2,rtlculare is~ues thal
may have 'Jeen inchoate to that point. Advocacy
often means engaging in sorr:c sort of :onfact
(eit;;~r among fiictions within the c;or:imunity or
bttwcen the community aml the powc~s-that-be).
bul ii can also mean finding ways in wh kh to
740 11 HA:'lllllODK Of QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER ::?.8
achieve consensus in support o( an is,me that has
the potential to unite. In either cai,e, one ends up
working with the co:mnunity as opposed to wo,k•
ingfilr the corr:mllnity (witr. the latter '.mplying a
more dis:anced s:a:ice).
The ovt.'rall gua'. of this process is to e:n~)()wer
the rommunlty to take charge of its ow11 destiny to
whatever extent is practical. The researcher might
well retain a personal agenda (e.g., collecting data
:o cmnple:e a d!sscrtatinn ), hut his or her main aim
:s tn vvork with :he community tu achieve shared
goals. Such a philosophy can be ditlicult to convey
to StLJdents or other apprentice researchers (e.g.,
how does it all work out --on the ground"?). To ,hat
end, it m,ghl be ;nslructive to mnsider a form of
pedagogy that, although not speclfically designed
for th [s purpose, certainly serves these ends.
Pedagogy for Social Justice:
Service Lea:ning
The mnccpl of "s<'rvice learning" was given
a boo~t hy the Johnson Founc!ation/Wingsprcad
report titled Pri'11ciples of Good Practice for
Combining Service a11d l,eaming. Service learning
'.s more than sin:p:y a way in which to incorporate
some local field research into sucial sdence
course;;. As a strategy adopted by USF and others in
response to the Principles report, sen·ice learning is
the process of integrating voluntt>er comn:un ity
service combined with active guided reflection bto
the curriculum to enhance and enrich student
lea:niug of course 1r:a1erial. It is designed to rein-
;•igorate the spir': of activism and voluntcerism
that energized campuses during the 19605 but tl:at
waned during subsequent decades. Cnlleges and
universllies that accep,ed this challenge formed a
support network (Campus Cu;n1x1c:1) lo develop
and promote service lc-arnir:g a, a pedagogical
strategy. Service !earning is now a national
movement.
The philosophical antecedent and academic
;,a:ent of service learning is experiential learn
::1g (e.g., cooperative education, internships,
f:elc placeme:1tsl, which was based on the
direct engagemcnl of the learner in the ;ihenome•
non being studied. The critical difterem:e and
distinguishir.g characteristic of <i>r,11rl' learning
is its emphasis on enrkhlog student learning
while also revitalizing the com m:mity To that
end, service learning involves st'.ldenta in course-
relevant activities that address real community
needs. Course materials (e.g., textbooks, iectures,
discussions. reflection) inform students' serv1t1::,
and the service experience is brought back to
the classroom to inform the academic dialogue
and t:ie quest for knowledge. This reciprocal
proce~s is based on the logical continuity between
experie:1:e and knowledge.
The pedagogy of service learning :dlec ts
research indicating that we retain 60% of what
we do, 80% of what we do with active guided
rellection, and 900~ of what we teach or glve to
others. The pedagogy is also based on the teach•
ing of inforrr.ation processing skills rather than
on the mere accumulation of information. Jn a
complex society, it is nearly impossible to rieter•
:nine wha: information will he necessary to
solve ;:,articular ;i:ublems. All too often the con-
kut that students learn in is obsolete by
the time :hey obtain their degrees. Se,vice
learning advocates promote the importance
"lighting t'le fire" teaching ~tudcnts :rnw tn
lhbk for themse:ves) as opposed to ufilling :he
bucket" (i.e., giv:ng students predigested facts
and figures). I.earning is not a predictable linear
process. It may begin at any point during a cyde,
and students :nig:it have to apply their limited
knowledge in a service si\'Jation before cu ••
scioosly setting out to gain or comprehend a
bod)' of tacts rehired to ,hat situation. The dis•
com:o:-r arising from the lack of knowledge is
supposed to encourage fi:rther accumulation of
facts or the evo!utionar,· development a per-
sonal theory for future application. lb ensure tfrn.t
this kind oflearning takes place, however, skilled
guidam:e in retlectior: on the experier:ce must
occur. By providing .students with the opportu•
ni :y to have a concrete experience and 6en
assisting them i:1 the intellecti:al pro,essing of
that experience, service learning not only takes
adva:1tage of a natural learning cyc:e but also
allows students to provide a meaningful contri-
bution to the community

It is important to note that the projects tl::at
form the basis of the students' expcr:ence are
generated by agencies o~ gruups in the commu•
ni:y. The projects can be either specific one-Ii :m:
efforts (e.g., a Habitat for Humani~y home•
:rJilding project) or longer tern:: initiatives (e.g.,
the developn:ent an a~ter-school recreation
and tutoring prol!,ram based at an inner-city com-
munity center). Given the faeme of this chapter,
it ls slgnifkant that all such act:vit:es :mild on the
fundamentals of observational research. Student
volunteers gradually adopt n:embership identi•
ties in the community and must nu:ture their
skills as observers of unfamiliar i:1teractions so as
to carry out the specific mandates of :he chosen
projects and to act as effective change agents in
the conununity. In this way, service learning pro-
jects aff:'.iated with courses 01.::side the social a:1d
behavioral sci,:noes require sti.:dents to become
practitioners of observational research methods,
although such an outcome is not a specifically
identified goal of the cour.;e. Recently at ser·
vice learning has ',een a ;;.ey feature of a diverse
set of courses, inch:ding an anthropology seminar
on c1Jmmurrit y dew.:~op:nent, a sociology course
on the effects of globalizatio:i, an inte:discipli-
nary social science course o:i farm-worker and
other rural issues, a psychology course on
res?onses to the HIVI AIDS e?ide:n ic, a social
work course on radai and et'lnic relations, and a
busi:iess s~m:nar on work?lace cornn:·J:ikation,
In si.:m, service lean: i:lg, which am:cts the
professional educator as well as the novice!
stude:it, is more than simply traditional "applied
social science;' whk:1 often had the character of
"doing fo:-" the comm'Jnity. Service learning,
whkl: beg'.ns wit'l the careful observation of a
community on the part of a comm:tted student
adopting a membership :d entity, is active
engagement in and with tne commi.:nity in ways
that foster the goals a soda'. justice oriented
prog:-essive politka. and sod al agenda.
Prospects for Observational Research
Althougl: it is certainly true thal "forecasting
the wax and wane of soda) sden.:e research
Angrosino: Recontcxtuali:dng Obse:vation 111 741
methods is always uncertain" (Adler & Adler,
1994, p. 389 ), it is probably safe to say that
observa:ion• based research :s going to be
increasi:1gly com:nitted to what Abu-Lug:iod
( 1991) ca[ed "the ethnography of the particular»
(p. 154}. Rather than attempting to describe the
corr.po site culture of a group or to analyze the full
range of institutior,s that suppos1?dly mnstitute
the society, the observational ethnogrn ?!:er will
be able to provide a roundec acco-.mt of the lives
t1f particular people, with the focus being on inci •
viduals and their ever-changing relationships
rather than on the supposedly homogenem:s,
coherent, patterned, and (particularly in the case
of tradStional a:ithropologists) timeless nature of
the supposed «group:' Currently the "ethnography
of the part!cular" coexists uneasily with more
quantitative and positivistic schools of sodology,
anthropology, and social psychology, There is,
however, considerable dou ht as to how long that
link can survive given the very different ains and
approaches of the diverging brand:es of the once
epistemnlngically unified social sciences. :t setms
like;y that observatio:1al tee~ niques will [nd a
home in a redefined genre of cultural studies,
leaving their positivist colleagues to carry o:i 'r. a
redefined social science disc'.pline,
0 bservation once implied a notebook and
pend! ar.d perhaps a sketch pad and simple cam-
era. The conduct of observational research was
revitalized by :ne introduction of movie cameras
and ~nen video recorders. Kote taking has beer.
tnmsformed by the ad,enl of laptop cor:1puters
and software programs that assis: in the analysis
of narrative data. But as our technological sophis-
tication increases, we face an increasing intclll'c-
tual dilemma in doing research. On the one hand,
we speak the theoretical language of "situated•
nes,;' indeterminacy, and relativis •: on tr.e other
hand, we rely more and more on tecl:nology tr.at
suggests the capture of"reality" in ways that could
be said to tramcend the individual researcher's
relatively limited capacity to interpret The trch-
r:ology makes it possible for the ethnographer to
record and analyze people and events w: th a
cegree of particularity :hat would have been
impossible j us! a decade ago, b'Jt it also has the
 742 111 HANDBOOK 01' QUALITATIVE Rl:SEARCH-CHAPTER 23
;::,otent1al lo privilege whar is captured on the
record at the <::xpense of the lived ex perien,e as
the ethnographer has personally kn own it It
would be foolish to st:ggest that, for the sake of
consistency, ohservarion-based cthnographes
should eschew further traffic with sophisticated
recording and analytic tech:10'.ogy, But :t would be
equally 000'. ish lo assm:1c tlm: the current strong
trer:(: i:1 the cirec:ion of individualized parti-
cula:-ism can cm:dnuewithou! significar::: modifi-
cation in the face of technology that has the
percrivtd power to object:fy ar:d tur:i into "data"
everything it encounters, Perhaps :t will become
necessary for us to turn o.i r observational powers
on the very process of observation, that is, to
understand ourselves net only as psychosocial
creatures (which k; the current tendency) but
also as users of technolcgy, As Postman ( l il9 3)
::ioin:ed out, technological change is never merely
add:tive or subtractive: it is mcver simply an aid ro
,foing what has always been done, Rather, it is
"ecological" b the sense that a change in one
as;,cct ofbehavio, has rami:ications for the entire
srstcm of which that behavior i& a part l:ndcr
those circumstances, perhaps the most effective
use of obse:-vational ted:niques we can make in
the ne;; r future wi:J he to discern the e1hos of
lhe technology :ha: we can no longe, afford to
tl:i:lk of as a m:atral adj L,nct to our bi.:sincss-
as-usi:al mentality, It is a technology that itself
has the capacity to define our bu;;iness. We need
to turn our observational powers to what happens
not only when '\,:en encff,mter "them" but also
wl:en we do so with a particular kind of totaliz-
ing technology.
:ilo tee!: nological revolution has bL'l:n more
challenging to the traditions of ob~ervational
research than lhe rise of the h::erutt and with
i: tl:e increasing prevalence and salience of the
"virtual corr:munitY:' Ethnographers have long
observed cnn:munities that are defic.ed by some
sort of geographic "reality; although we have also
recognized the importance of sodal networks
that are not place boum:', Contemporary virtu.11
commu :iities are an extension of such older
"commui itie1; of interest;' altl:ough they depenc:
on compi:_ter-mediated comm1:nka1]on and are
charac~erized by on :ine interactions, Research
needs to be developed to explore the nature of
these virtual communities, How are faey similar
to traditiona: communities or soda! networks?
How are they different? How does electronic'. com-
munication make new kinds of corr:munity possi-
ble? How does it facilitate existing communities?
(Regarding questions such as these, see Gabrial,
1998; Hine, 2000; Jones, 1998, 1999; Mad<ham,
1996; Miller & Slater, 2001) ), As Bird and Barber
(2002) noted, "Life on-line is bc.:o:ning simply
anot1er :iart of Ii :e In the twentv-first centurv.
' '
{
On linr comm:mities may replicate many of the
:eatures of other non-place-:iased communities,
but they also make available riew po~sibiEtics and
r:ew kinds of connections" (p.133).
The increasing salience of electmnk media
puses some sped a1 ethical challenges for the
ethnographic observer. lt goes without saying that
the traditim:al norr:,s of informed consent and
protection of privacy and confidentiality cunli nue
to important, even thoL1gh we are observing
and otherwise dealing with pcoplt we do not see
face to face, It is trJe that far ln~ernet is a kind of
public space, b:it the people who inhabit its vir-
tual terrain are still incividuals entitled to enjoy
the same rights as are people in more traditional
con: munities, There are as yet no comprehensive
guidel;nes a;:;plicable :o on!ine research, but a few
principles seem to be err:.:rgi ng by consens'Js,
First, research :>ased on a content analysis of a
:m blk website need not pose an ethical problem,
and "it is probably acccp1able to quote messages
posted on public message boards" (Bird & Barber,
2002, p. 134}. But the attribution of such quotes
to idcntlfiahle correspondents would be a breach
of privacy. Second, when observing an online
community, the resea:.::her should inform the
members of his or her presence and of h:s or /:er
intentions. The members should be assured that
the researcher will :mt use real names, e-r:1 ail
addresses, or any other identifying markers in
any ?U:'l!ication based on the research, Third,
many online groups have their own r·.1'.es for
en:cring and part'cipating, 'i:"he "virtU111'' com-
munil y should be :reated wi :h tl:e same resprct
""• if it were a "real" community, and its norr:1s of

courtesy should be observed carefully. Some
rtSf'.Hchers conducting online et'.1nographies,
therefo,e, h11ve accepted a~ standard procedure
the sharing of drafts of resear.:h reports for com-
men:, by members of thr online conmunity.
By allowing members to help decide how their
comments will be used, ti: is practice realizes
Lht larger ethical g1Jal (discussed earlier] of :urn-
ing re,carch "subject~" into truly empowered
collaborators.
3ird a:1d Barber (2002} pointed out tnat
"electronic rnmnn:nication is stripped of all !mt
the written word'' (p. 134).As such, the ethnogra-
pher i~ al somew:iat a disadvantage gitlfn that
thetrnditional mes of ge,bres, facial txpressiors,
and tm:es of voice-all of whk:h nuances
of meaning to sudal bchavio,-are missing. By
the sarn c tokei:, the identi1y of t :ic person with
whom the r,;-searc:ier is ::ornmunkat'ng can be
wr:ceah:d -or even deliberately falsified-in
ways that would not he possible in face-to-face
communication. Thcrcfo re, it is necessary to
develop a critical sense, to evaluate virtua'. sources
carefully, and to avoid making claims of certainty
that c:umcl be backed up by other means.
Whether in the virt ua: world or tne real wodd,
observation-based researchers continue 10 grap-
ple with the ethical demands of 1:1eir work. rn
light of comments ii: this cha;:ltt,, lt is heartening
to learn faat a recent report fro:n the Institute
of Medicine (lOYl) has p:.:sented us with the
challenge of rethi:iking the whole notion of
research etnics. Ethical ,egul atio:is, as discussed
previously, have tended to ask basirnlly negative
cuestions (e.g., \'ibt is misconduct! How can it
be 11reve:i:cd? ), ·:'he lOM ,eporl, however, invites
'JS in the r:ear tcrrr. ~uture to cor:sider tl:e positive
Whal is integrity? How do we :ind out
whether we huve ii? How can we ~ncourage it?).
According to Frede,ick Grinne:L a member of ke
!OM co1nmittee that produced rhe report, the
promotion of researcher integrity has both imli-
;;idual and :nstitutiona: components, :1a:nely
''enco'.lraging ind:viduab to be intdkctually
honest in tr.cir work aml to ,Kl 1esponsibly,
ar.d encouraging rese;1rc:h institution& lo provide
an er.vironment in which that behavior can
'""'"'nn· Rcc:mtrt:uali,ing Observa;[(:n 111 743
thrive" (Grinnell, 20112, ;,. BI Grinnell went so
far as 10 claim t'i at qua: ita:ive social rrsearchers
have a cent.cal role to play in th:s proposed evolu-
tion of !ht: slnJc·.urcs o:' research ethics becam,e
they a;e particularly well equipped to conduct
studies that would identify and assess the factors
that 'nfluence ir:tegrlty in research in both indi
Yiduals and large social in~titutlons.
Iii A CtOS!NG V{mm
It seerr.s c:ear that the· oner nnque,tionerl
hegemony of posi:ivistk cpistcmoiogy tl:at
encompassed even so fandamentally humanistic
a re~earch technique as obscrvation has now
been shaken to its roots. One lell:ng i1,dicatio:1 uf
lhc power of that transit:on and a d1 ..llenging
ir:cication of things to come-was a comment
by the late S:cphcn Jay GoJ!d, the renowr.ed
paleontulogisl and ~ isto rian science, who
ruefullr acmitted,
Ko faith can be more misle,,ditig :h;;n an unques-
tioned pnsonal convi,tion t'nat the appf.~cnt l<'sli-
mony of one's must provide a purely o·J;cclivc
acc:mnt, s=arcdy requiring any validation beyon<l
the dair:: :!self. Ullerly ur: biased observation mus:
rank as a pr':nary my th and shibboleth sdencc,
for we can only sec what fit, into our mental space,
and all dt>;;cription includes interpretation 2.s well
as sensory reparling. ( p.
ll!l NoTc.S
L In the chapter that appcam:l i:: the second
edition of this N,indhook, l'ercz and I cisrnssed a
r.umbcr of such studies. One of :he irJ:hors we cited,
Jarncs Mii;r:czakowoki, has that we oarify some
of lhc remarks we 111'-'c:e ®O·-l w,)rk. Noting '1is
,:sc "alternative" means of reporting ,Hmogr,qhi,;
cata, we linked him with other~ expcrimc:':ti::g with
ethm1 5raphic wrii:ng, :~.dud::ig JUlocthnographers,
111 so <loiog, we might have tmwittinglr left the
:mr,res,io:: that :V: ieoczakowsk:'s wnr;,; fell inl!l the
ca,tgory autoe:h~ographY. Although Lhal work :s
not ::ea:t with ii: 1his ,·haprer, I honor bound m
allow Mien:z,1kowski to present what he bclkvcs is a
 744 11 HANDBOOK Of: QUAllTAIIVE RESEARCII-CEAP:ER 28
more accurate representation of his work. In a personal
conmiur1kalion (May 17, 20[)4 ), he noted, "W.:y wo:k
unequivocally describes 1101 seU-lorntlon or ,r~:o-
ethnography but a very different form of eltmog,3phk
research construction. ln fact , , . my pe:-.onal experi•
ences or location , , • are not relevant to, er the focus of,
my publishcc researches in dclrndf:aition therapy:'
2. "Empath{ in th is context should be ir:terprctec
in a po:11:1:a: ser:se: !hat is, :he re:;earcher takes on a
commitme::t to the community's agec1da. Cse of the
term ::, this way should nnt be taken w i r:iply anything
about the totality of the commt:ni:y's culr•~re or aJ(JUt
the ability of the researche: to achieve a capacity to
enter totally into the ethos of that community-if such
a thing as an envelop::1g community ethos even exists.
ml REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod, L. (1990. Writing against c:ulrnre. In
R. G. Fox [Ed.), Recapturing anthropology:
Working in the present (pp. 137-162), Santa Fe,
NM: S~hocl of Amerkan Researc:i.
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership role.s i11 field
fll.Searrh. '.;'ewbl.'.,y Park, CA: Sage.
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (l 9941, ()bservational ;echniques.
I:: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hr.intlbovk
ef qualir~ti·1e resa1rch (p11. 377-392). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sag,.
Altheide, D. !.., & Jolmwn, J. M. (1994). Cr'teria ~or
a~sessing inlerp:etive validity ir. qualitative
r,·search. Io N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lir.roln (Eds,),
Haruibook or qualitative reuarc/1 (pp. 485-t,g).
Thousand ()aks, CA: Sage,
Angrosino,M. V.,& Pere;;, K. {2000). Rethinking obser
vation: From method to context. In N. K Denz,n
& Y 5. I.incr.;n (Eds,), Ha11dboolr: of qua/i/cuivt
Tl!!iearch ( 2nd ed., pp. 675-702). Thousand Oaks,
CA: S..ge.
Bell, J., & Jankowia~, W. R, (1991). The ethnographer
vs, the folk expert: Pitfalls of contra,·t e1hno-
!raphy. Human Orguniza,ion, 51, 412--417.
Ben:ard, H. R. ( I 988). Research methods in cultural
anthrllpalogy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
!lire S. E., & Barber. J. (2002). Cor:strncting a virtual
<thnography. ln M. V. Angrosino (:I'd.), Ikiing
cultural anthropal<lgy (pp. 129-137). Prospect
He:ghts, IL: Waveland.
Bochner, A. I', & Elis, C (Eds.). (2002). Eth1w-
gmplrirnl/y _,peaking: Aumnhnograph)1 literat1m,,
and r..esthetics. Walnut Creek. CA: AltaMira.
Cahill, L, S. (1981 ). Teleology, utilitarian, and Christiar
ethi;;s, Th,·ological Studies, 41, 601-629.
Clifford, J. (1983a). On ethnographic aurhori:y
Represmtatiom, I, I JB-146.
Cliffo~d, L (1983b). Power :ind dialogue in et:1nogra,
phy; Marcel Griaule's in[tiat:on. In G. W. Stockin~
(Ed.), Observers ()bsen,ed: Essays ll'I eth1wgraphh
fieldw(Jr/r (pp, '.21-156). Madison: U:::ve:,ily ol
Wisconsin P:ess.
Cole, D. (l 983 ). "The nine of a person '.:es in l:i,
llerunbi/dung"; Fra::z Boas' Balfinla::d letter
diary, 11183- 1884. In G. W. Stocking (Ed,).
Observers observed: Essays on etimogra,u.~i,
fieldwork (pp. 1.3-52), Mad'son: Ur::vcrsity nl
Wisconsin Press.
Curr.in, CE. ( 1979), Utilitarianism and con:.:mpura:·)'
:nural theology: Situating the debates. In C. E.
C~rran & R. A, McCormick (Eds.), Readings in
moral theology (pp. 341-362). Ramsey, NJ; Paulist
;:,
. ress.
Fhir·hr-1.C'bban, C ( 2003 ). Informed ronscnt in anthro-
pological research: We are not t>xempt. I~
C Fluebr-Lobban (Ed.}, P,,/;/cs and the profession
of anthropology (2r:d ed., pp. 159- I 78). \-Val out
(reek, CA: Alta~ini.
Gabrial, A. (1998). Assyrians: "3,000 years of 'iistory,
yet the Internet is our only :~ome." Cultural
Survival Quarterly, 21, 42-~4.
Gold. R. L. (1951:1). Roles in sociological fo:ld obser·
vat!on. Social Forfes, 36, 217-22).
Gold. R. L ( 1997). The eihnogrnphk met!'iod in soci•
ology, Qz.alitatil'e Inquiry, 3, 388-402.
Gould, S. J. (1998). The sharp-eyed ly:u:, outfoxed by
na:·~re (Part 2), Nr.m,ral History, !07, 23-27,
69-73,
Grinne], F. (2002. Oc:ober 4). The imp2.c1 of etr::cs on
research. Chnmi~le !If Higher Education, p. B15.
Gt:la,RM. (1989).Rea.iou informed by faith. New York:
Pau!i~t Press.
Gunsalus, C. K. (2002, t·fovcm·Jer 15). Rethinking p:11-
tcctior:s fur huma:: subjeds. Ommide of Higher
Education, p. 824.
Gupta, A,, & Ferguson, J. (1996). Discipline ,md prac-
tice: "The field" ,1ll silt', method, and locatior: in
anthroi;iology. In A, GuptJ & ;, Ferguson (Eds.),
Anthropoiogical ll>catiuns: Boundaries am! grounds
ofafield science (pp. 1-46} Berkdey: University of
Calift,:-nia Pre,s.
Hine, C. (2000), Vim,al ethnography. London: Sage.
Hoose, H. (1987). Propr1rti(nrnlism Washington, DC:
{,mrgetown Ur:ivi:Tsity P,ess.

Jones, S. G. (Ed.). ( 1998). Cybersodety 2.f!. Lo11do11:
Jones.~.(;. (1999).fJving lnl,mrt rm:rmh: Crilical
and me,huds for exammi•IJ/ the Net. l.1.mdon:
Kuhlma::n, A. (l9'.l2). C:iilahorntivt rcsc:irch among
the Kickapo~ 1cibe of Oklahoma. Human Orga,ii
zation~
Ku klick, 11. (I ~96 ). Alier lslm1ael: T:ie fi1-'dwcrk I~.di·
::on a:id folun::. In A. Gupta & J. f.:-rg·-1sor,
(Eds.), Antlirapofogico/ locatfr.m. Jfow,darf,>s and
grounds 1if a fit:i,l <rr,•er. (:ip. 47 65). Berkeley:
University of Califomiu Press.
: ..m:cm, J. (1983). Following Deam1:: lhe prcblct::
of ethnograpt:ic rca na lys is, 1925-1981. ...
G. W Stn.::kin~ (fa!.), 0/i;-c'rl'Crs ol•served: lis$/IY$
C •
m1 r1Jmographicfie/1lw1llk '.pp. 195).I,fadison:
University nf W:sconsin Pres,.
"'"'"~,, G. h. {I 997 ). '.:"he uses of c,1mplidt y in the
,han11.111~ mi~e-tn-sci:ne of anthrnpolugical
fieldwork. un1,,,r,,r:m 5'1, IOI!.
Y.arkham, 4. ( 1996). Liji: 011-line: Renarchiug rec:/ expe•
rienct m ,,,,.,,11,1 ,r,,cic,, Walnut Creek, CA: A:tai\faa.
Mats·.1moto, V. 11996). Reflect'om on ora'. hism:-y:
Research in a Japanese-A mcrk.m rnmmu 1 i: 1•. In
D. L Wolf (Ed.;. Fe>ninitt di{;mrnu, in fi!'ldwork
(pp.160-169). Boulder, CO: Vl'cslvicw
i:ikConuid,, El A. ( 197.l ). Ambiguil)' awi mora! dwice.
Milwaukc(\ WI: Marguet:c Cnivcrsity
~kCormkk, R. A., & Ran:sey. P. (. ~78). Doing evil to
11chie1•e gaod. Chicago: Lo}·ola TJn:versity Press.
Miles, M. & Huhermar., .".. M. (: 994 ). Q:111/ilative
datil analysis: An exp,mded source/look ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Miller, D., & Slaler, P. (2(H)O). The !ntmwr· An ethrw-
grnphit appwad1. >Jew York:
Pelto. P. :., & l'dtc, G. H. ( 1978). Ar;thmpclvgi.-al research:
The structure of inq11irj' (2:id cd.J. New York:
Camhri<lgc Univers:ry
Angrnsim.1: Rcconl~Xtll;ll izing O'iservation 111 74~
l'cstman ): , (I 99J). Tedmc:po(y: The s,ivrender of
wllmt /1; ledmo/ogy. N;,w York: Vintage.
Rossman, G. B., & Rall is, S. :'. ( 1998 ). Learning in
field: An imroducti0n to :1u11iil,uiYe ritsear,:h.
'i'hffJSllnd Oaks, CA:
Sewell, W. H. (1997, Smnmer). :;1.•nlz and
Hurn synchrony to transformation. Reprcsmla·
tiom, pp. 3':'>-S5.
Silve7mar., D. (: 993). lntcrprrti,,g qualiw!frc duia:
Strategies for anaf:lsing la!k. te:xl, and intrn.1ci ion.
Lm:licn:
Stm::k::1g, G. W. ( 198:la). T·~e ethnoi;7,,phds r::agic:
l'ieldwnrk in Br: t:sh amhr~pofogy from Tylor
to Malinowski. In C. W, Stocking ( Ed.), Observers
""'""""1 ' EsStfVS 011 ethrwgraphit fieiilwurA i PF.
120).•\.fadison: Ur,ivel'l'ity o"Wisconsin Press.
S:ocking, G. W (1983b). History of anthropology:
Whence/whilhcr. In G. W. 5:ocking (Ed.),
obser1ted: or; eth nog ra.plric:
fieldwork :pp. 12). Madison: University
Wisconsin Press.
Walter. J. i 19!!4). l'm;iortionare reJS(ll1 it, th rec
leve:s of 'nquiry: Stn1ct·Jri11g the ong,,i11g dd1a:c.
Lo1,w1iri S!udirs, !:J, 3U-40.
Wax, M. l.., & Cas,dl, I. IJ \l?~}. Fed1m1i reg1ifations:
E1!iic11/ !.;.mes am! sod{{/ remm.-11. lbnlder, CO:
Wern er, & S:hoept:c, ::vi (I 9Si j. S;•s!rn1atic
,
liefdwork, Vol. I: fow,drllions of etlm~vrafr!r~ mwJ
✓ z")- ..,
imerviewing. Newbury Park, CA: ~age.
\'\-u.cotl, '.·I. ~. (1995). The ,m af Ji"l.iwork. Walnul
Creek, CA: Alta.\-1ira.
>Vo!C D. I., ( 1996). :SrttmL:1; for:1inist d:lemmas in
fieldwork. In ll L Wo:C : ld. ), l'emmi.;t difernma'
in }lefdwork (pp. 1-55). llnuldcr, CO: Westview.
Wolf, );I. A. (I 992). A thricc-wid !ale: Feminism.
pvstmod,qni/'m, wuJ elhnogmp/;ic rn.<pvn,il:iiity.
Shmfurd, CA: Stanford Lniver,il y Press.
29
WHAT'S NEWVISUALLY?
Douglas Harper
0
ne faces the task of a chap:er or. tl:e same
su'::>'ect for t'ie third edition of th:s
Ha~dbQok with a certain amount of trepi•
dation. After all, not that much changes in Ihe
social sciences, especially within such a fow brief
years. Yet there are new themes, technologies,
and practices :nixed into the g,adual evolu tiom of
established patterns in visual methods. With that
in mind, my goal in ;his chapter is to minimize
overla:' with the cha pte:-:; [n the earlier ed: :ions,
with the modest proposa! of seeing what indeed is
new :n visually inspired qualitative researrh.
Tl:us, readers interested in the postmodern
cr:tique of v:sual ethnography; the relationship
among visual soc:o:ogy, visual anthrn;iulogy,
and documentary phntography: and the devel-
opnent of a research typology of visual tr.ink
ing in visual research should consult the earlier
:hapte:. ( Harper, l ':l':l 3, 2000). I suggested that
visual sociology offered the opportunity to add·
ress ~he postmodern critiques of ethnography
and documentary photography and, in so doing,
to fashion a new method based on the under-
standing of the social construction of the image
and the need for co[abo~ation between :he
subject and the photographer.
This cha?ter examines the status of visual
thinking in the sociological community, :he
impact of new rechr:ologies on visual methods, the
continuing development of visual coc1m:entary
and visual sociology, and problematical ethics
questions in the visual reseaxl: world.
In the backgrour.d is a much discussed sepa-
ration in the visual studies movement between
the study of sodi:.l life using images, wl:ich is
of:en referred to as :he empirical wing of visual
sociology, a,1d the study o: tht" meanings of visual
cultu~e, which is usually called cultural studies.
S1Jme have argued that this clouds the fad that we
share a fu:1d;:.me11:al interest in the r:1eanings of
visua I imagery.
As an exam:,le of vistally oriented ct:!tural
studies, f11ery and Faery (2003) explore Foucault's
imaging of the body, Lacanfan theories of ahjec•
tion and reflection, Kr:stev a's ideas about body
fragmentation and visual cultu1e, Derrida's r:otions
about social reproduction and the semiotics of
imagery, and Barthcs's semiotics of photog~aphy.
Their book contains only one image-a repro-
duction of a 1992 Ca(v in and Hobbes cartoon to
illustrate Kristeva's theory tl:c abjectio:i of the
self. However, the arguments arc grounded in
examples of visual imagery on we::isites that are
listed at the ends of tl:e chapters, Thus, the reader
can refer to the images of Yagritte, Dali, Warhol,
Caravaggio, and Bernini, to the photographs of
Newton, anc to the films of 1-Etchcock wi1hou1 tl:e
expense anc inconvenience of having the images
Ill 747
748 111 HANDBOOK OF QGAUTATIVE 1{E5F.ARCII-CHAPTER
:n tl:e hook itself, Of co-1rse, reading tl:e book
i• p'.ie.~ access to a computer and the l!:ternel,
and refcrendngwebsites in this way assumes ,hat
the images will stili be available or:: in.:: for as long
as the book is used. Because 7he images are not
esoteric, ti: i& is probably a safe be,. So, the boo:<
presents itsd f as a pos1modern argument again;!
the hegemony of its owr: form.
But more to the ?O:n: of this d1apter, Fuery
a:1d Fuery (20ii3} how culturnl studies use
intages to advance theories of the sdf, society,
existenci;: itself, and/or symbolili m. I have sug-
gested el~ewherc (Harper, 11.d.) that cultural sti.:d-
les gcne,aHy use i• ages (fron: fine ;irts to mass
media, from ,1 ~chitectural shapes to fashion,
from hody dccornfaJ1: e.nd shapes to ir:rngery of
r:ightmarcs) as a x:erent for Lhe devdopmer:t
of thenry. One can argue that these cultural
st 11dies arc ethnographic in an :ndircct ma.rm er;
thev, are based on the anaivsi~ , of the visual
culture writ large.
This dtapter ha, a di:furent orient,llion because
I believe that a handbook of qualita1 ive n:scarch
should focus on field research. From my perspec-
tive, the emphasis should be on the practical, that
is, ush1g imagery to study specific questions and
isst1es in sociology, a:ithmpol og); communica •
tions, and the like. Much nf what [ discuss in the
:olluwing craws on photography, although there
are seve:".il other suitable ways in which to visually
reprrscr.t the world b social researcr., Fur example,
in my own study of the work o~ a rural artisar.
(Harper, 1987 ), drnwiugs compleme1:ted photo•
graphs. The drawings allowed a more s·Jb;ective
take; elements coulri be left out, and interiors of
objects could be :r:vaded with cutaways. So, there
is no r~aso:i why photography must domi:1ate
empirical visual sociology beyond the foci that ii
has prm•en to be enormou~ly usi;;ful.
Jv:ost of the visual sm;iology discussed in this
chapter depends on photographs-processed,
jmi:ta posed, dernnstructed, and captioned, bu:
still evidenre of something seen, It ili a remindc:r,
once again, ?hotography as ·Joth empirical and
consl meted. It has become so1:1ething of a r•tuai
to repeat this idea in .,II arlide, or chapters on
visual sociology, but it appears to be necessary.
lii!l lNNOVAilO.KS l:i JOUR~At PUBLICATION
Soc'ologlcal research th a: rel:es on visual data
is being put.:ished with increasing frequency.
Jour.:ials such a, Qua!itatii'e in,1uiry and ,1ymbu!ic
lmeraclian inch:dc inagery-not exactly nm•
tinely, but :110re and more frequently nondhr•
less. Seve,al new \!isually oriented jo'.Jrnafa hive
joined established visual social science journals,
sucb as Visual /lnthropology 11m' Visual Sociology
(renamed Visual Studies in 200 I), as outlets for
visua I :-esearch.
A promising development within Amerk,m
sndology was the int:oduction of the A:nerican
Soc:o:ogical Associat'or.'s (ASA) Journal, Contexts,
in 200 ·. Contexts, i1:tem;ed :o popularin: sociol-
ogy for a rna;,s auciienci;, i.s fae first American
sociology io:1rnal 10 foref:ont vfat:al :nfom1ation,
albeit with not entirelv, consistent results.
Visi:al Di:strntion in C.:mte:xts is used in three
ways. J ca!I the first the "illustrated re5e.1rch arti·
de," wi:h an ei;.arnplc being Rank's (20D3) study
of the iflcidence of poverty il1 the t:nited .)'"'''"·
Rank uses photographs to portray a spectrum of
the poor, including well-dresseci joh seekers,
some ct sing cell phones, in an unemployment line
in New York; a group of perhaps 200 dis:ieveled
homeless people gafaering for shelter in San
Fram.isrn; a young horr.eless family in Eugene,
Oregon, sitting on a curb across the street from a
grocery store; and an African American woman
and an ageu white irnmigrant in the daily routines
of their poverl y. T1e images put a face on s!atisti •
cal data, but what do they .:dd beyond that?
.rirst, tl:1:y con:extuali2e poverty with athc:
sociological variables such as family Efo, u:iem-
ployment, atid global migration, Vlslll!I docun:en-
tat:on becomes a part of research triangul ..tion,
confirming theories using different forr1s of data.
In these ir:s!ances, the phutographs a;gue that
traces of the world adequately describe the
phenomenon under question.
The photographs alsn Sil bjectivcly connect
the virwer to the .ugi:mcn:. The well-dressed
job seekers :n New York con.1ect poverty di :-ectly
to err: :iloym.:nt The lmmele.ss couple and child in
Oregon do not kmk Ii ke the sterroty:>ed vision of

poverty; we wouk\ ex ;,eel to see their ;; ~tractive
faces in a 1yp'cal rniddle-da,s home. The irn mi
grant in pover:y is an elderly man from the
;,letherlands, showing us that no;irninority
immigrants also to make ends meet in
the L;nlted State,.
Rut although the,c photographs are imp or
1ant to the text, the, rrmain scmndarv. The
' '
visual dirr.er.sion is :mt in,egrated ii::o the
research; th: images are added by an editor who
has rhe challenging job of ;ecuri i:g ;,hotos from
a varii>ty sources. TJ:e result is thai .iseful
photos are often found and pt:blished, hut so
are i:nages faat fall sh,1rt of their ma:, dare to
visually :ell a sociological story.
Context, ,dsu publist:es ?ho:o where
socio Iag:cal thlnki:lg emerges c: rectly from
images rather than reinforcing and elaborating on
word-based thinkir:g. Gold's (2003) p'.-.o:o essay
on the Israeli diaspora is a good example. The
body of tl:ie article of 12 photographs
and captions organized a:uund the themes of
"Individual and Communitv' BusinesS:'"De:si,,r.ing
" ~
and Finding Comrnu:1':ies;' and "Tnmsn.uional
Ne;works and ldentitie,.:' The photographs lom7e
people in various environments-from their
homes, to businesses, to public set;ings-inter-
acting in the ruutincs of various ~c,cial scenes. The
images are o~ga:1 :zed conreptuaJy and are the
main "''llY in whic':1 the idc:1s are presented. Gold's
pl:oto essay (and o:hers published in Contexts)
shows the poss:bility oi sociological thinking tl:at
derivt,; nearly en:irely fa11n images, The i:1tention
is that sociologists will reg_,i,d the photographs b
these essays as visual data, that is, that socio'.ngists
will engage 1hr ::,l:omgrap'is with active intellec-
tual "loo:S.bg:' Because pl:otogmphs satum:e pop·
ula, rnlture and are generally treated superfid ally,
this is a big leap.
As hinted at previous·.y, asking sociologists
to take photogra pl:s seriously raises the matter
of their ~ruth status--m their validity, in sucio-
logical terminology. Here, as has been stated
many times previously and has already been
mentioned in this chapter, res:s a cent~al :rony of
!he photograph; It is both true and constructed.
It ls true :n the sense that it retlec ts light falling
Harper: Whal's New Visually? 111 749
011 a ~urface, but it is also constructed by the
technical, k1r:na'. ist:c, m:d uther selediom, that go
hto making I he i magc and by :he contexrs (frnr:i
1:istorical lo presentational for mat) in wh kh it is
viewed. In this way, photos arc similar to all forms
of data-both qualitative and quantitative.
[t i~ ho~>ed :hat the Ccm1ext; photo w,H
elevate sociologists' understanding of this c.~sential
similarity hcr.veen ;,hotogrnpi:ic data and otl:er
:orms of data.
C1mtexts also publishes photo essays on social
change, thal images tl:at show the same so ..ial
seea~ at an e-.uher lim ~ a:1d a more conten: ::io-
rary ti:m,. Photography i, especially helpful in
studies of soda) change because photographs
can be matched with tarlier images to reveal extra -
ordina~ily detailed rem:ilions of changes in human
'iabitation, landscape, and! or !:aces of human
in:emction. This approach draws on !he work of a
single sociologist, Jon Rieger, who has applied lhc
fine arts and docurr:cntary"rcphotography"move
mc:1t to tbe study of social change in northern
Mid:igan (Rieger, J996,200.1) and other settbgs.
Although Conte.xis ha~ broken :icw grounc. in
sociology, it remains to be oeen whether the jour-
nal will succcssfnlly make the Gloe for vist:al data
in research or whether :: wHI be considered less
rigorous precisely beca·.1se the joJrnal relies
he,;v ily on visual ci splay,. For Context; to redefine
visual thinki:lg in socio'.og:cal publishmg, it must
initiate a dscus;;ion of the role of visual informa-
tion in sociological :hinking and presentation.
The journal must also Improve 1;1cans of
atta'.ning images; it is sirr:?IY not feas:b:e to assume
tllll.t sood-hcarted p:1otograp'.1ers will conatc the
use of their photos. It is ,dso i:ol fea;ible to assume
that vohmleet staff :11em hers (despite their success
~o far) ca:1 do what profossional pho:o editors do,
that is, find and get access to the very best pho:u:;
to develop visual arguoents.
Iii Knv TECHNOtOGIES;
KEW WAYS O!• TmNKt'¾G
W:iat is genuinely new in visual sociology is
the use technology rccordii:g, organiztng,
 750 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CMAPTER Z9
presenting, and analyzing visual hforrr.ation.
Emerging technologies have revolut!oni:red the
use of imagery in social science, an,i some intre•
pid researchers have already provided convincing
examples. The basis of the revo'. '.ltion ii; ihe rnm·
puter, but more sp~cifica'.ly it is software pro-
grams such as Macromedia's Director and, ir.
some cases, the Web. All of these technologies
are severa 1generational offsprings of HyptrCard,
a prog:-am bu:1dled with early Apple computers
that allowed information tu be organized :n a
non li:1ear manner, fn wha: follows, I briefly
examine four projects that demonstrate :he range
of these new ways of thinking and doing field
research visually.
Jay Ruby's ethnographic study uf Oak Park,
Illinois, uses the Web to disse:ninate the ongoing
results of a field study (Ruby, n.d. ). The website
(http://astro.ocis.temple.edu/-rnby/oppl) includes
interviews, photographs, ohservatior:s, historical
commentary, and video segments in varim;s forms
of corr.pletion. Ruby also established a listserv of
residents of Oak Park, i:iviting people who are the
subje.:t o: the sti;dy tc disagree, elaborate, or
simply cor:, :nent on the ongoing study. Accordiog
to Ruhy's website,
Oak Park Stories is a ,-.eries or CX?crimental, reflex-
ive,and digirnl ethnograpbies that attempt lo explore
a forty-year-old social experiment in Oak Park, a
Chkago suburb. It is erperimcnta! in that r ::ave not
fol kiwed the traditional method of prod~dng a book
or film but instead m.de an interac:ive ar.d non
linea~work that ha;; both video and text. It is reflexive
in tr:at the subject of my :-esca,ch is my hometown.
.•• [t is digital in its form of delivery-cm a JVD
•asing QuickTime movies and html doc-.;ments. I have
amstmcted these Stories in a nonliru:ar fasnion; that
is, unlike a book or a film, there is nn defmed begin-
ning, middle, ur end. ViewrrslReaders are free to
begin anywhe:-e. They can ignore anything lha:doe.,
nt interest them. I have provided many links to mate-
rials Ihm will al:ow anyone interes:ed to pursue a
topic ill rmm, depth.: have found weiring in a nonlin-
ear fashion to be an:azingly freeing.
The website is organized around "modules~
which a:e broad categories with s,roll-down sub
categories. These include an extensive discussion
of ethnography; histo:ies of familic, that represent
the commi;nity, the black migration to Chicago
and Oak Park itself, biographies of individua Is
w:10 have played an impor:ant role ln the commu•
nity, and otner modules that explore themes such
as racial integration.
Them odule organization is similar lo chapters
in a book but also is distinctly different. The mod·
ules include subcategories of ;;hoto essays {often
from archival sources l tr.at show, for example,
images of race riots in 19 I9 and :m ages of a single
African Ar.le,ican on an otherwise all-white
championship football team. The module format
establishes a logic for the overall project: The
first-order categories are the moc·Jles :hemselves,
the second order categories are scrollable items
henea th the module title, and the third-order
ir.formation exists in the many Iinked articles,
photo essays, newspa?~rs, and other archival
documents that are sprinkled liberally through-
out. Thi;; is similar to the organi2ation of a booi<
with a chapter structure, text, and endnotes, hut
it is markedly di::erent because of the freedom
allowed to go into mo:.: depth than a parti~lllar
subject in a book might allow ur to add material
that might be too :angential for a scholarly
study. For example, Ruby's srudy develops a cen•
tral theme of racial and ethr:lc integration. Sub-
categories of the integra:ion module p:-esent the
history of African Americans in Chicago in more
detail than would l'kely be included i:1 an acade-
mic monograpi. Ruby's pages long overview of
housing policies, race po'.:tics, rnd shifting
demographic information can, however, easily
be ir.duded in the Web presentat:or... It is contex ·
tua.:izing information tliat some, but certainly not
all, viewers/readers will use. I.inks to additional
sites fi:rther :hese possibilities.
RJby pos:s quarter:y reporrs from the field and
asks for feedback by way of Web discussions. His
importance in visual anthropology and promi-
nence in a visua: communicalior, listserv gener•
ates a Web-based audience for his work.
The attractiveness of this mode of dissemina-
tion is precisely that a variety of communication
modes-text, still images, and moving images-
ca:1 he integrated. However, the memory•hungry

nature of video makes it (so far} impractical to
inch:de more than a few se;;onds of video clips,
with the moving images ;Je i ng bracketed ;n:o a
sr:1all thumbnail on the scree r:. The final project
is intended as a number of DVD,, where lunge:
video seg,nent, can included.
The sharing of the project-in-progress by way of
an evolving web.site has not, to my knowledge, been
done before. The project coak :eft in this form
and 1:pdated on il continual tmsili throug:1 the near
fnh1re. However, Ruby ir:rends to finalize the p:1:1ject
as one or more DVDs dkrihuted ir: the same way as
othe~ en:erging visual anthropology multi:m:dia
project~ are distributed, tha: is, brough comoer-
dal or academic publishera.
Other v:sually oriented socio'.ogists have
begJ.:1 to develop the ;,ote:itial of advan..:ed bter-
activity with ;v!acmmedia's Direcror. :he f'rst of
these projects was Biclla, Chagnon, and Seaman's
(1997) Yanum,1mo lt!teractive, which is an i:iter•
action ver~im: l!f Chagn~)n and Asch's classic
ethnograph k film, The Ax Fight. 1 r~e Fight :s
a LO-minute film showing a hostile interaction
between two groups of Yam1mamo trihespeo;,le
in Venewela, The film has become an inportant
tead1h:t! tool as well as an important research
tool. It is a mmmou ly cited example of how min•
imally edited ethnog:11phic film ca:i tell several
layers of ctr.nogmph le stories. So, the Biel la pro-
je,;t is based on expanding the po:e::fo.1; of a
'"'·"·' in visual anthropology, :ximarily (but not
ex.elusively) for teaching,
The tracitional me;u:~ of teaching this mali:::-
ial has been to show :he film, assign readings un
the Yanamamo, and ir.,egrate these matcrials ir:
lectureS and ci,cussions. Researchers use a sim i•
lar stra:eov-dooe studv' of the f:.lm and ,onsid-
e•
erntior: of vis·Jal material in the context of wtitter:
sources.
By packaging the tnm with d:fferenl kinds
of information (still photographs, graphs, tables,
a:1<: extensivr to:t,) so that various parts ca:i be
connecteo in novel ways, fonamamo fnteractive
opens up heretofore unexplored pedagogical a:1d
researd: possibilities.
The 1arrnmamo !nteractive CD-ROM induces
three versions of the fil :n (unedited and ecitcd in
Harp,·r; What's New Visua[y? Ill 751
two for:ns ), 380 parngrafb that describe the
ever.ts as they untold in the fib1 (these are viewed
alongside the scrolling film), trnice than JOO cap-
tiom:d p:rntographs of the par:ic:pants in :he ax
fight, genealogka: charts that plot the p:,rtid-
panls' relationships, and maps of the village and
t:le interact ion of the Egl: :. As neted. :h~ soft-
ware architcrmre allows viewers to move a:r.01:g
filmed events, hiographkal sketches, map, of
irr::ro~tant places, and ethnographic explanations
freely aad creatively. The format :r:vites theory
testing, both fo:-mally am: info.::mally. The CD-
ROM de:'lnes fil;n as being i:1kgral tu ethnogra-
phy rather thar: as a fo,m of ethnography itseJ.
A, a result, the film can be seen as e:hnographk
information tha, is ceconstructed by reading the
anth:opology that backg;0und informatio:i.
Mv expt::~icnce with the CD-ROM has been
nothing short of inspiring. I am well aware of how
i"ti,·:il· it is to teach ethnographic film; students
see the film h1 one parcel of time and ther: reac
or discuss it in another parcel cf time. Thus, the
emotional and ,ubjed iw experience nf studying
mm ts separated from the 1,rnrc analytical experi·
ence ot ,mdying texts. This scparatlo:1 o:h,n
to ste,eo:yping prec:sdy '.lccausc emotions
a:id analysis herome ever more distant from
each uther.
The interactfrity potential of the CD-RO.M
a:!O'w, :he viewer to, for example, slop the video,
select a particular parri dpant in the figh:, and
trace the participant', genealogy in the village and
his social position vis-J.-vis hi, participation in
village grm:::,;; and activihes. Thw, students and
researchers can ,11:dy the contexts o" social action
and begin to understand the layers of meaning
that reside under the surface uf the fight. In
the organiza:ion of :he material invites su:dcnts
and researchers to ,is k new qn estiuns ar1 d to
im·cstigate new lines of reasoning.
The project bas been distributed wi:h an int ,o-
ductory anthropology le~ !book and is w:d ely
used in university anthropology courses. The
CD-ROM allows sh1dents from a w'dc range of
backgro·Jnds to actua[y enconnter cthnograp'i:c
information and, thus, to do visual research at a
fairly sophist:cated kvel.
 Ill HANDBOOK OF QC1\'..JTATIVI' RESEARCH-CHAPTEil. 29
It is like Iy that th c forma: introduced in
Ycmamamo luteracrive will soon become common
in visual ar.faropology, extending the Jsefulness
of ethnographic film for boll: teach;ng and
:-escan::I:. Several projects by the authors nf this
CD-ROM and others are nnccr wa):
Macromedia's Director has also been used to
pm duce a searchable archive of the work of docu-
mentary photographer Jean Mohr. .Mohr is bes~
kr.own for his collaborations with Join: Berger
{Berger & Muhr, 1967, 1982) and fin his
work in the area of international human rights for
several international orgar:izations (Mohr's fl rs!
photographs, :akcn during the early 1950s, docu-
mcn1ed :he everyday lives of i'alestic.ian refugee, J.
He has also photographed less known projects
in.-olving the Chic.go police on patrol and inter-
national tours n~ a Eu ropea:i symphony.
The CD- ROY. ti:kd Jem1 }..fohr: A Photo•
,rz,apher'., Journey (Mohr, n.d.} collects more than
1,200 of Mohr's black-and-white and color photo·
graphs (from more than I million taker: during his
SU-year career) and includes brid inttrvlews with
Mt1:i r and others about the meaning ,;f his work as
well as brie: texts that explain .inc elaborate on the
projects from whkr. :he images were drawn,
T:ie core of :he project fo the pholographs,
which arc oq;anized in five categories, :he mos:
i:nportanl o: which are "image type;' "subjects;•
a11d "regiom,." Ea~h of these categories inc:uces
several subcatcgori es accessible as drnp•do¾'n
menus. For exa:nple, the in:age category of
"subjects" ind Jdes th~ s~1bcategories of"migrants:•
"mus;C:' "refagces!' and several others. Thus, the
viewer is able to 1.Te.1te a rnr?US of images by dick-
ing on one subcategory in each main category. For
example, I direct the CD-ROM to gather Mohr's
black and-white portraits of refugees who were
photographed in Africa. Or, the viewer c:uuld di:-;;;cl
the CD-ROY! to select color images on the general
subject of music tha1 Mohr plmtographe<l in 1he
Middle East Combining a different suhe:ement
from each of the mab catrgories allm;,,s the viewer
to construct hundredi; of inc.ividualized archives,
These advanced searching capabilities allow
tie viewer to use Mohr's work efficiently and
creatively, I found t;1at, after several hmm, of
workir:g with the archive, the only limitation that
suggested itself was t:ie number of photographs
!:lat it included. A total of 1,200 images rn ight
seem lit<e a lot at first glance, but they are a tiny
percentage of Mohr's life work, Most scarchei;
cross-re:erenced a;;:ross several categories yield
20 to .m images, whereas Mohr's full corp'.ls wm;Jd
include several times that na:nber. The most cha!•
lenging aspec: of this project was dearly in pro•
grammi:ig the navigation; one senses :hat more
images could have easily been scanned and added
to the aceh ive, Thus, if the project had induced
three to four times the number of images, 1:1.e
archive would be thar much more useful.
tikctro:iic and searchable photograph archives
from newspapers or public collec:ions are bcreas•
ingly available, Mohr's project, however, might be
:he t(I ;:m:scnt the life 'Nork of a sociologically
oriented photographer with information that
cescribes his career, publication,, seJf. reflections,
and mrnmentary m: his relationship wi:h Berger.
As an overview of the work of a sbgle photogra-
pher, it sketches the work i:1g methods r1f iin artis:.
It also prov ides visual evidence on sociological
11:emes such as rcfagees as well as visual area
studies of the pkccs where Ylohr concentrated his
effur:s_ Sho:T video clips also humanize Mohr,
O:ie would hope that the eo1:siderable effort
represented b this CD-ROM project will lead
others to ~ynthesize their photograpnir work. espe•
dally when the work so broadly addresses subject
matters of in:erest to sociological researchers.
T'wo projects with a srr:aller scope show tie
poten:ia~ of :r:teract:ve media in visual n:~~arch.
Rkahetl: Steiger photograpl:ed an aspect of dally
li fo-a train commute makes several :imcs a
from llasel to Z:.irich, Switzerland, :o rnn-
slruct a visual ethnography of a taken-for-granted
aspect of daily l:fe (Stl'igcr, 2000} (Figure 29.l).
The i:nages are both impressionistic (showing
blurred landscapes through the train window,-
ttie world speeding by as viewed from inside the
train) and ethr:ogn!.pl:k (showing the tac:: social
scripts-how people interact on ~ train-that
under:ie the public behavior in Switrerland).
Steiger's project was pub::shed in Vi5ual
Sociclogy as a .;;;,acc.n.u article in two forms. the

Figure 29. l. lmide the Train
Source: Photograph by Rirnheth Steiger.
article text and photo sequence were ;:m':ilished
as thumbnail.sized images in the print journal
and on a CD·R0M that housed a Director•based
movie ve,sion of the project. The CD. ROM format
allowed Steiger :ransform still photographs
into a new mode of corr,municatlon-a virtual
movie cor:sistiug of au automatically advancing
,:ide show. This was an ideal solution; the imagrs
were too numerous to work as an a:tide but were
too few to co:islitute a book, and they :ieeded to
be viewed in sequence to achieve the intended
effect. Although the thorn b11ail ir:mges publi,hed
in tht joun,al are a catalog of the photos, the vir·
teal movie clea:-Iy constitutes rhe actual article.
':'he p·Jblkation of the project in Visual
Soeioh>gy w<1s a breakthrough the presentation
of visual research, The development of the ClJ·
ROM required the journal designer to have know!•
edge of relevant software and cross· platform
development. The International Visual Sociology
Association (IVSA), the s;ionsoring academic
Ha:per: What's New Visually? 111 753
organiza<:ion of the journal, devoted co:isiderable
resources to fund the CD-ROM and to package am!
distribute it as a regu:ar part of far journal. It lid
so with the hope that the project's revolut:o:1ary
character would help to encourage a new way in
which to see and du visual research.
Finally, Dianne Hagaman recen:ly published
a photographic project using the same software,
with ronsiderab'.y more elaborate development
(Hagaman, 2002). in the case of Steiger's pro•
ject, the subject is a visual ethnography of daily
life, in this case her life with her husband, the
socio:ogist Howard Becker.
The photographs are organized into 14 "son•
nets;' with each sonnet na:rn,c after a ;azz stan·
card such as "Kight and Day;"'Slow Boar' to China"
(Figure 29.2), or "One Morning in Ma( ]all has
been an important part of Becker's life; he was
(and remains) a practicing musician, and his
stnd;es of jazz are important contributions to ml·
turn! sociology. The photographs also have a
 7!i• Ill l lANDBOOK 01' Q~!ALlT,\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 29
Hiure 29.2. };rum "Slow !foat to China" S.onn~t of lh~ CD-ROM llowie Fteds Afr
S,,ur.c: t'holugreph, by Dianne I!agar.mt
qua Iity; tln:y are subtle and prc~cnt reality from
an oblique angle, Iran ,forming ldlerwisc ,uue-
nrnrkahle subjrct matter, su,h as window frames
and hcds. into poetic ,ii;ual stJtemenls. Lik~wisc,
jazz pr,'senb familiar melodies in unusual .inJ
prnvo~.itive rr.m1cs of musk-al reference.
The photographs are; aho111 place (the couple'~
horn es in Seattle aml San Frandsco and the <:ou-
pk's travels to Paris and other locations where
Becker lei:turt>s), landscape (Hagaman is a mastt:r
at rendering sky m, a part of l~mfa,ape, uflcn
in l1ahited br biru.s Oil the wing), SO(i.11 gatherings
(often with well-known ~ociulogists ). and (most
centrally) their own rdationship. According to
Hagaman's introduction.
W,· w,'rl"n', kids when Wf met and de,;ided to live
h>g~lher, and we di<l r.'t have 011r who Ir lives ah,'a,I
of u, ....
I k pla~d the piano a11<l kn(W hundreds ol sunt1s
from his d~y~ when he pla~d dubs in Chicag,1. And
he c,mld co0k. An<l likeJ lo do it lie tol<l me that
~:t.::r his wik NM died, he made himself thrre foll
meal, l\ day, <'.v~ry da,, in onler 10 ettablish i ro11tin.-
1111d slrucllm, in h:s lik in a time of chan~ and grk{
I, huwcv.:r, had never l~arned to cook. It wa~n't
deliberate. l jm,I somehow fdl through thr <'l"d.k~.
B1,t, ma~\,e ~s a ,ons,·qutnce, I've never t.;kcn the
pr.:paration or tht: sndal asp~ct~ of food for
granted: how central eJI ing is and prepirinJI. 1he:
li:,od thJI you cat (th~t masic~l ,lill) i~. who we eat
with and wh<"rt.
Thu~, the proj(!ct is titkd Howie Feeds Me, and
!be photographs ,ill ude lo a .-elationship rooted in
caring tor and nourishing the body and spirit. In
this way, the project J,; an ethnography of Ihe daily
lile of a cm,ple and thc:-ir loving rdat ionship, as tutd
from the perspective of one partne:·, The only sim-
ila1· attempts to communicate this theme 8 re i,aur.i
Letinsky's photo essay ¼uus Inferred (Lt'tinsky,
2000), which fncus,'s on the banalities of the
sexual lives of several c,JUple5, and Pe-rnettc and
Leeuwen berg'.~ (200 I) photo essay Oil thci r inti-
mate relationship. But whereas l.etinsky (2000)
fu.:uses on the obviom (i.e., a st'ric~ of couples
looking cm harras~ed in the act of coupling) and
Perneue and Leeuwenberg (200 I), hoth photogra-
phers in their early 30s, LISI: thl' camera to rcrord
tht energy and lovingnes~ of sexual union.
Hagaman (2002) com:nunicates the mundane
aspe.:ts of nonsexual intimacy with ~ubtlety and
humor that ~ugge~ts the stuff of daily life.
Much of the mess,ige of Hag11man's essay
is in the mtdium. The project is rooted in
J5-millimetcr hlack-and-wbile photos, hut from
n,
tht: be,iti u 11g it was intendec for the .:om?ute:r.
Haga1n.rn mganizcd the CD-Jl.OM-moun:ed
photo seqaenl-es in what she .:alb sumlet,: "I 'ook
the idra oft hr fourteen lines of a son net and used
i, to organize my photographs, a g.nmp of four-
:e,:n images making a kind ot' poem: rhyming,
rep~ating, alluding, ar.d suggesting, the way pho-
tographs Jo when you pul them into group~."
The sonnets are of two forms. One b a ~erie~
of individual images presented Oil the wmpmer
screen against a white had,gmund, lik images on
the wall of a g.1ller y. These have ~h.ort c:aptions that
urnally ideutify tht: place or action depkkd. The
viewer studies these images individually lllld in
srqu('n.:c as we!'. as i11 the context l'i the 5tory
hinted at hy the title of the sonnet (11 jazl stuml,m.l).
Other ,om1,'ts are conrinuous visu!l.l loop:, of
joined images that the \'icwer scrolls throu/!h, lhe
images .uljoin ei.;h other .:omplttdy; tht viewer
crt:ah:s r,cw images composed of parts ,>f the
adjoining ima~es by ,topping the scroll bar in
other than the borders of tht: photog,ril.phs. Thus,
when the vi('Wcr ~crolb, images suddenly com-
bine exteriors of a room from on,' image and
exterior~ of a s,reel from another; other images
wnt,1 in both night and da)', .ind so forth. The
cmll inu ,!I ly joined images add a dimension that
could not he adi icvrd if th,· image~ ~tood alone
eith~r on ,! gallery waU or on a computer stTe1:n.
The photographs an: also prcsente<l a; thumb-
naib w ilh detailed descriptions of loc,Hion, p,;>ople,
and events that are useful point5 of reforeu.:~.
New de-velopments st1<h as those de,cribed
hcrctoforr have rcvoktiu,rnry potential in visual
st udics. There are. how eve~, severnl issues thar
may afiecl their rnntributions.
The 1ir~t i,sue cnm:t:rn, longev il y. Th~ software
that nms the various progrJr,1~ i, under constant
development, nnd the systi;ms th.ti nm the
,omputtrs are a~ well. for c:.:ampli:, Apple's rtctnt
operating ~y,tt:m, O5-X {already in its third iter-
ation), has n:quired foll redesign ot' participating
software, Similar developments in PC operating
systems have led to the same ,'.haHengcs. With th.:
r,1te of cummt Jevelop111enl, ii is nrarly impossi-
ble to predict the hardware, operating syst..-111,
and/or software .:ompatihility fnr today's pmjc~ts
that will be in Ll::ie IO or even 5 ycar:1 from now. 0 f
course, the:- hook that l just remo\·ed from th~ shelf
will be there, in ex,ictly 1lw same form, SO years
from now.
The se,ond i,sue is that, a;; noted previously,
electronic delivery and urg~nil.ation of 111aH•1·inl
 756 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RES!'ARCH-CHAPTER 29
often aEoWll information to be packaged in a way
that could not be presented 1n print form. But the
opposite ls also tn:e: Old-fashioned media, indud•
ing books, articles, and ha;1dmace images, have
been shown to have a remarkable resiliency
precisely because of the very qualities that the
electronic forms tranoc,md. The illustrated book
or iou rnal article, for example, imposes limitations
:hat the Web does not and that might lead
:o • ore judicious editing or organiiation. ·n1e
linearity of old-fashioned presentations remains
meaningful as a frame by which ideas and images
can be organized.
There is also the matter :iy which various
forms of information find their wav to con•
•
sumers. ou:u;.~ and artides are published and
distributed through a system that draws on
weil-articu.ated insti:utional structures and a
public that consumes in a certain way. This is a
.
mult:lavcred anc conservative ~vs:em.
. Nontexmal
media, such as CD-ROMs and DVDs, have only
recently begun to get a foothold in this system.
This is not to say that the old forms are neces-
sarily better or worse thar. newer competi r:g
forms of visual co,nmunication. It is simply to say
that some aspects of change come slow:y; This
must be said in the context of the increasing
s"Jcce:ss of the Web and multimedia platforms.
II TEE COt>."TINUA'.f!ON OF THE OLD
Cern1i:1 thencs and fore1s of visual research,
however, continue to produce u1,efal visual
research. One is the visual critical analysis, such
as Margolis's (1998, 1999) studies of eduOJJlion
a:id labo, processes. This wor:r :races its roots to
studies such as S~ein's ( I9K3; critk:al inYestigation
of early soda! reform •oriented ?:tolography,
Stein's study focuses on how the spor:sorship,
photographic technology, and forms of dissemi
nation influenced what fae pl:otos communi
cated. These arguments often suggest that the
photographs have latent mea:iings tha:: reinforce
the very structures they seem to be critkizir:g.
A more informal use images to ask critical
questions of the past is Norfleet's (200!) W'hen We
Liked Ike. Norfleet, who may have been the first
practicing visual sociologist (she worked in
photography and soc:ology for several decades at
Harvard University), here assembles photographs
from archives from the 1950s that document
everyday 'ife-faniEes, institutions, organizations,
leisure life, and so forth. She captions these
images with excerpts from popular sociologkal
texts of the time (e.g., those of David Reisman
and Vance Packard), excerpts from novelists
(e.g., J. D. SaEnger), and quotes from the popular
press (e.g., Ladies Home Journal). The viewer is
taken to :he everyday world that became the basis
of sociological analysis.
Empirical visual sociology lives on as well.
Fur example, Rid: and Chalfen (1999) use visual
methods ir: a study of dlseas.e phenomenology.
In tneir research, chronic asthn:a sufferers in
their teens or you:iger :nade and analyzed videos
of thei, personal worlds under the int: Jen,1: of
asth:na. The films and discussions O?ened a
window into the private world of a disease at a
particular stage of the life cyde. The visual
dimension served as a means of &scovery by the
disease victims (they filmed their worlds to tell
the story of their disease experience), and it also
served as the basis of dialogue among asthma
sufferers, acults in their soc:al worlds (e.g.,
;,arer:rn, teachers), and the medical community.
The video3 described social isolation, parental
:rres:Jonsibility, and other themes that led to a
fuller understarniing of how tr:e teem and
younger children manage a debilitating disease.
Rich ar:d Chalfen's use of na:ive• produced
imagery draws originally from Worth, Adair.
and Chalfen's (l 972fl997) Navajo project of
the late 1960s, where anthropologists taught
reservation Navajo to use 16-millimeter cameras
to tell their cultural stories. Many o:her examples
followed.
Native-produced stlll images, however, have
aim becorr:e important visual research tools ir:
social science.An early example was hwald's work
with Appalac:iian youth. Her approach was to
teach young childrei: to photograph their families
and surroundings, develop the b'.ack-and-wl:ite
film, and pr'n: rhe inages. She asked the children

she taught what they imagined and dreamed
a':JUul and how they interpre:cd their daily
surroundings. Ewald's initia'. success led to sev·
era! similar projects in South America, Holland,
and other sertings (Ewald, 19115, l 1996).
Photo elicitation 's another approach that
belongs exc~usively to the visual. In a recent
description o: the method (Harper, 2002 ), I found
photo elicitation to be the primary method in
40 studies, inclndi ng doctoral 11:eses, books,
articles, and reports. Several studies have been
finished during the period since the article was
published, and certainly mar,y were missed in
the review. The disd plines represented ii: these
studies include anthmpoloi::y. communication,
educat io:1, sociology (lilspeciaily urban, rural, and
communities studies), photojournalism, cultural
studies, ethnic studies, and industrial manage-
ment In these vastly dissiri:ilar kinds of research,
the com• o:i desire lo ·Jnde:.ta:id the world as
defined by the subject led to wide applications of
the photo elicitation :nethod.
In what follows, I explain one way in which
photo elicitation operates in a brief review of a
study of the meaning of change b dairy farr:1ing
ii: northern Kew York (Harper, 2001). In this
proiect, my goal was to i:nders tand '10w agr:cul-
t·1:l:' had changed and what these changes mean:
for those who lived through them. 'lb rhi s end,
[ showed elderly farmers photographs :rom the
l940~, (a pe:iod wl:en they had been teens or
young adult fanners l and asked them to rer:iem-
ber events, stories, or commonplace activlt:es that
the photos brought to mind. 7he success of the
project rested on the coincidence of the availabil-
::y of an extraordinary archive of documentary
?hotographs (the Stand arc Oil of ~ew Jersey
archive) Cron: just the era faat elderly farmers
had experienced at the begiuni:1gs of their career&
a:1d the fact that these photographs 1vere of
such a quality as to bspire detailed and often
deep memories.
The farmers described the mundane aspects of
fa~ming, including the social life of shared work
(Figure 29.3). l:lut more irnporta:1t, tl:ey explained
,,,hat it meant to havr participa:ed in agriculture
that had been r:eighhor based, environmentally
Harper: What's Kew Visually? II 757
frien di\~ ,:md oriented toward animals more as
'
partners than as E'Xploitable resources.
In this and other photo c:icitation studies.
photographs proved to be able to stimu;ate mem•
ories tha: wo::d-based interviewing did r:ot. The
result was discussions tha: went ·:ieyond "what
happened when and how" to 1h1.1ncs such as "tltis
was what this had meanr to us as farmers."
Visual methods have also been applied to
approaches that have not previously been
thought to be visual. A recent issi:.e of Visual
Studies (Volume 18, Issue I) was de,oted to eth•
nomethodology. The visual works that e1h•
nomethodologists studied included the> textual
materials in Vilrious administrative jobs (Carlin,
2003) and the work objects of sdentilk endeavors
(Kawatoko & Ue:10, 2003 ). These studies draw on
Sudnow's (1993) pioneering ethnornethodologi•
cal studies of jazz ?erfnrmance that were commu-
nicated par:ly through photographic imagery.
Several tex:s on visual methods have been
published during recent years. The :nost usefol are
Pink's (200 l) Doing Visual Etimography, Banks's
(2001) Visual lv!ethods in Social &search, ar:d van
Leeuwen and Jewitt's (2001) edited Handbook of
T/isua/ Analysis. Pink has s:udkd visnal ,rsearch
broadly, wr.ereas Banks has com::entrated on visi.;al
anthropology, V.i:1 Leeuwen and Jewitt's handbook
L, a useful collection of cultural studies and er:1p'r•
ical researc:i. Their contributo~, desc:"ibe coi:tent
analysis. v:sual anthropology, cdtt1ral studies,
serr:iot:cs, ethnomethodology; and filrr: analysis.
Although most contributors downplay approaches
that favor "researd1ers making photos to au a:yze
reality.' the collection is a useful starting p'.ace. Less
useful :s Emissio:1 and Smith's (2000) Researching
rhe Visual, which is largely a polemic against the
photocentric orientatio:1 of visual sociology.
It's espeda:Jy interesting that tho;;e who have
synthesized the strains and traditior:s of visual
social studies have coree largely from outside
the United States and, most siguifkant during
the pas: fow years, from t'.1e United Kingdom. The
"U.K. SC:1001" emphasizes rnltural studies but is
increasingly edectk, with recrnt and forthcoming
collections that center on visua: ethnography
(e.g., Knowles & Sweetman, 2004),
 758 11 HANDBOOK OF QUAI.JlATl\'E RESliARCfl-CHAPTER l\l
------------------~------------··~·-
Figure 29.3, A Fa1·1i1 Work Crew Eating Dinner
Sourn:· l'hol<>t~aph br S0I l.:b~ohn. Used b~ ,'<1mh;iun i>f the Ek~r,om I.,hr:iry; Uni\'tl',lil}' t)f Louisville.
The other 5ign itkant European 1,rnvemenl in
vbuai ~odology is situated in Italy, primarily
at the Univer.1ity of Bologna. Btginning in the
early 1990s, Patrir.ia Fncdoli and h,·r colleagues
have i:nn duned visual i-,:sca rch on ,1 wide range of
topics using photo elicitation, documentary pho-
tography, ,:on lent analy5 is, and semiotic~ (for an
overview, see Faccioli & Losacco, 200J ). Losacco•~
(2003) recent monograph uses family photogra-
phy to 1mder~tand the negotiation of cul:urnl
idcnlilies of Italian immigrants in Canada.
That the IVSA meets regularly in Europe helps
!O fai:ilitatc lhe gwwth of visual methods interna-
l ionaily. The development of visual ~o,ial science
in the remaining areas of the world where MJcial
scier1ces are tilught fa a critic al nexr devtlopment.
However, ellhough th<'re are many recent texts
on vi~ual methods, there are few new in-depth
studies hascd on visual data or vis\fal analysis.
Quimll;' has written arid photographed a serie8 of
intmspcct ive ethnographit:s of pluce, with the most
recent (Quinney, 2001) exploring the me".ining of
what he 1eters to tht "horderland" Hamlin
Garland's "middle borde1;" which he pre,ents as
a land.sc11pc, a state of mind, and a basi~ for
philosophical orknrntion, Barndt {2002) uses
photographs to holh gather and present in1<1rma•
tion in a study of thr globalizalion of the: food.
Oianging \ttloo (Harper, 2lXJI l is one uf lhe !cw
ret1:m ethnographic sludit's bused on ph,itugraphs.
However, photo docum<'ntary Mmiks continue
10 be published. Rtcl'flt examples include Coles and
Nixo11's ( L998) School. which explores the social
realities of three schools in Boston; {ioodmad~
( 1999) A Kind of !folory ( 1999), whkh documents
20 years in the life of an ordinary American tow r.;

and Wihon's (2000) pho:o study of the Hutterites of
Montarw. Yet the ducume:ltary tradition remains
the scope or atten:ion of rr,ost social scientists.
U:1fortunately, Becker's suggestion lnKk in I97'!
that documenta:-y photographers and ,.odologists
with a1: :nterest in photography should cxp'.ore
their Qverlap and on v,ith '.earning from each
other is 5till largdy underrra!izcd (Becker, 1974),
1111 UN R:::soLv.ED Issufs: Ermcs
Ol VISUAL RESEARCH-S?ECIAL
IssuEs AND SPECTA: Co-;smERATIONS
The scientific world, of whkh sodology is a part,
has become bcreasingly concerned with ~escarch
ethics, This preoccupat:on is partly due to pa,t
misuses of scientific resear~h, Tnis has, in turn,
led to the increased ase institutinnal review
boards (IRHs) as legaLr mandated monitor, of "J
research at U.S. universities. :'hese issues are also
t:ic subjects of codes etl::ics of professional
societies rnch a, the ASA.
Qual:tative researchers, howeve:, of:en have
a difficult time in defining tneir work in terms
that mret the expectalie:1s of IRBs, This is
es::iecially the case for photographic researchers.
The primary issne concerns the matter of snbject
'nfonncd consent and subject anonymity. The
?roblems for qualita:ive researchers, and the
special case of sociologica: photographers, are
detailed in what follows,
T'1e first concerns the observation of public
life and, in the case of visual sociology, the photo-
graphy of public life. Observation of public life
has been a part of suciulogy si :ice Georg Simmel's
studies of generic forms of social interaction,
based in part on !:is observations of public life
fron his Berlin apartment window, or si :ice
lrvi ng Goffir.a:1's o·:)scrvations of :he nuances of
human interaction in social gatherings. Anderson
(2003) refers to this style of ,ociological observa•
tion as "folk etlmug:aphy;' Anderson's method
involves observing tte public on bus trips :and
walks througl: a city as we!'. as ove~hearing con-
versations in restaurants and other instances of
public life.
. Wh~l's Nt'w Vi~i.:alM
Har:ier: ;
111 759
In large pan, IRlls appear to be :-eady lo accept
that observation of pub:ic life may take place
witho·Jt inforned consent. But the right to photo-
grnph the pi::::.lic without the subjects conse:11
has, :Jy aud large, not tleen tested hr pa,,sa1;e
of research proposals by membtrs of the visual
sodological community. Many visual sociokigists
model our photograph:c research on doci:r.1en
tary photography and photojou:nalis:11, where
the right to photograph in p·Jb'k: has been guar-
anteed by amendments to the U.S. Conslitution
dcali ng with freedom of express:on, In these
studies, it is precisely the dearly portrayed face of
a s:rangcr doing the things people :10:maJly do
that leads to compelling documentary stateme:1ts
or sociologically rr.eaningful insights.
Visual sociologists point to the precedent of
photojournalism am: docume:itary and argue
that harm to subjects is t:nlikely :o occur from
showing nurmal people .iobg normal tr:ings.
In a personal ex,m:ple, l was photographed
unawares at a recent ?itt8b·.1~h Pirates baseball
game ':ly a photographer working for the
Pittsburgh Post G,zzettr:, and I was prc~cnted in a
half-page photograph to sJpporl rhc message of
an artic:e that a:leged low aaendam;e at
Pirates games. In fact, I had chosen to 'rly
myself in an otherwise empty section because
I like the vt:ntage point of that section am:
I enjoy fae solitude :n a bascha II stadium early in
the season. Having the photo in the Posr Gazette
made me a celebrity for a day, but it also opened
up other questions. Was I s:,i?P ing work I Was
1 a social isolate? Aud so forth. However, the
public accepts thar be'ng in a public space ,1:akes
one susceptib:e to public photography. I was
not harned by my mom cntary celebrity status,
and the ethic~ of photojournalism were not
violated. [ was portrayed accurately in the mun-
dane performance of my life.
Those of u& who want to use photograpl:y :n
socio:ogy believe that it is logii;al to a:-gue that we
!:ave the same righ:, as those who work in the
closely related wor'ds of photo;ournalism a:1d
photodocumentary, Indeed, sume of us have come
to c.etbe ourselves as documentary photogra•
pl:ers, ratl:er than a, visual sociologis:s, to ,woid
 760 Ill HANDBOOK Of QL;ALJTATiVE RESEARCE-CHAPTER 29

IRB scrutiny, a:~hough :his is surely not a solution For v:sual ethnography to come out of the
to this issue, doset, these issues need to be reso:ved, Visual
The second matter concerns the loss of confi, researchers must have :heir work sanctioned by
demiaHty in photos that portray people dearly. boards that eventually will accept research that
The language of the current ethia literature (in varies radirnll y from the formal experime:it and
the ASA code of conduct or the IRB guidelines) is i:hat depends on tl:e righ to dol'Umtnt life in
strongly aligned witn protecting the anonymity of glar:ng exactitude.
subjects. That ts com1;1er:dable :f subjects wish
to remain anonymous. But what about subjects
who arc pleased and willing to subjects (and
who sign releases to this effect)? The identifi- My hope is that visual methods will become ever
ability of subjects is critical to the sociological more in:po:tant in the various research t:adirions
usefulness of the images; these include elements
where it alreaiy has a foothold ar:d that this
such as subjects' expressions, gestures, hairstyles,
growth will take place in a way that acknowledges
dothir:g, and otner personal attrib·Jtes.
the potential of '.lew media, while preserving what
There !:as ::ieen little written about the
is useful h the old media, and acknowledges the
ethics of photographic research. Several years
su::i;ects' rights but calls forth a larger ethical
ago, Gold (1989) argi:ed tha: the biomedical
stance than 1he biomedical rnnt~actual model
model die. not suf:iciently add res, the erh ical
determines as appropriate. I hope that during
issues of visuallv based research, arguing instead
the next decade, visua! soda! studies will becor:i.e
for a "research outlook-sensitivity-that is
a world move:ne:it and, thus, a means to long
rooted in the coven antal ethical position .•. as
overdue internationalization of sodolog y.
a means of add:-essing fae elh:cal problems Po:: v;sual social science lo deve:op, professional
of visual soc:ology" (p. iOO ). Th is sensitivity rule, and norms con::erning tthks must acknowl-
"requires the researcher to develop an in-depth
edge the rignt, of photographers/researchers to
um::ermmding of su:1iects so tha: he or she may
pho:og:-aph in public and to present identifiable
deterr:1ine which individuals a:1d activities may
subjects, but in the context of ethical considera-
be photographed, in w:1at ways it is appropriate
tions that consider photographers/researchers as
to do so, and how the resL:lting images shot:ld he
conneced by webs of obligation and moral regard.
used" \p, 103). This involves understanding the
point of view of subj eels, especially their
thoughts on how and where the images will be Bl NOT!:
used. According to Gold, "Unlike a cont:ac~ that
simply sped fies rights and duties, a covenant L Biella and colleagues' ( 1997) project, as well 2s
Steiger's (2000) a:tidc (which lrac just been rd~ascd
requires the research.er to consider his or her
when the second iteration of bis chapter was wrillc:1 ),
relatilmship with subjects on a much wider level,
both were mentioned br:efly in my ,·1aprer i:-: the
accepting the obligations that develop benveen second edition of tl1is Hanclbook.
involved, interdependent persons" (p. Ul4),
The practical implications are that one will
sometimes find oneself in research situations • REFERENCES
where photography would violate the norms of
Anderson, E. (2003, Nover::ber), Folk erhnography,
the setting or :he feelings of the subjects: in such
Paper presented al the conference !lei r.g Herc/
cases, phowgraphy should :101 be done. Gold Being There: Fieldwork Bncounte:s and Ethno-
( 1989) suggests that sociologists use their know]· graphic Jis,ove:"ies, University of Pennsylvania,
edge as well as their eth teal sensitivities to guide Philadelphia, PA
t:1e1r Whether this can be the basis of an Banks, M, ( 2001), Visual mduJlis in socu1l re-;e,mh,
acceptable method remains to be seen. London: Sage.
 :iarper: What's 'xew Visually> 11 761

ifarndl, D. (2002). 1imgh,d wut",; Wimum, work, and quali!e1!1ve researd1 (pp. 403-412). N'ewbury
gla/;alizati<m of ,vmata trait Lan:rnm, Mll: Pa,k, CA: Sage.
'lowmar: & Littlefield. Har;:er, D. (2UOO). Reimagining vis11al methods:
Jecker, IL S. ( l974). l'no·.ogr,,phy and scdol~gy. Galiko to M:urmn~ncer, 111 N. :Jenzin & Y, Lincoln
Studies in the A•rthrapolugy 9[ \'1.;ual C:ommwii- ( l:d,. ), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
catfon, l ;I), 3-26, pp. 717-732). E:ousand Oak~, CA: Sage.
;:,~r;i;ti,J,,& Mohr,J. I 1%7),A/i1t·111111;te man. >kw York: Harper, n [2001 ). Ch,mgmg works; Vfrions o,f il lo>t
l'anthcoa agriculture, Chicago: :Jn iversity uf Chicago
3erger. ]., & Monr, J,; 1975). A sevm11h matt New York: Ear:1er, D. (2002), Talking abo-.i~ pkturc'ii: A case for
Viking. phoro elicitation. Visu~I Studies, 17(!), 13-26.
Berge,, I,, & Mohr, I, ( Arw1!wr way of te/li,;g. Haqer, ll (::.d.). Cultural studies and the photogrnp::.
New Yur~: Pa ntheo::. Manuscript.
Hi ella, P. Chagnon, ~ ., & Sea ::1an, (1997). Kawaro:,o, Y,, & t:cno, N. (2003). TaJ;..'ng about skill:
Y,man:mno imemctivr: 111e ax fighl lCD-ROM]. Making n:ijects, technologies, and communilies
N'ew York: Harcourt Brace, visible. Visw1! Str,dies, /8(:),47-57.
wrl i11, A, P, (2D03 ). Pre forma arrnngcme::ts: T:1e vis·Jal Know:es, & Swect'.;lal1, P. (2004 ). Picturing the sodul
a,1<1:Jabili:y of textual artefacts. Vi.;ual .~wdic,, landscape. Lone.on: Rm.:tledge,
l,~(I ),6-2Q_ Lcti11sky, L (2000), Venus inferred. Chicago: Cniversity
Cole~. R, & ;>lixon. I 199!1). Sclw:;L Bost(}:1: Ltt:e, of ChicaglJ !'re;,,,.
Brown. Losacco, G. (2003). Wop o Ma11gicake, C,•1Jsumi
Em ' .
ts~ion.. '1 ., · h, P. """0)
:'-' .• &· .;imll v'" J1.1 ,est<arc,1JHJ_g
• I' · e idcmua ;,rr.u·n · negoziazione deil'italianita ~
risirn/. London: Sage. 1i1r1mto, Milan, Italy: Angeli.
Ewald, ( 198:i). l'tmraii::; and '"•'''"'" York: Margo Ls, E, ( 1998 ). l'ictur::ig hi ':!or: A visual elhnog-
Writers and R~ad,:rs. ra :,hy of fie coal mi:;e labor process. Visual
Ewald. W. (1 ,Wagir Scmes }rom an A tuie,m Sotio!t1gy, ll(2), 5-30.
gir/lr:lod. Seat:lc, WA: fJ;iy Pr!C"S~- Ylargul:s, £, { 1999), Cl<L,s picture,: Rep,esenlation:; nf
Ewal,i, W, ( 1996 ). I dre,mwd I had a sir/ m my pocket: race, !(e11der, and abilil" in a ccnturv of school
' f ,

The str,ry .in Indian village, New York;
lloubleTake Books
fa{,:ioli, fl, & l.osa:co, G. {2003), Mam1«/, 1li Suri:i!ogi,i
'lisw:ile. Milan, Italy: Angeli,
l't1ery, I', & Fuery, K. (200:\). \lisual cultures and
cri1ii:al theory, Oxford. t:K: Oxfo1d ;Jni,ersity
Press.
liold, S, (IY89), fthical issu(•i; it! visual field work
ln G. Blank, J, I. McCartney, & B, !\rent (Eds.),
i'r,u:tiral application! in r,,-,,,m·h and w0rl,
(pp. 112). New Hrunswick, NJ; lransadi:i::
Publishe:s.
Gold, S. (2003). lsraeli d=aspora. Context,, 2(3).
( American Sociological ,,ss,ouau111
Good ma::, M. {1999) . .4 k,,id o.f l,istcrJ; San Frandsrn:
\.larkecbooks.
:iagamiln, ll. (2002), Howie jee,L< me [CD-ROM I.
Rachester, NY: Vjsll,!: Studies Workshop,
Harper, D. (1987], ,forking kno·,v/edge: Skill and com-
m,mity m u snwll .,hop. Chicago: l:uivers'ty of
Chcago Press.
H,.:pe r, D. (1993 ). On 6e ,,uthor:t y of the image:
Visual ,och, lug y at the nosuoi!ds, ln
N. K, Denzin & Y. Linc~: n (Eds.), Handbook of
photography. Visual Sociclagy, 14( l ). 7- 3/t
:Vlohr, J. (n.c.). Jean Molir: ,t p/,,UO/Jrapher£ journey.
G,·m·v,1, Switzerland: Assucialion ;11emoires de
Pholographes,
Norfleet, ::J, (2001 ). Wiren we liked Ike: Look.mg for
pca5/war America. New York: :\'orton,
Prrnette, W., & Leeuwenberg, E (2001). Twogether.
Zurid:, Swilil.'.rland: Edition Stemmle.
Pink, S, (200 I). Doing visual etl1;;0graphy, London:
Sage,
Quinney, R. ;2001). 1lcmierl,md. A midwes1 journal.
Madisor:: Cniversity o:'Wisconsin Press.
Rank, M, (2003 ). As American as apple pie: Povert:,
and welfare. C.,mex1s. 2(3), 41-50. :American
Sociological As,odarion)
Ri6, M., & Chalfe::, R. (1999), Showing and tell'::g
asthma: Children teaching physicians with v' ,ual
narrative. \'in1af Sociology, i 4( I). 51-72.
Riegtr, J, H, 11996 ). Photograiih: 1g sndal change.
Visual Sociology, ll(I ), 5-49,
Rieger, J. H. (2003 }. A 1ctrospcctlve visual s:udy of
soci~: change: The pulp-logging ind-.istry ::: an
upper peninsula .','.khigan county. VistJal Studies,
18(2), 157-178,
30
AUTOETHNOGRAPHY
Making the Personal Political
Stacy Holman Jones

rhe next moment in qualitative inquir,; wif! be one at which the pranices of
quafitatiVC! re,earch finally move. w1thoul hesitalior1 or encumbrancl\ from the
personal to the politkaJ.
-1\orman Denzin,
"l'\esthelics and the Praclices cl" Qua Iitative Inquiry," 2000, p. 261

We cannot move theory into action unless we can find it in the eccentr!c and
wandering ways of our daily life. . . !Stories} glvt' thenry flesh and brc"1th.
-Minnie Bruce Pratt. SIHF. 199.S, p. 22

I think theater is primarily a site for liberation stories and a sweaty laboratory to
model possible strategies far empowermFN.
-Tim i\1'ller,
"So Io PEirform Ing as Call to Arms,'' 2 002, para, 3

T
his is a d1apter about the personal text as
critical inte:ven:ion in social, political, and
cultural life. Please do not read it alone.
This chapter is more than a little utopian in its
call to disrupt, produce, and imagine a break-
through in-and not a respite from-the way
things are and perhaps sho·Jld be (Riooeur, 1986,
pp. 265-266 ). rt cannot stand alone in the world.
Th is is a chapter about how looking at the
world from a specific. perspectival, and limited
vantage point can tell. teach, and pul people i:1
motion. It is about amoethnography as a radical
c.emocratk politics-a pol::ics c01r:mitted to cre-
ating space for dialogue and de':iate that ins~igates
and shapes social change (Reinelt, I998, p. 286 ).
It does not act alo:it:.

Ill 763
764 111 HA)ILJJJODK OF QUALITATIVE Rl'SEARCH~CHAPTER 30
This is a chapter about how a perso:ial text can
move writers and reade:-s, ,uhject, and objects,
tellers and listeners into this space of dialogue,
debate, and change. It docs not speak alone,
This drnpter is meant for more than one voice,
for more than personal release and discuvery, and
for more t:lan the pkasures of the :ext. It ls not 1:1
text alone.
This ch:ipter is meanr for public display; for an
audience, It is 1101 meant to be :eft alone,
This chapter is an ememble piece, r: that
you read :t wilh other texts, in other contexts,
anc with nL7,,,r, It ask, a perforn:ance, one
ir: which we m:ght discover that out autoethno-
gra phic lex ts are not alone. It is a performance
that asks how our persona, accounts co:int,
lilt T L'RKl~G 'JO NAR RAIi Vi;:
CR1s~s, Hrs10R1E.s, A:-1D MtWRMENrs
D;;:manding a Response
"Don't rcac this until you steady ym:rselt: This
isn't just the t:iird essuy on the list of assigned
read:ng tor next wee;;., Ir will make yo:i cringe.
It will hall:it yon. It will d:ange you:•
This is what i said to frier:ds in mv, team
etlrn ography graduate co urss: at California State
0niversity, :iacramenlo,' 11 1vas, for me, a novel
course in mai:y ways: We were working together
as a research team; we were writing Van Maanen's
(1988) realist, impressionist, and cor:foss'ona:
tales; and we were creati:ig a !ext together as a
class. 1 In the n:idst of the creativity and cama-
raderie we experienced in this course, Ronai',
( 1995) "Multiple Reflections of Child Sex Abuse:
An Arg.:men: for a Layered Accm:n:•· altered us
ar:d the way in which we approacr.ed our work. In
the essay, Ronai juxraposed reflections on being
sexual:y abused as a child with an a:gument for a
fayered accoun:-a teiling t1-tat creates a "contin:1-
uus dia'.ectic of experience, emerging from the
i:n:ltitude of reflexivi: voices :ha'. :;:mllltaneously
produce and interpret ... text fs J" (p. 396).
"Mult'ple Reflections" is autoethnography,
although I did nut know it then. Rona: (1995)
offered up her own terrifying experience :n the
na:ne saying so:n.:-th ing startling and intricate
.;bout sexual abuse ,md the force and import of
her scholarly and personal efforts 10 make sense
of th ts experience. Rona:s story !:ad a powerful
effect on :ue. lv'.y :hinking-about sexual abi;se.
about writing and scholarship,alxut th~ power of
texts-shifted, Her language and ;;lory accom-
plished somcth:ng that, u;:i until that point, : hac
belie,;ed to he the tnsiness of music, novels, ar.d
film; they invited mr into a lived felt experience,
I could not stand outs:de of her words at sale
remove. Ronai's story demanded lhal I respond
and :,,act : marveled at the beauty of her hm-
guage. l talked about he::- essay with r:iy co:leagues
and listened as they rernu:ited thei, own experi-
ences of sexual abuse. I v;as enraged about what
happened to Runai and to my friends,
.
This is 11:e storv of mv first encounter with
)
autoethnogn1phy as a co:nmunkution scholar.
Of coi;.rse, I had been experiencing autoctlrno•
graphic texts all my life-in Raymond f.arver's
short stories, Si:v:a Plath's ooetry, Milan
Kunderas novels, and Billie Holiday', singing.
Until I reac "Multiple Rdlectious~ '.1owever, 1
did r:ot make tl:e connect io:i between what these
works ar. d acts accomplished and wr.at : believed
scholarship to be about.
Autnett: nography Is ...
A balanci:ig act, Autoethnography and writing
about autoeth :1ography, ,hat is.3 Autoethnography
works to hold self and culture togethe,. albeit
not in equilibrh:m or stasis. Autoethnography
writes a ,,,.o~ld in a state of flux and movement-
between story and contei:.t, writer and re.1der, cr'-
and de:io;iement, rt cn:ales charged moments
of clarity, con:iection, and change.
Writing about autoethnography is a:so a bal-
ancing art In a 1:am:book chapter that war:ts :o
move theory and method to action, what do I leave
in and leave out? How do I ba;ance telling (about
auloethnography's history, :m,thods, res;,011sibili-
ties, and possibilities l with showing (doiug
work of autoethnography here or. 1hese pagcsx
How much of my self do I put in and leave out?

I beglr: with another sort of balancing act,
s:fting though books and essays, look i1,g :'nr
wnrds that others have used to describe the doing
of aatoe:hnography; Autoethnography is ...
''research, writing, ard method tl:at connect the
autobiographkal and personal lo the cul;ural and
;;ocial. Thi. form usuallj· foatures concrete ac:ion,
emotion, embodiment, se]f.rnnsciousness, and
intmspedion ... [and] daims the con\'entlons of
::t('rary writing:' (Ellis, 2004, p. xix)
"a self.na:ralivc that critiques the situa!i:dncss of self
with others in social contexts," (Spry, 200!, p. 110;
"texts [that1dcmo,~atize the representationa: sphe:-e
of culture lo:aling he p;:.~ticular experiences of
i ndividc:als in il tension with dominant expressions
of discursive power'.' (Neumann, I S'l6, p. 189)
Soon, however, I find myself wa:iting to bend
the mies, to reinscribe words ai:lout other endeav-
ors-autobiographies, personal r.arrntives, mem•
oirs, short fictior:, performance, as defining
moments for autoethnography: I tell myself that
this is not a selfish im?ulse-wanting beautiful
phrases other origins for autoethnography-
because autoethnography is not a practice alone
in the t'!Orld. Aut11ethnography <lncs have a story,
one tbu was told in '.nvlng detail by Reed-
Da:1ahay ( 1997, pp.4-9), E]is and Bochner (2000,
pp. 739-7 43 ), and Neumann ( 1996, pp. 188-193 J,
among others. Bui because autoethnography is
what Geertz (I 983) referrer. en as a blurred gen re,
i1 overlaps w' th, am: i, :ndchted to, research ar,u
wri:.ing practices in anthropology, sociology, p~y·
chology, literary criticism, jourr.alism, and com·
ma:1ication (for these histories, see Denzir:, I997,
pp. 203-207; EUs, 2004, pp. 12-18; Ncumar:n,
1996, pp, 193-195), to say nothing of our favorite
storytellers, poels, and musicians.
And Sil I allow words about oths:r surts of per•
sonal texts to make themselves heard in the dance
of my fi r:gcrs on the keys. Autocth nography ls ...
catastrophic encoun1er, a moment of vu::1ernhil-
i1y and ~mb.:gnity that is sensuous, emh~ditd, and
profoundly implicatetl in the social and ideological
Holman Jcnes: Autoet\mography Ill 755
structures of their lifeworlds:' /' !1/.arilvn
, Brownstein.
quott..:I in Grume!, 200'.. p. 17i)
"the kind lofarl. that '.dkes you decvetbsidc your•
and ul:imatdy ou: again:• {friedwal:i, l 996,
p. 126)
"storytelling [·.ha( can di,mge :he w,,rk," ( Wade
Davis, q:.mtt:d in Chadwic,;, 2003 ),
'faking these words as a point of dcpar7ure,
I create my own responses lo the call: Auto·
et hr:ography is , ..
Set:ing a scene, telling a story, weaving intricate
conne~tiom, among life and a:t, t>:perleo,.,, and
1heo:y, e,'Ocatinn and explim111io1: ... and then let·
1ing go, ;,oping for readers who will bring the saII1e
can::fol atten:fon tn your words in the co:itext of
their own lives.
Making a text present Demanding a:tculion and
part:dpation, [m;,licating all invulvcd. Refusing
dusure or c;llegorization.
\'ttnessing exrerience and te;tifying about pow<•r
withou: foredosure-of plem,urt, of difference, of
efficacy.
lklieving :::al words matter nnd writing toward
;he moment when poi~t of ceating auloclhno·
graphic text. is to change the world.
I return to the books balanced on my :ap.
I keep looking, unsa:isfied with my textual por-
trait. It feels ten:ative and ur.finished. And perhaps
it shou:d be, l dec;de on one fillill entry because it
says some:hing I :iave not :mmaged to put into my
mllccted words.Autoethnography is.,,
"[( perfo,mance text . , , turning inward waiting
,i,
to be staged;' (JJ€::iin, 1997, 19Q)
I dedde to sto? here, knowing that th is is not
the end of a story about autoethnography, only a
beginningJ return In my ow:i story of autoethno•
graphic history and my encounter with Ronai's
{1995) story. More than crcat:ng connections and
shifts in my thinking, more than inspiring both
 7M, 11 'lANDlKJOK OF Q\;ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHA?TJ.:R 30
rage and desire, this story also signals a crisis, or:e
that bega1: long before Romii's story or my read-
ing of :t and one that continues as we speak, as we
write and arc writte:1. on tl:ese pages and on the
stages of our experience.
Ill CRISIS
It is a triple crisis, a triple threat, a triple crown of
thorns: represe'.'ltadon, legitimation, and praxis.
T'\ese ,,,11,,c,, which mark and coincide with a
tt:m toward interpretive, qualitative, narrative,
and critical inquiry in the human disdp'.ines, are
summoned in an oft-recited line in a familiar
play: How much does a scholar know, how does
she know it, and what can sie do with this know!·
edge in foe world?'
The idt:a of a triple crisis implies that it is
rnmethJng ne.v and some:hing different But
these crises are not new (Denzin, 1997, p. 203).
Crisis itself is not new. lt is sirr::;:,ly :he result of
forces in con fl kl, the dramatic nature nf human
action, and the choice5 (conscious and uncon•
sciou~) we make i:1 a world full of possibilities
(Pelias, 1992, p. The drama of rcpresenta:ion,
:egititnation, and praxis is part of an ongoing dia-
logue between St:lf and world about questions of
o:1tology,cpfatcmology, method, and praxis: What
is the nature of knowing, what is the relationship
belwe~n knower am: known, how do we share
what we know and with what effect? What makes
this triple crisis feel i:rgei:t is the ,vays in which
this dialogue has increasingly q·Jestioned the sta-
bility and coherence of our lives as we live and tell
about them. This dia~ogue a~ks how, in lifeworlds
that are partial, fragmented, and constituted and
mediate..: by language, we can tell or read our
stories as net::ral, privileged, or in any way com-
plete. :n answerir.g these questions, we have
looked m the personal. concrete, ar:o mundane
details of experience as a window to understa:id-
ing the relationships between self and other or
between individual ar:d community. We use the
contingent and ~kcptkal :anguages of po,tstruc-
turalism and postmocemism (among others)
to tell and understand our lives and our world,
:ioping to confront qu.,stiuns of"self, plac~, [and]
power" in ways that are more satisfying and-
yes-more subversive thiln :n previous prrfor•
mances (Neumann, 1996, p. I see also Denz:n,
1997; Reineit, 1998,p.285).
A eris.is is a tur:1.ing point, a mon:ent when
conflict mus: be deal: with even ff we cannot
resolve it. It is a tension that opens a ,pace of inde
ter:ninacy, threatens to destabilize soda! s:ruc-
lures, and enables a creat:ve uncertainty (Reinelt,
1998, p. 284l. Interpretive, ac1alitative, narrative,
and critical inquiry !:ave had many such
moments, all of which led to s:1ifts in ger:res and
methods. We have traveled from .
tr:e impossibility of c,1reful, faithful, and authorila·
catalogui ::g of an exotic other ...
to partial, reflexive, and local narrative accounts ...
to :exi:s tl:at work to create a ,pact for an ethics
c01;1m itted to dialogue.
lI: the current moment
we confront the ir:1possib'lily of representing lived
experier,ce by troubling the ::nk between life and
text ...
we cevdop (a:id question the development of)
criteria for understandi::g and evalua!::ig the work
we do to narrate the condition, of ot:, lives ...
we rewl ,e to do work !hat malwi a difforence by
wr:t:::g the social imaginary in ::idtebl and revo-
5
:lllionary
,ve rise to the challenge of movement ....
mt MovE\H:NT
Even though I was able to place ''Multiple
Refl;;ctions" within the :arger rontex: of turns and
movements in interpretive, qualitative, narrative,
and critica: inquiry; I did not know w'.1at to do
with the rage J felt on the day I read Ronai's ( 1995)
essay. I looked for a place to put my anger, a way
w ass"age it, a:1d a means to act on it without

forgetting or dismissing iL ln her chapter in 1he
secund edition of this Handbook, Olesen (2000)
wrote, "Rage is not enough" (p, 215). Olcsen's chal-
lenge-:o me, to you is to move from rnge tu
"?rogressive ;,olitic,il actin:i, to theory and
method that connect politic,, pedagogy, and ethics
to action in the world" ( \J. De:izin & Y, LJ ncoln,
personal communication, September 23, 2002).
This i~ a challenge that autoeth:1ogra :lhs:rs
have been woriing to :neet slowly and incrrmen-
tally. lt is 1hc challenge of cre,1dng texts that
unfold in the frttcrsuh jective space of individual
and cor:1munity and that en:brace tactics for both
knowing and ~/wwirig (Jackson, l 998; Kem?,
1991\, p. 116 J. Responding to this challenge means
askit1g questions about following:
• How knowledge, expe~ience, meaning, and
resistance ax expressed by embodied, tacit, inlo-
national, gestural, h:iprovisational, coexperien-
tia l, am! covert mean, (Conquergood, 2U02,
p. 146). Auto1elh:10graphic texts focus on how
subordinated people use deliberately subtle
opaque forms of communication--forms that arc
:10t textua; or visua:-to express their thoughts,
feelings, a:1d des=res by performing these
tkes on the page and on stage ( Daly & Rogers,
2001; [ones, 1997a; Stewart, 1996).
• How emotions are importan to under-
standing a:1d theorizing 1he rdationsh: p among
self, power, and cnlmre. Autoethnographic texts
focus on creating a palpable emotional experience
a~ it connec:s to. and separates from, other •mys
ri:' k:mwing, be!r,g, and acti:ig in/0:1 t:1e world
(Bochner, 2001; Ellis. 1997, I995; Jagu, 2002; Spry,
2001).
• How body and voice are inseparable from
mind and thought as wdl as huw bodies and
vo:ces move and are privileged (and are restrk:tt.>d
and ma,ked) in very particila ram: pulitirul ways.
Autoethnographic texts seek to invoke the cor-
porea~, sensuous, and poiitical nature of experi-
ence rather tha:i col:apse tex: into embodiment
or politics into language play (AleKander. 2UU0;
Gir:g:'ich-Philbrook, 1997; Jac;.:son, 1998; Jones,
19976: ?beau, 2000; Stoller, l 997).
Holman Jones: Autoethnog,aphy 111 767
• How selves arc constructed, disclosed, and
implicated in the telling of persona: narratives as
well as how these narratives move i:1 and change
the contexts of their telling!' Texts aspire to pur·
poseful a:id tension-filled "self,investigation" of
an author's {and a reader's) role in a context, a
u;ition, or a social world. Suc:1 self investigation
generates what t;ornick (200 l) terr:iec «sclf-
implicatio:1;' that seeing "one's own part in the
situation»-partkularly "one's own frightenec or
rnwa,dly or self-deceived part" (pp. 35-36)-in
creating the dynamic and movement text (see
also Borhner, 21101; Ellis, 2002; Garrick, 2001;
Hartnett. l 998; Langellier, 1999; Park-Fuller,
2000; Spry, 2000; Vicke:s, 2002 ).
• Hnw stories help us to create, interpret, and
cl:ange our social, cultural, political, and personal
lives. Antocthnographic texts point out not only
the necessity of narrative Jn our world but also the
power of narrative to reveal and revise thal world,
even whe:1 w.: struggle tbr words, when we fail to
find them, or when the unspeakable is invoked
but no; s'lrnr (Bochner, 200 I; Denzir., 2000;
Ilarl nen, 1999; lockford, 2002; Nru:nai,n, l 996;
Pelias, 2002; Richardson, 1997}.
:·bese que,lim:s challenge us to create work
that acts through, in, and on the world and to shift
our focus from representation to presentation,
from the rehearsal of new ways of being to their
performance. These questions posit the d:allenge
of movemem-to talk and share in new and diffi-
cult ways. to think and rethink uur positions and
comrn'trnents, to push through resistance in
sear<:h of hope (Becker, 20011, pp. 523, 541 542),
Responding tn these questions h,1.s led me and
others to turn to perfo~mance. In making ,his
turn, we mus: consider how the pnctkes of
autoelhnography are inforr:ied by a rich l:istory
in performan0;:, a history that needs to be written
lnto accounts of .iutoc tl:nog:aphic theory and
p:-actk:es (Denzl:i, 200 3; Ellis & Boc':!ner, 1996 J,
Our abiding interest in performance ethnograpl:y,
performative writing, ar.d personal pe:fon:1ar.ce
narratives is :elling. These e:ideavors poir:t to how
personal stories become a r:ieans for interpre~ing
 768 1111 HAND BOCK Of, QLIALIIA:IVE RESl:ARCH-CHAP-ER .10
the past, translating and transfurmiJ;g contexts,
and envision:ng a futi: re.
Ill TURN:NG TO PERl'ORMANC 0,:
LF:TTF.RS 0;/FOJI/OK CHA).;GJ.
The I11, possibility of Iser
I went to the University of Texas al Aus:in tn
s:udy nrga11izat ional cu ln:re and to learn more
ahout ethnography, writi:ig, and scholarship.
W:1rn I looked through the graduate course
ings in the Department of Communication, I
kept cor::ing back to a cours;: titled Reading and
l'erfor:ning, I was intrigued. l warred to lea::n
about perforn:ance studies, a rid I wanted to
explore tl:eories and practkcs of reading. But
perfor ning? l was not sure I was ready for that.
The professor' encouraged m;: lo cume to the
first das& to see what ii was al: about,a1:d so I did.
The material was com pellir.g, :ne students were
engaging, a:1d the pm'e.ssor was witty and corr.•
:na r: dh1g. But what about :be O•~rfor r:1 ancesr My
last-and only-perfo:mam::e experience was
playing baby Jesus in the church Christmas
pagean:. [ WJ;; :10: sure whether I should stay, ':mt
1inew I wantei:. to stay. Then thr professor began
assigning ret1dbg reports, and I began to swca:.,
And the:1 it was my ti.: rn. He looked at n:e and
said, "Well, [ don't kiww ym;, b-Jt yo:i look Ii.kt a
nice person. I ar:i assigning you Wolfgang Iser
becaw,e he is a nice perMm."
I had to stay. I had to report n!'l lser. It is what a
nice persor: would do. I read The Fictive and the
lmagi11ary (Iser, 1993), and I understood fiat Iser
was talking about reading and also a :mut w,iti r:g
a:1d performing. He stated,
impos,ibilitr heirg prrsc:t to ourselves
becomes our possibility to p.ay ourselves out 10
the fullness t':at know,; no bounds, because no
r:1attrr how vast the range, none of possibili"
ties will "make us :kk" This impossb'Hty sug,
gesls a purpose for literary s1aging.... Uteraturr
be~omcs a panorama of wh.\t :s possble, because
it is no! hedged in by either the li11:itatim1-, or Lhe
considcrati,,r:, that de;er:ninc the instltutiona: ).eJ
org:mizations within w:;:d1 human life otherw:se
rakes its cuurse. (p. xviii)
A, I wrote my rrport, I ktpt coming back to
this passage because il speaks to th: forcile space
within which we confront the impossibility uf full
or completr knowledge (uf self, of olhers, and of
th;: relalionship~ between thr two). Fie cause we
cannOI know, write, or stage it "all:' Wt' are free to
create a vision of what :s possible. Reading fscr,
I was comdnced that texts both written and read
:night engage a:1d exceed these constraints in
J:beratory ways. I was also convinced that perfor
mam:t offered a possibility for reali,.ing this goaL
Performance Rising
Conquergood ( 1991) traced the rise of perfor-
mance in ethnog,aphk research' and writing in
his essav, "Rethinking Ebm1graph,,,:' 9 He trackec
• C ;
turn to performance to Victor Turner's charnc-
lerization of humankind ns homo performar;s-
humanity .is performer-"a culture-inve>nthg.
sodal-?erforming. se:f,rnaking, and self'.trar:s-
forming creat'Jre" (p, 187}. Turner's • ove to link
ethnography with performance as a lived and
liv ins p,act i.:e ao.:o:nplishes four goals. Firs:, it
turns oi.: r attention to how bodies a:1 d vo:ces are
situated in contexts-in am: of ''ti rne, place, and
history" (p. !87). Second, the performative ti:rn
moves researchers and restarched toward a rela-
tionship of embodied "'n:imate invo:vement and
engagement of 'cuacti,ity' nr co perfon,rn:1cr
wit:i :1:storirnlly ,ituatcd, named, 'unique it1div'd-
ua:s"' (p, H17: sct' also K:sliuk,2002, pp. :05-106).
Third, per~orm,mcc-tt'ntered ethnography points
L: p the visua 1, 1i nguistic, and textual bias of
Western rivi:ization and our attentiun
:o an aural, bodily, ai:d postmodern eiq>ressiDn
of culture and lifowor:d, fieldwork :md writing
(Conquergood, 1991, p. I see also Tyler, 1986).
;;ourth, i11 highi'ghtl ng the "polysemic" and con-
stltutl ,e nature of social !Je and cultural per-
formances, the performance paradigm asks us to
focus on how texts can be cre'aled, mmmunicatN:,

and most notably critiqued on multiple levels
(Conquergood, 1991, p. 189).
Conquergood'" ( l 991) was not suggestir:g 6at
ethnography aoamim: text or Eeld in favor of per·
formance; rather, he was S;Jggesting that we use
performance as a metaphor, means, and :nethod
forth inking about and ,haring what is ;ost and '.eft
out of our fieldwork and our texts as well as think•
ing about how perfu!·m,mce complements, alters.
supple:nents, and critiques these tex:ts (p. 191 V 1
Ekphrastic Criticism
A thief drives to the museum h his black
van. :ne night
. . .
watchman savs. Sor:v, dosed, vou have to
come back tomorrow.
Tl:e thief st:cks the point of his knife in the
guard's ear.
I haven't got all evening, he says. I need some
art.
Art ib for pleasur~, the guard says, :10t pos-
session, you can't
something, and then the duct tape is going
across his mouth.
Don't worry, thief says, we're both on the
same side.
He fines Dutch Masters ,me goes right
for a Ve~meer:
"Girl Writing a :,etter:· The thief k1:ows what
he's doh,g.
He has a Ph.D. He slices the canvas on one
edge from
the shelf holding the salad bowls right down
to the
square sunlight on the black and white
checked floor.
The gi:'l doesn't hear this, she's too absorbed
in writing
hs:r letter.she doesn't notice him until too la:e.1;
I chose Carpenter's ( 199 3} "Girl Writ:ng a
Letter" for my first perforr.,ance for !kadir.g and
Performing. I chose this poem because i: is smart
and funny and has a happy ending. 1 thought
bese things, that is, until l began to work on the
Hoban Autoelhnugiaphy 11 769
performance. The~e were ton many chara.:ters,
too many stories, tou many voices am.: attitude, lo
attend to all at o:ice. But it was too late. I stayed
the course. l repor:ecl on Iser. Now I had to
perform.
[ finished :ny performance of "Girl Writing a
Letter;• and the professor was silent. I wa: :ed, my
heart pulsing in my head. He walked :o the chalk-
board and wrote "Ek?h r;Jstk." Ekphrastic? What
does that mean? Was it good? Awful? He exp;air.ed
that e'.<phras:ic works, such as my poem, are med-
itations on others' crealive (Scott, 1994, p. xi),
usually texts considering a visual or aural wur:.:. of
art Think John Keats's "Ode to a Grecian Um:'
Ekphrastic texts attempt to :nvokc ":he picture
making capacity of words in poems" (Krieger,
:992, p. I).
After this brief Ies son, the professor moved
on, inviting the nexl performance. : was left to
wonder-about t~c poer.1, about the per
formance. about ekphrasis. Later :hat week,
I saw my professor in the hallway outside of his
office. rle sai.:, "Nice work the o:hcr day. Great
poem. Great performance. I thought rou said you
weren't a per:ormcr:'
"I'm not:'
«'lT ,.
wi. are a perjormer.
;I,)
I spent the next several weeks reading and
thinking about performance, texts,and ekph,asis.
Although it is typically the domain o: th.: poet
and literary scholar, ekphrasis des er ibes our
attempts to trans;are and transmute an experi-
ence to and text to experience. Ekphrasis
"breathes words into the :nute pkture; it makes
picti;res out of the 6uspended words of its text. :t
is as much about urgency as it is about rest, as
much voyage as :nterlude" (Scot~. 1994, p. xii}.
And what happens when we perform an ek?hras-
tic text? What happens when we perform the
a::tist perform:ng the artisl, repeating the act of
connection and creation, breiJking that exper:-
ence out of one forn: and contexl and remaking
it in another? Per:1 aps we creak a critical ekph :a•
si;;,, a perform,mce that moves through mimesis
(imitation) and p11iesis (creatlnn) to kirtesis
(movement) (Conquergood, 1992,p. 84}.'i
 771J II HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARC:1-CEAPTER 30
Inventory
I was hooked, ! changed parties and turned to
performance stt:dics, I cnrc lled in ?erformancc
History, Autobiography, ,md Performance and
in Performance Ethnogra;,r:,, On the first dav of
Performance Ethnography, the profcssor 14 a;ked
sm,der:ts to pa: r up ,me said, "\'\'ithout speakii:g,
wnte three ohservations or assuf'.1 ptions about
yoar part ni;;r and then discuss:'
There were an odd number of students, ,o I
was paired with the prnfossor, I wrote, "Sbgs well,
write,s poetry, believes in reincarnation:• She
wrote, ''Married or in a co:nmitted relatior:ship,
and particular, doesn't relax easty?' We
shared our ;ists .1nd laughed over t:ic entries,
Some of them were on target, and others were not
But each item on our lists sp,,kc to our projec-
tiom, our hopes, thiI:gs we 1,1anted for ourselves,
and things we did not want.
At the end of class, the professor osked us to do
a sclf-i rweulory, answering questions abm:: our
physical, e1:10:ional, spiritual, intellectual, a,tistk,
and ar:ifactua: selvc~:
What MC three of your typical gestura~!
When vou cried :a,~t, w 0.at was it about•
What ,pi ritual activities d11 you engage in eac!l <la}:?
\'/hat was last book you that was not
assiJ1.m,c fora
In what a,tivi:ies are you the mos! crcath·e?
How do you :ypically adorn your bodyr
Answering these questlo:1, and others, I
thought about how performance cthnogra::ir,y is
an :i:ventory of both self and other, an act · ·
pretation and a performance nf that assessment,
ar:d a jour:icy through ir:iitation an..: creation into
movement, 1 wonde,ed wl:ere this journey would
take me.
Doing Bodies Doing Cuiture
jom~s (2002) wmrc that performance eth:iog-
re;ihy ls "rr:cst simply, how cul:ure is done in the
bocy" (p, 7), The rm,c.,,,, of creating and staging
per~)rmance ethnography, however, is no: simply
placmg, and then playing, bodies ir. cultures,
Rather, performance ethnography seeks to impli-
cate researchers and audiences hy creatii:g an
exper'cnre that brings together th eury and p,axis
in complicated, contradictory, and meaningful
ways,
?er:'ormance ethnography is grounded in two
primary ideas: (a) that our identities and daily
p,ac6:es are a series of perfor1:1an"e d1oiccs (con-
scioJs and ru,cor:scious) that we improvise within
cultural and social guidelines and (b) that we learn
though partid pation or through performance
(p. 7; sec also Denzin, 2003, pp. 14-16), Perfor-
1;-am:c ethnography can take 1;1 ar.y forms, ranging
from :ecreatmg cultural perfonnances for audi-
ences invested and interested in undersrandi ng,
preserving, and/or challenging particular identi-
ties and ways of life (Conquergood, 1985, 1994)
to presenting individual (autoethnographk) expc-
riem:es as a means for pointing up the subiectivi:
and situated nature of identity, ficldwo:-k, a~ri cul-
!ural interpretation {Jllnes, 1996; Spry, 200~).
Perforr.1ar:ce ethnography can also be presented in
various ways, ranging from trad:iionallv "t:heatri-
cal" settings complete with fourtl:-wall co::ivcn•
tions (in which tr.e a'Jdi,mce observes :he actior. on
stage) tu insrnllations and scenes in which audi-
~nce meml":rs are invited/compelled to ?artidpate
m the creation of the ;:ierfurmance, ½'hatever tr:e
form or process, performance ethnographies seek
to "cxplote bodily knm;,ring, :o sl retch the ways in
which elhnograpl:y might share knowledge of
a culture, a11d lo puzzle thrm:gh the ethic,.'. and
poiitkal dilemmas of fie\c:work and :epresenta•
lion" (Jones, 2002, p, 7), rones (2002) asserted
:hat performance ethnography acl:icves chese
goals by focusing on four principles: (a) creating
a sprcific context for the performance, (b) work-
ir.g in colla:,o;:,,1tion with and beitig accountable
to a fieldwork community, (c) highlighting the
performer'~ "situated and in~erested ro:e" in the
interpretation of culture, and (d) :iroviding a
mult::ude of pe:-spectivcs that audience members
must actively synthesize (P?· 8-9),
, Doing hodit'S doing culture can be these things
if we arc willing to :em ember and pc:form context,

accountability, subject:vity, and multivocality, that
if we create wurk that is both "cor:1munity-
base(: and co:nmunity active" ( Kisliuk, 2002,
p. : US). We must be willing not only lo implkate
our audier,ces lmt nls1, to incite them to part:d-
pate, to act, ar.d to take risks.
Girl Writing (another) Letter
Duri r:g seconc semester of my Ph.D. pro•
gram, :r1som11ia came to live with 11:e.1 would lie
bed with tn}' mind rnci:ig, I rehashed 1ehearsals
and classroom conversationo. I wondered whether
l had paid the electric bill. I agonized over who
o:: wbt to choose as my subject for Performance
Etrmugrnphy. l considered and con:exts as
well as organiiations and :1:dividuals, bu: nothing
see:r:rd right_ I changed posi,iun~, Iried to :'ocus
or. the hum of the air conditior:er and lhc s:cady
pulse of the highway traffk, and then fell intn a
shallow sleep and dreamed of my grandfather,
A fow months before insomnia ,ame to stay, my
grandfather had died. I was in th, hc,'X of my first
semester at Texas whc:1 my mother called to tell me.
My grancfather had spent the past 2 riars mourn
ing the ceath of my grandmother,and a heart attack
hac rescued him from living alone witl:out her.
I did not go to the funeral. My moll:er co:1•
vine&:! me ro stav. in school. That w~s where mv . I tell you bot!'. good •bye, not knowing
grandfather had wamed me, where he was proud
of me.Months later, my sleepless nigl:ts began and
ended with dreams of my gra:1dfather and the
hazy uf my unlived One night after my
eyes flew open to greet the red glare of 2 odock,
I dccidec :ha: I had had enough. I decided tna, I
woulc meet my grandfather in ~he space he cared
about most and to jve my grief at school in
Performance Ethnography. I got up am: composed
another letter-another poem for performance.
Dear Grandpa
r Jkln'I hear you leave.
[ was too busy writing,
your college girl,
never noticing until 100 late.
:io::nan Jones: Auloe1hnograpl:y Ill 7,1
G:-andma phoned from her hospital bed
asked me to look in 0:1 you.
Said laal night you were hit by a car,
wa[{' ng home in 6e mi:,.
I drive to you teeth clenched.
Fear works the dooibd: and
twists :n:o my breath: ng
until I hear yot:. call over barking dogs.
T'.1e door opens and you shrink :n its f:ame.
Angry bruises glow violent beneath pale skin,
your left eye pi:lchro sh1.:.t against the pa:n.
Iv[y own vision blurs as we en:brace.
You don't want to see a docw,. don't wa:1t
to Iie down, don't warx to rest.
Yon need to get to the hospirnl, to her.
You've been gune too long,
I take you to her, but I can't stay
That's right, I'm your college girl.
I watch you touch her face and stroKe her ha:r.
I am furious ynu dun't want lo l:ve without her.
this is the last ti me, not knowing
l left you together. Is this how you wanted it?
I didn't hear you leave.
I wove this letter into a perfo:mance :hat
included my grnndfathe~•s .dters to me, family
photos, reflections on ni, life and deuth, a:1d
arguments for the perfornam:e of grief.' 5 I used
momilogi:e, epk, and "everyday life" perform ar\cr
techniques to show my grar.dfather, myself, and
the proce5s of performing an other (Hopper, 1993;
Stucky. 1993 ). I felt closer tu my grandfather; mure
in tune with his presence hl my life. drea:ns, and
g:ief; am: ?roud to share both with ,rn audience.
This pe:formance was my response to the
project of performance ethnography, It wa~ my
 'J'l2 111 HANl)BOOK Of Qt:AL:TATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 30
subje;;:tive and vulnerable experience. It d:d not
produce "find;ngs"; it was not generalfaable out-
side of asking audience members to recall and
rei nha:iit their own moments of grieving (Gooc.all,
2000, p. 2). rt ger.eri~ed whatever credibility it
ear:1ed out of my fumbling attempts to n:ake sense
of my loss. Ths is J. hallmark of autoelhnogmphy
and autoetl:nographic performance speaking
in and through experience, that are unspeakable
3S well as inhabiting and ar: i mating the struggle
fo, words and ofte:1 our failure to find them
(A. Bochner & Ellis, per,onal communication,
Sep Iember 6, 2003 ), These are risky perfur
mar.ces for all involved, and not only because they
testify :o the spaces of failure, silence, and loss,
T:iey are risky because in the- rush to identifica•
tio:i, er:ipathy, and our c:esi re for an "authentic'
expe,ience, audiences and perforr:1ers can give
and receive le:stimonv; in wavs , that move too
quickly from a connected yet distinctive "you"
and "me" to an unq ucsdoned and violer.t "we"
(Salverson, 200 I, p. 124; see also Diamond,
1992 ), This co:lapsing of :m: into you and yuu
into n:e can work to shut duwn engagement and
responsibility, II can fail to recognize the ethical
move required lo make autoethnography and
antoerh nographic performances "a doorway, an
instrument of encounte~. a place of public and
private negotiation.,-whe:'e the goa: is not just
to empathize, but to attend" (Salverson, 2001,
p. 125, emphas:s added). My ?erformance of my
grief for my grandfatr.er stopped short as.king
my audience and myse1 to take a g:eater risk,
to 1:1ove tlirough mimesis (reflection) to poiesis
(creation) and kinesis (movement), Thal per·
"'orrna n cc-the performa:ice of c:it:que and
change-required another letter.
Connecting
I flew to St Louis, Missouri, and met an old
frie:1d, Vve drove into a ne,n territory, with her c011·
ve.:1ible twist:ng ar.d winding into the state park,
where we breathed in the sce:its of pine and sun•
light We were tr.ere fur a co:1ference on perfor•
mative writing. We collected there to share the
work-the words-we believed to be perfurmative
writing. I was nervous, tentative, and unsure.
Should / be :1ere~ Should it be someone else
instead? Of course. I felt guilty about leaving work
on a dissertat:01: about torch singi :ig as a fuminist
performance practice. Should ; be here? S'.1ould
l :-e at home writing-focused on finishing-
Jnstead? Of course. Bi;.: J was here to listen, to read
my words, and to experience. And I knew :hat
when we embody stories and identities, there is
always danger and always risk, 1" so I went,
¼e began by talking about perfor:native
writing. What is it? How do we know Wl:at
does it aspire to be? How do we judge~ What does
performance have to do with it? We talked and
questioned and made notes, ne~er deciding but
instead pil:ng on detail and nuance. Performative
writing ...
"lis al kind o'writing where the body and the spo·
ken wnrd, performan..:e practice and theory, the
perso:iru and the ,cholarly, wrr:e together." (Miller
& Pelias, 2001 p.
"reqi.:::es fo'th that language inke<' en a page can
'do' as \tdl as 'he':' (Stucky, 200 I, p. vii)
"depends u;ion the perti>rmative body b,•:iev:ng in
language:• (Gingrkl:-JJhilbrnok, 2001, p. vi:)
"crerires a :ierlor,:ianc.:, rnt:ier than describes one:'
/Harthes, 1977,p.1!4)
The hurried and r'.ch discussion left me
breathless and nervous. lJid my words embody a
belief ln the power of language? Move beyond the
pages of their inscr:?tion? Invoke, conjure, and
LTl?'ate a new worlc? As much as the warm at:nos•
phere and kind of tl:e participants told me to
relax-to e:1joy this perfor • ance-l was afraid
of how r:1y work would be read, neard, and judge!'.,
Reading, :-eception, and judgment-conversa-
tions about why and 1mw to evaluate alternative
auto/etlmograph:c work al.mund. 11 For example,
Richardson (200()) offe:ed five criteria that
uses w:1e:i re,·iewing what she calls creative ana-
lytic practices (CAP) ethnography: (a) suhstan•
tive contribi:tion to an understanding of social
life. (b) aesthetic merit, (c) reflexivity, (d) emo
tional and intellectual impact, and (e) a dear

expression of a cultural, soda!, in div iduai, or
communal sens,· of r~ality (p, 937). Using
R:chardson's and others' models, I have developed
a list of actio:1s and accomplishments that I look
for in my work and iu Ihi; work of otl:ers. They are
cha_r:t1:g. They arc geuernted in the doing of
writ'ng ra:he:- tbm outside or prior to 1t;
• Participation a,; reciprocity, How •.veil does
tl:e work construe: participation of authors/
readers ar:d perfor:ners/au,:ienres as a reciprocal
relationship :na~ked by mutual responsib: lity and
cbligation (Rfam, 1997, p. 78; iooks, 1995, ?· 221 )'
• Partiality, fl';(l,ixivity, a11d dtationality ,;s
,trategie:s for dialogue (and not "mastery"). How
wdl does tl:e wo~k present a partial and self~
referential talc that connects with other stories,
iccas. discour:;es, and conlexts personal,
th eorctical, ideological, cu !:mal) as a means o:'
creating a dialogue amo:ig '\who,s, readers, ar.d
subjeds writteni read" ( Po'.lock, 1998, p. 80; see
also Denzin, pp, Lt>~-,:, Latl:cr, .2001,
p. 216; Richardson, 1997, ?· 9 ! )?
• malogue Ufi u spaCe of debate and 11egotia-
ri,m. How well does the work ,reate a space for
and engage in meaningful dialogue amo11g differ-
er:, ';:iodies, hearts, ar.d minds (Conqurrgood,
1985, p, 9; l)cr.zio, 1997, p. 247}?
• Personal na1-r,i!fve and swrytel/ing as an
o&/igation lo critique. How do narrative and story
c nact an et bical ob'igat ion :o critique sub; cct
positio:1s, acrs, and recei ,ed r:otions of expertise
and justice withh and outside of the work
(Conquergood, 2002, p. 152; Denzin, 1 p. 200:
Lange II ier, I999, 128-131) 1
• Evocation and emoti(\/1 as incitements to
artia.'l. How well docs the work create a plausible
and visceral lifeworld and charged emotional
atmosphere as an incitement to act within and
outside the mntex: of the work !Bochner, 2000,
p. l; Denz:n, 1997, p. 209)?
• Engaged embodiment as a condition for
d,ange. How does the work place!em·:mdy!intrr-
:-ogale/intcrvene in expe:-ience in that make
Hohrum Jones: Au:oethnogrnphy \12 ;7)
poli:ical action and cnange possible in and
outside o: the wor:C? In other words, how does the
work ''make writing do" (Diamond, 1996, p. 2;
Pollock, 1998, pp. 95-96)?
[ brought these actions and accomplishments
with me to the gathering or: performativt: writing.
As the first authorfperformer began, r heard :he:11
sound and reverberate on h :s tongue and in his
words and th rough his story. I heard them sound
an<l reverberate as we Estened to each other that
weekend, writi:ig and tellin~ and remaking selves
in the words on our pages, in m:r mouths, on our
bodies, and in the room with the green window
on the world.''
(Re)Making the Self
Miller fl998) 11 maintained :hat the gathering
interest in autnhiog:-aphical performance has
much to do with a shift in performance studies
frorr. aesthetic ;ierforn,ance to "a n:or~ inleg,nd
paradigm for explaining, crit:cu'ng, and experi-
encing how cor:tcmporary li"e is },ed" (p, 3: 8).
Thi, shift, like the move toward ii1terprerive,
quulit ati ¥e, 1,arrat 1ve, and critical inqu! ~y in
other burr.an discipines, was precipitated by a
rethinking of the relation,:iip, an:ung texts,
performers, audiences, and contexts; a prolifera-
t:on in the numbe~ and nature of commu:iica-
tion technologies; and a postmodern decentering
of the auth.odty, au:onomy, and stability of insti-
t"tions, su·:'.l;ectivities, and texts (pp. 319-320).
Out of ;his sh:ft emerged an emphasis on per-
sonal narrative as a sitJated, fluid, and emotion-
ally and intellc~:ua[y charged engagement of se:f
and other (performer and witi:ess) mace possible
i:1 the "evolving, revelatory dance betwee:i per-
former and spectator" ( Miller, I995, p, 49). In such
exc:1anges, audiences and per:urmers (often corr>
posed of people who are classified by virtue of
race, class, sexual ;ireferer:ce, gfnder identity,
and experience as "others") crea,e and constitute
a ,hared history and, thus, break into and dimin•
ish :heir marg: mdization. These performances
c,eare highly personal encounters within an
increasingly impersrmal public sphc~e.
 774 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAlllAflVC: RESEA,l.CII-CEAPTER JU
Au :obiographical perfnrm ances provide a:l
oppnrtuni;y to "educate, empower, and emanci-
pate'' (Lar.gellier, 1999, p. l29). Langdlier (1999)
located"' :nea:1s of nitigating and compfaat:ng
the "citherior" logic of cdebration (resistance)
and suspicion (dominance) within personal
narrative performance, specifically in tl:e
interaction hetwren per:ormar.cc and perfor-
mativity. Langellier asserted that "stories are
made, not found'' in perforr:1anccs that mediate
between ex perit=nce aud story, between the
doing and the done (p. ;28; see also Denzin,
2003, p. lO).
These distinctions between ex,:ierience and
story, between the doing and the done, rely on
a notion of performativil y tha: states that a life
story-an iden:it y-is not something an author/
?erfonr:er "elects to do, but ... I,athcr] is perfor•
mative in th<' sense that it constitutes an effect of
the ve:-y ;mbject it appears to express" (3utlcr,
1991, p. 24}. Performativity po:nts to how identi-
ties, and thus life stories, are not easily adopted or
changed (as a rule taken cm tir· an actor} but
instead c1ccrue "gra.:Jal'.y, yet [doj not attac:1
Ithcm,elves j to some blank, son:e actor cas, in ,l
plar shes :10t yet read; [si:ch identiticsJ come into
being by vi:1uc of being performed" (Solomon,
1997, ;i. 16Y). Thal life stories are created and
r~created in the moments of their tellir:g.
Perfarmativity points to the impos~ibility
of se?arat ing our life stories :rom t!ce social,
cultural, and polit'cal contexts wh ;ch :hey ar~
cre,m:d and the ways in whkh performance as
a site of dialogue and r.egotiation is itself a
contest.:J space (D:amond, 1996, p. 2). Langellier
(l 999) wrote,
:centity and experience are 11 .,pnhios:s of per
fim::cd story and the so:ial relatio::s in which they
are materially embrddcd .... lhis -:s why pers:J~.al
narrative perfo~man.:e is especially cru61I to those
communities let: out of the privileges of dor:::nant
cu'.t:m:, those ·Jodics w ith,iut in the political
sens,·. (p. 129)
The challenge is to consider how partict: 1ar
per:ormanccs of prrsonal stcdes "need pcrfor.
mativ ity ;n comprehend I:heir] constitutive
effects" as wc:l as how performativity "retie, upon
performance to show itself" (La:1geHier, 1999,
p. 136). In tht: iterative and ur.stab:e mm·e
between performance 1n:c perfor:nativity, "ques•
tions of embodiment, of social relatiuns, of idco•
logical in1er;iellatlons, of emotional and political
cf:ccts, aJ become disct:ssabh;;" (D:amond, 1996,
p. 4), I! is a discussion that moves discourse to
slorrteUng performar:ce, from m1rm10mous texts
to situated prnctkcs, from received storylines to
emergent dramas wi:h numerous poss;ble "end-
and from om:iiscient na:Tators to a prn•
literation of unreliable retlcxive voic.:,. It is a
c:iscussion that cn:ates and challenges social rela-
tions "witl:in the t1erformMW! event and perhaps
eve:1 !Kyond lt" (Langdlicr, 1999, p. 132; see also
D,mtin, 2003, pp. I 0-1 I).
Performativc writing brings the perfor-
mance-performativit y dynamic lo the rn oment of
texting in which iden:ities and experiences are
constructed, interpreted, ar:ri changed. r: occurs
wher: we er.counter the page wit!: fae intent:on of
ente,ing into a discussio:i ;111,rked ·,y contest and
negotiatinn, emboded knowledg1: and vociferous
exchange, emotional a:1d inte;Jectual charge. fl
occurs wh.:n we iJ:vitc an audience in:o dialogue
as we write, speak, and perform the words on the
pege, in our mouths. on o·J; bo.:ics, and in the
world. Because the ?e,formancc-performativity
dynamic asserts that perforrr:ances are im,ep<1;a-
:ile from perfonm:rs a nri that performativity is
inseparable from poE:ics, autohiographiatl p,'r-
fo~mance, persnna, narrative, and perforuali ve
autoJrthnography en:nesh the personal within
the ?Oiitkal and tl:c i101i!ical within personal
i:1 wa 7·s th al can. do, and mus: ma :ler.
A Love Letter
II was my tum. I 1r:oved from my scat oo the
floor and into the chair beneath the window, AL
eyes-expeckmt and encouraging-'Nere on me.
I took a breath and began a story i,boJt torch
i,;ingers and ghosts.
On the flight fror:i llEtrn't to P,1ris, I read about the
Edi:I: Piaf Muscu1:: in the guidebook:

Pi:is. Open by appointment ' p,m,
Closed Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and
ban,:, hoI''
tcays. ",
, nvatt mustum ... an
apartment, Memorabilia the singer,
Chioo ro'.lec:ion, F:ee,
I c:xle the phor..: ::umber. I :urn th;; dog•eared
page, I dnse my and ·Jegin listening for Piaf as
she ha·~nts Paris, as she haunts rm:, a present
his:ory singing her im'i&ibility,, .•
: arrive at the apartment muse.im at 1 p.m, Melissa
accompan ks me as translator, The proprietor,
3ernard Marchois, invites us in. Standing immedi•
a1ciy front o: us i:, a black•a:1d,white cardboard
cutoJt of Pia:. ,\,la~chois tells ·;s that the mtff~t was
created as a lobby <::splay for or,e of her last concerts
al the Paris Olyt:1pia. He s:nile,, This is a lifo,sized
portrait, he say,, lie puts arm around the
boord ,latue, He is nut a tall :nan, bJt Edith looks
!ikr a tiny bird und<'r his arm-yes. a sparrow,
He shows us intlJ the sitting room, and Melissa and
I lnok around. Th is place, all of the ot'iers, 's
packed tight with Piaf ::1emorabilfa. These are her
thin11s-he: reco:ds, her jewelry, her hastily
scrawled le:ters, her blac;,, dress, her china. We sit
on a much, (b it "ers? Did she sit he:e?) Marcho.s
p·Jlls up a chair, Melissa explair:s that we're inter•
ested in hearing about Piaf's performan;:es, about
Piaf the woman. He nods and smiles. : ask him to
tell us how they met. Melissa asks again, in French.
He laughs. He explains t'iat he me\ Piaf when he
was a teenage An olde: muple-friends the
family-invited him tn see Piaf ,1: lhe Olympia.
Before the show, lhe couple took .Marcho:s back-
sla!:le to meet her, He was di.a?pointcd. She was
frail and plain. She looked like a clear.i:1g lady.
"Surprisedi" she asked.
Mar~hois nodded sheepishly,
laughed a round, fuli laugh, "Ycu ~omc 'Jac:S
ar:d see r::e after the show, ch~"
Ee was sure he had seen enough, bt:t he nodded
again.
"The show was elec:rifying, Dy the end of the show,
I was smit:en. 1codd barely contain my exc'teme::t
l:lol:nan Jones: Autoethnography 111 77,
as we made our way backstage. When we tnte,ed
:he dressing mom, she turned that lightning smile
,,
onme,
"So, wr.al do you t::ink of me now?"
"She saw t'V<:ryihing lr. my
She laughed. "Come:' she said, am: shr ?ulkc me
into her embrw:c.
Marcho's's glislen. He sighs. He say; they we;e
friem::;, never lovers, He says she loved life, loved to
laugh play music. loved to He her
songs were full of heartache, but that heartache was
never hopeless, It was simply pa:1 of the equation of
living, Her songs were signposts of the places she
was in between-spaces of contradiction, tension,
and immanent possibilities,'" He sa,yH she loved
sharing these ?laces, these wound, fueling. He
says, again, she loved life.
I see the cardboard likcn,-ss of Piaf i 11 tht> next
room, I ~ee the pkt11n; of Ma,chois with his arm
,m,.md her nut th.- iifo-sit.ed photo but [rather]
what is pres,ing in from the other side o: ,he image
dlsplayec within her tir:y frame," I see 'nim sitting
here, in an apart:ntnl filled with he, teacups and
earrings and statfonery, I glan« down at my not~•
book.My nexl qt..:stion "Why do bis? Why invite
strangers into your home to talk about Edith Piaf?"
I :oak up at him and r havt> my an.swe, He is an
amatN1r, a ca re:ul rnt:cctor of merr:or:es, Ee does
this so that hem ight breathe life back in where 0:11)'
a memory ri~ a bar>:: trace was visib:e to those
who bothe:ed to look.11 lie livrs among her things
btcause .ooking at them a::d showing them to
others is r:is lover's discourse:15 He is writing ghcst
stories in a language of rnmmonp!ace things that
take 0:1 an in::nense power_N And with each day,
with each conversation, he proclaims his lo;'lc and
writes hii. memories anew,
We leave the museum and walk toward the :V1etro
station. Melissa asks if I got what I wanted, •
No, !'m not sure, and maybe that's the point. I
came til Paris locking lo~ 1he real l:di1h Piaf. and
I'm leaving with her ghost
M~lissa stops. \'l'hy do this? ¥thy follow ghost
around Pari,?
 776 111 HANDBOOK 01' QCA L:TATl\'E RESEAHCH-CHA P'I' ER JO
I have my an~wer: BccaJ»' follnwing a ghost is abuut
t::aking ,,mtact,and that contact change, you.25
Later, when I sit dm,:: to write this story of ::1y
cm::mmter w::i'. Piaf and her gho,t, I feel her
wctching OW;; my shoulder as I move my fingers
along the keys, with n1e, the q·,;c$tion:ng,
crit:cal ghost my text. She leaves wounds of
feei'ng nn my language; never hopeless, just part
of livim;. My stor:e, Mc love letters, i::vitations lo
the unspoken, unheard voices of the sing,·r
and myself.
Performing Posslbilities
I "rnished my story, and the a·Jdience was still
and silen:. Then the discussion began, pulling my
story and r:ie into a :iew performam:e. We talked
of rhythm ar:d t:1 ick descr:ption, :henry and prac ·
lice, haunting and writing. I wm challenged ar:d
energizrd hy our conversation. I e:1vi sioned new
possibilities for ny story a:1d for the power of
nar,ativc to inscribe and embody a horizon of
movement l the chair under the window am:
retu med to my ?lace 01: the f.oo,.
I flew home f:-mn the confert'!lCt a:1d spent a
fow days writing ai,d x11ding about perfo,mance,
personal narrative, and perfurmativity. I made
note w:iat Madison (i 998a) '""·'" about tl:e
"performance of possibilities:' that is, the "active,
crcat:ve work that weave, the life of fae mind with
be:ng mindful oflife, of'mcrging tei,:.t and world:
of crit icall y trave:-sing r.1argin and the center,
of opening more and d:fferent paths for enliven-
ing ,elations and space," (p. 277).
?erfo:mances of possibilities are created in the
:nomentum of 1:1ovement from s'lence to voice
and from margin to center. They pmvide a gather-
ine; :,lace for narratives th at seek change in
"syste:ns and processes t:iat lir:1it possibilities»
(Madisor:, I 998a, p. 279). The space and move•
ment of performances of possi:iilbes are infused
with the re:;ponshility to ethically engage with
selves am! other., in wavs that do not forestall or
'
fim:do~e d '.alogue. Performances of possibili1ies
provide both the means and the method for an
altrrative, alternative eth:10gra;:ihy. They are, to
i.:se Sandoval's (2000) de~criptiou, subjunctive;
they join together the possible and what is, 1hey
;irovide the mecium "thrm:gh which difference
both arises and i.s undone; !they: join together
through movement" (p. 180).
Then I returned to my dissertation, my love
letter to torch singing. I brought these questions
with me to my writing.
Intimate Provocation
Madison's questions Er.k the personal w;th :he
political and SL,J:mest how the turn toward per-
formative narratives and narrative performances
creates a politkally efficacious poetics in aud
through movement (see also Conquergood, 2002;
Langellier, 1999; Hartr.ett,. 998; ;or:es, 2002; Spry;
200! ).
The lessons and challenges for au~octhno•
graphy in :he turn toward performance, perfor-
malive writing, and personal narrative are dear.
Autoethnographk texts are persoual stories that
are bulb amstitut:ve and performati\•e. T:1ey
are charged exchanges of presence or "mutual
presentness" (Dolan, 1993, p. 151 ). They are
love letters-processes and productions of
desire-for recognition, for engagement, and
for change. 'Iedlock ( 1991) c"ia::acterized the
etl:nographer's process as that of an amateur,
which derives from the Lat:n amatus or "to love"
(p. 82}. Writter: and experienced in this way,
autoethnography becomes an int:mate provoca-
tion, a critical ekphrasi5, a story of and with
movement.
But like all stories, my acrount is partial, frag-
mented, and slmatcd In the texts and contextF of
my own lear:1ing, interpretations, and practices.
Rather ,han enc here in tbe intersections and
interactive possibilities of narrative and perfor-
mance, I wa:11 to tell vou one more story,
' . inv~nt
one more history, invoke one more discussion of
the intricacies of ·heo:-y and praxis. : ivant :o tel I
yo·.1 about socially resistive perforrr:ance as a site
and means of in:imate pm,'ocation. I want to ask
you to consider the place o: autoethnography in
this story;

• TURK[NG ACAIN:
PFR"(HMJN{, SOCIAL RESISTAKCE
Watching and \Vriting
Wher. I was yoi;ng-4 and 5 and 6 yea,s old-
I loved staying over on Saturiay nights with my
gn.r:dparen:s. I relished staying up late nights and
having their u:idiviced altent:on, H·Jt most a1
I leve,: watching The: Lawrence i',elk Show. My
grandmother marveled at my fixation on the set
At first, she thought it was the bubbles he:d
my atte1:ti011, hut I watched everything-the
musical numbers, the singers, the danc:ng. :
dappcc :r: time wil ~ the movement of Bobby and
Sissy. I clapped in time with my grandfather's
typewriter dick-clacking in the other room.
My grandmother would call him in m see my
perform;ince, and fae typbg-the writing oflet·
ter,, histuries. and wild fictions-wo·Jld stop. My
grandfather would stroll into the liv:ng room to
watch ne. He wo-J!d smile ar;d pick me up, swir:g•
ing rr:c high over his. head nnd onto his shoulders.
lie would io:d my hands and spin me in time to
nobby and Sissy's wa;tz, swing, or foxtrot And
when the :,umber was over, wou c. return me to
my spot on the Ooor in front of the television and
then return to hs typewriter.
Out of sight, he wonld place !:is fingers on the
keys and furiously tr,p out his own rhy:hm, vision,
aod story. And I would ceturr. to the da:idng, the
music, the singing, and the bubbles.
Hopeful Openness
J1irs:, con.side: seve;al ideas about theater and
soda! dumge:
• T:-,at art dnes not mirror or transcend cxpcri-
encr ~ut rather is a means for crrating and
eirn,er:,encin!! the world
• Thal what happc:is in a performance can influ-
ence, and can dumge, what happens in :he
world
• That the perfor:ner--spcctator relationship is not
!1xed hut rat':er mai'.cable-that a spectator can
an active agent (c.g.,t-ocreator, participant) in
a perfo:mam:1: rather than a passive rn1i;;umer
efa performance
• Thal performance creates a in which par-
tidpa:11s not only glimpse who and what they
arc a::d dei:ire but also come into contact with
differe:it identities, positions, and desires
• That suc:i encounters ran demand and facilitate
l'!'sponse and action
Now, imagine these ideas as they arc played
out on stages and street comers, in lecru re halls,
and in coffee shops. Can you see ar:d hear these
pcrfnr:mmces? Can you imagine that each "mod•
els a hopeful openness to rhc diverse po.ssibilities
of dcmoc,acy" (Dola:i, 2001 b, p. 2)<
Wait. Do not answer yet. I want to tell yoll o:1e
moresto:-y.
Perlorman.:::e has long been a site a:id means
for negotiating social, cultural, and political dia-
logue (for two historical accuunls of this process
in different contexts, sec Denning, 1997, and Scott,
l 990 ). In the U:1.::ed States, activist t':ieater has
coalc:;ced around social movements such as the
labor movemer:t of the ;930s, the civil rights and
Jeminist movements of :b.;: l 9(i0s and I970s, and
the Al DS activism of :he 1980s (Cohen-Cruz, 200 L
p. 95). The associations between social movements
and activist performance, howevt'r, are oppor
tunistk, tenuous, a:1d changing. Such ,,ssociations
du not adequately describe the changing natme
of sodal cllange theater, Instead. as Cohen-Cruz
( 200!) proposed, movements in the form anc
function of activist performanee mrr1:spond to
shifts in the ways in which perfonmmce po,its the
performer-audience-text-context relalionship."6
During the late 1960s a:1d early 1970s,
conditio:1s for activist theater were ripe. Acrnrs
fo,med radical collectives that produced bot:i
realist dra1:rn and origi na: work The goah of
these "actor-based, mm•cmcr.,-linked" compa
"were ?lain: get the Cnitro States out of
Vietnam, enfo,ce equal rights for all people
regardless of race or ethnicity. boycott grapes'
(Cohen-Cn.1z, 200l, p. 98), Although techniques
were many, much of this work drew on Berto!:
Bree :it's concept of epic theater performances
 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALI1~l'IVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 30
that create a distinction among-and distance
between-actor and character, text and context.
Epic theater asks audiences to crit:cally engage
with and evaluate the performance and its sodal
implications rather than get swep: away :n the
er.rntional and nonevai·Jative force of theater-
as-entertainm ent. Dist: nction and distance are
what make theater a:1 ocs:asion for enlightened
and iovolved citizenship as well as a powerful
site and means for breaking into a;td rrfiguring
our world (Brecht, 1957/1998, p, 125),
As the national movements with wl:ich these
performances were allied began to fracture and
shift, socially resistant performance ali,o began
to cha:ige (Cohen-Cruz, 2001, p. 99). Performrrs
turr:ed their altention to issues i:1 their own rom-
munities and begar: :o grapple with the need
to express not only sol:darity and unity but al~o
the intricacies of identity, difference, and identifi-
ca:ion (pp. 98-\IY}. During the 1980s, identity pol-
itics (e.g., efforts focused specifically on ga>• rights
or gender equality) emphasized prrsonal story•
telling and creating an environment and process
in which community me:nbers could participate
in performances. Whereas 1960s "political
theater was more consister.tly radical in content,
community-based theater is more consistently
radical in,and focused on,procesl' (p, 100,empha·
sis added). The force and power of this work
inheres in creating reciprocity among art:sts
and community members, linkh:g the personal
wlfa the politica,, and instigating sprclfic, local
actiom. Working with untrained participants
meant that commun:ty-based theater rel :ed heav-
ily on workshons for deve:oping and rehearsing
performance&. Workshop techniques, such as
those devcloped by Augusto Boal, fadlitated this
process, Boal (J979/ 1985), whose work d:-dws and
builds on Erechtian principles, outlined several
techniques lo a~sist community members In
creating "theater Ias I a ,ehearsal for revolution"
(p. 122). vVhereas Brecht advocated a critkally
actl ve spectator, Boal asserted that spectalo:~
must learn to become "spect-actors" and, as such,
to actively participate in the u:1Jolding drama on
stage. In so doing, spectactors train themselves
for real action in the world (p_ 122).
Participants did lean: to become active partk·
ipan:s on stage and in 6e world. They benefited
from the pe,formance in de:inab;e ar:c material
ways. Challer:ges surrounding the n~ed lo bala:1ce
aesthetic concerns with the sharing of experie:ice,
the sphnterir.g effects of iden:ity-based dia•
logues, and the need to connect loca 1 action :o
larger contexts precipitated a shift from commu-
nlty-based perfurmance to thea:er and dvk dia•
logue (Cohen•Cruz, 200!, p. :04 ). 111eater anc
civic dialogue i, focused on realigning and recon-
necting the politics surround:ng gender, race,
class, ar:d sexuality (among other identities and
posi:ions) in a twy that does r:ot ob::iscate or col•
lapse differences but i;istead puL, :hese iden,ities
and positions in conflict and conversation with .
one a:iother arounc an i,sut: of dv:c importance
(:>olan, 200 Ia, P- 90 ). The goal o: civic dialogue
performance 1s ro "engage the pubtc more fully
wirh contemporary issues'' (p, 106).As s·Jch, civic
dialogue rel'Jrns to the b,oad soda!. cwtural, and
political contexts and issJes "reminiscent of
I 960s theater, but from multiple perspectivrs~
(p. I06 ). Civic dialogue performance is inspired
and. i:,formed by a;t 'rnpetus to i:wolve audiences
in the wake of actual events to create critical
engagement (hooks, 1995, p.214).
vVhereas the techniques of both Brecht and
Boal formed the cornerstone for much thearer
practke in movement- and community•based
theater, dvk dialogue ,heater embraces a fluk
and opportunistic approach to performalive
paradigms and styles (hooks, 1995, p. 219). Civic
dialogue perfor:uance also takes advantage of
the multip'.e sites available for engagemen:-livc
theater and street prrfo:mancc, television anc :be
Inter:iet, dance parties and spectacles (Orenstein,
200 I, pp, 149-150). These perforn:ances must, as
Ortnstein (2001) asserted, "appeal to a broad audi-
ence by o~fering frameworks for protest that leave
room for :ndivicual creativitv and bv eschewing
' '
overly restrictive or exclusive ideologies" (p. 151 ).
What lessons does this history offer for
autoethnography? First, it provides another con•
:ext for the tum to performance, perfurn:ativc
writing, and personal performance narratives in
interpretive, qualitative, critical, and narrative

inquiry. Second. this his:o:-y traces the movement
between and among art and po:itics, ind:vidual
and community, represer:tatio:1 and pa:-tkipa•
tlon. ln the shifts toward retlexivj\y, incbsion,
pen,onal stories, :,,cal actions, mu It iple perspec-
tives, and dv:c dialogue, sucial pmtes I th~ater
der:ior.strates !:ow pa:11digms and techniques can
be used in t:ie service of making mt ma:ter and
generating action in the wodd. Social protest the-
a:er's hstory also s,eaks to how the stories we tell
am and do reflect on, ·:iecome e:ita r:gled in,
and c:-itique th :s curre:it historkul moment and
its d:scor.tents (Denzin, 1997, p. 200).
Journalist ... Artist
When I got a little older, my Saturday night stays
witn my grandparents in the company of Lawrence
We,k were extended to week:ong visits over
sum:uer vacation. I would visit them at the:r lake
house, wifa its screened porch, sloping law 11, and
dense sland of trees. Inside the house, there was a
guest bed:-oom with a wl'.ite irm: twin bed, '.ust for
me. The:-e was my grandmother's electric organ,
with waltz, foxtrot, and bossa nova accompani-
ment. There were shelves of hook:, and of
board games-Monopoly, Scra'::ible, and Parcheesi.
Therr were all of the,e things lo keep my hands
and mind busy, and aftet 20 minutes er so I would
whine that there was absolutely nothing to do.
I would start wondering how mud: longer it
woJ!C be until my parent.5 came :o me up.
I WO'Jld spraw. on the ur.tch and ~:iL<..
I would wander into the kitchen ind watch :nv
' into :he darkness, typir:g. He said that he was
grandmofaer peeling potatoes. I wm1ld 1..vatch her
so intently that s:te v.'Ould 1·.t:-n around a11d as;,.,
"\'\/hat's the ma:te,?"
"l'm bored."
"Do you want to read"
·';io,"
"Want to go nuts lde and pl;,y ?"
":'\lope."
"Want Grandpa ro ?lay Sc,ahhle with you?"
<•)Jo,"
''Well then, dear, what do you want to do?"
And I would ~tare back at lier, expressionless,
until she wnuld shrng and ret.:rn to the potatoes.
Holman Jv:1e;;: Autnetlmog:-a::ihy Ill 779
\Ve enacted this scene nearly eve~y day during
my visits. And faen one day, my grandn:other
turned to me and said, "Why don't you write
something?"
"Wl,atr" I !:ad not that one before.
"W:1y don't you pre:end you're a reporter and
you're going to write a story the even;r.g edi-
tion of the paper?"
"But : don't k1:ow how to a reporter."
''I'll show you:'
iu1d with that, my grandmother sci off to look
for :ny reporter's cost ,.1me. She' gave me a small
:,ad and pencil. She gave me an old hat of my
g,andfarher's. She wro:e "Press" on a slip of pape:-
ar.c. sti:ck it in the ha:band. Then she sa:d, "Why
don't you interview Grand;,a for your story?"
At least I tl:bk that is what she said. I was
already looking for my grandfather.
He was sitting at the dining room table, staring
at his type'i'l'riter. His hands were clasped behind his
h,ad. He was reading the newly typed sheet in fm1,t
of him, silently mouthing fae wo:-ds. He lookcc. u;,
from his work and said, ''\Veil, who is this?"
'Tm a reporter and l'r.1 he:1: to interview you
for the evening edi:ion!"
"Sur<'. Pull .1p a chair. C.,re for a drir,;,.("
"Can't. l'm rm the joh:'
"Verv• well, then. \'-'hat can l do ior vour
•
l asked my gnndfather how old he was, how
:nuch weighed, and huw t.ill he was.
: asked about his favorite rnlor, record, and
book. I asked him why he loved Grandma and
whether he wished he could live foreve,. r asked
him why he sat": typewriter all afternoon and
w,iting stork-i;.
"Stories about what?"
"Stories about what l see when I c:ose my eyes
2nd listen very, very carefully:'
"Lis.ten to what?''
'To radio. To the mourning doves. To you
playing the organ. To the beati:1g of my own heart"
He ~milcd ai:d ai,ked me wht:ther I had any
other questions. I said, that does i::• He ,vent
back to star i:1g at the page and reading his ,,;ores
to himself. And then he pllt his fingers on the keys
and began typ:ng.
780 111 HA~llBOOK OF Q:JALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
I stayed there, very still in my chair and w:-ore
down the things I noticed about my grandfather
as he worked-the way his glasses glinted when
the light hit them, the way his right hand would
raise up from tne keys and p;rnh tne return key
and land back on the key~ i11 one fr.1id motion, the
way he smiled at being watched and documentcc.
l workl><l on my srnry for ~ev.:ral days. When
I was done, rr:y grandno,her pasted it or.:0 a large
sheet of construction paper. Both of rr:y grand·
parents said that they liked my story very much.
The story I wrote at my grandparen:s' house
that summer d'd r:ot rnme out of nowhere. I
intended to write it. I donned the co~tume of a
rcportc rand ?layed the role as I remembered it-
wa,;;h i:ig carefully, asking questions, and writing
thi:i.gs down. I co not recall how Ihe story went,
but I do know that it was a'JffJt my grandfather's
performance as an artist-as a writer. It was • y
attempt to document mt:sic, movement, and
beating of his heart.And altl:oagh I cid not know
it faen, this story was my attempt to write a
lhal enacted the very art :t sought lo inscribe.
On Location
The ''documentary icca" in solo perfonnam:e.
as Kalb (2001) put ::, is to give an audience
impression of havh1g been faere "on location"
(p. 20, empha;:is added). For Kalb, the actual
fact of be:ng tl:cre is 1,ot as :mportant as the
r:ietorical power of solo pe:formancc to generate
"powerti:l topical narratives that arc not easl:y
dismissed or second-guessed, and for per•
formar:ce circumstances" in which Brecht's cpk
theater77 "becomes a living concept again because
the reality uf the performer -researc:ier has been
made an a:tive par! of the art» (p. 16). Dorn-
mentary solo performance subscribes to an
inherent duplicity-of fact and fiction, imagina-
tion and realism, objectivity and partisanship-
that "recogn:zes the audie11cc's sophislicatio11
regarding stories" (p. 22). It ts this duplicity, ak,ng
with a pertormer's ability to hridge and exploit
the possib:litics inherent in the move between
documen:ary realism and :kt ionaEzation, that
makes a perfo:mance compe:Iing.
Anna Deavere Smith', perfor:nances Fires in
the Mirror (regarding the 1991 in Crown
Heights, Brooklyn, New York, followii,g the death
of a black boy struck bv a rabbi's n:otorcace and
' '
the retaliatory stabbing of a Jewis:1 student) and
Twilight: i.1Js ,4ngeies Iregarding the 1992 riots in
Los Ange:cs following the acqJittal of the polite
officers accusec of b,•ating Rodney King) offer
striking examples of the dupjcity of solo docu•
mentary perfonnance. '~ Smith constructed these
perfor:na:ices by interviewing pt:ople direcdy and
indirectly :nvolved in the events and de:ivered,
"verhati m, rheir words and the essence of their
physical beings in characterizations which fall
somewhere between caricat J re, l!rechtia:1 ep k
gestures, and mimicry" [Reinelt, 1996, p. 609).
Rt:inelt {: 996) chani,:ierii.,J Smith's perlormance
technique as "a b,idge tbt makes the unlikely
seem connected. She gr_osts her ;:io,traits with her
own pers<na, signifying sympathy, fairness, and
own suh.iect position" (p. 615). Reinelt
argued'"' that, ir: filtering voices of (many)
o:hcrs through her own voice ar:d uscillating
between idcn:ificatinn and c.ilforcncc,
Smith needs to liave it '.10th ways.... She needs to
be :den:ifo:d as both ;ournalist ilnd artist, Ir. a sense,
Smith dares to S(Je".ik lfor others: ... m, b~r.usr
she is objective, fair·::iinded, anc: even-h~i:ded. bur
because ~he drn1onslrnlc& the nm,:e..s bridging
difference, seeking informatio:1 and undc;standing,
and finessing questions l;f idcnt:I ye Since thl' audi,
,:nee :s po.sllioncr, in the diwct address SNJ1Jc1wcs IO
"be" S:nilh, thcf ne po,ll iom.'1.1 10 cxp,Tieocc 1b:
ac:ivity of bridging, wff•ll '''° with ditlere11ce. Th:s
effect is the most r.dical ckmen: ofSmit::'s wo,rk--
it tng,1gs:s !he spu-tnor in radical politii:al a.:livil r
to the extent Iha'. the spectator grn1ipks w:rh
cpistcn:ologicai process. (?· 615)
Srr:i:h's work ~nacts :his bridging in the
?crformancc of personal stories. Rather tl:an use
:hc.~e stories as a :11irmr tor a suhjcc~s or an auH-
cm:r's uncx,nni:ird ex?rricnce, Smith'., soln per-
formances "tt:rn thr mirmr into a polit;ral mo!"
(Kalb, 2001, p. 23; see also Dolan, 2001a, p. 89;
Kondo,2000}. Smith noted, ",'vly projec Lls about ...
the gap between,,. the performer and th,; o'.hcr

and .. the gap between the performer and the
text" ((Juo:e<l in Capo and Langellier, 1994, p, 68).
By rema;ning er itirnlly p:-eserd in her portrayal
of others and the:r stories. Sn: i:h br: ngs the
performative to her per:brmancc. She eschews
political:y disengaged, re due ti v.::, and stalk repit'-
senttition(s) of events and parlkipants favor
of work 1:1at pre,en/s-,reate~-a "ger:er;,tive
engagement between pe:former and audience" in
the negotiation among stories, selves, texts, and
contexts (Salverson, 2001, p, 123). She moves
through mimcsis to poiesis and kinesis.
What happens when performers present their
own stor'es? Solo pc:·formcrs ofter offer their
personal stories as testimony about "real" events.
Audiences witness such testimony and, as ,m::h,
become tmplkated in the encountcrs. As Hughrs
a:id Roman (1998) noted,
Whco we allent: a ,,nln piece ;l's knowing that theri:
is a good cl:ance the pe:forme: is also r:-,e writer
and the stor:el\ we will hear ''reallr happened:'
There is :;ome level of safety that disappears for tic
audience: we can't hide ',eh ind "it's o:1ly (p, 4;
SP<' Miller, :995)
Personal narrative performances ceny any
easy distinction betwren "art" and "life." Such
performances re:aln their performative, political
power in and through the ways in w:1ich they
fii:-eg:ouml the constitutive and sh Jting nature
LJf giving testimony and witnessing. Rather than
present rxpc rirnre as au! he 1: :ic (true) and
'J:ltouchablr (immune to critktl commentary),
solo per~ormers .:reate intimate provocations in
which they tesl ify a:1d ai;diences bear witnes~ tLJ
,;1eir stories (Gray & Simling, 2002).
Robbie Mc Ca nlev is a :ierfor mer who writes,
' .
Jirects, a:id pe~forms personal mirrat'vc, making
explicit the social cor:ditions itl wh kh hrr storks
are situated ( Whyte, 199 3, p, 282). lr: telling
personal r:arratives, McCauley "inte:1ds that l::er
oulookers , . , , in witnessing the experiences she
invokes in her perfonnancs;s, will begin lo under•
stand their own implication in the situations that
she presents" (p. 282). In her work Soltys Rapr:
The Whole Story, Mct:anley esplores how Iler ow r:
Hci man Jones: Auloclhnog,aphy 1ll 7~ 1
story :s shaped by the stories of others, including
her "great-great-grandmother Sally, a slave on the
\lonlicello es:ate of Thoma$ Jefferson" (p, 280), 30
The work includes a scene b whic:1 lv'.cCauley
stands na;..e<l on an auction block. Her white part-
nt:r Jeannie Hu1e:1ins;· ins:ructs the audience to
create :he scene of a slave rr:arkct by chanti:lg "Bid
'em i:1. bid 'c:11 in:' Mt-Cauley performs a mono-
logue in which the voice of Sallv and her ow:1
voice arr ;ntertwine<l as her ·:wdy is examined
and violated. 'Whyte ( ! 993) described l:er expcri•
ence of this seem:;
fo: the onlooker there :, ,:n awe-ful fascination in
this representation of the slave auction, th is scene
of vi2timagc. The pleasure of looking at t~e naked
body of the bla~k woman is , , , made guilty by the
.iwarrnes~ of being ine,capabl}· positioned as a
polcnlial buyer in the ,lave market., .. Similarly,
w'icther nr ,wt 1~m jnin th,· char.fir.~ yon are
lrappul by the ~ympathetic :nagic of sound whkh
reanimates the past. a:id rm malter how much you
tell y1r~:self your.ad no:hi;:g to do with this .ccnc,
you are made \·icariously complicit the aw::iun
,ystem that McCauley's naging reprcscnls. (r. 278)
McCauh:y•~ work illustrate& !he ways in whkh
giving tcsti mony and witnessing can and must be
situated in larger contexts and shared histories.
Her performances audiences and performers
to rome together differently and deeply "without
collapsing eilhe r the T o: the 'other' into a total
izing 'we"' (Salverson, 20(ll, p. 120). McCauley
tap~ ir:to the vulnerability required to tell per-
sonal sto rics to move audiences past simple,
essentialist identification and toward a generative
engagement with their differences. She i:oted,
"When you engage y01:r vulnerability around , , ,
issues that are both political and ;:iersoual, then
you can have somet:iing powerful happen
between people" (quoted in Becker, 2000, p, :BO),
Where does bridging :he political and
sonal [n solo performance move (and leave)
performers and auciences? Hug:ies and Roman
( 1998) wrote,
"The perso11a: is political" r.::mair( s: ,i vi!al dial-
lenge for solo per:orn:ers, , . , Cm:scqucn,iy. fow
 71l2 111 HANDBOOK LW LJL:ALIL\TIVE RESBARCll-CHAPTER JO
performance artisls-no matter how skilled or
f,~nny inte:1d In s:mply entt'rtain: th-~y mean
lo provoke, to r;i.ise qurstiuns, to implicate their
audi enc~. (pp, 8-9)
Thus, the idea be[r:g 011 location as a solo
performer means using personal stories to create
"cakula:ed dbturbances'' in soc:al, cultural, and
political netwous of powc~ (I.am:, 2002, p. 61 ).
Writer, perfom:er, and director Tim Miller
O'.ltnmented on the exacting nature these dis-
1urbances: "Tne whole reason for being an artist
in this ;;,articular realm (pe:fornuncc) , . , is ~o
rtspond quickly, dfoctively, and surgically tow :mt
you want to do" (quoted in Burnham, 1998, p.
Mi[er's solo performances focus on gay rights
and identifies as these issues are reflected ini
through the critical lens his personal expe:-i•
en,e, His :ecent work Glory Box protests the
failure of immigrnl:or: laws to recognize gay and
lesbian re'.atinnships, using the experience of his
own relationship with his Austral'ar: Scottish
partne::. Writing about his experience traveling in
the l!:iited States and performing Glory Box,
Miller (2()(J2) noted.
[ mn trying to make my case Lo the c,rnmunities
[ engage that this viofom:c and injustice agiinst
:csbian and gay ,ouples must stop.... I ,hi::i< the-
akr is p:ima,ily a site for libe,abm stories a:id a
swe2ty laboratory to model pnssib:e s:ra:egies fur
empowerment. (pa,a. 4)
Fo: Miller, these strategies include explicit calls
to action both within and outside of the perfor.
mancc. In each com • unity in which he per:"orms.
1v'. iller joins forces with national and lucal orga-
nizations invested in an issue, encourages wm-
n:unity members to lobby their congressional
representatives, asks audience membrrs rn sign
petitions tnat s'Jpport changes in legislation,
and uses the performance as a catalysl for media
coverage that wm raise awareness about :he
issue (para. 11 ).
In addition to this "nuts-a:id-bolts activism;'
Miller asks his audienc.:: lo engage in the mox
individual work of consdousness raising, which
he terms "emotional psychic ... adjustments:'
For eKamp!e, Miller's performance asks straight
audience meubers to ack:iowledge their hetcrn•
sexual privilege and asks gay and lesbian auciencc
members to recognize tl:e institutional and sym•
bolic degradation their lives (para. l 2). In both
activist a:1d ..:onsciuusness-raising impulses,
Millers work "retains a personal and political
investment that '::lh:rs the borders ·,etw,·er. publk
and private" (Dolan, 2001 a, p. 114).
By taking the:r stories on location and usbg
the dup;idty of artistry and journalism, expe~t
testimony a~1d witnessing. solo perfonners teach
us how tu c~eale, enact, and incite :.error mances
full of possibilities.
Torch Stories
In my drea1:1, I see my grandfather on my
universily campus. I arr: wa\;,,ng to the library
,,hen I see l:i:n. He is reading a newspaper in the
coffee shop. ! call !Cl h: m, and he looks up from the
,age,. He stands and waves, and when ; reach ·1im
we embrace. He huya me a cup of coffee, and we
settle in for a long talk.
He says, "What are you writing about?"
"I'm writ:ng about how we are called 10 partic-
ipate in music, in texts. I'm writing about torc:1
singing as a soundi:ig of personal and polHical
desire."
He rnise~ h;s cvebrnws,
' .
"Reallv?"
"I guess whl:lt I'm really doing is writing a
series of stories about torch singing!'
He nol'.s. "That sounds like fur:~'
"It is,"
We turn our attention lo our coffee and other
lopics, although I keep the conversation about
writing torch stories going in my hem!. They are
s:o,ies about what happens in betwee:i binaries,
sm:-ies abant wha: occurs between participation
and provocation, emotion and politics, subjec: and
object, body and voice, intended meaning and lit-
eral meaning, form .; nd function, monologue and
dialogue, cor.nect:m~ and distance, condus'o:is
and possibilitit:6. They are stories that begin with
the idea that performance, because it is imbri-
ca1ed in a culture and vast s;,iral of relationships,
is necessarily and thoroughly p,,/itical (Co:lerJ1: &

Spenct>r, 19911, p. I ). They are stor:cs :hat look
i:ito the gaps and contradictions between a
r:mderni~t/realist perspective on ?erformance
that imagines that "stable rnea:i:nss can ... be
'shared' between ac::imr and rcad~r, actor and
audience, s:age and auditoriu:1" and a postmod-
em{anti• realis: ap;xoach that decnnstmct~ be
"process of mea :iing-making iue:f" (Kershaw,
1999,p.12).
Becau~e of thi5, torch stories arc stories that
ask what happens when I try to understand per•
fo:,nance by sl raddling the lence wilh one fun I
p'.anted In the realm of annwering and celi!hrati :1g
di!fc~e1:ce, multiple ,;ubjcc: positions, and idro-
logical and political pluralism and with the other
foot firmly plact:d inside tl1c possihilit}1 of a com-
munity ei:per:ence. a shared scrise uf agency.
ar:d concerted a(tion directed al social ch,mge.
They are, just as importtint, stories tr:at ask what
happens when audiences engage with texts that ax
overtlv resistant not in form or content but rather
I
in their activity as a subtle and indired voking
(Hr,ldcr:1ess, 1992, p. J(l ). Thcv arc stur [1;:s :'Jal
want to have it both wars, to say thn it depends.
l n the gaps and tl,st:res of cultural prmh:ct'o:1
,me politics, these stories create, to use theater
s,hul;u Kershaw's ( IWII) term, a source ofj+eedom.
':"his freedom is doubled-"not jusl freedom Ihm:
oppcession, repression, [an(;] exploitation ... but
also freedom to read, heym,d existing systems
formalized power, frccdo m to crt'ate currently
unimagirrnble forms of association and action''
(p. 18). The freedom found in pcr'hrmance-
found •:1 telling stmies-c;calcs a resistive aml
transgress'v<' radicalism.
Kershaw (1999) preferred "rndical" to "politi
catbec1:use "radical ha~ :io :iece,sary idco'.ogical
tendency... , II gcsw,es ... :owards i<inds of
freedom that currently cannot bt envisaged"
(?· 18). These ~tories also ''invite an ideologi..:al
investment thal it canrmt itse:f determine"; they
arc a "pe rfor :native process in need of d irect;or:"
Ip. 20). One directfon tr:al readers an,~ audience
members might take is to actively rngage what
B;:i;;cht (: 95 7/199/l) termed ,1 ",;umplcx seeing*
aml 111,aring that all(lWS for r:1L;ltipk perspectives
within the tangle of identif:cations and ci~lcrence
Hol 111an loneo: Alltocthnography 111 7H3
without forgetting 1:1e m:al to expose systems of
oppression or thi.: desire to ::ml new ways of being
i::t world(;,. 44). Even so, the source and objec:
of these desires vary; they depend on ::cadrrs'
ai1d audience members' pcrspect:ves and :deo-
logical investments. These storks p:-omise a per-
formative field of dreams-if y,1u wa:1t to hear a
critique, it wlll come.
Because these stories create a:. open and
indeterminate for interprctatio:1 and action,
tracing their political etlkacy is something 1ike
trackL!g \he movement of an ~mspoke:i idea. The
3CC!mnts, ideas, and explanations that these stories
contain are ?oi:1ts of contact, although they do not
connect in a direct ,outc or on a logica'. co·.n,e.
They are spaces of hope-desrinarions that can be
arrived at f::om any number of loca:ions_
"About these storie~ you're writing," :ny grand-
father says, pulling mt back into the co:wer.sation.
"Does anything radical ha;1pen in therr.:"·"
"Well, I think so. Yes;'
"Tell me:·
11:!l PERHlRMATIVE PRAXIS:
Al"'fOETll:\UGRA Pi-l Y AS ,\
POLJT:C:S ( Ft: :.:J O: PcsSIBI UTY
I be£ll!1 Li is <::hapter asking yo,i to l'l)l!Sider how
our autoethnographic texts do :iot sland, spea;_, or
act alone; are not kxts alone; and du not want to ~1e
left alone. I •.vanted ~o create a no:sv and frnctfous
'
dialogae on a:id about personal 5torics, perfor-
mance, and social c:i.mge. I wanted to stage this
dialogue in and through the flesh ar.d breath of
my own ex pcriem:e. I wan led to create a text that
s'.1ows-performs-a writmg practice that tries lo
respond to the eris is nf praxis. l wantei to engage
you i:i a conversation that s,1y" anri does sor:iel hing
about autoethnography. [ wa:ited to s·Jggest how
we n:ake O'J, personal accounts count
I wa:1t to dose by asking yo~1 to keep this
mnvcrnat ion going :n your own texts, contexts, Jnd
praxes. I ..-.mt ym: to take this conversation into the
next turn, cri.,is, and mon:ent ir. autoethnography
and to move your wo,k, "without hrsitation or
enc;,imbrance from the personal to tl:e poi:;ical"
784 111 HANDBOOK Of QUALITATIVE RF.SEARCH-CHAPTER 30
(Denzin, 2000, p. 261 ). Draw:r:g on the lesson~ that
the lum toward persona. narrative nnd perfor ··
rr:ance has :aught us, write your stories as they are
mnstmc:cd in and through the stories others.
Look at the :ntersections in the work of personal
story tel krs, performance e:hnographcrs, arc
social protest per:ormers described in th is chapll'T
and elsewhere as examples of how you might radi
cally conti:xtuali ,e }1.mr ~exts and your sul~cctlvit 1;
embody perso:i.al and .:omrr:un ity accoun Labilit y;
attend to connection w'dwut collapsing or for~
dosing debate, dialogue, and dffert'.nce; move
people to undcrsta:id their world ,md ib oppres-
sions in new ways; and create t:ie possibility of
resi,tancc, hope, and-yes-freedom (Denzin,
2003, pp. 33, 268 ). Ask how your tex:s can create
and co:istitute soc:al action-how your words
can :nake a difference in and outside of indi, icual
processes of knmving a:1ll coming lo kr.ow-and
then wrire them and share them (B. Alexander,
personal communication, August 2003). This, I
believe. is the foture o[ autoe:tmography. It is the
challenge of telling and showing, to bormw from
Elli, (2000), stories that are nut oi::y nece:;sary but
also ::ill of poss!bilitie$ [p. 275 ). Ir. the spirit of
moving i:ito this foture, I want to challenge you 10
do the following:
• Recognize the pcr1,er of the in-between.
Recognize the powc r of having it "both ways;' of
insisting 011 the interaction of message and acs•
thetics, proce.s.s and pro<luct, the i:1dividua: and
:he sm;ial. Recall how the crises. turns, and move-
men:s in and roward narrative, performance, and
sod,,1 ?ro!est theater are generated in the radical
possb:Jl:ies that exist in these in-betweens. Make
work that "struggles to open t:ie space between
analysis and action, and to pt:11 the ;:,in on the
bin.iry opposition benveen theory and practice"
(Conquergmxl, 2002, p. 145).
• Stage impossible em:ounters. Creale texts :hat
what Cohen-Cruz {2001) l1;:rm1cd "impossible
encounters" in tl:cir '-Capacity to brh:g people ln
mntact with ideas, situations, or others tl:at appear
to be totally difftren1" (p. 105). 1:se these encoun-
ters as occasions to negotiate a debate and dialogue
about issues of importancii: to you am! ,hi: world.
Remcmbrr that, as JvkCau ley stated, "Dialogue is
an act ... It is nol before or after the act. Saying
the words, allowing the d:alogue, making dialogi:e
happen is ,m act, a useful act in the :nome:1f
(quoted in M.ahone, i !194, p. 213).
• Contextualize gfring testimony and wit-
nessing. Perform lhe testimony ;md wiluessing of
pc:,;onal stories in, through, and W'ith lar!'!er soda!
colltexl s. Cimsider that when we bring oi: r texts to
contexts. we can :na;;.e work :hat constitutes a first
step toward soda! change. Strive to make wo:k
that "might act as a doorway, an inslnnn~nt of
encounter, a place of public and pr:vate nego:ia-
tion~" (Sahrerson, 2001, p. 125) wl:ere the goal is
:o witness "wl!l:in the context of :he meeting with
:he person who testifies"' (p. 121 ).
• Create disturbat1ces. Value texts :hat "mean
to ?mmkr, to raise (Jue.stions, [and] to implka:e»
autl:crs and audiences, crea:e distur•
banccs (Eughes & Roman, 111':lb, p. 9). Capi:ab:c
on tl:c complici:)· wroug:1! in writing and rmding
auloethnograp:ik :exts-h how, when we place
our lives and bodies in the t0xrn tirnt we ..:reate,
engage, and perform, they arc "nc, lo:iger just our
own; for better or worse they have become part of
a commur:ity ex;;erience~ (Nudd, Schriver, &
Gal :away, 200 l, l 13). Vvrite texts that insist that
to 'le there--on location---"is to be impl kated"
(p. 115).
• Make texts of an explicit nature. Responi" tn
tl,e nec:d to he explicit in moving your readers and
audiences intellectJ ally, emotionally, and toward
concerted soda:, cultura:, and political action.
Use your texts to "stage a~guments, to em body
knowledge and politics, to open a community to
itse:f and the wor:d in ways that arc dangerous,
vi':,o:ral, cor:1pdlir1g, and moving" (Oohm, 2001 a,
p. 62). Ask not only whether your texts are moving
but also how 1hey create movemen: and toward
what 1:ndsr (S.ilvenon. 2001. p. 122, emphasis
addec).
These are your cha:lenges, and :hey are my
L>w:1. In a handbook chapter tha: want, to move

theory and me:hod to action, it is :he c:iarge :o
make the personal poli:kal in ynnr work and in
my ow:i. i.,vm the chapter on autoethnog,aphy ln
the :iext edi:ion of this hancbook ask whether
there is a place lor autuethr:ography in our con-
versations about a radical democratic politics, a
poetks cf change, or a perfmm,rnce of possibili-
ties? Will this chapter end with th:s query, or will
it con~:ilute a begir: ni ng, an openbg into a con-
Yersation about where we h;m:: been and how far
we :1:we come-in being wining and able to say
that we are in a moment whe:i the puint of creat-
autoethnographic texts is to change the
world?
1ll EPILOGUE: THERE ARE
L1v1KG FoRcEs IN PoE'tRY
Ym: deal in dangerous and intimate
provocations.
Yelling "Change!" in crowded theat~rs, com-
mitttng efficacy to writ!
:Jelieving that
:hen: are living forces ;n ... poetr}'.'1
You take your 11olil ics _?ersonaily
and make the personal pol i:ical.
You sta;re rour lite ~tory on re presc:1ting, not
imitating;
bringing mo,"Cment, not mirrors, to reality.
You understar:d how
tl:eater, art, text, eX}'<:ricm:c is what
we make r,f it
and we are made by that making:"
You play the imaginary
line be:wccn artist and 1:ct:vist.
You give and breGth to the l~eory
that :here arc cm: nt!e:,s ways
of making do ... and gett l1:g th rough.''
Is 6ere a place fur m::oethnogrnphy in this
poem?
You tell me.
Holma:1 Jone:;; Auto;,;thnogrnphy JI 785
m. .KorEs
l. Titkd "Conrniu nication Studies 298:
Collo,1uium :n Communkatk,n:· this s;:iec:m topics
course WllS designed and taught by my r::entor, Nick
TrujiJ:o, as a lear:i et 'rnography course H:al "'"'"'"
o:: st·Jdies organi1.ational culture. Tmji::o (2003}
discussed this course and others in hi~
"Reflections or: a Career in Academia:• afar. my
essa1, '·What We S,1w: A Bric,.:age On//ihout Te,1111
Ethnography" (Holman Jones, 2003 l.
2. This text w~s ;niblished as "Frag:11tnt; of "ielf
at the Postmodern Bar" by Commun icark,:1 S;u,fa,,
(1997).
3. This s~ctio:: h;;s an obv'.cus debt, :md owes
a sincere thanks, to Pelias's (1999) "Perfor·nance Is"
(pp. 109-:11}
4. for a discussion of how these ,1uestion s i'.:it:c ·
ipate the of reprcscnlatfo:i, legitimatio,, ~nd
p:·axis, see De::zin ( · pp. 3-14) and Lather (199J,
p;,. 673-674;.
S. 'or a sumrr:ary of Lhcsc responses, see Deniin
(1 pp.16 21)
6, The in tere,I in personal mural ivcs as aulo/
ethnographic text, owes a dear debt ·.o the bng•st,md ing
iira;·tice of peson": sto:ies m::on11, wmm·n
anrhmpofogi~ts and trnditions and ,-0nvc:1l ions
fen: inis: e:lu:ography. fot cx:uupk, Abu-'..,ughod
(199()), Go:11011 (: 9H!l), led lock {2000), ,md
war:rn ( 1997).
7. Paul Gray was the ,lirt'clOr of gmduatc st,11::es
and professor of perfo~mc. no: studit't- at the Uniwrsily
ofTexa,. Austin when I began 1::y Ph.D. sludie:; there in
: 996, Reading and Per:orm:::g was first of sc'veral
courses l took with hirr._ Gray was the fir;.r '.hn: cer-
tainly nor the only) fac:ilty member 111 encourage my
inlcrcsl in buth J>er'brmancc and perlimning. fa· i, an
astute critic, rower:ul intelled, and enthusia-~tic men-
tor, and i 5 a teacher to whom I am happily indebted.
8. Ethnography b both a method for ~t:1dying
performa::ce [projects that locus on :he pe,fonm:.nce
practices of partkular ind'viduals and cultures
IConquergood. 1992; ;,ick,on, l 99J: Jones. 2002;
Mac:son, 1998:1]} and a performance practice in its
own right (a means of sharing the results of fieldwork
[Gray, 201l3; Micnczakowski & Mcrgan, 199.i: P.ge:
l 995; Welker & Gocdall, 1997:).
9. In Con'::.:crgoo,l's (I 'i<l I) he
explom; four themes g:c::cratec: in and through the
episknwlogical, r::cthodological, and et'iical
 786 111 HAND:lOOK OF QUALJTATIVE RESFA:l.CH-•CliAt'fHi 30
self-questioning" of the crlsi,, of representation ,:.d ,rn
increased empha,is on ~ri: :cal appro,ch~s 11nd theory.
HJ. Con,, uergood and Turne~ are nol alune here,
Clifford G,,em,, lldt Hymes, !'n:ir.g Goffman, R:cha:d
l!auman, Kennetb Burkr, and othe: anthmp,ilngists,
,u;:,i1u1gists, folklo:ists, and li:1gulsts all are interested
an: ::wolved ::i pe~forma:i vc mm (Stucky &
Wimmer, 2002, pp. l see also Denzin, 1997,
pp. 102104).
11 Th is is ;;<lapted from Cot:½ uergood ( 199 I).
who wrote, "l want to :hink ahoi;t ~'l(!r'brmance ru; a
complement, alterna:ive, supplement, and citique of
inscribed {p. 191 ).
c.rp~ntcr ( p, 125).
B. I am drawing 011 Conq·Jergood's (I 992)
description of the "varying meanings of tiie ker word
';:ierforrmrncc' a, it has emerged with inc:easi::g
pro:11incncc in rnltural studies. "'.'his critical genealogy
can traced from perfor:nam:c as :::,:11e,,1s to poksi,
to kincsi~, pc,formar:i.:e as imi,tatio::, const,uction,
ciynami,m" (pp. 83-84;,
14. Joni Jones taught Pcrformz::ce Ethnogrnphy.
He; work on performana: nnd :demity in the acaderr:y
and her fieldwork with the Yoruba in Nigeria are ccn-
: ral to lhc discussion and practice of :ierformancc
ethnography and are an inspiratiD:: for my own work.
Jones directed my dissertation, an e:hrr.graph'c and
:ierformative study torch singing. This work bears
:he trace of her lhn:.:ghtful, s i11,erc, ;md chal-
kngi q; gL1idance.
S Thls performance was my response 111 the
assignment desigr:ed h1• Jnn! Jones, assignment
«skeii us to create Pineau (2002) desi:ribcd a, the
use of performance as :,i.:thmlology (p. 50). She wrote,
"l'crforr::ance methodology means learning by doing
and might indud,, any cxperie::tial approach that asks
~t:.:denb to slr-.iggle bodily w;th ccurse co:11ent" (11. 50:
sec also Alexander, 1999 ).
16. ! am referencing Langellic:-'s (1999: :n
which ~::ie wrote, "W::en personal 1rnr,mive perfor-
m&::ice rnateria.izcs performativity-when a narralor
,·mbodies identity and experience-there is "' '•''""
danger and (p. 129).
I have found :r.uch,1oncs in (\mquergood
( l 985, 1991,2002'!, Denzin (1997),Lather ( 1993, 2001),
Llncoln il99:l), Pollo.;:k O 998), Rkhard~on (2000),
and Stewart t 19':16 ); sec also llod:::t'T ,: 2(}00); CloL:gh
(2000); ar.d Ellis (ZOO(l).
HI, Tbe conference was tilled the Giant City
Conferer:cc on Perlormative Wr::i::g and mok place in
Ap~i! 2001 a: G:ant City P.,27k in ifak11nda, lllinois.fach
write7 pre,,ented his or her work "under a small
w:ndow that optned lo lht green ,.,,..M," (Miller &
Pclia,, 200 J, p. v ). t':is p,1s:,,age, i make 7efere:icc lo
the "jjre,:n window" (as the rnnference pmctt:dings
camt to he titled) and to the piece shared by Gingrk:h ·
Phi:bmnk (2'.lO !) bcg:m thiii work.
19. I bid :hf pleasure taking ,curses titled
Pcrior:,1i11g At.:t>Jbiography ,md Writing Pcrfor.
mance Art with tynn Millu while I attec:dcd
Univcrsi:y of Tex~s as wdl as cf having her hcl? on m:r
cmnmittcc. Miller's :iassion for and
kr:owledge abom autobiographical pe:fnm1~m:e has
:nfh1.:m:ed n:y wo7k m:d informed my ,:iderstand
i:Jg of hGw and why personal narrative perforn:auu
n:atter, in autocthnography.
20, Scott ( 1990, p. xii).
21, (iordon (I ;,. !07).
21. Gordon ( 1997, p.
:a Rarth,·s C977/I 978).
Carver (100 l) wrote. ''It's possible, in a :mem
or ,1,or: story, lo wr:le about commo::plare t::'ngs and
objects using commonp:ace but r•redsc language, and
to endow those things-a chair; a window :ur:1i11, a
fork, a stonc,a v;o:nan's earr':1g-w:1.h immen,e,even
s:,1rtli:1g power" (p. !19).
Gordon i 1997, p.
The in form and process c:srns.,,ec here
do not corrcs?Ond neatly or entirely to chonologic;;.i
or seqi;cnl i11: logk:, The soda! pro!csl !heater strategic;;
I descrik (following Jan Cohc::-Cruz) arf ;101 mulll-
exdusivc, and all of these tcx::,n ique, are t:seJ in
contcrr:porary perfo ~111.n,c,
K2ih ( 2001) focused ,pccifically ,111
notion of v,,rfremdimg (11'.icnat:tm) in whicr.11udicnccs
arc cnrnm:q;ed lo move bcym:d simple iden1:'k,llion
(ctnpathyJ witb ch2:;ctcrs tc a critical orientalh.m in
whid: a(:or., t:e sep.i:a:c from characters and contc,d
i~ dci!rly cnnnected to the text being pn:senled.
,1:so Kalb's (2001 l discus~ion ofM,1cc Wolf,
Danny lloch, a~c Sarni: Jone:;.
29. Rf'inelt (19%) was n:mmenting on ·'.,oth the
performance and vidrn cf Fires in the ,'.firmr,
pr,iduced for AmeriLan P:aybmse.
30. Whvte
, ' . 1:oti,d that McCaulcv's
(I •!9~) i
grel'.t-1randinother was not Sal:y Hemings, althnugh
Whyte pointed out :hat McCauley's performance aplays
tm the similarities bclwee;: the lives of these two Sallies
and :hose of C!l:1er ;;omen siav.:o" (p,
31. Portions or ~ally's Rape were based on cm1ver•
,at:on, with H~!(hins ah out race, dass,grnde,,history,
and contexts. lkc1.er (2000, p, 52tl).

Thi, is drawn from Kershaw (1999), who
asserted that the qucstiuns we ~hould ask about
:orman,e-and l would incLde stories-are "Has
anyt::ing radical r.appenc,W' and "How was it done<"
(p. 218).
Artnud (I 958. p. 85 ).
34. Nudd, Schriver, C:alloway(2(llJ I, p. 15).
35. Delerteau ( 1984, p. 29).
Ill RF. 0 !'R ENC ES
Alm Lughod, L (1990). Can there oc a femin;st
ethnog raphyr w~me11 and l'erfunmai,ce. ),
Alexa11der, ll. K. ( 1999). Mov:ng toward a ,r:ti..:al poetic
,esponsr. Theutre Wipics, 9(2), :07-125.
Al-.'x,mder, B. K, (2000). ,)kin Hint (or, Gmiiage
.\1ans Kid): A au:ubiogrn:>hical pc:for·
:11ance based on Tami Spry', Ji;ttao Stories. Tex/
and Performance Quarterly. 211, 97-114.
Am~d. A. ( 195!\t 71m theater and its double (M. C.
Richards, Trans.). New York; Grove Pres.,.
Bar:he,, R, ()<J77), lmage-mus1,;-text (S, Heath,
11:ans,;. ;\lcw York: Hill & Wang.
Barthe,, R. L 978). A lovers discnurse: fragments
(R. !toward, Trans,), York: Hill & Wang.
(Originally work publisheJ in 1977)
Becker. B. (:WOil). :lobbic McCauley: 1\ journey toward
:novement. T,~e.arrt Joumal, 52, 519-542.
Boal, A. ( 1985). Themn? of !he oppress&/ (C, A. Md!,ide
& 0. McBride, 'fhms. t New York; Theatre Com-
:mt11bttirn1s Gmup, [Or:gim,1 work published in
1979)
Bochner, A. P. (WOC). Criteria againsr ourselves.
Qualitatite fl1quir)16, tDC1-i1£.,
lloch;1er, A, P. 12001 ), l\arralivc's virtues. Qua!i,arivc
l1;quiry, 7, 13 I- l57,
!l:-cch!, B. (1998), Jlrr?cht on the,itr.•: Tlr.e de~elopmrnt
of a/i aest/Je:ric (), Willett, Ed. & Trans.). New
York: Hill & Wang. {Original work published in
1957)
Burr.ham, L. E ( 1998 ). lr.tervicw wilt Tim Miller,
G. Harper {Ed.), ltrtenentions and provoa,-
C:mver,atiom on ,;irt c,1/1,irc. ,md res,sta11ce
(p:,, 31 -40), Albany: Sra:e University of [';cw York
Frcss.
Buller, J. (1991 ), I:n itation and gender in,ubordir.a·
::on. In D. Fass (Ed.;, luside11)1.1t; Lesbian themies,
gay lheorie,; (pp, 1 I), New York: Rm:tledgc,
Holman Jones: Aute,1hnography 11 737
Capo, K. b., & Langcllfor, KM ( 1994). Anna Deavere
Smith o:: fires iu the Mirror. Text and Pe1tomumce
Quarterly, 14, 62-76.
Carpenter, W. ( )993). Girl w:iling a lct1cr. ltJ1<1a Re:1/ew
125.
Carver, R. (2(JO l ). On wriling, In Vv', L. Stull [Ed,). Call if
you need me: The immilectedjiclion and oiher prose
(pp. 87-92). New York: Vin:,igc Co!llcmp,,rar:es.
Chadwick. A. (2003, May , , Re,earc/11:r heads to
Sahara t;; st1;1iy aacifnf :ulture, (Pan /),
[Online,] Washington, UC: Nalior:al Geographic
Radio Expeditions rnd 1ational l'u :ilk Radio,
Availab;e: www.npr.org/tcmplatcs/story/,lory.
phpistoryid ~
Cloug;,, P, (2000). Cmmuenls on ,e:ling u ilcria
expe:ime:i:al writing. Qm1litafr1e l11quiry, 6,
278-291.
Cohen J. (2001). Mn:fon of the ocean: The shift-
ing face of theater far social change s:JllC !he
1%0s, Theater. JJ(J), 95-107,
Colleran, J,, & Spe::cer, J. S. (!998). lnlrmluction. :n
J. Cnlleran & ). S. S·Je1lcer {Eds.), Stag Ing re$/s-
l,mce: Essa)'' 1»1 pvlilfral tht•aler [pp. I 0). An11
Arbor: Universi:y of Michiga :1 Press.
Communication Studies 298.11997). Fragments of self
al J:,· p:istm0<.k·n bar. Joum11I ,f (:,wtc"Jrip,ira';'
Ethnography, 26,
Ccnquc:good, {), (1985). Performing as a moral an,
Literll111rr? aml l:'t'l'fiirmance. 5(:1.). I- : 3.
Conqucrgood, D. (I 9g I ), Rrth inking etlmog:aµhy:
Tov,ards a critical cultural politics, Commur1ication
Monogrr<phs, 58 179-194.
C0nquc,good, D, : I Ethnogra;1hy; rhetoric, and
per:ormrncc. Quarierly Joumal of Speech, 78,
8()-J'B.
ConquergmiJ, ll. (1994). :he natl,,nJ How
street problcmatize patriotism, In H, Vl
~imons & .\1, Billig (Eds,), .4(fer postmodemism:
Reccnstructing ideology critique (;1p, 200-221 ).
1.ondon:
Conquergnod, 11 (2002), l'crformancc studies; [n:er-
ventions a::d radical research. Drama Review,
46(]), l 45-: 56.
Daly, A,, &. Rogers, A. Carolee Schnce::·,a1m:
A lifo drnwing, Dramu Review, 45(2),
DeCerteau, M. 11984 ). '/'he J>raclice of everyday
(S, F. Rendall, Tra::s.). Berkeley: Uni,ersi:y or
Ca:lfurn ia Press.
Der:,, ing, 'vi. (l 997), Tiu: .-u!tural frvnt: flw laboring
American culture ir. the twentieth celltury.
London:
788 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH~CHAPTER 30
Denzin, N. (1997). fmerp'l!live elh~ography: Ethnographic
practices far the 21st century. Ihousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
::lenzin, N. (2000), Aesthetics a;:d the pr~ctk:rs of qual•
i:ative inqul ry. Qualitati~e Inquiry, 6, 256-265.
Dem.in, (2003). Perjurm1m:e etlmography: Critical
pedagogy and the politics or culturt. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diamond, R ( l <192 ). ':'he violence of"wc:' In J.C. Rdnclt
& J. R R1Jach {Eds.), Critical theory and pcrfor·
11u:m;;e (pp. 390-398). Ann Arbor: t:niv.:rsity of
Mi~higan Press.
Diamond, E. (1996). Introduclion.:n E. Dh1moml (Ed.),
Performance and cultural politics (pp. I l
London: Routledge.
Do:an, r. (1993). Pres1mte ,md desire: rm gewier,
se.tud/Uy, perji>rmance. Ann Arbor: Cniversity of
~1i:higan Press.
)olan, J. (2001a). Gcogruphi,'s fem·ntr,1g: Theory and
prnafre, a~tirism 1rid perforrnarire. MidcJetnn
CT: Wesleyan University Pre5'~.
l)olan, J. (200lb). Rehearsing de:nocracy: Advocacy,
public i:itellectua!s, and en~agement in
thu:tre and performance studies. Theatre Topics,
ll(J), 1-17.
Elmn, E. J.,: r. ( l 9'17). laking it to Ille Jtreets: The st>cial
protest t!water of luis \!i:lldez and Amiri ."/;;;raka.
Anr: Arb,:r Unive:sity Mid1iga11 Press.
Ellis, L ( l 995}. Final negotiations: A story ,if fove,
and chronic illness. Pr. ilac'.elphia: Te:nple University
Press,
Ellis, C:. ( 1997). l':.ocative auioe:b.::ography: Writing
.
emotional!, about our lives. In W, Tierney' &
Y. l.i ncoln '.Eds.), Represe11/c1twn the text:
R,framing lhe namnive voice (pp. 116-139).
Al':lany: State University of t>:cw York Press.
Ellis, C. (2000). Creating crileria: An ethnographic
short story: Qualitative fllquiry, 6, u ,-u
Ellis, C. (2002), Sha::crcd lives; Making sense of
September I Uh and its aftermath. Journal
Contemporary E1hm1g1uphy, 375-410.
Ellis, C. (2004). The elimogrnphic I: A methodola;;icaf
u11vcl about teaching and dafr,g autoethr:ography.
Walr.u1 CA: Alta}tlira.
Ellis, & Bochner. A. [~ (l 996). lntroductlon: Talking
ovcr ethnography. i:J C E:::s & A. JJ. l!od:~.er
{Eds.), Campcsing ethnography; Alternative forms
of qualitative writing ( pp. l 3-48 ). Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMirn.
Ell:s, t., & Budmer, A. P. (2000 ). Autm:11, ::ography, per-
sonal :iarrative, re".exivity: Researcher as subje~l.
In :-1. K. Denzin & Y. S. 1...;n.c,.;; (Eds.), Handboo~
of quaiitalil'e re,earch (2nd ed., pp.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frkdwalc, W. (I 996). Jazz singing: Americas great
voices from l:lcssie Smirh to bebop ,m,i beyl)IJd,
Jl:ew York: Da Cap,i.
Garrick, 1). A. (2001), Performance;; of .self..disdosure.
Drama Review, 45(4), 94-'.05.
Ccertz, C ( 1983 ). UJl:a( larow!~dge: Further iri
inurpretive ,:mrhropolngy. h'ew Y.1rk: llasic Books.
Gingr id:-Phil brnuk, C. (1 Re'reshmeut 1111d
Performmu:e Quarterly. 17, 352-360.
Cingrkh-Philhrouk, C. (2001 ). Preface :o the proceed·
ings. Jn L Miller & R. ,. Pe::as (Eds.), The green
wiwlmv: Proceedir~;,rs of the Gi,ml Cit)' rnefe.'rt''1<:C'
on pe,;form,,tiv,· writing (p. vi:), Carhc ndale:
Sou:her:i lllinois Cn iversity Press.
Goodall, :l L (2000). lVr11i11g the 11ew· erht:tlgraphy.
Waln'Jt Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Gord<m,A, R (1997), Glumly malle~: Harmting ~mi the
sociological imaginatior,. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Gordon, D. ( 1988 ). Writing cult urc, wril ing (rminlsm:
The ,lOelics and pol it ks cf expcrimcn:al clhnog·
raphy. Fnscnpti<ms, 3( 4),
Gornick, V. {2001). The situlllwn and the swry· The ari
of per.wnal narrarive. New 'lbr'.,: fa:'rar, &
Giroux.
Gray. R. {2003 ). Pcrfor::iing o;i and ,d the
The place(s) of pcrfo:mance in arts-:iased
apprcmches to qualitative inquiry. Quaiitat ive
lnqr,iry, 9, .::>,ht'tl-1
Gray, & Sinding, C. (2002). ,)tanding ,wr.t/011
Per(orm ing social ;cience res,,,m:/1 about cancer.
Walnut Creek, CA: Al:aM i ra.
Grumet, M. R.(2001 ). Autoblngrnphy: T'ie mixed genre
of public ,,,;,,a1e In J, H. ;{oldstein &
D. Bleich ' Perso,ial ~(feet,; The social char-
acter of scholarly writing (pp. 165-177). Logan:
Utah State Un iverslty Press.
Hartoett, S. (1998). Derr:c:craq· is diflicull: Poelry,
priso:1, and perforr::ative citi,ensh·p. In S. J,
Dailey (Ed}, Th~ future of performa1,ff .<tu,lfts·
Visions and revi'.,imrs (p;i. 287 297). :'\nnanda:e,
VA: ':'lational Cmmmmkation Assoc!, tion.
Hartnett, S. (1999). Four meditations 011 the search
for g~ace amid,t terror. Text and Peifom:ance
Quarterl}: 19, 196-216.
Holderness. G. (I992 I. Jntrodus.:llon. In G. Holderness
(Ed.:, The pQlitics ihe thelltrl:: ,111d drama
(pp. 17). New York: Mani n's.

Eolnmn /ones, S. {20U3). What we ,ave: A brkolage
on/about :mm cthno1,raphy. Ameri✓:an Cormmmi•
c«tWI' Jourwil. 6(2). I011li11e]. Available: www
.:icjuum,;l.urg
·,. ( JSI%). l'erforma::ce practice as a
nppi>il:nn. In C. Ugwu (Ee), let'.< get it o,:: The
politics of l>!«ck perjomit1nce <pp. 2w 221 ).
Scatlle: lk y Press.
Hopper, R. (lg<JJ}. C0:we,sat1onal dramatism and
everyd,1y lite performam;e, Te.~/ ,md Perfiirm,mce
(Juart,•r~•. a IS 1-183.
!lug hes, Rmmin, D. ( 1998;. O sole homo: An intro-
ductory com,er,ation H. Hugh~s & D. Rm:ruin
(Ed,.).{) hmno: The new queer performance
(p[t 1-l'i). \/ew York: Grove Press.
Iser, W. ( 1993) The fictive ,md rlu:: i"!11gfr11ry: Char1i11g
fiter;:iry ;;ruhropolog;t Baltimore, ~ID: Johns
Ho1,;zins llr. 've:sitv Press.
Jafk,<Jr.. S. ( I99J). Ethnographr and lhe ,m(lition:
Perform,rnce as id.:olog:i.:a: critique. w,J
PerJilrtn,:mce Qu1mev{v, 21 · '1::l.
Jark~o·1, S. ( :998). Wh:tc noise,; On perliir:11i11g white,
on wding ?Crforrnmo:. Vrama l~e vie·,v, t/2( I),
49-63.
]agn, B. (20:12'.. Chrnniding an arndcmi.: ,ie,m,,ski::.
.luur,1.;i of Con wmpo"a ry Erlmograplly,
Jcm:s, I L (l <JlJ6 ). The self a~ ot'ier: Creati 11g the role
!Jf /011i :,mes the c:h1:ogrnpher for Rrnkm Cfrcles,
11:xt aml hcrfarmance (}11arterly, /6, 131 ···
!Jiles, I, L ( 1997a). l'tTfor:ning Osur. without bodies:
,)ocumenting :he Us:.::, l'e,tival i11 ;irinr. Ti:xt and
!',·rform;;na, (luarterlv, 17, 69-'IJ
J, L. : l 997h ). Sist.; do.:ta: Perfo rma11ce as cri.
t:4ue ,,f the acade1r: ;• Drama Re1•ie·.,1 41, 5i
Jones, ;. L. (2002 l, Performar.ce eth11ograph}': The rnk:
nf emhnd i me11t in cult'~ ral auther:ticity, The,ll re
1/ipics, ZJ, 1-15.
Kalb, J. ). D,:;comen:a:y solo perforn:,m,c.
Theiiie" 31{31, 1J-29.
!<1·mp, A. (1998) black body in qucslior.. In
P. Phe:,m & J. l.ane (Res.), The end; 1,f' perfar-
nI1111u: (pp. 116-129). New York: New York
U~lversity Press.
'xershaw, R. ( 1999). Tire rad1cui in perjimmmce: Beflwen
Rre::111 ,m,l /lamlri11ard. 1Jmdm1: Rou tkdge.
Kisl iuk, "1. ,""'"" ,. l'l:c poctks and politkb of p,actke:
E:q,eriencc, cml:,cdimcn:, and the rngage~neut
of scholarship. [n N. Slue:<,~ & C Wimmer 11:c,.),
perf,:,rma,rte s1cuJ1es (pp. 99- L 7).
Carbo::dalc: South,,rn !Uinuis Univer.si•v Press.
llolmar. :ones: A'~toetlmography 111 789
Kondo, D. (2000). (RdVis:ons race: C::mtemporary
mer thcorr and :l,e :ultural politics o: racial
crossiwer in documentary ,heater. Theatre
Joumut. 81 IC7 .
Kri..:ger, t,/,., ( 1992). t:A:;,/m1Sis; ii!u~io11 ;;fthe n~lim,J
sign. lialtimo:c, !v1 D: Jch11s liopkms University
Press.
J. (2002). Reverent: Billy: Prea(hing, pmtcs1, and
po, ti 1,,:;ustr ial llanerie. Dmma Revirnc 46{: ),
6Cl-li4.
Lrnge:lier, K. M. I 1999}, Personal uarra:iw, pe,for-
mance, perform.itivity: Two or Ihrcr thing, I
know for sure. Text ,ind Perf~muma: Quar,erly,
l9, ! 144.
Lat:ier, t~ (I 99;ll, Fertile obsession: Va:kEt 1 after
poststructu ral ',m. Socioh:gi.a/ Quarterly, 34,
6i3-69l
La,her, P (200111\,slboo~: Wurki::g the n:::is of femi
nist ethnography. 26(4), 199-227.
l.'::mln, Y. S, ( 1990). The ma:dng of a rnnstruclivi,t. ln
R. C. Gu:1,1 & Y. S. Lincoln I Eds.), '11,r parad~!!,m
dialag (pp. N,·w·;,ury l'ark, CA: Sage.
l.cckK1rc:, L. (2002). l'wm sikn~e It> ,ire:1 to ,:·,,net': A
personal ta.co" :mlilical consecp,nce. Quaiitatire
lt1q1,ir,; /:i, o2Z-·63 L
rv:,1dis0n, Il. S. (l998a:. l'erforma::ce. personal 11arra-
1ivr1;, anc th<: pulit,s of pos,ihili1y. l11 S. ). Dailey
(Ed.), The fufun: of per/imnar.ce stu:,ifr•s: Visums
and revisiam (pp. 276-285). Annandale.
Natio::al Cnmr::rmiGH:on Assndation.
\fadison, D. S. (1998b). That was my ocrupat ion: Oral
narrative, perfo:mance, arid black femir1ist
tho·.:ght. ln :J. Pollock (Ed.), hreptioa,11 spaces:
Emtys in perfom1a,.rr and history (Pl'• 3 l 9-342).
Chapel Hill: u:::wcSity ,if "lo~th Carolina Pres,.
:Vfohcme, S, [I 994). Moun marked arid 10 ... ched by the
sun. N tw York: Theatre I :ommun ica:ions Group.
YEcncza"owski, ;., & Mo:-gan, S. ( 1993). Busting; The
drn!/mge ofrhe drm,ght ,pirfr. BrishJnc,Australia:
Griffith l:niversit),
.'vliller, L. C (: 995). "Polymorphous pcrrcrsily" in
wnmen', performan(e ar:: T:1e- ens,· o( Holly
Hughes. Tcxtcmd Pe~fimrr.:mi:.:Quarltr{\/. 44-58.
Miller, LC I 1998). Witnes, lo tile ,elf: The ;mlob:u-
graphical impulse m f>erfom:am:c si t1di<·,. !11 ] , S,
Trrnt (I'd.), Comm1mi,a1io1t Views jlvm ;he 1,elm
for r.~e 21st cemury (1p. 318 •322). H«qton: Allyn
&.Baron
Miller, L & Pe as. R. (. (20011. A beginning preface,
ln L. C. Miller & R.]. l'dias (fa:s.), the green win-
dow: Proceedings 1i( th!! cm1fere11a ll!l
 790 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVb RESEARCH-CHAPTER 30
performarive writing (pp. 1•-,i}. Cirbond.ile:
Southe;n [I] i nois :Jn ivcrsity Press.
Miller, l'. (2/l02). Snlo pc,:ti1rmittg us aJ/1 ta arms.
'Online. I Available: www.comm11nityarts.11
' '
ct/
,catli ngroom/arc~ :e/32:n iller.php
Nmnumr., M. ( 1996). Ccllectng vu,,c;,,ca al :he e11tl
of the century, In C. Ellis & A. l~ l!()chne; (Eds.),
Composing ethnography: A!ter•rntiv;: fiirms of
'/uali:ati;'I, writing ( pp. 1 "·· " ' " .. Walnut Creek,
(A: AltaMira.
l-udd, D. M., I(, & Cialloway, T. {2\JUJ ). ls this
queer? The :vfa:ke !'am, Cluh and the
performance of coc:::nunity. In S. C. Haedkk &
l Ne::haus A:rformi,,s democracy: l.~/1rr·
natinr!ul perspeeiive, on urban communi,y-/Jased
per(ormanre ( p;.i. l ~-116 ).Arn Arhor: Unlversi:y
of Michigan Press.
Olesen, V: (2000). r,:minisms and qua::tative researd:
at and mto the millennium. In \I, K. flenzir; &
Y. 5. Lincoln (hes.), Handbook ,f qualitative
re;eiircli (2n,1 ed., pp. 215-255). Tholrnand Oaks,
CA: S,ge.
Orenste:::. C. (2001).Agita!:ona: performance, now and
the:·.. Thrnter, 31(.3), 139-151.
Paget, M. A. ( 1 Pt:rforn,lng the text In ;, Van
Maanen (Ed.), Repre.sen,a,ion in ethrwgra{'hy
(pp. Thousand Oak,, CA:
Par:,-Fuller. L. !,1. (2(~}0). Perfonring abse11u:: The
staged personal narra:ive .,, testimony. Ji:xt
Performance (]w:mer!y, 20, 20-42.
Pelfas, :.l.. J. (1992 J. Pe1ilrmaiice >1udi,'s: The imerpreta-
llim ,Jfae;.thefic texts. New Yor:\: SL. Marlin's.
Pdfas, R J. ( l 999). ViritiHg pe~/imnam:e: l'aeticizir,1; !he
researcher's body. Carbondale: Sm::her:1 lllinnis
Universi:r Press.
Pelias, It J. (2002). For father and son:An e:lrnodrama
with nocatha,.,is. [n A. P. Socb:,cr &C. llllis i Eds.),
Ethrwgmphfca!/y ,.tieakfng: Autoelhnogrophy. !item.
and aesl'heri'i:i (pp. :lS-43 ). '..Valn.:t Creek, CA:
Alta.Mira.
Pineau, Ii. L (2002). Critical pcrfurmative pedagogy:
Pbhiug mn ,he pol:tks cf liberatory educatlon.
In .'l Sti:ck)· & Wi:m::cr (Eds.), Teaching
performance sflldi,0s •a·-.,,,,. Carbondale:
Southern 'lhr:ois University Press.
P,il:o,:~, D, (1998). Performing writing. In P. ?hela11 &
,. l.a:ie (Fis.;, Tim of' perform,mre (!lfl.
!03). New \11rk; ;'lew Yor,i. t:niversi:y Press.
Pratt, 'vl. B. ( 1995 ). SIHE. Ithaca, Firebranc Rooks.
Reed-Danahay. D. E. ( 1!;!97). Auto/F,t/mography: Rewnt-
ing tile selfand the soda!. Oxford, R,:rg.
Rei ::eh, J. (l 9% ). l'crfim:ilng race: Anna Deavere Smith's
fir.;.; Iii the ,\1irrar. Mm/en; Druma. 39, 609-617.
Reinelt, J, (l 998). Notes for a radical democrati:
thta!cr: Prodcctivt: anc the challenge of
iode:~rminaty. In J. C(illeran & J. S. Spencer
( Surging resistance: E.,says Q'I politic:ii
th!!,U,:r ( pp. 2d3-JOO). Ann Arhm: Univer,i1 y of
Michig,m Press.
RlchardsL,n, L ( 1997). play: Constructing
an aau.lem ic lifi,. New Brun,wick, KJ: Rmge~,
Univrr.il y Pr c~,.
Ri('hardson, L. (20GO). 'A'riting: A methoc ioqu:,;·.
In N. K. Denzin & \'. S. Lincol 11 ( :'ds. ), Handbook
of qualircni·;e researd.- \2nd ed., 1,:1. 923 Y48).
'"hm.:sa::r. Oak,,, CA:
RkocL::, I~ (: 9S6). l.e-turc, 0•1 i,fool,>g; ,v;d utopi,1
( C. IL Taylo:, Ed.). Ne,;;• York: CoL mbia Ur1ivcrsil y
Press.
Ronai, C. It ! 1995). M11:tiple reflections ,}f child sex
2.bm,e: '.n argumercJ for a layered account. Jvumal
0
c,t' Contempor,,ry Et!mogmph), 23, .19!5-~126.
:ialvemm,/. (2001 ).Change on whose lcrms? kstimon,·
and a1 erotics cf inquiry. Thcm1,r, .i/(3), 119-12.5.
Sand,ival, <:, (2000 ). 1\/11/hociirlogy cf ,1,e cpprcssed.
W, inneapolis: U:1iversit;· Minnesota
Scott, Ii. E ( 1<194). Th<! swlp!ed w,)td· Keats, ekpl1rasis,
atui the visual ,ms. faJn()',,t:r, NH: University l're;,s
of New Er:i:fo::J.
&cit, I. C. (l 990). Domi11u!ic11 arid the arts of r;:,i,ta11re:
llidden 1rcms11·ipts. New Have::, U ·: ':'ale U" :versity
Press.
Solo111on, A. ( L9n;. F.e-dres;ing tire c,m,m: an
them re and gender, Lond,m: Routledge.
Spry T. 12000). 'litttoo s'm·,as· A i:o.stsc~ipt to Ski>1s.
Te.ti and Perjarmrmce Qtwrte;·ly, 10. 84-%.
Spry, T. (2001 ). l'crform'ng amoetlmography: Ar.
embodied methodnln,zknl praxis. Qua/i1ali'v1'
Inquiry, 7, 706-7J2.
Stewart, I<. ;1,96). A space on the side of 1he nmd:
Cul,ural poerics in ,m ''other" America. P:inceton,
NJ; l:'1 incet:i:, Un iversit ~
StoJer, P. (:997). Ser:sur,us sdwlarsi1ip. P';;:addphia:
Vnivt:r,ily of l'ennsy1vania Press.
S:L1±v, (l 99,\). lbward an aesthelics of natural
'
performance. T,xl and Perfl)rm1.1nc., Quartrriy,
!J, 168-180.
S:ucky, N (21l0l). P:e'ace lo tnc pro~ccding,. In
L Miller & R. J. Pdias ' The gn?-01 wl1:1Jaw:
of ,he Giattt CitJ cmifm:!!ce on
perjimnative writmg (:J. vii). Carbond,lle: Sm;t::ern
lllinoi., University Press.

K., & Wimmer, C. {2002i. Th~ power
t ransform<1!iun in pcrfo·manre studies peda •
gogy. I:, N, Stucky & Wimmer /Eds.), 'ieaching
perfarm,ir;ce studies :,,,,. l-1.'l). Carbondale:
Sn::thnn lllhwis llnivcrsi:y Press,
Ts:dlock. fl. ( 199 J). from par:icipa11: obser va:i,;n to :he
ob.se:vatinn of par:icipativn: The emergence of
narrative ethnogra;:it:y. Jow·m1 1nfAntliropofo:,rirn!
69-94.
'k•dlod,, fl. (2000), Ethnogrnpby and et~.:10graphic
rcpresenlal.ion, In N. llcnz::1 & Y. S. Linccln
(Eds.}, Hrmd/mokr:,f' qualitative researcl, (2nd ec.,
pp. 4:6-4116), Thnnsand Daks, CA: Sagt,
Trujillo, N. (2003 ). Reflections O:l a ,-;,reer academia:
A rCSJ'OllSe, Am¢rimn C,mmunication j(!urrrni,
6(2). [Online., 1\vailablf: www,al'jo:.rn.,1.org
Tyler, S, A. 11986). Post-moderr: c:hr:ogratlhy: Frcm
doc,uncnt o' the ncctJlt to occJI: L'oc1m1ent.
Jn f. Clifford & G. E. Marrns (Eds,), Writing
Holman Jones: Autocllmo)),rnJ1bv< 111 791
L
rm"""· 111,· ptle/frs p,1ltt1cs ,if ef/1r.1JKraphy
trp. 112-140). l:kr~cky: rnivi:rs:ty of Ca.Hfornia
Van Ma,men, f, (I 988) la/es (if 1he fi,•ld. Chicago
University of Chicai;u Press.
V'ckers, V., H. (2002). Researchers as st<:iryte:lers:
W•iting on the ed1:c-wi1hou, a safety net
Qu~iira,ive Inquiry. 8, 608-62 L
V:swe,waran, K, ( 1997). Histmics t11' 1;:,;.,;,1>< ctl·..10-
gra phy, Annu.il
591-521.
W,·::..cr, L & GoodaL H. L \ 1997). 'lt.-prcscm,ll io11,
i::terpretation. a11d per:ormam:c: Gp,·nins lhe
l~xl ol Casing a Prnmis,:d Laud, Text and
Perj()r mimce QuarterJ)~ ,r 7, : 09-122.
Why tc. R. ( l !l9.l ). Robbie '.v!ct'..mle)': Speaking :::siory
::,!l,cr-wise. In L. Hart & P. Phelan {Eds.), Aciing
£JUI: Feminist perjomrnnres (pp. ,fi-J.:i:'!. Ann
Arbor: l:11ivers1ty :-1 ichigan Press.
31
THE METHODS,
POLITICS, AND ETHICS
OF REPRESENTATION IN
ONLINE ETHNOGRAPHY
Annette N. Markham

in cybcnp.ice, om:' dwt;;/f, in J,mguage. and through language.

i exist a, my.,eff in langt1ag,~ onfine , .. it feels more fikc lx:ing me than I sometimes
fc•ef o/Jlme
. . i tl',ink rny,Plf in langua!:J,' is more communicativ;; of who i ,m:.
;mu ·, a goo, I wrile1~
·' J;(:cause rm · eioquence
' ma kes me uPautou,
' ·• r . , .
-Sherie, on line interview partici oonl

Her,•, I c:;m edit vd1at f think before I 5ay it. This m,1kcs communication easier
between my friends and/, There are fewer errors in me.ming when our t!muµht,
have been written dearly,
-Roh'n, online 'nterview parfcipan1

My amhtg11ity make., you n<:f\iOUS, I can be many ,11 once here, Are they ail
vVho Jm I? 'HI:'', , '/for', , 'Per', , , 'ft', , , 'We' ... ? Can't you tell? Why
do you w,mt to k,1ow?N
-DominOI:!, online interview participant

hethcr one studies the Internet as a significant inf:·Jenc..:- 01: many aspects of com-

W social structure or utilizes fntemet-

based technolog:es as 100\s
rrsrarch, Interm't-based technologies change
for
munication practice ar.d :henry. T!le interne1 :ms
simila:ities to man1 earlier media for communi-
cation, suc:1 as letter writing, telepho.:ie, lele-
the research ;;cenario. Computer mediation has a graph, Post-11 Notes, a:id sn forth, the same
Ill
7'14 11 HANDl!OOK OF QUAIJTATIVI' Rl'SEA RCH -Ctl APTER 31
t: r:1 e, the capacities anri i:~es of Internet commu-
nication are unique in configuration ar:c shape a
user's (and thus the res,~an;:1e1,'s perceptions and
inleractions. These intluences extend beyond the
interpersonal; outmmes of these mmmnnkation
processes have the potential to shift senscm akhg
practices at the cultural leveL We are, as Ccrgen
{199 t) notes, sati:.rated in tccbr:ologics, T'le
h:ternet and associated comr:rnn icatio:i meci a
pern:cale and alter interactions and 6e possi:1:e
outmmes of these interactions at the dyadk,
group, and cultural '.eve'.. 1 Equally, fnternet tech-
nologies have the potential to sh [ft the ways in
whicl: qualitative researchers collect, make sense
ol~ ,md represent data.
In technologically mediated cnvironn:ents,
self, other, and soc:al structures are con.stituted
through interaction, negotiated in concert with
others, The e~tenl lo which infurrr:ation and com-
munka:ion technolo!:iy (lCrJ can :nediale
identity anu sucial n:hduns should call us lo
epistemological attention. \Vhether or not we do
rest"arcb of physical or online cultures, new com•
munka:ion techr.ologie5 highl:g:1t the dialogk
feati:res of social reality, compelling scholars to
reexamine traditional assumptions and previously
takrn-lor-grnn:ed rubric~ of tiocial research.
In the early ~ 990:;, as the ::apacirie, of the
lnlernet ·:,ecame mure publicly known and
accessed, the use the Ir.temet for the devcl op-
ment of pe:1,onal relatior:ships and soc'al struc-
tures grew,a.s did the stutly of cor:iputer-mediated
st:bjectivity and com r.1u11 ity, Th ,ough a phone
line, access to the ln:emct, and specialized soft-
ware, people cm::d n:eet and develop re:atio11-
ships with others fror:i :he privacy of 6eir homes.
People could do t:1is anonymously if they chose,
pe:-sonae bat were similar to or highly
distinctive from what they perceived tr:ei,
?hysical personae to be. They could create or join
cmrmn:nities based on likc-mindcd:icss ra:llcr
:ba 11 physirnl proximity.
During these early years when Internet and
v'rtual reality technologies caught public and
scho:arly inlerest, the study uf computer-mediated
communication (CW.:C) workrd from thecretirnl
extremes: O_:i the one halld, computer-mediated
comm·J:'lication was lauded as a means of tran-
scending the limits as,ociated with human
em·::)(Jdiment By emsing suducultural mar'.,er:;
such as race and gender or escaping :he body
altogether, virtual con:munirntion would lead to a
utopian society whereby dc:nocratic partidp2.•
tion in public discourse was unhindered by
cality and correspondi :ig stereotypes, At the other
extreme, skeptk:s critiqued CMC because it
removed esse,1\id socioemol ior.al or :mnverbal
rnes ar.d would result in impoverished, low-7rust
relationships at ·Jest and social withdrawal, at
worst. Ci:izens 'MOwd resemble backers: pale, redu-
and proae :o cati:1g p'zza and Chinese take-
oat As time pa~scd, use grew, r:uvdty di mi nishcd,
and :non.: measured accounts c1r.crged based less
0;1 theoretical speculation and more or srudy of
llCtual contexts.' It became dear that me:mi11gful
and signitk,n:t relatior:ships and social sin; ctures
could thr:ve in text-only online environments. This
capacity is now taken for grankd. The pasl decade
of communication has included forms new ro
many of us: email, mailing lists, Multi User
Dimensions (MU Ds or \1 0Os). real tirr e c:iat-
rooms, instant messaging, websites, biogs. and so
forth. We are now lamiliar ;,,ith the conce?tS of
cybe:sex, online marriages, Friendster, and o:ller
creati\"e u5es of technology to enact ide1:t::y and
relationships :hrougb computer-mediation. Many
of us can probab~· name col ;.;agues and
friends whom we woulc not rerognize in pe:,on.
The com;nl\er-mediated construction of self,
other, and social structure constitutes a unique
phenomenon for study. 1n online en\'ironments,
t'.ie comt,uction of identity is a process that mus:
be in: tiated more deliberatelv, or consciomlv. '
Oflline, the body can simply walk around and be
responded to by others, providing the looking
glass with wh:ch om: comes to know the scJ.
Online, the first ste? towan.: existe:w, is the prn-
dt1t"t icn of discourse, whrthtr in tht' forrr: o:
words, graphic m:,ages, or sounds. But as many
scholars have t,,ught us (e.g., Buber, 1958; Bakhtin.
1981; Blw11er, :969; 1969}, we under:;tand
our Self only in rnncert with Other, a cm:tinual
dialogk process of nrgotiation "nd ,, gn'nt dra I of
faith in .shared meaning ( Rom mctvrit, 1980 ).

b mos: cor.1pL1tc:--n:ediated environments,
this prnc:e:ss re,J ui n:s a more deliberate exchange
:,f i:iformatlon bccmi;;e people are nlll cu-present
in t:1c s,u:ie phy,ical space and the nonverbill
aspc.:ts of the procc~s nrc, for the most part,
missing. The process is ubfoscat.xi because a
per so 11 typically knowledge of self for
grant!:<: ,vt:h litllc reflection on the social, inter-
active process by wh :ch the self is negotiated
wid: o:hcr;, in contrxt. Mostly overlooked by
users, the productior. of the message is only the
first of the process: Whe:hc r bl' receiving a
n:p:y :rn:ssage or by tracking a virtual footprint
of a visitor to one's wtcbsile, one can only know :f
one has brrn acknow.edged through some ,ort
of response. 'v1,,cKinnon's insights In th:s matter
(199:,) wa;nmt rcpeat:ng here. He notes that the
common phrase "I thi:1k, therefore I am" ls woe•
full;· inadequate in ~yber,pace. Even "I speak,
therefore I am" is not enough. Ill cyber:,pa,e, the
more appropriate phrase is "I am perceived.
therefore I am'.' (p. 119). Implied in t'lis las:
phrase is t:ie fact that onllne, pcrccpt:o:i of
another's .ittent;on is only known by over:
respcnse. So we can usefully note this by adding
the phrnse "I am responded to, therefore I an:»
(¥.arkha:n, 2003a).
The participa11t statements (fro:;1 my previous
resCiln:h of In:emet ·.1scrs) at tbe beginning of
thi:, chapter represent well :he importa:1ce of
text :o a pe,rnn's cm:slruction and negotiation
of idt:ntity in online tex:-based environments,
Sbeie exxesse.s a desire to be known sokly as
text (not through, hut as text}. For Sh,•rie,
wmputer-rne('ia1ed co:rnnunication is a way of
being. Rubin always uses correct punctuation and
~!rives to r:1ake the meaning as dear as possible,
Text is perceived as a pows:rful means of wntrol,
ling. lhrough editing and :Jackspacing, the way
the self i;; prescr:ted :o o;hers. DominOH:, u:ilike
tl:e other Iv.:o, docs not pay :nuch attention to the
tcxtua:, '.ir:guistk aspec:s of the medium. Rather,
1>ominOH! use& the technology as an interaction
space ll'tlkl: protects anonymil)' ,md aUows !:ie
social sel: to be less firmly attached :u the body.
Yet the text is vital to the rese",rn.:he:-'s understand.
Dom inO Hi's person11. on line.
Markhan:: Online E1hnograp:1y ll 795
For all threr personae interviewed, tex: remains
the mear.s through w~:ch each performs and
negotiates
,. the self. None of bese textual enl it ies
exists ill il;ulalion. Their cx•stencc is made possible
by cl:-ect or perceived iriteraction with others.
They are co:nnumicative through and through;
their soda I being is b::iated tr. roug:1 a pmress of
creatir:g and sending a message ,l!ld nrgotlatcd
through a process of 11:ter,,c:tion.
Although we recognize that reality :s socially
negotia:ed thmugl: disc:1rsive pmctict, the dia,
logic nature of '.centity and culture is thrown into
high relief In computer-mediated envinnmen:s,
·ihis g:ves rise :o nany po~sibilities and para-
doxe.5 ir: social n::search. For any researcher
s:udying lite onl:m,, :he trad: tional chal'.enge of
understanding other-in-context is complicated
by the blatant interferenre of rhe research~r into
the :rame of the fie:d and ·Jy the power of tl:e
researcher in representing !he culture. Re,ea:-c:iers
ha,c always interfered with th,;: context in some
way while conducting researdi, In t:.e past three
or more dc.:mies, scholars haw problematized
this fee.:ure of research, as well as :".igl:,igh:cd 6e
blurring of :mundaries between rcscarchc r and
researched, 5tilJ, :hese issue~ become startlingly
appan:nt-and challenging-in the context of
CYiC environments.
These issues call not only for adjustmtcnl
of traditional methods to online envimnment;;
or the creation of new methods, but also for
a,;ro;;.s> the-hoard reas;;essment and intcrrogation
of the prtmiscs of quaEtat:ve inquiry in genera:.
Intere~l i:1gly. the specific logistic and analytic
pni'Jlems associated with the interpretive study of
computer-mediated personae reveal many weak-
r.csses in qualitative :Ylethc..:fa and epistemologies,
generally. In the years I have spent trying to :igure
out !:ow to make sense of participants w:1ose
gender, name, body ly pe, .igc, eth nIcity, class, a:id
location remain inexplkab:e, I have been ;;om-
pdled to seriously examine certain practit'es of
Otherbg whicr., despite eFr,rts to be reflexive, hide
;n everyday, en:bodicd ways of knowing. Put more
?ositive:y. studying computer-n:ediated interac•
:ions allows and encO"Jragcs exploration of what is
happe11ing in "the hyphen tha: both separate, and
796 111 HAt,.;DlmOK OF QUALITA':'IVE RF.SFARCH-CHAPTFR 31
me,ges pcrso:1al identi tie, with our inventiom; of
Others" (rir:e, 1994, p, 70),
"Jew communication ted:nolog;c:s prh•ilege
am.:. highlight certain features of interacfam while
obscuring nthen, confrmnding traditional meth
oc:s of capturing and examinir.~ the formative
elements of relationships, organizations, commu•
and cJltures, Additionally, a person's con-
ceptual framework of any new communica:ion
~edmology wit: p:-cdetcrmine, to a certain extent,
that person's understandi11g of, ,e:,ponse to, a:1d
interact ton \v'ith the technology. This complicates
the researdte:'s ability to assume commonalities
arr:ong participc.r::s' con:municative practices via
CMC, or lo presume that participants unders:and
and use the techi:ology in the same way the
researcher doe,q. !'he c:1allengc for the qualirntivc
rcscard1er in the co:npute:-rr.ediated environ-
:nent is to attend to the details of how one is going
about the process o[ getth:g to knuw so1:1~thing
about tJ,; conte.d and th~ persons bdng studied.
At lhe samt' time, examining one's own influ-
ence in tne shape of the outcone '.s a vital prac•
tke. Grappling wit!: both the practical and the
epistemological implicatiom this influence
can help rescarchi?r~ make more socially respon-
sible decisio;i,5, In u very real sense, every method
ccd,:rm is an ethics decision, in that tl:ese ded·
sions h,we consequences for not j'.ls! research
design but a.so t:te identity of the participants,
the outco:nes of our studies, a:id the character
of knowledge v,hich incv:tahly grows from our
work in the field.
In this cha ;,ter, I describe some of the trnsions
and conp1ications that can arise :1: the qualitative
study of Internet-mediated contexts when deci•
sio:1s must be made about (a) defir.ing the bound-
aries of !he field, (b) determir:ing what constitutes
data.(<) mterpreting the other as text, (d) usi:1g
embodied sensbi!ities lo interpret textuality, and
(e) representing the othrr rthically rcsea,ch
reports. My ovcra:: ohjrct in this discussion :s to
illustrate some of the challenges of doing res.~a,,:h
in computer-mediated cnviron:nen:s and to ciis-
play tl:e signi:icance of be rc:searcher's chuicei; on
the field's slructure, on the other's e,n·Jodied or
reported Being, ,rnd ulti:na tely, on the soda I
knawledge derived :rom tl:e research projec:, The
discussion is intei:ded to he.p researchers generate
questions which can be uss:d to interrogate thei:
own epistemological and axiological ass'.!mptio:is
throughout tl:e design and emic:ment of thr
im:; u i ry. In addition to this primary train of
thought, l talk briefly about :1ow the lnterr.et is
conceptualized, review some o:' the main sh if:s in
thi:iki:lg about qualitatiw l111erne1 resea~ch, and
discuss some of !he rnajDr ethical considernlions
which are entwined with this type of inquiry.
To clar:fy what th:~ chapter does and does not
do: First, this chapter focuses on textuallty. Tl:e
examples throughout this draw yrimarily
011 text-:msed rnr:1 putcr-mcd ialed dist:tl'.lrse and
interactions among participants or hetwecr. par•
tidpant and researchc-r. AlthoJgh technologies
facLit;; :e visual and audo simulations and repre·
senlatio::ts and capacities of the tradit:onal
PC are n:oving lo 1:10·::o:le or convenience devices,
text rerna: ris ,1 primary unit of analysis for the
qualitative researcher. Put di""rr<"ntly, the i~sue,
raised here apply cquaEy to multi-media and
mobile aspects of CMC because these are, for the
most part, analyr.ed as texts, broadly S?Caking.
Second, ever. though :his ,:1apter focuses on
con:puter-mediated contexts, the spir:r of these
argument;; applies to other forms of interaction,
both onlhe and offline. The intriguing thing
abo·Jt C~ C :s :h 2.: it calls attention to the ways
we literally si:c and r:iakc scr sc of the world and
points O'Jt many of I~~ bias~s inhenml in our I:-a-
ditional ,vays of seeing and knowing. Therefore,
on<.' should :10: dismiss the challenges discussed
herein even if doing radically dlfferei:t types of
qualirative research.
Thin:, this er.apter does mit seek to p:.ivid: an
overview of how qualitative research is cone ucted
on or via the l ntc,net, but rather, addresses kcv
cpistcnmlogical and methodological quest:on~
foci ng ethnographers rrsearcbing in social spaces
constituted in part or wholly through new rnn ·
municatiun technologies. Ma :1y sources exist to
aid the researc:H:r with specific procedures and
methods for qu;;li:ative studie, (:his volume) and
qm1!:tativc Internet studies (e.g., Johns, (l:cn, &
Hall, 2003; Mann & Stewart, 2000).

Finally; this chapter focuses more on problems
and d1alle:1ges than opportunities and potential
of CMC-rclated research er.vironments. This
irnbalanc~ is not indicath•e of my own or ,1 gen-
eral attit~1dr tow,1rd qualitative lnter:1e1 research,
Here, how~ver, I want to b~1:k: a case for caJtious,
reflexive, and prepared research which, while eel•
ebrating those ,1spect, new rnmmunicatior:
technologies that make theu: we:J suited for qual-
itative 1nqlliry, remains attentive :n :he cu1m:-
(Juem:es of one·s !"esearch chokes,
II S11:HlN(j Lr:KSF'.S
Tl:r stady of C\1C spans virtually evHy acade-
n: ic discipline and :nc:hodolngical approach.
Resca:-ch o':1jects and lenses have shifted rapidly
in the past decade or so, :::ommensu,atc with the
rapid drvdop:ne:n aml dhseminatior: of infor,
mation and communication technologies (!CT),
Qualitative study of ICT in the pa.st decade has
tenc.ed to shift in two Pirs:, tho Jg:i not
a universal trend, research has tended to shift
from stmngly polarized ce1p1cLrn and predic-
tions ir: the early 1990&, to more descriptive
accounts in the mid-:ate I990s and, in the new
century, to more theoretically grounded, com-
parative, or rhco,y-bi:Hding studies,
Accounts of CM(, identity, and culture
:h roughuul lbe s:arly 1990, were heavily influ-
enced hy pop culti.:re d~sc,iptions o~ and personal
expericncc with novel and exciting forms of inter
<1ction, Gibson's term Cyberspace, mined in his
,cie:1ce fiction novel N'euwmanrer, offered the
dnsive but intriguing definition of on line cxperi·
ence as co:iscnsual hallucination experienced
daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every
nation, by d:ildren l;tei ng taught 1:rnthemati cal
concepts. , , , A graphical rcprese:itation of data
abstracted f,om the banks of every computer in
the hu:na:1 system. Unth:nkable c:or.1plcxity. Lines
ofligh: ranged in the non-space of the mind,dus-
ters and constc'.lalions uf data, Like city Iights,
receding"! 1984). Ah(JUI virtua: reality, Rheingold
( 1991) told readers ·'we have to decide fairly soon
what it is we a, humans ought ,o become, because
Markham: 0:1line Ethnography 11 797
were 1111 the brink ,if havi,ig ihe power of creating
mt}' experier,cc we J,,sire» (p. 386, emphasis in
original), Wright '. l 994) told us simply that it
would "deep]y change politics, cu::are, and the
fabric of ~ocirty-if not, indeed, the very me,a-
physics of human existence" (p, JOI). Barlow
offered a vision of Cyberspace a, rhe Wild West, a
final frontier to be claimed: 'X:ybcrn;iacc ... is
presently ir:':abited almost exdi:sively hy moun •
lain men, desperadoes and ngilantcs, kind of a
rough bi: nd1 .. , , And as lung as that's Ihe case,
it's gonna be the l,aw of the Wild ir: tl:ere" (cited in
Woolley, 1992, pp, 1 123). Keep ( 1993) sug
gested that virhrnlily through computer :nedated
communication 'announces the end of the body,
the apLJcalypse of corporeal sab,icctivity" 4),
These ideas caught the imagination of ,,;hoiars
and influenced sig11ifir.antly the tone of rescard1.
This is :iot su11)rising: With the invention or new
use of every communication tc:chnology tr.c
past century, dairr.s regarding n:edia effects tend
to be uve:1:stirr.ated a:1d exaggerated as long as the
tcchr:olcgy rer:rnined novel, Although this period
was not w::hout rmpirkally based ar:d thcore:i-
cally grounded research, there was a feeling of
utopianism in descr:;:,tions of how technology
might (or should) 1:s from the co:1s1ra:1:ts of
worldwide shackles likr hierarchy, t~aditional
social stereo:ypes, embodiment, and even death,
R:ieingold's Virtual Comrmmit)' (1993) and
Benedikt's edited collectio:1 C.}'bersp,ue: Pirsr Ste;>s
( 199;) represent this trend well. 'lb give these
authors credit, their idea~ sparked the interest of
many sd1olan, whose work followed,
Simultanrously, research was influenced hy
news coverage, mov'cs, a:1d pop cuhi:re a(counts
that predicted nega:ive, even dire consequences
of this new Inter:1e1 era. 1'/me Magazine offered
a cover s:ory on ''Cyberporn;' ·wherein rea(:er,
learm;.'li that the Internet threatem:c our children's
sa:cty (from adult sexual predators) and inno-
ce:1::e ( from easy access to pornography). Vastly
exaggerated claims il:cited sound crilidsm; ::,c
magazinr editors l:ad relied exclusively on rvi•
de11ce supplied by an ·,mdergraduate skdent's
n,m-peer-reviewed .stJdy, C,itioued or not, this
isme of Time was quoted by legislators, parents,
 798 a HA::-'IJBOOK Oi' QJI\JJ:-ATIVE RbSEARC:1-CHAPTEIUI
and scholars. "lnternet Adcic:ion Disorce,"
entered the r:1edical lexkon in 1996. Popi.:lar films
spelled out the dangers of identity theft, :1 ackers,
and spendir:g too much :iine 'n front of one's
computer. Puncits predicted that face-to-face
interac:ions would become impoverishec as
people forgot the intricacies and delicacies of
human interaction ir: physical environments.
These swtngs have evened out in the last few
years, resulti:lg in publ:shed acrnu:its which
exl:ibit many the more traditio:ial characteris-
tic~ of research. Scholars are explainir:g
their approach and me:hods more carefo:Jy,
ground i:'lg their work h prev in us research more
thoroi:gh:y, ar.d attendng more closely to tl:e
h.i.s:ory of comrr: anication technologies as wdl
as the h.is:ory of (1Uali tative inquiry. The targets
of research cm1tinue lo fol low sh ift;i in techno-
logical develnpmcnt. Herring (2004) aptly notes
that researches have tended to follow r.ovel ty;
researchers q t:kkly flock to ead, :iew techr.ology.
Research in the 1980& tended to focus or. the use
am:: impact of con:?ulers. email, ar:d networking
in the ,,•orkplace (overvicwed well by Sproull &
Kiester, 1991)_ In the 1990s, research waves
moved progressively th rough various forms of
CMC, such as Email, Usenet, MUD.sand MOOs,
the Wor'.d Wide Web, IM (Instant :vlessaging),
SMS (Short Messagir:g :'!erv1c:!' via mobi:e re:e-
pl:m:c). and B'.ogs.
Var:o us social interaction pr;..ct!ces and soda:
stmctures received empirical at:e:ition over the
pas: decade: Fla:ning and uther forms emo-
tionally charged or violent ,iCls (e.g., Dery, 1994;
Dibble, 1996; MacKinnon, 1998); the use of
emotkons to mmpensate for the ahsence of non·
verbals (Witmer & Katzman, 1998 ); the social
construction of virtual comm unities via mail-
ing lists fr.g., Baym, 2000; Bronseth, 20U2;
Sven i r.gsson, 200 I; Rhc: ngoid, 1993 ), M\,; Ds or
MOOs (e.g,, Kendall, 1998; Reid, 1995) or websites
(j ohn,on, 2003): the intersection of tech:, o:ogy
a:1d iden:ity (e.g., Lupton, 1995; Markh.am, 1998;
Senft & Horn. 1996; Sondheim, 1996; Stone, 1996;
TJrkle, 1995): sexuality (e.g., Kiesler, 1997;
Waskul, Douglass, & Edg'ey, 2000); gender and
pa~ticipation in CMC (e.g., Herrii:g, 1993); and
race (Kolkn, \Jakarnura, & Rodman, 2000).
Ethnograpl:kally informed studies haw focu~ed
on online groups (e.i;., Baym, 2000; Ekihorn,
20!ll; Kendall, I O~gad, 2002: Reic, 1995 ); use
llf Internet in trad::ional, physkally based cul-
tures (e.g., Miller & Slater, 2000 ); cul:ural forma•
tion aroand particular topics (e.g., Hine, :moo);
a:1d sensenakbg in specialized environments
such as vir:ual wor~ teams (e.g., Shane, 2001 ).
Multiple anthologies offered accmm:s of cyber-
cultu re (e.g., H(l',h Noon on the Electronic Frontier
'. l 996 J; rhe Cyberrnltures Reader [2000; ). Utilizing
both pop culture and acaccm k accounts, these
texts provide a useful overview of the 1990s view-
poi ms abu ut mm :mter :11 ediated corncrnnka-
titm and cultura: practice. Few resources existed
during the- I990s to spedficaJ: y guide qual!tative
researchers. Although researchers oftercd co:llext-
spedfic ciscussions of research methods (repre·
sen:cd well in fote met Research, edited by :or.es,
l 999), a con:pn:hensive lrcalrr.enl Jid nm appear
until 2000, when Mann .1nd Stewart's volume pro•
vided principles and practices for condt:cting
qualitative im:;uiry using Internet corr:municat:rm
as a tool of research.
n::search 'n this evolving field grnws n:ore
refined, the conceptualization of computer-medi-
communka:ion has shifted from sweep:ng
universaliz,x: encapsula:ions to more specific, run•
text-based definitions. As well, some have notec a
move from exaggerated :o mundane accounts. A
recent article (Herring, 2004) entitled "Slo·Jching
Toward the Ordinary" notes the trend to minimize
the irn;1act of new communication technologies
on idcntily, subjectivity, and social practices and
structores. Jn this samevein,cthnographk inqJiry
appears to be shifting from the study of online•
only envirur:me1:ts and virtual identity Lo the
intersection of computer-mediated communka-
:ion wifa everyday life. Scl:olarn are now calliug for
increased ,mention to the mul:ipl~ uses and defin-
itions of"loter11et" in context, as well as increased
attention to how the online and oftline imersec:
(Baym, Zhang, & :in, 2002; Orgad, 2002).
Uvert:y politka: analyses of computer
mediated commnnic.ition are diverse in ,cope
and range. I mentinr: jus1 two arras: research 'n

ceveloping countries and research bterrogating
[he role of the researcher. Work exploring the use
internet technologies in devdopir.g countries
:s important and increasing. Kolko condJcted
:n-dcpth interviews in U:,:bekis :an as a means
of grounding l:e1 NSF-funded study of how JCT
affects jfr ir, central Asia (personal communica-
:ion, October 1 2ll02). Miller and :tater have
conducted the most widely known ethnography
a developing country to date, exploring th c
way, in which :he Internct is perceived and usec
in Trir:idad (2000). Theresa Srn:Ts recent work
in Ghana illustrates a politically motivated effort
to use interpretive pa rtici ?ato,y action researcl:
to help t':ie cause of women and the poor in that
regim: of the wor'.d (personal commi.;nicatior.,
October 2004).
Research exploring the researcher's role 'n
Internet studies is also expanding: My own work
was acknmvledged as an explicitly reflexive dis-
c,:ssion of :he researcher's role i:i Intcrne: eth-
nography (1998). Later work:; dso discuss directly
the ethical and political slam;e of !'le res;;-archer
and the relationship between researcher and par-
ticipants (e.g., Ryen, 2002 )_ Bmmset:1 (2002, 2003)
discusses n1 depth the cthka: dilemmas of mllcct-
ing data in groups where pco?le are reh:ctant to
be studkd. Gajj Jla (2002 l explores her own study
of a gro:1p wherein the members were uvertly and
actively resistant to her intenl as a resean:her.
Along different lines, Eichhurn's s;udr o" a virh1al
group (2001) astutely addresses the ?aradox of
usi:1g ollline interviews to understar:d onli :ie sub-
jectivities. Org<1d's wor;.; (2002) illustra:es the
opposit<" parndnx: using or;;y online interviews
with women in a virtual supporc group to ur.der
star.cl bow ,he;;(" women make sense of their ili-
m:ss. In both case~. these rese,m:hcrs recognized
during the ,::ourse of rhe'.r restarch that giving
voice to the parlici pants meant selecting the
medium based on what ,-as most appropriate for
tl:c participants, nut the researcher.
A tfoal note abo'.lt the shifting trends in quali
tative research over the past dffac.e of Internet
studies. Many studies have bee:1 :aheled "e:hnog-
rnph y" whe:1 the more appropriate term wou:d be
inte,view sh:dy, case study, phenomcno)ogy,
Markhan:: Online Ethnogmphy JI 7S9
grounded theory, na:-rative a:ialysis, biography or
life h:stury, and so fortr:. "J::::hnography" seems to
·,c a term tl:at is applied by scholars who do not
kn ow what else to ca: 1 their work o:-, in my case
( I 998), by scholars whos;; s;udy of new forms of
eihnography broadens the umbrella of what can
be cor:sidered "ethnography:' Closely related, the
quality of work in Intc:rnet studes from an eth no-
grapher's or <Jualitative methodologist'~ ?erspcc•
tive has l!arkd widely; some srhulars corr,e lo the
field of inquiry having beer trained in qualitat ivt-
mcthods, while others have topic• or technology-
specific expertise or interest bot no fan: iliarity or
train: ng :n the diversity of qualitative appmaches
(Mann, 2002, 2003).
Iii J
CRrr;cA L UNCT;JRES IN
RESEARCH D1::s1GN .4. Nn P1mc"ss
The idea of studying the l:1.ternct o, using
Internet techro:ogies to fadlitate qualitative
research is beguiling: A researcher's n:ach is
potentially global, data collection :, economical,
and :nrnscribi:1g is no :nme dittkdt lh,m cut•
ting and pas:ing. But in the virtua I field, as one
interacts with ,monymous participants, tracks
disjointed, non-linear, multiple participant con-
versations, and analyzes hundreds of screens
worth of c ulturnl texts, one can begin to feel like
the btemet mi~ht cause more headadu::s lhan it
cures. Decepti\le in its apparent simplidty, quali-
tative inquiry in this environment requires care-
ful attention to the trad' :ional means by which
social lite is interpr..:ted and tl:e adjustments that
mnst be made to giYe value to the onli :1e experi-
ence and internal cm,sistency to one's method~.
The absence of visual information about the par-
ticipant fur:ct:ons more paradoxically than one
1:iigl:t real:ze. Sodoeconom'c markers such as
bnc.y type, gender, race, and dass are used con-
sdou~ly or unconsciously by researchers to make
sense of participants in physical settings. Online,
these frames :m, still used but with,1;: visual
information, they function invisibly: This war
ranls dose examinatiun, both to consider how
KOO 111. HA~DBOOK OF Q'JALITATIVc R?.SEARCH-CHAPTER 31
this happens and :o explore !:ow the researcher's
default premises and unconscious choices car:
influence tl:e shape of the participant and :he
reality of the outcome.
This complexity of knowing anything ccrlain
about the other is paraduxkal, yet to acknowledge
the uncertain! y or even impossibility of lrnowir:g
Other is to risk paralysis in the research process,
lrn;s of authority in the presentation of research,
and dirninish:ncr:: of one's acaden:ic role as
ohserver/inte;preter!a:tli ivist of social lite. How,
then, does one proceed? "With caution" is a trite
yet reasonable response which calls for sensitivity
to the context, interrogation of one's owr. pre-
sumptfor.s, and fexible adaptation to a new era
in soda! research, one which we rerng11ize the
lir:i: tations bred by oi:r traditional five ,,cnses and
take the ri~ks nece,sary to :-ernnsidcr how ar.c
why we seek and create knowledge, Proce:d:ng
thus is a political move, It does not retreat from
understanding Other on the grouncs that the
re:iearcher cannot know ,rnything except his or
her own experiences. :t also does not rest on !:le
laurels of traditional methods, tryir_g to shore np
ways of kr:owing that are crumbling before our
eyes ru; digital and convergent media saturate c:.11-
tural pract:ces and forms. It faces the complexity
and interrogates t!:e way we analyze people for
purpuses of aca,'e:mk inquiry: l f one exami ncs
deeply the way new communication tec!molog'.es
i::llluer:ce the research proje::t, one is likely to
stumble into issurs wr.ich question fae fur:da-
mental reasons for coi:lg research in the fi:st
place. Allowing m:eseJ :o explore thu~e issues can
vitally contribute to the creation uf reflexive and
socially respo:1sible rese-arch practice,
At several junctures during the research pro•
je.;t, we have the O?portur.ity and responsibility to
reflexively interrogate our roles, methods, e:hical
slances, and :nterpretations. When studying
computer-mediated er.vironmcnts, this need is
intensifa:d uc,.au,,., the traditional frames of ref•
erenee we use to guide ou prerr:ises a:1 d prcce•
dure, are entrenched :n physical foundations and
modernist onlologies. Questions one 11:ight
address i:idude:
• What can we say we know about the Other whe1
self, other, and the context ::iay he cons:rulled
so:dy through the exchange of messages:
• In sncial situations derived fmm dis:ursive
interaction, is it prn,sible :o sin,ply obserw? ls it
de,irnble(
• Jlcw does the researcher's partidpalion in the
mediu 111 affoct the identity of the p~:-tidpan!
and the sh,, ?C uf the culture?
• How can one balance the trndihmal ,dcntific
impL::se :o unmver the "real" while mtcrading
with people who may or may mt have any co:-
respondenc;; tn their physicnl counterparts>
• In what vnys do one', research traditions
delimit and limit the :ios,ibi::tie~ for 5cnsemak•
ing in cnvimn :11enrs which are not over:ly
p:1y~kal, visual, and a.ital?
Whether or not the res~archer pays attention
to them, the issues raised by these quest: om
operate throughout any cthnographicat: y based
projecL They irienti:y log'stk chalienges out a:,u
displ:iy problematic working ass~uuptions tha:
:nust be addressed, Reflexive research practice
recrJ ires a constant dis ruplion of :he seemingly
plijcid surface of inquiry. Stopp~g to identify crit,
kal decision ;um:1:.1res an,: reflec: on conse-
quences of ,JlCci'lc actions co:1stit·Jtes an honest
presence in t:ic ~esearch process and active
engagement the et:iical grou:id[ng of one',
3
inqu~ry.
Ddini ng the bounde.ries lhc f:eld.
Determh::::g what rnnstitutes darn.
Interpreting 1hc other as tcxL
Using cmbod ied scn,ibi'::ics to interpret textuality,
:l.epresen:ing others et!lkally in re~earc~ reports.
Each of thet;e categories identifies a critical deci-
sion juncture with'r: the reSearcl: project. Nc::her
exhaustive 1:or ~e,ara:e, tncse categories can be
used as examples :o hdp one think throagh some
of the dt:cisions made during the course' of a study
which kn-e meaningful consequences for :he
identil)I of :he participants, the rcpreser.tatio:i
of self and other in research reporting, and :he

shape of the oody of scientific knewledge built on
mul!':plc ethnograpl:ically informed ~tudies. The
actual que,tions one might ask are particalar to
tte resean;hc r ~. nd :he p:l1j ed, aa va,iahlc as
worldviews am! metlmdolL1gical app,oad1e~.
Defining the Bound ancs uf the Field
Draw:ng bom:diries arou:1d tl:e research
rnntexl, or ''ids:r: tifying the fie! d" imnilve:, a series
,1f c..::dsi nns that both presuppose and reveal t:ie
resean:her's under'.ying ontologirol and episte-
r:10logical assumptions. Ob>:iously, rctlccti ng nn
our own biases is 1:ot just u:,eful but ethica:ly
:1eccssary. even i:' our academic trair.i :1g did not
:centify the necessi :y for such reflection. Wl:en
studying physirnlly bused culture,. the location of
:he field is typically predrter:r,inerl, so ttie logisti.
cal cl:allcnges lie In gair.ing access and building
,ap?c:rt with infom:ants. Po, foe Internet ethnog-
rap:10:r, the process of loc,ning and defi11ing sensi,
,,:e houndaries of the field can be convolutcc and
dmive.
lkcai:se the> lnter:1ct is geogmphicall::, dis-
t)N'sl',L the re:,ean:her has the option to di sre-
ga rd location and distance to communicate
inslantancously aml :nex pensively witi:: people.
Log:stically, the distance collapsing capacity
the lntcrr.ct a:Jows the researcher to connect :o
1nrtidpants aroand the ghne. T1:e r0.Gearcher
can indude peo:>k prev:oi:sly unavailable for
study. Thi, nol on:y increases the pool particl•
par: :s :>Ut also prnvides the ?o:ei ::ial for cross-
cJ :u ral ce:11p;,risnns that were 1:01 ,eadily
avaik::ile previous: y for practical and financial
reasons. l n a world where potential participants
are only a keyboarc'. dick and fibr;: optic or wire-
less connection away, distar:ce become almos:
mean:ngless a, a pragmatic consideration in
research design; I l:e Inlernet serves as an cxtcn-
s:on of the researcher's and participant's bod'cs.
R<.',card1 can "le desi1mcd a:-ound questio:.s ()[
interaction an! soda! beha, ior unbound from
the r, stri,,·t
0
of proximity or geography.
Parl'dpants can be selected on the basis of their
upprnpr:atc fit wilbin the research qi:eslions
Ma,kham: Online Rthnngraphy II 8() I
rather than their physical lo cat ion or convenience
to thr rese,.rcjer.
From Geographit w l)iscur.;iv,, /joundaries
As we shift fro:n geographic to computer-
mediated spaces, we arc ~hi:ting fuc•Js fron: place
to internc:ion, from loc.1tion to locomotior.
(Markl:am. 2003a}. Consequently. mmmunities
and culture are nut nelltly mapped before entering
!he field, but instead are 1.1-.,,ated a~ part of the
ethnogrnp h:c p mcess. Clu is :ine Hine ( 20\l\l)
argues that che ct:mograµher's notion of cc::ural
boundary r:rJst htc reco11sidered g:ven this
capadty of the Intcmet. Rather than relyi:1g on
traditional, geographically based means of encap-
sulating the culture under study, such as national
hmmda~ies u:· town iimits, cth nogra,:i:iers migh:
find more accuracy in using discour,e patterns to
find bmi ndaries. "Tl:e ethnographc, must read the
texts and intcractions of interest, much I;;i.e t,ail
signs, and make dcfcnsihlc decisions about which
paths lo follow, w;1ich paths to disregard, and
thereby which bou11daric~ ~o drnw" (Markham,
20!l3b}.
Seemingly mundane decisions hecmne LTt:cial
criteria that are used, co1:gdously or not, to creatt
boundaries around the field inquiry. Boundary
markers are underwriter hy ;he researcher's
cho:cc abwJt how to find data si:e~, which search
engine to use to samplr, whom m interact with,
what :o say in interaction with partidp1111ts, what
language to S?eak, when to seek end ::onduct
interviews (induding hoth time of day and con-
sidering time zones), and so fonh. Co:nputer-
mediated cultural contexts arc ~b Jting rnnlexts,
Their discursive constn:ct :or: o~cur.s in global as
well as local patterns. Membership can be Iran·
sier:t. This becomes more meaningful wl:en o:ie
reali:i:es the boundary-forming work that is heing
accumplishec wl:en one contributes messages tn
a group, def:nes the boundaries of a cultural phc•
nnmenon through one's {,wn surfing dmices, and
sifts or funnels the data set by using a part!cular
search engine or sc; nf databases. Ea,:h action
taken by the rese.irc:1e: in this vast :nformation
 801 Ill HANDBOOK OF QlALJIATfVE RF$EARCH-CHAl'll:;{ 31
sphere contributes directly to the conslruction of
the struc:ureo th,d ever:t :mlly gel \ubefod ut1eld" or
''data:'
Indeec:, the glohal potential of th:, medium is
often conflated with global reach, an achievement
that re'.ks on global ac::ess (Markham, 2004::i).
Arguably, people in indt.:slrialiied muntries tend
to overestimate the degree :o whid1 the world has
access to computers and electron k co:nmunica •
tion technologies. Acces,.~ is not L:n!versal and
those populations being studied via the Ir:ternet
represent a very privileged and sn:all portim: of
the world's population, In many ways, :hen, the
·:mundaries may :ie flexible, seemingly a rhitra ry,
and discurs:vel y construc:ec, hut nonetheless
remain within larger political and economic
structures that are not un:versal:y experienced.
Particip1llion in the Discursi·,e
Con.,tru.tion of the Field
As I have :mted previously (Markham 1998),
bteracting with anyone fom:ally or informally
a sig:i tfican t shift from oh$ervcr to partic-
ipant, fro:11 archivist to accomplice. Online, as one
participates in the Gntext, one CO·COnst mets :he
spaces under invrstigation. ,nteractim:s with
partkipa:its are nots: mple eve:1ts in on I'm:
sp«ces, they arc organizing elements of these
spaces.
By the very nature of their actions and interac·
tions, ~e,i;eard:ers in any cultural enviror.rner.t are
imrolved in (1.e comtrnction of '\\·hat becomes be
object of analysis. This is high Iighted in techno•
logically mediated erwinmmenls both
the pruduction and consumption of communica•
lion ::an he global, non-sequen:ial, fragmented,
disembodied, and de centered, In contexts where
the boi.;ndades of self, other, and soda! world
a:-e created and sustained sol cly forough the
exchange of information, hei ng is therefore rela ·
tional and dialect'c. Sociai constr:.ic!io:is are less
connected tu their physical properties. Bound·
aries are not so much dcwrmined by "location" as
they are by uinteraction:'
The bounduries of t:ie field become r:, ore a
matter of choice lhar. ii: physically located spaces.
Researchers are more obvious!y part idpat ive.
Addrc;;s ing u seemingly simple question 0'
"should I partidpo:e or nbserve" rhcn, giw.s r:se
to an enl :re!y mo:-e complica,=d set of issues :hat
shape fae research design ai:d romplica!e our
oon,epts of l:ow media fo nction socially, The
deceptively easy act of choosing a particular
commun l:y of websites crea1es an audience that
previously d:d not l'xisl and indicates to the :arger
academic commur:itj' that :hb context is nean•
ingfai. Thus, choice of field becomes a politically
chargec process because uf the inherent ethical; ty
of one's decisions.
E1h:1ography that ignores thcsr issues can
remain at tl-.e edges of the c.Il:ural context and
more h:1portantly, can become mirt,d b the now
much er itiqued notion that the researcher
observes hut does not interfore with or inOuencc
that which is studied. Moreov~r, tr.e dedsions that
a researcher makes a: this level directly influence
the way the researcher later represents the con-
text ,md the participants, whkh ultinately
impacts 011r acadcmk conversa1:o:1s and
knowledge about computer mediated communi
cation enviromnc:ns. These are b•mes :mlen with
e:hical responsibility, yet the questions :hem•
selves appear to so ;traightforwarc. they arc
often o:i: y addressed as simple logistics problems.
This di;cu.s:oi: necessarily takes us forward
to later stages of the resca rch pmces,. Tie effort
or 'Jnrnnscious decision to a":;sent o:iesel: fann
the firld w:ll not remove the researcher f~om the
::;rocess ar:c product :hir:k:ng ahead to the out-
come of inquiry-the reseirch report-o:1c must
acknow'.edge that the interpretat inn llf cil ture
wi II change cepending on the form of the telling.
InterpreMtive focus and the nature of the "find•
i:lgs" shift with the passage of time. tr.e venur for
pub:ication, the credihility of the author or noto•
riety of the si:'iject, and innumerable other rac•
tors. Frankly, whe:her or not the researcher
partici pa :cs or simply ub~erves, the rnnstructi o:i
of th: re,earch :-eport will ;.,resent a particular
realily of the object of analysis th<11 :s influenced
by rhe k:enl ity and par:icipat:or: of the researcher.
It may be more productive to acknowledge one's
par;icipativc role early, so that every <!SP•ect ,if
the research design can effec:i vely incorporate the
rtsearcher's prcsrncc ii: the mnstructinn of :h~

:leld under srudv. As Tnternel Studie, evolves as
;
an interdisdplinary field of inquiry, forther
,csearch depth and credibility will be gai nee
:hruugh realistic and contemporary conceptual-
imlions of lhe ways in whi~h the researcher,
:eader, and ti'J;ect of an,i!ysis inte:-i,ect
Determining What Constitutes Data
A researcher's representation of olhers is inex•
akably bound up with the way data are collected
and distinguished as meaningful versus me,11:ing•
.css.Compute,-mediatcd communication cm:texts
complicate the n:sean:hcr's dedsim:s, not only
~,eca:,1:;e :he contexts ate constr·.1cted interactively,
compr'scd of :nosily disembodied participants, or
:;ecause the researcher has little access to typical
sense making dcvke~ med to idenli fy a:td collec:
data. Tl:e researcher's decisions are [L:rther com-
plicated because we are always and constantly
stru,k with stirr.uli in any research environmen~,
st:m:.!l: that must be filterec in and out in order
to ;;rc~tr sensible categories k,r in:erpretation.
[nteracti:1g in text-only online environments
diminhl:es the most pro:nine:11 of O'J, ,enses:
vision. CMC separates more obviously tl,c whole-
ness of a person's bei :ig into cor,1por:ent parts; that
which was previouoly made sense of a~ a whole is
conse,11:ently made sense of at different points of
time using ci:'fere:it combi i:ation~ of senses. Tl:is
ieature of technology promotes highly focused
and div idcd attc r:tion OJ: the content, the producer,
the carrier, and the meaning of discursive activity
in conteK:. Even in more overtly visual research
envl,onments, where the researcher may have
access to photos, webcams, websitt,;;, hypcrlink
be:1avior, and biogs, 1he issue is not resolved
because traditional research training is designed
for physically co-presen: environments.
Methodologically, one must retlcc: carefully
on what collected information is considered as
'r.a1a." Just as interaction construct~ and rellect,
the shapr of the phenomena being srudied, intcr-
actio:1 aho delineates the being doing the research
in tl:c field, Obviously. we amr.ot pay attention 10
everything-our anal~ lic,;11 lens is limited by what
we are drawn to, what we are tra: ncd to atteml to,
and what we want to find. Borrowing from
.\.larkharn: Online Eth oograp:iy Ill 003
Goffr:1 ar. ( 19 59 ), our ur.derstanding is determined
as much by our own fr:m1es uf referem:e as the
frarr:es supplied by the context. Our selectio:i of
da,a and rejec1io:1 of non-data prese1:ts a cr:tkal
juncture within which to :rm:rrogate l:le possible
consequences of our cliokes on the representation
of others through our researd1,
An example of onl:ee discourse from prior
re;earch ( Markham, IY98) il\1rntrn1es the implica-
tions of this poir:. Matthew, as with all the partic-
ipants in my sti;.tly. is a self-described "heavy
user" of ::11ernet, The interview cccurrec i:1 a
MOO, an oulir:e em irnnmcnt which is desigm:c to
fodlitate the enactmen, and appearance uf partic-
ular forms of comr:iu nicatioi:. Hy writing diner
ent .._,m1mands or using partku Jar punctuation,
one can speak, exclaim, question, wh:sper, cmo:e,
or th:nk. so :hat dialogue appears as a verbal
statement (Annette says, "Hi." Anr:elte exdaims,
"Hi:" Annette asks "Hi?") a :artoon like thought
bubble , o O (Armellc wonders if the reat:er ,ees
that this :s a thought bubble), a des.cripfan: of
one~, nonverbal behaviors or thoughts (An :1ctte
scrnlche.5 r:cr head thci.:!!htfolly),and so forth.
1n itially arc:.iving ).fatthew '~ :ntcr vicw, I
included tl:c 1•ntire log of the conversation. As I
began the analysis :mlcess, I removed ex l ran,x;us,
repetitive, or system-speci:'ic commands in orccr
to minimfae distraction,, The fol:owing sarr: ;,k is
from this latter phase, where co:nmand~ a~e
removed. Fm:n tbs log, I cnnc:1cted the in:;id
analysis of dma:
Mattht·w: "Now madison, :hat's a nice towr::'
Markham: "okav here's some ofncLt stuff for
'
rou Matthew:•
:\fo~kham: "! guarantee that J will not ever
rcvral yr:1:r addressfnameflocatim1 :'
.\{atthcw: "Fine about Ihe ,ccrec y stuff:'
Markham: "Matthew, I guarar:tee tlml I will
delete any re:erences that migl:t g:ve
a reader c:ues ab{rJL whcx you Evr,
who vou are, or where vou wor~."
' '
)A arkham: ''do ;'(JU mir:d that I arch: ve this
interview?"
 804 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE Rl!SEARCH -CH APTER 3 l
Matthew: "Log away, Annette" ...
Markham: "what do you do mostly when you're
ouline? \,\!here do you go?"
'.via: thew: ,. Mos!ly rm doing one of :i,vo thi:lgs.
J:irstly I do research. If l'm looking
for academic research h: software
er:gbeer: ng, my specialty, a lot of it
is on the We, . ."
Matthew: "And a lot cf tools lo ?lay wit!: are
tnere, too."
Matthrw: '~t;Jso, I use it for news .1nd bforma-
:ion, way: used to use :!1e radio.
i.'!'rn an unrepen ten l , , ."
Matthew: "real-lifer}, for instance, if l'm goi:1g
tu go nm (or bike or do something
ebc outside} . . "
Matthew: "I check the weather on the Web
whei: in vears ,ast I wot:ld turn on
' '
the radio. IJi1to fur news" ...
Mark ham: "how wou:d you compa::e your sense
of self as a person online to yoi:r
sense of self oftline?"
Ma 7thew: "More confident on line, beca1rne I'm
a better ed:tor tha1: wri:erlspcaker.
I do well w:1e11 I .:an ba:;;kspace:'
Y.at,hcw: "B1;t l'n: the sar::ie me in both places.
I guess I've been me too long to he
allyhudy ebe witho:lt a lot more
practice than I have time for:'
Mark:ian:; "hmmm . , How would you describe
vour self?"
' about whe:e vou live, ',,;ho vou ,ire, or where vou
ti.farkham: "i r:1ean, whafa the'me' you're talking
about?"
Matthew: "Kine of .1n<lrogerinu~. Ple:1~v of
won:e:i for friends. But I was
never good at dating or any of the
romantic/sexual stuff:'
Matthe'N: ''.Also. somrwhat intellccrnar•
'.vtt:thew: has a cielayed blushing reaction :o
the androger:y comment.
Matthew: "And a fit:iess nut;'
lv'.ilrkham: o O ( I wonder why Mattr:cw is
blushing .. )
iV!arkham: "tell me about your most memorable
onlh:e ex pcrience"
Matth£'w: "OK, it was a couple years ago and
] was just getting on the Web and
sta:-ti r:g lo realize all"
After rnnduclir:g mitial coding and u:i;:.lysis, I
found :hat l was slruggl:r:g wi:h t:ii, interview.
I returned to the original transcript and real'z:ed I
made an error it: my delineation of ''mea:i•
ingful" fror:1 "not1essential" data. The following
excerpt illustrates what : saw when 1 returned to
the original intci·v ;ew (the pie~e, I had ren:cved
are uncerlinrc ):
Matlhcw 1.ays, "N'ow ::iadison, :hal's a nice tow 11;'
Ma:thew spills popcornc:-umbs into his kevboard :-(
Markham s,,ys, "b·~mr.:er, Matthew:·
Matthew s4ys. "If you sec me $Oi11g awav for a while.
you knuw I wen: :o mak,, mo:e PQ('WfA ;- J"
Markl:am "okav. here's some tdidal stuff for '\~JU
f,tatthew:'
Markham 4
f guarantee that I will nut ever reveal
your address/namcilocatim1 ."
Ma!tht'W says, "F::ie about the sec:1ccy ~tufC'
tv:arkham "M,,·thrw, I gtrnran:ee that l will
Jdetc any referem:,;:s that might give a realer dut·s
' ' '
work:"
.\farkham asks, "co yo:: mind that I .:rchive this
i ntervicw?"
Matthe'-"' salutes aml says "\es'n:
Marthcw say,," I.Qi away, Annette"
,\larkham says, "oksy, i have a tendency to ask QL1es-
. too quic
hons 'kl"
!Jl',._
 Markh,m:: (lnlinc ~thnograp:iy 11 805

Matthew do~m't answer bcm.~ h;:'s Low busy a;:,eniut: M,mhcw s;i~s. "You sl:cukl be iisking :ne queslions (t:u:
;1 box ,if rice cakes., .. i:1tcrv icwec becomes. the iiltcr,iewcr)"
i\fark ham .,igh., 2.:id refuc11ses
Markham asks, "what do you do mostly wbm you'!'€
i\·:arkham ··1e:: me aboa1 your mo,t mtmomblc
onli~.e~ Where do you go?"
cnllne ex:,erience"
Mallh~w say&. "Mo, tly I'm doing o:1e '1f two
IV'.althcw 11,d, verv jral,m, of peilpk wlw ha,c ~k<:11,
First]y I do research. If I'm looking for academic
n·scar~h in sofornre engi ne,•ri11g. my ,pecia tY, a lot of rv:auhew enters sta:e of dcei, :1:ough:.
ii is on the Wecb ... ,.

Matth"" "And a lot of tools to play ;.,ifh a~c

lh~rc, loo." tv:a It hew "OK, ii was ,1 couple rears ago
Mallhcw ''.>\lso, l use it for news and infor· and I w;is just getting on :he Web and st2 ·ting to
mat ion, the way I used :o use the radio. (I'm an realize all"
unrepent(•n1 ... "
My bte~prera1 io:1 shifted as I realized the
Ma::h,·w ''r.:al-llfor). for instance, if fm to
extent to •,vhich Matthew made certain to indude
g,1 re:: (er bike or do something o:.ilsid,.:'1
his e1;1bodied activities b thr conversation.
Ma:t hew say,, "I check t'ie w,mthc: on 1hc W~b when in Regarc:ess of lbe :11terprelation une elects :o make
;iast I would tum on radio. Uitto for about these J:1derlined enacrmen:s (Matthew is
l:·.mgry, hored, creative, using convci:tion, IC:'arncd
in cultur~). 1hc remain, rhat the «data" arc
Markham asks," how would you c0m1•are your sense of di ffe1"t:n I frorn one transcript lo the nexl.
,df ,ls ,1 pe:'Son o::line :-::: your sense of sdf of:1 i ne?" One car: elect to bnickel or se: a.,ide the form
Ma:t'1cw says, "M::rc co:::ldcnt online, because l':11 a ,u:d locus cnly on ;:;on\e;;t. Thi~ decision would
bet :er editor :h:m wriw~lspeaker. I do well when I can be guided by the prt:mi,e that the meaning of one's
baLk,pcce;' Lltterancts is only understood in contr>:t and
Ma,6cw ,<1y;, "But :'m !he same me in bo:h /ace~. I tncrel11:-c the medium is :ess :mportant than 1he
gue,s I've been me too :ong le be anybody else without ::ontent. lb the other hand, lo ignore the form in
a lot mnre prac:in: 1::a11 I hav.: lim,! thi~ i• terview cm:'.d also be seen a~ a poor cnoice,
Mt~kham "hmn::n ... :fow wou:d yo;: describe given the wcll-founced premise :m:werbal
,,mr behaviors function discurs:vel!• in the presenta-
tion of self, negotiation of identity, and rventual
~l .. :kham ask~, •'i mea 11, w0iat's the 'me' yuu':r lalkill!:!
symbolic constructior: of ci.:::ure. In this case, my
about?'
ar:alysis wo:ild suffer witl:o;it the inclusion of
Matf~ew "Kind androgenon,. Plenty of wome:1 Matthew's c'dineation uf bs embodied activities.
for frie11ds. But I was neve, good at dating t:r any of the It also raises :he question of what rnnstitultE form
romaclic/,ex,rnl stuff:' ar.d what corislitu•c:s con tent.
Matt:1cw s<1ys:'.A.l:,0, somewhat intellectual:' One's choin, :n this situation ~hould he guided
Maa:lt'W has a delayed blushing reaction to the
by the ,cS('arth qucsticns or t11c ovrrall goal of
a:;crogc,w comment. research, wh :ch in ti: is case was to explore how
people experience the Intemet a:id how the: r idcr-
Ma,tn~w says,'~i\nd a fitness nut" tities are :iresented and negotiated. Yet, this ed [ct is
Ma:k::am. o O (I wonder why M:iuhew i~ blushing . , ) laden with ambiguity when put into p:.ictke.
Atl:Jh.l·1L<i~~¥>;,h.u;,§. Multiple d ::rmn:as p,esent thei:iselves: How much
doe., text represent rh,· reality of r:-:e person? Pllt
M,1iliham stares more personally, how mu~h would I want to be
Markham . ,1Q.Lsho11ld [ be doint1 ,omc:h' ::g too~ l bot: nd by what I wmtc at any particular time? 1o
806 11 HANl)BOOK or Ql;AL:TATIVE Rl::SlAKCll-CHA?TFR J l
what extent docs or should the researcher im;l:;dc
spelling or :ypirig ab::ity as meaningful informa
lion in the understanding of ide:itity or culmre?
How :nueh arc my own preconceptions rnd stt•reo-
types influencing how 1 elect to ca:egor:le data
from non-data?
One might woi:dcr whether or r:ot l eve1 asked
Matthew to participate ii: the decision abnut
what rnnstituted ·'data~ as this would seem a
relativelv ea,v. way. 10 answer some of the
;
questions asked abovt>. 1Nlia~ would Matth,w
categori1.e as meaningful data from unessential
non-data! On the other 'ia • d, why and unde:
what drcumslances would I want Mallhew to
delt;nnine what ought to be analyzfd ar:d what
ougr.: to be ig:rnred?
These qt:estion!\ ar;.; important in that they
d :rectly w:i JI is examined by the researcher,
This is not an unfamiliar point, as it raises the
ir:1portan u: of in lerrogating the researcher's role
i:: writing culturr (Clifford and .\krcus, 1986).
:n this case (and any, 1 v,ould suggest), while the
analysis 1:1"y indeed e:ncrgc from tr.e data, the
r<.:searchrr determines a priori what mnstitutes
dala in the first making this decision point
a crucial rdlect:on pni:it.
Interpreting the Other Through Their Text
As one addresse& these at1d sl:ifts from
data collect:ui: to analysfo, another critical junc-
lure arises, sponsored bf the following question,
To what extent is the Other defined by his or her
texts' When t'1c ;iartkipant, researcher and con-
text are nothing but text and eye:-ythir:g beyond
mere lang·,1age, o:;r perce;nua; :Ute rs :nus! be
ac:j-1sted lo accommodate complexities of hum.in
expression, DiscJ~sive practi;;c~ are lhe heart of
our enterprise as etlmographir re~eurdwrs. When
the discourse is limited to the excha:ige of texts,
one might think thll :he methods analysis arc
:ikewisc limited to what is seen i• the tcx:, but this
is not the case, Rather, :m array of interpretive
:ools are used to make .'.>e:1,e uf these texts and it
become, a wor6while task to reflect on some of
the more hidden or u::acknowledged analytical
me l1:ods being used to interpret the Other.
The foliow ing two examples rn,efu lly illustrate
the e:.::::n tc which participants can be judged
in mu lt:.:J!e w,w.,
'
hv. the form of the:r text 5. The
sampks of discourse in these examples represent
well the Il'riting :e1:dendes of two participants:
Sheol and DominOI I!.
<Sheol> lam intn:Stcr' in talkinf',tn:) rould be
more spesilic about wh,n questions you will ask?
/u.,t let me know when you want lo and l wi[
try to a,:comid,l!d :)
<Sheol> I bccan:c a very p<ipular (I knov.. dial
sounds consreded) lig;mr 011 the [ call;,,.J home.
l am ruled bv lht: ri,;hl side of mv hrain so I liked
; C '
the dic,1 of b,·ing that pe·snnal ity.
In th:~ interview with Shco:, ii was h1possihle
to bracket the spelling, use or graphic accents,
lines, and ,n torth. 1:ron: the beginning, r had
beei: determined to conduct systematic analyses
that remained dose to the text. I was usir:g a blend
of content-oriented analytical tools to code, thc-
matizc, am.: make sen:,e uf the interactions with
participants. Reflect'ng on my inability to ignore
the forr.1 in my analysis cont.::nl Jarred me out
of tr.e false stahi'.ity granted me:hod-specific
proced1;res and caus;;:d me lo identify so:ne of the
ways I was pulling Sheo: into c;:,tegories without
noticing what I was (loing.
!'or examp:e, very ear~• on, I categorized Sheol as
female because a gende red language style was very
evident in tag,,, qualifies, expressions of emotion,
anc heavy use of graphic accents (Sr.eol tun:ed out
to b;: male). Shco'. was also: \'lumg (spelling w,1~
?i:Onetic, attclllion to la:1guage misuse was not at
all evide:n); Pc:haps not very intellige:1t (multiple
spelling errors, 1mreadable messages, apparent
lack of abilit }' lo be a real l:acker); and, of course,
Caucasian (default characteristic because of main-
slreim cultural a~snr:iptions about use of the
:n:ernet as well as the tt!ndency lo moke the online
other look more like lhe self). Additionally and
~nlely l)ll~cd on my own fra:11e uf reference, Sheol
was hetcmsrin:al, middle da,;, and Amerka:1.
Ir: a different stuly, a participan: call,;;d
DominOU! a:so used phnllctic spelling, but in a
different wiy:

<llr•minOH: 1> Sut::;vmz ,
i :::11 lo,,;t in mv onlinc
' This example illustrates that one'., interpreta-
identiteez , .. wi:11, lhe .ktuel problem? i mm e
'found' in my 1JD!inc selvvz . , . kicky, Spllll :mt,
reele, than re.ii. Mo:c atooned to the ene111ee and
mnre atooned lo 1hosc i'm t.:'king with. , ,
<DominO!I!> ... so nuch run 2 play. , . YOU,
and EVERYONEelse,kJnnm n:cly no mee, Andy
you foeeeel that you 11ml 2?! So, online l'm a nerdy
college prcf~s:ir with a quirky sense of humor. or
I'm a ;irofesshmal a1h!e!l' with ,1 caree, ending
inj urce, and sur:i:yn:z i'r:1 handsum, or i'm beau-
teous , , . and if peepule wanna ful:ig wit': mee, i'm
,;Jwa;;e up for ,lay.
: r: my rnnvenations with this persona, I found
it ca,ier r.o bracket the 1nilsspel:iugs be-:ause they
appeared obvious and deliberate, DoninOH!
seemed ro revel in :he ability to remain elusive
during oJ: various i:ltcractions. D01:iinOH!'s dls-
ruurse was marked with agg:-essive and d:alleng•
i ng statements, I was omlious with this participant
to r.ot make a,s;1rnptions about gender but found
mvself categorizing DominOH! as male, young,
well•eduaxcd, atid Ca:icasian.
As the """",,,,,,,, I have numerous cholces
:egardir.g :he interpretation of these interviews.
•\cly chokes will b.iild cultural kumvledge about
Sheol and Dorr:inOH! as individuals and about
how people interact in ::ybrrspace. In interpretive
'r.q:i:ry, the integrity of o:1e's interpretation is
:ied dixct:y to reflexivity. Frequently, tl:oi.:gl:,
reflexivity happer:s after the analysis is in
progress or the project '.s completed. I mentally
attached a number r,f soda 1 labels to both tbise
participants dur:ng the course of our conversa•
tions and long after, as I was interpreting the dis-
course, Some of the la:iels I did r.ot recognize
until others poi • ted :hem out. The importance is
not in the accuracy of :ht h1bs;)s, hut in 6c type
of evidence used to derive the category. Without
reflection, I ini61lly gave a negative atlribulio:t to
Sr.eol's phonetic s;1cUng (deficient ahili1ies)
whil.: giving a positive attribution to DominOH!'s
(cleverness). Without retlec:ion, I categorized
Stwl as female and Don:inUH! as male, based
solely on :lle'.r use of acaimmmlating o, aggres-
sive language.
Markha rn: 0 nline Etlmu!;raphy 111 8c7
tion is founded in ti:e text but si:n'Jlmnrously not
J:nited ,o the text. 'While systematic procedures of
analysis arc v[:al tools for the social sder:dsl, they
are not fail safe if followed to the letter. Proctdurt:s
can actually blinc one to the actt:al interpretive
processes occ·.irring. In lotcr:1et-hased environ
me1:ts, the existence of the or.line µ,:,rsona being
studied is often encapsulated by their pixels on a
c:omputer screen. :he choices made to attend to,
ignore, or ecit these pixels has real consequences
for rhe persons whose mani:estation,, are being
ahered beyond and outside their contmL if a
,ubjec: lypes soldy in lowercase a:id uses non•
standard.gran:matica'.,convention, the reeders
currection of"' errors" may inappropria:ely ignore
ai:d tbu& misrepn,sen: a ?artidpant's celiberate
presentation of ,elf. ; } if someone spells at,o~h-
iously or un:QuelY and the researcher co,recrs it
in the research report for readAbil:ty, a'.:eration of
a person's desired on line ident'ty may be the price
of smooth reading (Markham, 2D03a, 2003b).
On the other hand, Sheol ma1· be working w:;h
a stkky keyhoanl, ignoring the errors 'n the inter-
est of speed, ur multi•taskir.g ,such rh,u he fa nor
devoted fully to our interaction. DominOH! nay
br more comfortable with phor.etk spelling.
May be ,he or he was aggressive in response to
sorr.cthing I h:H'i said early on. Cerlainly, to
make :he interpretive task both easier and more
grounded in the part idpant', experience, one
could ask th;; part:cipants to clarify their own
writing tendencies. One could also gather
additional demographic information. My point,
howeve~. is not to articulate how to make the
interpretatio:1;; :nore accurate or truthful, but to
identify one of many moments in the research
projec, when the re,,earcher faces, oonsdmisly or
not, certair: decisions about wl:at to include as
part of the interpretive considera:ion, only some
of whid: can be identi fiec or rnnt:nllecl.
lb nake thls task more di :'icu: :, the 11:ost
ed1ically sensitive approach to analysis is rn:ripli-
cated-and impeded-by acade:nic com•ent[ons
and training. Most social science approaches
teach the researcher to cisti:J the complexit)' of
human experience into discrete variables that are
 808 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER JJ
easily measured. l nterpretive methods seek to
ease these restrictions but inrnlve wavs of know
ing that conti m,;ally strive to si:nplify'rather ~han
complexify human experience. Tb sl:ifr :he gaze
from tl:r subject of research to :he gaze itseif is
one step in the evolutio:1 of l:uman sciences. To
stop tl:ere, however, is to risk losing sight of the
farge1· goals of inquir;: Rather than seeking to
describe or n:[ecl reality, researchers must con-
sider the political act cf ;,romoting, activatir:g, or
enge:idrring realities.
The Search for Authenticit y4
Particular: y notable in disembodied research
environments, the researcher's body cur:tirmes to
be privileged as tbe site experience, :he best
mea; ure of amhe:nicity, and the re.~idence of
knowledge. Th is is i.ensible, '.iterally, hccanse we
make sense of our work: through our eyes, ears,
noses, mouths, and sense of touch. 'Ne abstract
our embodied knuwledge to convey it thruugh
logic, language, and print, but as Ackerman
( 1995) notes. our primary level of understanding
remains fir:nly entwint>d with our senses. «There
is r:o way in which to understand the world with•
out first cetecting it through radar-n,;:t of oi.:r
sensesc. . . The ser:ses ... Iear :-eal it y aparl into
vibrant morsels and reassemh:e them into a
mear:ingfal pattern.... Reasoning we call it, as
if it we:-.:: a mental spice" (pp, xv-xvii).
The implications of this are significant in
rntific research; in rr.ost :raditions, the interprc•
tive act is characterized as an analytical, logical,
menial procedure. Separated from the body in
theury, the em bodied practice of interpretation
lingers. Or.line, this underlying disjunc:ure is
highlighted precisely because the body the
participa:1t is notably absent.
Searr:hingjor !he Body Behind the 'f~xr
The question often asked aboJt participants in
online contexts is "Who are they, really?" 07 this,
one often means, who are they, as I car. see, verify,
and know tr:em in a bodyr From studc:1ts, review-
ers, a:id publishers, l have heard fae suggestion
many times: "You Bhouk have interviev,ed rh<'
participants oftli nc as well as online. The:,, you
wm;'.d have a better idea of who they are." Shiftirg
one's perspective s:igl:tly, o:ie might ask questions
that get at the underlying issues: How much do we
rely on our bod :es and the bodies of p,1rtidpa:1:s
lo establish presence and k:10w othfr? I, :'ifa
reliance warranted ordesirnhlc? Will oi.:r p:cti;re of
other, in :ierson, make our t:r:dershmding of them
more whole? More directly: Does embodiment
of a partidpan: gauge thei~;;: Jthe1:tici ty?
The answers depend :iot on: y on :he ques-
tion one is seeking to address ')lit also or the
researcher's under! ying epistemological assu:n;:,-
tions. If one :s simply using the In:ernet ilS a tool
to expand one's reach to ?articipants and inter·
v:ewing them online is merely a convenience,
one ;houkl consider the ex ~er.t to wt:id1 fl<'ople
can and do express the:nselves well, tn:ly, or folly
in text. But if one is studying internet cor.n::xts
as ci:.ltural for:nations or socia: i:1tcraction in
computer-mediated communication contexts, the
:ndusion of err.bodied ways o: knowing may be
unwarranted and even counterproductive.
In chat rooms, on nobile phones, through per-
sonal websitrs, and other media, ide:1tity is prn·
duced and consumed in a fonn abstracted from
actual preset1ce. Ci.:lrural ur:dersta:1ding is liter-
ally cor:struc:ed discursively 21:d interactively. We
know from both popular pres, and scholll.rl)' stud-
ies that many;ieople seek interaction and corrunu-
11 it)' on the lr::ernet beca'JSC it provides the
perceived mea:is lo escape the confines of embod-
ied soda! CJ.arkers to engage 'n what many refer to
as a "meeting of the minds:' Whether or not this is
trul)· possible (and rnrre have argned (e.g., J::ss.
20ll3; Kolko, :-Jaka1:mra.& Rodman,2000) that it is
not}, a user's desire to present and he perceived as
a con'h:rnce of texts without body might bcs1 be
read by researchers as a requcs: for us to a,kno,,vl-
cdge text as ample a:id sufficic:it evidence of bein~
and to slm:y it as such (Markham, 2003a, 200•la),
Yet soda! scientists persist in seeking the
at: :hentic :iy privileging the cor.cept of the body_
The desire to add validity to fkdngs often remits
in research design that holds up the textual repre-
sentation of the parlkipanls next to their pt: ysical

personae. The goal is to see the exter:, to which
the images match. Resea rd:er, deciding to inter-
view participants ·Joth o:,line and (face to
face) may daim that their efforts 'Nill add aut.1e:rr·
ticity to their bterpn:t,ttion-:w adding paralin•
gt: islk or nonverbal mes :o the wnrds ?eople
speak-and thercoy ad,: r:mx credibffty to their
findings (Mark bur., 2003a}_
For good bio·.ogk:i.::y based reasons, researchers
rd y m1 and trust their traditional senses of sight,
smell, touch, taste, and hea:-ing to provide ve,ifica •
tion of concrete realirv.' We are conditioned to relv,
pa:-t kularly on our visual sens:":,:;ltics: "Seventy
percent of the body's sense receptors c: cister in the
am:: it is mainly th:-uugh seeing :he world
that we app:-aisc and understam' it" (Ackerman,
I p. 230). Ecologi~t ,u:d philosopher David
Abram adds that percept ion is a rec: prm:H y
between the body and tr.e ent it k:s that sur:-ound
it Considering Merleau• Ponty's idea that per·
cep1 ior. itself is emboded, Abram notes that
"I Pe~cept ion l is a sort of silent cm: vers.i:ion that
I carry o:, witl: t:1i11gs, a amtinumrn dialogue
that unfo:ds for below my verbal aw;ueness"
( 19':Ji, p. 52). Althougl: '·we co1:.::ept11ally mobili;c
or objectify the phcn omenon ... by mentally
absenting 01:rselves from this relation" ( Abram,
I997, p. 56 ), our umh:r6lu11di :1g of :he world ;;
.~cnsnal. While it maked sense t:lilt researchers use
embodied sensibilities. this is no: mentioned
much, if at all, i:1 methods textbooks. It therefore
becomes a critical jui:cti:re to address in a very
ctmsciom m,mner.
Rrmwvfng 1he Rescurchrr~ Body
In es~entially disrmbodied relationships and
cultures, one must wonder if the intrusion of
C<'rtain embodied sense·r:u:k:ng faculties bleeds
inlegrity from the proiect of kr:cwing :he other
in cor;text. Yet, as 11:~ntio:1ed abo\·e, perception
alway, involves embodhnent, and :his cannol be
set as:de In the cor.tcn of sn,dying lite onEne.
Hence, a pa:adox emerge, that may not be ove:•
come but should be mnsidercc, ack:10wledged, or
accounted fur in the research design or research
report.
M.ir,d:am: Online Ethnography 111 809
Irn:1y follows, however, when one not~ the
marked ahsem:e of the researcher's own embodi-
ment in many studies of text-based cultural con•
lexls. Although a rcsea:-c:ier mar gi,e or her
participant,' bodied ~orms and 1:iake sense of
their ide:1tities through his or her own bodj, this
sensibility is rarely noted ill the i"n:blishcd paper.
Col".sidernble privilege is given to the researcher to
make :iis or her own embodir.1e11t a chokt or <'Ven
a non-issue while simultaneous:y ,Juestioning the
uuthentidty of the participants' chokes regarding
their own emlxldimcuL Ethically as well as episle•
mological: y, ii is vital to reflect carefully on the
extent to whkh the research d<?1,ig:1 privileges the
researcher at the expense of both nnders:anding
the other and operal:ng with a keen avvareness of
the (.Markham, 2003ll. p, l 52 ).
The m1li1:e ,_>enona may be much more fluid
llnd changeaole :han we imagine as we catch
1:1em :n pa:-ticular mon:ents or only a fraction of
virl ual venues they populate. A:10:1yr.1ity in
text-based envi:-orm1ents gives one more choices
and cont ml in ll: e prescr:tatio:1 of self, whether or
not ;he pcesentation is per~civcd as iatendec.
Jndersta11 ding th potemial for flexible, ad hoc
negotiation of identity ir, trchnologically medi
atcd social spaces may foster an otb;r critical
j·Jn,turc at which the researcher .:an ask an
:r,:riguir:g set of S'Jestions abo:.it the represc r:ta•
tion of ofaer: "As researchers am: members of
vario:is com.:nunitics and cu'.tnre,, what do we
·Js.e to constn:ct a stnsc who the O:her really
"In wl:at ways do our methods of compre·
1c11d'11g lite as ir:terwoven with new cor.ununica·
:ion technulogies ignore, deny, or validate shifting
constructlons of identity and sociul w,1rld?"
fnterprefing it'ithifl
Socioecrmomic Comfort Zones
I: makes sense that researcher:<. v:sualize t:ieir
participants eve:1 in non-visual tex:-ba,ed media.
Yet, it i~ :10: o:1ly tl:e vis•Ja! bias :hut mu~t he crit-
lrn Uy a:1alyzed hy researchers, but also the imag:-
nation w::h which o.r:e visua:iles :he participant.
Pioneers on the research frontier of on line eth r:o•
g:aphy continually juxtapose embodiment with
SHJ 1!l HAKDllOOK Ot QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-C!IAPTl'R 3:
uther mode~ of prcsentatinn and knowing. When
we rely on our e:nhodicd sensibilities of know•
ing, we ,m, not necessarily getting a better or
more "accurate" picture of the s•Jbjects of o:ir
st:id ies; we mar be simply ,cflccting our own
com "ort zones of research, Critical reflection on
the pmduct of our gaze c.m rewal some of these
cm:1fr1;t zones for intruspec:iun and interroga•
tion. Researchers should be wary of the tendcr:cy
10 perceiv, the world in familiar, dose-lo• home
What do the participants look like in
the mind's eyd How like:y is the researcher to give
the partic:pant i!I: efank catcgo:-y different from
his o, her own ?\\'hat :r. fo:-mation is used to nmke
judgments ah{mt the embodied person behind
the screen?
Typing speed, spelling and grammar usage,
chc>Ke of (nick)namc; linca, or frag:ner:ted pro-
gression of iceas; These al I influence the way a pa,-
ticipant is understood by the researcher. As fae
researcher visually appraises the discu rslve prac
tkes the participants, the form waft~ through
the sense·making like an invisible but compelling
scent mi the breeze. \Vl1.:ther one notices that the
11:'xl. :s :diosyncratk m cut, tilt.er in i:s e,-ror or
un:qt:enrss or blandness or precision, lhe form
intluences meaning and hO::p.~ give a bodieci shape
to the ;:iarticipanL Form composes new stereotypes
that must be ac;mowledged and interrogated.
As researchers, we carry our own prcdilec:ions
com::erning race, gender, and bodied appearance
of virtua: participants. For no obvious reasons,
I idenl ified the par:icl par:: mentioned above,
Sheol, as white, fc:nale, heterosexual, yo'Jng, and
average in body weight and heigh:. Atle:: about
two hours u:· the interview, Sheol mentioned "girl·
friend~ and I recugnited that I had :nadc an
ible (but obviously ii: operatior.) a,sumplinn tr:at
she wns hetero~exual. Pureed to re con cil.: the con•
1radiction between my a priori asst:mption and
lhe use of the word "girlfrie:i.d:' I began to look for
dues uf gender : must have missed earlier. I also
began to wonder al my invisible u.sc of sexuality
and ge:i.de~ "' c.1.tegories.
I did not reflect on the fact :~ at I wa~ givi og
Sheol a hody :n my 1:1ind until th:s disjuncturc
occ urrcd and : realized the body my mind no
longer f:t the !Jody being prescr.tcd by the par tic·
ipant. To • ote, Sheol was s:mply chatting with me,
not presenting a body in any deliberate fasb.io:i.,
I had given shape to the ?t:rson, A Jew minutes
later, when Sheol referred to himself as a male.
l rea:ized she was not a lesbian but tr.al 'he' had a
'girlfriend: I had l!lade yet another blunder. The
:orm of the message had led me to an initial
assumptiun that Sheol was female. The name, if
read ill a Verv st:rfm.:e level, hinted that Sheol was
female (r.rre,' "Sheol" is a double•pscudonyn: b;it
the original name was similar in :hat if reac
quickly, part of tl:e speUng could be mistaken as
.
an obv iouslv fomale name or marker, like
"Susa nerd" or IShe 132"). I also knew fro:n
.
vious research that womcr. tend to use more tag
Enes, offer more caveats, and augment their texts
with more emotkons ~.nd punctuation_
Recent inquiry of race in cyberspace contends
tha: users transform online others into images of
the;0selves hut that faese images are limited by
media representations of identity, so i:1111 mos:
v:sualizatio:1s will conform :o mass media images
beauty, race, gender, etl:nidty, and size
(Nakamura, l :195 ), What impact does have
for quali:a:ive researchers conducting ethno-
graphically inforn:ed rese',m:h in anonymous or
vir1t:al environments'
In teaching co:nputer•mediated courses, my
assumptions tur:1 my .st'Jdents white and nonde-
script. :f lht:~ use an 'n:eresting name, 1 find
myself trying to find a ::iody that suits what I
ce1ve the name implies about the appearance of
their persona. vVhen l reflen on rr.y vis1:al images,
I reali1.c that even though race is supposedly
absent from the research lens, i: becomes a cate·
which defaults to "white" (Nakamura, 2003 ).
My experience is not atypical. It illustrates how
much we rely on and use our own parameters lo
categorize llthers inlo smne:hing we can comfort•
,,bly address. Scholar! y disc ussiot1 of race and tl:e
Internet is growing, particularly cor:cern tng how
the Internet has been created and perceived
naively as a raceless space (Kendall, 1998; Kolko,
Kakamura,& Rodman,2000; Puster, 1998). ~1iCf;e
discussiur:s will help xsearchers helter re[ect
on the space's studied as well as the assumptions

made during the collection and fr1tcrpretation
phases of the µrniecL
Again, trnditional academ:c training compli-
cates the issues of embnd :r:1 er:t for researrhers
in that this training seei<s to n:ake the rest"archer
invisible. Trad ciona: academic trainir.g encour-
the rest.irchc, to focus on the t'Jeory and
method as t!:e locus of control :n the ,;tudy. Good
research design, in :he scien:ific tradi :ion, elirr. i-
nates bias, allows the method to strictly guide
the findings, and ignores non-scientific measures
such as hunches. The resea,cher's senses should
be removed from the analysis of and
re~earcher's voice should be ren:oved from !he
final :-eport. This tr2 it1 ing creates ha:iits even
among strongly res:stant reara,d,rrs-to ignore
or ceny the impact of one's consdcr.1s or unco:i-
scious e:nbodied sensibilities 0:1 the research
outcome. It is d::fic;ilt ew,m in q:.iali:atin, research
to back one's own compEcated layers of
interpretation.
Co:isidering Methods as Ethics
.
mer.tioned earlv. in this arli!:k, :mv method
dedsion is an ethics decision. The puli!ical poten-
tial and car.sequences of uJr research should not
be underestimarcd. Every choke we make about
how to represent the self. par:idpams, !he
cultural contex: under s:udy co:itributes to how
these are understood, framed, and responded lo
by readers. future students, policy makers, and
the like.
The process of studying culture is one of
compre:iension, e:i:apsulation, and control, To
say otherwise is to deny ui:r impulse, c.nd as
scholars and sc:cnt ists. At a very basic level, we go
there to :earr. something abm:.: Other and-when
we 1hir.k we have so:t1<:t:1ing tigured om. to decide
how to tell others what we :hink we know. To
accomplish this goal, we must stop for a moment
tlood of experience, extract a sarr. ?le of t: for
inspedion, and re-prese:11 i1 in academic ten:is
with no smat: degree ofabstractiun, The researcher
is afordec a tremendous degree of ctmtrol in
represer.ting the realities of the people and con-
under study. Th:s control need not be
Markham: Onlinr 1:thnography III SI l
characterize<: ii, a completely nega:ive fashion,
as we could also consider the image of a .'vtobius
strip, where seemingly opposing side, a,c cvcn-
11.:ally realii.ed as part of :he same path. Our
ca pa ell y 10 represent cu h ura: knowkdge is a g,eat
n:spons::dit)', with r.1.any traps and difficulties.
3ut i: i, a1so a well earned throt:gh education,
well hm:ed through experience, and well inte:ided
th rough ethical retlexivity.
Editing Clwices
Consider the way research report, prescr:t,
frame, and embody the people being studied; A
person's very being has the pntential to he literally
reconfigured when edited by the researcher ar.d
put into a context of a research account mthcr
t::a n left :he context of experience,
This dilemma does not apply or:ly to the study
of vi :'IUal cuvimnments, hut mry study of human
behavior, r.f course. H:1t computer mediated envi-
ronments ~eem I(' highlight thi.s dllcmma of
resea:ch reporting because it's so dear 1hat text
can the prima~~'• if not sole means of procuc-
ii:g and ncgoliahng self, othc>r, hocv, ar:J culb;e,
Common prndkes of ediliug art nird r que,-
rim1ed. What happens when we transform the
participant's utterances fror:i dis.iunctivc sentence
:'ragments to smooth paragraphs? How are we
presenting the social reality of these spaces when
wt cunc:ci g:ammai~ spe,ling. and punctuation'
How might we be changing their :der.tities when
we :rnnsform t'.1e appeara tKe of their fonts to
:neet the acceptable standard, for various pub-
1ishing vet1ues! Study part'cipants ca:i c?pear w
be as smooth as r:mv:e clts1uc after the writer
has deaned up everyday talk. Of course, the writer
:nusl make the report ~cadable, but 6 :s need
:nust be balar: red with what is possibly silenced
:n this ;:iroces~. Online, this project takes a ~or:, e-
what ,Efferent form than in p:iyskal. y based
research contexts. Highlv dis.iunctive o:11ine con-
versations get rcim1duced as t:dy exchange;; of
mcssages. A rnnve:1-at]on developing over the
course nf six mrmt:1s c..1:1 appear as a single para-
graph in thr writ:,•r. report I)cl i he rate frag:nenta.
:ion of ideas can be sp:kcd into li:icar log:c. Key
812 111 EAN)BOOK 01' QUALJI'AllVE RESEARCH-Cc!APTF'.<. 31
to the ethical :-epresentation of the partidpanl 's
sensitivity to the context and :hc individual.
Certain editing d:oices may not alter t :u, meaning
o: the utternncrs, interact ion, or iden l ity of 1he
textllal being embodiet' 1hrough thes,· utterances.
Other editir.g chokes can function to devalue,
ignore, o, silence a for:da:ne::ital aspect of a
persona (,\,fa,kham, 2003a).
On the oth1cr side of the coin, when presenting
diulogue with participants, how many writers
present a vrrsion of reality whrrein they lherr:·
selves talk and think in a hyper•organized fas!:•
ion? lkscarcl:crs are not :ikely to do this
deliberately. Rather, the ha"::('. is an ingrained par:
of our Ira: n ing; ii goes along wit!: ot:ier practices,
such a~ using passive voicr and third person in
the trnditio:ial acade.:1:k paper. In the search for
understandii:g t:1e discursive cor:struction o~
reality 'n computer-mediated environnenls,
overediting may be mi~:cading and lirr:iting, The
reader may have difficulty ~eading non line2r,
disjunctive, or seriously misspelled examples of
c: ialoguc, but just 1i ;.,,e the visua. eleme:its of ;;.
pe:sona 1 web,ite, bese fea :ures llf d iscourne
i['Jstra:c: vividly how it is experienced.
Gen.:rdly speaking, as MJOil as an ir::eractior:
occurs, the study o: it becor.1e:1 an abstmc1io:1.
This is a fact of re~<'."J rch. Even so, sirr. :>lificatiu:1
or dis:nissal of the ch all eng.: of represen:atiun is
:10: warranted. T:,e task is to design research
which allows humau subjt:cls lo retain their
autonomy and identity-whether or not their
uniquer:ess is inten:inna: o, unintentional.
In Whose Interest,?
Sniftir:g fmr.1 ideas almL:: re-presenting pc.r·
ticipants to ideas aboul advocacy, the pu:itical
aspects of research become more visible. The
question of ad voo;cy ca:i be asked in many ways:
"\"h .
v ose 1;11ert'sts I t:ie
toes . ,esearcl1 serve!""'\!\I··:1y
am I (:oing :his research any,11ayr" "What groups
need speaking 'or?" "How can my analysis help
son::eone?'"'How can my writing and ?U~1lishir:g
give voice to those who might remain otherwise
silent'"
Thes(' arr not .simply politka'. o:: ethical c: :J('S-
tions. These are methods questions that mt:st be
embedded in design, in that they impact directly
ths: way infori:u, tion is collected and analyzed am!
how re~earch findings are written and distrib·
uted. Yet quesrions such as these are not tvpim:ly
included in research methods tcxtbm1~s as a part
of :he primary meth odoi ogkal d' scussion. If
included at all, these quest:or,s are relega :ed to a
scparate un: :. or chapter entitled ".Elhks" ur s.:pa-
ratcd fro:11 the main lex!, along with o:her special,
non•typical cons:<lerntions.
Evei: if one's r(:'Seaxh goals do no: bdude serv-
ing as an advocate for participants, [ suggest that
not onh·I will rescarc:i desigr: be rnorc ;;th icallv
C '
grounded .1:1d reflexive hut also ::ic rcsu:ts will
have more in:cgrity if thc:,c questions are co:1sid·
crcd througholll the course of the study. Th,·y serve
as important reminde:s that researche::s often take
more lhan they give, that the researcher's choices
are al ways privilcged, a:1,; tha: even -.vhen w,mtir:g
to give voke to putidpaots, the researcher can
unintentiima lly er:d up as the hiddrn vrntrilo•
quist, spc2ki:1g :'or, r21hcr than with, others (F: ne,
¼eis, We seen, & Wong, 2000).
Ethics and Institutional Re1:iew Boarels
Ethic,: guidelines for ln:ernet xsearcb vary
sharply across disd?l:nes and cou:1tries, depend•
ing 0:1 the pren: ises and assumpt:or:s used to
develop the criteria from which actions are
Judg,;:d ilS cthk.11 or not. In thi~ section, l\e cho
sen to oUL!i ne the features of h1terner interaction
that give rise 10 ethica: mntruversles and tu sketch
the major distinctions betwee:i the "utilitarian"
(predominant in the United States) and the
"<lt:u1Jtulugbd» or "cummuni!aria:i" stances (pre-
duminant in cert aii; parts of the r. U, particularly
Nordic countries]. Th is discussion i., intended
to give researchers alternative way., of :hinking
about p,ojccM, so that decisions are made not just
based or: what is lega[ y n,tJui::ed but also on what
conslituh::s the right course of acr:01: in particular
researd1 s:ul social contexts.
For Inte: uel rese-,m:lu:rs, ethical challenges and
controversy arise in the following d rcnmstanccS:
• Some users ;ier,eive pub!id)' accessible dis-
courrte sir~~ as pflva:e.

• Some mern havr II writing style :hat is readny
identifiable in their onlinc cmr:::1u11ity, sn !hut
the researcher's ·~Se uf a pscJdonym does 1mt
guarantee a::onymity.
• Online dis~ussim: silts can L,;: highly tran~ iem.
Researc.hers gaining m:n:.<s permission in June
may not he ,tudyi t:g :h;.: s:unic f'IOpular ion i11
Jul},
• Sc~rch eng1 ~ es are cfkn capable of fi11ding
statcr::ents used in research reports, making
,mony mity in certain venu,·s ulmo~t impossible
to guarnntee.
• is d illkult " 11ot :111 po,.,ih'.e :0 verify in
cerlain environr.ent,.
• \lulnrrabk persons are difficult to idct:lify in
n"'.nain environ r:,ents.
• Informed conse:1t of the adudl parlic:pant (th.:
"~''""'· com:spondmg :o the driver's license) is
diffirnll lJ allain ';i wri:::·,g :: the p~rtkipan:
desires anon1:nlty from the re~earcher.
Some of the above generate gen era! ethka I
others generate official red fags for insti-
:utiomd rcsear~h hoard~, which govern xscarcn
()f humar: .rnbjecls al imtilutions of higher
education.
Utilitarian ,md Communitari1w Appro,,die,
Are Jnstitutional Review Boarcls (IR3s) in the
United :nore interested ln prote,1ing the
inst::ution than the human subject? Do the :-egu-
lat:o:1s really ,erve the interest of the human
~ubje~:~ Christians (2000) and ·:nomas (2003)
a~gue that the system of rcgu la1 lon may be cou:1
terproductlw. though it was designed '.0 pm1e,:t
the p,:rtkipant, because these regulations are
e:r:bedded ii: ,>0sitivist, capitalist, and uti:itarian
social structures.
Officially. IRBs reqJire researchers n, pre~ene
the autono:ny of human s·Jbj('cts (respect fo;
person.s), d'stribute fairlv both the benefits and
burdens of research (justice), a:1d scci: re the we!i
being of subjects by avnidng or :ninimizing :iarm
(bendkence). f'ragmatcally, to "dhere lo t:1e gen•
era! IRB regulations, a researc;1er would ask; First,
does the resea:-ch pro:cct the ;\Ulo:mn:y of the
human subject? S('cond, do the pote:itfo" benefit, of
study outweigl: the risks posed to the human
si.:hjcct? Operationalized in the United S:ates, if the
,vlarkham: O;11ine Ethnograp'.:v ll!l 813
poter:tial benetlt of the proposed 11:scardi is "good"
e:101;.gh, the risk is acceptable, t:iereforc making the
se,o:1d qi.:estion a prinritired cr'ter;o:i.
Doing enough "goud;' acwrdi:1g to Christians
(2000), ":lecomcs a matter or deter:nining what
makes the majority of pt:cple happy. Combined
with a strong :radii ion in positivism, v,hkh val-
ues neutrality and validity through sde r:tifically
veritfab!e measures, delermina! ions of "haj)pi-
ness" are largely reslrickd to those de r;iai ns that
are e1t,i11sk, observable, and • eas:.imbk [p. DS-
142). "In conceptual ,tmcture, IRB po'.i:v is
designed lo produce the best ration of benefits 10
costs. IRHs ostensibly protect the subjects who fall
under p:oto,ols they app:uve. However, given
the interlocking u1 :Ji :arian fonct ions of soc:al
<ri,,nrP the academy, and the s:atc ... , IRBs in
reality protect :heir own institul ions rather than
s;.ibject populations in society at large" (,ce
Vanderpool, I chaps. 2-6). Thomas [2003)
addb to this, not: ng: "Too often, ! IRB] decisio:is
seem driver: not so much hy protecting restarch
sahjects, but by follow: ng "rderally mnm:ated
bureaucratic procedure., tnat wiil protect the
institmilln from sanctions i1: the event of a fed-
eral audit" (p. I IRB, arc desigi:cd to prc1\:1c:e
guic:clim:s where they might otherwise
ignorrd; i:1 that, the regul.!tiom, 2re sen~i:11~. Bui
when t l:cse guidelines are used as an exclusive
means of de::ning the ethical boundaries of one's
work, the spirit of :he regulation has been
replaced by u:irefiexive adhcrcr.ce to the letler uf
the law.
Th is stenre gets tt:rned upside c.own right
side up, deper.ding on how you look at it) w'ten
we examine the ethical sphere of o~he, coun: ries.
Ess 12003) outlines a European perspective as
one that is more deo:1tolog:caL Cit:~ns enjoy a
much grealer protection of privacy regarding data
collection and use, Rcseard: stresses the prn:ec-
tio:i of ind:vid·Ja\ :ighls, "first of ,\], the right lo
privacy-even a: the cost of :he:.::by lcsing wnat
m:g:n be research :hat promises to benefit the
larger whole" (Ess & AOIR working co:nmittee on
ethics, 2002, p. 20).
I: we take a look at the wntrasl bel Wt'fll J.5.
and European approaches to ethics in research,
this recommendation takes shape as a viable ar.d
814 1111 :fANDBOOK 01' Ql:AL:TATl\'E RF.'JEARCH-CH A,'T Ell 31
proactive s tar:ce. The Associ at:on of I:iternet
Resrarchers has addressed the issue of etl:ics in
Inter:1et researc:i in some depth (2002), They
offer key .:;ue,tions which ca1: help guide
resean::her;<; in making ethically groanded deci-
sio:is regarding the particularities of online
environments outlined above. Some of :hese
questions ind ude:
• W::at elhirnl expectations are rstahlls!:rd by
the venut?
• W'::en shou:d one ask for i11for:rn::d ,onsenl?
• Wr.al medium for informed consent (email,
fax. ,os1a::1 Ylessaging) would best protect !he
human subject!
• In ,l!ldying groups with a hig~. turnover :.He,
is obtaining permi,sio:i fro111 :he ::1oderntorl
focilitatorlfo,1 owner, ell:., suffkientl
• Wh~t are the in it:a I ethic a: cxprciati,msl
assL:mptim:s of the authors/ subjects being
;;\udied? for a.ample; Do par!:dpanls in :his
environment as.,ume/believe 1ha1 their commu-
nication is pri<:ate 1
Will the ma:er :al be referre,: ro hy direct quota -
111
tion or paraphrP.seJ?
• Will tbe rnate:ial be att,ibu ted :o a ~ pe~ified
person! Referred to by his!hc~ real name:
Psrudonym? "Douhle-pscudonym?" (Le., a
pseudonym a freq·~ently used pseudonym')
Chris 1fann (2002),a Briti~h sociologist spedF.l:z•
ing in t:.e study of ethics, distills the into a
set three very simple questions:
• Are we seeking to magnify :he good?
• Are we acting in ways ;hat do not ha,m others?
• Do we '."!:Cl•gnlze :he autonu:ny ,ithers
acknow:edge that they are eg·cal worth :o
ournelves and should be treated ,Cl?
These criteria shift the focus away from utility
and regu,ation and place the emphasis squarely on
the purpose of the 1e~earch, a point made dear:y
by Denzin (1997, 2003) in discussing a :eminist
communitarian s:anrc. An ex11r:1ple illustrating
the difference between these stances anc possih'.c
outcomes is the t:.S. researcher asking:
''Am I working with human subject, or pub] ic
con::nents?"
This question arises :n a study where':1 the
scholar is usir:g publicly accessed archives of
or:: i:i c discourse. Many internet sc::o:ars contend
:hat publicly accessible ua.1;1~disco]rse does :me
~equire human subject approval because the
dorr.a ir:s in 'Nhich these texts are produced are
pt:J:k (Walther, 2002}. This deterrr:in.ition is
derived f~om argument, about th regulatory
definitions of what constitutes human suh;ects
research. Walther further notes that while partici-
pants might perceive that the space is pr:vatc am:
therefore 1heir texts are private, this perception is
"ex1rer:1ely misplcced" (p, 3l,
Posed to a colleague in Scan di 11avia, the que,-
lion was nut ,eusible (Bmmscth, personal com
mu nication, February 19, 2004), ~he understood
the quest ion, hut indkatec r:1at her colleagues
would not frame the question ir: the same way,
Among othe~ things, Bromseth :10:ed bat the
question focuses un the researcher's :cgalistic
dilemma ,ind nut the participants in the study.
The quest ion pol ariz.es the is sue into an
"either/or" false dichotomy to be solved by
definit:on·based, legalistic darifkal:011. rather
than through the in pt:: of and inte::.J,tion with
the human s~bjcct( s),
fo further clarify :he d:stinctlo:i. note that
the tide of this ::urrent sectinn of this chapter
highlights ethics alm,gside their rcgula:ory
body for academics, the I RB. My choke in
heading reflects a utilitarian stance. On the
contrarr, when dcscribi:ig the ethical
facing lnte:-net ,esearchers, Bnm:seth (20Cl3)
never mentions e regulatory bod)' at all, instead
focasing on the respondent. She within
the comm·.mitarian or cleontolog'cal sta:1ce,
'' Researchers hcwe been forced to rethink bask
issues , , , to 'Je able :o develop and apply
ap::iroaches Iha: wo:"k for ourselves and our
research goals and that would be el hically de fun
sible in relation to our in:'onnants" (p. 6B).
With deeply rooted standpoints and fe,.,; un:•
versa I pri ndples, !:ow should one treat texts and
.
websites, which ma\·' or mav not be vital to the
subjecti ~ :ty of the ;uthor; which may er may not
be considered private by the aut:n,r; wh :ch may or
may not bt important to our individua: research

goals? The~c arc no simple rntdusions to he
dra wu :n the arena of ethical Internet research.
l 1:stitutional resea~d·. boards will cont:1, ~1 e to reg-
ulate the activities of scholars. :,Jational, regio:rnJ,
and cultural prhciplr, w:il undnuhtedlJ,' remain
distinct ethical guide! ites arc c ntrenched in
fargcr sodo-political-e,onornk structures of
meaning. Internet researchers wiL conti:i 1:c to
argue the issue.c, of publ :dy accessible doc1.m1en:s;
anonymity; copy:ight; presentation nf other; and
privaq·. E:r.cellent overviews of oppo,iq1 posi:ions
can be found in various journals, oriline reports,
and conferei,ce/workshop ;mlccedings.'
Civea the variations in eth kal stances as well
as th<' diversity of :nethodological choices, each
use are :1er must explore and define research
within their own :ntegral frameworks. lhomas
(2003) recommend~ a more proac1ive .1p:i'.'Oad1
to ethical behavior than si1::::ily adherbg to ,ules
se: out by IRlh ~, n this view, we rerng:1 ile the
potential a mhiguity of sm.:ial situatio11., in wh lch
most value decisions ar~ made and commit 01:r-
not to rules, but to broad principles of j1:s·
tice ar.d beneficence" (p. I97). As to how one
:i:igl:t di:t~rmin e what thesi: broad principles
m:tually are, Stephen L. Carkr ( l 996) rem ind, us
of what it means to h,,w integrity It involves not
only discernh1g what is right and what fa wrong,
·:mt also a~:ing on this disccri:men:, even at per-
sonal cost, and publicly 11,;knowlcdging and
cefending one's stance and choice&. Acting with
'" .
i:\teeritv, Carter adds, "dt:mands that we lake the
time for genuine reflection to be certain that the
[moralil~I we arc pressing is right" (p. 204).
11 Rl'THlSKl:-.lG ',HE P:JRPOSF'. OF RESEARCH
"r:
My ten ycu:-s of experience Ctti Ir:ternct researcher
lead me to believe that it i8 ti me to re asses, our
priori :ics wd processe~ as researcher.,. Instend
of asking ''how we can protect hun:an subjects
thrnu11h vario:.i, :ypcs of :-esearch desigr.r''
we v,ill frsme bet ler qucshoi:s ,,1:d [ml richer
,rn,wers by shJting our focus luward the partici-
pant. Pmti:ig the human .~uhjrc: squarely in
the center of the research both shifts the ethical
Markham: Online E1lu1ug,aphy 111 815
conside,ations and allows for socially responsible
research.
AII eth nographicall y inform d research,
part:cularly in rnmputer-mediatcd c:w:mn-
mems, includes c:ecisior.s about how :D draw
bot: ndaries around groups, what to leave :n as
meanbg:"ul data and what to disrei&S as unim-
portant, and how :o explain what we think we
know tu our audiences. These research ,:esign
dechiuus, which are of:er: dismissed as simple
logistics and not ofter. mentioned i11 method, ·
texts or ethics c:iscu~sions, influence the rcp;e-
sentation of research participants, higr:light
particular t1ndings while dis:nissing others,
create ideologically charged of knowledge
and, ultimately, impact lej!i.slatiorr and policy
making. This chain of events requires astute,
reflexive methodological atte:1:ion. We make
choices, el ther con sci o·Js ly or unconsciously,
througho·,11 the research process. Researchers
nmsr grapple w: th na:urnl and necessary change
engendered by vivid awan:nes~ u: the constructed
natun: of science, knowledge, and cull ure.
One way 10 meet the future is to learn from
but not rely on the past Practically sprai:ng, this
invo:ves a return to the fundamental question:
Why an:: we doing re.search! Po'.itically speaking,
this il:volves taking risks that will pmductivd y
stretch the academy's understanding of what
inquirr :ntends to produce.
The lnternet continues to provide a un'que
sp,ice for rnnstructien of identil y in that
it offer:. anonymity in ar: exclusively c:iscursin'
env Jmnmen1. The d:ffkulty of observing and
interv:ewing in rhese co,11exts is that our expec-
tations remain rooted ir: e;T1hodied ways of col-
lecting, analyzing ar.c inter;ireting information.
Simply pi.:t, our methods are still mox suitable
for res<':arch in phys:,ally proK'mal contexts.
Moreovcr,altlmugh the tech:rn,ogy of the internet
ha.s afforded us {!realer reach to par:ic; pa:its and
provided a space for resean:hers to interact with
par:idpa :its in n,.. -,,.,, ways, our epistemological
frameworks have :io: sh itkd to match this
reality. it i~ m:,ce,sa:·y not only to accom:nodatc
the features uf cumputer-mediatrd con:muni-
cation into nur basic assumptions, but also to
8: i\ 111 HA-:DBOOK 0° QUALl':'ATIVE RESEARC'f-CEAPTER 31
h:terrogate a:1d rework the underlying pre:nises
we use to make sense of tl:c world.
Computer n:ediatcd comr:nmication highlights
key ;:,aradoxes of social research in that personae
being represented are already one step remove!'.
from t:ieir bodies when encountered by the
researcher, Doing research of H::e online has com•
pe!led rr:e to recognize that I have always ;akcn for
granted rr: y ability to parse human experience by
ca:efully p"ying attention to ?eople's activities in
context. Engaging i:1 meaningful experiences with
anonymous beings and in:erviewing people I
cannot sec face to face, I cat icenti:'y :nany of the
weaknesses of qua:ita:ive research xocesses in
gene rat : nterviewir.g or observing in natural set-
t: ngs, researchers cely on the ability to judge a
face, looking for 11isual signs o" authentic emotion
and inauthentic pcetensc. We make i:nmedlate
categorizing decisions based on first impressions,
listening to the tenor of a voice on the phone or
looking at '.,ody type, et hnie markers, hair style
and color. l:nd clothing brands. Even :he most
astmL, ar:d cautious researchers unconsciously
rely on habitual patterns of sense making in
cvcrycay interacions with others.
We must direc:ty engage the tac: that the
que,t;o:is driving the researc~ rr:ust change to
accommodate the enduring partialil y of scientific
knowing. Political action is a sensible sh:ft, there•
fore, in that it docs not seek :o find the truth, but
to create !he possibilities for people to enjoy a
bc:tcr life.
In whatever ways we utilize the potential of
lnterne: mediated cor:ununica:ion to facilitate
our soda: inquiry, ethically sensitive approaches
ace complkated, even i:npeced, by ou, method·
olog:ral training. Depending on the aca{:emic dis·
cipline we find ourse:vcs working w[:hin, we will
be encouraged ir: v,trying degree, tu oversi:nplify
the complexity of hu • «r: experience, transform-
i:1g t:1e mysteries of interaction into discrete vari•
able~ that are easily mearnrrd. This is don<:' for
admirable :c-ason and by no r:ieans am I recom•
r:ier'.ding a coaplete dismissal traditional
means of collectir:g and analyzing data. At the
same :ime, Jntcrnct conleit\s prmn ?t us to rernn-
sider the foundations of our methods and compel
U8 to assess the ex1en1 to which our methods arc
measuring what we think hey are, or getting to
the heart of what we :1avc assu:nc:c they diu.
Througl: the :ntcmet, we have the opporamil y to
observe how written discourse functions to con
,t,uct meaning and how textual dialogue can
form the basis of cultural understanding. The
taken•for•granted method~ we use to make sense
of participants b our rcse.irc!i :,ruiects need thor•
ough reexamination in Eght o: our growing com-
prehe:1sinn of how intertextuality literally occurs,
Even within a contemporary framework of
sociological inquiry-wheni:iy the distinction
':ietwccn tl:c researcher and researched is prnb·
len:atizcd, the r~earcher'.s role is acknuwle<lged.
ar:d bias is accepted a:, a fundamentcl far:
of interoretation m:r obligation to the partici-
pant remains, We ma'.<e decisiom, conscious or
"J nconsdous, about what con st itutcs the virtual
field and subject of study. Often dismissed as
logistica:, research design deds'ons, these
chnices make a great difference in what is
studied, how it is studied, and eventJ ally, how
society defines and fral'.les computer•mediated
,:ommunkation environments, Because [nternel·
based technologies for communication are stiJJ
i:ew and potentially changing the way people live
their everyday professional and pc:1,o:1al lives i:1
a global society, it iii csscn:ial to reflect carefully
on fae ethical frames i:lfluencing our studies a:id
the political possibilities of our research.
D Non,s
L It i, important to mae that although this ch~11-
1er forn~es on wmpuler-medfate<l communkalion,
the capzcitie, and co11sequences extend wdl heyont:
the desktop or laptop, Fur ex,;el\ent dis,ussious of lhc
way.s in w:iich mobile telep'ionc, i,::lucncc idcnlty
and cultural constructtons, see Howa,d Rhcingo:d
(20fl2) or Katz and Aa.dms (2002).
2. rrend :s cxagscratc,d tu illmtrate th,,
extremes. Specul,11' vc .in;: cx.iggeralcd accounts a:e
important to <:vnsidcr bcca use lhcy influrnced
research 1•rerr. ises :hroughout the 1990s, Ih:s is nt,l to
say thal empirical research was absent ur nnimpom.:it
".'he impact of ek:tronk technologies cm inc::vidual
communication prnctkcs and sndal s:mcture has
been eiplored for decade,, :mm "ell represented by

sc:iol.;:s like Marshall McLuh.m 11964}, ,faro:d J:mis
(1964), Ja::;~ Carey ; 1989), m:d Neil Postman ( 1986,
1993), Throughout the 1980s, sig:iifka::t emp! ~kal
:h,>ore:i, al research examined the impa<:: or com put·
ers i:-. formation tedmnlogy on !he ;:ractke:; and
,trucrnres of work. Sociological accounts (e.g,, T.;rkle,
1984) SLudit'd importa::t interscdionil of tech :cclogy,
.elf. an,1 society. Cr·~cial to :he pnint is tha: many exd: ·
i ng but cxuggcrated text~ appeared ::1 tr:e early I 990s,
Joth in trade and a.:ademk presses, wr::ch fuded for•
ther speculative res,Iirch and led le the p::blica1ion
of acrnunts thal r.,1d more mwe: appeal t::an careful
scholar,,hip in an era of exdti ng ::e¥.: technologkal
dcvclopmcnls. A, thi, field of i11q1~:ry evolves, ii is vilal
to ,,.,,;;JJ:m: wit:i a cri1 ical lens :he foundations qion
whidi rnm:nl lheore:i~al premises may be built.
3. A similar calegcri,.atio:: of critical j•~nctures
w,u :evelop,d by tne author for a keynote add rc'SS
at a Nordic confcrcni:c on Ethics and Internet rescu::ch
and l:a, been used &ub~equently in related publica•
tio::s (Markham, 2003a, 2003b).
4. The r.:aterial in this se,tion is heir.g wrill~n
concirre:1rlv for a chapter in an edited rnllect:tm
(,\farkham, 2003=;,
5, flu, lri/1;nn11! ion ,,.,,,rniv, for cxam11lcc, hosted a
special in l ,96 on the ethics of Internet resear't:n.
The Associ~tion l nrerm:: Rcsean:her, rdea.,ed a
,ompre0,ensive repci::t of various s1an..:es, ,;omparative
guiddin~s and ar, extem,ivc Est of o:sources ( 2002 ); a
wnforrn,e i,ar.el y:elded a set of artk:es wh :ch lay out
var:ous perspecti,•e, in a S?cdal issue of F.thics a,;d
1ed111ofogy ( 2.002. l: rl,e fin.t Nordi, cnnforence a:1d
gradJate st:':1inar 011 et!lia; and lnternel researd1
yielded the edited vt>lume Applied elliics m lm,•rnel
resr<1rd1, containi :cg kevnote address,·s and case stud·
ie, by S,a11dinavi311 ,m.ulmt, (Thorselh, 2003); and an
edited volume hr Jor.:1s,Chen,at:d lhlll,(2003) entitled
Online soda/ research offers wriuus perspectives and
ca~cs, .Many other ,ources di,cuss both general ar:d
,,perific i,w,:s ,elated 10 intc:11et researc:i 311d ethics
A:I of these rcso:.ircts beth novice and ex pcri-
ence:: rest,ar,:hc:rs •1aluable phik,sop:iical, practical,
and legal info:malion.
A':irJm, D. ( 1997). The ,pell of the ,msuau,, New York:
Vintage Book,.
i\,ker:::',an, ll. (19\i:i), A rw!mui flistory senses.
'Jew ii,rk: Vintage Books.
Markham: Ou line F,, hr:ugraphy 111 8: 7
AOIR Ethics Viorki11g Cmnrn::ttt:. lilhica/
de::isfrm,making muf lnterr:et resmrch: /iec,m,
memlat it:ms,(rom t!ie AO/Ii e'l!ics workit,., ,, nm,mil-
ii~. Retri,;vc:d ;anullr}' 2004 from www.anir,orgt
rcponslct:::,s, pdf
A»ocialion of Internet Researcher,. (2002). .ethical
,lccisior. m,a;;.::ig and Intern~t rese,irrh. Retrkvcd
January 15, 2004 from hnp:i/www.wir.org/
reportsletnki.,pdf
Rakh:iri, M. : 19111). fhe di11lvgic imagirmrior;; Fwr
essays. Edited by '.v!ichael llolqui,t, -:-rans. C,
E:nerso:: and ,1,1, Ho:c;uisL k:stin: l:niver,,it}'
Tc~'"" Press.
Bavrr.
( N. (2000). 'time in, to"
e, (In: Soav,,,
• ,)rumlvm, aud
1mlir1e comm~ni!y. Thu us and Oaks, CA,
Bayn: t,; ,, Zhang, Y. H., & Lin, M. (O,to::tr 2002), The
i rternet in college social Paper pre,,e::red a:
the annual conferrncc of the Association ;1f
Internel Researcher,.
Hdl, D,, & Kennedy, B. M. (Eds.). (2000). The
C}·bm:11/tucr, New York: Routlct:ge.
Benedikt, :'1-1. (199: ). (~,bers;,ai:e: hrs/ step;, Cam':lridge,
Y. A: ,\•1;T Pres,.
olumcr, E, ( 1%~ ), Svmb:Jiir iute,~;ctionism, Engclwoo(;
✓ '
Cli:Ts, NJ: Pre::tice•lfalL
:lnm:sclh, J. \~002). P·c1hlic :'lace,, , , Pri,111,,
Ai:1:vltits: I11 Morri,on, A, (i;d.) He,e«rrhi11g IC1s
in nmtexl (pp, Oslo: l11lrnn,dia Rc11,1r1
3/200:;., Oslo: Ur.'pub forlag. Hetrievt·c llcccmbc,
1, 2002, from ht1;,:/fwww.imcrmc~ia.uhi.nol
pu blikasjoner/ mpport_3/
l:lmmsc!t:, J. (20C3). F.thical and methodologirnl ch,11•
lrnscs ::1 researd1 on net•mediakd .::ummuni·
cation, In Thorset'n. M, (Ed.), Applied ethics in
intemi't rr,t,:m:h (pp. 67 ·8.5). Tm::.::heim, t,onvay:
N'l'NU University Press,
lkbe1, M. (19:,8), land Thm,. 2nd ed. Translate,! by
K. li. Smith. New York: S.; ribner,
Carey, J. !_198'1). Commtmica!fon m r11fture: on
media aml society. Boston: Ur:win Hyrr:an.
Ca:ter, ~. L (l 996), hHegl'iiy. New York: lla:pe:
Perennfa:,
Chrl>t:am,. :woo). Ethics and 1mlitics in qualitative
rese,arcih. In I( K lkm:in & Y. S, Lincoln (
Hamib,mk q11a!i!a1 ive resrarr/1, 2nd Hdition
(pp. 133<55), Thousmu' Oah, CA: S,,gc.
Clifford, J., & Marcos, C. (l ')86), ,Vrfring culture:
The poetics a-rd politics o( er/mograph;: Berkeley:
l:11iversity of Calili,:oi;; l'rc,s,
J)c111.1:·., N. K. ( 1997), /•;lerptetive ethr:ogr,1p/;y:
Ethm1grapl1ic prm/ ices for ihc 2 js, cermiry,
Thousand Oaks, Ci\:
818 II HA~DBOOK OF Qt:ALITATIVE RESHARCH-CHAl'TER 3'.
lknzin, N. K, (2003), P·ologue: Onlint environme::t,
interpret've social ,esearch. In Johns, M.,
Chen, S. & Hall, J. (l'ds. ), Onli11e ,1(1;:ial rex·arcn:
Methods, and e'/,ir,, ( pp, l •I New 'iork:
Pe'ler Lrng.
M, (1994 }. Flame wars: Otstmm,l> qbcrsp.:11:e.
Chapel Hill, NC: IJukc University Pn,s~.
!)ib:1ell, ]. C '196). A tilf'C in Crbcrspa,c: or how an evil
down, u :la it:an trkkster spirit, Iwo wizarcs, and
a cast of ,fozens :u med a d,11abas;: into a socic:;:
lt1 P. tu<llow (Ed.), High noo.~ on 1he electronic
fn•1:rier: Con,·epma/ in C\'t,ei~:va,,e (pp,
;1%). Cambridge, :vlA: The MIT Pres~,
Eichhorn, K. (200! }, Si,cs unsc,·::: E:lmographic
research in a tcx!Lml rnmtm: :iily, in11e,natiom1/
fournal !'./ Qrmlitalive Sm dies in fai11a1tiol!, J4; 4 ),
Ess, (231J3;. lleyond crntemptus mundi and
C11rtcshm dualism. In M. Thor~eth (Ed.), AJ,pli,:d
ethic.s in internet res,,ari:'/J. Tmndhei r::, Norway:
XT:-: U Uni,ern': y Pre,s.
Elhfr·~ and infb,matilm 1'/:dmofog;;, 4{3J. (2002),
Sp,·cial 011 Internet research e:h ics.
Fine, M, 1199'1), \'\-'(1ri::1g the hyphens: Reinventing
sdf and other in qualitnt ive resellrch. I:: N,
Jcnrin & Y, S. Linml11 ( Handlmok iJf qu2/-
itulivt n·search (pp. 70-82). Tlm.:srnd Oah, CA:
t'ine, M, We:s, I,,, Weseen, S.. & Wong, :.. (2000). Fer
wlmm? Qualitative research, rep~esent,llimis,
social res1},1ns ibihties. In :-J. Dcnzi:: &
'i. S, l.incoln ( Eds, l, ffand/100/c qualfla: frc
re"'artfl, 2nd F,1ilion (;ip. 107 lJ I), Thousand
Oaks, CA: S,ige.
Gajja:a, R. [ Jul}' W02), interrnplcd 110,kclurJialt
feminist cybcrcthnography: Complicity ,1 :id
xsist.lti,r in t:11: "CybrrP.dd." fcminisf ll'lediv
S111dies, 2(2), 177-19:1,
Gerge::, K, (19':l 1). The s,1111mted ,el/. Di/cmm,1s of
ide'!tity m f<llll<mp:m:iry life. ;\Jew York: Bask
!looks,
(;ibsou, W, (: 984,l. Ne1mnmmrnr. New York; Bt1,1ks,
{ioffman, K (1959). The pre5cm111ior1 o(Sl.:{f'm tve,yday
life. Ntw York: And:or l'mss.
Harawat, D. ( J 991 }. Similms, qbvrxs, and wome,;: The
rd11ver,!fo11 of 1mwre, New York: Routledge,
Herring, S. (1993 ), Gender democracy in rnmp:.:tcr-
mediated communication, Electronic Journal af
Commu11icatio11il.a Reme 1:lertnmique d~ Ct:rmrr;u-
11/,.·11ti,m, pp, I-I7.
Hcr~ing, C. S. (2004). Slouchinl' toward ·.ht' ordinary:
Currc::l m•nds :n co:;1pnlcr-mcdiatcd rnmmuni•
«:·.,uu.Ni:w Media a11d ,\1v,,,1v 6(1}, 26-36
!:inc, C, (200G), 'lir!uui ellmagruphy, London:
Innis, H. :1'!64}, Tire /Jia, ,1( ro111mw1imti,m. Toronlo,
Can~da: Universi:y of1i}nin10 i'ress.
Juhm, M. D., Chen, & llall, (;. J. {Ed,.). !2003;.
O!!!ine ,uciai re,,Purcn:Metlwds, and ctiiir;.
~kw York: l'ct;;r Lang,
Johnson, C (2003). .Sornil interaction a11d rn,,wing ccn-
srrucli,m umong co•nmuniry w,1'1s1r.,s.1Jnpublishcd
Master of thesis, lniversity of lllinois at
Chicago,
Jones, 5. G. {1995h ). ;;nders!anding rnmmun ity in the
information ag~. : 11 S. G Jone,s ( Ed. ).(.ybcrsadery:
Camputermediated com1mmicatilm 1111d ammiu·
nity (pp, I Thnu,,and Oab,
Jones, S. ti. (Ed.). (]999), /},,it;g Internet research:
Critical ,md methods f01' ,•xamining the net,
Thou,and Oaks, C\: Sage,
Kati, j, & Aak lms, M. '.Ed,,), (2.002) Per/ie/1111! ccmtw:t;
M,,/,iic ::arnm1111icati<m, private talk, public p,'.rfor-
mance, Cambridge. UK: u.:n bricge Univers:ty
Pre,s.
J. !1993), Knocklni( on heaver's d1)0r;
l .ei'ilmi,,, Ba:.:dri' ard ,lfld virl u:il re-,11 ity, Fj,mrrmi
J, Retrieved Ih:cember, 1996 via anonymous ft:;:
F'.JOURNAJ@albar.y.bimet.
Kdslcr, S. (I 997). Cul•urc of ,/.,, lnltmer, Mahwah,
N,J,; fawrcn~,· Eadiaum,
K<:mfa:l, L ( 1998). Meaning a::d idcnlity in
"Cyb,,rspacc": Tt:c p(•rformancc of gmdtr, dass
and rncc nnl':;<'. Symbciic fnteraclion, 21(2),
:29-1
Ke:1dall, 1. (2002). f!unging ,mr in the l'irluul pub:
Mam,Unilies am:/ re!atiomhip, ,mline. lld,dey;
l'niversil r of California Press,
Kolko. I\, E. (2000). Erasing @nice: Going Wr:lt,' in the
(lmrr)facc, In B, Ii, Kollw, L. Nakamura, & G, 13.
Rodma11 (Ed,.) !iacdn Cyber,pace,(pp. 117-131).
New Ynrk: Routledge,
Koli<:o, ll. E. (2002). Personal conversation. Uctober.
i\,h,m,trich t, 'J'he lietherla11ds,
K()lko, B. 1:., t',;akamura, L, & Roc:11'.an, (,. fl. ( ?.ds.).
(200fl.) f~ace 111 Cybcr,pacc, :-Jew York;
Routlec.ge"
Kramarae, C ( l A backstage critique of
vi:iual realitv, :r. S. (i, Jones (Ed,), 9:bersocicty:
Computer-me,iiat,:d comn;i,nica/lon and ,,mmm-
(pp, 36-561. Thou5and Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laing, Ii. n (1%9).Scq·r1r.d o:l:11rs. York: Pantheon.
Lukoff, & Jchnsm1, M. ll 981). Me!aplmrs we by.
Chicago: U!!'ve:sily ""··"";,v P:ess.
Ludlow, P, (19%J. (Ed.). liigli m1on on the e/ectrcnic
J~ntier. Cambridge, \IA: \HT Press.
Lupto:·, I). ( 1995). Th,· 1,'1l1bob:d co1r.puter/user. I::
M. Featherstone & R l:lurrows (F.d,.), Cyberspare/
Cy/1i!rbadie:s/(;}'berpw!.~ (pp. 12). Th,:R:sa:;t'
Oaks, CA; Sage.
:,fa,Kinnon, R. ( 1995). Scar::hing the Lev:athr.;;
i:: uscnet ln ~. G. Jones (Ed.). Cyber,oticry:
C.1mpui,cr-medm1ed wmm1u,icalion and con-m1u•
nilJ, (pp. 112. :37). Thousand Oaks CA; Sage.
ylacKi:mon, R. C. (1998). The socinl -:or.struction
'ilpe in Cyberspace. F. Sudweeks, S. Rafaeli,
& YI. McLaughlin U:r.s.), Network and netp!ay:
Virtual groups ,;11 the imeme1. Menlo Par·~. CA:
AAA! Press. [c:ted frllm the unlincfascii vrrskm.
Rclricvcd /;facch 1997 from World ',\'ide Web:
:: : :p://www.actlab. utex,w. edu1 ~•s ?,utan/lex bl
rape.l:tmL
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (WQ0). /11/err!,'I communication
,md q1uiliM'ive re~eard1: /, h,mdhaok firr fesearr/,.
iY!J animt•. Lnn,fon:
"·"""''"' {lunt 1.2002). Grnerciti'1g dma Elh,,al
::m:cer11s 1111d dtaiienges for rhe (21 resi,ard1er.
Keynote address dt'.:ve7ed at /',faking Common
r;muml· 1\ Ntmlk i::011iere11ce on Intemct rcscarrh
ethics, Trondheim, ~orw~y,
Mann, C. !2003). Gcnerati::g data onlin<': Et:iical
~oncems and challenges for the C2 I researcher.
In M. Thorseth (Ed.), Appfied ethics it, intcmet
research (pp. 3 l ·50). Tro:1dhetm, Norwa)': :,,i fNU
University Press.
iYl.lrld1;::-. A, ( 1991! ). Lij,, cmlii..:: Researcrm1gn?a/ experi•
mi·, in virtual space. Walnut Creek, CA: Alt~'.1ira.
Markham, A. (J.003,.). Rcprcscr.rntion ir online ethn:l
graphies, f:, Johns, :Vl., Chcn,S. • Hall, J, ( Eds.),
Online ,<m:ial rese1ml.. i.1ethod~, and et/;ics
(!lp. 141-156). \/ew York: Peter Lang.
t.farkham, A. (2003h). Critical junctures and ethical
chokes in internet ethnography. In Thorseth, 1'vl.
(Ed.) Applied ethics in i11temi!t re!e.1rd1 (r;i. 5HiJ}.
Trondheim, \/orwav: NTN U U11ivcrsi1v f'~ess.
' '
M,,rkham, A. (20Q4a). internet J& research ,on•
lc~t In Se.ile, Gu':J:'iu1n, J.. Giampic:ro, & Commun Ground: A Nordic cm::ercm:~ :in
Silvcrmi::, D. (F.ds,). (}ual11t1ti11c n:seurc/; prc1c1ice.
London: Sag~.
,l.cbd:h~m, A (2004b). lntm:et n, a 1001 !or q11a·,11ative
rcs,:1c1 rch. In rnverman, J. Quulilative
Markham: Online Ethnogrnp::y !Ill 819
reJeardi: 111eory, method, and prr.ctire (pp. 95-123).
London:
N:cLuhan, fl.~. ( '. 964). Understanding media: Ifie
e.we,:.iiom mau. \/ :-w York: ~kw American
I.b:11ry,
W.illt:r, & Slater, D. (20[)0). 111,· ln!anwr: An et/mo·
g,uphi,· 11ppmac!i. New Yor;;.: l'it'lk U:::ve,sitv
Pm;,.
Nakamurn, :,. ( 199 5). Race in/for Cybcrs:,acc: ldentily
tomirn1 and radal pas.s' ::g 01: the ;n-,cr::cl. l~brk,
1md IJr,ys, JJ(l.2t, 181 193.
Nakamura, L (lOOJ ). Untitled conference prcscnt,:l ion
11: Karional C0r:imunkation Association annwd
meetings. November 19, Miami, florida.
Orgad, S. (.2002, October 14). Contir,uilles brl wrrn
the cj]line ~mi the 1wline. Paper p~escnlcd at
the con"erence of the A.~sodation In:;;r::~t
Re,ea,chers, Maastricht, 'rht t>;ethcrland s,
October
Po:.kr, M. (1998\. '
Virtual etlmidv: ' Tribal identitv . in
ar, ag.· Df global communication.,. :r. S. G. Jones
("d.J, Cybersodeiy 2.0 (pp.184-211), T::uusand
um-s, '""' Sage.
Postman, N. {. 986). Amusing oursef·;;:s to ,frath: Public
discourse: in the agt (~· show b11sinm. \/e,,.. 'fork:
Vikitig Press.
Pnstman, N. (1993). ]i,ch1wpob•: Tr:e surren.frr uf
culture w tech1wl,,gy. New York: Vi n:age llnoks.
E, ( 19951. v:r1ual worlds; Culture and imat;rna-
t'on. In S. G. lone, (fat}. Cyl:erJoci,'IY: Cmnpurr:r-
mt·diated communitaticn and r:otnmutr,:ty,
(pp. 164 183). Thous,md Oaks,
Rheingold, H. (1991). Virtual Re,liity, :'<Jew York:
1buch,tone.
Rhtingo'.d, H. ( 1993). rfw viw1al tormmmi,y,
Home.1teading 011 tha elew,,nif from ;n, Reading,
Ma~s: Addise11-We11ley.
Rheingold. H. {2002 ). Smart mvb~; The ttexr s~ci:11
rtvolutiim. 1,ew Ytirk: Bask Hooks.
Rommc\vcit, R. (1980). On "mear:ings" of acts and
wh, I :s meant and made bow:: by what is said
in a pL:ralistk: social w,dd. In .M. llrennrr (Ed.),
The strucru~ of acricti (pp. 108-J4'l). Oxton::
Bli\;kwell.
Ryen, A. [lune I, 2002). Pa11er presc:Jted at ">faking
lr:trrnct research ethics. Trondhfim, NorWJ)'·
Se:,f:, T,& Hun:, S. (1996:. Special Sexuality and
Cyb,:rspacc; ?erforming Digita: l!m.ly. Womc•:
& Perji.mr,uflff: A fo11mal ,if Feminist JJ1mry, J7.
820 11 HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALl'n\TfVE RESF.ARCH-CHAPTER .31
Shane, M. /. (2001). Virtual w1)rk teams: An ethno•
graph'r analysis. ;Jn~•ub:i,hed disserlalion,
Fielding lns:!tut~, Califor:.ia.
Sondieim,A. {f!d,). (:996). .Jlei,~i 1mline: Net .subjectii•ity.
New York: Lusitania P:-ess.
Sproull, L, & Kies!er, S. (I 99: ). Connections: Ntw
ways of workmg i11 the net.,orkd environmem.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Preclfi.
R. ( 1996 ). the wur of desire and rei:hno!Ggy
at the cios.> ,if tl1e mechanical age. Cambr:cge,
!VIA: M[T Press.
S,·e11ingsson, M. (200 I). Creating;; sense ofcmnmunily:
l:.~tperiences from c; Swedish weli d111t. Doc:o,al
disse;tacion. Ihe TE.MA Institute, Dep.a:tm.:::t of
Communication .Stuc:es, LinkGping, Sweden.
Thom3~. J. (200.'l). lleo:a:ni::ir.g the ethics of inten:el
resean;h: Pacing the chal;enge of overzealoL:s
oversigh1. !n Johns, M., Chen, S. I.. , & Hall, G. ).
(Eds.), Online social reS<!tir,h: /;1etltods,
rmd ethic, (;ip. I87•201 ), l\'ew York Pe:er Lang.
T;:orsi:th, M. (Ed.) (2003). Applie:d ethic., in Internet
res.:r.irch. Trondheim, Norwav:
Press.
'
NTNU t:niver;itv
. and hyp,rrrnlity. Oxfurd: ;,iladcwtll, Press.
Tu ride, 5. ( I9'l5). Life on t.~escre~n: identity in the age of
the !mernet. Kew Ycrk: Simon & xhustcr.
Turkle, 5. ( : StJron.J Computcf':1 and the
human ,pirit. l\'ew Yvrk: Si rnon & Schuster.
V;inder;,r.ol, H. Y. /Rd.). (1996). The ethics of rem,rch
invol!'ing human .mbje.:ts: Faring the 2 I ,i ce11tury,
hederick, IY'.D: Uniwrsity Publishing Group.
Wal::1er,J. {2002). Researdi eth',;s in Internet-enabled
reseilrc'l: Hmnan subjects arid melhod-
olog: cal myo;iia. Ethics and Informaticm 1i:dmul-
11gy. 4(3), Rebevcd :,larch 15, 2/J04 from http:lf
www.nru.edulpro;ecls/::issc11baum1,•t'iirs-
wa lther.htn::.
Was~ul, D., Douglass, M., & Edgley, C \ 2000 ). Cybersex:
Outercour.,e and the ensc'f:nent of lhc hody.
Symbolic fllteraction, (4),
W'trt'.er, D. }.. & !<:aizman, 5, L. (I 998). Smile when you
say that: Graphic accents as gencer m,u,,::,, in
computer-mediated mmrt:1:mkation. ln S. Rafoeli,
!'. Sudweeks, & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), ,>,:etwor~·
and mttp!.iy: Virtual group, on l'lternet. lloston:
AAA 1/M fT Press.
Woo:Jey, II. {1992). \f!"tual l;;Jr/ds: A .1011mey f,r /type
Wrigh:. It (1994). "Life on the lntertK1: Democr,icfs
salvation crcult'Jral fragm~ntation?" Urne Reader,
J,m/Feh: IOJ· IU7.
32
ANALYTIC PERSPECTIVES
Paul Atkinson and Sara Delamont
I n this chapter, we exa:nine a :1U rnbcr of
:elated ther:1cs i:i:der tl:e aegis of analysis,
analysis of data derived f:om qualita:ive
research strategie; is a potentially vast field. It '.,
not our intention to generate a cn:npre:iensive
revie'-'' o: the history ofanalysis (Li:icoln & IJci:zin,
200;!) or of all its current manifestations (Uardy
& Bryn:an, 2()()4). There are entire books that go
some way in that dircc:ion, ai:d virtually no text•
book or handbook achieves mmp:ete coverag~.
Rather, through a selective re\"iev, we highlight
what we think are som.: key issues confronting the
rcscarc:i con:munity, We do not, 6erefore, offer a
prescriptive dew on how data should be ana~,zed.
Textbooks rm methods themselves are the appm-
pr:ate place tor rnch practical guidance (e,g.,
Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Silvrrman, ~ 997, 2004).
Rather, we survey the mc:hodo'.ogical ter::ai11 selec-
tively as we perceive it
The extraordinary diflL,ion of qualitath·e
rest!an:h a:mmg the soda! and cult:1:',il disciplines
is a welcome development, und it is one IL1 w:uch
we havf' m2de modest ccmtr:ht:tions (Atkinson,
Coffey, & Ddamont, 2003; Dt'lamont, 20112;
Ha:nmersley & Atkinson, 1995), We are personally
and professiomit:y committed to dissemi:1ali ng
further qmditatiw rcseard1 methods and the pub·
!is:1ed work t:1at derives from ther: 1. On lhe olber
hand, the proliferation of qi:alitative research
brings in its trab sor.ie poter.tial problem,. The
conduct of qualitative v10rk has ·:)ecome frag•
m~nted. Dmi:1g a:1 era of hnJerspedali1.ation in
the academy and beyond, qualitative re~eard1 has
been subjttt to the same forces. The range of sr,e-
cialties and emphases can he gauged by in~j)et'.I·
way of example, the conte:its of rec en; ar,c
current edited collect ior:s (Denzin & Linco'.n,
1994, 2001; Gubrium & Holstein, 2\lil2b; Seale.
Silverman, Gubrium, & Cobo, 2()04; Silvenmrn,
2004). As q·Jalitative researd: has become ir:creas-
i:igly profess;onalJzed and increasingly subject
to explicit codifka:ion and reflection, it seems to
::ave bewme im:rcasingly fragr:1ented.
In the section that follows. we review that
p:ucess of fragmentation, ldent:f)' some of its
contours and co:1S('quences, and ~·,1ggest some
mnre positive ways of ,h inking about tl:e proper
rclat'or.s between d:ffe::en: r::iethods. In p!lrlicular,
we affirm the rather u:1fashionahle position that
there are kinds of social activity and represe:ita•
t ion that have their indigenous modes of organ i,
zation. Language and discour:;e, narratives, visual
styles, ar:d ser.i.io:k and cultural codes arc n:'.
rurally relative and arbitrary~ but they neverthe·
less display orderlirn,ss that is relatively sta':,Je and
predictable, obse~va :ile, and des,;riba':llc. Although
 !112 lit H,\XDHOOK ff' QUALLAJIVI: l?ESEARCH-CHAPTER
strongly deterrninist for1~1s of structura!ism or
scr:i iotics night not prove to be tenable, that i~
no <excuse for abandoning ahogrther disc: ?Enerl
aucnt ion to sud: in:rin;;ic o:-dering pr'.nciplcs.
Qua\irntive ,e;;card: needs to remain faithful tn
that indigenous organization.
We then urn our attention to a different but
related issue, tha! is, the fo1gmentabrn of" justit1-
c:,tio:1s for qualitative anaJy;:s a:1d ,he i:nerpreta-
1]011 of the soda] world. We co1;trast a ccnlr:::ietal
tendency, a trndltion that has tended toward a
coavergence or consensus within the t:eld (escpe-
cia:ly in sodo'.ogy), w;th a cen:rifugal tendency
thal h,1s celebrated and promoted diversity
,unong analytic stratcgie.~. The former repres en Is
a canonical traditio:1 wirhin the inrel:rctnal field,
whl',ea~ the latter represents a more radical and
5oi~1ctimes :ransgressive mcdc, Rccc:11 accounts
of the history of qualitative research and its prac-
tices, with whicr: our own views diverge, tend to
locate these di~~erenres wi,hin a developmental
framework, tracing an in1ellectual history for
qualitative research away frorr: a positivist stance
toward car:1 [vale,quc pos:modem diversity (e.g.,
Lim:o!n & Denzin, 1994, 2001). Although we
reccgnire that rnch a,;:;ount~ an: partially correc:
in describing some changes in the most v:sible
thinking, we differ in how best 10 capture the
underlying differences (Atkinson, Coffey. &
Dclamont, 1999, 2DOl,2003). We recapitulate and
explon: so:m: of these issues brieily. (hr pcrspec
t ive is not, however; based on a rea;guard appea'.
to earlier vc:sions of cthnognpl,lc or qu.;litative
rese;;rc:i and a rcll:rn to :he earlier certaintie~
associated with :he "classic," of methodological
literature (ci. Atkinson et aL, 2003 ). Oar critical
stance is, therefore, very diflcrent fro:11 that
ulatcd by commentators suc:1 as Brewer (2002),
who seeme,: to assert a rather vulgar fom: of
realist analysis in distancing himself from post-
modern'st m:alyt ir strategies. Oar er ltkal stance
also dif"ers from those tr.at embrace and endorse
the claims of po.stmodernism.
We gn on to disrnss a nothcr major axis of
contcRtati on within the qualitative trndtion and
iL, cur:-en: manifesb1tions. We suggest that there is
a m,,;or line of cleavage that separates disciplines
or R;Jbdi sciplint:s and individual researchers from
one another, although it i, not always apparent
to the mllin :irotagon!sts in :he field. We suggest
that th i~ reflec:s differing emphases on exper:-
ence and act:or.. :Jur: ng recent years, a good deal
of qualitative research has been ji.;stified, ana-
l; zed, and reprcsc;1tec in terms of soc:al actorn'
experiences of their nwn social worlds, :ha: is,
of changes over the life courses of biograph :cal
?henon,cna and ciisrnptions such as mental and
pl:ysit:al ill health (Ellis & Flahcrtr- J992). In a
parallel way, qi:alitative resceard: has sornelirnes
been transmuted fro:n the biugrapl:ical to the
autubiographical anc autoethnographk ( Bochner
& Ellis, 20111; Ellis, 2004; Reed-Danal:ay, 1997,
20(L). We do not th:nk. however, that tl:ls is
derived from a sel f-eYident ::eason fur conducting
qualitative researc:1. The purpose such researc:i
is not always tu understand the world from the
actor's or informant's own pcrsprctive or to gain
access :o h's or he ?crsonal private re.!lms of
experience and feeling ( Bc:iar, l 996; Fernandez &
Huber, 2001; Radstone, 2000). A great deal of the
four:datium1I wurk in ethnog~aphy and other
qualitative research was cunceme,1 with th c
analysis of ro'. lective social action, that i~, how
members of society accomplish joint activity
th rougl: language and other ;xactical activities as
well as holV they align thri: achv:Ues through
shared cultural rei;oi:rces. Frnn: tl:is latrer per-
spective, even motives, emotions, intrn:iom, and
the like are matters of collective action, ex pressed
through the codes of shared id :ons. These dis-
tinctiom, need lo be made visible so that Ille
analysis of et h:iographic and ot:1<:r data does not
become con:u,ed {Atkinson ct al.,2003; Gubrium
& liolstein, 2002a. 20U2b}.
\Ve then cm:sider another related but distinct
issue, that is, the aesthrtidzation of analysis and
representation. As some analysts and com me nta-
:urs have movec toward various postmodernist
positions, ther have ,ought to free qi:alitative
ar:alys:o from Ine conventions of acad~:r, ic textual
writing (Ellis & Bochner, 1996: Cooda:1. :1,000).
We thoroughly e;1dorse the principle of crit:cal
reflectio:i tin the conventions through which
social worlds and social ad:ono- are recuns:rncted.

Jnst as we recommend paying a:tention to the
rnm•entio1:al orders of cultur<' and act:m:, we abo
recommend paying am:nrion to the conventions
of textual production and ~eccption, But we warn
against the wholesale of aesthetic cri-
teria in the reconstruction of social life. In many
contexts, there is a danger of collapsing the vari-
ous for:ns of soda: action into one aesthetic
mode-that implicitly ~evalorizing the au:hor-
ial voice of :he social scientist-anc of
fo~ming so;:ially shared and culturally shaped
p:1cnomena into the sub,icct n:atte:- of a:1 undif-
frxntiated but esoter:c literary genre. (For
examples of work that we believe exempli:y this
trend, see Clough, 1998; RkhcLrdson, 1997, 2002.)
Fir.ally, we consider the implications of our
remarks for social c~itiqw,, We .suggest that an
engaged social ,dem:e sbuuld indeed rem al n
liithfu1 to the int"insk order of soda! lifo. We
need-more than ever before-principle.::, sys-
tematic, and discipli:ied ways of accounting for
the social work ;in1 to the social worid. V'{e need
to he ahk :o produce accounts of the soci,,l that
can recogn :ze t:1e conventions of: media repre-
sentations, of fashion and consum~r culture, of
Politka'. a:id cvervdav discourse, of scie:1tific
' ' '
knowledg~.of c'ne1;1at'c and othe: visual codings.
Accounts that reduce the social wor'.d to a domain
of experience cannol generate fai,hful, let alone
i:~itica!, ,malyses of i.'l!lture and action.
Iii ANALYTIC FRAGMENTATiOt-
We have no qt:a~rcl with atkn:p:s :o define and
practke appropriate strategies for t:ie analy,is of
particular kb<ls of data Indeed, we want to insist
on tho pmper discip:inec approach to any and
every type of data. b addition, we v,ant data to be
analyzed and not just reprod,:ced and celebrnted
(as sometimes happens with life histories and
visi:al materials). Our main message, however,
is that the forms of data and analvsis reflect tbe
' should reflect the form, of social Efe, their liver -
forms cu:rnre and social action. For instance,
we collect ar:d analyze personal narrati~es and
life histories because they are a collection of
types or forms-spoken and writte11-:hrough
Alkin;on & llclan:om: Analytic Per:s;peclive, • 823
whk:1 various kir:ds of social ac:ivity are
accomplished. They are then:sdvcs forms of
soda! actioi: i:1 whkh identities, biographies, and
various otl:er kinds of work get done (Orhs &
Capps, 2002; O'Dell, 200 I; Patterson, 2002 l. '!hns,
we accord in::,ortance to narratives and na,rative
ana: ysis b;:causc they address imporlant kinds
of socia: acton (Atkinson, 1997; 3aum,u:, 1986;
Riessman, 2002). In the same spirit, we should
pay se:ious attention to visu,d data insofo r .1s
calture and action have ~ig:1 ifkant visual aspects
that cannot be expressed a:id a:,alyzcc except by
reference to visual ma:erials. This is by no means
equivalent to the assumption that ethnogra ?bi~
ftlm or video rnnstitutes an especially privileged
approach to sociological or anthropo:ogical
understandir:g (Ball & Smith, 2001; Banks &
1,forphy, 1997; Pink, 200 I, 2004). T'.1e same can be
said o:· other ar.alytk approaches. Documentary
analysis is significant irn,o'ar as a given soda!
s.::tting i, self-documenting and important social
actions are performed in th a1 si:lti ng ( P,ior,
2003; Scot:, 1990). Text~ deserve attrntion
because of their social:v or!!anired ,1;1d conv-
• C
entional prop~rtics and be..:ause uf :he u.scs they
are put to ir. their production, circulation, a11d
const:mption. The sar:1c is true of other material
goods, artifa..:ts, technologies, and so fo,l:l
(Tilley, 1991, 1999, 2001). The ana:ysis of dra-
maturgy, '.ikewise, is in:portant :nsofar as social
actors and collt:c tiv ities engage :n s:gn ificar:t
perfom:ative activities (Dem:in, 2003; Dyck &
Archet!i 2003; Gray & Sin<ling, 2002: Hughcs-
Freefand, 1998; Tullod:, 1999). But ii should not
be treated as a privileged way in which to
apprnach all of social life.
We believe, therefore, t:1 at it is important to
avoid re due tionbt vJews that treat om: type of
data or one appmach to :ma,ysi, as being the
7imc source of social and cultural intcrp rc:ation.
We s".o·id not, in other words, seek ro rei,rler
soda! life in terms of jus: one analytk stmtcgy
ur just one cultural form. The forms of analysis
sity should mir~or the dive~sity of cultural forms,
and thelr significance should be in acrnrdance
witb tlu:ir social and cultural functions.
824 1111 EANDBOOK OF QUALITATIV 0• RESEA:lCH-CHAPTER
We identify these different am.1. yli<.: approad1es
i:o: merclr to celebrate diversity. that i.s. not tu
?x.pose a vulgar version of "triangulation"
·nmugh methodological pluralism and synthesis
(Denzin, 1970; Janeskk, 1994). Quite the reverse-
we want to assert the importai:ce of rendc~ing the
di[forent facets uf culture and soci.d ac:ion and
rdlecting their res:iective forms. We want, there
fore, ro affirm that aspects of culture a:1d tr:e mun-
dam, organization of soc'al life '1ave their inrrh:sic
formal proper:ks and Iha! lhe an,llysis of soda:
lite should respect and exp'.ore tl:ose forn1s. In su
doing, wt: react ,igainst some analytic lendencies
th al have undervalued anything that sm,1cks of
formal anal rsis. Such forn:alism seems to fly i:1
11':e face of the most fashion a 1le appeals to post•
modernism. Yet discourse, nar,atives, perfor-
mam:es., encounters, rhctori c, anc poehcs d.] have
their intr lnsic indigenous nodes of organization.
So too do visual, lexual, material, and other c111-
m ral cmbodimc:1.ts. It is not necessary to endorse
a na,rowly structllrnlis: analytic perspectke or
endorse undulv, restrictive analvses '
to reco,..nize
0
the formal properties of talk, the codes of cultural
representafan:, the semiotic s:ructur,:;s of visual
materials. or the common propertir.s of n.,rratives
and docurm:::1ts of lite.
It is necessary, :he~iore, for ebrwgraphers
and other analysts of social lifo lo pay attention lo
the analytic :r.iptrn:ives uf s~JCh socially shared
code&, rnnventions, and st,uctures. Tiu, furms of
social and cultnrai life call for <'qnivalcnt analyses.
These methodological ;:irinciples give L.S a way of
addressing some fundamental mcthodologkal
precepts in a disciplined way, Herber I Blumer
eru:icial('d tb:: ;:irim:ipl,· that research should
"faitl:fol" to the phenomena 1J:1der investigation
(Blumer. 1954; Hilmmersley, .989). In its most
general 'brm, this methodological precept seer;1s
to bcg al: Lhe important questions, seeming to
imp!;- that one can know the phenomena prior
to their inve,,tigation. A naively naturalist in:erpre-
t'"tion :s c:early inappropriate, Our tormulalion
retrleves for Blu:ner's prlnc' ?le a more r:1 e6od
ologimlly pr0dsr forrnula:ion-a more restricted
h·Jt more fn: itful approach. It implies that fidelity
to the phenomena :neans paying :ntei:tion to the
for;ns and media through which s,Jcial actions,
e\'ents, a1:d representations are enacterl, enmd cd,
or embodied. It afao gives a par:icular re:1deri11g of
the notkm of "thick description" (Denz:n, l 994;
Geertz, l 973, 1983). Dur approach can heexte:1ded
to a co1:1 mentary on versions of "grounded
theory" and cognate s:rillegi1;s such a~ "mudytk
induction" (A1;..inson et al., 2003; Z1:ar.iecki,
193~). Agab, there are multiple versions of
grounded tl:eury, and they have been thoroughly
doc:unen!ed (Cl:armaz & Mltchell, 200 I; Glaser,
1978, : 992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss &
Corb:1:, I99Rl. We do not, i:1cidcntallr, a.:vocace
rhar all eth nographi.;s should deploy rvery con-
ccivab:e analytic procedure and examine every
possible data type in the interests of a spurious
kind of comprehe1:IBiveness or "holism:' On the
other hand, o:.ir insistence on altention to the
furms of cu::ure a:1d sod al action gives particular
force to notions s1:ch as hnlism. In our version
of research methodology, this car, refer not to 11':e
doomed attempt to document "everything" but
rather to c. principled respect for the multiplidl y
nf i:ult,.rnl forms. Thus, holistic analysis would
rcfor to preserving 1hcse forms that are indigenous
to the culture in tJuestion rather than colla;:ising
the:n into an :mdifterentiatcd plenum.
:n :he following sec:ions, we ciabo rate on these
general remarks. 3cforc doing so, we m::line a
number Df :,cy analytic a~eas lhal demonstrate
the forcr of ou, general a,gument. These are
amo:1g lhe analytic strakgit's that can and should
contribute to the sy,,teri:atJC analysis of social
settings, action, and organizatio:i.
:larralivcs and Life Histories
We sl:ou:d ;10~ collect ar:c' document personal
narratives because we beb,vc them to have a
privileged or spedal quality (Atki:lson, i997;
Atkinson &: Silverman, :997; Con le, 2003;
Cortazzi, 1993, 200 i). \Jarrativc :s not a unique
moc.c of organi7,ir.g or report:ng experience. h:
addition, nar:·ative is an important of

spoken action and r€·prcsentation in ever;1day life
and in man1· specialized contexts (Cza,niawska,
:997, 1998; Riessman, !993, 2002). We should,
therefore, 'Je studyinl! r:arrali,re insofar as it is a
parl kular feature of 11 gm,r: ..:ultural milieu (e.g.,
Caplan, 1997; Co,tazzi, 1991; Gardner, 2002; La:a,
• 998; Mycrhoff, 197!\; Voy,ey, 1975 )_ F•Jrtl:crmore,
narratives are not indcpender:: of cultural con-
ventions and shared formats (Eolstein, 2000i.
Ther are not uni,,'Jcly b:ographical or aolo-
hiographica'. materials, and :hey cer:ainl)· do
not oonv;:y unmediated private "cx,>erienct:'.,"
Likewisr, they do not convey "memory" as a psy-
cl:ologk:,•J phenon:enon. Experienees, memories,
emo:ions, and o:her apparently personal or pri•
vat,;: states arc cons:ructed and er:acted through
c;il:u rally shared narrative Iyp.:;. for:mHs, and
ge:ues (HJmphrev, Miller, &: Z(!ravvmyslova,
2003; Olney, 1998; Plummer, 1995, 2000, 2001;
Tota. 200 L; ·,.vagr.er-Padfid, 1996). They are
related to story more genernlly (f:ne, :rnm ).
There are af~1nities wit!: kinds of ,tories-
ot hislmy, mythology, the :uass n:~dia, dr:d so
forth. We r:ted, therrfore, to analyze narratives
and ltfe rr.aterfal s so as rn treat them as instances
nf social action, tr.al is, as speech ;,ct;; or e,·ent,
with common properties, recurrent s:ructu ~es,
cultnral conventions, and recogr:izable genres.
Therefore, ''le t:eat them as social phenomena like
anr others. Indeed, we need :o tre.it narratives
as ?er:brmativc acts (fl.lay; 2001} and treat them
as forms of social action like any others.
Visual Data
The collectio:i ar:d analysis of visna'. materials
1e1ids, unfortunately, to be treated as the preserve
of a specialist domain. The production of ethnn
graphic lilm has a long history, although it has
often been oddly divorced frnr:1 the mainstream
lextual practices of the efhnographk monograph
(Ball & Smi:h, : 992, 200 I; Banks & Morp:iy, l 997).
The use of photography for Nhnngra?hic purposes
has also been relegated ro a somewhat speciaEst
s~1'lficld when it has not been ,elcga:ed to • ere
illus:ration oi the written monograph (Loizos,
199 3). During receu! years, the drvelopment of
Atkimmn & Ddanwnl; Aoalyli;; Perspective, • 825
s1:1all dig'.:al caincutders and the development of
digital photo&rapht :iav;; create..: an cuor:nous
range of possibilitie1, for ethnographe:-s in the field.
Consequently, visual anthropology and sociology
sl:ould not be treated as separate genres or specia !-
ties. There are many aspects (If cnlture that are
iulrinskallr visual. Many cultural domains and
artifacts can be grasped only ";1 rough their visual
representations and the stn:ctu~cd properties of
their visual codes (Ball & Smith, 2001 ).
There a:e many social phenomena ;h,.t can and
shouk be analyzed in terms of their appearances
and performam;-:s that mar captured in visual
terms. :'hese arc not, however, separable from
the soda! settings in which such phenomen.t are
generated and inlerpretcd. They should not be
exp'.ored purely as "visual" topics; rather, they
s:1ould be explored as integ:al ta a wide variety
of ethnographic projects, Visual phcnomena-
1he 1:1nndane as well as the self rnnsdously
aesthetic-have their in:rinsk mode3 of organi-
zation (Crouch & Lubbren, 2003). One does not
need tn endorse C1c r;;ost determinist versions of
sen:iotics ur ~true! uralism to rc~oguize that vis1:al
culture embodies conventions and codes of repre-
sentation. There are cultumlly determined aesthetic
and :nrmal principles, and th:rc are conventional
forms of representation and expression.
Attcntinn to visual culture e.l,o implies serious
atten1 ion w :he cthr:oaes :he,ics the procucers,
n::ediators, and en nsumers uf vbual materials.
We need to not only ·'readtt the visual bu: also
understand ethnograph ically how it is read by
men: 1Jers the social worlc or culture in qm:>s-
t ion (Grimsiaw, 2001 ). In general tern:,, th.ere has
been insufficient attention to the aesthetic cede~
and judgments deployed by members of a given
ailtu~e (Attl1eld, 2000). We knuw about spccial-
:zed domains of ac~:h e:ic work such as the visua:
arts, We also know something ab our the aest het-
everyda}' in clothes and fashion (Valis,
2003}. In addition, there is research relating to the
decoration ar:d rnnsumplion of domestic spaces
and objects (Hendersun, 1998; Julie~. 2000; Miller.
1987; Pninter, 2002). In other context~. there are
studies of the visual cult1:re, of advertising and
other media ,1f represe:1taLion (Prosh, 2003).
826 1ll HAKDBOOK !ll' QLALITA'f!VE RESEARCH~-CHAPTER 32
However, there a,e still rr:any cultural domains in
which 1ocal aesthetic criteria are important, but
their analysis remains poorly integrated within
the ge:i era\ edmographic tradition; for instance,
see DeJ!ora (2000, 2003) tm music in everyday
life as a topic for ethnogra;,hic investigation
(c[ Bennett & Dawe, 200 l; Whiteley, Bennett, &
Hawkins, 2004 ).
Discourse and Spoken Action
The collection and analysis of spo~en materi-
als is one domain wl:ere ovc:-specialization :s
a danger, The development of d:s.:o:irse analys:s
and conversation analysis has been one of the
most egregiously successful domains of quali•
tative research. f:s disciplinary bases have been
va,ied, including linguistics, sociology, and p,y·
d:o:ogy. ;'he emerge:ice of conversation analysis
from the work of Harvey Sacks and other et:mo-
methodologists has been a rerr:arkab'.e rontribu•
tion to the disciplined empirical study oi social
order and soda! action (Atkinson & Heritage,
1984; Moerman, 1988; Sacks, 1992). In the pr,st,
there has been a d:stincl :er.dency for the,c
approaches to s,oken :anguage to ·:,ecome nar•
mwly rc,trictec specialties, Conversation analysis
has, i:1 particular, been unduly bounded and
self-referential in sorr:e cases. There is no need to
restrict our analysis of socia: worlds cxc:usively to
those phenomena :ha: are susceptble to record•
ing for cor.versation-or discou:·se-a:uilysis. We
need, in contrast, to ensu ::e that the anaty,is of
sno,-en language rerr:air:s firmly !:!mbedded in
s:udies of organizational co:1text, processes of
socialization, routines of work, personal transfor•
mation, people processing, and so forth. During
recent years, ~ortm:ately, the analysis of spn.<en
discourse has engaged more explicitly and sys•
tematically with more generic issues of socio•
logical :-esearch (e.g., Atkinson, 1995; Sarangi &
Roberts, 1999; Silverman, 1987). Spoken language
has own intrinsic forms of organization.
Indeed, it demonstrates a densely structured
organizatio:1 at every lev~l, including the most
finely grai ne<l. [t is :mportant, however, that
ciscourse ar.alvsis, convcrsa6'in ana:vsis,
; '
discursive
psycholngy, and the like :101 ,e treated as analytic
ends in their own right and :101 be intell-=ctually
dvor:::t:d from ofaer aspects of eth nngraphic
i:iqJ:ry. The eKpert knowledge required should
not be regarded as a specialty in its own :ight a:id
i:idcpendenr of wider socio'.ogical or a:1.thmpotog•
ical con:pctcncc. ·:·he conventions. of language use
need to be analyzed, th.erefore, in relation :o more
general iss:ics of identity, the interaction order,
moral lVOrk, and lhe organization of social enco un ·
ters, In adcitio:1, it is important fo~ ana~'ffits of
spoken action to rema:n sensitive to wider issues
of soc'al analys:s and critique and for practitioners
of more general qualitative analysis to engage
with and use the methods and findings dis-
course am: .:onversation analysis. Key discussions
that Identify the relationships between dismursef
conversation analysis ar:d centrai issues of social
:-esearch ir.dude the accounts by Po:ter ( 1996,
2003), Hepburn a:1d Potter (2004), a:id Po,te:- and
Wetherell ( 1987).
.\1alerial Assemblages and Techno:ogies
Ti1e study of material soods .md arti:acts,
:e,hnology,aod other physical aspects of material
cultu::e Jeserves systcmatk attention in many
ethr.ographic contexts (Til:ey, 199 l, , 999 ), but is
:oo oftrn relegated to specialized esoteric studies
or to h.ighly specifk topics, The latter indudc
studies of tecbnnlogy and inventions, of very par-
:icular ki:ids of physical display such as museum~
and art galleries, and of highly restdded kinds
of artifacts such 11s reiiginm, ritual, and artistic
ob;ects. But tl:t> detailed inw:stlgation of [)bjects,
assemblages, and inventions dem,.nds a p:ace in
the gentral eth:iogmphk study of social and
cultural furms (Appadurai, 1980; 13ijker, 1995;
!vlacdonald, 2002; Macdonald & Fyfe, 1996; Pinch
& Tmcru, 2002; Rabiuuw, 1996; Sandburg, 2003;
Saunders, 2003).
It is vi:al that the study of physical objects,
memor'als, and technolog:es be thoroughly
incorporated i:ito more general field studies of
work 01g~nizations, infor:nal scttir:gs, rnlL!:-al

pro(:uction, domestic setrin~s, and so forth
(Tilley, 2001!. Artifacts and tedmologies ~.re
themselves understood, used, and in:erpreted by
evervdav social actors, lhcv' are ;1sed to <lorn·
' ;
mcnt and recon: the past-a11d indeed lo .:on·
s:ruct the pa;;t-ai:d there i, much to be learned
from the loca: situated "ethnoarchacology" of the
material past ( Dirks, 2000; Edwards, 20[)1;
Gosdeu & Knowles, :wo I}. Th:s includes the
"mo:mm.:ntal past" of places and their cthno•
histories (ct. He:zfdd, l 99 l; Sc:ama, 2003;
Yalouri, 2001 ). Issues of practical utility and aes
thcticvalue intersect. Ideas of authentidtv mav he
' '
brought to bear on art ifac;s and assemblages
([1orty & Kuchler, 1999; Handler & t,able, l 997).
They may be used tu di,play and warrant individ·
ual and collective '.centities; for instance, the
"collectio:l" (whether personal or n.i:ional) is
express:ve of tas:c, idemity, commitment, and
enthusiasm (Miller, 2()() lb; Painter, 2002; Quinn,
2002). The mate:ial goods of fashion and conspk·
uous rnnsumptiun are likewise expressive of
starus and aspirations. The archaeology of the
pn:sent, as i' were, needs to be ;1: '. egmt<"d with
the ethnographic imagination a:1d to enric:1 the
ethnographic eye Att:ield, 2000). Mud: co:,·
temporary e1h;1ographic fieldwork '.s oddly lack,
it,g in :na:e:ial conlcnl and physical goods,
whe:eas info:mants'"voices'' are transcribe.:: from
an app-arent ]:ihyskal void. l'icld research needs
to pay systematic attention to t::e physical
embodiments of cultural nilues and codings.
More generally, this lead;, to a consideration
of m111erial culture. Tl:e material err.bodimcnt of
culture a1:ri the cultural connotations of things
have become p,ominent in recent culti.:rnl
anth ro?ologiC'.d analyses ( Er:glish-LJ eek, 2002;
Finr:, 2001; Lury, 1996). Rccc:11 examples have
included examinations horr.e computers
(Lally, 2000;, mobile coi:imunkations (Katz &
Aa~lu~~, 2002), photugraphs (hosh, 20U3), .:ars
(Miller, 200 Ia), and memorabilia ( Kw int,
Breward, & Aynsley, 1999). These accounts tran-
scemi and transform :he mundar.e material
world into domains of signification. We not
:1eed lo subscribe to unduly strict and rigid
Atkinson & Dchtrmml: Ana.ytic Perspectives Ill 827
for:n;;Hsrr:s to recogn :zc ,ha: suc:1 phemn:1cna
car: be amilvzed 'n terms of their scmiol le codes
'
and co:1ventions.
Places and Spaces
Most ethnographic repor:age seems oddly
lark'ng lr: physical location. Many sodological
and anthropological accou:1rs, fur instance, have
but sketchy descriptions of the bt:ilt e:r,iron·
mcnt within which social events and encm:n:ers
lake place. The treatment of space is too often
restricted to aspects of human geograp:iy, urban
studies, and arch':ectt:re (Darby, 2000;. It also
needs to be ir: :egrated within more general
ethr:ographic accounts. But ethnoarchiiecturc
1s--as we know from some anthropo:ogical
accomits-significant in defining spaces and
styles of everyday living (:>odds & Taverner,
200 l ). Built spaces provide sy:n ,o:ic bon:darit:s
as well as physical bounda:ies (llordcn, 2002;
flutler, 2003; Crowley & Reid, 2002}. They physi,
,a:Jy enshr:n,;: collective rr:ernorie., as well as
more per,onal hiograph:cal and emol:or:al ·,vork
(Bender & \·Vi :1er, 200 l ). '.iomes are em:cwed with
emotional and cu lrnrnl value through the ex p:-e.~
sion of taste and cultura: capital, the celebratior.
of historical authenticity. or the obsen·anc:e
modem minir:1alisrn (Jackson, ~owe, Mi[er, &
Mort, 2{){){)). Public spaces ilso embody tacit cul·
tural assumptions ahrn.:I lhe dassifical:!m a:1d
p~occssing of people and things, about commer-
cial and professional trar.sactions, about politkal
proC,;;Sses and dtize:1ship (Benjamin, 1999;
Muller & Pehkoncn, 2003). The ctl:nog~aphic
exploration ot places and spaces irn:ludes the
com r:iecial tnmsformation of them througr-
tonrism and heritage wtJrk, the lra:11mmlalion of
downtown areas and waterfronts, the rec~eation
of b1dustrial pasts into leisure and entcrtair:me:1t,
and the constrnction of tep.1c,11; and spaces for
"experience" ( Dicks, 2()00).
T:1ese brief and partial observations are no:
or
inte1:ded :o r.1ap out a comprehensive view the
current rese11rch li1eramres or of :he general pos-
sibilit:es that they open up for e:hnographk and
&2& Ill HANDBOOK OF QCALITATIVR RESEARCH-CHAPTER
other qm1litative social xsearcr.. More important,
these obserw.tiom are not intemled to be a Est of
ac:ual or potential domains of specialization. On
the con;rary, the thrust of our argi: men: so far is
that these v.1rious aspecg of culture and the
spcdalizcd coteries of researchers w:w document
them ~hoi:.ld not exist in mutual isolation. The
.r.oal of cth nograp hk accounts of everyday life,
particularly cultural .1r;d organiiational milieux,
should be to use su.:!t ~nalytic perspectives and to
a1:alyze such materials in constructing mal:ilay
ercd accou :,Is of the social world.
Thc~e obse:rvations are not intended to be a
cor.1prc'lensivcc lis:ing of all relevant domabs and
strategics of'nquiry. On :he contrary, uur remarks
have l:hrhlv
0 '
sdt"Ct've. We have deJ;beratelv•
offered some remarks on a fow key f:t'lds of
research to illustrate anc develop our more gen-
eral argument ni:Ker:1: ng the treatment of quali-
talive dara in the analysis oi sucial organization
and action, social idenli :ies and biographies,
social context& and institutions.
1il THE 0:mERING OF TIIE SOCIAL WORl ll
It would be tn rr:isrcpresen: our remarks.
We are r:ot simp:y suggesting a pron:iscuous
series of analytic perspe<.:tivcs and stnitogies. We
~re not advocating simply putt:ng data types a:1d
analvt:c types together in the interest, an
ill-defined holirn:. The holistic idea'. has, from
time to time, been proposed as the goal of elhno•
graphic and ot'.1er qualitative research, although
few social scientists nowadays would recogr: ize
the ex:stencc of phenomena such a, "com mun i-
lics" Iha! can be described holistically any,vay.
Such ar: ideal implies a degree of temporal, spa-
tial, ai,d rnltu.ral closure that is a chimera. V.'e do
recon: mend systen~atk anenlion to the~c data
types ar:d .inalytk perspect:ves Jernusc
retlest ccrtail: princip:cs of intr:nsk orga:1i~ation.
ft i, not altogether fashionable to invoke
110tio1:s such <IS int~insic organization in the
analysis of social life (cL At:<.:nson & Delamont
2004). ::>ur:ng the era of poststructuralism aed
postmodemi,1:1, t'iere is widespread rejectior:
of anything that suggests "s,ructure" or stable
patterr:ing in social and cultural forms. ¼e
beEeve, on the o:hcr hand, that we should recog-
nize that forms can he identified and that th;;:;y
can serve as fae basis of an ar,alytic approach to
qualitative social a:1d cultural data. Moreover, an
llj'.'p roach such as this gives us prbdpled ways
of understanding data of different sorts as reflec-
tions of tr.e codes of sodal order. II also gives us
ways of recond iing a number of tensiuus within
the current treatment of qualitative resrarch.
It is not 11ecessary tu invoke completely deter-
minate and in var:ant structures rn as to identify
im:igenous p,indples of order in particular forms
of so.:fal action. Thr most (i:iv iLmS starting
pr.int-and it is o:1e where there is no room fur
dispute-lies in foe organization of spoken
d:scourse. Discourse ar.alysis and conversa:ior:
analysis are virtually interchangeable from this
and the disciplimiry diFcrences
between them are insign:ficant for our purposes,
It is :101 necessary to recapitulate their major
11mJings ·:i.ere. Bui the general prhciples aeed
reaffirmal:or:. Fron: the current va1:tage point,
it is perhaps hard to n;,x:onstrm:: the recentness
of any atter.tion to spo;_e11 discoi.: rse as a:i ob;ect
of ar:alysis (as oppo;;ed to hypothetica: texts o:
written materials) and of attentio:1 to neer
ances in their r:ati.:.ral context (a, opposed to
decontextualiied :n dividual sentences). The
recognition that there can be order beyond the
srntax of tr:c h:dividual ser::i:ncc or beyond
the single t1tteran;::e is a relatively recent one. It
follows, to a considerable exten;, 1hc technology
of per r:iamml rcco:uing that has permitted the
dose scrutir:y uf ;;1.:d1 phc'non,ena, trwsforming
spokim discourst i:1to an object of inquiry ar.d
transforming it~ features in:o a topic of socio-
logical. psyr:hok}gkal, and lingui,tic inquir,:
The emergence of discourse analysis has
transformed our collec:ive appreciation of the
intcractior, order in ways foreshadowed by
Goffman's pioneering remarks and the no less
originnl o':;servations by Sacks (Goffman, !981;
Sacks, 1992; Silverman, 199/l}. It establishes the
fundamental ar.d pervasive principles of order,
not at the micro ]eve: of organization. Order

in thi, sense dis;ilay~ itself fa;:ougn a remarkable
array o~ socially shared devices, the operation
which produces and reproduces orderly conduct,
The distinctive charackr of these devices is that
:hey are used locally and rccursivrly to generate
strings of ordered interactions, The participants
do not need to ";,;now" the ovc rail structure of the
er:countcr to generate
'
it (n a ::m,dic:ahle
. and sta·
ble way, They do r.o: even need to be aware: of the
cm;ventions ther are using, Simil,1r rnnsidcra·
tions apply to orderly conduct apart from spoken
language, 1'he recursive a?pEcation s'mplc
rules, :n a practica'. way, generates orderly activity,
To generale "stru:tnres'' such as queues and 11:rn•
taking systems. for hstance, each particiuant
needs only to apply a simple chaining rule (i.e.,
"next parlidpanl follows the yrev loas a,to:-") and
to k:iow his or he~ re!a:ive position for d:e system
to 'le self-replicat:ng. Again, r,o actor neec.s to
know the sequence uf <, complclt: queue for it to
work s:noothly; ?rovidec that e-ad: ,:ctor applies
the same basic ruk.
It is in this &"tnsc, therefore, tr.at spoken and
unspoken actions a:m display btrinsic orders that
are in so1:1e scn,e independcn I of the actors' con•
sciousnc;;l! or intcnti011s. In a s.imil ar vein, we car.
detect the interaction of ?hyslcal mid spoken
actions. The capacity we now have to capLue
a:ir. 1nspect vtdcutapcs !:f :n:man a,,::ur.s and
processes ot i:lteract:on already allows us to iden-
tify stable patterns of gesture :n a way tn?.t was
unavailable to earlier generations of observers, lb
th!s point, the soda! sciences have been rclativc 1y
slow to fully explore the opportunities opened up
by ne'N digital technologies. We do know, however,
,bat we can identify rccur,e:1t ar:d interactionally
functional patterns of movement and repertoires
of gesture at a level of delicacy t'lat only such per·
manent recordings render possible. we \:ave
suggested, many of these analytic opportunities
are dependent on co111er.1porary recording tech-
nology. The in:?o,tant thing, however, i, 1;ot the
tec:1.nology per se but rather the opportunity
to dose and systematic ana'.ytic al\ention to
the structur!?s of action, We c<1n ic:ent'I\: what
Goffman ( 1983) reforxd :o as an "interaction
order" that dis?lays o~dering feature, that arc
Atkinson & Dela:nont: Analytic Per:;pe,:tiv,cs 111 829
relatfrely independent of th<' individual social
actors who bring them :n:o bei:ig, \lie know that
soda! ~ctors notice when the interaction order
breaks down and that they share devices that
repair mistakes and restore o:dcrly functioning.
But :hey do so as n,atters of preoon~cious action,
Order i, achievec and repaired th rmigr: the ,ippli-
cation of recipes of action in a serial fash;or,,
Complex structures and cxtencied chains of
action can be generated in a sta::ik ar:d s:noo:h
fashion throi.;gh the lornI application of simple
ge11t:r<1t:ve rules applied in a stepwise fashion.
We can iJo;;ntify recurrent orderfrg principles
a: a level of org,miration even greater than tum
by-tu~n di~coursc. The dose analysis of narratives
and similar spoken yerfom:anccs shows them to
have recurrent struc:ures, There have been vari-
ous successful attempts to describe large-;cale
ordering pri nd?ks for narrative events, L:;bov's
pionrerlng wor;., is one key example, Labov's
gmundbrea:,dng work rn: language hi society was
i:movative in various ways. with h:s work on ,po•
ken narratives being one example (Labov, 1972),
Lahov dncun:e11ted a mtm':ier of ba~ic structLTal
elements thal were p.1rt of the "grarr.mar" of ~er-
sonal stories and accounts.Although not al'. of tl:e
1,t ructure l element~ ws:re absolutely nece.,sa,y for
the production of a competent narrative, they rec•
ognizably generated stories that arc sequentially
coherent, deliver the content rornpclently,
and are ,1dably ''pointed" to make the story intel•
ligible to speaker ar.d hearer ali~e (La::iov, 1972),
We do not need to regard these as "deep struc.
tures ;' or a, exerting mysterious powers over
social actors, to acknowledge the recurrent pat•
terning of narratives. A simihlr vein of analysis
has been uncerlake:1 by Hymes (1996 ). Hymcs's
treatment, perhaps less well known than that of
Labov, is more sli"::dy grounded in an appn,cfation
of ethnopoetics, that is, 1he c:1lturally ,pec'tk con-
ve:1tions of aesthetics and rhetoric rha, inform
tbe compe:er.t performance am: reception of oral
performances. Hynes demonstrated pr:nciple1,
that create dist:nctive internal strucn:res within
:1arratives and cllh~r oral pcrfonnances, l'ro:11
:1is treatm,rnt of the r:1aterlals, it appears that it is
not necessary to reorder actors' own words into
830 11 HA:qD!IOOK OF QUAUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 32
"poetic" reconstruct:ons rather than to uncover
the e:hnopoetic structures and aesthetic prind•
?ies that are indig.,nous lo many narratives and
accounts.
Form~ and functions of narrati 11es a:id
accoc nts a:-e a'.so icentifiable from many analy ·
ses of respondents' m::cou:1ting devices. Among
:hesc are the rhetor;cal repertoires or registers
employed by natural scientists to express and
reconcile recu rrenl features of scientific work.
Gilbert and Mulkay 11984) demonstrated that
na:ural scientists deploy alternating repertoires to
account for sden:ific discoveries. Scientists prof•
re:- explanatior:s bat reflect the cor.tingendes of
personal and local d1arncteri;tics while simdta-
ncously attributing scientific ciscovery to the
ineimrab:e and impersrmal revelation of 11a711re.
The •· reconcile any discL:rs:ve o:- cognitive dis•
::repandes by appealing to the mcdiati ng dev:ce
that "tile truth will out" in any .:vent (Gilbert &
Mulkay, 1984). A simi'.ar analysis of experts'
accounts can be foum: in a subsequer., analysis of
the rhetorical work of health economists, whereas
Atkinson and his colleagues have developed a
sim Lar analysis of a research group's accounts
of its own scientifc breakthrough (Atkinson,
Batchelor, & Parsons, l998 ). A,.;counting devices
or ~egisters are relatively stable features of these
a:id similar accoi;nts.
[n a similar fashion, we have a large n:.imber of
a::ialyses of profess'.ur:als' accounts of work,
including the formulation of phenomena such as
"cases" and "ffodings." Occupations such as medi-
cine and social work have narratives and accounts
included in their stock-in-trade (Atkinsor., 1995;
Bunter, 1991; Pithouse. I987). Their practitior.ers'
routine work is constructed through va,ious
i<:nds spo~en performance. Practitioners per•
suade one another concerning diagnoses and
assessments through the co::istruc:ion of cases
that are, in turn, dependen: on narrative ,;true
ture,; they use rhetorical devices to invoke
dence in support of their arguments. These> are
characterized by recurrent rhe:orical features of
their professional talk. They use characteristic
de•tices to e:icode i~sues of ev:dem.:e, competence,
and responsibility in the course of collegial talk.
Ir. a very simi:ar vein. wt can identify rh c:o:ical
features of legal discourse through which cases
are constructed, evidence is assembled and
prcser:ted, or judgments are iustified. Again, the
major issue here lies nut in the local details of pa,-
ticular settings or occupational groups but rather
in :he presence of stable regular featuxs of spo-
ken actions that can be identified. They can, in
tu:-n, be examined i:1 terms of the sort of work
that they perform. ln other words, analytic payoff
resides not only in identifying the patterns, struc-
tu:-es, a:1d conven:ions that generate such activity
but also in a:1alyzing their mo:al and pra.:tical
impHcations.
We can extend such analytic perspectives
beyond the individual narrative. There arc
S}'Stems of genre. There are culturally defined and
socially shared types of story fo,mats. The
tence of such generic types 1;1eans tha: we should
not regard narrative accoun:s as reflections of
private and individual experiences.i!Jthough nar•
ratives am! biographical .lccounls may be felt and
expressed as if they were highly personal, they are
con strucled and received in terr:1:i of cultural
idion:s and formats. This is demonstrated well
' .
in Plum t:l er's ( : 995) a:1alvsi.s. of sexual stories.
Althuugh account, of coming out or of ':ieing a
rape victim mighl be thought of as extremely
private and '.ndeed ir,_ one sense ~hey arc-
Plum mer's analysis showed that they are couched
in terms of shared forms or genres. Cult~ra\ly
defined formats can be identified in mai:y con•
texts of spoken a:id written perfo:mance. I11ey
prescribe the shape am: c<Jnlent of many de&crip-
tio:1s and accounts. l\fany of th c forms with which
we are entirelr farr:ilia,, to the point of taking
them for g::anted, are highly coiwentional-or
even arbitrary-cultural i:npositions. The analy•
ses of documentary types such as the sder.tific
report demonstrate there are historical and
culturally prescribed cnn,euliu:1s tr.rough which
the ":;\11111 facts" of :w.tJre and its exploration are
conveyec. The work of authors such as Mye:'s
( 1990) Is testimony to the significance of the
genre uf the scientific report.
If it is fa!rly self-evident that discourse, dc1;,::rip•
tions, and narratives di.play indigenous principles

of structure and order, we do not neec to restrict
such analyses to language. The general principles
of serr:iotics can be applied to cult :.t:al systen:s of
sigr:Jication. Hence, visual and materfa: data can
be examinec in terms of their intrinsic orders. Tr.e
syste:ns of fashion and clothing, fur eumple, are
not exbaustivelr defined in semiotic terms, hut or:e
can readily ideutify the basic structurir.g principles
of such systems. The alternating and conl:asting
stn:cturing princbles that define the fashion
s;-stem in recent Euro• Amerkan rulmre include
the binary cont,asts short/long, dose/loose, s:ruc-
tirediJnstructured, fnlllnarrow, colored/neutral,
and plain/patterned. Altl:ough individual design·
ers nm develop the:r distinctive idiolccts from
within suc.1. systems, overall the semiotic prim;i-
ples '.lelp to define a "look" that is s:iared among
r:iany individual des:gners and houses in c.efinir.g
fae distinctive style of a given season. In a similar
vein, the "private» domain of fotish:stic far:tasy and
plea,ure is defi:1ed in terms of c·Jlturally defined,
ar'::iitrary features (e.g.• leather, rubber, hig:1 heels,
boots) that are themselves derivatives o~ and trans.
ronn from the general system of do thing (Barthcs,
I983; Hodkinson, 2002; Mann:ng, 200 I; Storr,
2003, Truy, 2002).
Visual styles of mar.y sorts display Jask semi-
otic prhciples. 7he visual "languages" of advert is
ing, for instance, use recurxnt t:oding prir.ciples
tliat are grounded in represemations of gender
relations, sexual fantasy, exotic se:tings, domestic
settings, and so forth, with the precise selection
ar.d combination of semiotic elements reflecting
the product being advertised a:1d :he genre of
advertisement itself. Goffman's (1979) analysis
gender relations in advertisements in print media
is bu! one examp'.e of how advertising forms ca:1
be "decoded" from a sociologkal perspective. In
a similar vei:i, om: ,an ider.tify set:1iotic prlnci-
ples of style and space in representa! ions of the
domestic sphere and its :deals. b the multiplicity
of Efestyle magazines and television prngroms,
statements about actual or desired ;,tatus and
identity can be constrJcted from rolor si:he:nes,
furnishings, and fittings. Styles can be identified
through assemblages of r:1aterials and objects, for
example, defining art nouveau, Bauhaus, art deco,
1\:Km,,i:1 & De'.amont: Analytic Perspectives • 83l
or modernism. Such aesthetic pr lnc:ples may
ir::1.abit places of work as well as domestic envi-
ronmen:s. The visual and material language oi
the built cnviron:m,:it is also susceptible to semi-
otic analysis. The use of space within and around
buildi:igs, the structures of buildings tnemselves,
and t:ie in:erior layouts of buildin& simulta-
neously reflect the assemblage of cu'.:mal forms
as well as :he :ndividual or corporate taste of the
dient and the aesthetic style of the archi:ect
Our general point here should not be :ost in
the various types and ex.irr: ?les to which we
have alluded. We are not trying to produce a
comprehensive enumeration of all the culm,al
p:ter.o;ne:,a that can be analyzed. Rather, we are
suggestins whatever else these artifacts and
activities n:igh: be, they display various 11rrays
of structuring and semiotic principles, From the
bu'lt environment. through domestic spaces, to
:ndividual self-presentations, biogra?hies, na!'ra-
:ives, and ,;onversations, of these social p'.1.e-
nomena can be understood in terms of their
intrinsic p;inciplcs of struclurt: anc order. 'l11e
collection of qualitative data certainly sr.ould nu:
be confined to spoken mareriab, whe1her :hey arc
na,urally occurring s;mken interarlion data m
transcribed interview data. T:iere are multiple
media of inscription in which cullllre is enacted,
and social action takes place thruugh multiple
embodiments.
lit CLASSIC PRIKCIPL?.S
A systen:atic ethnography needs to take account
of the intrinsic ordering, thrm:gh which social
worlds are produced am: reproduced. :t is not
necessary for any one ethnographic study to
encorr.pass systems of discourse,narrative, mater·
ill! culture, aesthetics, and performar.ce to satisfy
some notional criterio:1 of completeness or ade-
quacy. On the other hand, we should not ignore
such structu,ing principles. There i.;; no long-term
benefit to :he overall prniect of social research if
styles of data collection and analysis remain frag-
mented. We cer:ainly need some people to work on
specialized t.:chnologies and ted:miques-digital
332 II llArxDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESl:.ARC!i-CEAP':'FJi 32
visualization, discm:rse structures, semiotic
structures, and the like-bu: those analytic
domains n:ust not :lm;rish only in mutual isolatim1,
We do not want to see the social world represented
as if il consis,;cd transcribed talk, spckcn
narratives, visual artifacts, or material goods.
We have already reforred to Blurner's ( I954)
recommendation lhat research shoi:id be "faifaful
rn the pl:enornena:' In va~ious ways, cd:ierence to
tnat injunction rnn prove to he problematic. It is
hard to ;__:mw what should count as phenomena in
the first place, and it seems dangerous to assume
that they have an essence independent of the
method.~ used to construe them. Clearly, perfect
correspondenc8 to an independently identith!ble
rea:m of social objects and actions is impossible.
We cannot aspire to pcrlcct or comprehem:ve
fidelity or to capture all of the variations :o be
found among and between types of social actions
and actors. But the upshot of our argu:nent is that
rth nographers should certainly be faithful to the
forms of soc:al :,1henomena. We should be atte:1-
tive to the indige:ious srstems of action and
representation. We should 1:ot thi:lk of igr:oring
the sys:ems of, say, ethnoaesthetks more than we
think of mangling the local language(~) of our
chosen resrnrch set ting. Fidel' ty to the social
worlds in which we work require~ a systematic
ana!ysis of the princip'.es of order they display.
At tn that extent, then. we can rctai n a sense
of fidelilv and reorese11taliu11 that is firm Iv rooted
' , '
in ~odal for~s and also retains a notion of rigor,
This is, mo rcover, a productive way of
approaching some key im;:,li:at:o:1s of uthick
description" (ticcrtz, 1973), Geertz's (1973) use of
the term, derived from Gilbert Ryle's philosopl:y
of mind, been s uscep:ible to many readings.
TI1e mos, vulgar of uses do little or no justice to
Geertz's ow:i iruspb1tion. Thick description is too
often u.~ed to convey fae sense that etlu:r.grapl:k
accounts arc densely constructec with graphic and
deta::ed cultural descriptions. Although this may
be :he case, it does not really capture the specific
analvtic
'
force of Geertz's idea, which is dear:v
intended to G:?turc the degree lo which cultural
. only on an upportunistk combination of methods
matters are overceterminrd i:1 the sense that
are • t:'.:iple codings that generate meaning. T:1ere
are, Geertz stressed, • ultiple perspectives o,
interpretive frnmewo~k,, that is, rr.ultiple notiva-
tional frames that infurm social eve1:ts and actions.
O" r own ins:s'len,c on the i11tr:1:sic forms of culture
and action gives a particular lim:e :o tl:e notions of
thick description. Frorr: our point of view, whatever
else it might nean or be :aken to rr:ean, it should
ind ude ar.alytic attention to the :rultiple codings
and stru~turing principles :hrough which sociallife
is enac:cd and repre;ented,
In these tW'O scr:ses, therefore, we car: bri:1g
into dose conjunction Blumer's precept and
Geertz's insight Bo:h can find analytic forct in the
ethnographic analysis that :, faithful to the con-
tours culture and structures of action. We
arc mindful at this poin1 lo invoke yet a t:iird idea
derived from classic accounts of i:lh nog:-«phk
analysis. that is, the r.otion of "triangulation"
(Denzin, 1970), Uk: the first pd, of terms we
invoked, trfamgulation has :Jeen subject :o multi•
pie ren,leriugs ar.c misrepresentations. Eere, we
du not w'sh 1D suppress Dr super~ede all other
connotations of triang11lario11, the fruitlu: r.ess of
which Hts partly in the mulriplidry inspira-
tions that res,eu:cr ca:1 draw from it A: :hoJgll
it is not frui :ful to assume. as : n oversi:nplified
versions, that research methods or data types can
be aggregated to gene,ate a more rou:1ded or
completr pi::;ure of a soda] world than would be
generated by a single method alone, it n ig':it be
productive to approach it in a way that is m:Jre
congruent with our own approach: that is, to :ec-
ogn lze that there can be a mode of triangulatior.
derived "mm an explicit rerngllilion of multipfo
sodal orde-rs and pr'ncblrs of srructur:ng.
Triangulation thought of b th's way has a very
sped fie, if re5:ricted, subsrt of meanings witl:ir:
the overall analytic s.tri!legy. Again. it recognizes
the muhiplic:tr and simultaneit;- of cultural
frame, of referen ce-spokei:, performed, semi•
otic, :rn1terial, and so forth-through whk'1
.~odal events and in sti tutlor.s are possible,
Comequently, a triangulated acco'.1:11 depends not
ar:d sources but also on a principled array o:
methodological strategit:S that retkct the indige-
:1ous princblcs of order and aclion.

Finally, our own approach here gives us
some p,mlucti ve ways of rern ;,eratini significant
aspects of "grounded theory" {Charmaz &
.Mitchell, 200L; Glaser & Sir,,nss, 1967; Strauss &
Corbin, l 998 ). We have already refer red to the
contested nature of this idea, or package of ideas,
and we do not :1ee<l to recapitulate tl:e various
cefinit:ons and applications of gro111:ced the!lry.
We simply reaffir:;1 that grou:1ded theory does
not refe, to some special order of theorizing per
se. Rather, it seeks to capture some general prind•
of analysis, describing heuristic strntegies
that apply to any soc :al inquiry independent of
the parrku;ar kinds of data: indeed, it applies to
the exploratory analysis of quantitative da:a as
much as it does :o qualitative inquiry. The idea
deri res directly from the pragmatist roo:s of
inkracl:c:r:i.;;m. It captures the abducr/11e logic
through which analysts exp:ore the social or nat•
ural world th~ough practical engagements with it,
derive working models a:1d provisional under
standings, and use such emergent ideas to guld e
fmt:ier e1,1p1:-1Ca. explorations. It ~epresents a
compmm ise between the arid pl: il osopl:y of
purely doouctive logic (which can not m:munt for
the derivation of fruitf1:l theories and hypotheses
in the firs~ place ar.d acmits of no place for ,'xpe-
rience in the prv.-ess of discovery) and purely
inductive logic (which never transcends the col•
lection and aggr;;gation of ohserva:ions in gener•
a:ing genernlizations). 1b a crn1siderable 1;:xte:1t.
therefore, 6ere :, little :o choose in practice
betwee:1 grounded theory and analytic inductfrm
as sum :r.ary accounts of the prac:kal wo:-k
soda: exploration and the derivation ideas.
Both formulations capture the ;1eed for system•
atic interactions between data a::d iceas as well as
the emergen: propertic5 i{ re,earch design and
data analysis, which arc in cci:stant dialogue.
Both formulatiu:1s also en:phasize the processual
and ite:-a:ive nature of 1he research precess.
·100 often, however, grounded theory is con·
strued ru, a justification for lh,t; inductive retro·
spt:ctive inspection of volumi:s of fit:ld data, as if
the resear::h strategy were based on the acc:.!:uula-
tion of cases and the intro;,pectlve derivation ot
categories-often th:-ough an inductive procedure
Atkinson & Delamont: /\nalytic l'erspeclivc, 1111 KU
data "cue.inf' Some of 6e descriptions of
grounded theorv' bv, own advocates ]:ave inad-
vertrnt:y conlr:bi.::ed tu this impression, Hut if we
:r.ke seriously so:n.e of the ·.hings we have already
outlined mu\ claimed. we can discern some possi-
ble strategies that suggest princ:pld relatio:1ships
belwee:1 data and analysis in a grou11ded theory
manner. In other words, we recognize that CJ!ture
ar:d action are ordered. Consequently. tl:e work of
d2ta cullectiun is not drvuted to the accumulation
isolated cases or fragmentary materials, and
ana~rsis. is not just a ma! ter of sorting and dassi·
fyi ng :hose materials.
Virally, in :unsidering our dassic ;irinciples,
we can sum up sl:'.vend of our tbemes so far
w: tl1 reference to Schutz's (197 3l di~cussion of
first• ar:d second-11rde, constructs. In !;_is deve:-
opment of versrehen sociological prir.c:ples
':Jeyond Dilthey or Weber through soda! phenom-
enolug:,-, Sd1ul1. suggested that analytic forms,
such as ideal type,, are not the sole preserve of
the sociological observer. Ev.:ryday social actors
are engaged i::t practical intt'rpretations of t :ieir
own sod al worlds.· I hey use first-order constructs
such as the method of practical reasoni :ig that
uses typifirnrion,. Sociological anal ;-sis, tl:crcfore,
involve.\ a (second-order) meta-analysis of !:le
first-order, everyday analyses. of practical so~:al
actor;. In the same way, everyday social life dis-
plays principle, of ordc, that tl:e analyst expli·
cates and systematizes. The everyday actor has an
implicit grasp of ordering rules and conven:kms,
and it is the of the a:ialyst to ex pli ~ale s~ich
tacit knowledge (cf. Maso, 2001).
We )dieve, therefore, tl:at the soda! world
displays various :ndigenous pri::tdples organi•
zatio:i. There are multiple orde:-ing princi?Jes-
disc;irsive, spat;al, sem iotk, na,rative, am: so
forth-to which the analysis of quaE:ative data
needs to be attentive, The social analyM devel:Jµs
second-order models of these indige:ur,1, codes,
conventions, and orders. There sl:o uld, t:1erefore,
be prindpled relations between the first-order
and second-order cor,structs. The:e shou ;d also
be systematic relations between the different
second o,der analyses and modeb. A:,huugh this
formulation might seem to h<" unduly forma \istic,
834 ll :iANDBOOK OF (JUAL:TATJV E Rli."iEARCII-CIIAl'TER JZ
we believe it to be a salutary corxctive to the
unduly experiential perspectives curre:itly bmughl
to bear on qualita:ive da1a analysis. Ir: the follow-
ing section, we turn our ar:e:1tion to a parallel
set of analytic preoccupat:ons concerned with
representat'on and aest:1etics.
Ill REPRESENTAT!O\/ A:i;D AESTHETICS
To this point, we have referred exclusively to the
contours of culture, the semiotics of indigenous
systems of rep:·esentation, and :he i; tr uctures of
social action. We now turn brie:ly :o the analytic
work of writing and other modes of ethnogra;>hic
represe:itation. We do not reca?i:ulate the history
of th is partic~1lar domain, nor do we review all of
the contributions that have been made to it. That
work has been do:ie elsc;vnerc. Hc,e, we note that
there has been a marked tendency among :he
more innovative ethnographers to experiment
with the textua'. conven:ions of ethnograpl:ic
reportage {Fau :iion, 200 I), The use of nont radi.
tional lite:-ary :'orms or perfor:nance te,hniques
has been well documented, and there :s ~ growing
corpus of published materiab in those forms.
Such experi men:s are usually represented as l:av-
ing rad:cal ,onnotations, and they are among the
characteristics of ethnography associated with
postmodernist ideas and with fae most recent
«moments" of Lincoln and Deniin's ( I994, 2001)
developmental model of qualitative research (for
a critique of this particular formulatior,, see
Delamor.t, Coffey, & Atkinson, 2000).
There is no dou!it all tl:at writing e:hnogra·
phy i& an important aspect of ethnographic analy-
The ?rocess of analysis stretc~es far beyond
the r:i ~r~ manipulation of data and cvrn of the
work of grounced theorizing, tl:ick des..:dption,
and tr:e like. It resides in the recons1 :11ction of a
given social world or some key featJres of it. Such
reconstructions a.:e rendered persuasive throt:gh
the lex:ual and other devices deployed by etlmog•
raphers in pult:ng together the leK:s, mm~, ,me
the like that constiu:re "the ethnography." h:
response to various interventions, a'l scrwlars
recognize that tl:is pr(lcei,s is not innocent There
is no transparent medium through which a social
wor:d can be reµresenled. Language is not a
transparent medium. The tex:ual convention~ to
which we have !)ernme accustomed are just
that-convcutio:is_ Photography, film, and video
are not merel~· passive reco:-ding r:ied:a; rather,
they aciively shape our reception of social
;.;ultural pne:1ome:1a.
In the pursuit of the experimental turn :::
ethnographic representation, however, we believe
that there have been exaggerated and extravagar:t
moves. In bracketing and transgressing the con•
ventions of realist re:iresenlatioru; and the textual
formats of sdentif:.c w r:ting, networks of authors
have chosen to ass: milate sociological representa
tion to E:erary for:tls such as poetry and fiction.
[n this the:-e lies a canger. The representation
social pl:enomena through poetry, for instance,
inscr:be:s so:m, major assumptions (rarely ex?li•
cated in the course of thi& ethnographic genre).
Pirst, tl:e focl!s of attention is shifted radically
from the culture ar.d actions of social actors
toward :he representa:ionai work of ethnogra-
phers the11:sclves. In sharp contrast to analyses of
culture that decenter the "authors; much experi-
mental writing places individual antho~s firmly-
and sometimes exclusively-center stage. Literary
work suer: as poetry here does not necessarily
create the "open" or "messy» texts that some critks
had sought Rather, they create closure by creating
a new bas.is for authorial privih:ge. Moreover, the
ability to consrruct plausible, let alone meritori-
ous, poetry or autobiographical writing appears
to rest on personal authorial qualities. The social
wor'.d is aestheticized in process. What counts
as a good .:lhnographic account is, therefore, in
danger of ,es.ting pr:muily on aesthetic criteria.
Moreover, be asbi:nilation of cultural and
social ?h enomena to first •person •dominated
texts, whether prose or poetry, can do violence
to phenomena themselves. We have already
alluried to Blumer's ( 1954) aphorism concerning
fidelity to the phenomena, and we invoke it once
more he:e, We do not thi ;i k that we are in any pos·
sible sense o: the te,m faithful to the phtnomena
if we recast them into forms that derive from
quite other cdtural domains. ¼e losing the

intrir.sic aesthetic, and other forma: characteristics
of the original meanings, evt!nts, and actions. We
have aiready referred m the princ: pie of el hnopo-
etics in recogni7ing that t'iere are imEgcnous
canons of rhctork and construction in cultu,al
perfor:1:ances. Analysts distort or obliterate the
cultures lhev, seek to account for if thev. translate
everything i:lto thei:: own culturc-lmund aeslhet-
ks. l'irst -person autobiographical writ Ing ar.d
expcr'.cntially derived pot:trr do not enjoy m: iver
sal value. They are, if anyth:ng, among the more
culturally specific and Emited expressive
ton:i,. There is little or no ""arrant for elevating
them to being !he preferred vehic'.e for cross-
cultural or cul tu rally sensitive soda! research.
Si:nilar reservations can he e11tert3ir:ed con-
cerning performance ethnography in gene,al.
It :s now permu;sible in some academic coi:texts
lo use rnr ethnographic Cata and the i:lsights
gleaned frnm ethnographk fieldwork w create
various t;·pcs of pt:rformatiw and aes:heric texts
or arti:a<.1s. De:1:dn's (2003) recer:t volume is a key
exemplar a:id discussion of 6is perspective.
Mienczakuwski (200 I ) also provided an oven :ew
of ;,erto::med ethnograpl: y and etlmudrama. We
do 11111 seek tn de'.racl from tl:ese <1?pruaches in
ge:1eral except pe:-haps to sugg,~st that perfor
mancc ethnographers might engage more fully
and svstcmatkallv with l:\e now wide-ranging
' ' ' vation and those of interviewing-between what
ethnographic .tudy of per:onnancc [Atkinson,
2004). We Cll, hmvever, wish tu something
more keeping with the general thrust ot this
cha .:,ter, nan:elv, that we should be vtn', careful
indeed of i• posing "our· ?Crfnrn:at: ve and aes-
t'ictic criteria and cnmpetcm:es in 6e ,exe-
ser:tatim1 of settings, cultures, and actors while
r.eglccting tr.e 'ndiger:oi;, local forms of perfor-
r:umce through whid1 culture, organization, and
action are actually ma:n:a :ned in everyday Efo.
Social Action, Social Organization
In f:--uming our a:gomcnt as rnd1, we are
dear:y s:ressing or.e part ic1Jar array of
and preferences. We co so partly to redres, what
we sec as a mislead:ng tendency with'1: n~any
conte:u ?Orary versions of qualitativc rcscan:h. We
Alkinson & Delamont: Ana:ytk Pc>rspt'L:ivcs llli\ <135
believe Iha: too much emphasis is currently
placed 0:1 the iden L: 11cat:m: and documentation
of social acturs' experiences or ptrception, at the
expense of sociaf acticn1 and iClc'i,ll organization
(cf.Silverman, 2004).
In part, we recapitulate argur.1ents to which we
have contributed elsew:iere, and l:ere v1e seek to
generabc them further. We stress tha, ar:10:1g rhe
go;;Js o[ ethnograph k research is lo aua!y:le social
articm, social orde1; am: soda/ organizut wn as well
as to analyze t;,e forms and rnntents of culture.
We need to pay serious anC: systrmat'.: attention
to the recurrent phenomena of anthropology,
sociology, and cognate disdp:i ncs such a, disc:i~-
sive psyd:olot;y, lin~uistks, and semiotics. This
mC'ans that ethnograpl:ic and other qualitative
research is much more th r.n the sympathet!c
descrip:ion and reportage of informan:s' Cl(peri-
ences. We have argued elsewhere to the effect 1hat
qualitali ve research :iceds to transcend the cul-
tura]y pervasive infh,s:nce of :he interv:ew and
what Atkinson and Silverman ( 1997) called the
"interview socie1 y." We do not stthscrihe to the
view tha: quali:ative research :s justified pr:raar-
ily by representing sod al affairs from the point of
view of individual soc:al actors or even from the
perspectives of social aggregates.
Th:s docs not i:nply a return 1\l the old method
ological contrstation hetween the merits o' ohscr-
people ,io and what peopic say (Atkinso:i et al..
2003 ). The reverse is true. Instead, we :hat
what people say is :tself a form of action. We need
to analyi.e social actors' ~ccounts or narratives as
types of speech ac,s. likewise, Wt' need to recog-
nize that even s.uch «experiences" as memo,ics or
emotions are not merely psychological ,tates but
also are perfor:nec social enactments Torn,
2001; Wagner-Pacifici, I996 ). .Moreover, in line
with Yills (1940), we need lo see 11mliv1cs as
socially sha,ed, culturally dcfim,d frames of ji:sti-
:'ication or rationalization (Atkinson & Coffey,
2002). So, social act.10:i in dudes the work repre-
sentation. !Jkewise, acl'on inck,ccs the
J&e and circulation of other modes of reprcscnta-
:inn sud1 a, material guud~ and ,ullural arti::ads
(Vi:1ck, 2003).
836 111 HA:iDBOOK OF Ql:ALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 32
It follows, therefore, that we are reco• mending
a ;n.rl:cular approach lo :hr analysis of social
life under the aegis of eth nogrnph le or qualita-
tive researc"t. \.\'e helieve that there is a need for
the reevaluation of analytic strategics that avoid
the kind of fragmented reductionism to whk:1
we referred at the! beginning of this chapter,
We do not believe that :1 is productive for analysis
to represent the soda! world primarily or
ex.elusively through the ler.s of just one analytic
strategy or data type. The differen: types of qual-
ita:ive research-discourse a • alysis, vis:ial
analysis, na~rative ar:alysis, and the :ike-are not
paradigms or disciplines in their own right;
rathe:-. they are analytic strategies that reflect and
respect the intrinsic complexity of soda! organi-
za:ion, the forms of social action, and the con-
ventions of social representation. This is :1ot ,iust
a matter of juxtapos:ng different "methods:• and
it is not just an appeal to rather vague notions
of "contrxt" or "h o l'ist'tc" e th nogmp hy; rat her, ·1t
means paying attention to the systemic relations
among the interaction order, orders of talk,
representational orders, and organized p:uper-
ties of material ,ulture, In this way, our analytic
perspectives can and s:rnuld reaffirm certair:
kinds of rigor, some of which we believe have
been lost to view in recent methodological writ-
ing. We stress, therefore, :he disciplined approach
lo technica'. such as diswurse analysis,
llarrative analysis, and ~cmiolic ana'.ysis. We seek
principled relationships between the various
contr:':iutory cisdplines and subd:sdplines. The
anal)·sis of social phenomena is not welt served
by the kind of fragmentation th.;t equates types
of data (e.g., spoken, visual, te.xlual, material)
with dis::piines or specialt:es working in relative
isola[on,
Ill RErERENCES
Appndurni, A. (E,t). ( 19116 ). The social liv,·s of thini:(S,
Cambridge, Camhr:dge Un,vers1tv Press.
Atkinson,;. M., & Hcrit:gc, J. ' (1984). Thestru,-
tures or., social actiol!: Stmiies in ca11versa'ir:m
analysis. Camhridge, :JK: Cambridge Universit}•
Press.
Atkinson, P. A. (I995 ). Medical talk and medical work:
The liturgy of the clinic, London: Sage.
Atkinson, !> A. (1997). Narrative turn or bl ii,d alley?
Qualilative .tieallh Research, 7, 32S-J4•t.
Atkinson, P. A, (2004). Performing ethnography and
the ethnography of performance, Rrirish Journal
11(Sociofogy 1,f Educa1io11, 107114.
Atkinson, P A., Batcheh,r, C.• & P,,;,:sons. E., ( 1998).
Trajectories of ,0Jlaboral:on and compe:ition in a
medic,] discovery. Science, Technalcgy, Ruman
Values, 23, 259-284.
Atkinson, I', A.• & Coffey.A. (2002). Revisiting 1he rela-
tionship bet ween partk: pant o:iscrvation and
intcrv iewing. :n J. E Gubrium & J. A. Holstein
(fals.), Handbot1k ,if illlcrview resrnrch: Comexl
and method (pp. 801-814). ':"housand Oaks,
Atkinson, E Coffey, A., & lklumonl, 5, (19~9).
Ethnog~aphy: Post, past, and prcstnt faamal of
Contempc;rnry iitlmograplry, 2:8, 460-4 7 l.
Atkinson, P. Coffoy, A., & Delamon!, S. {2UOJ ). A
debate al:mut uur cannn. Qua!itatil'e Rm:arch, l,
2-:::2.
Atkinson, I' A., Coffey, A., & Drlamont, S. (2[l03). Key
!hemes in qualitative rtseardi. Walnut CA:
Alta.Mira.
Atkir:,o::, P.A., & Ddamonl, S. (2004). Analys.is and
postmoder:iism In M. Hardy & A Bryman (Ed,.),
Handbook ofamlym (pp. 667-68 l;. Limdn:1: Sage.
Atkinson, R A,, & Silverman, D, (1997), Kundeds
lmmort11/i~1•;The interview society and the inven-
tion of the self Q11alita!i,e Inquiry, J, 304-325.
Attfie:d, J, (2000). Wild things; Tiie ,ru:ueriaf culture of'
e~eryday life, O~ford, UK: Berg.
Ball, M,. & Smith, G, (1 Analyzing vis11~/ d~111,
1',ewbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ball, M., & Smith, G, (2001). Technologies of realism?
EthnoJ!raphlc uses of p:.otogra?hY and film. In
P. Atkinson, A, Coffey, S, Delar::ont, ]. Lofland, &
L. Lofland (Eds.), H,m,tbock o,f ethnography
(pp. 302-319), I ondon: Sage.
Banks, M., & -:,,1orphy, H. {F.ds.). (1997). Rethinkitig
visual ,mlhrupology. :,lew Haven, CT: Yale
Universil )'
Barthcs, R \1983). The jiisltion ;-ys1m1. New York: Hill
&Wang.
B~uman, R ( l986 ). Stor)!, perfiirmance, and event;
Contextual ,tudies cf am/ r,arr.iti'1e, Cambridf,e,
UK: Cambridgt llniversil j" Prtss .
Behar, R. ( '. 996). The vulnerable <1bserver: Anthropology
thr,I breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon,

Bender, Jl,,, 8< Winer, M. (Eds.). (200: ), Co!itested
lamiscapes: Maverm::n', exile, 1md pl,1ce, Oxfu~d,
UK:Berg.
Benjamin, W. ( 1999). The Arcades Pwjec• [H. Eiland &
Md.aughli::.1'ra::s.). Cambridse, MA: Harvar::
Univers;ty l're;;s.
Bennett, A., & Dawe, K. /Ecb.). (21101). Guitar cultures.
Oxford, GK: Berg.
Bijker, W. (I 995 ). Of ~icrclrs, Bakeli!cs, and buf/1,:
Tvward a theory vf socioter:hnical ,hange.
Cambr:dge, MA: MIT Press.
Blumer, H. (I 954). What is wrong with soc:al theory?
American Sojological Re,iew, 19, 3-1 O.
Buchner, A. R., & Ellis, C. (J::ds.). (2001 ). Ethnograp~i·
ml{y speaking: lwtoethnograph)\ literature, and
1ies1he:ics. Walnu: CA: AltaMira.
Borden, L 12002). Siamwoarding, space, and the city:
Archilecluro w1d lmdy. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Brewer, J. (20()2}. Eth,;ogra.&hy. Huckingha:n, t:K: IJpen
Univers.i:y Press.
Butkr,T. (2003 l. London .:ailing: The middle cfa,m;s and
the remaking of inner l.om:km. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Caplan, P. (1997).Africcm Afrirnn lives. London:
Routledge.
Char::-iaz, K., & Mitchell,R. (2001 ). c;mundc'd theory and
ethno 5~aphy. In P.A1kinson, A. J. Coffey. S. Ddamont,
J. Lofland,& L Lolfand ;Eds,), Hamibook ofethntJg·
mp/;y(pp. l60-:73}. London: Sage.
Clough, I'. l (19'18) The md(s) of erimography: Fmm
reali'.<m trJ s<1cial criticism (2nd ed.). :-lcw York:
Peter
Coffer r., & Atkir:son, P. A. (1996}. Maki,rg sense
of q;u,litarive data: Complementary strategies.
Thousa::d Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conle, C. (2003). An anatomy o( narrati~ rn•Ti,,i',
Eduratioru,l Reseadier, 32(3}, 3-15.
Cortaz2i, M. (1991). l:'rim,;1y teaching: Haw it is-A
narrative analysis. :.ondon: David Fulton.
Cortazzi, M. (1993 ). Namufv~ .ir;aiysis. Landon:
Fal::1er.
Cortazzi, M. {20Cl ). Narrative analysis. In P. Atkinson,
A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J Loifand, & L Lofland
(Ecs.). Handbook 11' ethmigraphy (pp. 384-393).
London: Sage.
C,ouch, D.. & Uibb:-en, N. {Eds.). (2l!03). Visu1il culture
and tourism. Oxford, 1; K: Berg.
Crowlty, D.,& Reid, S. E. (Eds.}. (20021. So,ialist wac<!S:
Sites of everydiiy life in the li~s,m, Bloc. Oxford,
UK: Berg.
Czarniawska, ll. (I 997). Narrating the organ!zatioti.
Chicago: Lniversity of (hkago Press,
Atkinson & Dem:nont: Analytic Perspcetives II l\37
Czar=:iawska, B. ( 1998). A nar'f'.;tive approach to
organizatian studies. Thousa:id Oaks, CA:
Darby, W. ;. (2000). Lamlscape and id~ntily: Geographies
of r.atum and ,·lass in England, Oxford, UK: Herg.
Dtlamont, S. 12002). fieldwork in educatiom1! sritings
(2nd rd.). Lo:.don: Falmer.
Delamont, Cofley,A., & ,\tkinson, P. (2000). twi•
light years? Educatk1::al ethnography and the fiv,·
moments model. Qualitative Studies ii; Ed1mlffo11,
13, 223-238.
DeNora, T. (2000). Mu.<ic in everyday /ifi:. Cambridge,
l: K: Cambridge l'!1iversily Pres,.
DeNura, l'. (2G03}. After ildcmo; l~ethinlcing music
.socimagy Cambridge, UK: Can:bridp,e !Jnivers:ty
Press.
Denzin,N. (1970). Theresear,ti act. Chicag• :Aldim::.
Denzin, N, (1994). :he art and politics of inter•
pretation. :n :,J. K. Der:zio & Y. S, li:icoln (Eds.),
Hcmdbook af qualitative research (pp. 500-515).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzi::. :-l. K. ( 2003 ). Performance etbwgrai•hy:
Crifiral pedagogy a11d the politics cf culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Demin, N. K., & Linculn, Y. S. (Eds.;.(; 994). Hcmdboak
of qualitative research. ThcuSa11d Oaks, CA:
Denzi 11, N. K., & '...inwln, 'i. S. (Eds.). (20G ·1 J. Handbook
of qm,Jitative res~1m:h (2nd ed.). 71ou.,a nd Oak~,
CA: Sage.
Dk:ks, B. (2000). Heritage, plare, ,md wrr,munily.
Cardifl~ UK: Lni"cr&ity of Wales ?ress,
Dodds, G., & Taverner, :{, {:ZC0l). Bo;i,,· ,md bui!ding:
Essa;s on the cha11gi11g rtiatlim, cfbody and arrhi•
tecture. Cambridgr, MA: Ml'.:' Press.
Dyck, N., & Arc:ietti, E. P. (Eds.). (2003). Spori, d1111ce,
and embodied identities. Oxfo~d, t:K: 3erg,
Edwards, E. (2001 ).Raw histories: Pho11graplu, anrhro•
polog;;, and mu,eums. Oxford, Be;g.
Ellis, C. (2004). The eth11ograpilic l: A methodo 1agiwf
noYel a/,(1ut auloctlmugrapfiy. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira.
Ellis, C., & Boch~er, A, (Ed,.). (JI%). Compu,ing
ethnography. Walnu: Creek, CA: Alta.Mira.
Ellis, C., & .Flaher:y, .M. G, (Eds.). [I 9921. Inw:>stigat•
Ing subjectivity: Rese;;rch cr1 lived exJ,erienre.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
English Lueck, J. A. (2002). Cuilun:; Silic1m \!alley.
Stanford, CA: Stan•ord Ur..i vcrsity Press.
Faubion, J. D. (20011. Currents cf cultural fieldwork.
In I'. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont J. Ln:land,
& L. Lt)fland (Ed~.), Handboo.~ of ethnography
(pp. 39-59). l(mdon:
 ll38 JI HANDJ:l()()K OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAI'l'ER 32
fermrndei, J, 'ti., & Huber, M. T. (.WC:). Irony in
iiction: .A.n/hrcpo!of,!J!, :m;rtic:e. and the moral imag
/nation. Chicago: l:niversity of Chicago Press.
Hne, G. A. (JJJ0 I). Difficalt reputatioris: tollective mem•
of tfw ,tlil, Inept, aml controvc•·slal. Chicago:
Un iversil y •~;;:1ca,;o Press.
Finn, C. A. (2001 }. Artifacts; At; 1lrchr;eol11gists yellr i'l
Silicon Valley Cambridge, MA: Y.!T
Fci,t)'. & Knchlcr, S. (Ed.,.). (: 999). Tire art ot'forget•
ring. OxforJ, UK: Berg.
rmsh, P, (2003). The image factorr Consumer cu/tun,.
phorogmph;, and the visual content industry,
Oxford, UK: Be:"g.
(;;udner, K. (2002 ). Age, r1am11ivc., and migratian: The
iife course and lije historfo~ of Bc.'!gali eiders ir,
Um don. Oxford, t; K: Berg.
Geer11, C. (1973). The ftiterpl'ttati.:m of cuitMes.
);ew Yo:k Ba~k: Rooks.
Geert2, C. (1983 ). Local knowledge: further
in imerpretiw: 11r1thrnpofog;,: New Y(';rk: Basic
!loo:i.s.
Gilberi, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening P:md.,ra~
vex. Cambridge. UK: Cambrit:ge :Jn iversity Pcess.
Glaser, B. ( 1973 ). The0re,fc;i! sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA:
Sccio:ogy l'res,.
Glaser, B. (1992). faru:•gmce Vi!!'Sus forcin1;. Mill Valley,
CA: Scdology Press.
Glaser, & '"""'" A. L (1967). Tl1e dimnery of
gr,nmdell theorJr. Chicago: A!Jine,
Got:man, E. (1979). Gender ,,dvertisemems, Kew York:
Harper & Row,
Go!Tma:i. l!. (1981). Forms of ra!k. Philadelphia:
l:niver,ity of Pennsylvania
Goffn:an, E. (198:1). The :nteraction order. Amer/am
Svriologkai Rc~iew, 48, 1-l 7.
Go0<la::, IL L (2000). Writing the new t)t/wogmpl,y.
Walnut Creek, CA: AllaMirn.
Gosden, C., & K~cwles, (l!d~.). (2001 ). C,,/lemng
ccioniniism: Materiai rnit11re and col,mial (hcmge.
Oxford, UK: Berg.
Grar, R., & Sinding, ( 2002 ). Standing 01•11titm:
Pe:formin,1; .,acial science research abom :.//ncer,
Wah:ut Cree:,, CA: Alt11'v'. ::,1.
Gr:msha1'., A. (2001). Tiu: ethnographer'.i Ways of
in m,,dern 1:mtliropologJ. c~n:bridge, UK:
Cambridge University l'ress.
Gub:ium, J. !', &: Hu:stein, J. A. {2002a). horn the
intlividua: in:ervlew to thr i ntervkw society. In
J. J:: Gutiri'.im & J. llol~tein (F.ds.), Ham/book
interview r>.:Se..inh: Cout;;x! and metho,J (pp. 3
Thff.1sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gubr:·.:n:, J. & Ho:,tein, J. A. (lids.). (2D02b;,
Handbook of interv few research: U1'rtext and
me:/;.)(/. 'l'hllu,,md Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hammersley, M. ( 1989). The dilemma of qua!it,UiV<
method: Jferherr Biumer and the Cl1irngn trmh·
lion. Lnndo:,: Routledge.
Hammers:ry, [If,., & Atkinson, ;, A. (
Elhrwgrapliy: Prindp/es in prc.ctice (2nd ed.)
London: Rou:ledge.
Hancltr, IL, & Gable. E. (1~'ll). rl:e new history in an
l){d mu;eum: Creating the past at Cofoni;;i
Wil!iarnsbul'I;. Durharn, NC: Duke t:niversity P~es~.
Hardy, !,t., & llryrran, A. (Eds.). (2004 ). H1mdbo~k of
rwalysis. l.nndon: Sage.
H(:r.dcmm, K. ( 1998). On line and on paper: Visual rep•
res~ntatir,ns, 1>/.mai cull ure, and mmputer gr,iphfrs
t'! engineering. Car::br:dge, MA: MIT Pres,.
llepbun, A., & PoUcr, I. (20:)4). Discourse aruilyti:
pradke, ln C. Seak, G. Goho, 1: r. Gubr:um, &
D. Silverrr an Qualitative r,,,c1rcli new•fm,
(pp. 180-. 96). London: Sage.
lkrdelcl, M. (1991 ). A place in history; Soi.:iai and man·
ument,,/ time in II Cretan tow11, Princeton, NI:
Prin=eton Unive!sil y l'nt,s.
lfodkinson, P. (20021. Go1h: ldmtity. and silimn•
,ure. Oxford, l'.K:
Holstein, j. A. (2000}. Tiu, we live /;y; Narraiire
ide1Jtity 111 a pMlllwdern wori<i. New York: Oxford
University Prr;ss.
E~1ghes•Freelem.i, E (199!\l. IUtual, p1•rfiim111r:1:r,
media. London: Rcutledge.
Humphrey, R., Miller, K., & ZdrJvo::iyslorn. E. (Eds.).
!2003). Bfographical re.1e11rd1 ii: Easlem E11rape:
Altered imd broken biographie,. Alc:er,·nt,
l'K: Ashgal.:.
Hunte~. .',1, ( 39: ). Doct,m' sJm·/es: Jhe narrative
sirurturt Df medicai know/edge. P!'ince:on, 'II:
Prince1on Universi:y Press.
Hymes, D. (19961. Etlmogr,ip!:y Jinguistic;;, narrative
i11equ,1!ity. London: Tiylor & fran:is.
Jack,on. P., Lowe, f:v'. .. Miller, D.. & Mort, I' /Ed,q.)
(2000). Cormnerdal curn.rcs: Eccm~mies, practias,
spa,·es Oxford, • Berg.
Janesi,·k, V. J.: 1994). The da:1ce of qualitative researd-
dtsign: Metaphor, methodolatry, and ::-.ea!1ing.
In N. K. Demin & Y. S. l.incoln (Ed~.}. Handb,,1~
qualiJ.ative researd; (pp. 209-219). Tl:ousand
Oaks. CA: Sage.
;ulicr,G.(200C). H1r cufwr;: ofdesign. London: Sage.
Koli, J. & M.:~hus M. (Eds.). (20fl2). Perpetual con,
!,id: Ma/ii/e comm,mica/1011, pri vare rafk, pubiii:

1,erf?rmar,c1:. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge
!;niversity Press.
Kwint, M., Breward, C. & Avnsley, J. (Eds,;. : l 999).
Marer!,1/ menw,ies. Oxlord, lleri;.
W, (1972 ). Lang :u1ge /1,e inner cily.
Philadelphia: Vniwrsity of Pennsylvania l'n-;;s.
La:ly, L (20G2). At lwme wi!h ,·c,mputrrs. Oxfo~d. ;JK:
Berg.
La,u, P. '.1998).,'lforal t,,:xtr1rrs: Femi.~i.<I r;arrutfves m
ihe public splierf, C,unbridgc, l'K; Polity.
Lincoln, Y. !)e::zin, N, K. {l 994}. The ;1f:h moment.
In K K. Denzin & LS. Lincolt1 ( Eds, I, Handbook
of qualitative res1,arr:h (pp, :11.e,-:i,,.: Thousand
Oaks,CA:
Lincoln, Y. & Det:zin, N, K, (2001). The seventh
moment: Out of the past. 1:1 N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Ed.~.), 11,md/wok of qwilita!i~e research
(2nd ed., pp. 1047 1065), Tho'Js.;:1d Oa:<s, CA;
Sage.
Linwln, Y: & Denzin, l\. K. (~cs.J. (20C3). Tuniing
poi,:1, in 1;ua/itath•e re,,,arc/1· Tying ktrnts in the
iumdk~rchict Walnut Creek, CA: Al!aMira.
Loizo,, l~ (.993). lrirwvc,tirm in elhnogmp~rc fil•ri.
M,m~he:;te:, CK: Manchester University
Lury, C (l 996). Cmm:mer rnlr,,re. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
!v.acdonald, S. (2002). Bi?/1/na the scenes m the .... i,m.:e
mu.seum. Oxfo:·d. tK;
Macdonald, & fy"e, (Et:fa.). ('. 996). Theorising
museums. Oxford, t:K: lllackwrll.
Manning, I' IC (20D1 ), Semiotics, sc:namks, and
ethm,grnphy. In P. Atk i11sm1,A. Cllfcy, 5. Delamo~t,
J. Luffand, & L J.otland (Eds.;, 1-fomihook
ellmagraphy (pp.145-159). l.nndnn: Sage.
Maso, I. (2,lOl ). Phenomenology and etbnogrnp:i~. Ir:
P: 11.tkinso::, A. Cofley, S. Ddamont, J. Loflmd, &
L. Lollar:.: fEtls,), HanJi>ot1l of eth,wgmphy
[pp. 136-144). London: Sage.
May, R. A. ll. (Wll: ). Talking ,n rrena's: 1£veryday
i;ontersatior.s ut un Afncan Ameri,an t«Yf:'fH,
New York: New York t:nivcrsity Press.
Miena.akows;d, J. 1200!} Ethnodra•m: Performed
research-Li::iitalions anc po:entiat In P.Atkinson,
A. ~- D~lamonl, :. 1.ollar:d, & L. Lofland
(Jlds.), Ha11d&ook of e!lmograph.y (pp. ,168-476).
London: Sage.
Millrr, D. ( 1987) Material niii .. re and mass commur.i-
ca1i11•,. Oxfo;d, Basil Blackwell.
Mil!er,J), (I'd.). (2001a). Cur cii//urc.,. Oxford, L;K: lkrg.
Miller, D. (Ee..). :200: bJ. Hom.: tJosse;:.,,i{ms: Material
n,iture iieiii11d closed docm. Oxford, UK: llerg.
Alk:::son & J)elamo11;: .'\::alytic l'rrspcctiv~s II 839
Mills, VV. ( l 940). Sh:ated actior.s and vocabularies
motive. American So,•i,1/agica! Reviei.; 5,
4:19-452.
lvfoerman. M, (198SJ.1a!king w/lur.r: Ellmography and
omver,,ati,m analysis. l'hiladdphia: l'.niversity
Pennsylvania Press.
lvfoller, F., & Pehkonen. S. (lids.). (2003). Rncaw1teri11g
:he: Ncrrrh: Cult11ral gmgruplry, i11/err111tirm11l rel,i-
t ;01t,, iI'Id northern Jandm1pes. Aldcrshot, l'K:
Ashgate.
Myc,hof:, B. ( 1978}. Numher m1r d.;ys. t,ew York:
Simon & Sdm5ter.
Myers, G. ( 1990). l'lriti11g luo/9g,y: 1exu m the co11strn,-
/ion of ,demijic krrnw/edge. Madison: U:iiverslty
efWisconsin Pre.,s.
Ochs, E., & L (2C02). Livi11g mim,live: Creatfrig
lives fll e:ve:ryday slorytellmg. Cambridge, '.VIA;
Harva re U:: iversity Press.
O'Dell, D. (2001 ), Sires of southern m,mory: Tiu, auto-
biographies Ka1ilertne1);1 l'n: Lumpkin, Lillian
Smith, a,rd Amii Murra·.,' Charlottesville: Ur.:versitv'
Press of Virgin 'a,
Olney, J. I Ed.). ( J998). Airtc:ibio,~rap/::;: lheore,iml
and cri,in,i. Prlnce:on, NJ: Princeton U:1iv,,rsitv
'
1'1ns.
Painter. C (fal.). {20l)2). Omtcmparary 1.,r' and the
lwme, Oxlord, '.J K: lle~g.
l'atlcn.on, W (200,.). 51r,1le~:1r narrative: New perspec
the pow,ir of personal and c:ulum1l
il"
Ltmham, MD: Lex' :1!:,IUn Bm,kh,
Pi::ch, '[, & Trocco, F, t2C02), A11aiog J;~y;;: 1'he 1nve11,
tion ,rn,l imp,,ct .'\1oog
Ca:nbridgc, MA: Ear-,ard University Press.
Pi;i,;, S. (200 I). Doing vi$tmf ct/m()graphy. London:
Pir:k, S.12004 J, Vis1ml me6ods. l n C, Seale, l1. Silverm311,
J. F. Guhrium, & G. Goho {F.ds,). ()ualirative
research piur!ice (pp. 391-406). bmdot::
Pi:hm1se, A. ( l987 ). Sacial wark: social urga?,;za,
lion cfan ilivisible trade. Alde:shot. UK: .A~ll'hnry.
Pl·.::mrer, ,c (19')S). 1elltng ,cxuili :itorics. Lm:i::011:
Routledge,
Pl:..:n n: er, K. [ 2000 ). Document, of /if<' 2;,1n invitation
to ,, critical lrnma11ism. Londo:c: S"ge.
Plummer. K. (2001 ). The c~ll of life ~mrie~
cth nographic research. In P. Atkin sou. A. Ct:ffoy,
S. Delamon:, J. Lolla11d, & L I otland [Eds.),
H.:mdb:1ok ,,t'etimogrupiiy(pp. 395-40(,).1.ondnn:
Sage,
Poae~. J. (19%). n,,pr1:sen1i11g reality Discourse,
rhcroric. and s1Jcial corrslructivn. London; Sa~e.
840 111 H1\ND300K OF QUAUTATIVF. RF.SEARCH-CH APTER
Potter, J. (2003). l)iscou:,e analysis discursive
psydmlo11y. P. !vi. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, &
:,, Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative rcuard1 in J»ydw!•
1)gy: Expanding perspecrbes it! metlmdoiogy and
design (pp. 73 94). V\'ashington, IX: American
?sych,1logi~al Associat;m1.
Potter, :., & Wetherell, '.1,1. ( 19117 ). Visccurse and social
psychology: Beyond attitudes and be/;11viour.
:.ondon: Sage.
Prim, L. (2003). dr,cumen,s fn social res,•arcll.
London:
Qc.i:111, II. (2002). Tee/mo fashion. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Rahim:iw, P. 11996}. Malcir1g PCR: A stmy of biott~lmol·
Chicag~: L:niversity of Chicago Pre$S.
Radstcne, S. i 2000), Me1m1r,v a11d methodolot•Y. Oxford,
UK: Berg.
Reed-Danahay, n (Ed.). (l g97), Auta/ft/mogmphy:
Rewriting the selfand thesociai. Oxford, GK: Berg.
Reed· D-,::ahay, D. (200 I). Autobiography, int imaq•, and
ethnography. I:i RA:ki nson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont,
;. l.ofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.). Handbook of
ethnagraphy (pp. 407-425). tendon: Sage.
Richardson, l.. (I 997). Fields of pl,iy: Com1r11cting
an ri.:a:femic life. New Brunswid,, XJ: Ru:gers
Un:versity Press.
Rifhardson. : .. (2002). Poetic representation ir.ter-
views. !11 J. R Gu:i,ium & J. A. Ho:ste::: (Eds.},
H,:mdiwok of i11len·iew rese,m;h (pp. 877-891),
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Riessman, C. (:993). N,,rra!ive mrnlysis. Xewl,:;ry
Park, CA: Sage.
Rlessman, (2C02).A:ialysis of ptrs,,nalnarrntivcs.
In J. F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstci!l (Eds.). Handbook
of imerview research: Cemex, am! method
(pp. 695-710). '.:'housand Oaks, CA: Sag,.
Sacks, H. ( 1~92). I.ec11,res on coni·er.atfrm (G. Jcffor:lOn,
2 vols.). Ox:ord, UK: Bla=kwelL
Sandb::rg, B. ( 2003 ). Living rmssmg
perso11s: ,\1annequins, tmm:wns, and m1ider1iit;;.
Pri::ceton, NJ: Princeton Univcrs:ty Press.
Sarangi, S., & Robcrb, C. ( l::ds.). ( 199') ). Tait work, and
institutional order:!: lJisrnurse i11 me.lical, media•
1ian, and numagement settfriJs. Berlin, Ger:11anr
Mouto;i de Gruyter.
S:,unders, S. I. (2Jl03). 'french an Materia/ities and
memories of war. Oxford, :;K: Berg.
Schutz, A. {I 973) The profJ!m1 of sociai reality:
Collem,d papers (Vol. L M. Natanson, Ed.). The
Hague, Netherland~: Ma,tinus Nijhoff.
Scfama, L D, (2003). A Venetian islar.d: Eriviwmriem,
history, and charrge in Burano. Oxford, UK:
llarghahn.
Scott, J. (I 990 ). A matter of record. Ca:::ibridge, UK:
Polity.
Seale, C, Silverman, D., Gub:ium, J. E. & Gobo,
G. (Eds.). (2004). Qualitatii-e rcsmrch prricticc.
Londm1: Sage.
Silverman, D. ( 19117). 01mmu11icafio11 and medical J>rac•
tice: Social reiatfo,;; in the clinic. Lo:icon: ~age.
Silverman, D. (Ed.). ( 1997). Quaiitati·1e research:
Theory. metlrnd, aruJ practice. Lnndrm: Sage.
Silverma::, D. ( 199&). Har~e;, Social scte'nce and
corrversaiion analy,is. Carnbridge, UK: Polity.
Silverman, D, (Ed.). (2004). (Jtu,litative researck: T11eory,
method, and practii-e (2nd ed.). Londo:1: Sage
Storr, :,,,1, ( 2003 ), l.atcx and fimrerir Slwpping for plea
sure ;;;J Arm Sr.mm1ers parties. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Stra.;ss, A, L., & Corbi::, J. A. ( 1998). IJasics of qua!i1a"
tive rrsearch: Theory, procedures, and teclmiques
(2nd ed.}. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tilley C. (199 J). Material ,uiture and 1he texi: The urt
ambiguitr. London: Ro"Jtledge.
Tilley, 0999). Metaphor and materi.i/ rnlture.
Oxford, UK: Black·,ve\l,
Tilley, C. (200 I). E:hr.ography end material cul tu :-e.
In P. Atkinson,, A. Ca:Iey S. Delarmml, J, Lollar:d,
& L Lofland Handbook of etimograplr)'
(rp. 258-272). London: Sagf.
Tota, A. L (Ed.). (2001 ). ta Memnria Contc>sta: Stud/
Sulla Communicazio11e Sociale de/ Alssalo. Milan,
Italy: Angeli.
Troy, I( J. (2002). Couture wlture: A siudy in modem art
and feishiofl. Cambridge, L'K: Camhr'dge Univcrs:ty
Pr<:ss.
1'.illod:, J. (1999). Pe1formir,g cu/lure: S!i!Fies afexper•
tise rmd the everyday. Londoc1; Sage.
Valis, N. (2003). 11ie culture of Cursilerla: Bad taS!e,
kitsch, and da» in modern Spain. Durham, NC:
D:Jke University Presb.
Vinck, D. [Ed.). (2003 I. .1:'ve1y,i11:r ,mgir:eering. Au
et.~nag?":lp'91 ofd,·sign 1111d inm.>valian. Ca:11hridge,
MA: Mil' Press.
Vuy~ey, M. (I 975 ). A wnstant /nm:ien. Lor:con:
Koul.ledge & Kegar: Paul.
Wagne!',Pacifid, R. ( 1996 ). Memories :n the makir:g:
The shapes of things that went. Qualitatiw,
Soci,,ww, 19, 301 L
Whiteley,~-, llen:iett, A., & Hawkins. S. (Ed,.). (2lJC4 ).
Music, space, and pf,,ce: Popular nmsir and cul•
tural identity. Aldershot. UK: Ashgate.
Yalm:,i, F.. (200! ). Tl1e Aeropalis: Gfobal !ocal
daim. Oxford, UK; Berg.
Zna:iiecki E (1934;. The method
Kew Y:i:-k; Farrar & Rinehart.
33
FOUCAULT'S
METHODOLOGIES
Archaeology and Genealogy
James Joseph Scheurich and Kathryn Bell 11cKenzie
T
his char,ter is not a true or ac.:nmte
representation ~f Fouca:Jlt's work. 1 No
such representation or is possible,
in our view, There are, cunseqm:ntly, r:iany other
poss:ble readings of Foucault's work that are ju~:
as defens:bk as this ,ne. Indeed, this reading,
like Foucault', s,woir (defined and disc1;ssed
later), is messy, ruptured, often erroneous,
b:-oken, disconlir:uous, origi nless, fabricated, even
a fo.lsificalion. [n cth.:r words, as Magr:tk wrote
0:1 his pa'n:ing of a pipe, "Lhis is not a p:;,e''
(Foucault, 1973b ); this is not Foucault
.'vlorcovcr, what we intended to accomplish
here in our early conceptualizal:cr.s of this pro-
ject and \I> hat actually emerged are significantly
different. lndeec, we might question ourselves as
we think our ,;rib:s will quest'm: us, and jJst as
FoJcault ,Ee at the e:i d of hi~ "l11:roduction" tu
Th~ Ard1aeology of K1wwledge ( 1969/1972). 2 \fe
might
:,rcn'1
"' ,m1 s.ire of what you' rt: ,unn~,
· ' Arc vou
' I 1w •
lo c:1ange again, shift your posit loo
according 10 the questions that are put to you, and
,ay Iha: :r.c objec\ ions are not reallv c; reded a: the
p:a,c from vd::ch you are · Are ycu going
t1> dc,:arc yet again ;rat you have never been what
)•Ou hi!v~ been reproached ·,vith :,ein 5? rou
already prcp<1ring the way out that will enab:e ycu
in y'tiur next llook to spring up somewhere rl~c amt
declare a~ you're now doing: r:c, no. I'm not
y1m are lying in wait for me, but over here, laughing
at yu:J?"(p.17,,1uotcs io origirn,l)
Althollgh 01:r only laL:ghtcr :., about our own pre
tens:or.s, whP.: we intended whr--n we started this
project was to try 10 snow !:ow archaeology and
genealogy might bt used as critical "qualitative"
(dctb ed broadly) methodologies. v.;e also wanted
to illustrate brie'ly how each of these mef:1ods
might be applied lo edurnliuu is,ues, a, this i.s our
discipline. Hnally, we also envisioned a cr::k<1l
s·Jrve~· of the usr., ,rnd abuses of Foucault's work
in educa:ion.
Eowever, some of this happened and much did
not. For us, what changed wl1 at we did J:cre was
our review of Foucault's o~uvre Uust the books
and the order in which hev were published) from
lilt 841
 842 111 HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALl[lff!Vli RESEARCH-CHAPTER 33
the "beginning" through his genealogical work
(we r:cver thought we wou:d cover what many
consider the last phase u: his work, the ~care of
self" or ethics period l and our review of articles
and books in educatio:1 that use Foucault's ideas
in a central ,vay. Neither of us had read through
Foucault's work in such a systematic, focused,
concentrated way, nor had we systematically sm,
veyed the applications of Foucault in edacation. It
wa~ these systemal ic surveys, then, and the effects
the}' 0:1 our own understandings of l:oucault
and his i.:se by education scholars that cha:iged
what we were doing in this chapter. For example,
om, change t:tat emerged was our decLsion to
disct:ss bridly the importance of Georges
Canguilhem, arguably ?oucat:lt's mos: influential
mentor. It almost seemed to us that to education
scholars and, even tr.ore broadly, to scholars
across the social scie:i;;es, Foucaul: and his idei!s
had emerged full grown from the forehead of
Zeus. Coasequently, we decided to provide a
subsectio:i within the "Archaeolog)i'' section :hat
·Jriefly discusses Foucat:lt's view of C<1nguilhem
and tile latter's role in the French intellectual and
?h ilosophica! context.
The rest of this then, is di vide<l into four
parts. First, we dis1.11ss Foucault's ard1aeological
method, wh lch indudes the Canguilhcm cli.scus•
sion. Semnd, we discuss a partkula,ly important
.
"l\:etzsche, Genealogv, Mistorv'' (Foucat:'.t,
'
1977, in Language, Co1mter,Memor), Practice:
Selected Es!itrys and interviews) that was first pub-
lished after his last arc:iaoologkal work a1:rl before
his first genealogical work, w:i!ch we see as the•
matically bridging between or connecting the two
methodologies_ Third, we prese:it genealogical
method. \Vhile our disc;issions of his archaeology
or genealogy is not compreher:sive enough so that
a reade:: could assume !hat she or hs: ;s ready to
use either of foi.:cau[t',5 rnethnds after only :-eadlr:g
tl1is chapter, we co believe that w:ml we have wrlt,
ten was done in a way to help those who are not
familiar with Foucault i:ake some beginning steps
toward using archaeology and genealogy. We
also hope, thm;gh, that our coverage of the two is
provocative of f:.t rther reAectiom; "'or those more
experienced in their uses of Fournlllt's methods.
We accorr:p: ish our dIBcus,ion of his archaco
logical method by addressing two archaeological
concepts in some depth, savc1ir and r,mnai'ssmtte,
a:1d then allude to wr:at the other key ard:aeolog •
fral coni.:ep:s are. To present his genealogies,
we discuss ir: some depth one of them, Discipline
and Punish (Foucault, 197511979). However, in
this wo1k, he depluys so muny provocative, useful
critical tuols ~hat we can cover only some of them,
let alone cover all of the o:her critical tools he
adds with h's second genealogy, The History
of Sexuality, Volume I: An lntroductiori (l 976/
1980a). 1 For !he !alter, however, we do point out
some pa,ticularly excellent sec:ions.
Fourth, our condusi on includes ii brief
overview of what we think some the critical goals
of both his archaeolog'cs and his j,\,:111::,,.. uj,\1,,
we::e. We summarize some of :he points about
archaeology and genealogy that we make. We
enthusiastically ;')rnise a new rnllect ion oi
Foucault's work. We also provide some brief
critical remarks on the uses-and abuses-of
Foucault ir: education :n particular and in :he
social sciences b generaL altlm ugh we do not pro-
vide a comprehens'. ve or detailed review of :his
material. (We do try :o provide a somewhat com,
prehensive lfat of such wotk ir: education in our
bibliography along with some books on foucault
fro1:1 outside of edi.:cation that we th:ik arc either
useful or i:lfiuential; indeed, our bibliogrnphy is
intended to be a ::esourre for those ir.tcrested in
Foucault.) :n general, we mig:n forewarn by
saring we are somewhat grumpy and sur"y, dis·
sat:sfied, abou: how I;oucault has most fre,
quently been read a:id used to date ir. erl ucation
a:1d l11e social sciences. In addition, our conclu-
sion contains-and this was .a surpr:se even to
~ s-sume substantive critique that we have of
Foucault's work faat we did not have when we
,tarted this chapter. In other words, by the end o(
our r.::acl of all of his books, we arrived at a cri·
tique of Foucault that we did not have when we
began this r.:ac. We ex,,cct this critique wilJ upse:
some a.dvocaks uf Foucault ami will gratify some
cri:ics. Our Dnly defense is that we did .:10: intend
or desire this critique, illthougll to be intellcctu•
ally honest, we felt we needed to include it.
 s.:heurkh & JvkKemic: roucault's Mt:>th,1dologies 111 843
Our assumption, at th is point, is t:1.at by the
end of this essay we will leave a jangle. ba:igle,
and tangle among some experienced Foucaul·
tians, but hopefully some i.:seful begi :mings to
!'lose who l:ave net yet tried 0:1 Foucault.
May~1e, :hough, just maybe, some of the former
will appn:date anc find provocative our efforts to
"thiilk" Fouca·i: both comprehensively ,md criti•
cal:y, May'Je we are all coming to a poim, even
among t:lose of us who have been enthusiastic
admcarcs of Foucai.:: r, at which it is possible to
consider his work in a more balanced way, that
is, without defensiveness. Perhaps. Perhaps not
Ill ARCIL.\FOLOGY
Many scholars who survey tb: er:dre oeuvre of
Foucault have discerned three sequent:al phases
or periods-archaeology, genealogy, and the
care of ~he self-that represent, it is thought
significant shifts in his philosophical thought,
although some would add to this list l'ounmlt's
focus or. governmentality, 4 Konetheless, of :he
three :,eriods, genealogy is the one that has
captured fae most attention of scholars to date,
although one of us (Sd1eurich, 1997, pp.94-118,
''Policy Archaeology" chapter} has four:d archae·
ology nse:ul, and rece:nly Lather 12004) has
written about "posit!vities;' a Irey co1:cept in
archaeology. Care of the self, the last of the three
1eriods, has generally received the leas: attention,
although S:. Pierre (2004) has recemly found it
:o ·:,e fertile territr>ry for her meditations on "the
,mbject and freedom'.''
Our intent here, however, because this is a
chapter in a book o:i methodology. is to focus
on archaeology ar:d genealogy, which could be
:miac.:y construed as "qualitative" methods, as
Foucault a: ways used texts as his data or, what he
sometimes ca Jed, the archive. It is not :hat we
think Foucau: :'s care of the ,elf period or focus
is unimportan:. No, do we faink someone like
St. Pierre could not creatively in:erpret the latter
period as a methodo'.ogy. Our aim is simpler :han
that. We want to provide a ki:1d of bs:gineer's
introduction to tr.e two Foucaultiau melhodologles
that "tave received the most allention among U.S.
sc:, olars and that those interested in Foucault's
perspective might use as a starting place
:urther ex 11oration. What v,e cannot provide,
:hough, due to space limitations, is some of
"complete" course on how to use either methodol-
ogy so that or: fini shir.g this essay; some1me coulc
move directly to applying either one. 'I here is
simply not s·Jfficient space for accomp' ishing this
for even one of Foucault's methods,
Canguilhcm
As we suggested in our introduction to this
chapter, it is ou, judg:nent that there ls a gen-
eral lack of understanding of the philosophical
context and influences within which Foucault
worked in Fra:ice, A gond example of the latter is
a '.ack of i<nowledge abO'Jt Georges Ca nguil hem,
argu2bly Foucault's main intellectual mentor and
te;,1cher, In general. our view is that Canguilhern's
influence on l'ouca:1lt, especially Canguilhem's
influence on Foucmilt's ardiaeo:ugie~. i;; u11<1c-
knowledge<l, underestimarcd, or ever. unknown.
Indeed, e,en among philosophers who know
Foucault ceeply and use him well, tl:ere ls much
more fascination with Foucault and his relation·
ships wit!: Kant, Nielische, and Heidegger (see,
e.g., the work of poststructuralist philosopl:ers
such as EHza:ieth Grosz in Volatile Bodies [1994 '},
In response, we briefly di~cuss Canguilhcm's
influence on Foucault and Foucault's own view of
Canguill1em's role in French philosophy with the
hope that this will spur others to read more deeply
into Foucalllt and his social and intellectual con-
text However, we are aware that our Canguilhem
is but another autl:or functio:i" and that the
relationship among Foucault, his mentor, and
their social, historical, and lntellectua: ''con:ext"
is complex, contradictory, and a:i1:,ig;ious..
One excellen: example of Foucau;t's own
discussion of Canguilhcm and his in flu i::nces,
particularly as a historian of the sciences, is avail·
able in Aesthetics, Merhod, and Ep istemofogy
( I994a) and is called "Life Experience and
Science;' which originally apj>eared in a J:rench-
languagc journal but w.ls modified to appear as
844 Ill :fA1"DB00K OF Qt:A:,'.TATIVE RESEARCH-CHA:JTBR
foucau:t's b:rod 1Jctioa :o the 1989 Fnglish
translation of C.inguilhrm's The Nonna{ and the
Pathologicol (p. 465 ). As Pou can:: says, there has
bt'en less awareness "of :he sign:ficai:ce and
impact of a work like that of (;eorges Canguilhem,
extending as it has over the ;:,ast twenty ur thirty
yearn" (p, 465 J, Fouca•Jlt also says that when "tl:e
sociology of 11:e French ir::ellectual milieus" :s
considered :or "those strange years, the sixties;'
nearly all French philoso:ihers "were affected
directly or indirectly by the teaching or boo~s
of Canguilhern" (p, 465), wh kh were primarily
focused nu critiquing overly rationalistic views
of the history of th<" sc'cnces in a much more
thoughtful and complex way than Kuhn ever
did i11 1'he Structure of Sd',,n t'ifir Revolution,
(1962k Indeed, Foucault s·Jggests that without
Canguilhem. lhe French 1\farxists like Bnurdieu,
Castel, Pas~eron, and Lacan, would have less
meaning us (pp, 465-46:'i)-a hefty ch,im
on Foucault'~ par:. In addition, FoucaLill suggests
that Canip::':tem (and others) played the same
role in France that Frankfi: rt School played
t:lsewhere (?, 469)-another strong claim. Thus,
both of these dai ms indirnte how slgnifirnn:
Fo;1caull th inks Ca:1guilhem's intellect·Jal role was
for him and othrrs in Fra1:ce.
~oucautt {~ 994a) arg',les :ba: ·:,0th (angui lhcm
ar.d the Frankfurt Sc':tool were raising "the .same
kind uf questions" (p, 469), tlm: is,
,pestions lhat mus! be""''·''''"' tn a rationality
Ithe r aliom1lil y of science] that aspires lo be
uni\'ersal while dcvdoping w'thk contingency, [a
rnlionalit yI that asi;crts it~ unity and yet pro:eeds
<lllly through parc:al modifications, ta rationality";
that vali:::,lk'S itself by into cwn supremacy but
that cannot b<' dissm:iated in it~ ::isro:y from the
inenias, tht dullness, or the coercions that sub;u-
g.ile it In th~ :iistory the srn,nc,:s in France, as
in Gc:man Cr:tica: The(lr}, what is to be examined,
hasbilly, is a reason [a ratin:·,alityJ whosr ,euc-
lurnl a11tonomy carries the ·~,istory dogmillisms
ar:d dc,potis1m, along with re.a.son Iratimrnl-
ity], ',hcrcforr, that has a liberating effe~1 only
provided ii manage, tn iiherate itself, (ll 469)
l;or those who know f-uucat:'. fs archacologiel!
and his genealogies. these are centra: the:11c,:;,and
l:e is saying here that these themes come directly
from the wo,k of Canguilhem.
Fourai::t ( 1994a) sugges:s that in taking up
questions, Cang',lilhen: "'d:d :mt just broaden
field (If the history of th: sc1C:nc,:s; he reshaped
the discipline itself on a r; u:n ber of essential
points" (p. 470). 'lb accomplish this. FoucaJi:
relates that (,mguilhe:n "first took up the tl:eme of
'discontinuity'» (p. 470), a theme that many who
use l'oJcaull in education and the social sciences
faink came fru1:i Fout·ault himself. Sernnd,
Canguilhem develuped idea that "whoever says
'history of discourse' is also saying rrcursivc
n:cthod ... in the sense in wl:ich sm:ce:-si,,etrans-
formatiuns of this :ruthfu: discourse ccrstantly
prod·Jcc reworking;; in their own hislor>.'' (p, 472),
In other words, science or universal re3sun, con-
tnry lo Ihe typ:cal o:- dominant portrayal of these,
has cons•ar.tly, in a recursive fashion, rewritten its
own stury; altr.oJgh leaving that rewrith:g unmen-
tioned (which 's a:mther idea that many th :nk
c.:nne from Foucaalt himself), Third, Canguilhcm
placts the "1,ciences of lite lxick :mn Ithe I hislorico-
epistemolcgical perspective, [thus bringing] to
light a eertain numher of csser:tial trat:s that make
their development [Le., the developmer:t of tl:e sci-
ences of life I differe:1t from that of the other
ences am' present histuriam : uf the science:; ai:d,
thus, of ::ea:sunj will! S!]tdlk problems'' lP, 475)
because nil ~ciencf5 are, in the c.mn inant portrayal,
st: ,;posed :o be unified or the same.
And fourth, l'oucault ( 1994a) sa'd that Canguil-
hcm raised "i :i a ;:,cculia, way, the ph ii osophical
question of knmvledgc" (p, 474 ), That is, at the
center nf :his philosophical quetition of the nature
of the ~ nowledge of science and universal reason,
,,ne finds that of e,ror. for, m the mosl bask level
of Iife, the p,ocesses c,f c.,ding and drrnding
way to a chance occurrcr:,c as the rnndcm
;1lay of gem's] lhal, before ::,ccoming a disease,
a deficient;, or ;; munSlrosi: 1·, is SL1n:,:thi11g like
,! di~I urb,mcc :n !he informative .y,tc11:1,
:hi ng like a ":nislai\c" , , , :and] that lor
:'.1ista ke] constitutes 1:01 a neglect or,: dday c,f the
pmmiscd folfiilmcnt r.f life! but the dimension
peculiar to l:ic life of :iu man being, and indb,x:1:s-
abk lo the duration of lhc species, (p, 476)
 S,hcur:ch & Md{enzie: Foucault's /viclho,:olog:es Ill
:'hat is, Canguilhcm and Foucault a,e raising to
a philosophical level their cor:tention that, at the
physical level of there is random error
that is int1:gral to life itself, a puint that is
intended, as are the 0C1er poi n:s prev ioui:;ly noted,
to under mine the dominant portrayal of science
and rcason. 9 Foucault ( 1994a), then, suggests
at the end of ,his chapter, recognition the
importance of his :nentor's work, especially for
Foucault's own work, ''Shou:d not the whole
theory of the subject be reformulated, seeing that
knowledge, rather tha:1 npening onto the truth
of the world, is deeply rooted in the 'errors' of
life?"" Thus, once ii is u:1derstood that it wis
Canguilhem who developed these four "essential
points:' it ls obvious fro:n whom foucault :1im,elf
drew ,some of his rkhest intdlcctual ~esoum:s,
espec:ally fo, his archaeological method. Cor.se
quently, in our view, those ,vho use l'oucault
throcghm: t the social sciences need to i:1 crease
their understaudings of the French intellectual
context in which Foucuult thought and w role
and of Ca1:guilhrm in particular (see,
Canguilhem, 1988, 1989),
The Archaeologknl Met>iod
The first point that is in: ;:iortant 10 umlcrntand
about Fom:at:lt's arch,,eological method is that it
:, 11ot directly related to the acac1emk disci?lit1c
of archaeology, that is, t 1:c study of past cultures,
It is not even particularly useful to be rembded
of the iconic picture of the a:chacologist using a
':,rush to unm\'er old bor.es or c1rt ifacts embed-
ded in di:-t. As Foucault (l 969/1972) savs on this
' ' '
subject jn The Archaeology of Kr.owledge, his
archaeo!ogy ~does not relate analysis 10 geologi-
excavation" (p. 131 ), l n fact, we would recom-
mea<l that }'OLI begin to understand Foucault's
ar~haeoiogy by assuming that his archeology has
only :he faintest aliusion :o the acade,nic d isci-
pllne of archaeolorv, It is :wt that there are r:ot
connections between the two; it is just that think-
ing of the academic discipline as 11 lens throag:i
which one might undershu:c the shape and
meaning of Foucault's archaeo:ogy will generally
get in your way.
A secund point is bat ben, is sir:1ply 1;ot
enough spacr hrrc to clescri be arc;rneotogy in a
comprehensive way, Foucaulr's arc:iarology is 2
complex set of concepts, inclt:di ng savoir, nm-
w,i,sance, :,ositivi:y, enunciations, statements,
archive, discu:sive fo;rnation, enur:dativc regu-
larities, cnrrelative space~, en,cloping faemy,
levt:l, limit, p,dodization, division, evc:it dis-
continuity, and discursive practices. In addi lion,
there is r.o :Jook that we ~now of-a:1d it wo,J1 d
certaidy take a book-length piece-that ;;om-
p'.etely and thoroughly lay~ out ;1ow tu use this
mrthod, a'.:hough Fcmcau::'s "lr:tmductfon" :n
The Archaeology of Kr.ow/edge, which follows
three of his archaeologies, is a good synopsis of
what he is after with archaeology. t t Conseqi:ently,
the only way you can begin to uncerstand archae-
ology is to study care full r and thorn ugh ly
Foucault's own uses a:ui disrussions of archaeol-
ogy his thrtr archaeo'.ogies-Nfodness and
Civilization (l 96 l/1988 ), The Birth of the Clinic
( %3(1994b ), and The Order of Things ( 1966/
l 973a)-am: in his reflexive dis,,Jssioci of archae-
o,ogy as a method, The Arfhawlogy ,f Knowledge
(1969/1972). We would es::>ecially suggest-and
this applies to reading all of 1:oucault-:hat
getting an in-deprh undersranding of l'ol'.cault
requires dose, careful, and repeatec reaci ngs.
Indeed, in our view, reading must .,cucation or
social sde:ice texts, c:ven ma:iy ut th;: most
abstract theorists, is simple and easy compared
with rea&ng the density anrl cnmplexlty of
Foucault's wo,k,some of which is a function of his
writir:g style, our lack of knowledge of the French
philosopl:y context, uur inexperience in reading
philosophy of any kind, the depth at whid: he
worked, and tl:e complexity that he was I,ying to
address, rnuc:1 of which is counter to both dom i ·
nant th01:gi:: and critical thougl:t. Obviowly,
though, we th:nk the time and effort :1eeded is
worth it We want lo cepeat, howeVer, that a S'J b·
s:antivc use of Foucault's arc;u,eology, in particu-
lar, means developing an in depth undcr~tandiug
of the oompl<'x interrelated set of th1: concepts
listed previously.
Two of the more commonly dtoo of this set
of concepts are stw,1ir and wm1ais,ar,ce. In an
846 Ill HAN"DROOK OF QUALITATIVE RFSEAR(E-CHAPTER 33
interview (Fuucau lt. 1994a; that appeared in
French in 1966, afte:- publication of Afadness
and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic. and The
Order of Things but before that of I1ie itn:l1aeology
of Knowledge, Foucault discussed how he defined
archaeology:
By "archaeology;' l would like to designate :101
exaclly a d:scipline but a domain of research, which
wxmld be the foll()wing: in a society, different bo..Hcs
of· phfam1phkal ideas, everyday opinions,
bu l also institJt:ons, commercial practices and
police octi,ities, mores-all refer to a certain
im;,lid: kncw:rogt> lsomirl special to this society.
This k:Jowle(:ge is profo:.:::dly different from t"ie
Iform>1:: bodies {lf leorn i ng Ides can11aissanceS: :hat
one can find :n scientific books, philosophical
theories, and !'l'ligious justifu:atio:1s, but it [,a",'lrirl is
what make, possible a: a give1: moment th,: app,,ar-
dnce uf a theory, a:·. opi:::on, a 1J~~1cti,:c, (p, 261}
Thus, understand:ng these two arenas of know>
edge, suvoir and amnaissance, :s famlamental to
understanding archaeology. Savoir ltdudes for-
mal know,edge such as "philosophical ideas" but
also "institutions, commerc:al practices, and
police activity;' 11 whereas comiaissance includes
only formal bodie6 of knowledge such as "scien-
tific books. philosophical theories, and religious
iustifica1ions." Similarly, G·.1tring ( 1989) suggests,
"By cormaissance he Il'oucault l means ... any
particular body of knowledge such as nuclear
?hysics, evolutionary biology. or Freudian psy-
choanalysis" (p, 251), ::1 contrast, savior, Gutting
continues, "refers to the Ibrose] discursive condi-
tions that are nectssary for :he development of
. ,, ( p. "'
-,-1) •
com1mssa11ce
Foucault provides an example of the difference
betlveen these two concepts in the sixth d1ap:er
The ArchmwlogyofKnowledge (1969/ 1972). He says,
The linch·I'ltl of Mudne» arul CiYiliw/1,m w.as the
appearance at tht beginning of tl:ie nineteen:h cen•
tury of a psy,::hiatrk d:sdpline. This disdplinc had
neil I1er the same conter:t, r:r.r the same internal
organizalioa, ::or the ~arne place in medicine, ::or
the same practical function, nor the same methods
as the 1rndi1lonalchapte~ on "diseases of the head''
or "r.ervous diseases" to fi:il::1d in eig':tttnth
century ::1edkal treaties. (p. 179)
With :his section, Foucault is comparing the
psychiatric disdpli ne that emerged at the begin-
ning of the 1800s to the "diseases of :he head" a[ld
"nervous diseases" of the 1700s becau,e diseases
of the head and nervous diseases during the 18th
century were the closest comparison 10 the psy"
chi atrk discipline during the 19th century. 1l
Foucault ( 1969/ l 972) continues,
llut on av,,.. :,,;n., this llt'W disdp'.:ne, we di~-
COYf~ed two things: w-.,11 made it [i.e., the emerging
discipli nc of ;,sy~hiatry] ;mssihle at the :i:ne it
appeared, what bmugh: about this great change
I chang,s from 18th cen:,~~y disea,,es of the
head to l 9th,century psychiatry l in the eo:in,,my
of COllCt'p:s, analyses, and demons:ra:ions wa~ a
whole Sci of rdat:tms hetwt>en [sicJ ':o,,pitaJiza.
lion, :nlernment, the c,mditions and procedures
of sccial ~dusion, r:.i:e~ of jurisprude::ce, !he
norms cf :::dustrial labor and bourgeois moraa1y,
in short a whole group of relations that c'iar.c:tr,
iz<xl for this disn::-sive practice [i.e., psych:atry'.
the forn:atiun ,,fit, statement,. ;p. J
\'v:iat made :1 possible, the1:, :or psychiatry to
appear as a for.r:1al discipline, as a connaissance.
was a set of c'.'langes in concep:s, practices, proce-
dures, ins.litutions, and norm8, that is, a change ii:
the much bmadc~ savair. As Foucault ( 1969/l 972)
further elaborates,
But t'::s :disc;::sivej practice is not only :nanifo:;red
in a discipline [i.e., psychiatry] possessing a scicn.
r
tific status and scientific pre1cnsions conna[mmce
o: psychist,y as a formal discipline]; it is also
fo;::id in the t'?eration in legal texts.in literat:.ire,in
p::::osophy. in po: :t]C<.i cec:sions, and in the slate•
mrnts made and the opinions expressed in daily
Il:t'
T ,p.
r ] "9'
I J
Thus, whereas be history of psychiatry is
typical:y written solely in te,ms of psychiatry as
a formal disci?Ene, "po&S!:liSing a scientific stat:.1s
and scientific pretensions," Foucault is argni ng
that this is inadequate, To better understand the
history of psychiatry as a formal academic disd •
pline, it is also necessary to study a much broader
array that includes relations among "hospitallza-
liou, internment, lhe condi1 ions and proced,:res
of social exclusion, the ru:es of iurisprudence, the
 Schcuril-'1 & .'v!cKe:1zie: Fm:cai.:lt's _fvtet~udologics
norms ofindustrial labor and buurgeois morality"
as well as legal leits, literature, philosophy, polili
cal decisions, and the sta:ements and opinions of
da y lite.
ror i::oacault (I \!94a), then, ,uc'laeology is
focusec n:1 the ,tu,iv <Jf :»woi1; which is ~the
conditior: of possibiiitr" of I:·onnal] knowledge
lconnaissance]" (p. 262) for the purpose of show-
ing that ?Sych :at,y or other fo:mal disdplines do
not simply emerge out of the hi;,to:ici rrajectnry
of th use di,dplin,:,s whrn that 'listory is restricted
solely to the formal disci pl :1:c as a formal disci-
pline. Jnsre,,I, a :1i,tury of a formal discipline
mrn,t address both cmmaissam:~, the formal state-
ments of a discipline, wd sa,•oir, the much
broader and less rational array of :iractices, poli-
proccdures, institut:or:a, politics, everyday
life, and so on. However, foucault's larger point is
that, rather 1har: the tmditio:ial view !hat formal
knowledges (ccmnaissance), such as psychiatry
and eco,:10:11ics, have their own :'ormal rational
trajectory of e:nergence, formal knowledges
emerge nmre "lrrationally" o:· not rationally f:um
savui~ 1'11kh include;; not just the formal aad
rat:onal but also the much broader "irrationality"
of politics, institutional prac:iccs, popular opin
ions, ar:d so on. 1n other words, for:na: knowl-
edges emerge, substantiall}; from a broad array of
mmplex irrationa'. sources or conditions, and th's
more complex, messier, more ambiguous "co:1di-
tion[ s1of possibility" undermines the modernist
ratio:ial ''story" or "meta-narrative" of :o~mal
knowledges."
Accorci ngly, after understanding the menn-
lngs of c,mnaissance and savoir and the fuc: that
archaeology is the study of s11voir a, the '\:nndi-
tion: s] of possibility" of mnnai:ssance, it is neces-
sary to return :o the larger context of F1r.icauh's
archaeological wmk \'Vith archaeology, Foucault
is dr.nving on the work of Canguilhem, whose
work he compared :o that of the Frankfu,t
School. And for both the Fra:1 kfurt School and
Canguilhem, the nature of reason ''a ralimiality
that aspires to be t111iversnl" (Foucault, : 994a,
p. 469)-in modernity b their macro text.
F.1rthermore, Foucault is suggesting that t'lc
my:h or master r:arrativc of modernist reason,
11, 347
w'len examined carefol:y, is not j1:st logical and
ratio:1al but also ~ompkx, contradictory, and
problematic and that it has em bedded with:1: it
instatices of what we might rall "unreasm::'" For
example, rm:cault says that th's modernist reason
"validates itseJ by its own supremacy but that
can:10: bi: dissociated in its history from the iner-
tias, :he dullness, or the coercions that subjugate
it" (p. 469) anri that lt "is a reason whose struc-
tural ,mtonorr:y carries die history of dogmatisms
and despot:sms along with it" (p. 469). Thus,
accordi:1g to Fuu cault, reason (i.e., fornal k1:owl-
edgcs), as it is tyvically portrayed withi:1 moder-
:s
nity, not what it is :nade out to that
the "archaeological" histtJry of reason i:1dudei.
iner:ias, dullness, coerc:om, dogmatisms, and
despotisms.
Whal Fouca1.:Jt is attem ?ting, then, with :, is
various archaeologies is to examine s,edlk
cases, particular examples, as in M,uines& and
Ci,ilizatinn, The Birth olthtt Clinic, and The Order
of 'things (the human sdenccs), nf work of
rcasnn. And h, carrying out these s:udie, of
specific Cc.Res of :he work of reason, he has come
to Iwo insights- One ls thal the hi&tory of rcasoi, in
these spedlic .:ases is ·'nul wholly and cr.,irely
that of its progressive retbement, its rnnti1,uously
increasing ra1:o:1a:ity" (Foucault, 1969/1972,
p. 4) 11 ; that is, reason in tl:ese rnses docs r.ot
become progress:vdy rr.orc refined, mure rntio-
:1al, heller, or more' !rue. For example, in the
psychh1:ry example cited previously, Foncau'.t
argt:cs that there was no smooth, unhroken tra
jectory of psychiatry from the 1700& to the I 8!llls.
Instead, he a,gues, during the l 700s, there was
"the traditional chapter on 'diseases of the head'
or 'nervous diseases' to be found :n eighteenth
cenlury 1-:1edical treatises;' and tl:en, a: the begin-
ning of the 1800s, then, was the eme1-gence of the
"psychiatrk discipline" (p. l 79). However, and this
is one of FtJncault's kry points about reason, ihe
secor.d did not emerge, rat:or.ally or logically, tJu:
the first; the two-diseases of t:1 e head and
nervous disc ..scs, on tbe om: bind, and tl,c disci-
pline of psychiatry, ou tht othe:-were separate
difforent, ,ind the first dki not lead logically
and progressively to the second. There is. 1hu s, a
!148 ll HAKLlBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
"discontinuity (threshokl,rupture, break, mutation,
transformation)" (p. 2} between the two, which
again mearu; that reason is not nearly as rational
as it has been portmyed within the metanarrative
of :nodernity, Thus, rather than Just critiqui:lg this
master narrative, in 1:is archaeologies, Foucault is
do:r:g the 'lard work of providing research-based
examples that the master mll'rativ~ is wrung.
Foucault's second point is :hat di!idpli:u,s,
fo:-ma 1 knowledges, or amnaissances cannot be
studied and understood in just their own formal
terms. Rather, a connaissance emerges out of
s,woir, whk:1 includes fo:-mal knowledge, such
as academic books, but also ir:slilutions, laws,
processes a:id procedures. common opinions,
norms, mies, nrnnility, commercial practices,
and so on. Tr.us, to understand a particular di,-
dpline means that not only must the formal
treatise, of that discipline be studied, bt:.t so too
must the s.:m>ir, this much broader, more com-
plex context that includes, sa)j institutions and
commercial practices "on tile same plane" as the
formal aspects of the discipline. a result,
reason ioses mi:d1 of elite e~altedness, its
purity, its high status, its very rationa:ity,
However, problematizi ng r:mdemity's reasor:
is not Fom:ault's only focus In his archaeologies.
His "twin" foc'Js is modernity's subject (Foucault,
1969/1972, p. 12 l. A~ he says,
Ma~ing h:storkal analysis the di,rnurse of the
continuous lf.g., portraying formal knowledge,
mnnai,sanu:, as emerging t'lmngh a rational,
kw-0ical, ~ontin;:ow mhx:10rv · mak:::!! human
co11sciou.~:1ess [Le.,
; ' " 'b'
ht:i::ml subjed :ir subiect iv-
ity: the original subjed o: all his:orica: deve:opmenl
and uli actio:1 are the two sides of the same system of
thought Ii.e., modernity]. (p. ' e:nphases added)
Thus, Foucault is arguing that the idea t~at "man"
nr the human subject is creating rn: man history
ar.d crffiting, most importantly, formal knowledge
(comu,issance) in a logical. rational, contini:ous
manner is but the ideology of :noder nil y, Tbs ide•
o)ogy, then, becomes a le:is through which tislori-
ansc, philosophers, cconom:sts, Enguists, social
scientists, and so on fashion or construct a "pic-
ture" or rcprrsentation uf "reality" that is log'cal
aud ratiu:1al and that has the human subject as its
n:air. actor or a: p~ivilcy;ed center, Ir: addition,
this central actor is cor:tradkrorily both the doer
and the ohject of the doing, tr:e researcher and the
researched. 'Jo Foucault, the:1, this modernist
ology and its resu::ant represenlatiun of "reality"
in works of history, philosophy, economy; psychi-
atry, language, and so on am be under;11 ined by
using his archaeo:ogical methodology to show
tha! formal knowledges emerge from savoir;
which is not logica: or rational, and that thi,
process of emergence docs not ha,·e a guiding or
ag,entic subject ;i: its ~enter (i,e,, archaerilogy
decenters the modernist subject). For example,
near the end oi his "Introduction" to Tl,e
Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault, 1969/
: 972)-aga'n, the last of his archaeological
wo:-ks-he says tl1al the t1i m o: archaeology :s "lo
detlne a method of historical analysis freed from
the anthropological [i.e., human subjecH:en-
tered I theme" and "a method purged of all anthru-
pologism" (p. Hi, emphasis added)-a method of
historical analyses freed from "r:ian" as its center.
However, despite Foucault's (1969/1972) view
that pmble:nat:zing reason and the age:itic subject
are "two sic'es of the same system of thougl:t"
(p. 12 ), for the most part, those who have used
Foucault have been more interested in his u:1der-
mining of modernist rea~on than in his underm:n-
iug of the privileged or cer:lered subject Indeed,
some feminists and c:itkal theorists 'ha,'e rejected
Fonmult because, in their view, he destroys the
agency of the subject, whereas other:s have appro•
p:-iatcd pa:-ts of Foucault, such as his problcmati•
zation of rea6on, while rejecting his deccntcring of
:he subject (e.g.. Hartsock, 1998), However, othe~
femir.ists, suc.h as Butler ( 1993 J, ;1ave agreed with
Foucault that the "two sides" arc two parts of the
"same system of thought" We agree, though, with
Bu:ler tr.at the two cannot be separated, that it :s mit
possible to appropriate the one from Foucault while
rcjec;ing tl:e olher, lndted. we would argi:c tha:
taking one side while reje;:ting the other indi:ates a
fundamental :nisunderstamEng of Foucault, similar
10 the general lack of understanding of Fo·Jcault's
ln1ellectual dependen:y on the work of Canguitheo
and to the general lack understanding
 Schcurkh & McKenzie, Foucault's Methodologies 111 849
aochaoology as a method. Indeed, we wou:d strongly
suggest that to appropriate Foucault's c:itique of
reason without simultanem:sly appropriating his
antihumanism is s: mply wrong, Fom::aufs critique
of rea,cn cannot sland witho·Jt his antihumanism:
as he says, they are "two sides of the same system of
thought" (p 12).
O·.ir advice, :ien, for those interested in pursu-
ing archaeology-and we wouk urge this pursuit
as we think that archaeo'.ogy is generally under-
used and underappreciated-is this; Do not just
''cherry pick" a concept here and a concept there
and assume that you are doing ard:aeology or that
you are using Foucault a?p!Upriate:y. To learn how
to co archaeology, we would suggest reading a:i of
the arc:iaeologies in the order they were ::n:blished.
The first three are actual applkations of archaeol-
ogy, and the fuurth, The Archae<>logy ofKnvwledj!,e
(1969/1972). is Foucault's reftexive effort to describe
the methodology retrospectively. However, ir is
important to u:iderstand that, as Fo·Jcaolt
The Archaeolugy ofK11owledge, "This work is not a:i
r:rnct description of what can be read in Madness
and Civilization, Naissance de la diniquc IThe Birth
of the Cli11icj, or The Order of 1'hint,. It is diffe:-en'.
or. many points. It also indudes a number of cor-
rections and internal crl~kisms'' (p. 16 ). Despite
these correctinns and criticisms, 1'he Archaeology
of Knowledge is his best, and final, description of
a:chaeologv as a method. U:i:hrtunatelv, we know
' '
of no book, or even artk'.e-length work (we doubt
an a:1ide-length effort would be sufficient), that
attempts lo actually explain how to use archaeol •
ogy as a melbod. There are, though, some works
that, at le,,st partia:ty, focus on or c:'iti-iue archae-
ology, including Gutting's Michel Foucault's
Archaeology ofScientijic Reason ( 1989), Books like
these are helpfu 1, but readir:g Foucault's fou~
archaeological texts carefully and thoroughly is by
far the best approach.
11!1 CoN:-JEcnM; ARctlAEOLOGY
A'.'lll GENF.ALOGY
ls genealogy the successor to archaeology? Is
genealogy the fi:rther development of archaeology?
Is genealogy superior to archaeology? Did
Pournult decide that archaeology d:d not work,
was flawed, so he moved on to genealogy, which
he cons:dered to be better? Are the two "method-
ologies" widely different, dearly separate, or are
they dosely connected, part of the same Iarger
project? Ans wen. to these qi;estions are multiple
and divergent among Foucault scholars, both crit.
ks and acvocates. Our sense is that the dominant,
but certainly not the only, conclusion among C.S.
scholars of the so:::al science,, and n:ore spec:fl·
cally amons IJ, S, scholars of ecucation, is that
genealogy is superior to archaeology. ParEally
validathg this conclusion is the fact cha: there are
many more instances of these scholars claiming
to do genealogies than there are of those claiming
to do archaeologies. However, basing our perspec•
live on that of Poucault, we would have to disagree
w: rh this conclusion.
In the first of Fn:icault's "Two Lectu ,es" (1980,
l'ower/Knowledge), which was given nn January 7,
l 976, and which is after Foucault had written his
four archaeologies a:id ajrer he 't:ad written his two
ge1:calogies (Discipline r.mJ Punish and The Hi;tory
of Sexuality, Volume l:An fotrodu,·/ion), ,ay,,
If we were to charncterize it in two terms, then
"archaeclogy" would be the appropriate methocol-
ogy of thi, analysis of local cisrnrsiv'tie.s, and
"genealogy" wmrld he the tactk., whereby, on the
basis the descriptions these local disum:vi•
ties, subjected knowledges which were thm
released would be brought :nto play. (p, 85)
A:so, i11 an interview just prior to his death on
June 25, 1984, in Paris," Foucault hopes tr.at other
scholars wil: conlinue tu use bo:h ard1aeo:ogy
and genealogy, as he continues to consider both
of them equally useful. Most :ellingly. though, is
what Fm:cault says in The History of Sexuality,,
Volume 2: The me of Pleasure (1984/ 1990), which
was published the year he d'ed. Three times in
this «Introduction" ( on pages 4-5, 5-6, and
11 12), rou,ault d:vides his work into t'lree
"axes" (p. 4) or arenas of analyses; he also labels
these three "theoretical shif:s"that he !iad to make
to st·Jdy "tl:e games of truth"(?. 6), The fin;t is
"the analysis of discursive practices Ithat1made it
850 111 HANDBOOK OF Qt:AI.:TATTVE RESEARCH-CHA?TER
possible to trace the formation of disciplines
(saviorst (p.4), that is, archaeology, The second is
"the analysis of power relations and their tech-
nolog:es" (p. 4), that is, genealogy. And the third
is "the modes according to which individuals are
given to recognize themselves as ... subjects"
(p. 5) or "the games of truth in the relationship of
self with self and the form 'i:g of oneself as a
subject'' (p. 6), that the care of the seJ work.
Then, at the end of this seccion, he these three
the ''archaeologica: dimension;· th~ "ger:ealogical
dimensior.;' a.:id the "pract:;;es of the seJ;'
respect:vely (pp. 11 ··· 12}."'
Unqm:stiona bly, then, Foucault himself docs
not see archaeology as than genealogy or as
superseded by it Instead, throughout his work, he
sees both archaeo'.ogy and gene,,logy as con I: nJ ·
ing to he important and valid. Where, then, does
thi, condu,(or: that genealogy is a correcr'or: of
archaeology come from for U.S. scholars? \,\,'e
would suggest that it co • es mainly fr{11;1 Dreyfus
and Rabbow in their highly influential Michel
Nnu:ault; Beyorul St met uralism and Hern,eneutics,
first published in 1983 when C.S. scholars were
h:st beginning to read Foucault.2 As a res ult,
thrse two scholars, from early on, have beer: enor-
mously in flucntia'. in introdudng both Foucaul:
ar:d his work to U.S. scholars; bdeal, it could be
said tha: they haw ~;een virl Jallv umor:ical in
' '
the:r inlerprelations, 11t least for tl:e U.S. at:dience.
Fo~ example, that they thi:lk genealogy is the
superior successor to archaeology is evident in
' .
their "Introd·Jctio:·t to tr.eir book. Thev sav that
they "will argue at length [about 4(J% o' the hook:
:ha: the pro j eel of l!rchacrilogy founder[ ed I''
(p. x.xiv, emphasis in original) and that Foucault
abandoned it (p. xxvi). T:wy also s'1y, at the end u:
their analysis of archaeology, 1ha1 !heir "detailed
study of the new archaeologka: mrthod has
revea:ed ... that it suffers from several ii:tema:
st1:ains" (p, 90). ln respon~e, then, to the failure of
archaeolosy, they assert that l:'o uamlt, based or:
"his reading of :Nietzschr" (p. xxvii), developed
genealogy, which Dreyfus ai:d Rabinow c'air:1
is 'h:s most original contribution" (?. xxvii).
However, although l'oucault never directly cur·
rected them (as as we can find}. Possibly
berm:se Dreyfus and ll.ahinow Wt'rc leading the
charge in touring Friu ca ult and his work to a large
US, auc:Jence, i,;'lucault persisted tl1,ougho;it his
li:c in mai:1tai fling the c,;;ual value ar.d validity
of archaeology and genealogy. Thus, sld:ng with
Fouamlt, along with others sm:h as Mahon [1992 l,
we think that both of his rr:ethodologies-
arrhat'olugy and genealogy-should rnnti:me to
be seen as equally useful am: valua:ile,
To further illustrate this point and to draw
i1:creased attention to what we think is a crit:cally
importa:ll essay, we now discuss "Nietzsche,
Genealogy, History" (Fournult. 1 1994a;,
which we would suggest can be seen as a bridge
between Foucault's archaeological period and his
genealogical one. Although "Nie:zsche, Genealogy,
His:urr" w«s published in Englfah in
Language, Coumer. ,!.1emory, Practice: Sl'lcct1id
Essays and Interview.,, it was actually t7 ;;it puh-
lishec: in French in 1971 after Foucault finished
publishing his four archaoologies but before he
published 11is two genealogies, l"'owever, it is now
available, i:, a better version i11 our view? in
Ae.,thetics, Method, a11d Episte11nfogy, Volume 2
(1998), and one of the improvemei.1ts in :his latter
vers:on is 1ha1 it better ..:onnec:s tl:is essay to his
archaeological work, especially in :he u,e of two
key ardrneological te~ms, suvoir and ccmrwis•
sanm. Ir: tl:is essay, toucaal: p:-nvidcs hi, first
descriptio:1 of his grnealogical r:,ethod, hut
throughou: the he dearly maintains the
connecrio:1 of his seCi)n<.1 methoc. genealogy, to
his first one, ,m;haeol ogy.
In "Nietzsd:e, Genealogy, History" (fuuc,mlt,
19941,], although his lm:guage is often literary
and poetic, playing off of specific quotes and
isrnes in Nietzsche's own works, particular'.y
The Genealogy of Morals, Fm:canlr makes fuur
s:rong claims as to what a genealogist docs
(although it would be easy to argue that :here are
five, six,;;even,or more such daims lhrvug:1oc; !he
piece). One daim, drawn directly from ::-iietzsc:ie,
is thal the genea'.ogist "challenge: s] the pmsuit
of the origin" (p. 371 ). For Foucault ar.(: :Nietzsche,
"the pursuit of :he origin" is the pursuit, largely in
philosophy, h;story, a1;d the scicn.:es, of th:
begi:1:1i11g of some phenomena or categories sw.:h
 S~hcllrkh & McKenzie: Hr~c,ulf, Methodologies Ill 85 I
as "values, moraJty, oscetkisrr:, o:1d knowledge"
(p. 373 ). Foucault say, that this pursuit is "ar:
attempt to capture the eiact essence of things,
their pure;t possibilities, and their, . origintl
ir.i~ntity" (p. 371 ). Instead, by refusing "m,;la-
pr.ysics" ar:d by lisre:1ing ta "history;' the gem:alo-
gist finds that "there is 'sonctr.ing al:ogether
dJferent' bei'. ind things: not a tirr:eless and essen
tial secret but the scact that :hey I:hings I have no
essence, or that their essence was fa b:kated i:i a
piecer:1eal fa,hion :rom alien forms" (p. 371 ),
c:oucault also sars, "\Vh at is fou:1d at fae historical
beginning of thing, :s not ir:vinlahle identity ti:'
their or'.gi n, it is tie dissension of other things.
It is disparity" (pp,371-372). It is the "vicissitudes
of :iistory" (p. 373). For example, he that by
examining t:1e history reason, he [the g,'f1ea lo•
gist! learns that it [rea;;m1 j wa~ born , .. from
chance; :that' devotion to truth ar:d the pn:cision of
,cier:l ific methods arose fror. the passion of scho>
ars, their reciprocal ha:rec:, their &r.atical and
uner:di ng discus,ions, 11r:c f:ielr spiri, of mmpet:
tion-the personal conllicts that sl()w[y forged the
weap(ms of r1;as"::. (p. 371 J
Thu;, the ta rgct of Foucault's C:'it iq 1,,c, his
genealog)', much like wi:h this archas'ological
wo,k, i, th~ foundational assumptions of
Western modernity. In this rnse, :11, critical
focL:s is on modernity's tekologkal assumption
that history moves upward or forward from
sc1:ie origin. In colllrast, he argues that the
gcr:ealogis: finds tha: tlu:re are no s u.:h origins
and t'.-1at orig:ns a,e often fabricated. What the
genealogb: finds, instead, as she or he explores
origir:s is randor.mess, picceneal fabrications,
dissension, disparity, pass'o:1, hatred, competi-
tion, "details and accidents'' (Foucault, 1998,
p. 373 )/petty malice" (p. 373), "the '.llinule devi-
ations --or conversely, the cor.1 pl ete reversals-
the errors, the ~alse appraisals, ,md the faulty
ca:culation,s" (p. 374; (similar to savoir) mixed
together with cevotion to truth, ;i,ccise meth-
ods, scientific discussions, and so on (shr.Lar to
connaissunce). In other words, Foucault is not
denying that reuson is a pa:'i of this history, bul
it is uni y one player a:n id a im:ch broader cast in
the dramaturgv of moccrnilv.
' '
A second focus of the gencalngist, one that
becomes much more important in later work,
<llthoug:i not a large one in Lhis is the body,
Foucault ( I99!l) says, "The body is 1he irisc,ibed
surface of events (traced by ]a:1guagc and dis•
solved by idcas ), the locus of a d:ssociated Self
(adopting 1he illusion of a substantial unity), and
a volume in perpetual disi:itegratkin" (p. 375). He,
then, indicates tr.at "gem:alogy is .. , thus slti:ated
within lbe artkulation of the body and history. Its
take is to expose a body totally imprinted by
his:ory" (pp. 37.5-376). This last sentence is key;
the "take" of genealogy is "to expose a hody:o:ally
impri ntec. hv, historv'.'
, Howeve~, these few remarks
are the extent Foucaults e:fort to ;;onnect
genealogy co the body in this essay, hut he returr:s
to this particular focus in subsequent sc:10huahip,
For example, in Discipline and Punish, Fo'Jcault
( 1975/1979) says,
The hrnJy ib c,:cctly i·:voivec in the political
field; p;,wer rdat:ons have an i mr::edi2.te hold upon
it; they inve,1 ii, m~rk ;:, train it, torture it. force il
to carry mu tasks, to perform cer,em1mh:s, w emit
signs. 'r:iis uolitkal investment of the body is bm,::d
up, in accorda::cc wi:h complex reciprocal relations,
with its ecm:omic use; il is largely as a fore<! vf
production that the hori ~ is l1we,ted with relations
of J:ower domination; but, on the other ':and, ii~
,unstit~tim1 as labour po,vc~ is po;;sible only if it is
caugh: up in a system of subj-edion wl:'ch need
is also a political in,t;ament system :m:ticulously
pre:iared..::alcalated, and u,c,' ); the body hecmn;:s a
useful force only if it is both a produ,;t've body and
subjected hotly. (p;:i, 2:,~26}
Tr.is focus on th~ body has inspired numerous
philosopher,, especiaHy feminists such as Eliwbeth
Grosz and Nancy Fraser, who assert that the body
o:
has been left o'.lt i1Uosophy. ror example, Grosz
(1994} says ii, ltlatile Bodies: 1i)ward a Corporeal
Feminism that she inki :ds to "explore ti'.c work
of :heorisrs of corporeal instruction, pr:r:urily
Xie:zsd:e, l;oacm1k, and Deleoze and Cuattari;'
becai:se eac:, "explores the position of the body as
a of the subject's social production" (p.xii:l.
852 111 EAN;)BOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-C{APTER
A thi,d daim that Foucault (I 998) makes fo~
the genea.ogist is a focus on describing "the vari-
ous ~ystems of subjection" (p, 376) and "the end•
\cssly repea:ed p:ay of don:inatkms" (p. 377). l'or
example, 'le says that "the domination of certain
:nen ove:- others leads to the differentiation of val-
and that "class domination generates the idea
of li::ierty" (p. 377). He also says that domination
cstab•:shes marks of i:s power and engraves memu•
r[es on th i 11gs and even within oodies. It makt'li itself
acc()Untable for debts and gives 10 !ht 11niverse
of r:Jles, which ls by no tl:i.!Jns designed to :emper
viulem;e, but r.1:h:r to satisfy it. (p. 377)
Fom:at:lt is arguing here that the modernist ratio-
r:ale for debts, mies, laws, and the currcn: social,
ecor:omic, governmental, and legal ar:--angcmcnts
diverts critical attention from its dorr:ination ar:d
su :ijection e:fects, For exar:1plc, h t:1<1t
the law is a cal~ulated am: relemless i•leasure,
delight in p:'Omised blood, wt:ich per::1its the per-
pemal i:utigation of new dominations and the stag·
ing of metkulously xpeated scenes of violence. The
desire for p~ace, the ;;erenity of compromi$<:, am:
the tacit acceptance of tl:e :aw, :'ar from represe11ting
a major moral rnnversfo:: or a utilitarian .::ak u!ation
that gave rise :o the law, are but its re~ult and, :r.
po:m of fact. :t, perversion, Ip. 378)
Foucault ::ollows wit!: a direct quote from
Nietzsche's Genealogy o/Mc1m/s;''guih, conscience,
and duly had their tl: rcshold of emergence in thr
right to secure obligation.~ a:1d their inception, like
that of any n:ajor even! on ea ::th, saturated m
blood" (p. 378 ). Fot:cault then con dudes that
hui::anity does not grad;1ally progress from comoal
to combat until it arrive.~ at un !1,ws.il rc'Ciprodty,
where rule of law fim,.'.' y replaces w~,fo re;
hJmanitv i:,:;lall~ eac'i ol its ,'olec:ces in ,! svslcm
' '
rules ar.c thus proceeds fro.:1 dum'::atiun !o
domination. (11, j78 l
Foucault thus 1.untends that the rationales that
support n:udernity as humane and a, becoming
more so are false and that, i:tstead, modernity 's
but a new installation of dominatio1: and violence
as a "system of For schoo:s, the
prison system, commerce, and so on are installa-
tions of domination and violence masquerac.lr:g
as systt:'ms rules, and it is the work of the
genealogist to describe and reveal this domina-
t:on and violence.
The final focus of the genealogist that we take
from this essay is drawn from what Foucai::: calls
"effective history,, f.ot:cault's ( 1998) critique of
traditional history or the "history of historians"
(p. 380) is what he calls "effective histury:' This
critique is "without lthel cu1Jstants" of traditional
history. Foucault argues,
The tt.lditional devices for rnn,trncting a mmpre-
hern;ive view of lmtorr and for retracing the pa,t as
a patient a::d continuous dcvclopment mu.st S)'lr
lematical:y dismantled. Necessa:ily, we mu,,t dism:ss
those t<:ndcndcs which cncourllg<' 6e cnnso]'r:g play
of recognitions. Knowledge [savoir], eve:: under the
banner of h'.sto: 7,doe~ ::ol depend ;n: "redi;;((Nery of
ourselves;' (p, 380, brackets and e:11phasis in original)
Once again, the now familiar targets of ro~cauh's
critique are the same foundatinn11I assumptions
of moderr:ity. The regime of trad'tional hislory is
one that constructs "a comprehensive view of
his:ory.' rctrac;;:.s "the past as ii :>atier:t and co:1-
timmus development;' "encourages the co:isoling
play o:· recognitions;' cissolves "the singular
event into an ideal com:nuity" (Fo:1cault, 1998, p.
380), asserts that history is con:rolled by"destiny
or regulative rr:echanismsTI (p. 381 ), and "con-
firm [s l our belief that tl:e prelient rests upon
profound intentions and imr:rntahle necessities"
(p.381).
In rcspor:sc :o this ~eg:me,
'li,tory become, "effective'' 10 the degree that it
i 11trnduces disconl inuily into our very being~ as
it c':vides our emotions, dramatizes our instincts,
multiplirs our body, ,md sets it agai::sl itself.
EffeCI ive his:ory leaves nothing ,\ro~:1,l the self,
de11rive; the self of the ~mssuring srnbllity of life
and nature, am! it will not permit itsdf to bt trans•
ported by a vo:celess obstinacy toward a milltnnial
e11di::11. It will uprnr.l it$ traditional foundatinns
and refontle5s: y disrupt b pretrnded continuity.
(Foucault, 1998, p. .380)
 Schcurid: & McKenzie: Foucaul;'~ Met'-.odologies • d53
Also, '"Eftective' history differs from the hls:ory of
historians in being without cons~ants" {p, 380):
"Effective" history .. deal, wilh events in terms of
their mosl uniq.ie chara:terfafrs; there mosl acute
manifes:ations. An Ihis:orical: eVenl, conse,p:!ntly,
Is not a c:cdsion, a treaty, a or a haule, bul t:ie
reversal of :daticnship of forces, the usurpa6:m of
power, the appro?;iation of voca'::rJlary tur::cd
against those who had once used it, a domination
:h1t grow, frrh le, poiso::s itselt~ grows slack.
(pp. 380 381}
This 'effective" his1orkal sense "confirms our
ex:steoce among countless lost events, without a
landmark or a point of reference" (Foucault, 1998,
p. 381 ). Finally, it is an "affirmation of a perspec,i •
val kr,owledgc :savoir] :' as traditional "historians
take unusual pains to erase the elements in their
work wh'.ch reveal their grounding in a particular
lime and ph!ce" (p. 3!:12). In a se:1se, then, Foucault
is r:u1klng an argument that traditional (mod-
ernist) history is an effort to console onrselves
with the assumptions that there is unity, co:1tinu-
ity, teleology, r:ieaning, destiny, and so on built
ir.to history its el:', a view that makes us feel safe or
that would make "history" our safe harbor. In cri•
clque of the latter moder:iist and humanist view,
Fom:aalt argues that this aspect of traditional
history is predomimmtly dependent on a meta•
physics (p. L), a kind of modernist psycr.osis or
spelt, tr.at hides the fact that history is "the luck of
the battle;• the "randomness of events; "a profu•
sion of entangled events;' "a 'host of errors and
phantasms' [a quote from N:etzschej;' and "count-
less lost events" (p. 381 ).
The work, thrn, of the genealogist in this bridg-
ing between archaeology and genealogy is
fourfold. The genealogist is to critique the pursuit
of origin, by showing they are fa'::lrications, to show
that the body is "imprir:ted by history" (Foucault,
1998, p. 376}, to describe "systems of subjection"
(p. 376) and "the endlessly repeated play of domi-
nations" (?• 377;,, and to do what Foucault calls
"effective history:' We now turn, after this explka-
tion of ::1is bridging essay, to his two genealogies,
whic~ did irnrr:ediately follow his ":r,; ietzsc'le,
Ger1ealogy, History" (Foucault, 1977/ 1994a)
bricging essay. ·:o acconp:ish this, we discuss
his extensive comments on genealogy in the first
of his two genealogies, Discipline and Puni~h
( 1975/1979), and then end the "Gene.:.logy"
section with some brief comments on hi, second
and last genealogy, rhe History of Sexuality,
Volume I: An lritroduction [ l 976/19!l0a}.
Genealogy
Di~c~)l/ne 1md Punish first appeared in French
h I975, was tnms'.ated ir.:o English hy Ala:1
Sheridan in l9i7, ar:d finally was puhlished b}'
Vintage Books in 1979, which is the version we are
using. Although there is much in this bo11k tl:al is
orovocative and um:om fortahle reading, such as
Foucault's well-researched descriptions of torture
used by the Fre:ich penal system prior to the con•
temporary period,23 we :bcus here primar:iy on
what Foucault has to say about 1ioir1g genealogy. As
w't:. 'i.is archaeologies, another of the many sirr:i-
la~ities between his archaeofogkal work and his
genealogical work,"' Foucault is comparing one
period with another period. For example, he says
that during the second period, "ii: Europe and in
the L:ni:ed States, the entire economy o: punish-
ment was redistributed. [There was J a new theory
of law and crime, a new moral or political justifi-
cation, old laws were aboEshed, old customs died
out" (Foucault, 1975/1979, p, 7), "Hy the enc of the
eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth
century" (p, 8), the old penal style was dying out.
During this new· period, then, "pur.i shrr:ent has
become an economy of susper:ded rights. . . As a
result a ... whole army of technicians took over
from the executioner, the irr:mediate anatomist of
pain: warders, doctors. chaplains, psychiatrists,
ps}'chologists, educationa:ists" ( Foncault, J975/
1979, p. 11). And the consequence of :hi:s ch,mgc
see • ingly was a "reduction in the penal se,;erity;'
"a phenomenon with whicr. legal historians are
well acquainted'' (p. 16)-"less cruelty, less pain,
more kindness, more respect, :nore 'humanity"'
(p. 16). However, r:ot surprisingly, Foucault is
going to critique "the new tactic, of power'' (p.23)
of this liberal progressive view of less cruelty and
pa:n. For example, he is going to argue that the
 854 • HA~DBOOK OF QUALII'\JJVh RE!iEARCH-CIIAPfl\R
penal systen had be~ome "a strar:gc scientit1co-
jur:dical mmplel;' tlit: focus of which is now the
soul rather than 1:le body ( p. 19), which, tu sor:1e
extent, ro t.:cault considers a more oppressive
foc1s than tl:at of :he old penal regime. He is also
goi:1g 10 argue that the u::imate target of this
comp lex not simply a jJdgment of guilt. .•. It
hears within it an assessment of nor:nu:i t y and
a technical prescr:ptinn for a possible norrr:aliza ·
tion" (pp. 20 2 i), whkh applies thrm:ghout sodety
rather than just to crlmh:als. In other words. to
Foucault, one effect of 6e new penal regime is not
to punish tr.e crim'nal but rather to normalize the
larger population in terms of currec: behavior.
roucuult (1973/1979) th.::n, says that IJisdpline
and Punish ''is intendec as a correlative history of
the modern soul and of a new power to judge;
a genea:ogy of :he present .scientit1 co-legiJ com-
from which the pow<::r tn pm: ish cerives its
bastes, jus,ificalions, a:id rules" (p. 23). ''But frorr:
what point can such a r.istory cf rhe :node,n sou:
on trial he written?½(p. 23j. l'irst,he answers that
fais cminot be written
studying only the general soc:al forms, as
lkrkheim cid, :bcrauseI om, run, the risk of 110.,11.
ing as the pri:icip'c of gre,tler leniency in punish-
ment processes of individualization that ;ue
nne of tbe nf the ::t'.W lact:c, p~wer,
,:, :mmg which can h,~ i ndudtd the new p:11,.: mech-
a,:',ms. [p, 23)
Jn other words, tocusi ng on the "grea :er len irncy
in punishme_:1t" in this new penal regime, as if
that wrre a causal principle of the new regime,
wou;d be a mistake; h1stead, thi~
leniency" shou:d be seen a; an "effoct" of~the :iew
tact:cs of power:'
Immediately there,d<::r, Foucault ( l 975/1979)
l.iys uut ":our general rules" for his genealogkal
study_ Ahl-:ough these four rules are focused
specifin1 lly on Ihis particular study. they high Iight
well several areas of poss:::,le work for the geneal-
ogisl Whc: we do here, then, is present ca..:h of the
rules, discuss its imp Iications for the ge:1calogis:,
and briefly specula:c as lo how it :n ig:it be applird
to somr facet of public education, The following is
his fir.st n:k:
Do r.,,t concentrate the study of the pu niti~e
n:echanis1m on lhcir "'re,pre!;»ve" dfi:cts alone, on
"punishment" aspects alone, but situate :':cm
in a whole serks of !hdr po,sihle positive ef:ec:s,
even if these seer.: marginal :it first sight As" ,m: •
regard pu1::shme11t as a ~vmpfo.: social
set1,11er'ce_
function, (p. 23, emphasis addei::)
Foucault wants us to look beyond the obvious
"'repressive' effects" of punishment to examine
whole series of lh1:ir po~sible positive ef:ects:' By
pcsitivc, though, te does not mean an e'tect that
we might like ur app,nv<' of; he mear:s something
produced ra6er than something repressed or
c>:duded. Fur example, as ment'.om:d previously,
one "posi:i,·e'' or produced effect of the r:cw penal
regime is the normalization uf appropriate hel:av
ior among the general population. [ndeed, one
of Fo11rnult's favorite genealogical maneuvers is to
focus not just on the negative or repressive effects
of power but also on the pus' tive or productive
effects of power. '°:'fl Fm:caull, power does ;usl
exdude or repress; power also produces. How-
ever, he is not saying that the repressive effec;s
of power ~hould he ignored by the genea:ogi st;
rather, he is arguing that the genealog'sl should
regard "punishment as a complex sociiJ.1 fum::tion"
(emphasis added) :hat includes bot:i the repres-
sive ar:d the productive, For insta:i.ce, school dis-
dplir:c progmms dn not just punish (repress)
certa: 1: student behaviors among a small group of
smdents; they also, and perhaps more impor-
:antly, produce a nor maliiation (a "positive"
effed) of correct hchav ior among the rest of the
students. Thus, to Foucault, thesr rlisdpline pro•
grr.ms could he said to be both nega:ive (repres-
sive) effects ;,ositive (prod:1,-tiv<') effects,
Foucault's(: 975/1979) .,;e,:ond rule is to "analyze
punitive rrethods not simply as co:1sequcnces of
legisla:ion or as im:icators of social stn.:ctnres, bi:t
as kchnk]Ues posse&~ir:g their own specificity i:i
the mor<' t!eneral field of other ,vays of exercising
power. Regard pur: ishment as a political tactic"
(p. 23), Thus, !:ow social acts or policies gct
analyzed or thought abo·Jt is critical to the genealo-
gist. However; the .:ionn of the mainstream social
sciences is to st:e a1:tions that are related to the
government as tbt: resu:t of leg:slative p{llicymakers
 Scheuri~h & McKenzie: Foucault's Methodologies II 855
or other governmental acto,s, ,hat is, n fu:ictim1
of social actors or agent~. fa contrast, the norm of
critica'. theorists and other st,ucturalists is to see
gnvemn:ental ,;1clions as a function o: trJ:: social
structures. Foucaull. trough, w,1nts us to turn our
thinking in a difterenr di rerlim:. He wants as-and
this is a persistent point he made throughout
his career-to see specific acts, p,ocedures, or
processes, such as "punitive methocs" and school
discipline programs, as having a kind of a quasi•
indepe:ident s,m:di:ig or importance, a "specificity;'
within "the rr:ore general field oforher ways of exer-
cising power:'They are no: just actions of individual
agents, and they are not merely functions of some-
thing more i:11:iortant and larger, sane soda! str·Jc-
tun:; these methods or programs need to be looked
at by the gcnea'.ugist as having their own specificity
or independrnt s,anding. Moreover, by "ways of
exerds:r.g power;' roumult coes no: usually mear:
the power exercised by an intentional actor,
although his vie;;; e:i con: passes that; h::,iead, he
usua:ly means th;at a procedu:'C or process multi-
plies across a sod2.l Eeld because of a complex set
or collc-ction of reasons or CallSf'S that are not
entirely ir:tentional or rational. lhus, these gov-
ern:, ental acts, procedures. or processes are not
only or simp'y a function of ,egislation or social
str,ct;,i,es; instead, to the genealogist, they ax
ways Ihut power r:rnltiplies, without some agcntic
age1,t consdo.1sly accmnplisl:bg this, ac:uss a
social field. For instance, the new emphasis on
student-centered classrooms1; snould not be ana-
lyzed only as a new ,md belier approach emerging
trmn progressive educational theorists or only as
a function of social structures; instead, it sl:ou'.d
also be ana:y1.ed a, a practice of power that has
emerged and ci ~cnlatcs more 'Jroadly in society
and as ,, practice of ?owcr that is, in m,my ways,
actually :noce oppressive than teacher-centered
classrooms. The reason why f!oucault might offer
tha: the new student-.:cntcrcd classrooms are
more Oypressive is because the wmk of th:s new
tactic of power :s to imprint the souls of the
children rather than :·1st their ,ehaviors, as the
old teac:1er•centered classrooms did,
"[1e :hird rule, and a critically important one
to those of us in the social sciences. is as follows:
!:;stead of treating the history of pena: law and the
histo,y of the I: uman sc'ences as two stparatt
series whost overlapping ap[1t',m to hm•e had on
one I?enal law] ,Jr the other Ithe histery of the
:mman sc:ences], or perh,;,p nn both, a disturbing
or useful effect, according tn one's p:1in1 of view, sec
whether there is not so:".'lc conun,i:: matrix or
·,;:hcthcr they du not bor:i derive from a sinj!k
?roce~s of "e?isternologi<.1.,-ju:i'1ical" formation;
:n short, make the red:nolog:, of power the very
?Tiucipk bot:1 of th: human '1.atbn of the penal
syst,'rr: a:1d of the lmm,1edge of man. (Fvm:ault,
1975/1979, p. 2.3 I
Thus, the history of penal law, the public
edi;cational system, or nursing should not be
examined just as a separate, albeit so:netimes
overlapping, series running parallel to the hisrury
of the sudal sciences but should also be examined
as emerging from Ksome common matrix" or as
deriving from a shgic "process of cpistemo-
logko- 'fill in the blank ·.vith ~ iur:dical, <Xiuca-
tional, or medkall formation." A.gain, as with. the
seco:1d rule, the principa'. fucus of :he genealogist
should be on the technologies of pum:r and the
ways that the sa:nr technology of power spreads
across and i.s enacted both within particulrir
systems, such as those o: ?risons, schools. or hos-
pital,, and i1: the social sciences, Thus, technolo-
gies of power, 11rising out of a "common n:atrix" or
a '"cpistomologico-[fill in the b.ank]' fo:·mation;'
may multiply acro,s both particular ~yste:ns and
soda I sciences in general, and th:s mu !tip]cation
is likely to be bo:'1 ir.tentional and unintenced,
both rational and not rational. For example, we
might find that contemporary public educa:ion-
its practices, procedures, and ?olicies-and the
history of education scholarship, its research,
and its tneories have emerged from the same
"common matrix" or rl:e same episte!'.1ol ogko-
educational formation. Although this seems to be
a less radical assertion than Foucault's similar
a,sertion .ibout pena: syi;tems, it is important to
understand that he doc~ not simply mean that
both contemporar}' public education and edcca-
tion sc:,o;arship share the same general assump-
tions about schools or education; ir.stcad, 'le
means that there is a nore primary matrix or
il56 11 HANDBOOK Of QUALITATIVE RESRARCH-CHAPTER
formation t:iat is not necessarily intentionally
or rationally created, and that is not necessarily
education oriented, out of which both are emerg·
ing. For example, perhaps, on genealogical bves·
tigation, both the new movement e:nphasizing
student-oriented dassrooms and the growth of
qualitative research :m,thodologies arise out of
thc same " pastora I" rna~nx, or :ormatmn
• . (.e.g., sec
;.,oucault's L:se of the concept of the pastoral b
The Hi,:ory of Sexuality, Volume l; An Introduc-
1/on !976/l980a).
Fouca:ilt's (l 975/1979) fourth rule is as follows:
Try 10 discover w'1ether this entry of the soul on to
the scene of penal justice, and with it the insertion
in legal practice uf a whole corpw, "sden!'!k"
knowledge, is ::nt the effect of a tramforr::ation
the way ::1 whic:: the body itsrlf is i:ivested by
power rc:ations.
In short, to smdy the metamorphos:s of
punitive me:hods on the basis of a political tech-
nology body in which might be read a
ccmmon history of power relations ,md object rda•
lions. Thus, by an analysis of penal ]er. ,ency os a
te.:hniq ue uf power, one :r1 ight i.:::ders:and ooth
how Illll:1, the sou:, [andl the normal or abnormal
individual have rnmr to dU(llicate c:ime as objects
of penal ::nervention and in what way a specific
nmde llf subjection was able lo gi,e birth le man as
ar. object J' knowledge :'or a discourse with a
status. (p, 24)
By his use of the word "soul; Foucault means that
the focus of the r:ew penal system is "not only on
wha: they [the criminals I do but also on wha: they
are, will be, nwy be" (p. 18, e:nphases added); that
is, the new focus is not on their bdiavior but rather
011 their being or their selves. The r:ew pena: per-
spective has "taken to judging something other
than crimes, namely, the 'soul' of the criminal"
(p. 19). Then, this new focm; on the "soul" of the
criminal is co:nbined with a new "corpus of'sden-
tific' knowledge; both of which are the of a
transformation of the way in wl:kh the body itself
is invested by power relations:' It is, as Fm:cault
says, political tcc:1m1:ogy of the hudy?' Thi:.s,
what is generally seen as more humane and more
:ibera: (i.e,, "penal leniency"), in this case, is
arg;.ied by Foucault to be but ·•a new technique of
power:' one in which "the 1ody itself is invested by
pmver re:atiom;:' And he inc.kates that he sees this
change as another example the moder:1ist
social co:1struction of"man lor the subject] as an
object ofknmvledge for a discourse wifa 'sdentitk'
status:'2" An example of this in education might be
a consideration of"site-based mmiagemer.t:'"dis-
tributive leadership;' and ''community of learners;'
all of which are generally seen as more humar.e or
more democratic approaches to school leadership
or governance, as new "techniques of powern that
are mil ju,t endemic to education but also part of
a larger fo,mation, the effect of which might be
seen as a worse oppressior. at fae level of the soul.
ln other words, these new techniques of power in
education foci.;s or: controlling or managing the
''soul"' of educators rather than just their ':Jehav-
iors, which, to Fmmmlt, is much more oppressive
than techniques of power that seek to control only
ber_aviors.
Although we find these four rules to a
particularly rich sowce for understanding the
work of the Fo;,:caultan ge:iealogist, they
certa' nly do not exhaust DiscipUne and Punish
in terms of what the work of a genealogist For
example, we f:.nd the entire last section of the
same c:ta?:er that contains the fo;.ir rules
(Foucault, 1975(1979. ?P, :6-31) to be a particu-
:arly exciting di~cussion of genealogy. We iso
have a stror:g ap:,rec:ation for (a) the "The
C:omposition of Forces" section (pp. 162-169}
'n the chapter, titled ''Docile Bodes;' which
'ncludes some direct statements about educa-
tion; (b) the enlire chapter tit:ed ''The :vteans
of Correct Traini::tg;· w.bicb includes sections
0:1 "Hierarchical Observation,'' "Normalizing
Judg.'l!e:its:' and "The Examination" as we;] as
some direct comments m: edi.;cation; and (c) the
last chapter, "The Carccral; which is another par-
ticularly rich and provo:ative section in Discipline
and Punish, 1;1 co11trasl, we are not a~ enaniured
as ma:1y are with the chapter on "Panopticism:' as
we find it to be one of his more simplistic, more
totalized, and more poorly developed concepts.
Our point, though, is that this first genealogy is
literally a panoply of critical tools and ideas that
can b~ used to do roucaultian genealogies.
 Scheuric'i & Y.cKemie: l'oucau:t's Me:hodologies Ill 857
Foucault's (197611980a) second and last
genealogy was The History of Sexuality, Volume
l: An Introduction. What we do here, given space
Emitations, is provide just so:ne brief comments
and offer some suggestions about reading this
volume. Provocativc'.y, and om: of the main n:a•
sons why we have used more space disci.:osing
Discipline and Prmi,h, is 6at rhe History of
Sexuality include, .ittle direct discussion of
genealogy as a method, whereas Disciplin!' and
Punish includes considerable ciscussior: of the
genealogical method. Indeed, through a system•
search of the text." we found that in his
second genealogy, he uses :he word "genealogy"
ur:ly five tir.1 cs (four times in the Introc:Jction
a:id once on p, 171 ).2" Konetheless, ir. general,
in uur view, History of Sexuality is the bet:er
gt>nealogy of the two, r:rnre co:1fident, smumher,
better worked out, as ifhe had more deeply inte-
grated the methodology of genealogy by the
time l:e did :his second one. It is as if he had
worked out his genealogical method b Discipline
and Punish, whereas in History 1if Sexuality he
was applvir.g what he had already wo~ked oi.:.t [n
addition, we particularly recorn:ne:id "P..irt Four:
The Deployment of Sexuality" section. 1n many
ways, this is the mature l'oucault at his best. The
writir:g is excelh:nl, the organization is dear,
and, :he lnsights are powerful .°9 It is in this
s~tkm that Fouc;i:,i:t ;,rovides some extended
discussion of how he thought power differently,
what he calls an "analytics" of power (p. 82), as
not just negative and repressive but also posilive,
Even more specifically, we reco:rnnend the
"Ohjecd,,e" suhsec:ion (pp. !\1-91) and his dis-
cussion at the beginr:i ng of the "Method" sub
section of "Part Four" (pp. 92-97). [ndeed, we
woald suggest that one of Foucault's g,eatest
contributions to intellectual thought has been
his reconceptualization of power, and a good dis•
cussion of this reconceptualization is abun•
dantly available in His!clry of Sex.1ality, Finally,
however, what genera:ly distinguishes his sec
ond method, genealogy. fro:n his first one,
archaeology, in our view, is that :iis archaeologl·
cal metnod is dependenl on a highly structured,
highly interrelated set of constructs, all of which
need to be deployed togethe~ to actually do an
archaeology, w /:ere as his genealogkal method is
more like a set of critical tools that can be used
in any sort of grouping. And it is this &ffore11ee,
we believe, that :s one of the chief reasons why
the latter is much more appealing to scholars.30
Ill Co-:cu;s10N
Overall, it could be argi:.ed that Foucault's archae-
ologic.il and genealogical work was mainly a
criti;.;•Je of the .:nodernist view of the human
sciences and of "man" as sirnui ta:ieouslr both the
human scientist and the object of humar:
sciences_ Then, i:1 his conduct of a:iy partirnlar
critique, whether archaeolog:cal or genealogical,
he almost always takes up one "period" {although
his "periods'' often do not parallel those of mai 11-
stream history) prior to the one (th1; second
perioc) he w::l crifape and descrihes thb first
period to lay the basis for his description and
critique of the subsequent period. However, his
dc~cription of ons: petiod, his description of the
change from one to the next, and his descripl ion
of the semnd perio.: rntwe far heyrmd the ter,i-
tory typic~lly covered in conventional history for
example, see our comparison of connaissarice and
savoir earlier, where wm1aisscmce covers the con•
vent ional territory. w~ereas savoir, which is what
Foucault is focused cm with :w:h bis archaeolo-
iies and h:s genealogies, is mucn broacer, even
including social pheno:ne:,a that seem to have
lit:le direc: connection to the particular co1mais·
,ance. His point here is th al the conventional or
traditional view of the formal academi;; social
scumc,es is lnt one part of an "effective history''
and that when the sa,Qir is considered, it bes:omes
m'.lch r:iore obvious that the human sdenc1,;s are
mJch less rational, much more a:nh:g·Jous, much
messier, much more filled with rando:n error,ar.d
:nore driven by the petty· jealousies anc competi•
tions of social scientists lhan is conventionally
assumed. Thus, if yoc understand the c.i ffcrerice
between mnnaissance and ,,, voir, am: if you
·J:tderstand the fact that FoJcault focused mostly
on savofr as the territory of the archaeologist or
658 a HA~DBOOK 01' QUALIT>\:flVI: Rl:SEARCH-CHAPTER 3:l
11:e genealogist, }'OU unc!erstand a significant
of what Fu Jcault was up to with hi8 critiqu~,
A second point he makes with these "period"
comparisons is tb1t, eontmry tn tne self,story of
modernity that the more recent is more humane,
the ''modernist" period is actually, when critiqued
with an archaeology or a gtnealogy, worse, more
oppressiv., more de11:ea1J:ag, For exan:pk,
whereas lhe otior per:al system tortu:ed bodies,
the target of !he su b,equent one was the soui, not
what people do rather wnat they are, Thus,
Foucaul: ~tai:ds as a majo, c:-itk of Western
modernity, particularly c,,lling into quest:or. a
wide array of "prngrcs~ivc'' assumptions that
modernity is considerably better, more huma:1e,
and mor(' rat:or.al than tr.at which came before
modcrnitv,
'
A :hird focus Foucault is to decenter
"man" "5 the prim;;ry subject of n:odc:-nity.
"'.'u Foucault, r:rndemity constructed man, the
subject, the agent rnnning the world. It was
mode1·:1ity :Ila: fashioned :he whole of hunan life
as constructed around and for man, the central
s1:bject, tile cc:1tral agentic actor. it was modernil y
that w:otc a :1istory of the p:ogressire rational
r isc of the human sciences guide,: by and for
man, the central subject. In contrast, rourault
suggests a different a:id effec:ive histo~r of the
human sde:i:es. Based on nis critical examina-
tion of his:orical documents, he suggests that,
a:thuugh ,ational ily is parl of Westerr. nistory,
there is mud1, much n:ore that is not rational and
that 's not guided ':iy any central actor. Indeed,
in cloth his archaeologies and his genealogies,
hi,tory is not predominantly crt'ated by a subject,
particularly a '.ogical rational subject who !:as
"his" hands on the guidi:Jg wheel of history,
Ins lead, :iistury is created by a complex a::ray
cf prucesses, dispersions, procedures, accidents,
:rntreds, po'.icies, desires, dominations, unin·
:ended or t:ncontrolled drculatiom of tedmiqi::es
of power, commercial practices, mores, analyses
and dcmonst~alions, the norms of industrial
labor and bourgeois morality, 11:e endlessly
,t'pcated play of dominations, :irerature, political
dtdsions, discont:naities, opinions expressed h,
daily life, th<' fanatical and unend: ng discussions
of scholars, randomness, dissensim:,., petty malice,
precise scientific methods, subjected bodies, and
faulty calrulations, to name hm just a fe1v-and
man, the subject, is no: running this show called
histo:-y. In addition, he repeatedly points out the
contradiction withi:i modernJy of simultane-
ously having man as both the subject and object
of history, Eowever, given the dominaEce of o;ir
modernist romentidzed view ourselves as the
center of our lives and our society and, given OJ~
deep ontologica~ and epistemological attachment
to this romanticized view. it is usually ignored
or critiqued by scholars while t:iey app,oprialc
u,her aspects of f\1uca111t:, critique of :nodernil y,
This, to us, is a serious mistake. His critique of
:node rnity and h,s critlq U€ of agentic subject
at the c.::nter are dee?Jy intertwir:ed; thus, sepa-
rating t!le lwo violate, Foucault's ,Jerspeclive at
the most basic !eve: of his thought
There are other lesser a:mses, and some erro-
neous readings, of Foucault that we have tried to
address or correct. i'irst, foucault by his own
words, enormously influenced hy Ca:iguilhem
and saw Cangu:l hem and others as ?Jaying a role
in Frellch iutcllectual work similar to that which
he r'rankfurt School phi ~·ed i:1 German in1ellec •
tual work. ':-hus, we suggest that Canguilhem and
others, such as Gaston 13achelard, should receive
incre.lsed attention, a:- thenes that Foucault
dr;nvs from Car:gi;ilhcm rnnli:rne through his
genealogies. Second, the amount of time ac1c
energy that Fouce 'Jl ~ gave to a,cbieology was
much .argcr than thllt which he gave to geneal-
ogy. Thus, we suggest lhal mucl: more llltention
be given to <1r,.;haeology. Indeed, there is nu legil-
in:ate doubt that Foucault continued throughout
his h:e lo highly value it as a me:hod, des?ilc
what others concluded, Third, again hy nis own
words, genealogy was nor scr:n hy Poucault ,is
being supecscdoo by or superior to archaeology.
Thus, in con:paring the two methods, more
attention to be give:1 to how Foucaull saw
the relatior:ship of the :wu, Fourth, archaeology
and genealogy are much less different than is
often assumed, and this also cm1ld use more
attention. Fifth, it was, in our npin 'on, Dreyfus
and Rabinow who were largely respons:bk for
 S;heurich & McKem:ie: Foucault's Methodologies
wha: we see as a distorted view of the relationship
of archaeology and genealogy in t'.-'1e United
Slates, Thus, we suggest more problematizatioi:: of
th:s conten:ion. And sixth, in any oJnsidera:ions
of 6e two methods, the essay on ·'~ietzsche,
Genealogy, H•sto,y" should receive im:reased
attention, as i<: is a good bridge that directly
connects the two me:hods,
In this conclusion, we also \'.,mt to strongly rec•
omrr.end a relatively new collection of Foucault's
work. The entlre set is called Essential Works of
Foucault, 1954-1984, and Pa nl Ra bin ow is :he
series ed: tor. 01 The fb,; volume is Ethic!!,
Subjectivity, and Truth (1994/ l 997) and was
edited by Rabinow, The second volume is
l,esthe1ics, Merhod, and Epistemology (1994a) am:
was edited ·::iy ~auhion. The :h ird volume i~ Power
(1994c), and it too was edited by Fau:,ion, Jn this
set, when the English translations provided in it
are compared with alternative ones, we consis•
tent\ y find that the tra1islatioris in this set are
superior, In addit:ar., tr.is set thematically groups
;:,arts of Foucault's books w:th somt of his articles
and '.r.terviews, We would suggest that. es[>rcia lly
for beginners, this set is an excellen: place to star:
readi:1g FoJcault, as it makes Fo·Jcault :nore
accessible,
Undeniably, though, whichever books, urtides,
a:id interviews are considered, Foucau It has left
us with an impressive body of work ar.d new
methodologies arid with a host of :;mwerfal a:1a•
lytic cor.cepls, so1:1e of wl:kh we have tried to
introduce to a broade, rar:ge of readers, We want
to end, ther., with two more statements, The first
is a very brief summary of our take on the 'JSe of
Fo·Jcault in education scholarship. Unfortunately,
we do not have space to comment in any detail on
the use of Fouca,Jlt ln the sod al sciences generally
or in educatior., our field, ~pedf:cally. Indeed,
commenting on :he us;;s of Foucault across the
social sdences in the United Slates alum:
alre?.dy probably too large for anything less than u
book. Even just the use of Foucault as a primary
focus by education scholars, as can be seen in one
part of our bibliography, is rather large, However,
after reviewing the sdmlar1,l:ip in education Jsing
Foucault as the main theoretical resource, our
111 859
conclusion is that a very high ;;ercentage of this
work engages Foucault's work at only a fairly
superfidal level.
Probably the must po:,ular use, or abuse, is to
cherry pick one concept, such as "?anopticon" or
"disciplinary society:• and then ;i se that one con•
cept within a more traditional critical lrami:wo~k,
even though there are cpister:mlo;dcal cor.tmdk
tions between Po·Jcault and rr:ost US critical
theory.U In general, we would say this cl:erry
pick:ns is a mistake, as typically the single con·
cept, in its FoucauJtian meaning, docs nut really
intcg;ate with the rest of the assumptions in the
article or book Our point is that Foucault's con-
cepts are ':mt aspects of a general epistemological
posit:or: that needs to be engaged with as a whole.
Another similar error that we fuund :n the uses
of Foucault's work by U,S, education ~,holars, as
well as by many social scientists, is to adopt his
critique of modernity while ignoring his s'.multa·
neous critique of subjectivity itself. We are
uncomfortable saying this because we sound like
we are polici :ig Foucault, bi; I we :h ink 6at it is
simply t:.ndcdahle that there is a tre:nem:o'J,
amount of fairly superficial anc ill-informed use
of f-'Oucault: in fact, we concluded 1:1a1 ;nar:y have
used his wor~ without ever reading carefolly
through several \'O: 'J'.111':S of it Of course, the line
between substantive engagements o: Foucault
and superficial ones can never be securely d::',iwn,
Thus, we are decidedly not argubg that we know
and can define the canonical Foucault, but we
would si.:1,J!est that a supple use, or even an ade-
quate use, of ;;oucault requires more than om:
dose :eading of any m:e bouk, article, or inter•
view. Instead, we would suggest close readings of
several books, along with ar tides and interviews,
before trying to use or apply his work, Wt:en U,S,
scholars do not engage in th is kind of in-depth
study of Foucault, we would ren:ind them that
faei, ignorar:ce is fairly transparent to those
who do study and use Foucault in a more
subs ta mive way,
Our second final point is what surorised us
the most with our systematic review of Foucault's
books. Also, we should say that we were reluctant
to make this point, but we dedded that we had to
860 111 HANDllOOK OH,llALJT,'\'flVR RESEA RCF. ~ CHAPTER
for us to maintain the integrity of ou:: recent
rereading of all of rou raults major works in 6e
order that he published J\efore we did this
review, we were strong ac vocal es o( Fuucault's
work and not too reCt::ptive to the many critique,
of his work, as we saw :nost of them as conscious
or Jnco:1sdous defenses of the foundational
assumptions of moder:1':y. Wha, emerged, though,
for us ls a new ope:mess to one of the main cri-
tiques that been made of roucault's work
That is, there have bcrn uumemus cmn ?laints
that in rouca u: l's co:i sicerntion of the truth
regimes of social life, such as those of prisons, the
dinic, and sexuality, Foucault's descript:or:s of
these regimes them relentlessly O?pressive,
perhaps even totalized, wit:: rm way "out"
H.irtsock, 1998). Clearlr, we cannot go into a
!er:gt1y discussion of rhi.s critique, nor do we 1,•ant
to debate it at this point Wha: we nm do.however,
is strongly suggest that other advocates and
siste:1t ·.isers of Fo;,i~ault need to more openly and
more carefully consider this critique. In o~he:
words, we would s.:ggt'il t that oi:r experie1:ced
foucau!t scholars need to eqmge this crit kpe in a
more hahlnced way ~nd recognize that there is
some "validity" to it.
After recently rcrcadi r:g straight th rough all of
his books 1:1 ,he mder tha: he published them, we
were truly stnKk, u:wxpectedly stnck, with how
unrelenting l·oucar : is in his critique of the social
fo,ms in which we live. We began to understand
what others concluded about his total izations
o~ these forms. We begai:, for example, to
understand where olhern have amduded that, :n
his descriptions of penal institutions or the social
sciences, there appears to he "no exit?' :iis critique
and the described oppress ion are powerfully unre•
lenting and do appear ro approach a totallmtion. It
ls almost as if he has discovered that, for example,
the new penal regime is not just a 6-sided cube
oppression and control but ,dso a 500-sided culx·
and that,: n brilliantly describing all of these sides,
he k,1.ves us with no recourse, :10 path for resis-
ta nee or cmanci?r. tion. Wl:at ;; imultaocous ly
r~inforces his is the fuct that in his major works,
he rarely offers any alternative for :esistauce
or emanci :iation from Ihe oppression he so
thoroughly describes. !Sec, e.g., Grosz, 1994, wl:o
uses Foucault extensively but is sil'I'! ultaneo,,;sly
critical of how unrelenting his lack cf alternative
spaces and possbilitics is; in fact, for us, Grosz
exemp; ifics ii balanced, in depth use of Foucault
thar is bot l': crit kal and appreciative.} Thus, for
example, while Foucault provides an insightful
characterizatiun of the complexity of a discipline or
regime, virtual:y every aspect, every facet, of the
new wmplexil y that Foucault describes becorm.:5
a critkal moment for roucault so that while he ls
opening up new prrspect ives on specific truth
rcgin:es, he is also foreclosing, through his totalized
critique, the possibility that these :iew frontie:s
rr:ight becone ne., possibilities or i:naginar:e;.
Of course, we iealize that the words "resistance"
and "emancipation" are humanist one;; arising
out of modernity: thus, an advocate for foucwlt
r:i:ght that Foucault's :1!1Willingness to offer
any such alter:uttive is i;'rnply his main:e:1ance
of a consistc:dy anti-hum,mist-, a:1:i-subject-
centcrcd epistcrr.ology. However, as Frnser (1989)
pointed out some time ago, what is often igr:o,ed
with f'oucault is that much of his ianguage, such
as "sys:ems of n.:bjection" (Foucault, 19751
1979, p. 376) and "the endiessly repea:ed play of
domir.atiom;" (p. is itscE· language that is
modernis: Rnd humanist and that the power
Foucault's crltiqurs have us is a function of our
imr.icrsion in and attachment to this modernist,
humanist language. 11\'e would, thus, point out t1at
what we have here is another modernist binarv.
'
Accordingly, whereas Fom:ai::: powerfully appro-
pr:ates ,me side of this binary (e.g., snhjection and
domination), he largely avoid, 6e otl:er (e.g.,
re~:stance a:1d emand;1atloo ). Ti's, as Derrida':
has pointed out so well with his deconstructive
methodology, does not mean tha: the otl:er sk:e
of tl:e hh1ary, variously labeled res:stance ur
cma:icipation, is not equally :n ;il~y.
Tims, .igain, we want to st:ggest that sc:rn:ars
who are advocates of Fom:k"ult take th is critique
more seriously ai:d approach Foucault more the
way that Grosz (1994) generally does. However,
we are :107 saying !hat Foucault never addresses
rni:ic "positive" ..:hange pussibilities. We are
saying, though, that in all of the archneologies he
 Schenr:ch & McKcnzfo: Foucault's .'11elhodologies 11 86 l
overwhelmingly does 1:ot and that in Discipline
cmd Punish (1975/ 1979; he largely does not. Also,
for the most part i::J The History r,f Sexua/!r1;
Volume l: An Introduction ( L976/l 980a) he doc-s
not, although in this latter work he does begin to
talk about countering "the grips of power" with
the "rallying poht" heing "boc,les and pleasures"
(P. 157). In The History of Sexuality, Volurm: 1,
near the end, for example, he says,
must think tha: by saying yr:, to sex, one
11'11
ml to power; on lhe contra£)', one tracks .i long
the course laid out by the general deploymcr:t o:
[when one say, to ,ex J, It 'S be all,et:q'
sex. that we rr:usl l;reak from if we aim-
thmugh a tactical icversal of the variou~ mech.nisr:1s
of se1a1a::ry-to n,·~:iter ;he gr:ps of power with
the dairr:s o~"'Jodies, ;ileasures,and k11owledge~, in
thdr muhi;ilidty and their pu:.sibility of re,istance,
The raJ;ying :mint fo, the counterat:ack against the
deploymc::I of sexuality ought not to bt sex-d,•,lre,
but bo:lies and i,lea~ures, (p. 157)
This is dearly an effort hy Foucault to begin
to explore'. re.,istance and a of possible
change, but this is by far the exception. ln fact,
some might argue that i1 is with this work that
Foucault's intere~t in wor:,:ng on resis:a:ice and
change emerges in the care cf the sc:-lf period that
is said 10 follow the two gt:nealogies, In addition,
he was an activist, especially around prison
1:;sL,es, and in his interviews he ~up;iorted
ac,ivisrr: while resisting critiques of the :ack cf
activis:n in r.is hooi<s, For examplC', in nn inter-
view publbncd in an Italian journal in 1978, he
said (,qomewhal deti:nsi vdy, we would say), "'.
dont ronstruct my analy~es i:i order to say, 'This
is the way th !ng are, you are trapped.' I say these
things only immfar as I believe it enables us to
transform them" (Foucault, : 994c, pp, 295-295).
'iowever, our ?O: nt here ls that through all
of the archaeologies ai:c the first genealogy
a:1d eve:1 rnosl of the seco:id genealogy, while
Foucault :s opening up new w"y~ to think about
our social world, his t:nrelenting,almost totalited,
critique serves to foreclose how to use those new
ways of tbnking fo:- resistance, for countering
"the grip, of power;' a:id for developing spaces of
valuable change, To us, this should be a major
ooncem because, tn our view, h:., descriptive
accour,:s of the complexities of dlsc:plines, social
arenas, and instil'Jtions could as we;J show :ha:
witl:i:1 :hese complexities, there are almos: always
spaces for resistance, "uJunterat:ack:' appropria-
:ion, and construction, and this i~ also a point :hat
Grosz ( 1994) makes. Simi:arly, f,i; ':iriu:n and
Holstein (2000), in the second edition of this
Handbook, drawing strong'.y on Foucault, have
tried to develop ~an interpretive pr act ice I;h~.t l
works against [the kind of roucai:::ianl totaliza-
tion that views all ir:te~pretations as artifacts of
particular regimes of puwer/knowle,:ge" (p. SO:),
By raising these criticisms of !-'011cault, though,
we arc :mt t:y ing to de:initive, as that would
require a more exttnded, i:1-depth discussion of
the whole range of critiques of Foucault on this
issue, lnstcad, we arr more mod.::stly suggesting,
ba,ed on our recen: S}'Stcmatlc :1:ad of Foucault,
tl:at ?oucault advccates, as we ourselves have
been, need lo take another, mnre careful, more
balanced consideration of this critique Foucault's
work, Or, as Foucault r.imsel f said. "T:1~ only valid
tribute to [anyor.:'s] thm:ght , , j, precisely to use
'.:, to deform it, to make it groan a:1d protest. A:1d
if rnmmen:ators then say that I am being faithfol
or unfaithful ... that is absolutcly no interest"
(Poucault, : 9BOb, pp. ;3-54),
Nonetheless, eve:1 with such recon, ideratio:is,
Foucault re:11abs a powerful, innovative btellec,
tual whu,e work has o;:ien cd up insightfal and
provocative avenues of thought, critiqL:e, and
understanding, Moreovt:r, without a doubt, :iis
work has bernme enmrnously 'nt1ue::itial world-
wide. Ddeuz.e (l 990fl 995 ), tl:C1ugh. this
much more poetically:
Whe:1 peopk follow l'oucault, when they're fasd-
natro by him, it's ::>ecause they're doing something
w:th him,i:: their own 1vork, in their cw n :wJercn-
de::t lives. it's not just a question of Il'oucaulf, l
intdlect~al un:'ersta;1ding or agreemcn:, but of
inte::sity, re.onam:e, m~sical '1armrmy: (p. 86)"'1
Hopefully, our interpretations prcs<'nted here will
add to this influem::~ by l:elping :hose who have not
yet engageci J:iouc<1ult to unders,anc 1Nhere they
mig'it begin, We a:so hope we have been useful and
862 JI! HAKDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER JJ
provocative to those who are more experienced
friends of Foucaul:, even if we may have disturbed
them a bit with our critical remarks. Whatever the
reads of our ::ead, tl:ough, we want lo again and
again strongly emphasize that ou~ intcrprctatior.s
of Foucault, our rnmrr.ents 0:1 the uses a:1d abuses
of Foucault in education and the social sc:ences,
our critiques of l'oucault and others, and our con•
duding rernarko are not the correc:, the best, the
wtl:o~itative, or the canonkal ones. Even if you
forget fverything else we have written hrre, do nor
forget this point. As we said at tl:e beginning of this
essay, the comments we offer here are not true
interpretations of Foucault's work, nor are such
interpretations possible in o;;r view; ~·he pri:m1ry
issue :o us is how substantive the eng<agement is,
not whether the engagemen: is fae correct one.
Titus, whether there is agreement or disagreement
with what we have said here, we truly hope that all
readers will see this essay as a S'Jbstautive effort to
engage primarily not only with Foucault :mr also,
tu a smaller extent, wit!: his u.~ers and abusers, his
advocates and crit:cs.
• NOTES
1. Despite the hu:t that this essay is r:ol a "t:w,»
one, we want to thank our reviewers for their sugges-
tions, comments, and cri!'cisms. Tr.en· is simply no
question that r:iis eSSll)' was ,ubstanlivcly improved
due lo their responses even when we disagreed with
t:iose responses. Those reviewers were labcr Gubiium,
Patti Lather, 3:il Black, E;:zabeth St. Pierre, Norman
Denzin, and Jack B,atich. However, none of !hem
sl:ould be held responsible for anything we huvt writ-
ten here as we used ar.c abusec, agreed and disagreed
with, incorporated and ignored :heir wnrcs.
2, 7he American Psychological Associ.l.tion
iAPA) style format rule is that the original publication
date for a publication in another language precedes the
rmblicadon dah." in E:-.glish, ;ust as we have done it
here. Hm'leV,)r, we wan:ed lo make sure that everpme
paid alle::tion to :h.:se dales bec:mse they are part uf a
significant ll0:::1 that we are mdking in !hi~ essay.
J. Foucault hi:nsdf .!Clua[y calls ::'s archaeologies
am: gene,dogies too'.boxe:;: 'J\.11 rr:r books ... are little
toolboxes, if you will'' (Halper:::, 1995, p. 52). Thanks t~
Elizabeth St Pi~r,c for pointing out this quote.
ec. See, for example, Burchell, Gordon, and Mille~·s
The Hiu::ault 1:.jfecr: Smdies in Covcrnmentaliry ( 1991 l,
Barry, OslJornc, anC: RC!sc's Foucault and Political
Reason (1996), and parts of l'oplu:witz and Brennan·s
Foimu.Jts Cliallerrge ( 1991) ).
5. Jahrr Gubrium ,i]so suggests ;ohn Rajchman,
Lisa King, and Lee Quimby as doiug similar work. We
would agree with t::e Ra' ch man s·~gge,lim:, hut we are
not far:ii'.iar with the other :wo, Nonethdess, we think
Gubrium knows what h,· is talking ahnut
5. Ste Fouc,H:: l's "What ls an author?" ir.
Ltmguagr, Cuunter-Afomf!/)\ Practm:: (: 977).
, , In other words, we are .ruggesting to those enam•
ored of and influenced by Kuhn that they shculd ~eatl the
work uf Canguilhem ·,ecau,;e, in our view, C,rnguilhem'.s
work with the history of sden,es i,, much r::cre it:ipre!\ ·
sive, mL:ch ::11Jre substa::!ive, than thal of Kuin.
8. ·:hroug:mutth;sessay, when we quote Foucault,
we add words or phrases in brackrrs :o help readl"rs
foll(lW his meaning. Foucault often wr:c~s :11 kmg
sente :ices and is often no: dear with his re'erenls m
words he substitutes for other words. Thus, reading
foJca.ilt typically requires pa·,ing very dose attention
to his meaning as a sen:ence or paragraph prr,gresses,
Our added hracket, are inte:cced, then, to help readers
follow his meaning more easily.
S. It is certainly easy to ::nagi ne the good :ises to
which I.in col r1 a::d Gu:,a could have put Canguilhe:n
in their ,ritk1ue of sdeocc and reuson in 1985 in
/,;a/uralislii inquiry {1985 }.
10. It should not be assumed :hat Canguilhcm was
trying to totally undermine the history of the sciences or
to destrc1v the v,llue nnd imporlal1l1:: of rC11so:1. Ee was
no;. In fact, ii i5 ck~r that Canguilhcm appr£date, a:;d
yaJues both science and :cason. Instead, Cangtiilhe1:1
could be sa:d to be trying lo develop an approach to the
smdy of the history of science and :he h:siorr of rcas:1:1
that was much less hagiographic.
11. However, Gutting's Mi.:hef Poucauiis Arc/.aecl-
ogy of Scic.~tific Reason (1989) is a uscfol discussion
o: archaeology, though we disagree wilh some or his
intcr?rctations of foucadt
12. II should l:ic noted t::at for Fou,aul:, practic1:s
and inslitutfons, th,·orics ar:d discipline,, all uist at
the same :cvd. As he say,, -'I deal w:th prac:ires, insti-
tutions, and thmrics on :he same plnne ar.C: according
to the same isomorphisms" :i:oucault, 1994c,.=,. ~62).
13. Foucault al ways fdt that to understand so:ne-
thing, say a discuf!:ivc formalion, he ;11:,•ded irn01her
one to whkh lo compare it. C(ir.ipariscn, thfn, is
almlllll alway:, a key part of his anal 1•tic wn,k.
 Scheurlch & McKenzie: Foucault's Mclhodo:ogies •
14. Foucauh ..~e, "possibility" because the n"mess
is not delcrm::: '&tic; !bat is, it is not detem:::iistically
inevitah'.e thal a counaissance will er:1erge <lul of a
savo1r,
15. This roi ::: is slmifo r to points n:ade by
Canguilh<:r.i, as was already discussed.
16. Rcmembe~ :iow Cangu1 lhem had asserted
that "error" is an j nl<:'gra: par: life at hiologic11l
level.
17. In the specific part of The Archaeology of
l(r,.;,w!edge from whii:h :his dt,: rn drawn (p. 4},
Foucault (1969[1972) cites Cangt:ilhem. Indeed, as we
argued in an cader ser:i • n, m~ch nf archae:l:()gy
roc::cs fmr:1 k1uc8ult's use, inter;::re1atio11, and tram•
formation of his mentor\, wo:k
18. llabt:rm.:s would he an cxamp',e of :he latter.
19. U::forlunaky, we cannot find ,his in:erview at
:his ;icint, 'Jt:t we know we have read it, Our a;mlogies
;o our readers. If someone comes across :t, s:,e or he
should e-mail ii so !foal we c:rn add the citation to any
l\:r"re revisim:s of !his essay.
20. One ()fthc :cviewer5 of this chdpler argueci that
1'/w! History of.'irx 1111/ity, V.0Iume 2: rhe Use of Plea,ure
was dearly a genealogy, but l: i, our view that
~·oucault's own won.ls in this text indicate that Vol:.:me
2 i, not another genealogy. rn the ":nt,o(:uction" to
Volume 2, Fa:.:ca·~ll discusses the genealogy he origi-
nally intended to do b·~t then turns away from this. A
good discu~sion 1if the three i;er:ods and foucaulfa
in:entions with eac:i cat be found in D~vidson (1986).
Z!. We w,dd al,c suggest tha: bc.:ause of their
criti,Jtll' of ard:aro'.ogy, D:cyfos and Rabim.1w
0 983) 11layed a rok in !he lack of ..:t:~ntion to
Carrguilhem, as ther mention him only once throllgh-
ou: Beyond Structuralfsm and Hermene:.i,ics.
22. The reason why tl:is more recent vcrs:on is
het:er, in our view, is t::~t it dearly distinguishes
knowledge as connaimmu and knowledge as s,woir,
both which we have discussed as ,1ey concepts of
Fot1ca>.Jh's axhaeology.
It i, hard 1101 to conclude that Fot:cault a~tually
either errjoycd writing abou: the torture o: enjoyed
shcdcng readen; or both, given the extended detai: ::l
"iis desniptions.
24. Obviously, one of :he points we are t 0 ing ,c
make ::ere is that there i, less of a break be!wetn
archaeology and ger.ealogy than ls ~m11monly
assumed.
25. l'o~cault would liki:!y call the new :oms on
student cemcred dassmo:n~ one of f;ie effect:. of ,.
"pasti:,ral" app,oad:.
&hJ
26. T:iis point is a gocd exam;ile d a con;:em
that s!arted wi,h Canguill:em ,ind continues from
fom:ault's archaeologies inm his genealogies.
Am awn ,co:11 now alloM affyone to do two•
word or searches of an cn:ire boo~ of any book
that is contained in :his sy,tcm. It is a ma;vclo~s
sy,tcm, but any single person can do ;I: :s n::ly twict a
month wi!l:out buying the book.
One odd little note is that although fouc2.ulf,
convention is to com;iare twti periods in his v1trimn
analyses, in Hisrcry of Sexuality he compares three.
29. Ctmt~ary to whar many 11asume, Fl•ucault i,
exceedingly logical in his wr i:!en prcsentat1011s. He
constantly divides an arena of focus info numbered
11arts and then proceeds to c.efine those parts ... an
orderly fa~hion. Indeed, at this poin:, we !:ave hegun
to wond1cr whv' there is all nf this commentary as to
'
how F,im::ault writes ill .some disrnp:ed "postmodern'
fashior.. We find, after our lengthy review of his
that he wr'te, in II fairly conventional wa)' for complex
intellectual Ai:;ually. other than learning to
think different! v, whk". is n:allv the harcest task in
' '
reading F:r~cault. what is required :s to carefully
follow tl:e meanir.!l in his long comp In ;,:;ntences,
as i: ls scmetimt•s dificult to fo:'.uw to what he is
referring. l11 other wc1·us. it takes :;, dose r..:ad: ng to
follow his meaning, but tl:ere is little that is
"disru1)ted" l:: his in our 11i<'w.
30. One of uu: reviewer, argued that the larger
problem with the ar;:hacologkal ir:etlmdology is that
very few area, of S!J!:ial life lend themselves to the
kind of complex discursive structures that roucatilt
addresses ::; his archaeologies. V-le woul<l dearly dls
agree. We woulc suggest th.1t before Foucau:t's arc:iae-
tJlogkal analyse,, few woulc h,ve seen the complex
,a·,oir-b-.ised discursive pal!ems that Foucault identi-
f:ed in Madness and Cwilizatio'! 11961/19118), The
Birth of the Clinic ( l %3/1994b ), and The Order of
. ,
1'hing5 ( l 9661197 3a ). instance, we think educalion
cou;c definitely be a fertile arena for archae,ilogical
analyses.
3L There is a new comprehensive se: of a:I of
Foucault's work that has been pubHshed in 1-rench,
called Dits et Ecrits. It is two volumes. Dits et !icrits,
tome ,', 1954-1975 (2001a, I ,70;J pages) and Dit, el
E,rits, u1me2, 19761988(200Ib, l,976page,).Wecer-
ta::ily hope that so::11:, group w'II provide an Snglish
transla:iim of the entire set.
32. There is no doubt that f'Oura ult is part of a
critical tradition in \'l'es:er:: phik,so;ihy, but he had
fundamental arguments with that par I of the uitical
ii64 111 HAN1J300K OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
tradition that n,is been I, b.:led Marxist, neo·Mandst,
01 critical theory.
A~ Fo.!<:aJt scholars well lmow, [)errida was
srrongly cr:rical of Foac,r~:r's work.
34. Than~s to Elizabe1h SI. Pierre for this delight·
fol quote.
Ill BmuoGRAPIIY
rmK.aul~ Bt':tlk~
( This is a:: attemp: to list a] .hmc:mlt's major
hooks. hut it is no: intended tn be cumpreher:siw cf all
of f-(!:,cmlt's work i:: l.'ngtish. :n add:titm, the;e .:re the
books :hat we ow:: anc have studied.)
fuuc.m:L, M. (1972). Th,: 11r,·h11eofogy of.hwwledge and
the discourse on lnriguage (A. I\~. Sheridan Smith,
Trnrus J. :,Jew York: Pat:theon IJook~. (Origina:
wo:-k published in 1%'!)
Pmtcimlr, M. ( l'l73a\. 'the arder of t.liings: An arcluiea/-
ogy Clf the Jum,aH ,,;,,,.,,.,,, Nev>' York: Vintage
:looks. (Original vmrk :nJili~hed in 1966)
roucault, .';1. ( 1973b). "/Jm is no' a pipe ( ]. Harkness,
·1ra11~.j. Bcrkdey: University of California Press.
roucault, M. (, 977). Lm:.~u,a;e, coumermmmry, prac
tin·. Srlected essays and mler view; Miehe!
!'ouwu{t (D. E Bo'.lchard, Ed.; U, E llouchard &
S. Sirr:011, Trans.). Ithaca. '.'lY; Cornell University
Pre,.,.
Fou~au '.t, M. !l 979 ). IJisi:fpiine <1nd put1!l,l1: The birth
:~ the 1,ri.1011 {A. She~idar:, ;\/ew Y,,,-k:
Vintage 13ooks. (Original work publis:ied in 197 5;
Fournul:, V,. (1980a). The history of sexuality, Vol. l:
An ir1troduction '.R. Hurley, Trans.). !sew Yo,k:
Vintage Books, ( Original w,,rk pu:,lis:ied in
Foucault, M, (l9SOb). Power/Knowledge: Selected inter·
views otf;er wrifit1gs, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon,
fal.; C. Gordon, L. Marshal:, J. Mepham, & K.
Trans,;. NeaN York; Pantheon Books.
Foucault, \1. ( I986 ). The lristory of.;e.:.ua/ity, '\iol. 3: Care
of the self (R. Hurley. Trans.). New Pa:11heon
;looks. (Original work p.iblished 1984)
Fouca·Jlt, :,,;, ( L988;. Madn1;;s and civilization: A history
of fr;$amty in the age ofrimson (ll Eoward, Trans.).
New York: Vintagt Books. (Original work pub,
lished in lY61 l
fouCT1Jl1, M. (1989). Fo11ca11!i 1i1'I!: lntervieJvs, !9€6-84
IS. Lotringer, Ed,; J. [ohns:on, '.:'rans.). New York:
Sc:niokxl(c).
Fouc..ult, M, l1990}. The lristory of sexaa!ity, Vol. 2:
,t
11111 use of pie,mire ( Hurley, Trans.). New York
Panbeon Book~. (Original wor;,; published in
19114)
Fou,ault, M, (: 99•fal. Ae1tfrnt1C£ merhod, ar:d episremol-
ogy (J, D. Faubion, F.d.; R. Hurley & other,;,, Trans.),
Kew York: New Press.
foucault, )( (I 994b). Tlie birth r,J the dit;/c: Au ardrnc-
alagy 9f medical perceptfrm (A. M. Sheridan
Smi:h, T~ns.), Kew Yo,k: Vlftl:Ju!e llook;;. i Original
work published in 1963)
Fo·xault, ).1. (I 994c ). Paw,~r (J, D. Faubion, l't:l.;
R. Hur'.ey & oLhtrs, Trans.). New York: New Press.
fmic~ul!, M. (1997). Elhfc~. subjectfrity. 1md trmh
( Vol. I; P Rabi 11,::w, Fd.; R. Hurley & othe:s,
Trans.). New York: )lew P:ess. (Orig'::al work
pubjshrd in 1994)
foucault,M.( 1998).A~.<lhtu'i·s. method, mid epi.itemoiogy
( Vol. 2: J. D. Faubion, Ed.; R. H::r'.ey a:·d mhers,
Tr,u:s.J. New Yo:k: New Press.
foucault, M. (lOUla). Dits et Enits, tome l, 1954-1975.
Paris: Gallimard.
foucault, (20,llb;. Diis ct !::ail!, ,vm-. .,, 1976-1988.
Paris: Gallimar<l.
foucault, M. (2.001~). J.eariess speech (I. Pearson, Ed.).
Los Ang,·lcs: Semiot,·xl(c).
El:.iru::lt, M. (2003). "Soc1<1!y nrns/ be dife,rd;,d":
Lecture, ut thtc c.u""'i:" Pnm,:e, 1975- I976
( M, llerfaini & A. 1-'o::tana, Eds.; D. i\facey, Tran,.).
Kew Yo:-k: Picador.
Rabirnw, P. (Ed.).(! 984). Fi:mcaufr reader. New Yurk:
Pantheon !look$.
foucanlt-Oricnt,:xl Education !look.
,,f
(Thi;, !isl is meant to be comp,chensivc alfbooks
in education that appl·r Fo·Jca;;:t W cduc~:ion a~ th,ir
priimirr pu,po:;c, •, docs ;iot include books that just
use fom:ault among man1· other.; it indedes on:y
tht,,e that we could find t:.at cxpkitly take fou,11 lilt ~s
their lhwrclical lram-.:.j
Ba:,er, B.. & Heyning, K. (Eds.). (100.;J. Dangmms
mt1g11iati,m ,? TIie 11,es ,f Foucault in the study of
ed11rn1ion. :'lew York; Peter I,ang.
Bal!, S, (Ed,), (I 990 ). F(lucault and .:ducatio11:
D,s::iplines and kml'.vl,dge. London: Routledge.
Ball, S., & 'fa::,boukou, M. (200.. ). Dangerous ,'llcmmters:
Gc,reaf,1gy and ctlmogr-.iphy. 'le-1" York: P<oter la::g.
Marsh,111, I. D. ( 1996). Michel For.i.:,m/t; Persor1,1I autm1
amy mui educii/ion. fh1rdn:,ht, Xet herl;mc,;
Kluwer Acadcm.c.
 Sclieurich & McKen1.ie: Foucault's Methodologies 11 865
Peters, YI, (1996), Poststructuralism, politics, and
education, Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Popkewitz, T. S, & Brennan, M. (1991f). Fouc,u,/:'.,
challenge: Discourse, knew/edge, and po;.1er in edu-
cation, New Ycrk; Columhia Univerdy, Teachers
College Press.
Schturich, J, J. '.1997). R,:~,1rch method in the post•
modern. London: Palmer.
Tamboukou, M., & Bal., S. ;, (2003). Genealogy and
ethnography: f;uitful encounters or dangerous
lfaisonsi In YI, Tamboukou & S. J. Hall (Eds.),
Dm1genm, encounters: Genealogy and eth1w-
graphy (pp. l-36;.KewY-0rk: Peter Lar:g.
Gtneral Foucault Rooks
(These a~e book, on fouc;.rnl!'s wo;k that we
have found to he :ielp'ul a:idior inll::entia:, but i: is
not me,llll to he 2 comprehensive list of all ~~ooks in
English on Foucault These are bmiks that we own and
have studied)
Armstrong, T. J. /Trans.). (1992), Michel Foucault:
Philosopher. New rkk: Routledge,
Barker, P; (I 998 ). Michel h1u,;aui!: Ar, introduction.
Edinburgh, t: K: Edinburgh University Press,
Barry, A.. Osborne, T, & Rose, N (Eds,), ( 1996;.
Foucault and political reason: Uberaliwr, ne,,-
Jiberalisrrt i:md tire raticmulities of governmer:!,
Chk:ago: University Chicago P:ess.
Bema::er, J., & Rasmussen, D. (fa1s.). (199: ). The final
Foucau/r. Cam:ddg1\ MA: MIT ?ress. (Includes a
biographical chnmology of Foucault in:erspersec
witn sorne cuoles frnm Foucault as he reme:i1ber,
dfffere:it 1::nes his life)
3csl, S., & Kellner, D. ( 1991 ). Postmodern theory:
Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford,
Burchell, G.. Gordon, C., & M:ller, P. (1991 ). The
Foucault effect: Studies in ga ·temmentaiity.
.
Ch1cago: Ur.·.ve~;i .. a<m
. ·1yo,+('.:i:c ,,- Pre·s·,.
Ruller, J. (1'193 ). Bodies that mutter: On the discursiYe
limits of 'sex," );ew York: lfout:edge.
Cani;uilhem, G, (198S). Ideology and ratiwu1fity in the
history of the rife scier,ces. Camhrklge, MA: MIT
Press_
Cang·.::Jhem, G, (1989). The normal ,md the pu!hologi-
cal. New York: Zone Books.
Caput\l, r., & Yount,M. (:993). Foucault and the critique
in!,itu.tion,. :Jniversity Park: Pennsylvania
Stare U::i\lCrsity P:-ess.
Davidson, I, 11986). Arc'iaeo;ogy, gtnci:ogy,
ethics. In D. Couzens Hoy (Ec. l, foucuulr: A
critirn! r!!ader (pp. 221-2341. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Deleuze, G, ( 1995). Negmiaticns: 1972-1990 (M. Joughin,
Tr.;ns,J. 'YJew York: Colun:bia Uni,ersil y Press.
{Original work publis::ed :n 1990)
Dreyfus, Jl L, & Rah:::nw, I' ( I983 ). Michel Foucault:
Reyor,d stru.:turalism and hermeneut/i:s (2nd ed.).
Cbicago: Universi: y or Chi cage Pre;s.
Eribon, [), (1991 ). Mfrhe/ rournult (ll. Wing, 'frans, ).
Cambr:dge, MA: Harvard Univers'ty Press.
Fraser, N. (1989). Vnri.iy pracrias: l1awcr, disroursi,.
,m,1 gender in contemporary social thevry.
Minneapolis: U::iversil y of .'1-1 :::n;;:;ofa
Grosz. E, (: 994). t'i,latile bodies: 1i:Jward a carporr!al
feminism, Rloom:::gton: lr:c'ana University i'r.:ss.
Gubrium, J, 8: Holstein, I.A. (2000). Analyzing intcr-
[•r~t've p:-a,;tke. In N. K. Denzin & ". S. Lincoln
(Eds,), Ha11dbook ofqualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 487-508), Thm:sa::d Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gu:ting, G. (1989). Michel Foucault's archaea/ogy of
scientij1c reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Gutting, G. (Ed.). (1994 ). The Cambridge companion to
Foucault. C~1r:bridge, UK: Cambridge University
PrCM.
Halperk, IJ. M. ( l ,95). Sr.Im Fouctm!t: Tow(lrds a
hug1og raphy. New York: (}xfo:d Universi:y l'ress.
Han. B. (2002). F.mrau/t'.• crfri,:a/ pmjet:r: Bnwee;; th,·
tr,mstendema1 and the hi~torical. Stanford.
Stanford rniversity Press,
llartsuck, N. C. M, (1998). The femi11ist sta11dpoi11t
revisited and other emiys. llouk'er, CO: Westview.
lloy, D. C. (EC:.). (1986), Foucault: A critical reader.
Oxford, UK: Basil Blac~well.
Jo::es, C., & JJ01 lcr, R (1994.l. Rea:;sessing Foucault:
Pcr.ve1; mi'dicim, ,md the body. London: Routledge.
Ker.dall, G., & Wic~ham, G. (1999). Fo,mwlr's
methods. T'J!)usand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuhn. T. (l 962 ). 11m ttruclure of scier;t~iic rev,,l!.<lion,,
ChkagCJ: L'niversity ef Chicago Press.
Lather, r. (2004). Foucrnldfan «in disc:pline" as a sort
of policy application. In B. 3aker & K. Hay::ing
(Eds.), Dur,ge rm.is coagulations? 11,e u~es of
fu:mmit in the st~dy of education {pp, 281-306).
Ne\<: York: Peter Lang.
Unrnln, Y, Guba, E.G. ( 1985). Nu11mdi,lic inquiry,
Beverly Hills, CA:
Mahon, M. fl992), Fcucaults Nietzsdwan geneulogy:
1h.rh, powe~ and the subjett. Alba:iy: State
Universiry of New York Pn's~.
860 111. HANllllOOK OF QLALJTAH VE RESEI\RCE -CHA PTF.R
McHoul, ,t, & Gr,;cc, W. (l',193). A Foucault 1Jtimer:
Iliscmm,, power, and the su1,1ect New Yor:.-:
Nei.11 Yo,k Ut,iversi1y l'r~Sil.
Men:uior, ;. G. {1985). fouwul1. lkrkeley: L:niversity nf
California Press.
Mille, J. (l 993 ). The passion of f,Jichcl Frncauit.
New York: Simo:1 & !\chuster.
Nil,on, H. (1998;. Jjidwl finm.i;;h an(/ the gan:es of
lru//1 (R. Clar!,., 'Jrans.J. N1.:w SL Martin',.
Poste M. (l ',187). fournult, Marxism, and history:
llrflldt u( prodw:rim; ~e•sus made af injnmrntfrm.
Carno:id!!;,;, l'olity.
Raj,hman, J. : I 985 ). Michel Fournult: The Jreedcm
of f1/;i!,m;,pl;y, '.'Jew York: Colum:iia Lnive~sity
Press.
Rou,c, J. {1987). Kr:uwl,·:(qe and power: 1i;war,1 a polit·
icai philosophy of scie11ce. Ithaca, :-IY: Go rnell
l:nivcrsity
''""'"'" J. (19~ I). D;scipiimng Poucault: Femir;ism,
power, wul the body, Kew Yn ,k: Routledge.
S::umaoy, D.R.( 1989). Mfrhei fr,ucault. (:iarlottesville:
l:nivcr,ity :'re;.s ,if Virginia.
Stoler, A. L. (2000). /~ace r:;11d the educali,m 1:f
f'ounwlt'.1 llistory of Sexua 11ty awi the n1lrmiul
l)•dcr of rhings. Durham, Duke
Pres;.
St. Pierre, E. A. ( 2004 ). Care The su J;ec: and
freedom. In B. lfaker &. K. E. Eeyning {Eds.),
D,mg1m:m, coagularion,' Tllf uses cf Foucouf! in
the ll[ educ..tum (pp. n_,c~ New York:
Pelt:r
Vi,ker, R. ( I 995). Michel Ftwcauil: Genealogy as
criti~ue (C. Turne,, ). London: Verso.
foucaull Arlicb
(W,· have lricd to develup a fairlv comprehensive
:ist all artkcs in education :hat m,e l'oucauit as the
main framing tl,eorttit-ai per;pei'fi'le, 1\10,i, this list
includes only l11e articles for which we have been ,1blc
to physical or dcclronk co·:11es. :imvever, we did not
include a survey uf <lis~ertaticms thal might fall imo
this same ..:atcgory.)
Alexander, I, (I 99i). Out the dose! and in:(l the
network: Sexual orimta::on and :he mm:n,:ter-
ixed cfassroom. Computers and Composition, I4,
207 216.
Ander,nn, G I.., & Cri::bcrg, J. {IQ98). Educational
administration as a disciplinary p,uactive:
,\pprcpriati::g fot;Cault's view of power,
course, an,I md:od. Educatinnai 1\dmini.,tmticm
Quarterly, 34, 329
Aper, I, R(2002), ~te,:ra,,e from a dislancc: C"n mandated
accour.tabil:ty systems really improve scltJDk? four•
nai of Fidumriom1/ Tlwugl:1, 36( I), 7-16.
Atk:::son, D. (1999}, A crit;,;al reading of :he national
curriculum for art the light of =onlcmporary
theories subjecth•ity. hlltrnalionol Journal of
Ari cl• Dt,;fgn Ed11calion, JI:!( I), 107 - 113.
fliesta, I ). (]998). Pedagogy wi:houl humani,m:
l'ou,ault :ind t:ie subj1.'C: of cducation. Jmerdr,mge,
29( l ), 1-16.
lllair, K. (;994). Foucault, feminism, an(I wciling
pedagogy: St,a tcgks for stmlcnt rcsistanc.- and
the tnm,formalio:: of popular cultme. Wriring
lnstrn<'lvr; 13(3), I
Bloland, H. G. ( IYY5 ). Postmodcrnism a::d higher edu•
c'<ltion. Joumal of Higher Edua,t ion, 66, 521-590.
Butill, D. W. (2001). If this is rcbiStanu:, I would ::ate
,c ,c, cumiruition: Retrieving Foucault's notion
of rcs:stm:a: within educational re,earch.
Iirnal 5rudi.:s, 22(2 ), I 157 -176.
BuH::, D. W. (2C02.). Thfa talk therapy:
Prohlcmclizing mu! t':>1Jending anti-oppress've
cducafom. liducafi,mal Reseanher, 31 (3J, 14-16.
Car Ison, lJ. {l 995 ). Making pmgress: l',og,ess iv,:
education in the po.,tn:,,dern. l'.dumtirma!
theor);
Case, H,Ca,c,S.,& Catling, S. (20::o;. Please si:ow you're
work::1g: A cri::ca: assessrr:ent of the impact of
(H'STED inspection of pri :11ary teachers. Brili;h
r I,.,'/ •~·· '·or ·,2
1 <1ur1U1. oJ. ,ocw <1gy o; • .aucamm, , I, o ,-n,. ..
Copeland, I. C. ( 1996). The making o: the dull, deficient,
and :1,K,:ward f'Upil i:, British elemenlary educo-
tion Hl70- I 9 l 4. Brill.sh Jo:.mraf of Educa/,011,;J
Studies, 44, 377-394.
Copeland, I. {I997). Pseu:::c science and clvlding
i;mtc:ices: A ge::ealogy of the first educational
provision :or ;mpi\~ wi:h le.i:ning diffo.:ull:es.
Dimbility a,ul Sociel';; 12, 709-722.
(opeku1d, .. C. (1999 ), :--lormalisation: An a:: alysis of
a><,cL" cf sredal educational needs. Educational
Studies, 99-: l I.
Coi.:lter, D. (2002). Crear::·.g .:on:mon ,m:: u::common
worlds: t:sillg discourse ethics to deddc public
and private :n classrooms. Jaurnai of Curria,!um
srudfes, J4•• :>··'±.::.
Cuthherr, A. (2001) Going globa.: Rdkxivity and
conrextualism in urban desig:1 cd::c.i: ion. Juunuil
,:!f Ur/Jar; De,ign. 6, 297-316.
[)fi, G. S., & Asgl:arzadeh, A. I2001 j. The power uf social
dlCOf'f: The anli•co:onial disrnr,ive framewmk.
/ourM.,,l ofEdu1111iom1l 1'/wughi, 297-, ?.ct
 Sc'ieurich & YicKenLie: Foucau·,t•s Met':odologirs 111 867
:)ekhr, J. J. H., & Lecb11er, D. 'vi, ( I999 ). Discipline and
pedagogics in :1istory: F()uca:ilt, Aries, and the
·, istmy of pl'::optkal educ at inn. The European
uwacy, 4(3), 37 49.
Drurmnm,t', ). (2000). foucault for ~!:,;dents of edm::a•
!inn. Jmmial •:f Pldlm,Jphy of Education, -14,
709-719.
Erevelle,, N. (2002). Voices nf siler.ce: h:ucaull, dis·
ability, and the question af sdf.Jctermination.
Studies in l'hi/oscphy and Educatfrm, 21,
brrid<er, L (2001}. Slu1[ we dance:: Autl:ority, r,·pn·scn•
tation,and voice-The placeofs;iirihrnlity in reli·
gious edt:cation. Religfou., EducatioJJ, 96(1 ), 19.
FenneL H·A. (2002). 1.elli~g go whik· 'lolding
on: Wo:ncn prinqials' Iived exp<riencts with
power. Journal Ed11catirlna/ .i\dminlMration,
40( 2 ). 95-117. Retr:eVed January 3, 2C03. from
ww;,.emeraldinsight.comi0957-8234.htm
rlecha, ( 1999 ). Modi,rn and postmodn:: n1d,m
in E·_:mpe: llialogif a;iproach and anti-racist
iiedtlgogirs. 1/arvard F.ducatforial lleview, 69(2),
150-171.
Frohrna1m. Fl. (200l ). Discourse a1Jd documentation:
Some iIT'. plications for pedagogy and research.
Discoi;rse aud /)a.:wnent.r•icn, 42( I), l 2-26.
Ila[, C., & Iv. illard, E. (1994). The means of cor:cct
training: Teachers, l:'om:aull, ,rnd discipl i n::ig.
Journa! of Fducatfrm for Tead1ing, 15 3-151,
Hayden, S. (2001 ). Teenage boc:es, teenage selves:
Tra~ing ,he im1,lirntions of blo ·po•,'ler i 11 mmem-
pora,v. se:rna·.:,v' eit1rul km texl&. Women'.!' S,wlil:">
in Communicatirm, 11,
llclldin, R. (200i]). :>pedal education krmwkdg,:
seen as a social prnhlet:1. Oi,al1ili1y and Society,
15, 247 270.
Hemmings, A. (2()02). Youtl: culture of hostility:
D:srnurscs o:' ::mney, respect, and diffec!:nce.
Jntern.1liam1l Joi mm/ of Quam~1 ive Swdies in
iidw:,Uimt. 291-307.
H,me,, D. f. (1999). Makin!; pea:c: A narrative study
of a bilingual lia'son, a scl:ool, and a community.
leaou:rs C11/!e11,e flanrd, HH(J ), 106-135.
Howley, k, & H~rne:t. It ( 1992). P,1s1ornl power a:1d
the ccmemporary university: A l'oucauldian
a112.:ysis. i:iducmt,m,ll 'iJ;eory, 2J'!-282.
Kel:y, :' (2GOI), Youth ,!1 rlsk: Processes r,f ::idiv!dual
izaum rcspcnsibilisation in the ri,k so,'ety
/Jiscourse: Sutdi,es in tire Culwml Pt1l1lics of
faiurntion, }, 1..,--,i.1,
Kennedy, IJ.12002). The child and postmodern s·-bjec·
tivit;c Jitlucati,ma1 T/ie;ny, J 167.
Mayo, C. (2000). The uses of l'cucaulr. Educati,m,;l
Theory, 511, IOJ 1
McCarthy, D:mitriJ.dis, G. {20()()). Govcrnmentali:y
and the socio:cgy of education: Media, educational
poliq·. and :he politics of resentment Jlririsii
Joumaf of Edt,cmilm, , 69-185.
McCoy, K. (N97). White milse-lhc sound of epi•
demic: Reading/Writi~g a climate of inte[:gibil·
ity around the of differenrt. Qm1!itarive
Stndie, i11 Ed11cmio11, JO, 333-347.
Mcl.t•od. ]. (2001 ). ?oucault forewr. L>iscour,e: Studie,,·
iu ihe Cultural Polirics oj Educalitm, I).
95-104.
Meadmorc, D., Hatcher, C.. & Mcwilliam, E. (2000)
(:e1ting knse r.bout genealogy. QuiliilatiwSiudie~
in &lu,:ali:m, 463-476.
J.foje, E. fl. \1997). fa:plor:::g di,courst, subjectivity,
know:edge in chemistry c:ass. foumal (if
Cia.s.,room lnteral'tilm, 32(2), 35-44.
Mourad, R.. ),. (2001 ), Fdu,ation after Foucault:
1'he qutstio:i of civili'.y. 1.:a,t11r.r; Ca!lc15e Record,
/OJ) r ·"'- 1,,,
Nin nes, P., & Mehta, S. (2000). Posrpositivhn theor:zing
and m,ea rc'i: Challct,g~s cpportunitics lor
,:orr.purative edurnl:011. Cm1111amtive 1,duwtior,
Review, 2,
01;fer, V. IJ (2001 ). Charter school, and the p,inoptk
of acctll:rr.ability. F'ducutio•; anti Vrba,,
Society, 201
Peter,, M. (20DO). 'Nriting the self: Wittgenstein,
confession, and ?Cdagogy. /tmnwl Philosophy
cf F.durntiori, 353-368.
Pignatelli, E (i 993). Wh11: can I do? FnacaJ1 on free·
dorn and the quest iot: of tead:er
E:f,,rntic.11al ll!ro1J: 1-432.
I'ign.ilel",1, E (2002) _\.1upping the terrai:1 a
Fcurauldirn ethics: Arespo:1se to the surve:llance
o' schooling. .~rudies in Phi/os(!p/iy i:m,i f;d!iwtion,
l 1RO.
Popkcwitz, T, S. ( 1997). 'll:c pror.uction of rea;;on
a::d ·,n,,er· Curriculum history and in:ellec·tual
traditions, Jo;ima{ of Curricuium S;,,;iies, 29.
131-164.
Pcpkcwitz, ~. S., & Brennar., M. (19~7). Restructuring
of scdal and political theory in education:
Fm.itmdl and a M!{,ial epistemology ot s,:wol
prad:,cs. f!.iucatilmai Theory, 47, 2!!7-3Ll.
Raddon,A, (2002). Mothers the ac11dcmy: Positioned
and positioning within discourses of the ";,uc-
cc.ssfol academic" and the ''guot' molhe:,· Studie,
Higl,er Edu,atirm, 387-403.
868 Ill HANDBOOK Of QUALITATIVI' RESEARCH-CHAPTER 33
Roth, W•M. (2002). Reading grapl:s: Contributions
to an Integrative concept of literacy. lournaI of
Curriculum Studies,34, 1-24.
Ryan, J. {l 991). Observing and norrm,,'zing: Foucault,
disdpline, and incqualily :n schon:ing. Inurnal
faiucatilmlli Tiwught, 25(1), 104-119.
tkhubert, D. J. (1995). from a politics of t:a:·,sgres
sion toward an ethics of rellexivit}~ 4m~ri,Im
Behavioral Sd,mfot, 38, 1003-IOI~.
Seals, G. '1998). Objectively yours. Yl'chael Foucault.
F.duc,lti!mrJi Theory, 48, 59-58.
Selden, S. (2000). Eugenics and fhe soda] ro::struc:ion
of merit, race, and disability. Jourm/ ofCurrfr:ulum
S111dies, 32, 235-252.
Selwyn, N. (2000). The na:'onal grid fur learning:
Panacea or panopticm: 1 British Journal of
Sar iology ofErluculil:m,
S,aughter, S. (1~7). Class, race, anci gender and lhc con•
srmcrion of pos:-sernndary cur,kula in the United
S:ates: Social mwemen:, protessionallzalion, md
political econon:k theories of curricular change.
Journal ofCurriculum Siudies, 29, 1-30.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panicea or panop:icon?
Communication Researc'1, 427-459.
St. Pierre,!:;, S. (2002). "Science" re;ects pos:n1odernism.
E.iucatbnal Resmrrlier, 31(8), 25-17.
Stygall, G. (1994}. Resisting privilege: Basic wr'tlngand
Foucault's author function. College Composit/(111
and Comm111riwtfrm, 45, 320-341,
Stvs:ingcr, M. E. (WOil). Re:ations of power and drama
in c>du rntim,: The teacher and Fouctult. J,1urnal of
Educational Thaughr, 34, I 83- l 99.
Walshaw, M. ( WOJ ). A Fuucauldia:i gaze on ge11der
research: What do ycu do w:ien confronted with
the tunnel at the end of the light? Journa! f()r
Research cm Mat/rnmatics Educatfon, 471···'c92.
Wi:::s,A. I. {21lll2). l.:tera,:;y a; Calhoun Colored Sd:ool
1892-1945. llea,faig Researdt Quarterly. 37(1},
8-44.
Zcmbylas, M. (2002 ). "Strucmres of fooling" ::: cur-
riculum and teaching: Theorizing :he emotional
rules. Educaticmal Theory, 187-208.
Additional Reading
Didion, ]. {2003, January 16). Fixed opinions, or the
hi:ige of hi story The New York Review of Books,
pp.54-59.
34
ANALYZING TALK AND TEXT
Anssi Perakyla
T
here are two rnuc'i used but dist:nctively
differer.t types of empirical ma:erials in
qualilali v;;: research: htenriews and natu·
rally rn:ct:rr iug :n,;,terials. Interviews consist of
account, given to the researcher about the iss·Jes
in wh kh he or she is interested. The topic of rhe
reruta,,:r is :io: the interview itself but rather the
discussed in the interview. In this se:ise,
reseaxh that uses na:urally occurring empirical
material is different; in this type uf research, the
empirica I naterials themselves (e.g., the tape
recordi:igs of mundane intcractiims, the written
texts) constitute spedn ens of the topic of the
research. Co:isequently, the researcher is ir: more
direct touch wit!: the very object that he or she is
hwe,tigat:ng.
Most qualitative re:1ea,cr. p,obably is based
or. interviews. There are good reasons for fais. By
using interviews, the researcher can reach areas of
reality that woJld otherwise remain inaccessible
such as people's subjecli11e experiences and atti•
tudes. The interview is also a very convenient way
of overcoming dbtances both in space and in
time; past events or farawa}' experiences am be
studied by intrn•iewing people w:10 took part In
them.
In otl:er instances, it is possible to reach the
object of resea,cl: directly using naturally occur-
ring empirkal materials (Silverman, 200 I). :f lhe
rrsrarcher is inte:ested in, say, strategies used
by journalists in i:lte rviewing politicians ( d.
Clayman & Heritage, 2002a), it might be advisable
to tape-record broadcast interviews rather than
to ,lsk journalist~ to tell about their work. Or, if
the researcher want;; to study the histt1rical evolu-
tion of medical conceptions regardir,g c.eath and
dying,!: might ':ie advisable ;o studv medkal ten-
books :-ather than to ask doctors to tell what they
know abot:.t these concepts.
The contrast between interviews and nalurally
occurring materials should not however, be exag-
grrated (cf. Potter. 2004; Spe<"r, 2002). Tl:i,re are
types of research materials that are between these
two pi:re types. For example, infomu,l inter-
views that urc part of ethnographic fieldwork, and
in fi1eus groups, people describe Iheir practices
and ideas tfl the researcher in c'rci :nstam:es that
are much closer to ":1atura lly occurring" than
are the circumstances in ordinary research 'nte,-
views. Moreover, even "ordinary" interviews can
be, and have been, analyzed as spedmeas of
interaction and reasoning practices rather than as
representa:ions of facts or ideas outside the inter-
view simation. As Speer (2002) recenlly put
"The staru.i; of pieces of data as :1atu ml or not
depends largely on what the researcher intends
to 'do' w':h them" (p. 513). \Vetherell and Potter
( 1992), for example:, analyzed the ways in which
Ill 869
870 1111 HA.'llJIJOOc< Or Ql!ALl'fATIVE RhSHARCH-GIAl'T~R 34
interviewees use difterent '.inguistic and ;ultural
resoun:es in constructing lhei, relation lo radal
anc racist discourses. On the other hand. as
Silverrr:an (2001) put ir, no data-not even 1ape
xcord'ngs-arc "untouched by the researcher's
hands" {p, 159; see also Speer, 2002, p. 516); the
ac! j Yily is ne;;ded, for exan: pie, in
obtain:ng informed cousenl from the partkiµauls.
The difference between researcher-instigated
data ,u:(: naturally occ·J,ring d<!:a should, there•
fore, be :mders:ood as a continuum rather than as
a dichotom}c
This chapter fo~uses on one end of this con-
:inuum. It presents some me thuds that can be
Jscd in ana: yzing and interprel ing :ape-recorded
'nte,ac:ions and written texts, which probably
are l he types of data that come dusest to t':le idea
of"naturally ocrnrri ng:·
• ANA:.YZIJ\ G TEXTS
of 1exts and Variety
o:' Methods of Text Analvsis
At, Smith ( 197 ,1, 199{)) nm! Atkinson and Colley
( 1997) poin:ed out, much of social life in modern
soc:ety i, mediated by writ:en texts of differer.I
ki:lds, For example, moder:1 health care woi;.:d not
he possihl e without patient records; the legal
sy,,tcm would not be poosibk witnout laws and
other juridical texts; professiom1: trai:ling woulc:
not be possible w:,hot:t rnanui.s and professional
journals; and lei sure would not be possible wit:iout
newspapers, magazines, a:1d advertise:11e1:ts. Texts
of this ;._jad have provided a:1 abundance of mater•
ial for quali:a:ive 1e,eara1<:1,.
In u:a:1y cases, qualitative r~,eard1ers who
use written texts as their materials do not :ry co
follow my pred0fi :1cd protocol i:1 executing their
analysis, lly reading and rereadi :ig their emp:rkal
materials. they :ry to ;:,in down their key themes
and, thereby, to draw a pkt;ue of the pre~u p:•osi-
tions and meanings that constitute tlu: cultural
wo,ld of w:1.ich the textual :naterial is a specimen.
An example of kind of informal approac:i is
Seale's (1998) small but elegant case study on a
booklet bas~d on a broadcast ir.terview with the
8,itish playwright Dennis Potier (?P· 13 I}.
T:1.e in1erviewee was term:na[ y ]I at the time of
the interview. Seale showed how the interview
conveys a particular conception of deatl: am:
dying, characterized by intensive awareness of the
imminent deat:1 and , pecial ~re:lli vi ty arising
from it.
An inforrr:al approach may, in many coses, be
the hcst choice as a method in research focusing
on w:ltten te,Ls. Espedal:y in research designs
where the quajtati ve analysis is not at :he
core of the research but insteaa is in a si:jsidiary
or complementary rnle, no mure sophisticated
texr analvtkal methods mav be necccd. That
' '
indeed was the case in Seale's (1998) stucy, in
which the qualitative te,c aaalysls complemen:ed
a larger study drawing mostly on intervie;v and
questionnaire materials as well as on theoretical
wo~k. In projc:::s that use solely texts as empirical
materials. however, the use of diffe:e:11 kinds of
analy1kal procedures may be considered,
There are :ndeed many methods of teic analy-
frum which tl:e research1:r can choose. The
degree to which they involve pred<::fo:e(l ,els of
procedmes varies; son:e of them do to a great
cxtrnt, whereas in others the emplrnsis is n:orc 011
theoretical presuppos::ions concerning ,he cul•
tura'. and social worlds to which the texts be:ong,
Moreover, sooe of these methods can be used
in the research of both written and spoken dis
course, whereas otheB are exc:usively fitted to
written texts_ In what follows, I brietly mentim: a
few text analytical methods and then discuss :wo
a more thoroughly.
Semiotics :, a broad field nf study com:erned
wi:h signs a:1d :heir use, Many tools of text analy-
si,, haw arfae11 from this field, The most pro:n i-
nt:nt of them may be ,,emfr,iic narriuive analysis.
The Russian e:hnologist Propp (1968) and the
French sociolog:st Greimas ( i 966) developed
schemes fo: tl:e analysis of narral've str'Jcti:res,
lnifadly their $,hemes were developed in fairy
talts, but later 011 they were applied to 1:iany
other kinds of text;;. for ex,1mp 1e, hy using
Grdmas's scheme, pri mordlal structura: rel atio:1.s
(e.g .• subject 11s, sender vs. receiver, helper

vs. opponent) can be distilled fron: the texts.
T11rr!lnen (2000, 2003) Lsed and ceveloped fur-
ther Greimas:ar. concepts in analyzing news-
paper editorials addressing alcohol policy,
showing how these texts mobilize structual rrla-
tions so as to encourage readers to take action to
achieve particJ:ar political goals.
The term discourse analysis (DA) :nay refer,
de;ier.ding ,rn rnntex:, to :nany different
approaches of investigation of written texts (and
of spoker. discourse as well}. Jn the context of
linguistics, DA usually refers to resear6 that
aims at un,overing the features of :ext that main·
tain cohere::tce in units larger :hau the sentence
(Brown &Yule, L983). In social psychology, DA (or
discursive psychciogy, as it has been called more
recently} involves research in which the language
use (both written and spo,<en) underpinning
men ta: realities, such as cognition and e:notion, is
investigatcc.. Here, the key theoretica: presupposi ·
tion is that mental rcaiities do not ,eside "inside"
individual humans hut rather are cons:ructed
lingu~tically (Edwards, 1997; Potter & Wetherell,
: 987). Critical discourse a,iafjsis (CDA), c:evel-
opec. by Fairclough (1989, 1995), constitutes yet
another kind of discourse analy:ical approach in
which some key concerns oflingui.stic and critical
social research merge. Critical discourse analysts.
are interes:ed in the ways in which texts of dif-
ferent kinds reproduce powe~ and inequalities
in soc'ety. Tainio's (1999) study on tbe language
of self-he'.p communication gu:debooks for war-
ded couples is one example of a CDA study. Tainio
showed, for example, how in these the
womar: is expected to change for the communica-
tion problems lo be solvec, whereas the man is
treated as immutable.
Historical discourse analysis (HDA) constitutes
yet another form of DA, and :hat is an approach
I introduce a bit rr:o,e thoroughly through a
research examp:e.
Historical Discourse Ar:alysis:
Armstrong's Work as an Example
Many schola:-s working with written texts have
drawn :nsights and inspiration :rom tr.e work of
Perakylii: Aralyzing Talk a n<l lexl J!1 871
Michel Foucault. ( For examples of his own studies,
see Foucault, 1973, 1977, 1978. For exa • ples of
accessible accounts of his theories and methods,
see Kendall & Wickham, 1999; McHoul & Grace,
1993.} Foucault did :10: propose a defint:c set of
methods for the analysis of tex:s; hence, the ways
of analyzing and interpreting texts of scholars
inspired by him vary. For all of faem, however,
a primary concern is, a:, Poller (2004) aptly put
it, how a set of "statements" t.1Jmes to cunslitite
objects and subjects. The constitution of subjects
and objects is explored in historka: context-or,
in Fo~1cauit's terms, through archeology and
genealogy.
David Armstrong's work is a good example of
the Foucaultlan, or historical, approach in text
analysis. [n a st~ing of studies (A~mstrnng, I983,
1987, 1993, 1998, 2002; Gothill & Armstrong,
1999), he investigated medical textbooks and
journal articles, showing how ob;ects such as
hodies, illnesses, and dea:h, as well as subjects
such as doctors, patients, and nurses, have been
constituted in these texts during :he pnst two
centuries. Ar:nstrong's a?prnach is radically con•
struct ionistic; he argued that objects and
subjects-in the sei:se ,b.: we k:1ow them now-
did no: exist before the}' were construc:ed
:hrough textual and other practices. Fm example,
it has always been the case that some people die at
a very early age, but according to Armstrong
(I 986 ), "infant mortaEty" as a discrete social
ob).:ct came ii:to being arou:id 1875. Only af:er
that did the Registrar General's annual reports
(in Britain) mien: ro such a fact.
Let us examine briefly A~mstrong's (1993)
article on "public 'lealth spaces" so as to under-
stand his Foucault::m way of auaiyzl1:g and inter-
preting texts. Basically, Arms,rong was concerned
about hygienic rules. Using textual material
d,dved from medical and hygienic textbooks and
instructions, Armstmr.g showt-d how tl:e ml.:~
de::ning thr difference be:ween the dangerous
and the or between the :>ure and the dirty,
have changed curir:g :he pa st two centuries.
In and through examining the rules and their
change, Armstrnng explored evolulion of the
spaces in w:1ich ir.d ividual identity is located.
872 111 HA '-!DROOK OF Q'JALI':'A'flVb: RJ:;SEARC!l-Cll APTER 34
A,mstrong (1993) identified four phases, or
"regimes;' the development of hygienic rules,
During the qmm:wline phase ( from :he late
Middle Ages umil the firs: half of the 19th ccn •
It: ry ), the dividing line henvcen pure and dirty
demarcated different geographic spaces. Ships
ca:-rying disea&es, o~ tow:is and /Hages where
infectious G1s.eas,cs were four:c, were separated
from "dean" lornlit[es. Jur:ng the sanitary ,ri Pru
9
phase (m. 1850 1900 ), the key boundary sepa-
rated lhe human bodr (dean) and the suhstar:et'.S
outside the body such as (contar.1lnated} air and
water. Dur:ng tne interpersonal hygiene phase
(early to n:id·20th century), the dividing line
went bet l',een individual bodies so as tc preven1
the spread of contagious diseases from onr hoc: y
to another. l'hrnlly, duri;1g the m~v 11ublic health
phase, the danger arose from the ir.cursion of tbe
act ivitks of hum an bodies into nature in the form
of polJtion of lhe t:nvirunmellt. Arm~trnng
pointed out thal each hygienic regime incorpo
rated practices of the formation of ::nman iden-
tily. For ,·xample, the shift from quarant'ne 10
sanitary science involved dissection of the mass
and recognitio:i "of sepa rablc and calculable i:1d i•
viduality" (p. 405), interpersonal hygiene nm-
structed :ndividuai differences, :u:d new pubJc
health outlined a ren ective subject. Tnrough h:s
ana'ysis, Armstro.:1g also entered into discussion
wi:h sodologkal and antl:mpolng'cal writ'ngs of
Dw,kheim (!948} and Dm:glas (l\166),giving his-
torical specification lo their conrept, and refor-
mul:dng some of their assumpt:or.s regarding
the soda: significance of t::e boundaries betwee11
:he sacred and the profane or between :he pure
ai:d dirty.
Armstrong's results are impressive. How did he
lo it? How did ar:alyze his texts? Ee recently
gave ar: ill um :n "ting account of his metil od
(Armstrong, 2002, chap. 17). lndcpc1:dcnt of, but
slill in line with, his own account, I now ;ioint
out a few th ir:gs :h,n appear as ,e1tral in the
context of th is llandbaok. In a technkal ser:se,
Armstrong's way of analyzing tcirts is no: very dif-
ferent from what was reforred to earlier :;s "the
ir:fo:-mal approach." He focused on the "p:-oposi-
tim1al conrent" (not tl:e linguistic for ns) of the
texts, trying 10 pin down the assumptions and
presu?POSilion s th al the texts incor:,o::ated. Bui
there were at lt:ast three addilional features. firnt,
Armstrong was very sensitive about the time
the publication of the texts. A key aspect of his
ana'.ysi, was showing ai: which time each new
hyg:enic regime arose, and he argued that quite
exact times could be documented thrc ugh an
histo:-ka: survey of texts. Se;;ond, Armstruug's
analysis was inforr:icd by theory. Along with the
f/oucaultian cm1cer:1s, Douglas's (1966) argu·
men ts presen;ed in her n:odern classic Purity and
Dm,ger offered l:im a standpoint. For Dougla~, the
separation between the pure and tl:e dangerous
objc:cls wc.s !ht: key issue. Third, for Armstrong
(as for all Fouca ~Iitians). texts and practices are
inseparahle. The medical an,: hygienic texts that
he read had a strong ins:ructive component in
them; they not only were establ:shing boundaries
between "k~eal" 0'.)11,cts but also strved as (and
Arm strong read them as) guidelines for actual
social practices where the;;e hou:idarie, were
:11ain1a:nec.
Arr.1strong's :iistorical and Foucau: :ian way
of ,.11alyzing a:id interpreting texts offers one
compact alternative for qualitative text analysis.
V'le r:ow : urn to a quite c.i ffr:~c:it way of reading
texts in q ual:tative researc:i. that is, membership
caregorizmfrm ,malysis (MCA).
Membership Categorization Analysis
Whereas Arn:stmng's rom:aultfan analysis was
concemec with the propositional con:enL and not
the fo:-mal pmpe,tie, of texts, MCA can be said
to focus more on the latter, Howeve~, XCA is r:ot
about gram mat:cal forms. but rathe1 about the
normative and cognitive forms cor:cerning soda:
relations that are involved :n the productioll am:
understanding of texts. To ?Ut it a:10:her way,
Armstrong's Fournultian approach i~ concerned
about the assumpt:01:s that u:iderlic whar is said
(anc what is not said) in the text, whereas MCA is
co:u:en:ed about the: descriptive apparatus 11:at
makes it possible to say whatever is said,
Bclbrc we start :o exaoine MCA, l want
to remind fac reader a::mut thr wide range of
applic111ions that this approach has. In addition to
the ana]ysi~ of written texts. it can be used in he

inaly~is of interviews (e.g., Baker, 1997) and in
the armlys's of naturally occurri :ig talk (e.g.• Cuff,
1994). In the following, howc:ver, I locus on the
text analytical appErntions.
The kiea of membership categorization came
from the Amcricar. sodologis1 Sacks (1974b,
I992). D,m:r~'lticn was a key ana: ytical question
for Sacks; be was com;c med abom the conditions
of desert ?tion, that what makes i, possible for
us to p,oduce and understand de,criptions of
peo?k ar.d their activities. A.~ Silverman (2001)
aptly put it, Sac '.:<s was concerned ,,'.1011 t 'the
apparatus through which members" descriptions
are properly produced" (p. U!J). This interest led
Sacks to examine categorization,
People are usually reterred to by 11,5ing
ca:egories. T:ie point of departure for l\·ICA is
recognition of the fact that at any event,?. person
may be reterred to by 1..sing many alternative
wtcgor:es. As the au:hor of this caap:er, I may
also he referred to also as ?. man, as am iddle-aged
person, as il Pinn, a, a sociologist, as a prnfossor,
as the father of two children, as a husband, and
so forth. MCA is ahot:t :he st!ection of catc•
,.gor ies ; uch as these about the co1:d itions
and cunsetJuences of :his .selection.
Sa.:ks's (1974b) fan:ot:s exa:nple :s lhe begin-
ning of a srnry writ:m by a child: The baby cried.
The mommy picked it up. There ax two cate•
gories :n t'1:s story: abab( ar~ d"nommy"Why are
these categories i:sed, and whal is achieved by
them? If the monuny happened to he a biologist
b}1 profession, why would the ~tory nut go like
this: Th,• baby cried. The scientist picked it up
()yy,.:si, 1991, p. 23R)? Why do we 'tear the story
being about a baby a:id mother and not just
a:mut any baby and any mother? MCA provides
answers :n que,tions suc;i as these and uffe:s a
toolkit for analyzing va,ious kinds of texts.
.Sacks ( 1992) noted that categories Imm sets.
that is. rollectior.s of categories that go together,
Family is one such collection, a 1,d "ha hy;'
"mother;' .and "father" are so:ne categories of it.
"Stage of life'' is another collectio:i; it consists of
categories sJch as ''baby:' "toddler:' «child:' and
"adult:'Nuw, "haby'' rnulc. ir: principle be heard as
belong:1:gto both collections, but in the preceding
little we hear it as belonging ro the "family"
l'erak{a: Analy,ing Talk and lex: 11 !173
collect:on. Th:s is becau,e in hearing (or reading)
descriptions where two or 1;1ore categories are
used, we orient to a rule according to which we
hear them as being from the sa:i·,e collection if
faev ir.decd can be heard in that wav. The:efore,
' '
in this case we hear "baby" and "mom :ny" being
from the device "family" (p. 247).
Categories also go together with activities. Sacks
used :he term "category-bour.d activities' in refer·
ring to activities that mem bcrs of a culta:e take to
be "typical" of a category (or some categories) oi
people. "Crying" is a categortbound activi:y uf a
baby, just as "picking a (crying) baby up'' ls a
category-bound activity of a mo:her. In a ~imilar
fashion, "lecturing" is a category-bou:'ld activity of
a professor, Activ::ies such as these can ·:,e nor:na•
:i1·e; it is appropriate for the baby :o cry and for the
:nothe, to p:ck it up, bu! ii is not appropriate fol' an
adult to (like a baby) or for a r:10ther to foll tn
?kk a crybg baby up. Sitmdardized relariona! pair;
consist of two categuries where im:umbents of the
categories have standardized ::ights and obliga·
lions in relation to eac:1 othe:, with "mot'ier and
::iaby" dearly being one pair, just as "hJ,band and
wife" and "doctor and patient" are common pairs.
.Moreover, the receivers of descriptior:, can and do
infer from actions to categories and vice versa. Ry
lumwing ac:ions, we inter the ca:egories of 1he
agent.,; by knowing categories of agent,, we infer
w:1at tl:ey do.
Even on the ba,ds these fragments of Sacks's
ideas (for more thorough accour.ts, $CC Hester &
Egliu, 1997; Silverman, 1998 ), the reader may get
an impression of th.e potential tha1 this acwunt
offers for the analysis LJf texts. Sacks's ideas are
resO'J rces for :he analys's of ;exts as siles for the
production and repmdt.:cl:or: of social, :nond, and
political orders. Merely by bearing in mbd that
there is always more than one ca:cgory available
for the descriptor: uf a given ::icrson, the analyst
always ''\Nhy this categori7.ation now1 »
Let us e:xamine a brief eJ>.am?k of MCA. Eglin
and Hester (l 9g9) gave a thoughtful accu:mt of
the local newspaper coverage oi a tragic event,
namely the killing of : 3 female students ;Jnd a
data processing worker by a gunman at the Ecole
JJolytech:1ique in )llontreal in December l9B9.
Their aim was to show how a "deviant act'' was
874 11 HANDBOOK OJl Qt;ALJTATJVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 34
constructed bv members of c:1lture. They did this
by identifying the categorical resources that were
drawn un in the newspa;:,er coverage.
Eglin and Hes:er ( l 999} ~l:owed how the
description of the tragic event was entirely depen
denr on the resources or the ''apparatus" of cate•
gorizat'or:. The headlir.es of tr.e firs: news about
the event implicated an initial pair of categories
employed i:t describing the event, namely
"offender" and "victii:1~:• which Eglin a:1d Hester
(p.200) cor:sidered to be a special kind of a stan•
dardized relational pair, l n the body o~ the news,
these categories got transformed (e.g., "offender"
go: transformed in:o "murder suspect") and ;:iew
categories, such as "police:"'witnesses;"'relatives;'
and "friends" of lhe victims, entered the scene.
As Eglin a:id Hesteqmt it,
These categories and category pairs , , , provide,
then, some of the pro.:edural resources that news
writer and news m,dcr :nay use lo produce and
recognize, respe,tivcly, the relevance cf tl:e
or ai:t,,rs and aclions :f:at appeared in the ,ext of
the art ides. (p.
Categories are not, however. neut:-al resources
of description. r:glin Hester (J999) went on to
analyze how the u~e of categorical resources made
possf:>le an embedded commentary, or assessment,
of the events. They distinguished among several
dJfe:e:it h :he news coverage. wit:i each
being based on particular operatio:is wi6 cate·
gorie.s. For example, the horror story arose frar:1
the disjuncture between the membership cate-
gories made relevant by t~e setting and those
made relevant by the event. On a university cam•
pus, the setting made relevant categories SL'.ch as
«sn:dent;' "teacher:• and "staff member." The hor•
ror story involved the tra:isformation of :hese cal·
egory iden:ities into t'io,e of''offender:"'victims:·
«witnesses;' and so forth. T:iis disjuncture was
em:apsula:ed in reports such as the following: r
was doing a presentation. in front of the class, and
sudd,ml)i a guy came in with what 1 think ·..vas a
semi-automatii: rifle (Canadian Press, 1989, cited
in Eglin & Hester, 1999, o. 204). Another kind
of comn:entary was ill vnlved in the story of the
tragedy. This story drew on rwo categorical
resou:-ces: the stage of life device and what Sacks
(1974b) called the R,coilection, that is, the collec-
tion of slandard'zed relational pairs :elevant for
a search for help. Ir. te:rns of lhc stage of life, the
victirr.s were young people who had their futures
ahead of them: Fourteen young women ;arel bru·
tally mowed down in the beauty of their youth
when everything seeme,l to asmre them of a
brilliant f utr.ire (Malarek, 1989, cited in Eglin
& Hester, 1999, p, 205 ), \'\,'ith respect to the
Rculiection, the tragedy arose from tne loss expe-
rienced bv the ir.rnmber.rs of :he categorical
"pair parts"-paren:s, brothers/sisters,
friends. Ye: another commentary involved the
story about rhe killing of women. ':'he victims were
women w~o were purposefully cr.osen by the
gonmar. on the ba;;is of their gencer, anrl the
categories "man" and "woman" ran through much
of the news coverage. In subsequent artides.
the massacre was linked with broader is.sues
male viulem;e against women and with gender
relations in ge11eral.
Because all description draws on categoriza.
tion, it is obvious that MCA t:as wide applicability
in the analysis of texts. The ana:ysis of categoriza•
tion gives :he researcher access lo the cultural
worlds and moral orce1·s on which the texts hinge.
lrr:po:tantly. however, categorization analysts is
not only about sped fie culture, or moraH :ics. In
developing his conceptq, was not primarily
co:icerned about the "contents" of the categoriza-
tions; rather, he was .;oncerned about tr.e ways
in which we use them (Atkinson, 1978, p. 194).
Therefore, at ~he end of the day, • embership
categorization analysis invites the qualitative
researcher to explore the cond:tions of action of
description in itself.
Face-to-fare soc:al interaction (or other live
interaction mediated by phones a:id other
technological media) is the most immediate and
the most frequen:ly experienced social reality.
The heart of our soda! and personal being lies in
the immediate contact w'th other humans. c'.ven
though ethnographk observation of face-to•face
social interaction has been done successfully by

sociologists and sudal psr..:hologists. video and
audio recordings are what pmv idc the riches: possi ·
ble data for the .~tudy :"lk and interactio:i today.
Such ITmrdi11y,s hav<' been ,rnalyted using the same
methods ::iat were discussed previously i11 the con•
text of interprc:at'on of written :exts, CD.A, MCA,
and e\·en roucaultian DA have all of their app!ica
:ions in researching transcripts based on video
and/or audio recordings. However, as Goffman
(1983) pointec out, to be fully apprec:ated, rl:e face-
to-foce social interaction also requires its own
sped fie metl:ods. The interplay of utterances and
actions in :ive social interaction involves a complex
organization that ca11not be found in written texts.
Conversation analysis (CA) is preser:ted as a
method ,pccialized for analyzing that organization.
Orighs of Co:wersation Analysis
, 20031) orspedf:c way, o~desi1ming utterances (e.g.,
CA is a met.:wd for :nvestigating the struc·
ture and process of social intt'nlCtion between
humans. As their empirical oaterfals, CA st'Jdies
use video and/or audio recordi11~s made from
naturally occurring int1:ractions. As their results,
the,e studi~s offe~ qualitative (a:1d sometimes
quantit,dve} descriptions of intemctional struc-
tures (e.g., turn taking, re!ations hc:ween adjacent
utterances) and practices (e.g., telling and receiv·
ing news, making assessmer:ts),
CA was s:arted ½y Sacks and hi, coworkers,
e~pt:dally Emanuel Sc:iegloff a:id Gail Jefferso:1,
at the l:niverslty of California during the 1960s,
At the ti me of its birth, CA was sometl:ing quite
d:ffcrent trom tl:e rest of social science. The pre•
dominant way of investigat:ng human soda! inter-
action was quantitative, based on ~od;ng and
coJnting cistim::I, :'ieoretical ly defined actions (see
fSpecially Bales, 1950). Goflinan 1955) and
Garfinkel ( 1967) had challenged this way of unde,•
standbg interaction with tht>ir studies that "ocu.'ied
on the moral and inferen:ial underpinnings of
social interactio:i, Drawing part of his in,piration
fron: bem, Sacks started to study qJalitalively
the real-time se(Juential orderi:lg of actions the
r·Jles, patterns, and structures in the relations
between consecutive actions (Silverma:1, 1998).
SchegloE '. 1992a) argued th a;: Sacks made a .:-adical
shift in the perspective of social sci1:ntitk inqniry
Perakyla: A:ialyzing Talk and Texl Ill R7,
into social interaction; ::1stead of trt'ating social
intemction as a screen on which othe:- processes
( llalesh!n categories or moral and bfe,ential
processes) were projected, Sacks s:artec lo study
the very structures of the interac:iu:1 itself (p, xviii),
Bask Theoretical Assumptions
In the first place, CA is not a theoretical enter•
p:ise but rat:ier a very amcretely empirical one,
Conversation analysts :nake video and/or audio
recordings of na:urally occurr:ng ir:teraction,, a:1d
:hey transcribe these rrco:dings using a detailed
:1otation systen: (sec appendix). They search, in the
recordings and transcr:p:s, for recurrert distinct
interactive practices that thee become their research
topics. These practices can involve, for example, spe-
citk sequences (e.g., :iews delivery IMaynard,
"oh"-prefaced answers to questions [Heritage,
1998] ). The.:1, through careful listening, comparison
of instan0es. and exploration of the context o: ,:iem,
conversation ana:ys:s describe in detail the proper-
ties and tasks that the ?ractices have.
However, thro'Jgh er:i.piricd studies-in an
"inductive" way-a body of theoretical knowledge
about the organi;:ation conversation has been
accumulated. ]he actual "tedmiq ucs" in doing CA
can be understood and app:-eciated only aga'.l'.st
the backdrop of these basic theoretical assump•
tions of CA. In what follows, I try to sketch some of
the b.1sk assurnption5 concerni11g the organization
of conversation that ari$e from these studies. There
are perha ?S three tn061 fundamental assumplior.s
uf th:s kir:d (cf. Heritage, 1984, chap. 8; Hut::hby
& Woo:fitt, 1998), namely that (a) talk is action,
(b) action is structurally organized, and (c) talk
creates and maintains intersubjec1ive reality.
Talk is action. As b some other philosop:iical and
social scientific approaches, in CA talk is under
stood first and foremost ati a vehicle of human
action (Schegloff; 1991). The capacity of langi.:age
to convry ideas is seen as being derived fro•
this more fundamental task. In accomplishing
actio:1s, :alk is seamlessly intertwined wit!:
(other) corporeal means of action such as gaze
and gesture (Goodwi:1. 19111 ). Some CA studies
 876 • HA:il!BOOK o;:; QUALll)\I!VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 34
have as the:r :o?ics Lhe organization of actions
that are recognizable as distinct act:nns e•,en from
a ven:acular poi11t of vie\\'. Thus, conversation
anel ysts have stud iec, fbr exa:nple, openings
(Scheglofr; i 961:1) and closings (Schegloff & Sacks,
197 3) of conversations, asscssrr:ents and ways in
wl:.ich t:lc redpients agree or disagree w:th them
(Goodw:n & Goudwin, I Pomerantz, :984),
storytelling (Mandelbm:1:1, I992; Sachs, 1974a),
com?laints (Drew & Holt, 1988}, tdling and
rccciving news (Maynard, 2003 ), and laughter
(Haakana. 200 I; Jefferson, 1984). Many CA stidies
have as their topic actions that are typical in some
institutional cnv iron ment. Examples indude
diagnusis (Heath, : 992; Maynard, 1991, 1992;
Perilkylli, l998, 2002; :e1: Have, 1995) and physical
examin,uion (Heritage & Stivers, 1999) in medkal
consultario:1,, (:"Jestioning and answering prac-
tices in cross-examinations (Drew, 1992 J, ways of
managing disagrccr:1ent~ in news 'ntcrv:ews
(Gn;atbatch, 19\/2 ), and advice giving in a num her
of differer:, e:w lmn ments (Heritage & Sefi, 1992;
Silverman, 1997; Vehvilainen, 2001 ), Fina!ly,many
impo,tant CA studies focus on fundamenta,
aspects of rnnversationa'. organization that make
any action possibl.:, Tt:ese indude tur:1 takir.g
(Sacks, Schegluff, & Jefferslln, 1974), repair
(Schegloff, Jefferson, & ·'"'·...,, 1977; Schegloff.
1992c), and the gtncral ways which sequences
of action are built (Schegloff, 1995).
Action is strucwrally organized. In the CA view,
the practical actions that comprise tht heart of
social life arc thoroughly structured and
ni,ed. In ?ursuing their goals, the actors have to
orient themselves to r~1les and struclures that
only make their actions possible. These rules and
structures concern nostly relations between
actions, Single acts arc parts of larger. structurally
org,m i:r.ed entities. These en7ities may be call rd
"sequences" (.Schcg:off, 19'J5).
Tl:r mo,t basic a:id the most importa11t
sequence is called the "adjacency pair" (Sd1egloff
& Sacks. 1973 ). It is a seq ucnce of two acrions
in which the first action ("first pal r part"),
per:ormed by one interactar::, invites a particu-
lar 7ype of second action ("second pair part'') tu
:ie performed by ar.other intcract,rnt. Typical
examples of adjacency pairs incL1de question~
answer, greeting-greeting, requesl-gnmU refasal,
ai:c invitation-acceptam:e/dedination. The rela-
tion between the :1rst and second pair parts fa
strict and normative; if the second pa'r part does
1:nt come forth, rl:e first speaker can, for example,
repeat the first ac:ion or seek explanations for the
fact that the second action is :nissing (Atkinson &
Drew, 1979, pp. Merritt, 1976, p. 329r
Adjacency ?airs often serve as a core around
which even larger sequences arc built (Scheglotl:
So, a prticxpa11sion c,rn precede an adja•
cency pair, for example, in cases where t'ie
s:Jeaker fl rs: about the other's plant for t:ie
evening a:id unly tl:er~after (i: it turns out that
the other is not otherwise engaged) issue5 an
invitalion_ An iriserr expansion involves actions
that occur ":,etwecn the first and second pair parts
end makes ;,ossf:ile the production o:· the latter,
for example. :n cases where the speake:· r.:quests
specification an uffer or a request befort
res pomH ng In it Finally, in pos l,!Xpa11sion, the
speakers produce actions that somehow foilow
from :he basic adjacency pair, with the si:nplest
example being "oka( or ''thank you" to close a
sequence a qucst:01: and an answer or of .;
rcq uesl and a g,,rnt {Scheg.ott; I995).
Tulk creates and mairita/m the imersubjecti·1e
reality CA has sometimes been criticized for
neglecting the "meaning" of talk at the expellse
of the ''form" of talk (cf. Alexander. 1988, p.
Taylor & Cameru11, 1987, pp. 99 107}. Tris is,
however, a misunderstanding, perhaps arisir.g
from the impression created by technical exact-
ness of CA stmiies. Closer reading of CA studies
revc11ls that in s·c1.:h studies. ralk and interaction
are exa:nintd as a site whe,e intersubjec:ive
understanding about the participants :n:e:1tiD:1s
is created and maintair:ed (Heritage & Atkinson,
1984, p. 1 I ), As such, CA gives a,cess to th!' CO;i•
struction of meanh:g in real tine. But it is
important to notice that :he co:wersatior: ,rna-
lytkal "gaze" focuses exdusively on meani:igs
and understandings that are made public
through conversational act:or: and that it remains

"agnostic" regarding pcop'.c',; inlrapsychological
experience (Ucr::age. 1984).
T:1c most fonda:nental !eve: of inters:.ibjective
undrrs:anding-which in fact cons1itutcs the
b,isis for any mhrr type (Jf intcrsubjective under-
standing-concerns the ur1ilersianding of the pre-
ceding turn displayed by the wrrent speaker. Just
Eke any tum of talk that is ;:iruduccd •n the rnn-
:cxt shaped b;· the previous tum, it ,ll.,o displays
its spe1,ker:5 understanding of thai prcvinus turn
(At1.inson & Drew, 1979, p. 48). Thus, in simple
when pro,1:1dng a turn of talk that is hear·
able as an answer, the speaker alst1 shows that he
ur she understood the preceding turn as a ques-
rion. Sometimes these choices can be crud al for
the ;mfolding of the interaction and the so~:,.i
rel~tion of its participants, tor example, in cases
where a tum of talk is potrnt:ally bearable ia two
wavs as a:1 announcement or a rco uest, as an
' .
info:-mir:g or a complaint) aad the recipient
makes the d:oice in :he nat turn. In case the first
speaker considers the i.:.nd~rst,mding cor.cerni1:g
his talk to be incorrect or pmblcmalk, as d:s•
played in the secum! spc,.Ker's utterance, the first
speaker ha~ an opportunity to corrc.::r rhfa under-
standing in the: "third position" (Scncgloff, 1992,),
for example, hy saying "I didn't mea;1 to crit:cize
vou; f just mca l'.t to tel: you ahem I the problem:'
Another impor:a;it level of imt·,.st:.'i;eclive
i.:ndcrstanding concer:1:: the mnr,ixt (1: the !al k. ·:his
:~ ,nuticularly salicn: in institutiona: interaction,
;hat is, in interaction ,hat takes place to accomplish
some institutional,y ,,scribed tasks of :he :iartici,
pants (e.g., psychothel'ap}; n:edkal consultatioi:s,
nc¥,s interviews) (Drew & Heritage, 1992). The par,
ticipants' undcrstand:ng of the im,1iti.:110:1al context
of ,heir :alk is dm:umt'nt.:d in their aclions. As
SchcgloE (199 I. 1992b) and Drew and Hc,itage
(1992) pointed out, if the "institutional context" is
relevant for interaction, :: can bi' observed in the
dc:ails ef the part idpant,.' actions-i • their ways of
giving and receiving inforrrnilion, asking and
amwering t: uestions, p~esc:i:ing argurrrnts, and so
for:11. CA '"''""''"' tha1 foc1rnes un imt'ntional
interac:iuno explores exact ways :n which the
prrtormern of difle1en: institt:tioi:al tasks shape
6cir actions to achieve their gnab.
Pe:,ikvlri: Analvrfog Talk Text Ill 877
• ' ~
Research Example
Aile~ these rather abstract ~onsiderations,
let us cotisider a concrrtr example uf CA research.
1n my own work o:i AflJS. munseling (Pcrilkylii,
1995), one of be tupics was a pracrkr cat:ed
"circular questioning" in the rapeut:c :heorr, The
clients ir: these sessions were HIV-posi:ivt
patients and their family members or utl:e1 sign if,
kant nthers. Jn dxi::ar que:;Lit,:is, the counsdor
asked one client to describe the thoughts or
experienCl":'i of ,mother ?erson; for example, the
counselor might be 1:iothc:r of an HIV-
positive patient to describe whal :11;r (coprelient}
son's greatest concern is. In my analysis,, I showed
l:ow such qucstioning involves a power:ul ,mictke
w incite the clients to ta:~ ahom matters that they
ot:1crwise would be reluctanl to discuss. In drcn-
:ar questions, it was not only the counselors who
rncourngeci tb, cl 'enls tu talk about their fear, and
worries. A local btera!'.t ion al cunt~xl where the
clients encouraged each other m :.ilk Wt\S built
One type of evidence for th;s "fot1cliot1" of the
ci rc·.ilar questions comes frnn: th: ;.l rue tu re of
such questioning sequeuccs. Without exception,
,,a,h cixufar quc-stion was followed by the person
whose experience was des..:ribcd ("the owner of
the CX?erience'') hii:iself or hrrself giving an
;iccount of the experience :n qucs6,1:. Often rhc
cu:1nselor a,kel1 the "owner's:'' v:ew directly after
hearing the copartidpant's ,eroion, and some-
t!mes lhe owner vo::mtccred his or :1cr view. 1r:
both cases, the pattern of qurstioning m:;de the
owner the experience sprak about '1 is or her
le-am and worries. In what follmvs. Ell:ract 1 pro-
vides all example of such a seq ucnce. The pa rtid-
par. ts are an HI \'-positive patient ( P), his
buvfriend
. '
(BF), and :he counselor (C).A::rows I
to 4 ;\and for the ir:itiation Jtterances; I for
the counselor's :-i~cular quest:on, 2 for the
ho11f:iend's answer, 3 for the i>llow :.ip ques:ion :o
the owner of the experience, and 4 for his
response. Here, as i• 1:iany other cases that I ana-
lyzed, the circular question le.tds t'1e owner of the
experience to d:sdose his deep worries espe•
dally lines 45-61 ), For tral'.script'm: symbols, sec
fhe appendix.
1!78 • HA:,/DBOUK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-C'JfAPTER 34

Ex:tmct l (AIDS Counselling lPerilkylti, 1995, p. 1101}:

fll .l • W~•t are ;;ime of tlliogs that yos bink E:.::ward migh:
02 have 1c do.= Ee sa)" "' doesn't know whece to go
03 from hm rr:.ylle: and aw.,itit:g results atd thhgs.
04 (0.6)
05 C: What c'yirJ t'link', wor:ying hi:,i
06 (Ml
07 fil';,: 2) • Ul::;m hhl:ht.h t think it's jJSt f,;r of th< unk:iow:n.
Oi!P· Mm[:
O~C: {O,a:y.
.0 J3F· [fl.!· at the pres;;n: ti::ne. I0.2) '..'ll:m (.) once.
.I l:e's go; a ber.cr w1dem,ndiag Qf (0.2) wh,t
12 ooutd h•;,pen
BC: Mm:
14 BF: ch:m how .hh 1hi, will progr,:ss then: I thbk (.)
lS faings w]J be a litde :fkm: lset:Jed :n a«
16C: [Mm
17 Jll': ;.;.;!)'¥;1i 1t1i~nJ,
181" !.Im:
19
20P: Mn:I:
21 C:(J) • () irom what y't:11 know:: iL.5; wha what
n what do you th.nk t:ould happcrL (O,A} I rn<:4In we're
2.l talking hyp,>tti;:kally In,w '"""": bow
24 P: jM1:i:: (well).
l:lC: =no !more th.ln yi,ud<, aboutyo1..r 4'Ctllill statcuf~
26P
27C: ;;;;health except tr.at we Jo-: lnt,w,=
21! P: ~ul:
29C· ,hhh yo1.,'re ,arry::ng tbe vJrJS:;, ~CJ:; ts tlir a~-
JC (OJ) rhe, r:111 ls c,ncernec..
31 P: lln:h
32 CA)
33 P:(4; , {Well I !eel) J ,ee Ii:« tw•,d11fen:n: ex:xr.1«.=l
34 see [that ( can just (O.<i) ctm} r.n (in ar.)
JSC: lszr.h
36 P: incJbati011 s1:.11e:. !fur many years [and {u?)
37C: l11r.ih Iumli
38P: .~hhh }"JU kr.ow j1.,;; beiog ,e:1 mcf11I aooul (i1)
J~ [se,cally:,
4~~: [uhm
41 (0.4)
42P: land: er (0.5) Q!l1 g'1 <:n with• normal life.
43(: {umt
44 (: .b,Jn:I
4:i?: And then l ~et n:y g:,,atesl flt,m: that- Y()'l
so know ,fust when I\'e gt:t my :ire }ttu Jrnow u
47 goodjeh=
48C: ;;;;;umJi=
4~ J~ :h1cgs g::ing vcry w,,II,
SOC: ,h:n::
s: ,:0.,1
51P: tha! (11 ::) er:: (,l.2) my ir:1mun:ty will'"·'""'"''
53 C: jumh
54C: um!h
551' !)'Ju know: I will) """''" very ill:: (0.2'1
56 >qvkklv1<
(LO)
511 P: Jihh:ah anjd lo;, r.,mrnl of lli- the sitaation.
59(; :um::!:.
60C. ur:1h·
61P: :ti,:'s my ~teatest fear acrui!lly.

The frequent sequence strucrnce :n circular
questioning posed a kind of a puzzle for the
resear:her: Vvhy do the owners of the experience
al ways g:ve their authori :arive vers:ons after their
experience has been described by somebody else,
oftc:1 eve:1 witl:mit :he counselor asking for it? By
examining the :nlnute aspects of the recordin~s,
I started to grasp how the owners special status
vi,-a-v is these des er: :itions, and thereby the rele-
,·ance of their eventual utterar.ce, was col:abora-
tively ar.d consistently built up in these sequences,
Re,ponse tak,ms anc postural orientarilm were
among the means of this buildup.
Response tokens are :ittle particles rhroagh
which tbe receivers of an ut:erarn::e can "receipt"
what they have heard ar.d, among other things,
indicate that they hav;; no need to ask for
darific,don or to initiate any other kii,c of
repair, :hereby "passing back'' rhe turn of talk
to the initial speaker (Schegloff, 1982; Sorjonen,
200 I). Us :.ially in question-answer sequences,
response tokens woulc be produced by the
questioners. However, in ci:'culu qi,;estions, the
~ owners the experience rcgul arly produced
! response tokens when :heir significant others
l
1
were describing the mvners' mines and circum ·
stances. As such, the owners indicated their
special invol 11eme1:: in the matters that were
i
discussed. Iha: was also the case in Ei.:trnct : ; in
' (2)Segment of extract 1 (Peraky/a 1995, p, 125)
'I
BF shifts his orientation from
CtoP
BF: lt'a just fear of the unknow:n.
C:
' P:
\
'•
Figure 34.1.
Perak,1la:
'
Anal,.,zim!
f ~
Talk and Text II 879
lines 8 and 20, P responded to BF's answer to C's
questions with "Mm;"s. He showed his owner•
shi? of the matte,s that were spoken abou!,
theniby also building up :he relevance of his
own description of them.
The same orientation was shown by the partici·
pants thruugh their body posture. The clients who
answered the circular question reguladr shifted
their gaze to the owner at the begiuning of the
answer, and only toward the end of it did they gaze
at the co\lllSclor (to who:n the answer is given).
Thls organization of gaze contributes to the rele-
vancy of the owners utterance where he or she
eventually describes his or her concerns.A segment
frun: Extract 1 (see below) shows this pattern:
At the beginning of his answer, BF was not
oriented to the questioner (the cotmselor); rather,
he was orie:itec to the person whose mind he was
describing (P). Likewise, P was gazing at BF; thus,
they are in a mutual gaze contact Br~ the speaker,
turned his gaze to the aiunselor at the end of the
first sentence of his anS'lver, and shortly after that
P withdrew his gaze from the s""aker and also
turned to the counselor. Through these actions,
P's special status vis·a· vis the lh:r.gs spoken
about was collaboratively recognized,
Tl:e analysis of circular questioning '.ed me lo
conci'Jde that in this way of ask:ng questions, a
special car.text was created for the clients' ~alk
I
' BF withdraws his gaze
fromC
J,
[At- at the present.
[Oka :y.
Mm[:
1'
P orients towards C
 880 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAL:TATIVE RK'-EAR(H-CHAl'ilR 34
about sensitive issues. l:nlike "direct" ques:ions,
drcLilar questions mobilize the clients ir: :he work
of eliciting ar.d encouraging each otl:cr's talk CA
as a med1od for analyzing talk made it ;;,ossib.e to
examine this cl:citahu:i 'n detail.
11'1 Co:-KLUSION
It is a special concern of the third edilio~1 of this
Handbook lo he explicit politically, that is, to
advance a democratic pro'.ecr cm:1mined to social
j u~tice. To cor:cludt this chapter, therefore, I com•
pare some of the nethods d:scussed in terms of
:he:r relation to issues of power and svciul change.
I focus on the three mtd1ods d:scussed mo,t
thoroughly: !iDA, .MCA, and CA.
The HDA exemplified in the chapter by
Armstrong's work fa most directly a :method for
investigating social change, Armstmr:g shov.ed us
the evolvement of hygienic regimes. At the s;;me
tirr.e, his analysis of :~xts was about power-
abuut the d:scourses and p,ac:krs through which
the boundary between pare and dirty had been
establis:ied and, in rela:[on to that, t!:Jrough wl:ich
human ider.tities had been formed. Armstrm:g,
like all Fom.:aubans, treated power here as a p,o-
ducth·e force-as ~or,1et:iing that ca:ls realities
into being rather than s;ippresses them.
The potential of MCA in dealing with quest:o,u
pertaining to power and social change is well
shown in a key :ext by Sacks {1992), '"Hotrndders'
as a H.cvolutiomur Category" (pp. I69-1 see
a:so Sacks, 1979). There arc nt least two reirvant
aspects of categorization involved here_ The more
obvious one is the linkage between categori:adon
and racial and otl,er :ire; ucice. By idcn:ifying the
actors who have committed crimes or other .._.,., ....
by r&cfal or other categories, we can create a :ink
between all member& of tl:e category and the evi I
that was done by an individual. :bus, categorim-
1:on, which is a:1 in he rent property of la:iguage
a!ld thought, is a central resource :br racisn:.
Howevrr,asSilverman (1998) pointed out, the cal-
egorkal references can also be r.sed in "benign"
for example, in invoking and mair:rain'ng
ins:ilutiomil ide1:tities ,uch as "doctor" (p. 18 ). The
other rdevant a,1,ect to catego6zallm; is nm:c
subtle. :1acks (1992) argued that cateJJnries rnn be
owned, resisted, and enforced (p. 172;. Following
his exf.m pies, young pesor:s may be categorized
as "ttenagers." 1n {contcmpor.1ry Wes:ern; society.
this category ls owned by th(Jse who are not
teenagers, that is, those who are cai:ed "adults:' It is
adults who cnfo,ce a:i<l admin:stcr this catego-
rization. Those who an' categorized 11s "1eenagers''
cen, howcvrr, ~esist this categorization by con•
stn:cti r.g frteir owi: categorizations and by decid-
ing themselves to ·whom it ~:J be applied. 111
Sacks's er:vi.:-omncnt, one such categ:orization was
"hotrud<lers"; it was a category set llp by young
people themselves, thr incumbency of which they
rnn:rollec. So far as the "others" (e.g., lldults)
adopted this new categoriza:ion, ti1e revolution in
categorization was successful. a whole, Sacks',
exampks showed how catcgorizalion is a field of
changing power relation,. Analyzing texts ming
MC'\ offer, one way in which to amdyze them.
The rela:ion of CA to questions of power and
social change is more complex. CA that fowscs
on generic practices and strm;turcs of mundane
~ ver ,v<lav, talk mi,d:t
C' seem irrelevant in :erms uf
~•ower and social challge. Billig ( 1998) argued that
0
his irrelevance nay, ii: fact, imply pol:tically con-
serv.1tive choices. Ever: in researdiing institu-
tional interaction, the fact that wnvcrsalion
analysts often focus on smell details of video- or
audlu-rernrded talk m:g:it seem to rcr:dcr 11:eir
sturiies impotent for the analysis soda'
relations a11d p,ocesses 11ot incor:io,ated in ta.:<
(cf Hak, 1999).
from the CA point vie.v, two r,;;sponses can
be given to these criticisms. Fir,t. the signltkance
of orderlv or.:anization of face-to-face (or other
' V
"live") inkraction for ,iii soda! lite needs to be
res HI led. Xo '':argc r sca:e" ~odal i11~timrions could
operate w ithont the sub,traturr: of 6c interaction
order. rt is largely Ihrough questions, ar:swers,
assessments, accusations, acco,mts, illkrpreta-
tions, and the l:ke that tl:ese in~t:: utiom upemtc.
Hence, e\'cn when not focusing on hot social and
political :ssJes that we read about in the ncwsp,,·
p..:'rs, CA is provici:1g knowledge abm:.t the bask
organizat:ur.s of rncial life lhat make these is~ues,
as well as their possible solutions and the debate
about them, possible in the first place.
Tr.ere is, however, dso CA research that is
more d' rcctly relev,mt fr1r political and social con·
cerns. l'or cxampit:, many CA studies have con·
tr!lmted to our unders,,mding of the ways in
which specific in:rmctimrnl practices rnntriimk·
to the maintena11cc nr ,:hange of the gender
system. Vv"or;,; West ( 1979) and Zinuner • an
(Zimr:1erman \·Vest, 1975] OJ~ male-temale
interruptions is wide!)' cited. More recently,
Kit1fogcr (2000) explored the implica:imis of
preforrnce organization for the poli:ics of rape
prevention and turn-takbg organ ii:ati on for the
practkes of "coming out" as gay or lesbian. In a
somew:ial more linguistic CA study, Tain:o (2002)
explored how synta..:lical and :,;emantic p,opc,t ics
of utterances are us~d :n the .:onstn:d'.on o:
hctcrcsexual identil:es in e'.de rly couples' talk.
Studies sttc:i as these (for ,t fresh overv:ew, see
Mcilvenny, 2002) also amply de:nonstrate the
critic«/ potential of CA. Yet a differt:nl CA study on
social change was offered in Cbiy man ar:d
1-kr'tage's (2002b) wor~ on question ('.esign :n
l.S. presidential press co:1 fc~enccs. By co:11bining
qualitative and ,Jmu::itativc technk1ucs, tht)'
~howcd how 6e re:at:ve proportions of d:fle:-e:it
types of journafol questions, exhibiting dJfe,e:it
degrees "adversarialness;' :iave changed over
time. As such, they explored the historical change
in the U.S. presidential institution and media.
The "dis~e<:tion"' of practices of talk may, ,he:e-
lorc, le-.id tu in~ight s that may some political
s:gn ificance. As a final note. co:1sider again the
analysi;; of circular questioning briefly ?resented
in the preceding ,ec:iun. I sought to ,l111w how the
rccrrenl st :ucture of the question: ng sequence,
a;; well as :he UM! of disW,HtiC par:i des and th<:
postural orie:uatio11, co:1tributed lo a context
w]; ere the patkn:s and their sigl1lfkant ot 1: crs
were l11cii.:d ro ,peak about their fear, and wor-
ries. :Now, as scholars wo:-king with the melhods
Lifhhtorical text analysis have shown (A:-mstrong,
1984; Arney & Bergen, 1984), a clink that incite:;
pmicr.t& to :alk about rhc:r cxpcricm:c i, a ~elatively
new development evolved ,bring the latter
ha:f of the 20th century. Priur to that, Western med•
kine was not wm:er:ied about patients' subjective
experit'nce and fi>cused 01: the body unly. AIDS was
argunbly an illness that was more per.etrated by
this new .:nedical ga1R than was any other ill:iess
previm:sly (Perakyla. 1995, p. 340). Therefore, in
observing the skillful practices th rough wl:ich
AIDS counse!ors encourage their clients to talk
abm:t tl:eir ,mhiective eli.;,eriences, we were also
obscrvir:g th!' operafam of an inst ii ut:o:,, involving
power relations and hodit~, of ktmvledge, a1 a
particular moment in its :i:storical development
In anaiyzing AIDS counseling, the result; of
historical lex: .rnalysis p:ovidcd a cnntex: fur the
understanding of the sign itkance of the res;i It;
of CA. Here, different methods of ,tnalyzing and
inter?rcting talk and text co,nplemc11tcd l'itch
other. this does not mean, however, that th csc
methods could or s:10:.1ld merge; the 'Pi.,'a•:ch
objec, and lhe p~{Jccdurcs of anal;-sis in CA and
HDA remain dii:ere11t. So, rather tha:1 ,ombii:L1g
dir.erent methods (1&hich might be- what, e.g.,
'Ncthcrdl, :998, would ::,ropose), we shou:d per,
haps let each method do its job in its own way and
on its own field and then, on! y al th c end of friat.
let their :1csulb cmss-illuu:irMte each other.
 882 111 HANDFIOOK or QUAllTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 34

APPENDIX

ml TRANSCRIPTIOK SvMROLS IN CA
Starting poir.t of overlapping S?eech.
End point of overlapping speed:
(2.4} S:lence measured in seconds
(,} Pause of less than 0.2 ~econds
i Upward shift in pitch
i Downward shift in pitch
word l:mphas:s
wo:rd Prolongation of sot: nd
Section of talk produced in lower imlu:rn: than t:ie surrounding talk
\.VORD Srction of talk produced in higher volume than the su:-rounding :alk
w/tord# Creaky voice
£word£ Smile voice
wo(h)rd Lai:gh particle ir:serted within a word
WO· Cut off in the rnidcle of a word
word< Abruptly completed word
>won:< Section of talk uttered in a quicker pace than the s urroundng ta:k
<wore> Section of talk uttered ir: a s:ower pace than the .surround talk
(word) Section of lalk that is uifficult tu hear but is :ikely as tr.rnscribed
() lnandble word
.hhh Inhalation
hhh r:xbilation
Falling intonation at the c nd of an utterance
Risir.g ir:to:iatiun at the end of an utterance
Ffa1 imor:al'.on at the end of an utterance
word.=word "Rush througb»without the r.ormal gap in:o a new utterance
(( word)) Transcriber'~ comments
SQ J rtr: .,aa1~:rct fr,rr.
P1t'll.:,_

Alexander, J. (198H J. },clilm and it, enviromnems:
Iiiivard a new synthesi;. :slew York: Columbia
1;11 iversity Pres;.
Armstrong, IJ. I l'183). /J(J/itic11f ull(lfarny of the bt,dy:
.+:edica/ knowledge in Brilairr in the t.vemiei/1
century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge tniversity
Press.
Armstr~ng, D. (: 984). The: patt,nt's vfow. Socia{ Scit'11CC
aud Mcdicme, /~, 73·1 741.
Arn1sl r,.mg, D, {1986 ), ···he invcntiu:: of infant mort2.I ity,
So.:i,J!cgy ofHe«/th and lilness, 8, 2: 1-232.
Armsl,Dng, D, '. 1~87). s::ence i!nd :ruth in death and
dying, Sci,•n::e and tvl,•didne, 19,
Arm~t·D11g, (1993). Public h,allh spaces ,we the
fabricat on ()f :centity, Suriuiogy, 27, 393-410.
Armst:ong, D, ( 1998). lledinc of :he hospital: Rcccn-
structing i11,titutio11al dangers. Sociology of Health
11r11I ll/noss, W. 445 +i7.
Armstrong, ), (2002), ,t new history cf idenlily: A
soctolc,gy of medical krrn wfr,dge. Basingstoke,
t.:K: l'algraw.
Arney, W., & Berg,•n, B. ( l 9R4). Medicir1e a,id Ille
mumigemem of livfog, Chica1511: l:nivtisily u[
Chicai:o Prc~s.
Atki::so::, J. ,\,l. {!'178). Dis,.:.w,~·itig suicide: Stwiic~ in
the soda/ organizai ,im G{ suddm death. London:
Mm:milian.
ALki n,o::, J, M., & Drew, I:': ( 1979 ), Order in ccurt: fhe
mg,mization of wrfail intcraclfrm in judicial
s,t;i,,,,, bnJon: ,\.factt::lllan.
Atki 11,011, P., & Coffoy, A. (1 Y97). Analysing dornme:i-
tary realities. In ll. Silvcmll'.:: ( Fd.), Qw,iiu:uive
re,0ard1: 111mrJ; me!hvd, 1md pr,1e1ice (pp. 45-62 ).
1,ondon: Sage.
Baktr, C, ( 1997). Memhcrs::ir, categorization and
interview a:cmmts, ll, Silverman (I'd,), Qua Ii•
t,1/iw: res,~arcl?: tf:eory, met/1 od, and pnictice
(pp. !30-143).1 ond,m: Sage.
Bal~s. R. F_ '.1950). lmeractio•1 :m,,,·;,« anafysf,: ll
meiho!i ,for the study o{ srrwll fn111/JS, Re-,.di ng,
MA; Addtson-Wesley.
Billig, M. I 19'l8). 'Nho,e terms 1 Whose ;:,,dinarlne,s?
Rhetoric Jnd ideology in e1:nvcrn,Kicn analysi,.
Dim:>~rse & Sr1ci;:1y, J0, ;,;;,- ;Ji;.
llrcwn, & Yule, G. ( 198 J}. Discourse ,mab•m.
Cambricge. l';(: Cambridge University Press.
Canadi.in Press. (1989, Deeemher 7). The Globe and
Mail.
Perakyla: Analyzing and
Clayman, & llcrilagc, J, (20:Jla), The l/ews imen·iew:
Journalists w1d publicjig,mis on t/ie air. Cambridge,
CK: Cambridge University Press.
Claym,m, & Heritage, j. :2002b). Qucsricning
pre~ide;1ts: lot.:,nalistk dcfon:ncc and ~dversari-
al tte,s .:1 the prt·;s conferences E1smhowe~ and
Reagi.:1. /011ma! ofCamm1mi,·r,li,,r1, 749-775
Cuff, E, C. (. 994 J. Protlems of v,:rsi,ms in M','rJday situ-
ations, tanl:am,MD: U:::vi::sil)' Pres,,; vfAmcri,a.
Douglas, \1, {1966). Purify und da,rger, London:
Routledge & l'au:,
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom
cross-cxar:, i natk,n: The rasr oi a trial for mp~.
In P. Drew & J, Heritage 1ii!k a, wcrk:
ln/er,:,r/im; m instilutimwi sefliugs (f>p, 470-520).
Cambricge, UK: Cambridge ll:o;iwrsity Pxss.
Dr,'W, R, & Her :1a1;e, J. (1992). Am,: yb1g rnlk al war&.:
An introduccion. In P, Drew & J, lleritagc (Ed,.),
Talk al 't'Or,k: fnteractfrm ifl iriititulivnal ",lf,nv,
(pp. ta:1Jbridge, tK: Cambridge Univcrsily
Press.
Drcl¾, f>., & Holt, FL (: Con,plainahk matters:
The usc idiom al:;; expression in m,ik ing
mmplainls. Sc•cial Pm/Jle1n,, .B8-4 I7,
LJurkheim, E. ( 194/l), Ei<'l!Wtllctry jimns of.relirfous lift.
l;Jencoe. IL: l':et t'rcss.
Edward~, D. (1997), lh,1co11rsc a,1d cr,gnitio,i. l.ontlcn:
F.gl it:, R, & lle;;tc:, S, (199',1). Moral order and the
Montreal m,;s:;acre: A story memhership
categmiz::ition ,malysis. [n I:': L falbert
Medi;, studies: E1hnomethodalogiwl apjrmaches
I pp. , .,•. kJ'J 1 :_aoha m, ,\ID: :J niveri;ity Press
·"· :71er!££..
Fairclough, N. ( l 9!1'l). Lang1u1gi! and power, ..ondn:::
Lo11gnu11,
Fa i rdough, N, (I 995 l. Medi« dimiime, I.on den:
Edward Arnold.
Foucault i\,t ( 1973). 11ie birth of the clink: An an iuw-
vlo6y of mediml perceplum, New Y0rk: Pa::rheo:,,
l'oucaul1, M, ( l 977). Discipline cmd Jmnisf:: The birth af
.lit prt:,m:, J.ondcn: Allen La:ie.
Foucault, M. (1178). The history ilfsexu,1/i1y, V,1L I: An
it1,roduC1fon. 'fork: Panthwn,
l~ari:nkd, H, (] 967). 5w,lies ir: rlimumelf,c1iofogy.
.Englewood lhffs, NJ: ?rentice llaL
{ioffn:.an, £. (1953), (k "ace work. J'5;d1iatry, 18,
2i5-23L
Coffrmm, E. (19,:!3), The interaction order, Am~riam
Soci,1/ogirnl Reviei., l-: ,.
 884 • HAN:JBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 34
Goodwin, C (: 98 l l. C,mversatianai organization:
lntera,·tion betwef!ll speaker.- and hearers. ~ew
York: A,ademic Press.
Goodwin, & Goodwin, M. H. 1.1992). Assessments
and the constnction of context. In A. Duranti &
C. Goodwin (Ecs.), Retl1i11king context: Language
as interactive phenomenon (pp. 147-190).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gotthill, X., & Armstrong. D. (:999). Dr. No•&dy: The
construction of the docto7 as an embodied
subject in British general practkr 1955-97.
Sociology of Health and 1/lness, 21( 1), l- 12.
Ereatbatch, ll. ( 1992 J. On the management of disagree•
ment between news intervit:'l,,.ee.'i. In P. Drew &
J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at wvrk: Imera,tiorr in
i11stitulio11al seuings (pp. 268 302). Cambridge,
UK: Carnbridge t:niversit y Pre,is.
Grcimas, A. ). (1966). Semantique Structurale. P.dri5:
Larousse.
Haakana, M. (2001). Laughter as a pa:ient's resource:
Dealing with delicate aspects of med:ca' inier-
act:on. l~xt, 21, 187-219.
Hak, T ( 1999).''Texl" and "corHexl'': Ta:::.. bias in stud,
of health care work. In S. Sara;;gi & C. Roberts
(Eds.}, Talk, work, a11d frwitutwna! order
(pp. 427-452). Berlin, Germany: M(mton de
Gr,:yter.
Heath, C. (1992). Tht:delivery and recrp:ion of tl'agno,
sis in the general-practice consultation. In?, Drew
& J. Heritage (Eds.), Trllk at work: lnterartimt in
instituticmal setting, (?P• 235-267). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Un iversitv Press.
Heritage, J. (191!4). Garfinktl a11d etfmomelhodalogy.
c~mbridge, UK: Policy.
Heritage,!. (1998}. O:J·prefaced respmm:s to inquiry.
language in Society, 27, 291-334.
1-!eritage, J-, & Arkinson, J.M. (1984). Introduction. in
!, M, Atkinson & J. Her'tage (Eds.), Strul'tures
of social action (pp. 1- I 5). Cam bridge, UK:
Cam bridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & Sell, S. ( I992 ). Dilemmas of advice:
Aspects of the deli,ery and reception of advke
in interactions between health visitors and first
lime mnthe:,, In P. Dr~ & J. Her:tage (Eds.), Ta!k
ar work: lnterac,lon in imtitutianal setlings
(pp. 7), C;;mbridge, 1;r<: Cambridg,:
University Press.
Heritage, J., & Stivers, T. (1999). Online commentary
in acute medical visits: A methoc for shaping
patient expectations. Soda/ St'itnce and Medicine,
49, 1501-1517.
Hes:er, & Eglin. P. (Eds.). (1997). Culture in acti()n.
Lanham, MD: University Press of An:erka.
Hutch:iy, l., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation anafpis:
Prilmples, practices, and applications. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Jayyusi, L ( 1991 ). Values and moral 11.:cgement:
Communicative praxis as moral orde,. In
G. But:on (Ed.}, Ethnometlrodology and the
human sciences (pp. 227-2.51 ). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Universi:y Press.
/efferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laugh1er in
talk abolll troubles. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage
(Eds.I, Structures of ,ocial action (pp. 346-369).
Ca::1bridge, UK: Cambridge t;niversity P,ess.
Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. !1999), Using Fow:crn/tl;
riuthods. London: Sage.
Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing fe:ni:iist conversation
analysis. F1,'mlnism & Psychciogy, IO, 163-193.
Malarek, V. {1989,December 12), The Globe and Mail.
Mandelhau m, J. '.1992 ). Assigning :csponsibility in
com:ersatio:;al s:orytelling: The inle:actio11al
constr·.;_ction of reality. Tex,, 13, 247-266.
Maynard, D. v.: (199 l ). Interaction ,md asymmetry in
clinical discour&e. American Journal af Sodokigy,
97, 44{!-495.
Maynard, D. W. (1992). 0:: dinkians CO•i:nplkating
rec:plents' pe:spective in the rieliwry ,1f diagnostic
news. In R Drew & J. Heritage (fa:s.), 111/k at work:
Iim:mcti1m in institutional settings (pp. 33 l - 358 ).
Cambridge, l:K: Cambridge Unive7sity P~ess.
Maynard, D. W. ( 2003). Bad neJvs, good news:
Comersatumai vrder in ei-eryday ralk arid clinical
setlings. Chicago: l:nivenity of Chicago
McHoul, A. W., & Grace, ( 19931. A Foucault priml?'T:
Disaiurse, power, and the mbject. Melbo:.irne,
Australia: Melbourne Uniwrsity P:-e.ss.
Mcilvenny, P. [2002), Talking gender and ,;ex.
Amsterdam, Netherla::cs: John Benjamins.
Mcr:itt, M. ( l 976). On que:stioru; following que,lion,
(in <Pn,,rP encounters). Langi.age in Sotiety, S,
31.5-357,
Periikyla, .'I., (1995). AIDS counseiling; lmtilutfrmal
imeraction and dinical practice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge U.::w,sity Press.
Ptrakylli, A. ( 1998). Authority 2-:id a,cm.mtabili:r: The
delivery of diagnosis in prin:ary health care.
Social Psyclwiogy Quarterly, 51, 301-320.
P;:rJkyla, A. (2002). Agency authority: Extendec:
respcnses lo d:agnostk statements in primary
care encounters. Researdi tm Langullge and Soda/
fnteraction, 35, 2Jg~247.

l'omern::lz, A. ( N84 ), Agreeing and disagreeing wi:h
a,s,e,ssmcnts: Some features o: preferred/dispn:-
ferred tum ~hapcs, In J. M, Atkinson & j. Heritage
(Eds.), Slrutlii1<':' of St!c1al a,·ti.on: Studies i11 can•
l'ersati,m analysis (pp, 67-101 ), Cambridge, UK:
Ca::1bri,lge University Press,
Potter, J. :2co1). Discourse analysis as a way cf
;rnalysing ::ahrrallr o,c;:rins talk. J11 ll Silverman
(Ed,), Qualitative research: TheorJ; method, and
p•actice (2nd e,l, pp. 200-201), London: Sage.
Pot:er, J.. & Wethecll, M. (1987) Disa1urse and social
psycl!oiogy: Beyor;d alt /!udes arid ver.;wiour.
London:
Pror;i, V. L (1968). 1'.farphology of the folk tu/e (rev, ed.,
L A, Wagner, FA!.). Austin: University of Tex a.,
Pre,s.
S.icks, H. (1974a), An analysis of the course of a jo;,,e's
tding m corwersation. ln R, Bauman & J. Shen.er
(Eds.), f'xpfrm,tinm in the ethnography of .1peak-
i11g (pp. '"- 3'.n Cambridge, UK: Cambr'cge
1:niv~rsi:y Press,
Sack., H. (1974b). (b the analysability of <tn•·1e< by
c::ildren, [n R Turner (Ed.), iitimometlwdofcgy
(pp.116-232). Harmondsworth, UK: P,,ngui:1.
Sarb, H. ;1979\, Hot,L,dder: ;\ revolutiunary rnlegory,
In C. l';;a:has (fal.J, Everyd11y l,mgu2ge; StwiiflS i11
e£r.no,r,ethodology (Pf'· 7-14 ). l\ew York: :rvingtun.
Sacks, IL (1992), Lectures 011 mnv,~rsatitm (Vo:. I,
(:, Jefferson, Ee:., 1~ith an inuoduc:ion by
E, Scheglof:}. Ox:ord, UK: Basil Black we::,
Sacks, H., Sct,cglo::, E., & Jefferson, G, (1974). A
simplest syste::iatics for organization of torr:•
taking for mrwersation, f,,anguaF[e, 50, 695- 735,
S.:hegloff. E, A. ( l968). Sequencing in conversatio::al
opening,, Ameriwn An!hropoiogist, 70, I07S- l095.
Sc:iegloff, E, A, ( 1982 ). D:scourse as an i n:eractional
achievement: Sm,1e uses of "uh huh" and orhe~
things that come between s~ntences, In D. Tonmm
(Ed.), (ieargeto v✓tl University ,~01md Table on
L1mgu,1ges and Linguistics 1.981 {pp. 71-93).
·1'-'ashington, DC: Genrgetnwn University Pre,5,
Schcg:off, E. A. (: 991), Reflection 011 talk a~.d soc:al
slructi,:re, In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.),
Talk and social structure l?P· 44-70), Cambridse,
GK: Polit)"
Schegloff, ~ A. (I 992a), Introduction. Jn Jeffo;i;on
(Ed.),Hurvq Sach: Lectures on ,oncrersa!ic11, VoL
I: Fail 1964-Spring 196/i. Oxford, t:K: Blackwell.
Scbtgloff, E, A. (1992b). On ta:k and its inst:;u-
tional occasion.!:, I' Drew & J. Heritage (Ecis.J,
Talk a1 work: Interaction i11 institutional nttin1,r;
Perakyla: Analyzing ·:alk and Text 11 8li5
(pp. 101-134). Cambridge, UK: Ca:11bridge
University
Schegloff, E.A. ( 1992c). Repai; after next turn: Tile last
slrudurally pmvided defmse of in:c'l'Sllbjrctivity
in conversatior.. American }t>urnal (Jf Sodoiogy,
12951345.
Schegloff, F.. A. : Sequen~e organization
rmimeo I, I.os Angeles: University of G!liforr:ia,
Los Angelfs, Department of Sociology,
Schcgloff, E. A., ;effe,son, li., & fl, (197/j. The
pre!erem;e for sell-;;urreclion in the orsanizalion
nf repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
Sdiegloff, E. A.. & Sack-, H. (: 973), Opening up
.~osings, Semio,i,:a, 8, 289
Seale, C. ft998). Constructing dratli; 1'he sociology
of dying ~nd /Jenn;vement. Cambridge, :JK:
Cambridge Universi:y Press.
Silverman, D. ( I 997}. Discourses counselling.
London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Social s,ience and
conn:rs.Uion analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Silverm.an, D. (200 I;, Interpreting qualitlltive data:
Methods fin- mmlyzing !alk, text, and interaction
(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Smit'!, D. [1974). The constn:ction of documen-
tary reality, 5aciulogfcaf Jr,quiry, 44, 257-2611.
Srr::th, n (1990), The ,oriceptual pracrices of power.
Toronto: Univcr&it y of Toronto Press.
Sorjonen, M-L (2001 l. Ji.espcnding in cor:sersation: A
study ,fresponse particles in Finnish. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Bc::;amins.
Speer, S, (2002). "Natural" and "contrived" data: A
sustainable distinc:io:i, DiscourH Sn,dies, 4,
l-525,
Tainlo. L (1999). Opask::jo;en kieli ikkL:::ana suoma·
laiseen parisuhtfeseen, ,\aistutkimu,, 12(1 ),
2 26,
Tainio, L. (2002}. Negotiating ge:ider identities and sex-
ual agency in elderly couples' talk.1n R Mcllvenny
(Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality{(Jp, 181-236),
Amste:uam, Net'c;:rland,: John Benjamins.
Taylor, T. J,, & Cameron, D. (1987), Analyzing canvers<1-
tic1i· Rule! and units in the structure of t..Jk.
Ollford, UK: Pergmnon,
ten Have, P. (1995), J}Jsposal negn:iationb in genera:
piacticc coiwultatfons. In A. Firth (Ed.), The dis•
coiirse negotiatwn: Swdies of language in the
workplace {pp, 3I9- 344;, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Torriln,~n. J, (2000). Tr.e passionate terct: 'fhe pending
::amttivc as a ma,~osln.:cture of persuasion,
Social Semiotics, 10( I), 81-98,
886 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALi TAT! VE RESEARCH-CH APTER 34
Tilrronen, J. ,:wC3;, The F:n::ish politic~:
pos'titm on al;;;Jh,il between 1993 ancl 2000,
Addictiun, 98, -:Z'JO.
Vehvilainen, S. (20J I). Evaluative advice in eiiu-
cational rounseling: The ·~~e of disagreement
,he "5tepw:,e entry" to advi,e. Uesearch
cm f,anguage and Social Jntcrcictio,~, 34,
J Zimmerman. U, IL, & 'Ne,"1. C (1975). Sex mies,
Wes'., C, ( 1979), Against our wlll: Male interruption
of fem ales cmsb·sex convcrsat:on. Annals
1i{ the Nei;, fork Ac:i<iemr of Science,
81
Wetherell, M. (1998;, PO$itio::i::g and interpretative
repertoires: Conversation .snaly:;is and post-
struduralb:n in dialogue. Dis,:aur.;,, & Society,
9, 387-412.
Wethere:;, M., & Jl011er, J. t 1992)"Map,vi,1g tl,e l,rngw,ge
/lf racism: Visrn~rse und 1/Je legitimation of
exploira:iori, London; Harvester.
i nterr.i;)I :ons, ar:,i silenct'S in rnnvc'TS~lion. l n
R ·1 home & I\, Henley (Eds,), ttmgutige and sex:
D{(jrn:nce ;;md d:imimmce (:1p. l 05-129), Howley,
~,1 •\: \/ewbl, :y llo;isc,
 FOCUS GROUPS
Strategic Articulations of
Pedagogy/ Politics, and Inquiry
George Kamberelis and Greg Dimitriadis
0
u, go.al in this d111pter is :.rimarily
conceplL:al and trnnsd:sciplinary as we
explore the com ?k:x and multifaceted
phenomena uf focus group research. the b~oa<l ·
est possible Ieve., totlls groups ar~ ~ollecl: vc con·
,wsations or grou? interviews. They can In: small
or large, directed or :10:idirected. As "ll1blc 35.1
indicates, focus grm:ps haw bet::! used for a wide
range of purposes over the past century or so. The
n::litary (e.g., Mrrton, 1987), multinational
rnrporatirns, Jvfo rxist :i:volutionaries (e.g., Fre:re },
litc,.acy activists (e.g., KozoL 1985), and three
waves of radical femit1i,1 .s.:holar-act:vists, among
others, al I have used focus groups to he! p advance
their concerns and causes. These diflerent uses of
groups have ovcrfaqped in both &stinct and
dhjunctive ways, mid all have been strategic ,lrlk·
uhltio:is of pedagogy, politk:s, <1:id inqdry.
Given our primary goal in this chapter, we
discuss nnly occasior:ally and in :}assi:ig proce-
dural and practical bsue, related to selecting
focus gmup members, fucilital 'ng focus gmup
disc l:,sion, and analyzing focus grou? tran •
script,. ·:·here ax many texts available for readers
who are looking for tnis kind of treatment
(e.g., Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Rubson,
200 l; Krueger, 1994; Morga.n, 1998; Sdumsul,
LeCompte, Nasta'.si, & '.'iorge.tti, 1999). lnstrad, we
both explore and attempt 10 move beyond histnr·
ical and theoretical t:catme1:ts of groups
a.s "ins:ru ments» of qualitative researc:1. Mor2
sp!::cifkally, we try tu shuw how foe us groups,
im;ep,:-ndcnt of t:ieir inter:de<l purposes, ,ire
nearly always cor:1pkx am: multivalent articufa-
t:ons of inst:uclional, political, and empirical
practice, and effects, As such, focus groups offer
unique insigits inlo tl:e possibilities r.f nr for crit·
ical :nquiry as a deliberative, dialogic. and dcmo-
crn1ic practice that is a'.-.va~·, already engaged in
and wit~ real-world problems llnd asyrr:metrics
in the distribution of ccr,:mrr:k and social capi Ia1
(Bourdieu & W"cquant, 1992 ).
Vve begin with a very ·1asic insight. Focus
grnups are lil~le more than quasi-formal or forn:al
i• stances of m;;ny of the kinds of everyday ,peed,
acr.<: that are thr part and parcel of ur:c1arkcc.
social lifc-conve::sarions, group discussions,
nego! :ations, and the like (Bakhl in, I 986).
Although their ap?mpriatim: for the strategic
purpose~ of teaching, c:1allengi11g lu:g~mon ies,
88!\ 111 HAKDBOOI< !W QlALITATIVF. RFSEARCH-CHA?H\R 35
Tuble35.I. Discursive Formations ar:d the Deploy:-:itnt of Focus Groups Over Ti me
Diswrsive Formation Pre-World War ff
Milirar1' i::telligenc!' X
Market research X X
Ernancip2.rory pe::'agogy
First-wave fominisr:: X
StrnnJ-wave feminism
Third-w,wr fomin i,m
and conducting research makes sense, the
kl :1ds of interactiom and purposes that const:tute
focus groups were there all along, ";"aiing such an
approach allows us lo expand and challenge the
cuasc rib ed pa ramcters of toe us group work
within qualitative inquiry, Thus, we highlight
here th rec overlapping domains in which focus
J:!roups bwe proliferated: pedagogy, politics. and
qualitative researc:i practice. Or, perhaps these
terms repre5enl the three primary and overlap-
ping functions of focu~ groups rather than the
1h,ee se;,amte domains in which sue':! groups
typ:cally operate, We s.1ggrs: this alternative dis-
tinction because all three fanc:ions may be (and
often arc) p~esent when focus groups arc cna~ted
in any domain,
Th::ough our analyses of converging and
diverging methods am: uses of focus groups in
these three domains or fu1:ct:or.s, we conc:ude
that focus grot:ps are u:iique and important
formations of collective inqu :ry where faeory,
research, pedagogy, and po:itics converge,
such, they provide us with impo:tant insights and
strategies for better umh:rs:a::iding and working
tbmugh the prac:ices a::id effects signaled hy t:ie
"seventh moment" of qualitative inquiry (:'..incoin
& Denzin, 2000) with its enphasis or, praxis,
methodological syncretism, dialogk relations in
the field, the production of polyvocal texts, and
the rnllivatim1 of sacredness in our daily lives,
In writing this cha:ite,, ,,-e
are also working
ou: a broader p:uject within which to read the
;1istory oi qualitative bquiry agai:ist the grain
i950-J980 1980-2000 2000-
X X
X X X
X X
X X
,
(Kamberelis & Dimitriadis,2005), Here, we focus
on methodological practices ir: gem,::al, and on
focus groups in partkular, with an eye toward
n:vis:on ing their histories in ways that will Oj:)Cll
them to new and creat:ve ·.1ses. As Linroln and
Oenzin (2000) suggested, qualitative rescarc~ers
no longer have recourse to the kinds ofllnear his-
that have so typically (if tacitly) infom:ed
mostly "procedural" discus~ions of research
methods. Instead, we find ourselves always
already enmeshed within complex and transvers•
ing sodaknaterial spaces where we must act as
brkoleurs, usir:g whatever we find at hand to
c,eate whatever effects we believe are possible
and de~irable, So, if researchers in the seventh
moment have an approach at all, it must be some-
thing like what Foi:cault ( 1984) ca:Ied a genealog•
kal approach, Basically, a genealogical approach
atte."llpts to unders:and how any "subject" (e,g,, a
person, a social formation, a social move1:1enl, an
institution) has ;:ieen constituted out of particular
intersections uf forces and systems of forces, A
genealogy maps the complex, contin{!ent, and
(often) contradictory ways in which these forces
am! systems of force carr.e toge~her to produce
the forma:ion 'n a parlkular way, Importantly,
because of the complexity am: contingency
involved, fae production o( such fo:mations can·
1:ot be precJcted with any accuracy hut can read-
ily be "read» after the Also important here is
the fact tha: ge::iealogies are no: histories of
causes but rather histories of effects, auc their
value lies not so much in what they tell us about

the past as in what they enable JS to du F:um the
perspective of genealogy,
histo:')' hernmes ''cffc-:livt" to ,he d~gree that it
i::l;tituces di,rn::L:1Jilv into our verv heing-,,,
' '
it divides our cmclions, dramalii.es our i~stincts,
c:ultiplie~ our hod}' .m(I scrs it agai::st itsdt,
'Effective" hismry (foprivcs the self ot the rea,sm-
i::g slabiL:r ol life and nature, and 1t will nnt
per:nit itself to b,· trnnspur:cd by a voiceless
:1bslinacv toward a milkr:n:JI ending, It will
t:pwnt its tradidmrnl fouml:itions and relentleS5ly
£srnpl :ts pretenced wn:in:Jity, ' is because
knowledge is r. ct mar.e for undcrs landing: it i,
r::,,dc t'or cutting. (foukault, 1984, p, 88}
In tr.is spirit, wr place three l:.istories or
genealogies of fo.:us gro JP activity in ddugue
with each other: dialogk focus groups as critical
pedagogka: practice, foc:i s group, as pilitical
prll<:ticc, ar.d focus group~ as res,an:h practice.
The,e tl:ree histories represent three different
ways of thinking about the nature and fur.cl ions
of focus groups. We tl:i:ik :hat this d:alogk juxta-
position begini; lo de,cnter the mo,e popularly
available treatment~ of focus groups within qual-
itative inquiry suggesting new con:exl~. use~,
and potcr.tia:s-ai:d begins ·.o cisdose the «effec-
tivity" that affords the "cutting" :.hat l'm:.catdt
regarded as so in: ?O:iant
Ill DIA 1.oc.1c Foe us GRou PS AS
CR:TICAL PEDAG(){,[CAL PKAC!lCh
In section, we h ighllght how focus group,
have been important pedagogical ;:!es or ir.stru-
:r:cnts in the work of l'at:io l'reire h: Brazil and
/or:athan Korol in New York. Through analyses of
::icsc cxempla:,, we ~how r.ow colle:::ive critical
:it.::rncy prnctices were usec to add:-c;;s local poli-
tks a:1c concerns about social justice·, 1\mong
ot"ler in:r;gs, we foregrou:id the ways in wh id:
Freire and Kozol worked with people and not on
them, thereby modeling a:1 important :>raxis dis-
position for contl·mporary educato:·s and qualita•
rivf.' re~carchers (e.g., Barbour & Kitzinger, 1999}.
As we show in wbt follows. Frein• and Kou1l used
Kamberelis & Dimitriadis: focus Groups Ill ~8,
focus groups in ways that were very different from
those J sed by pco?le for propaganda aud market
research, The !,mer used focus groups to "extract"
information from part idpants, that is, tn figure
out :1ow to manipulate them more effectively. In
contrast, Freire and Ko:wl used focus groups for
imagining and enacting the emancipatory politi•
cal possibilities of collective WQrK, that is, as
useful tools for accomplishing seventh moment
impera1ives.
Freire's (1970/1993} r:rnst :a:nom, book,
Ped,1gogy of the Oppres.,etl, om be read as equal
par:, social theory, philosophy, ar:c pedagogical
method, His claims about education are founda-
t'oi:al, rooted both in his devout Christ Jar: beliefs
and alm in his. Marxism, Throughout Pedagogy of
rhe Uppressed, Freire argi:ed the goal of edu-
cation is to begin to name the world and to recog-
nize that we s.ll arc "subject,;" of uur own lives and
narratives, not "ohj ccts'' :n the stories of o:he;s,
We nnst acknowlecge thr way, :n which we, as
hu:nans, arc fu:1dame:1tally c:1 argcd with prnduc ·
._, and t,ans"om1im1
il'.,r ' together. Those wl:o
""" realitv
do not acknowlcd ,,>?e :ni,, or t:-,o,e who w·.rnt tc:
control and oppress, are com mil li:,g a 1<:i nd of
t:pistcmic "violence":
lo s,mnff~ ,1t the s:tuation oppression, people
must first critica'ly rccogni~,, its causes, Sfl tha·
1hmugh transforming a.:tio:: lhcy c:m create a new
situat:011, o:ie that makes pus,iblc l::c pursuit of a
fuller hum a~ :ty. nu: the ,trngglc to be more :u lly
human has already begun in the au6cntic struggk
10 trcms:orrr: 1hr si111a:h,n. ( l'n~:mult, 1984, p, 29)
Freire often refernx'. to these situations as "limit
situations;' that situations that people cannot
imagine t:1rmselves bryond. Limit situations nat-
uraliic pco?le's sense- of o:>prtssion, giving it a
kind of obviousness and immu:ability,
To help people imagine live, beyo:id these
"h:nit si1 ualions:' rreire spent lung periods of ti me
in cmr:munities trying to understand curr.munity
me:nbers' interests, investments. and concerns so
as tc elicit comprehens'vc sets of "grner~t:ve
words:' The,e words M:re used as s:artlng points
for literacy learn:1:g, and literacy leamir:s was
de?loycd in the service of social a:id ;j(il itical
890 • HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTJ'R 35
activism. More specifically, generative words were
paired with pictures that represented them and
then were •ntermgated by people in the commu-
nity for both what they revealed and what they
concealed with respect to the circulation of multi-
ple forms of capital. Frei re e:icouraged the people
both to explore how the meanings and effects of
these words functioned in their lives and to con-
duct research on how their meanl ngs and effects
did function, or could function, in a variety of
ways ir. d:fferen: social and political ,;:ontexts. The
primary goals of these activities were to help
people foe! in amtrnl of their words and to be able
to use them to exercise power over the material
and ideological conditions of their own lives.
Thus, Freire's literacy programs were designed not
so much to teach functional literacy as to raise
people's crifo::al consciousness (or co.'m:ientiza-
tion) and to encourage them to engage in ''praxis"
or critical reflection inextr:cably linked to political
action in the real world. Freire i:nderscored the
fact that praxis is never easy and always involves
power strugS:es-often viole:it ones.
As th:s cescription of rreire's pedagogies for
the oppressed suggests, he believed that humans
live bo.:h "in" the world and "with" tne world and,
thus, can 'le active partidpants in making
history. Ln fact, he argued that a fundamental
poss:bility of the human condition is :o able to
change the material, economic, and spiritual con•
dition s of life itself through conscicntization and
prax:s. He posited human agency, then, as situ
ated o:- embodied freedom-a kind of limited
but quite powerful agency that makes it possible
lo change oneself and one's situation for the
better. To enact such agency, he argued, people
need to emerge from their unconscious engage-
ments with t:,e world, reflect on :hem, ar.c work
to change the:n. Viewed in this way, the enact-
ment of freedom is an "un:'inalizable" process.
In constantly tra:isforming their engagements in
and with the world, people are simultaneously
shaping the conditions of their lives and are
constantly recreating themselves_
Freire's insistence that tht unending process
of emancipation must be a collective effort is
far from trivial. Central to this process is a faith
in :he power of dialogue. Importar.tly, for Freire,
dialogue is defined as collective reflection or
action. He believed Iha! dia:ogue, fellowsbp,
and solidarity are esselllial to human liberal:on
and transformation:
We can legi:imately .say that in the process of
oppression, someone op;,resses scmtonc else; wr
cannot legitimately say that in ti'.e process of revo•
lution, someone liberates someone el.e, nor yet
that thal someone liberates hinure!i; but rather that
men in communion liberate each other. (Freire,
I970/1993, p. I03)
Within Freirean pedagogies, the development
ar:d use of generative words and phrases and the
cultivation of conscientization are enacted in the
context of locallv' situated "study. circles" (or focus
groups). The goal for the educator or faci1it11:n~
within these stm'-Y circles is to engage wi:h people
in their lived realities, producing and trar.sform-
ing them, Again, for Freire ( 1970/1993), pedagog-
ical activitv' is alwavs already• grounded in larty0 er
J
philosophical and social prnjt-cts conce:ned with
how people might "narrate" their own lives more
effectively:
Tl:e starting point for o:'!ianizir:g the ;irogram
content of education or political actio:: must be the
p~esent, existential, concrete situation, reflecti r.g
the aspindcns of the people. U:Uiing certain basic
ccmtradictions, we mu,t po,e the ex:stent:al, con-
crete, presen! situation to the pi:ople as a problem
which challenges them and requires a response-
not just atrhe intei'.ectuallevel, but Ia,so I atthe level
of action .... The task of tht dialogical teacher in
an interdisc:plinary tearn working on the thematic
ur:'verse revealed by [the team's I invest:gation ls to
"re present" :hat universe to the people from whom
,he or he first received i:-and "re-present~ it not as
a lecture, but as a probiem. (pp. 76-90)
To illustrate this kind of pmhlem-?osing
education rooted in people's lived realities and
contradictions, Freire discussed a research pro-
gram designed around the question of akoholism.
llecause alcoholism was a serious problem in tl:e
dty; a researche~ showed a:i asse,nhled group a
photograph of a drunker: man walking past :hrcc

other men talkir.g or. the co mer_ The group
resp(lnded, in effect, by saying that the drunken
man was a l:ard worker-the only hard worker
ir: the photograph-and that he was probably
worried about his low wagt~ and ;1aving to support
his family. In the group members' words, "He is
a decent wo~ker ,,r:d a souse like ml" (Freire, 1970/
1993, p. 99}. The men in the study dxle seemtd to
:-ecogniz.e themselves in this man, noting that he
was a"souse" and situating his drinking in a politi-
cized context. In this sitc.ation, alcoholism was
''read" as a respor:se to oppression a:1d exploita-
tion. The goal was to "derode" images and lan-
guage in ways that eventual:y led to questio:iing
and :ransforming the ma:erial and social condi•
tlons of existence. rreire offered other examples as
w,L, including show:ng people dilforent (and con-
tradictory) news stories covering the same ever:t.
In each case, the goal was to help people tmder-
stand the contracictior.s they live ar:d to t:.se these
i.:.r.derstandings to change their worlds.
Freire's pedagogical frar:iework could not be
:-eadily contained wit'iin traditional educational
contexts where the historical weight of the
"banking model" i:nposed powerft:: and perYnsive
constraints, His work insp' red a wide range of
:mportant soda) moveme:ns within education,
and the activi:ies of these movemeri:s have pro-
vided yet more models for how intensive group
activity-the kinds reaHzed b focus g,oups-
can be imagined and enacted b innovative ways
to prodt:ce "effective histories" wifain which
knowledge is milde not for understaading bJt
ra:ner for cutting (Foucault, 1984, p. 88). Freire
exerted a particularly strong influence on the work
of critical pedagogues sJch as He:1:-y Giro·Jx, J>eter
~cLarcn, and Jonathan Kozol, all of whom helped
to rei:nagir.c Freire's work within a U.S. conrext.
Frei :·e's work has been infxe:itial outside
the field of education as well. Augusto Boal, for
example, developed the "theater of the oppressed~
which ls grounded in the libe~ation i• pulses of
l're:re, and used theater to blur thr line betv.1:en
the actors on-stage and the audience off-stage. The
theater of the oppressed is a public, improvisa-
titma'., and highly inh:ractive form of th1e<1tcr with
.,trong transforr:rntive and pedagogical impulses
Kamherelis & )imi'.riadi,: l:'ocus Groups 111 891
a:1d potentials (Casali, 2002 ). In ac.dition, Freire
profoundly influenced the pa~icipatory action
research (PAR} movement led by Orlando Fals
Borda, among others. Here, researchers work with
subordinated populations around the world to
solve unique :ocal prublen:s with lo;;al funds of
knowledge. The J>AR movement is profoundly
Freirra:1 in imp·.ilses (Fals Borda, 1985).
Freire was an especially power:ul influence on
several educationally oriented social movements
in the United States, Kozol, perhaps ·,est known
for r.is groundbreaking book Suvage Jnequaliti1;:$
(1991 ), drew on Freire's emancipalory work lo
research and write another book, lllilim,te
America. In this book, Kozol (1985) wrote, "?aulo
Freire'.s work among :he peo:ile of northe.1st
Brazil during the early 1960s is one instance of
a government campaign which takes its energies
froo the illitere tes themselves" (P- 95). Like
Freire, Kozol grounded hls own literacy programs
in Ne.v York City in the actJal lives of :he people
with whom he worked to create dialogic collec-
livcs with horizontal leadership;
There is a :re.:1cndo·Js diffarcnce be:ween lrnodc ·
ing ,m a door to tell sor::cbody of a prog,am ;!:at
has been devised already which t!':ey are given
the choice, at most, 10 joi:: or tlsr ignore-and, en
the other hand, to ask them Lo assist in the creation
that plan .... Some of the best ideas that I have
heard have cmne oul of discussions held within the
neighbochoods themselves. People, moreover, a:e
fa:- more likely :o par:tdpflte in sol'.lething which
they or their neighbors h.1ve been invited to assist
in planning-and something in which ideas they
have offe,ed have been more than ''heard" but given
application. (p. I06)
In practice, Kozol advocated working in study
circles or focus groups ir. much the same way as did
Freire as key pedagogiO:: instrnrnenls or sites:
I havt come 10 be convinced that groups of six or
seven leamc:-s and one literncy worker represent a:1
ideal u:ii: of inslru,tinn for this plan. T:ie presence
of a cixle of [a] half-dozen friends or neighbors
helps :o generate a sense of comm('n c.ause anc: :,1
arm:se a sense ol' optl m!slic fer men: :hat is seldo::i
present in the one-lo-one e:icour.ter, [p. :08 j
892 II HANDBOOK OF QC:ATIT1\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
Groups wit!: such a composition allow fo:- the
emergence of dynamics that open up possibilities
for constructing effective histo,ies. Thcv also
fonct:m: a~ spawning grm:nds for the emc~gcnce
oflocall y situated and effect ivc lt•adcrship:
Leaming in groups, ;1rnple at length w::i genc"rnlc
grou;i ltadcrs; becau.,e these leaders will c:>1crge
our of d1jr ranks, they will remai:· su,cepilbk 10
e;itkim1 and corre.:::km. At ~ame time. bt>ca:m:
of :heir point ::f origin and the: r ;i~oximity :o pair.,
the:, may be in an ideal posi:ion :o Ji.srnv,r wd
cncoc:age others. (p. !09)
T.ik:r:g his rnes fmr:i Freire, Koi:ol also advo-
cated the elicitation anc use of generative word;; or
phrases that ax likelv. lo lead to discussion,.
tion, mmcirmization, an<l prnxis. Extending th~
work of Freire, he argued that for both pedagogical
and pol!tkal :"eastms, these generative words or
phnises should necessa:ily he complex because
more complex words provide more access to the
common phoneme-grapheme relations in anv
particular natural languagi: (e,g., Spanish, English')
a:id, thus, fadlitatc ''reading the v,,urd" ( frd re,
1970}] 993 ). More co:nplex wo:ds also have riche,
meanlr:g potentials than do simpler words, and
thd r precise mear:ings vary more as a function of
their sp,~cJlc contexts and purposes of use, :hereby
facilitating "n:ading the world" (Freire, 1970/1993)
in more critical vtays. Collective disrnssior:s of
complex words or phrases typically result in
"unpacking" their strtctu ces, meaning potcn:ials,
and various "effe;;tivities" within and across differ.
ent social and political contexts. Knznl noted,
The word "rcvolutiona ry:· for might
appea~ to be the parad'gm of active :anguage in
a literacy struggl.: that i, rooted in the angt::sh
of impoverished people. llere is a single .idjective
w:,ich clomin.it~& lhe :mblic d:alogue of hope and
fear, are all J:vc vowd; of English la::guagc,
four of ,he more rnn: mon consonants, the diffi-
c:i lr suf:'ix "tfo:1" which fa used io several doicr:
common word;, as well as occasio:1al vowd v.
(Kowl, 19851 p. 1361 ' within unoffic:al spaces, focus groi:;,s become sites
The lex:cal and syntactic complexity em bod :ed in
this word fad] itates literacy karr:ing or reading :he
word, The word also has ar: extraordinary surplus
of 1m:ani11gs, and its meanings vary tremendous:y
both ·,,ithh and across the different comexls in
wl:ich it is commonly used, This complexity fadli·
tates reading the wor:d. For example, ii: Eeu of its
emanc'patory political conr:ota~ions, word
"revolutionary" is often dih::ed and dm:1eslicatLxl
in at: kind~ of ways,furi;:xample,the phrase"a rev·
ol t:tinnary new detergent" or, 1:H1:-e recently, "rcvo-
1utiom1ry tt.'chnologf This wore has also been
used by the political right to "name'' parlkul,ir
groups as dangero:.is and to strike ill the l:e-.art.
of patriotic (and evc11 :10t so palrio:ic) citizens.
FJ ~therm me, the word ha,,; been appropr:ated by
resistance and counterresis:ance groups as an
emblematic indkato:: of :hei, co::ective idei:ti:k:s
ar.d to mo( vale ar.d legitimate their struggles.
Kozol also notec the impor,a:i ce of space as a
dime:i,ion of the decei:tering activity that occurs
i:1 relation to pcdr,goglcally orie:11ec study
circles '.or forns groups). These study drdes sel·
dom take place i:1 "official" spaces such as public
schoo:s and other ?Jblic b:stitu :ions. Instead,
t:iey take pla~e in church basements, people's
apartment~, recreation centers, and so fo,th. l.ikC'
generative won:s and phrases, these spaces r:i ark
lr. :ellectiml worke,s as committed to working
with and wit:iin marginalized conmunities for
the purpose of helping :hese comr:1L:nities to take
ove, responsibility tor their own struggles a:1d
their own existem:es. T.1ese s;:iaces also become
emblematic indicaturs of or for the collective
identities of the co:11munities :hemsdv;:,s, anc
they create 1he kind of overdeterm: nee solidari :v
'
that seems to be necessary for prnduci ng effective
histudes with forward momentum.
Summarv
'
D'alogk 'ocus g;0ups have always heen central
to the kinds of ,cd :cal pedagogies that h.ive be"n
advocatec and fought for :1y i rit~l lcrtual worke~s
such as Freire and l<ow'.. Organi,.ed amu :1d ''gen er
:itive" words and phmst's, and us1:11l1y located
of or for colb:tive struggle und social transforma •
tion, pmblem-pu~ing forrm!l:oHs, they o~>cratc
locally to iden:ify, iutermgale, and change specific
lh·cd contnulkrions that have been :-endered
invisible hy hegemonic power/I<. miwicdge regimes.
'lheir operition also functir.ns to rc:outc !he c;rcu•
la:ion power with in hegen:on:c struggles and
even to redcfim: 1,·;12.t p,:r,wr is and how it wnrk,.
Perhaps mos:. imporlant for our purposes hcre, the
impube, th,;t motivate lot.:us groups in petfag.
egical domains or p,,d;:gogical fut1ctio;1s have
irr.portant i::ipl:catiom, for imagining m,d using
fccus g:uups as rcsou ,ces for constructing ;'.::flee·
tive histories" within qualitativc research endeav•
ors in tht' "sever:lh moment:' (¥,'c return to this
issue in the final sectioc of the chap,er.)
Importantly, these histories ore largely situated
and co:next dependent. For Freire and Ko:wi, as
wdl as for Giioux and lvkLarcn, one could not pre•
diet a pri o,i w:rn,t m:ght be involved b emandp,1! -
ing political and educative agendas. Whereas both
Freire and Kcriol shared progressive mots and
ln:pulses, the next moven,enl we explo:e more
cxplkitly placed focus grocps at t'te center of a:1
explicit,y defined political agc::d?.-feminism.
D Focus GROJPs As Po1.n1cA1.
PRACTICE: FEMI!\ 1ST CON'SCIOCSN'ESS-
RA'.Sl\JG GROUl'S AS EXl'MPL:\RS
In th:s section, we offer descriptions and interprc•
tations of fo::us gro;,1ps in the service of radical
political work designed within social justice alien·
das. I11 parrirnlar, we foct:,s on how con sciouscess ··
raising groups (CRGs) of second• and third-wave
:emin ism have been deployed to mobilize empow-
erme:1t agendai, a:,d to enac soda[ char:ge. This
wor:.. :}mddcs important insights relevanl for
rcimagi :1 i:lg the pussibilidts of fucus group
ily wlt'.1 in qualitat've rcsean::i endeavors. Whereas
the pr:ma:y go.l: of rrcire and Kozol was to use
lltcracy (albeit broadly defined) to mo':iilize
oppressed groups to work again~t fr:eir oppression
tl::-ougl: praxis, primary goal the CRGs of
second- and thirci-wave fuminism was :o bu:'d
''theory" frurr. the Jived expc:ience;, of women that
could ~omributt: tu lhcir emandpatio1:.
In our discn~sfon of CRGs, we draw heavily
on Esther ).facrtz's rctmspcctive analyses of
second·wave feminist work as well as on her own
third-wave empirical worK I;, ::ioth of :hese
cndeavors, Madri, focused on polit:cal ( and
polilki7..ed) use, ot focus groups with:r: qual::a-
tive inquiry. As Madriz (2000; demons:rated,
:here is a Ieng h:story of deplo,•ing lurns groups
in conscio:1&nt'SS• raisi r:g activities and uf prn·
moting ,L1cial justice agendas withil: feminist and
worn anist tradi! ions. Importantly, as a for:n of
collective testimony, focus grot.:? partidpal ioi:
has often been empowering tor wome;1, espedally
wor:1er: cf color (p. 843). There are several reasons
why this is the case, Hicus groups decenter the
authority of 6e res,carctu:,, ;:;roviding women
with safe spaces ro talk aboi.:: their own live;; and
struggles. The.Sc gmups also allow wonien to con-
cect v,ith each other collectively, share own
expcrieiw,~s, and "red a: m their humanit (
a nurturing conkxt (p. 843). Madriz r.oted that
women themselves often take over these groups.
rcconceprnalizing them in fundamental and
with si111ple yet far-reaching pL1litical and
cal consequences. In this regard, :vlmiriz argt:cd,
focus group;. can ':ie an imi:mru r.t ekr.:ent in ',,;e
advancemenl an agenda or ,ocial lor
wcmen, becau.,, ,hey can se: ve tn n.:iu,c ,ind
vc: idati:' womeris everyd<1y experic·ires r:f S'Jhjuga•
1iun and their indiv:cual and co;]ecnvc survival
and resislaoce ~lratey,k~.... Group interview, ,me
part icul,dy suited for LI r covering wnm,:n's daily
experience through w::,x:m: stories and m,is
:ance narrn!:ve, that arr filled with rnlt~:'lll sym-
:,ols, wnds, a:·c idrri1ogical rep,esc111a: .,m~
that reflec I d iff,·rcm db1ension; of power and
dun:: nation th at frame wuine::'., q11ondia11 e1'peri-
e:;ccs. (p. oJc-r..,,
such, the~e groups cons Iii utc so aces for gcner-
at ir:g collective "ttst:monies;' and these t(,$ti-
r:10nies help bot\: individual won:en and groups
of wo,m,11 to find or :;;roduce their own unique
and powerful
As Madriz and others have nG!cd, focus groups
have multiple histories within feminist lines of
thought and ac:ion. Soon after slavery cr:ded,
for example, i:::turchwomen a:1d teacher, gathered
to organize politica: wori ,n the Soub
G:lkr,, 199-1 ), S• rnilarly, turn •of-tht'-ceritury
 894 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALIT,HIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
"book dubs" were key sites for intellectual
nourishmem and political work (e.g., Gere, 1997),
Mexkan women have always gathered kitchens
and at family gatherings to commiserare and
wo:-k togetr:er to better their lives (e.g., Behar,
I993; Dill, 1994). And in :927, Chinese women
working it1 the San Prarn:isco garment industry
he:d tbc1s grou,> discuss:or.s to organize agai:1st
their exploita:ion, eventually leading to a sucress-
ful strike (e.g., Espiritu, 1997). A!though we do
not unpack these and other romplex histories
in th is chapter, we do offer general accounts of
the nature and fun,tio:i of focus groups within
second- and third-wave feminism in the United
States. These a,couat, pivot on the examimdon
of several key, original, man' festo-like texts
generated within 6e movement that we offer
as synecdoches of :he contributio:,s of a much
richer, more complex, contradictory, and intellec-
t:ially and politically "effeclivc" set of histories.
Perhaps the inost striking realization that
emerges from examh:hg some of the original
tcxL\ of semnd-wave feminism is the explicitly
self-consdous ways h whid: women focus
gr0t:ps as ''research" to bui:d ''theory" about
their everyday experiences and to deploy theory
to en act political char.ge. Interesti:lgly but not
:urp,isingly, this praxis-oriented work was
dismissed by male radicals at the time as little
more than ''gossip» in the context of "coffee
klatches." lronicai!y, :his dismissal mirrors tl:e
ways :n which qualitative inquiry is periodically
disn:issed for being "soft;' asubjective:• or
sde:itilic." )le..-erthelcss, second-wave fem [nists
per,i~tcd in buildir.g theory frorr: :he "stand-
po'n~' of women's lived experiences i!nd eventu-
ally became a powerful social force in the struggle
for re_ ual rig:1ts.
Jr: response to daims that ferr:inist rheory was
nonscientific, Sarac:iild ( 1978) argued,
The dtdsion lo empr:asir.e oc:~ own feeHngs anc
expc:fonccs as wo:11en and lo tt'l>t d generaliza-
tlor.s and reading we did hy our ow:: exper'ences
was act::all)• :he s.:k,::ti,K method of re,eard:. We
were in effo::t repca:ing the 171h century challenge
science lo scholas:icis:n: "~tudy nature, not
books;' and put all theories to the test living
prar.tke and action. (p. 145;
Saracb :Id confn:1ed, noting tl:at the goal of CRGs
was not simply· for women to share atomized
experier.ces, to express themselves, or to confess
be:'ore the ~roups:
r:~e idea of ccnsdousncss-raising was r:ever lo
end gcneralimtio:'.S, I: was to produce lrner ones,
The idea was to take our own feelings and experi-
en,e more ser it)ll;Jv, lhan any' theories which did
not satisfactorily clarify t'iem, and 10 new
theo,irs wb ich did refiect the actual experience
and ;;cc,e&>1ui::, of women. (p. 148)
[n other words, a primary imperative of these
groups was to use power in productive ways (e.g.,
FoucaJit, 1977, 1980), that is, to experiment wit:l
and intervene in reality it.self (Deleuze & Guattari,
1987 ). Th is imperative went beyond representa-
tion toward reinvention. At:ending to the current
realitie:; of women was a means toward the e:id of
remapping those realities and connecting then: to
strategic political interests.
Desnl:e th is post structural imperative, these
discussions w<,'fe often pe?pered with the lan-
guage of ·'truth" and "science:• making them seem
decidedly postpositivist by today's standards. In
many respects, tl:is is not surprising because these
women were workir.g out uf an esst11tialist, foun-
dationalist perspective and also needed to intlect
thci :- arguments in ways that woald allow them to
he heard within a social and political climate that
was unquestionably Euro•Arr.erican, male domi-
nated, and heterosex:st, Yet they also seemed tu
realize that building polltkal agendas around
women'~ expe:iences is .. n inexhaustible and unfi-
nalizable activity. In this regard, Sarachild (1978)
contrasted "consciousness-raising groups" with
''stud r groups" and "rap gronps?' She referred to
CRGs as "cevolntionary" and to the latter two kinds
of groups as produc:s of"left liberalism error" and
".:ight liberal isn: error'.' respective:y (p.150 ). These
contrasts arc' fascinating for many reasons. In a
discussion with a Freire.1n .<.ubtext, she noted that
the c:-rors introduced by both the right :iberalism
a:id the :ef1 liberalism die. not really investigate
things, Instead, they began wi:h a priori conclu-
sions and tr.en attempted to justify them with
dogma or some semblance of empiridsm. More
sped::cally, she saw left-leaninf! study groups as

cogmatists ar.d saw righr-lcaning gm:1ps as po;t
l:oc empiricist. In contr:.~t, she saw evolutionary
CRGs as rnott:d :1; "investigation a[l(: disco,,e,y"
and saw their political agendas as radical.
Importantly, S:arnchild w~s plaing with the poly·
semk ,,. nd hetemglossic meanings of "roof' :u:d
"radical" here. She noted, "V,;e were interested :n
getting to the roots of pmh:cms in sodrty: You
migl:t say we wanted to pul 1 up weeds in gar•
den by :heir roots, 1101 just pick off the leaves at
the top to m.ikc things look gooc momentarily"
(p, 144). So, althoJgh these CRGs were intensely
personal, :he personal was always de;1loyed in the
service of larger theoretical ;,ol::kal agendas.
In r:1any res,>ecls, the CRGs of scrnnd-wave
feminisr.1 helped set the agenda for a whole gen-
eration of fo:ni nis: ;:cl'.vism, As Ebenste' n ( 1984)
noted, :hesc groups hd?cd tn brir:g personal
issues in womer!s live-s to the forefront of pol!tlcal
discourse. Issues such as abortion, incest, sexual
molestation, and domestic and phys!cal abuse
emerged from the~e grnups as pressing social
fa sues around which public ;>olky and lcgi slatim1
had to be enactre. lmpor:antly, these issues had
preYiou~ly been considered to be too pr:rsmrnl
and too intensely idiosyr:cratk to be taken scri•
ously by men at the time, whether faey were
schob1rs, political ac:ivists, politkia r:s, ur the lik.::.
By finding out which issues were most pressi:lg ir:
wumer;s lives, CRGs wee able to adv,mce w'lat
had µreviously been considerecl :nd ividual, psv·
cholog:,al, and private matters to the agendas
locai collectives and eventually to social and polit•
:cal agendas at regional and natimia'. :evds.
Like the work of Freire and Kozol, most focus
grm,? work withir. second-wave fem lnist qualita·
tive inquiry has recognizrrl the cm:stirn:ive power
of sp,1cc a!1d place. Groups are typically held in
fa:uiliar sctti ngs ,uch as kitc.hens, church base·
me1:ts, senior citizens' ..:in ing or living rooms, and
women's shelters. .Madrh: (20()()) noted, "Csing
p,,rticipants' fam ,: iar spaces further ditfu,es the
power of ,he researcher, decreasing the possibiE-
lies of 'otherizat:on"' (p. 841;.
In addition to the ~econd-wave feminist work
that was pri:na:ily theoretical and poEtical, there
was a large body of work that was quite p:w;tical,
focusing largely on hov, 10 conduc: CRGs. In other
Kam:icrclis & Dim ibmlis: Forns G~oups 1111 895
words, disrourses on me:hoc were part anc parcel
of the 1111werm:nl. Xot surprisingly, these dis•
mu rses nearly always display,·d a ;muds orienta•
tion-t he articulation of :hcory ai:<l p:a.ctke for
social and political change. :vin:-eever, careful
a:tention was pctid to :ss·.ies of power, espeda lly
with re; pect lo micropolitici re1ations fruit
seemed lo represent i11terr•al ·'"'·"" to the poten-
tial for second-wave fcminis:s to produce effective
histor'cs. The ideal rnmposirion of Cl{Gs, liir
exam ?k, was heavily debated. How hom(lgeneous
or :1ete~ogrneous. should they be? How large
s:m·Jld the grrr,ips be to be :naximally effective?
How ce:ilralizcd or ,:ecer:tralized should group
leadership be? Should the group~ be "s inglc•
scxed;'with syr.1parhetic men doi:1g other kinds of
work in other context,'
Much thought and cfftirt were also de,•oted
to developing "manuals" for women who w,m:::d
to develop and maintain C:I.Gs frum the gmum:
·c1p. Tl:e Cape Cod Women's Liberation i1fove1m:11t
( l 972 ), for c:xample, distribuied a ?amphlet ~:iat
advised the following:
L Ym: ::,ight start hy disrnssing something
nnr has rcaJ, lo n;•cr Lh,:: inltia: awkwardness.
IL Try talking abou: what each woman imaginrs
feminism to be. Or wha; each ex.p,•cl s-hopes and/
or 'i:111rs--tn out of the grnup.
llL l'ernmial histDries tan be sl,ared. wha: each
womm docs, her Iivi ng sitmu ion, hew long £he has
been interested, and h,iw c<ach found om about
group.
IV E~ch woma:: can briefly dc:;cri'lc her bac~-
o:uund, We all ha,~ childhoods: t::c,·' infkcncd
0
us but arc less t:irrntening to di~russ than recent
:::vents.
VWhatevn we st.. ~t with, n:ic simple method is t,,
"gp around lhc room:· Each wom,m ta:ks in :um.
Thit way no unc is passed over. It is vitally impor-
tam :hat every woman
V:. After lhe :i rot meeling, you want to
c::uosc toph:s in ad,;ancc, Sott:e group, du; some do
not Yoe: might 1,rnreed by ''going around" and see
ing 1vhal people need \0 discuss that evening. You
might discuss some extcr:ial evfnt that relates to
women,
896 D HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 35
This pamphlet also discussed several obstacles
and ways of overcoming them such as what to
da when some women dominate the group or
threaten each other and how to pru7ect each
other's privacy. The overa] goals of pamphlets
and flyers such as this were lo build theory from
the worr:en's lived experiences ar:d to articulate
this theory with contemporary political agendas
in ways that would promote equal rights for
women under the law.
I.ike many collective efforts, the CRGs of
second-wave feminism had some limitations. As
Eisenstein ( 1984) noted, fur example, these groups
often operated u:ider the co:islrain:s of what
called "false universalism:' In other words, these
groups often purported to speak for all wome:1 in
unproblematic ways as if the experiences of white
:niddle-class women were universal. This lim:ta•
lion is common among most social movements
where members tend to be "alike" in many ways
and where rnllectii1e identities need to he overde
termined to amass any political weight. In the
case of second-wave feminism, a primary goal was
"to enable the participant1 to deemphasize their
differences and to focus on the experiences they
had in common. The genernlirntions. of course,
o:1ly describe the experiences of those women
who participated. By and large, these were college-
educated white women" (p.133).
These w1iversalist tendencies alienated many
women of color who saw femini.sm as a "middle-
class white thing;" As Madriz (2000} emphasized,
however, many of the insights and strategies
generated within the CRGs of second-wave femi-
:1lsm could be easily adapted to be relevant to
the desires, needs, and hopes of women of color
and other multiply marginalized groups
women. bdeed, if we map the trajectory from
second-wave to third-wave feminism, we see both
continuities and discontinui:i es.
The next generation of fcrninist scholars and
researchers dd indeed build on and extend the
agendas of second-wave feminism while also
stressing the differences within and between
«groups" of women, T:1e standpoint positions of
African American, Latina, and gay women, for
example, all became pronounced during this
time period. Working within the movement(s) of
third-wave feminism, Madriz (19!:i7) used focus
groups in powerful ways, sm:1e of which an, evi-
denced in her book, Nothing Bad Happen, to Good
Girls. In this book, Madriz discussed the many
ways in which the fear of crime works m produce
an insidious form of social control ove~ wome:i's
lives. Fear of crime produces certain ideas about
what women "should" and "should not" do in
public to protect themselves, enabling debilitating
ideas about what const'tutes "good girls'" versus
"bad girls" and severely constraining the range of
everyday practices available to women.
With respect to research methods, Madriz
called attention to the fact that most resea~d:
findings on wor:1en's fear of crime had previous[ y
been generated from large survey studies of both
men and women. This approach, she arguec,
severely limits the range of thought and experi-
ence that participants are willing to share am:,
thus, leads to unnecessarily partial and i11acc11·
rate accounts of the phenomenon. In other words,
it is hard :o get people-women in particular-
to ta'.k about sensitive topics, such as their own
fears of assault or rape, in uninhibited and honest
ways in the context of oral or written surveys
completed alor.e or in relation to a sir:gle soda'.
scientist interviewer. This general problem fo fur-
ther complicated by differences in power relations
between researchers and research participants
that are a function of age, soc:al class, occupat:or:,
language proficiency, race, and so forth.
To work against the various alienating forces
that seem inhere:it in sr:rvey research and to col-
lect richer and mo:-e volui:1inous ac:cor:n:s of
experience with greater verisimilit:ide, Madriz
used focus groups, noting that these groups
provided a context where women could support
each other in discussing their experiences of
crime as well as their fears ar:d co:1cer:is about
crime. Indeed, these groups do mitigate against
the intimidation, fear, and suspicion with which
many women approach the one-on-one interview.
In the 'NOrds of one of Madriz's ( 1997) particl·
pants, "When I am alone wit:i an interviewer, [ feel
intimida:ed, scared. And if they call me over the
telephone, I never a:iswer the:r questions. Hm\' do

l knm'I what they really want or who they are?''
(p. 165). In contrast, focu~ gniups afford wume:1
rr:t:.ch safer and more supporrh:e contex:s within
which they may exp:ore 1hcir !wed experiences
and the consequences of faese experiences with
otl:er women who will understand what they are
saying intellectually, emoliumdly, and viscerally.
This idea o: safe am: supportive spaces ushers
ir. another important dimension of focus group
work within third-wave feminist research.namely
:he importance of constit'Jting groups in ways
:hat mitigate against aliemdon, create soEdarity,
and enhance comr:mnity buildir:g. To achieve
sud: ends, Madriz emphasized the importance
of crcat:ng 'i.omogeneous groups in terms of
ra,e, class, specific life experiences, and so
forth-all of which are hallmarks of third-wave
feminism.
Bo:h in her owr. work and in her efforts :o
be a spokespe rso:1 for third-wave feminist
approaches to qualitative i:J.q uiry, Madr'z (1997)
oi.::lined a set of attitudes. and practices that
b:.iilt 011 and extended the work of the second
wave, Anong o:her things, she acknowledged
a '.o:ig history of feminist approaches to quali-
tative work grounded within a long history of
"no name" feminist and womar.i st practice,-
''exchanges with mothers, sisters, neighbors,
fr:ends» (?, l 66). She also revisioned focus
groups as vehides for collective testimony, which
offer affordances that help women to get beyond
the social isolation that has hiMorically charac-
terized :hei ~ lives (p. 166). These affordances
clearly grew out of the initiatives and imperatives
of se;;o:1d-wave CRGs already discussed, but they
extended the CRGs. as well. In particular, Madriz
argued that be nonessentiali&t, social construc-
tionist, and (of:en) postcokmial nature of thin:-
wave feminist research projects accounts more
fully for the extraordinary variability that often
exists bct1veen and amo:1g women's experiences
depci:ding on social ?ositior:ing with respect to
race, class. region, age, sexual orier:tation, and so
forth. Third wave feminist researchers, thus,
refracted and multiplied the star.d?oints from
which testi:no:1ies mig:11 flow and voices might
be produced. Although researchers such as
Kamberelis & Dimitriadis: Foes Groups 111 1!97
Madriz held onto the postpositivist ideal of
building theory from lived exper'ences, they also
pushed for theory that acco·.mted more fully for
the local, complex, and nuanced nat:ire of iived
experie:1ces that are always already constructed
within power relations produced at the intersec-
tions of multiple social categories.
In the end, a primary goal of iiKuS group acfo•.
ity within third-wave feminist research is no: to
offer prescriptive co:idnsiom h'Jt rather to high
light the productive potentials (both oppressive
and emancipatory) of particular social rontex:s
(with their historically produced and durable
power relations) within w:1kh such prescr'ptions
typically unfold. [n this regard, the work or Madriz
is a synecdoche for third wave feminist work
more broadly conceived, particularly by women of
color such as Do:'inne Kondo, Smadar Lavie, Ruth
Behar, J\iwa Ong, and lila Abu-Lughod.
Summary
The nature and functions of CilGs w: thin
second- and third-wave feminism offer many
important insights into the potential of focus
groups lo function in fae service of the key
irn;:,eratives "seventh momer.t" qualitative
inqui~y. Build' ng on Madriz's political reading
of focus groups, and more specifically on fae
constructs of "testimony" and "voice,» we high•
light some of these possibilities here.
One key function of focus groups within femi-
nist work has bee:1 to elicit and vaEdate collective
testimonies and group resistance narratives.
These testimonies and narratives have been used
by women-and could be ·Jsed by any subjugated
group-"to unveil specific and littlc-resean:hed
as,)CclS of wome1is daily existences, their feelings,
attitudes, hopes, and dreams" (Mac.riz, 2000,
p. 836). Another key emphasis of focus groups
within feminist and womanist tradit:or:s has been
the discovery or production of voke. Because
focus groups often result in the sharing of similar
stories of everyday experiences of struggle, rage.
and the like, they oflen end up validatin~ individ-
ual voices that had previously been constructed
withb and through mainstream discourse, as
598 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALllATIVI' RESEARCH-CHAP"TER 35
idiosy:1 cratic, sdfl sh, and even ev iL Bccat:.se
focus groups foreground and exploit the power of
testimonv and voice, thev can become for the
' '
overdetermination of collective identity as strare,
gic politiral practice, This overcctermination ere•
ates a critical mass of visible solidari ~y that seems
to be a necessary first step :oward social and
political change.
A major concern of feminfat ~esearchers nas
beer. the moral dUemmas inherent in iotcrvie;,.•,
ing and the researcher's rnk :n the,e cilemmas.
Focus groups mitigate agains: these dilemmas by
creating multiple lines of communication that
help to create ''safe spaces" for dialogue i:1 t::e
w:npany of ot:iers who have had similar !Je
experiences ar.d wl:o are stmggling with similar
issues. In relation to th is point, focus groups can
allow for unique forms 0f ,lccess to the ''r.atuml"
interaction that can occur between and ar., or.g
partidpanls. Becm1se groups privilege
"horiwntal interactio::t over "vc~ical interac•
tion:' they arc also com,tit uted as social spc.ces
that tend to decrease the influer:ce of the
researcher in cont ml Iing the topics a:1d flow ot
ir.teraction. Among other things, this horizontal-
ity increases the potential for reartkulating power
<l ynamics within focus groJp inte:-a~tions in ways
that can lead to the collection of especially rich
information (Le., high ql'.ality data) tnat v,, iil
eventually result in ac.:ounts. that arc replete wifa
"thjck descr:ption and rich in verisimi:itude.
focus groups with ir: feminist a:1d womanis:
traditions have also mitiga:ed against t~e Western
ter:dency to sep11ratc ti: i:1king and feeJ:ns, thereby
O?eni ng up possibilities for reimagining knowl-
edge as distributed, re:a6,r:al, embodied, and
sensuous. Vicwhg '.mowledge in thi~ light brings
in:o view tlic complexities and conrradictior:s that
are always a part of fieldwork, :t also illu:11inates
the re:at:m:s between power and knowkdge and,
thus, insists that qualitativt research is a:ways
al ready politica: implicated in social criti,pe
a:id social change.
Ei:her out :1ecessity o:- for strategic p11r-
fe:n inist work has always taken into account
the co:u;litc.:ive power ef space. lb further work
against asymrr.ct:-ica: power relat:m:s and th.:
processes of "othering:' focus group meetings a:e
nearly alway~ held ii: spaces where wome:,
feel comfnr~ahle, im;xlrtant, arid valida:ed, This
is a piltticu:arly im ;-,ortanl co:1sideration when
working with women who have much to lose from
faeir ?articipa Iion, for example, undocumented
in: migrants ui:d S<H:allec deviant youths.
r:ir1ally, the break fror:1 second,wave to third·
w.:iw: feminism called i:1to question Ihe n:ono·
Ii::ik treatment of difference under the sign uf
"woman" that characterized much of se~ond,
wave thinking and also big:1ligh:ed the impor,
:a nee of creating ''oms groi; ps that a~ relatively
ho:nogeneous in terms uf lift his :orics, perceived
n~cds., desire, rare, soclal class, region, ;,ige, and
so forth because such gnmps are more likely to
achieve the kind of solidaritv and collecti v,; ide:1
'
tily that arc necessary for producing "effective
historie.s:' Although co<1li lion hu::ding across sucl1
rela,ively homogeneous groups uf women may be
impor:a:1t in some instances,fm.used inlell~t!ual
and political work is of:ei: most successful when
it is enac;ed by people with ,im :i,r needs., desires,
st:-uggles, and investments,
'lhgether, the various insights and practices of
CRGs within feminist wo:-k have been invaluab:e
in prupelli11g us toward the scvc tdt moment and
in helping us to in:agine and enact (a) a comm it·
ment to morally sound, praxis,orientcd re3earch,
(b) the strateiiic use of edec6:: constellations of
thror ies, methods, i!nd rcsearc:i strategics; (c) 7he
cultivation of dialogic rcl.donships ;n the field;
( d) :he procuction of polyvoca I nonreprrscota•
tior.al texts; and (d) the conduct of mindfn'.
in,Juiry attuned to what is sacr~d in and a':iout Ii fe
and text
11!1 Focu:; GROUPS .~s RESEARU: PRACTICE
Interest in focus iiroJps. in the social sdcnces
has ;;bbed and fowed uver the course of the past
60 vea:-s or tm. 1:1 1mmv respects, the reallv
' , '
visible use of forns groups for conducting social
science research may he traced back :o the work
of Paul Lazarsfeld a:1d Ro:>ert 1vlertor:. Their focus
group a:iprna~h emerged in 194: as 6e pair

rn1barked on a government -sponsored project
lo assess me(:ia cffecls on aU;tude~ toward
i\mf'ri:-a's involvt;in;;;nt in World War 11. As ?llrt of
their research a: the ( :t,!u:nJia lJ ni versitv Office of
'
Radio Research, Lazarsteld mid Mer:on recrnitcd
groups of people to liM0n Lnd respond to radio
programs desi g n-~ll to hoost 11orn le for tl:e
wnr effort (,\1erlon, I987, p, 5521. Originally, fae
researchers askec. participants :u push buttons to
indicate !heir positive or negalivt: responses to tile
radio programs. Because 1he data yielced from
th;s work could help them to a,1,wer "what" ,JUC5·
tlo:is but nut «why" qucstiuns about part'cipanls'
choices, ,Ile researchers used focus group, as
'!:rums for gctti llg participants to explaii: why
:iu:v respolldec ir1 rhe ways the~· did, Importantly,
l.azars(e . d and MC"rton's use of focus groups as
a qualitative researr'.1 strategy was alwa 1°s sec-
o:1di!f}' (and less legitimate) tbm ;he various
quantitative :nethods uf data cclkct:on and
ana: ysis the rcsean:hcrn deployed. They used
foc:i s groups io cxplorutorv ways :n generate new
questions th.d coulll be used to develop m:w
quantitative strategies or simply te cmT'. :1kmeut
or annotate tl:e mo::e q;,iantitmivc findings of
their researcll, Lum ( 1996) observed that Merto:i
saw "the role the focus groups a~ identitring
tl:e salien: dimension,, of rnn::;lex soc:al stim;,ili
as [a] pre..:ursor ;o forthrr quantitative le~ts''
(p, 81), 'l wu dimensions nf Lazars~ekl and Merton's
rc,ea:-di clforts constitute parl of the legacy of
-:.sing focus groups w: :iin qualitative research:
(a) capmring people's respon~es in real spa:c and
lime i:l con:ext of face-:.o-face inlcraciuus and
(b) strategically "1ocusing" in:erview promµ ts
based on themes that arc generated i:1 :hese face-
lu-fo..:e intera"ions a1,d that arc considered
ticula,ly important to t:ic researchers.
In philosopl:y of s,iem::c terms, the ear:y use of
focus grm:ps as resources for curiducting rescaxh
W<lS quite conse:-vnth:e in nature, This is not .:t all
surprising given that ,he work of L1mrsfold and
Mertnn was fonded by the rr. ilita:y and includi:d
"interviewing &ruups of soldiers in Armv .:amps
about their reso011ses to s~,.:ci:k ira'ning films and
so-called mora,e film," (Merton, 1987, p. :,54).
The:r research also 'ndudcd ,iudics of why people
Kambcrelis & Dimitr',Klis: Focus Groups 11 ~95
made war bond pledges, 'l he goal of much of thiti
wLJrk was to be:te, undcrsta1:d ;,cople'~ ::idiclii
and dcds:01:-making processes so as to deve:op
increa ,ir:gly effective forms of propaganda.
The kind t1f focus gruup research cn:1ductcd
by scholars s.1ch as Larorsfeld and Merton all but
dis appeared within :he fie kl of snriology dur:t113,
the middle part of the 20th cenmry, tmly ;o
reenergc in the ca:ly I 9SOs, par1icularly around
"audience analysis" work (Morley, 19!10). 1Nhen it
did reenwrge, it was no longer wed to-or used
in the service of-predominantly quantitalivc-
or'cnted research, a fact that Merto:1 (: 987)
bemoaned;
I gathc:· ,hat much of t'lc "o,·u,-gr,mp research
today as a growing type of market rcs1.;;1rd1 d,,cs
no; involve this ,nmposite of both qm,li1at1ve ant:
qu anti1,1tiv,! inqu:ry, One i::ains the impression tlllil
focus group :ese,ud1 's heing merdles,ly mi.,11"";
as qu'.ck-and-easy dai:ns for 1hc valit',ily of the
research lt:iatJ are i:nl subjected :o furtha <IU;s:.ti-
tative test, .... For 11;, ,1ualitalivc fornM.xl group
intt>rviews w,•r.: taken as sources of new ideas and
1,c,, hy;m,hcs! es:, not as demonstr31<'1:I t1ndings
with to the ex1cnt and distrfl,mion of :l:e
prnv 'sionally ide nt ifi,x1 qualitative p,ruerm of
r,'sponse. (pp. :,:,,1-::,.::,11 1
Criticisms such as these r:o:withstanding,
audictJCe analysis re.search was decidedly inter-
pretive. Its ?:imary goa'. was :o understand the
complex i,ies invoked in how peo?le understood
and intcrpretec medi~ texts; ils methods were
nearly exdnsively qualitative. 1n contrast to
;.azarsfeki rnd Mer:nn'., work. which focused on
expressed content, audiet1ce analysis researc~cn,
fornscd on gmup dy11ar:1irs themselves, believing
thal tl:c mea11ir:gs oonstructed within grm:ps of
viewers w.:re la:-gely socially constructed.
Janke Radtvay, for example, used focu, g:oups
to great rffoct in pioneering research on :he
reading :iractices of romance novel enthus fasts
that resulted in her hook, Re,1din,~ ,he f{cmiwrce.
Rad way's ( I ) research took place ir: a;1d
around a local books~ore, and her partid-
part, included the store uwncr and a gro·Jp of
42 wom e1: who frequented the store and were
900 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 35
regular romance readers, Radway developed a
mLxed- me:hod research design th at included tex~
analysis and focus group i:lterviews. Assisted by
tl:e store owner ("Dor), Rachvay was able to ta;,
inm the activity dynamics of the existi:lg nel-
wo:ks of women who were ,ivid romance novci
reade,s. These women depended heavily on the
sto,e uvmer for adv ice about the latest novels, and
they interacted with each other as well. Radway
,ir:ip!y "formalized'' some of these ongoing social
!lctivitks to generate a systema:ic and rich store
of information about the socfat drcu:nstances,
specific readng practices, attitudes, reading
prefc:-ences, and multiple and .:ontradktory func•
tions of romance reading among the women she
studied. In this regard, only days after meeting
not for the first time, Radwav "conducted two
four-hour discussion sessions with ' a total of 16 of
Dot's most regular ..:ustomers" (p. 47). Rad.way's
inYoivemem with romance novels and romance
readers further intens'fied as :he study pm-
gressed. She read alt of the books that ~er p~rtic-
ipants were reading, She talked wit:! many of
the participants informally w;:umever shr saw
them at the bookstore. She took her cues about
what books to read and what issues to foct:s dis-
c;i ss!ons on fro:n Dot and the other participants.
Radway (199 l) noted, a:nong other things, the
importance of group cynam!cs in how different
romance novels were intcrp:eted and used. She
also underscored the im;xirtllnce of belonging to a
readi:ig group in mitigating the stigma often asso-
ciated with the practice of :eading romance novels.
Through their collective involvement, Dot and her
cus:omers (i.e., Radway's pa:ticipa:its} created a
kind of solidarity with t'"'"··".u potential. Radway
usec her knowledge of the political potential of
collective activity olrategicaHy in her re;;earch:
lleca:.ise I knew beforehand that many women
are afraid to admit p:.::tercn~~ for ro:rrnntk
novels for fear of be':ig scorned a:; illiterate or
i:m1:oral, I su5pecte;I thitt thr s1re11gth of numbers
r..:ght m<.1ke my informan:s les, reluctant abo11t
discussing tbeir obsession, {p.
Finally, the ways in which Radway positioned
herself within the reading groups were crucial.
She noted, for exam ?le, that when she gently
encoi.:raged participants ar:<i backgro uncled her
own involvement, ·'the conversation flowed more
naturally as t:le participan:s disagreed among
themselves, contradcted one another, and
delightedly discovered that they ~till agreed
abm:t many 7hings" (p. 48).
All of the strategies that Radway deployed
helped to mobilize the collective energy of
:he g:uup and to generate kinds and amounts of
data tna: are often difflcu:t, if not impossible, to
generate through individual interviews and even
obse:vations. In additio!l, these strategies"--and
participa:ion i:i the forn, groups themselves-
helped to build a stronger and more e:fectivc col-
lective with at least local poli:ical teeth. In this
regard, Radway (]991) noted that the women
used romance reading for two primary purposes:
comb,1ti-1e and compensatory. Each purpose is
political in its ow:1 way, and each became unde,•
stood more fu.ly by the women in the context of
their conversations and ~orns group discussions:
It is combative in the sense :i:al it enables them to
refuse tht' ot-:er-directcd socia: role prescrbed for
t::em within the institu:ian of marriage. ,n pkk::ig
up a book, as they bive sr. eloquently told us, they
are refusing 1e:11;iornrily their famil[ies' I otherwise
conslar:t dem2:id they attend to the w~nts of
othe,s eve:1 as they actdeliberaldy lo do something
for their owr: private p:easure. Their activity is com•
pensatory then, in that :t :,,ermits t':em to focus on
thc::is.elves and to carve ,1ut a solitary sp2ce within
an arena where lhc:r se:•-interest 's usw.dy idrnti-
fied with the lntcre.~ts of others and where they are
defined as ii public resource to be mined at will by
the family. (p.211)
The~e two political functions were clearly in
tension at the end of Reading the Romance, and
how this :er:sion might work itself out over time
was left unresolved. lfowever, Radway concluded
her bouk with a hopeful call for prnx:s: "It :s
absoluteiy essential that we who are com :nitted to
social rhange learn not to overlook th is minimal
bt: r:or:rtheless legitimate form of protest ... and
to learn how best to er.courage it and bring it to
fruition" (p. 222).

If the work of Rae.way began to outline the
politkal, ethical, and praxis potential of focus
g1oups within c.ualitat[ve inquiry, the work of
Patti Lather has pushed the "limit cundi:ioru;"
of focus groups about as far as has the work of
anyone in the field of quahative research today,
especially with respect to now foci;s groups can
bring post:oundational possibilities for research
"into the clearing" (Heidegger, 1975). In their
book Troubling the Angel5, for example, Lather
and Smithies (I 997} explored the lives, experi•
ences, and narratives 25 women living with
HlV/ AIDS. Troubling the Angels is a hook filled
with overlapping and contradictory voices that
g~;;;w out of 5 years of fucus g:uup interviews con•
ducted in the context of "support groups" in five
mnJor cities in Ohio:
In the autumn of I'l'l2, we met with o,:e of the
support groups to eiqlore what questions we
should use in the inte,viC'lvs, The women attending
this meeting were spilling over with exdeme:n and
ideas; t''.eir talk became a dialogue of issue~ and
feelings a:id insights. Group process was produ,:ing
a form and level of i:o:labondcn that could r.ot be
remotely duplicated in one•on•one interviews, so
the decision was :nade :o rnaimai r. 6c group
:nat for mtist of the data collection, tp.
La:her and Smithies a'.so met and .:al'...ed with
these women at bi :1:hday parties and holiday gel•
togethers, hospital roon:s and funeral&, baby
showers a:id ?irnics. The participaion frame-
works for interaction changed constantly across
tl:e project. Smithies, fur example, noted t:,ar
group dynamics. were quite unpredictable and
:':lat the V.'Omen often hecame upset or anr.oyed
with each otner (p. 194).
Although much of :his hook is devoted to trou•
hling the waters of ethnographic representation,
the lived experience of cor.ducting fieldwork
primarily through focus groups also troubles the
""aters of resea~ch pnic7ice. In this regard, Lather
and Smithies integrated sociological, political, his-
torical, therapeutic, political, and ;,edagogica1
practices and discourses in their work with the
women ~':1.ey studied.In Lather's (200 l) "oostbook;'
:br example, she claimed to have looked constantly
l<amberelis & Dimitriadis: Focus Groups 111 901
for "tr.e breaks a:id jagged edges of methodologic.il
practices from which we might draw useful
knowledge for shaping present practice, of a
feminist ethnography in excess of our codes but,
still, always already: forces al:eady active in the
p~esent" (pp. 200-20! ). She continued,
The task becomes tu :hrov,, ourselvc-s ~ga'::sl the
stubborn r:1atedality of others, willing to risk loss,
relish'::g the powe~of others to constrain our inter•
pn:!ive "will to know:' saving ·Js from t~e narcis·
sism and its melancholy through ,J:e ,try
positivities that cannot be exhau.,tet1 by us, the
otherr.ess that always exceeds ~s. . . fahnogrnpby
beco:nes a kind of self.wounding la\:ioratory for
discovering the rules which tr;ith is produced.
Attempting to be acc;iuntab:e to :.:omp,cxlty, think
ing the lin::t becomes the ta5k. and m.:ch opens up
in terms of ways to proceed for those who ;c::ow
both tou m11ch and too li:tle. (pp. 202-203)
In th ,s regard, Lather elaborated on times
when her ex,:,ericnce$ with the :iIV /AJIJS·afflicted
women or their sto:ies L)rought her to tears. She
realized, in worlJng with these womer:, that she had
to negotiate her own re~ationship w loss. She won•
dered whe:her and how she coJlc ever do it, and
she sometimes doubted whether she could even
on with the project. In the most real sense, Lather
aune to reaiize the ways in whkh knowledge is
always already embodied-bodily, viscerally, and
materially-and the -:onsec,uences that surh a
realization has for fieldwork and writing.
One of the most interesting sections of Lather
and Smit::ties's (1997) book, for our ?Urposes in
this chapter, is one where the researchers culti•
vated a "metl1odology of getting lost":
Al so:11c level, the book is about getting lost across
the various layers and registers, ahn:a ::ot finding
one's way intu making a sense that maps easily
onto our us11al ways of making sense. Here we all
gc, lost: the women. th" researchers, the reru:lers,
tand j the angels, in order to open up present
frames of k.r:owing to the possibilities of thin~i:ig
di:lerenOy. (p. 52)
Although these reflections refor to the hook
itself rather than to the process of conducting tr.e
902 l!I. llA'.\flBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RF.S!'ARCll-CHAPTcR 35
research that led to the 1,,;riting of the buok, in the
sense that tl:e re:lections index the political and
i;;thical dimensio:1s of all practices and all kr.owl•
edge, they apply equally well to workir:g with
research p.irticip,rnts in the field. f'or example,
1.atheranc Smithies reft:sed to pos::ion t:iemsdves
as gra:1d theoris:s and to interpn,t or explain :he
women's lives to :hem. Instcad, they gm ntrd
weigh: :o 1:ved e~periencc and practb1I con-
sdnu,:,ess by ,: tuat !ng ·n:tl: n,sean;::er a:1J
re,ea,chcd a5 be~rers of lrnowldgc while si multa-
ne,iusly alte:iding to the "price" w,· pay for speak-
ing mt of tli,courses of truth, :tirms of ratio~,ality.
effects i::owledge. :ind refat:,)OS of pt)We:.
(1.ath<'r, 200 I, p. 2
Thmugh their tactical posiLoning. Lather a:1d
Sm:thks challenged the rcse2-rcher's right to
k1,ow and interpret the eJqrrier.res of others
while. at the same time, interrupting an! getting
in the way of 6cir partkipanls' ":tempt:li to nar-
rate their Ii ves through a kind of ir: no cent ethno-
grap'iic realism of voices ~'Peaking for :he:nselves
that induced, among nrl:er things. the construc-
:ion of AIDS as the work of God's wil In this
regarci, Lather and Smi:hies acknowledged
impositiu:is and adrnit:ed th at a difterent kind
of :wo;,,_-a book that may, for example, be sold at
Krr: • rt-might have p:eased faeir participants
more. But such a book would not bwe served the
re.searchers' own desi xs and goals 10 problema-
tizc the practice of qi.:alitative inquiry. In ftc end,
the ·:mok had t,1 ~please" both ,esearchers and
research par:ic;p,mls if only in partial and not
comp'.ctcly satisfying ways.
These various relational anc. rhetorical tru:tks
brir.g to light the very cnm:,iicated and some-
times troubling :nicropulitks that are part and
parcel of research practice in the "seventh
moment;' whether or not we are willing to ''see"
these micropulitics and enact them in our own
work. The wo,k of L.ither and Smithies constantly
reminds us tl:at tl:ere arc no easy separations
between the researcher and the researched and
that research itself is always already :-elatio:rnl,
political, and ethical we:rk. Illere is r.o ?rivileged
place from which to experience and report on
. .
experiences ob'cctivdv-o:1lv' positior.s in
dialogue. The key poiul here is that, more than
:nost other research of which we are aware, the
wori of Lather and Sn~ithies offers us way, in
which to think about research that trnnscends
a:id trai:sfonns the potentials of usi:lg foc:Js
gmups for rev isio:iing epis:er:10.0~:Y, interrogat -
ing the relative p1m;hasc of both lived expc:ience
and rhcory, reimagining ethics within research
practkc, and enacting firldwo~k in ways that are
more at:uned to sacred d: mer.sions. Th is is
difficult and dangc:ous work indeed:
'fhe dar.jlcr is to m,a: knowledge from ,ither., par-
tirnlarly those who have Iii Le ,111d lo L5c ii for
the ,,,.,,,.,,,l, of lhis is rn even when the
in:entlcc. 1s 10 extend :he reach the very
munter-'.<nowledge [on w'·,k:h: the .work] is
based, lhe stories entrusted to those ''wh£1 rn:cr
[such alliancc~I from the ~id,: of pr!vilelle" (l'i,kr,
1996, p. 211] in order to tran;ior:n rhe uh'cuitous
Injustices of :iislory i t·.to a readable plao•.
200i, p. 22 l)
Summary
As wr have demonstrated, focus groups
have been used as instruments of qualitative
i1:qu:ry within several distinct C?istemological
moments-Merton's positivism, second-wave
ni :ical feminism, and ?Oststructural fo:n inism.
And although focus g:1mps !:ave a:ways been
a cril ;cal pmt of c u.ilitative research practice,
their use seems to be erp,mding (e.g., Blom
et aL 200 I; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Morgan, 2000 ).
Among other thing,, foe use of focus groups has
allowed scholars to move away frn:n the dy;;d of
th~ clinical interview and to explore group char-
acteristics and dynamics a~ rele,,ant constitutive
in the cmt,1 ruction of mear. ing and the
;irac:kc of social life. 1:orns groups :iavc a'.su
al!mved researchers '.O explore the nature and
effi:cl~ of ongoing soda! discourSe in that
a,e no: possible through mdiv;dual intervie,11s or
ohservatim:s. Individual interviews strip away
the cri:ical interact io1,al dj'namics tha! consti-
tute much of sodal practice and collective mea;1
ing :iiaking. Observations are a 1:>it of a "crap

shoot» in te:ms of captur: ng tile :'ocu sed activity
in which researchers may he interested. In
contrast to nbservariorn, fo,;us gm ups can be
used strategically to rnl!ivale 1:cw kinds of inter-
.
action al dvnamks am!.. 1hus, accrss to :1ew kinds
ii1forrr.at ion.
For example, a;; Radway (1991) a:1 d Lathe:-
anJ Smitb~s (] 997) showed, focus groups can
·:ic used strategically to inhibit the ,,uthorily of
rc.,earchers and to allow participants to "take
over" and aown" the :ntcrview space. Fm:us
groups are also invalu1:.:ile for promoting among
p<1rL:ip~nts synergy that often leads :o the
unearthing of i:1format:on :hat is seldom to
reach in individual memory. Focus grou;-1s also
fadlitate the exploration {lf collective memories
a1:(: shared stoc'~s of knowledge th111 mig'.,t seem
trivial a1:d unimportant to individuals but that
come to the fore a~ crucial when Hie-minded
group~ begin to reve. i1: rhe everyday. In add itiou,
as was drmonstrated espedal:y in the •tmrk of
R.adwav. (19911' and Lather am! Smithies ( l 997),
gro;.1p, can beco:ne sites for local political
work.. Finally. and pcrhap~ most important, the
work of Lather and Sr:1ithies ::irings to light the
fuctthat focus gmups arc rifo with multiple affor-
dan,'.rs for rnn<l tK Ii ng "seventh moment" quaH-
lative ir.q ui ry that will ht',P i ~ :110,·e th rongh (and
perhap~ beyond) t:ie triple cris's representa-
tion, '.egit ination, and pracxis Il:at has haunted
qualitative work for the past two ce,ades. In this
regard. focus groups can lead tu :he kir.ds of
":irea'.<downs" faat Lather (200l) described and
that Heidegger ;1927/l 962) argued are essential
to genuine understanding. They cm: also serve
as constant re:uinders ,hat researchers should
cul!ivate productive relations amo:1g description,
inteqreta:ion, and explanation :n their work.
And pe;haps most ii:1po:tant, the dialogic possi •
bilities af:o,ded by focus groups help researd:crs
to work aga:niil premature co:1solld1ltio:1 of their
understandings and explanations, thereby sig·
naling the li:nits of reOexivity and the impor-
tance inlellect1:al/ ~ r:ipir ical modc~ty as forms
of e1:1:cs and praxis. Such modesty allows us lo
engage in "doubled practkes" wh,~n_; Wt' Esten to
the attempts of others as they make sense of their
Kambcrdis & rnmitriad i~: :'ocus Groups Ill 903
lives. It also idlows t:S to resist the seductive
qualities (If "too easy" co:1 ,I rue 1, such as "voice"
as we trouble experlence itsel:. which is always
already consli!J :ed within oue "grand nar rntive"
or another (La:her, 2001, p. 218.l. ln lhe end, the
strategic development of focus group Ktivily for
c.m<lucting qualitative inqu' ry foreground, the
possibil:t!' that focus groups ca:1 he key democ-
ratic spaces during an when such spaces are
becoming increas:ngly eclipsed and a~o:nized
(Giroux, 2001: Henaff & Stror.g, 200 l ).
111 A CRITICAL St:M'.i:\RY Of
Focus GROt:PS ;N RF.SEARCH P:\Acncu
Focus grm:? research is a key site ur activity
where pedagogy, politics, and interpretive inquiry
intersect and interanimate each other. On a prac-
t'cal level, focus groups are effidenl it1 the sense
lhat (1,;y gcncra:c large quantities :naterial
from relatively large numbers of people :n a rela-
tively short :imr. l:1 oddition, hec311se of !heir
synergistic potentials, focus gmu ps often pm duce
data that are seldom producec tl:rough indivklua:
in:erviewbg rnd obse:-vation and that result ir:
especially powerful ir.terpretive insighs. l:1 par-
\lcu.ar, synergy and dyuam ism gcrwratc:c
within homogeneous collecl ives o!h:n
unart:culated r.orms and no::mative assump-
tions. They also take the hterpretive process
bevund
, the bo;.1:1ds of individual memorv. and
expression to mine lhe J:i,tnr[cally ,edimenkd
cnllcrtive memories am.: desires. This is one uf :he
reasons wl:y focus J:!rOU o work has bee 11 so w~II
suited :o the kinds of «problem-posing" and
"problem-solving" pedagogies highl:gl::cd hy
F:-e'.re and KozoL "Rcal•world" problems cannnt
be ,olved by individuals a'.one; instead, :h cy
:-equire rich and comp:ex funds of commur:al
knowledge am.I practice.
In ad,~: tion to enhancing the kinds and
an:ou nts of empirical material y:ddcd from qual-
itative studies, focus groups foreground the
unportarn;:e not only of content, bi.:t also of exp~es-
sion, because they capitalize on the rich ncss ar:d
rnmplexil y of group dy i:an:ics. Acting somewhat
904 • HANJBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTE135
like magnifying glasses, "ocus groups Induce
social :n,eractions akin to those that occur in
everyday life but with greater focus. Focus groups,
to a greater extent than observations and indiv:d·
ual interviews, afford researchers acces~ to the
kinds of social interactional dynamics that pro•
duce particular memories. positions, ideologies,
practices, and desires among specific groups of
people.
"staged conversatio;1s;' locus groups are
especially useful to ::esea:-chers who want to con•
duct variollli ;_[nds of discourse analyses such as
those that we discussed tarlier in rela:lon to audi.
ence analysis. Focus groups allow researchers to
see the complex ways in w:iich people pos':ion
themselves in relation to other a.s they
process questions. u;sues, ar:d topics in focused
ways. Tr.ese dynamics themselves become
relevant ''units of analysis" for s:udy.
1:1 addition m inducing simulations of
naturally occurring talk and soda! interaction,
focus groups function to deu:nte, the rule of the
researcher. ks such, focus grnups can facilitate the
democratization of the research process, pmvid•
i:lg participants with more ownership ffver i,.
promoting more dialogic interactions ar:c. the
joint cons:ruction of more polyvocal texts. Tiese
social fads were brnug:1t to light by the feminist
work conducted bv, Madriz, Radwav, , and Lather
and Smithies that we discussed earlier.
Focus groups, while functioning as sites
consolidating collective identities and ei:act:ng
poll tical work. also allow for the proliferation of
mi:ltiple meanings and perspectives as weil as
for interactions 'Je:ween and among them.
Because focus groups put nmlt: p:e ?ers?ectives
"on the table;' they help researchers and research
participants alike to realize that both the inter-
pretatio:is of :ndividuals and the norns and
rules of groups are inherently situated, provi•
sionai, contingent. unsta"::ile, and changeable. In
this regard, focus groups help us to move toward
co:ist:ucting a "methodology of getting lost'' and
toward enacting adoubled practices'' (Lather,
.
2001), which seem to be necessarv first steps . challenged us to avoid what Haraway ( 199 l) called
toward wncucting"seventh moment" quali:ative
research.
• RETROSPECT AND PROS?ECT: Focus
GROt.:PS AS STRATEGIC A:i.T:CULATIOKS
OF PEDAC'.OGY, POLITICS, AN£> l~QUIRY
We conch1de with some conceptual musings on
focus group methodology as negotiated accom•
plls:1mer.t and performative ?fdagogy rooted in
local activi5!ll. Focus groups, we maintain. are sites
where pedagogy, politic:;, und inte:prelive method·
ology converge, providing a wa•• in which ti} 6'.nk
about new ho:iwns in qmtlitative inquiry as praxis•
or'ented anc ethically grounded re'.ational vmr~.
lm?ortantly, oper:ing up focus groups to
genealogical analysis allows us to de~enter nur
understanding of this method aud lo imagine and
enact new uses a:1d functions. Indeed, iflinear or
procedural methodological narratives have but·
tressed positivist and post positivlst approaches
to research, the search for different origins n::akes
us realize that there are no such safe spaces. If
nothing else, Foucault's notion o: geneaiogy
makes us respo:isible for rhe discourses we
inhabit and for the histories we evoke.Broadening
the rar:ge of foc:Js group "referents" allows us to
think through contemporary research praxis in
more expansive ways,
But there are no ready-made answers here.
Ethics ar:d responsibility m.1st guide such a dis•
cussion, one that wholly implicates researchers
every step of the vra}: Th:s :ndudes the ways in
which researchers are positioned wit:iin and
against the groups wit!: which they work lb echo
Fine (1994), ~esearchers today r:n:st "work the
hyphen" in their different roles (e.g., partidpant-
ti':iserver) ar.d responsibilities, a\w,ws 2.cknowl"
edgir.g the roles we inhabit, :r.duding what they
allow ar.d wha: they deny. lr:aeed, accorci:lg to
Pine, researchers mus: actively work against "oth•
ering" in fieldwork (i.e., objecl:vely creating neatly
bounded subjects o:i w:i.ich to report) while a'.so
resisting self reflexivity or navel r11zing (i.e., the
da:1ger oflookh:g inward as a way of avoiding the
ethical responsibility of acting in tl:e world). Fine
the "god-tricks" of "refativisn-:' and "tutalization:'
A~ Haraway wrote, "Relativism :s the perfect twin

oftotalization in thc ideolog:es of objectivity; bofa
ceny the stakes in :ocation, e:n·:mdiment, ar:d
partial perspective'' (p. 191). Location, cmhodi•
ment, and partial perspect: ve are c~itical to the
p:ujecl of fieldwork. accord :ng to Fine.
More recently, Pinc and Weis (1998) ell.tended
these concerns to explicitly address the complexi-
ties political activism am: poiicymaking. ':'hey
ilrgued, "or example, that we n:ust try to "meld
;,,riting about and working with" politically
invested actors in n:on: compelling and constitu-
tive ways (p.277,empha8es i:1 original), Ultimately,
Er:e, Weis, Wessen, and V{cng (2000) demanded
:nat we "think through the pm-.•er, obliga :ions, and
responsbilities of ,ocia 1 :-esearcl:" on multiple
:evels, accoanting for mult:;:i[e cuntexls and
concern~ (p. 103). Se:f-reflcxivity means _1.c.1<:a:,-
ing kinds of responsi'::li:ity for , uch qi.eslium in
social contexts that are always difficult to ?refig-
ure, As Fine ar.d Weis (1998) acgucc,
our ob:igatbn is to come dean "at hyph2n;'
oean:::g that we interrogate in our who
we are as we co-prndru:e the mma:ives we p:es1m:e
Lo "ccllect:'. . A6 pii:I of di5',ission, we want,
!:ere. to try to expfair. how we, a.< re,1'11rd1ers, work
with communitie, to c,1ph:re and huilc: upon
comm .. nitv social n:ov~men:s- (pp.
emphases in original)
This mear.s cxpa:1ding the range of m:es that
we play as researc:,ers, field-workers, and authors
to include political activ'sm and policymaking-
roles that do not al ways map easily onto each
other. There are, in short, no safe spaces fo:- quali-
tative researcne:-s todar. The 1:otion of an
tive and neutral qualitative inquiry has been
decentered, leaving researchers wifa, to echo
Bakhtin ( I993 ), no aUh is for their effectivity in
the f:eld. In the a:iscnce of :oundational claims
and dear splits between researchers and research
participants, what is left is an uncertain land-
scape tr:at asks us-no, drni;u:cs us-to work
with m:r p,,rtidpants m he:;:, make t::eir situa-
tions better than thev, were when wr found them.
"The n:oral imperative of such work cannot :ie
ignored;' L.incolr. and llei:zin (2000) argued. They
added. "We face a choi,:;e ... of declaring ourselves
Kamberclis & Dimitriadis: Focus Groups II 905
committed :o detachment or solidari:y with tr.e
human cnmmw1ity" (p.1062),
Ecnoing Gramsci, we conclude that the "we'
em:,led by focus groups has "no guarantees:'
With no gua:'antees, focus groups must operate
according to a "hermereutics of vulnerability"
(Clifford, 1988). ll:fford developed the construct
nf a hermem:utks of vulnernbility to discuss the
constitutive effects of relations:iips between
researchers and research partkip,mts on research
practice anc. research findings. A hermeneutiCli of
vulnerability foregrounds the ruptures of field-
work, the multiple and co:itradictory position-
ings of all participants, the i:nperfect co:itrol of
researchers, and :he partial and perspectival
nature of all knowledge. Amo:1g :lie p:-imary tac
tics fo~ achie\·ing a hermer.eutks of vulnerability,
according to Clifford, is the tactic of sclf-retlexfr•
ity, which may be understood in at le<l!lt two
senses. In the first sense, self-reflexiv:ty involve~
makir,g transpa rm: the rhetmical am: poetic
work of researchers in representing the objects of
6.eir studies. ln the secomi (and, we tr.ink, more
in:portant) sense. self-:1;:'lexivity to
efforts of researcher& ilnd research participants to
engage in ac, of sel:defamiliari,:abm in relation
to eac:: o:her.
In th is regard, Probyn (I 993) discussed :-tow the
fieldwo:-k experience can engender a virtual trans•
formation of the icentities of:::,o:h researchers and
:c:search participants e,,cr: as they are paradoxi-
cally er:gaged in the practice of consolida:ing
:hcr!'L This is important theoretically because it
allows for the possibility of constructing a :nntual
ground between researchers and research partici•
pant, even while recognizing that the gro~1:1d is
unstable and fragile. Sel:-reflexivi:y ir: this secor:d
sense is also important because ii encot:.rages
retlection on interp~etive research as the dual
practice of knowledge gathcrhg and self-trans-
formation through self-retlection and r:mtual
reflection wi6 :he other, Finally,as Lather (2001)
show~d, ev.:11 self-reflcxiv;ty has serious limits
with reilpect to working against the lriple crisis of
representation, legitimatim:, and ?raxis. l:!deter·
minac:es always remain. Ami allowing oursrlves
to dwell in (and perhaps even celebrate) these
906 Ill HAK)BOOK OF QUA:,ITATIVE IIBS!:ARC!I-C 11Al'TE,i 35
indeterminacies might be the best way of
traveling dowr: the roads of qualitative research
pradice and theory building at this particular
hi~:orical junctme. Agair:, opening t:p to the
unfi11aliza·:11e complexity and heterogeneity of
"others•· within focus group interactions is at least
o:w way of t:aveling down these roads.
8 REFERENC::'S
Bakhtin, M. .',1. ( 19111,). Spen:h genre, and otlrer lair
essr.1ys {V. W. McGee, ·:·rans.). Austin: University of
Pres,.
llakhtin, fv'. .•\1. ( 1993;. 1b·.,,mJ " phil,m,phy of the aa
(V. Liapumiv, Trans.). Aust::1: u~'ve:sity of
l'rcss.
Barbour. R., & Kitzinger, J (1999). lhm:/,Jpirig fi,rns
group research. F,ousand CA:
l:leha~, IL ( 1993 ). 'Ihmslated woman: Cro;;<ing il.e lmnler
with E,;per,;mw', Boston: Beacon.
3loor, M., Frankland, J., Thom11<;, M., & ;{obstm, K.
(2001 ), Pacus "mu,1s i.~ research. Thousand
Oaks, C,\:
" .
3mirdieci, J>, & Wacquant, L. J. n (I ')92). An invitation
ro reflexive sociology Chicago: :Jn ivernity of
C~ icago Pres,.
Cape Cnd Women'~ Libcrnlion Movcm~nL (1972).
Getting tcg,uiier: liow lo start a c(msriou,mss
mf.;ing gr,nq1. IOnline. I Rctrin·ed Ma:ch :o,
200.l, :rorr, hltp:f/rc,ean::h. umb.::.ed~:f -korenma::1
wmst/ crguilk2.htm:
Casali, A ( 2002 ). !'he ap:3lication of Paulo Frein:'s
.cgacy in the Braziliu, educatio:ial conte,t Ta/100,
~/2), 'l-16.
Cliffcn:, J. 11988). '/11e predicament of cufture.
Cambridg~, MA: 11arvard Cniv~rsily
Dekm:c, G., & Guat:ar:, E ( 1987;. ,\ thousand platei.us:
Gipitalism ar.d schizop 1im1i11 (fl. i,fa~sL:'.1:, Trans.).
Minncapoli.s: Unive:,ity uf Minnes:::ta Press.
Dill, B. l: (1994). Fktivc kin, paper so::s, and ccm•
padrazg;;: Wmne~. of color a11d tht struggk for
family survival. In M. 11. Zinn & R. T. '.'lill (Eds.),
Women of mlar in so,·iety {pp. J411 .. J69).
l'hilz.de!p:::a: Temp:e University Press.
Eisenstein, H. (: 984). Cott!empcrary f,m,inisf tlwugf1t.
New Ynrk: Macm ilia n.
Espiritu, Y. L. (1997), A.,ilm 1wm.m ,md mm: Lc,bor,
hms, cmd love. Thousand Oas.s, CA:
l'als Borda, 0. (Ed.). (1983). T/1.: ,hu!/enge of
dumge. f\ever: y Hills, CA: Sage.
M. ( 1994;. Wcrki ng the hyphen: Re: nvrnti 11g self
other i11 qua::tative resea:ch, ln '{ K. De;iiin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Ed,.), Handbo~k of qualita 1m:
n,sea?Yh (pp. 71l-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hne, M., & Wei~, I.. ( 1998). The 1mkrmw11 city:
poor and workir,g-das.- ymmji, a,iul!s. ll~sron:
Deacon,
Fine, M., Weis, L., V\\:ssen, & Wong, L (2000). for
whor::? Qualitative re,ea:ch, representa!:cns, and
social res~on,ihiliries, I:1 Denzin & Y. S.
Linc,:iln {Eds.), Hr.ndbock of qm1/i1atlve resc,m·h
(2r.d ed., pp, I07-13 I). Thousmd Oaks, CA:
Ffake, J.11996). Black bodi1.-s of knowledge: Notes 0:1 at:
effective history. Cullural Critique, 33, 185-212.
Fonrnna, A., & crey, /. (2000). The inl~rv,cw: l'rnn:
st rue tu rec· ,: urslions w ncgotialec text In N. K.
Denzin & r. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbcok cfquuli-
lative research (2nd ,xi., ;::p. 64'>-672). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
fout,;;;h. M. (1977). Discipline and punish: 7111' birrl;
11{ lhc {lfiHm (A. Sht:ridan, ·11an,.). New York:
Vin tag~.
l':,~rnc1h, M. ( 19!10). J'o1,:,~/Knmeledxe: Sciected
l'ie·.,s 1111d mhcr wrirfngs. (C. r;,mlon,
L Marh,111, J. Mepham, & Tran.,, J.
N.:w York: l'antheim.
Foucault, M. ( 1984 J. Nietz,che, ge11eal11gy, :1istc.~y. b
!~ 11.ahinow [Ed.), !'hr Foumulr r.:adrr(11;,. 76-100).
New York: Pantheon Books.
l'rei:·t, I' (1993(1970}. Pedagogy of Ihe ,ippressed.
New Yo:k Continuum.
Gere, J\. R. ( Ig~7). Wnti11g grwps: Hi;•J'iiry //ieory, ,md
implicatio11s. Carbond,1'e: Sm, :hem Illinois
Universitv; Pr~ss.
Gilkes, C. T, 1: 994\ it wasn't for tl:e l'l'Olllcn ... ";
African American women, communil y work, ~nd
sod.ii change. In M. B. Zim: & B. T. Dill (Eck),
Wome11 ~f cofor in L'.S. sotiiuy 2211-246).
Philadebhfa: Tem?lc lJnivcrsit y Press.
Giroux, H. (2:ic 1). Publi.: ;pacrs, pri~ate Heyl!l,d
1he ,:u/111re (!{ •J!•,il:i,m. LanhJm, MD: Rowman &
Littlc!:dd.
Hara,vay, D, (1991). Simian,, cyborg,, and women.
Lo:idon: Ro·~tkdgc.
H,•id,'ggcr, .'vi. ( 1%2). Being ,md time (I. Macqua~rie &
E. Robinson, Trans.). San l'n:mdscn: Har;,er.
(Origi::al work p:.iblished in 19271
Heidegger, 1\.I. ( I'ff5 ). l'oetry. iang11ag1:, and timught
(A. llof.,tadter. Trans.;. '.llew Ynri<.: Perennial.
lle::aff,M.,& ~tm::g, T. (2001). Pub/le space and demo.:-
racy. Mi1111eapnl:s: U11iven;ity ofll.fomesota

Ka:7,bere'is, G., & Dimitriadis, G, (2005). On qua!iia1tve
ina,,ir,: New York: Colum :iiu Gniversitv, Teachers
' .
College Pres~,
'
Kor,01, ;. {l 985 ), Jilit,mue America, New fork: fumt: om
House.
Kozol, J. (: 991), Savage inuqua!iries: Children in
America'.: sch~ols. New Y,1rk: Harper Pc:1·emu.:,
Krueger, A. (1994), group.,: A praciicc./ guide
far applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA:Sage.
Lather, P, (2001 ). l'ostbook: Working the ruins o: femi ·
nist ethnography. Signs: Joumaf vf Women in
C11Jl11re and Soc,,ety, 1), 199-227.
Lather, P., & Smithies, C ( 1997 ). Troubling rhe angels:
1,1/omen living wirh HJ VIA.IDS. Boulder, CO:
Westvlew.
Lincoln, Y. & Denzin, N, K. (2000). The seventh
moment: Out of :he past. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lim·oln :Eds.), UandbMk of quafitat1ve
research (2nd ed,, pp, I047-1065). Tb.1usand Oaks,
CA:Sagc.
Lunt P, ( 1996). Rethink :ig focus groups in med:a and
cn:nmunicalions :-esearch. Journal of Communi-
46( 2), 79-98,
Maertz, E. (1997). Nothing bad hoppens to good girls:
Fear of crime in womens lives, Berkeley: lniversi:y
of California P:-ess.
Madriz, Ii. (20GO). Focus groups i:: femini,t research.
I:: N. '<. Demil1 & Y S, l ,i nml 11 ( Eds.), Uat1dbook
Kar::berelis & Dimitriadi;: Focus Groups • 907
,j" qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. l!J;i-!150 ).
Tr:ousaml Oaks, CA:
Merton, R. (1987\, 11:e "ocu.ed group interview and
fucus gmu;:,s: Continuities and c: scontinuitie,s.
P11blic Opinian Quartai)I 550-566.
Morgan, D, L {1998 ). The JiJcus group guidebook.
Tb;usand Oaks, CA:
;;•!organ, D. L, (2000). i'oc>Js group in!crvicwir.g, :n
f, G'.:bri·Jm & J, Holstein (Eds.;, Handbook ofinter
vfew research: C:,m,ext and method (pp. 141-160),
Thcusand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Morie,, 11 O980 ). The ''nationwide" r,i,dienu, London:
British Film lmtitute.
Pmbyn, E. {1993). Sexing t~e self Gende'Y!d position; in
cultural studies, New York: Routledge.
Radway, ;. 0 991 J, Rea,fo1g the rom,u1ce: ,~om.en,
patriarchy, and _tmpular literamre. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press,
Sara=hild, K. (1978 ). Consc:ousness-raising: A radi:al
weapon. ln Rec,>;tock:ngs uf Women's
Libt!'ation Mcvement (Eds.), 1'emiriist re110lulion
(pp, 144-150). Ne'I'>' York: Random ,fot:SI'.
5ehens11I, /. J., "..cC.omp:e, M, D., :-lastatsi, B. K., &
llorgat:i, S. P. (1999). Enlu;r;ced elh,wgraphir
method;: Audiav1Sual 'ecimiques, focused group
interviews, and efit'itotimi tuh11iqurs. Walnut
Creek, CA: AlrnMira.
Part
--------------------'nf'!!x§01tH$.fdi,ftM?:tZY'.'.,
THE ART AND PRACTICES
OF INTERPRETATION,
EVALUATION, AND
REPRESENTATION

I
n co:wentional lerms. Part V o: the Handbook 1he terminal phase of qualitative
in,1uiry The researcher or evaluator 1:ow asse&,es, analpes, and interprels the cm?ir•
ical :nateria'.s that have h<'eJ: collected. This process, cor.ventionally conceiveJ, inp'.e•
ments a set of analytic procedures that prodace intcrpretatiuns, wl1ich are then integrated
in:o a heory er put forward as a se: of policy m.,munendations. The rcsu \ting interpreta ·
tio:is are assessed in terms of a set of criteria, from the positivist or postpositlv ist tra<l: :ion.
i:1duding va]dity, reliabiE:1, ,md objcdivity. Those interpretation, that star.d up to scrutiny
are pm forwan: as :he fl nding;; of the rt-search.
The cu:itribu1ors to l'art V explore the art, pmc:iccs. and politics uf i11tcrprctation,
eval1u:ion, ai:d representation. In so doing. tl,cy retu,n to rhr themes of Part I that is,
asking how tlu, diswur,;es ,if' crualitative research can be used to help crerite mui imagine a
free Jemocrnlic sod,:t)( In rcturnii:g to this question, it is understood tl:at the proces.sc,
of anaiysis, cv,\luation. and intc,prelahun are ;1 either terr:1:nal nor mechanical. They arc
;ike a dance, to in\·oke tht: rr.ctaphor used by Valerie Janesick. This dance is in::'tmned at
every step of :h,' way by a co:11 rnitment w this civic agenda. The processes that defim: the
practices of interprrtidon and representation are always Gngoing, 1:mergs::1t, u:ipre-
dk:ahle, and unfinished. They are always c:nhecded ir: an ongoing histo,ica. and polit:cal
_;ontcxt.As argued thrcJJghm:t this volume, in the t:ni:ed States, neornnse;vative discourse
in the educational a:en.' (e.g.,No Ch::d Lert lkl:ind,:'Jatio11al Research Counci:) privilcg<'s
experimental criteria in the fonding, implementation, and evaluation of scientific inquiry,
Many of the mitl:nrs ir. :his volume observe that this creates a chilling di mate fur qua'.ita-
tive inquiry. We heg:n by a,scssi:1g a :mmber of criteria that have been traditionally (a&
well as recently) used to jm!ge tr.e adequacy of qualitative research. These criteri,i l:uw
from the major ?aradigm~ r:ow operating in this field.

11 ':109
910 111 HANDBOOK OF QI;ALITATTVE RESEARCH

Ill RELATIVISM, CRITERIA, A)ID Pourrcs

John Smith and P:1il Hodkinson (Chapter 36) remi:ld us that we live in an age of relativism,
In the social sciences today, there is r:o longer a God's-eye view that guarantees absolute
methodological certainty; to assert suth is lo murt embarrassment. Indeed, a,; Guba
and Lincoln discuss in detail :n Cha;iter 8 (Part 11), there is considerable debare over what
constirntes good interpretation in qualitative research. None:he'.ess, there seems to be an
emerging consensus that all inquiry ret1ects the standpoint of the inquirer, that all obser•
vation is theory lac.en, and that there is no possibility of theory-free knowledge. We can uo
lo:1ger think of ourselves as neutral spectators of the social work.
Consequently, as Smith and Hodkinson ohserve, until i:; u!te recently :ew sp,1ke in tem1s
of foundational epistemologies and on:o:ogical realism. Before the assault of methodo-
:ogkal conservativism, relativists would calmly assert 1hat r.o method is a neutral tool of
inquiry, hence the notion of procedural objectivity co·Jld not be sustained. Anti-fuunda-
tionalists thought that the days of na'lve realism a:1d na'ive pusitivism were over, In t:1eir
place stand critical and historical realism a:1d various versions of relath·ism. The cr:teria
for evaluating research had become relative, moral, and political.
However, events during the past 5 years, lndudi ng governmental attempts to mandate
research criteria in the United States and the United Kir.gdom, have cisturbed this situa-
tior.. Power and politics now play a major part in discussions of c,iteria,
Extending Smith and Hodkinson, there are three basic pos::ions on the issue o:'
evaluat:ve criteria: foundational, quasi-foundational, and nonfoun<lational. There are still
those who think in terms of a fouruiational e;,istemology. They would apply the same
criteria to qualitative research as are employed in quantitative inquiry, contending
there is notning speda; about qualitative research that de;nands a special set of evaluative
criteria. As indicated in our :n:roduction to Part E, the positivist and postposit:vist para-
digms apply four standard criteria lo disdplined inquiry: interna'. validlt y, external valid-
ity, :-el'.abil:ty, and objectivity. The use of these criteria, or tne:r variants, is con~istent wi6
the foundational position_
In contrast, qua,i-foundotlonalists approach the criteria issue fro:n the standpoi:1t a
non-naive, neo•, or subtle realism, Tl:ey con:end that the discussion of criteria must take
place with ir: the context of an ontological :ieorealism and a const;Uctivist epistemology,
They believe in a real world t:1at is independent of our fallible knowledge of it Their con-
str:ict ivism mmmlts the:n to the position tr:at there ca:i be no theory-free knowledge,
Proponents of the quasi-foundational position argue :hat a set of criteria unic;ue to quali-
tative research needs to be developed. Ham me:-s:cy (1992, p. 64; 1995, p. 18; see abu
Wolcott, 1999, p. 194) is a leading proponent of this position. He wants to maintab the cor-
respondence theory of :rut:! wh lie suggesting that researchers assess a study in terms its
ability to (a) ger.erate ge:1eric/formal theory, (b) be empirically grounded and scientifically
credible, (c) produce findings tl:at can be generalized or transferred to other seUi11gs, and
(d) be internal Iy reflexive in terms of taking account of the effects of the researcher ar.d the
research strategy 0:1 the f:ndings that have been pmdured.
Hammersley redi.:ces his criteria to three essential terms: plausibility (is the claim
plausible!), credibility (is the claim based on credible ev:der:ce?), anc re;evance (what is
the claim's relevance for knowledge about the world?}. Of course, these terms r1:quire sud al
judgments. T:1ey can nnt be as;;e~sed in lerrn, of any set of external or foundational
ria. Their nean[r.gs are arrived at through consensus and disa1s,ion in :he scientific
 !'art V: lnterpretaum, £valuation, and Representation 111 911

community. Within Ha:nmersley's model, tb:re is no satisfactory method for resolving this
issue of how to evaluate an empirical daim,
For the nonjoi.nd.. ticmalists, relativism is not an issue. They ,.-.-a"' the argument that
there is no theory-free knowledge. Re:ativisrn or uncertainty is the inevitable conse•
tjuence the fact that, ,1, hnnans, we have finite knowledge of ou:-selves and 1:1e world
in which we live, Nonfoundationalists contend :ha: the i:1:unction to pursue knowledge
cannot be giver, epis:en:clogic~Jyi rather, the h:ju:1ction is moral a:1d politkal.Accordingly,
criteria for evaluating qualitative work are moral and fittec to the pragmatic, eth-
ical, and politic al contingencies of concrete situJ: :ions, Good or bad inqdry in any given
ronrex: is assessed ir: terms of criteria sud: as thuse outlined hy Creenwood and Levin
iChapter 2 ), l'he and Weis (Chapter 3), Smith (Chapter 4), Bishop ( Chapter S), and
Ch::istians ((hapter 6) h Part I; G'.!ba a:id Lincoln (Chapter 8 i:1 P.art II); Kemmis and
McTiggart (C:1apter 23 in Part III); and Angrosino (Chapter 28 in Part IV), These are :he
criteria :hat no,., :mm a fc:uinist, comounitarian moral ethic of empowerment, commu-
n:ty, and moral solidarity. Returning w Christiai:s (Cha pier fais mo:al ethic calls for
research rooted in the concepts of care, shared governance, neighborliness, love, and
kind:iess. Furthern:ore, tl:is work shou!d provide the foundat:ons for soda! criticism and
social action.
In an ideal world, the anti- or nonfoundational narrative would be: uncontested. But
today ln the United Slate, :me tl1t: United Kingdom, as Smith and Hodkinson observe,
opponents are embrac' r,g "more cudely empirkil;t procedures, even the experimental or
quasi-experimental procedures common to the natural sciences:' There :s a co:1certed
effor: by government.11 regimes to reform re~earch. This is disconcerting, all the m,;re so
when social scientu;ts collabor-a~e in the r1,ni,,rt Dark are ahead of us.

Ill E:-.1A:i:CIPATORY 0JSffllfRSES AND

THE ET111cs AN!l Po:.:rrcs OF hrERPRETATION
\Jorn:a::i Denzin's (Chap:er 37) contr:'mtion invites indigenous and nonindigenous
;,;ualitative researchers tu take up an emancipatory discourse, connecting indigenous
episternologies aud theories uf dacolonization with crit:.::al pedagogy,and a global decol-
onizing disco'Jrse. Advocating the nse of critical pe,sor:al narrat:ves, IJenz'.n encourages
the development of a postcolonial indigenous participatory :heater focused or: racism,
:nequality, memorr, and cultural loss.

• WRITl:'JG: A M.Ll!Ol} Of lr,QUIRi'

Writers interpret as they write, so writ:ng :s a form of inqu'.ry, a ·war of making sense of
:he world, Lai.:rel Richar<l son and E(faabeth Adams Pierre (Chapter 38 l explore new
writing and inte:-pretive styles that follow from the nar:-ative literary tun: in tl:e
sciences, They call these different for:11s of writing CAP {cr~ut:ve analytical prncess<:s)
ethnography. 'Their c'12p:er is divided into three par:s. Part 1, authored bv Richardsor:,
explores these forms. !n Pa,t Pierre provides an analysis of how writi:lg as a method
of inquiry coheres with be developme:it of ethical selve;.. In Pa:t 3, Richardson provides
some wrilin<i practices and for the qualitative writer.
912 • HANDBOOK OF QUA:JTATIVE RESEARCH

New forms include au:oetlmography, fiction stories, poetry, drama, performance texts,
?Olyvocal texts. readers' tl:eater, responsive readings. aphorisms, comedy and '"""~,visual
p:-esentations, rnnversation, layered accounts, writing sto,ies, a:1d mixed genres.
Richa,dsor. discusses in deta'l one class of cxpcri rr.cntal genre iliat she calls evocative
,cprcscntations, Work in this genre indudcs narratives of :he self, writing stories,
eth::ographic fictional rep;:esentations, poetic representation, e!hnographk drama, and
mixed genre5.
The crystal is a central image in Richardson's text, and she contrasts it with the
triangle. Tmditional postpositivis: research has relied on triangulation, inc~ud ing the u ,e
of mul:iple methoc!s, as a method of validation. The modd implies a fixed point of
reference that ~an be tria:1g~1'.ated. Richarc.son illustrates the crystallization process
with excerpts fror:i :1er re,.:ent book with Ernest Lock ridge.
Mixed gen re texts do not tria ng:.il ate. The ccnlra: image is I'le crvsta:, which "com bi :1 es
symmetry a:1d s·Jbstancc wirh ,m infi r:itr variety of sha ?Cs. substances, transmutations,
, .. and angles of approach:' Crys:als are prisms that rellecl and refract, creating ever-
changing :ma,gesa11d pictures of reality. Crystallization decorstruds the traditiona: idea of
validity, fo~ now can be no single or triangulated truth.
Richarc,nn offers t1ve criteria for evaluating CAP ethnography: ;;u:islanlive contribu-
tion, aes:netk merit, reflexivity, impactfulness, and ability :o evoke lived experience.
mnc:·c1des with a list of w,it'ng practices-woys of using w:iting as a method of knowing.
St. vi crrc troubles conventional understandings of et:, ks. Drawing 011 Derrida and
Dckuzc, siie places ethics ender decons:ruction; "What hap:iens when we cari:io; apply the
rules?" We mu.st not be unwortl;y of what happens to us, We slr'Jggle to be worlhy, to be
willing lo be worthy.

II A!',lTHROPOl.OGICAI. POETICS

Anthmrofogists have been writing cxpcri mental, iitc,ary, a:1d poetic ethnographic texts
for al least 40 years. I11 this part, three different forms of poetics arc rcprcscn:cd. lva n Hrady
{Chapter 39) writes poetkally about method, about a way of getting to know place, by
tl:eir effec1s 011 our personal experie:1ce, He bvokes the enviro:1:11e:11a: poe:s, offering a
prolegomena to a poetics place,
Using the literary poetic form, llrady enacts a moral aesthetic, an aesthetic :hat aJows
l:itn tu say new things a::mut place, space, wild sm,ce,,.beings, self, nature, identity; 1:iean-
ing, and life on th is th~emened plane:. In so doing, he pushes the boundar:es of artfu: dis
course, Th1:s are the boundaries between the humanities and fac human sciences blurred.
In this blu rri:1g, our moral sensibilities arc cnliv;:;ncd. We arc able to Imagine new ways of
being ourselves i:1 this hrwildc,ingly comp:cx world called the present.

ml CmlURAL PoEsrs

In a chapter that defies descriptlun, Stewart ( Chapter 40) ofters a piece of imaginative
writ'ng grounded in the poetics of ordinary things. She gives t:s provocation;., glb1psrs
out of the corner of tbe e11e, a montage, a iactured text, cultural ;1m:s1s during times uf
violence, and loss in U.S. pi.:blk culture, a roller-coaster ride th:uugh somebody's
 Part V: lnterpre:at:on, Ewluation, and Representation Ill 9 t:I

dreamland, ordinary lile somewh,ne, games, eating in, walking the dog, shopping, raking
tl:e yard, political posters in the front yard, a plas:ic J;;:sus, a shr:ne, yellow ribbons.surging
bodies, the train screaming out a warning, nothing adding up to anything except sur:1e of
us starting to lose hope yesterday.

Ill INVESTIGATIV:: POE'IICS

Stephen Hartnett and Jeremy Engels (Chapter 41) offer a poetics witnessing, an ana m
time of war. In so doing, ,hey respond to the call of Ralph Wr.ldo Emerson, who demanded
that a puef should strive toward becoming ",he knower, the doer, am:: the S-a)Tr." Bui;di ng
on Emerson, they advocate an investigativ,.; poetics, a "combination of serious scholarship,
passionate activism, and experimental representation:'
Hart:iett and Engels w~ite to offer a poetry that j)roblematizes politics, that bears
witr:ess to the ways in which social structures :are er:1bodied i:i lived experience, a poetic
o:
that :':mctions as a genealogical cri:ique power. Their essay unfolds in four movements,
going from the political poetry of Carolyn Forche and Edward Sanders to a discussion of
social justice d:scO"Jrae in the humanities. T:iey ther: ,~iticize the movement known as
etbnopoetks, concluding with a positive discussion of the political poe:ks of John Dos
f'assos, Carolyn Fon:he, and Peter Dale Scott.

11!1 QcALTTATJVE EvALllATm~ AKD Ctl."-NCl:-JG Soc:tAL Poucr

Program evaluation, of course, is a major site of qualital:ve research, (Earlier Handbook
,hapters by Greenwood & Levin [Chapter 21 in Par: I and by Stake IChapter 17],
Kemmis & McTaggart IChapter 23], and Miller & Crabtree :C:hapter 24 I in Pa~t III estab-
lished this fact.) Evaluators are interpre:ers. Their tex,s tell stor:es. The.so stories are
inherently moral and political, 5:arting in 1965 and moving to the present, House
(Chapter 42) offers a sobering historical analysis of qualitative evaluation and changing
soda! policy He observes that the field has moved fro:n faddis:i exper:me:ital ar:d qi.:ar.•
titat:ve eva'.uation studies ( 1960s), to small-scale qualitative studies, :o meta-a:ialyses
and program :heory. A move from a model of value-free inquiry to commit:et social
justice projes:ts, and ':iack again, is also part of th is history. During the 1980s, evaluation
moved away from "quantitative methods and value-free studies toward mu\tiple method-
ologies and qualitative studies focused on stakeholders, social j'Jstke issues, and partic-
ipatory techniques;'
Neoconservatives 1,iewed sud: wo:l as too permissive and argued against it. Si nee
Se;,tember l l, 200L, a r:eoconservative fundamentalisr:1 has :aken hold of federal polky-
from foreign affairs, to domestic afai:s, ,o evaluation itself. President George W. Bush's
neofundarnentalism taken the fo~m of methodological :undamentalism in the f:eld of
evaluation. As argued previously, federal agencies that sponsor evaluation have «aggres-
sively pushed the concept of'evidence-:Jased' progress, policies, and progran:s:•
The co~e of this belief is the argument that research and evaluation r:rnst be sdenti'.'ic,
that is, based on randomized experimental designs. This method of inquiry is wriUcn iulo
federal legislation! The Btsh educational policy thus implements fo'Jr concepts: account-
ability, opt:ons for parents, local control, and evidence-based instructior..
'>:4 111 HANDBOOK Ol'Q:JAUTATIVE RSSEARCH
Yhe use of the medical model of evidence-based inquiry is predicated on the be'.ief that
education is a field fads; the failure of ot1r schools reflects this. In rnnlrasl, medicir:e, with
its randomized field trials, has made slgni:icant progress [n inproving human health.
Education should do the same. Of course, many of the fads education have been inA?i,ed
by rnnserva:ives-vouchers, charter schools, acco~ntabifay through test scores. Medicine's
prngres~ can be attributeJ to breakfaroughs in allied ficlcis, not randomhed :rials.
And so the field rnmes f-Jll cirde. We are l1ack lo tht· exp er: men:al 11:odds the 1960s.
Do we have the courage to Mand up to this conservative assault?

Ill C0Ncu1s10NS

The cb1pters in ?ut V affirm our position that qualitative research hr,s rnme o~ age,
M:iltiple discourses now sur'Ound rnpk, that during earlier historical moments were
contained withn the broad g,asp ways the positivist and postpositivist epistcmolo-
gies. There are now r:ia:iy in which to write, read, asses,, evai·Jate, and apply qualit,itivc
researd1 texts, Even so, there are pr.:ssurt:s lo lllrn back the dock, ';"his complex invites
reflt'xive appraisal, hence the tupk uf Part Vl-lhe future of qualitative research.

Ill Rt!:< E;{l!:,;CES

lfommcrslcy, rv:. (1992). Nhats ·,,mmg wirh et/;nogruphy? London: Routledge.
Hamme~ ley, W. ( 1993 l. The pllliti,s af ,11nal re~earclt London, Sage.
Wol:·011, H.F. (1999), P.,imagraphy: A wa7 of seeing. 'Nalr:ul Cn,"ek, CA: Alta.:v1i:-a.
36
RELATIVISM,
CRITERIA, AND POLITICS
John K. S1nith and Phil IIodkinson
I n a ..:ha;Jter tha: one of th,, authors (John
Smifa) wrote w'th Deborah Deemer on
criteria for _judging social a 1:,: educationul
re~earch for the secm:c edition of this Hanab,wk,
(:ic of power and criteria was briefly rr.cn-
1iorn,d, Sir. ith and DeeG: er (2000) said that they
were not so naive as to claim thal r1nwer, and by
extcns:or: (but umncmioned) politics, could ever
·::.e eli1r:ia,:ted from j1.:dg:ne:1ts about the quality
"f research as tlu::sc judgments arc played out
in 11 soc:al context Citiug Hazelrigg (1989),
they added that there was no point in rn,'::,rac-
ing some sort of a romarnidzed '' ii:tellectualized
flight (ror:1 power" (Smith & Deemer, 2000,
p. 202). In fact, ,ilfao.1gh they did not say they
cerhiinly could have added there is noth:ng
wrong wifh politic5 and fae cxerd:;c of power per
se in rhis b51aoce or in other i:1stanccs. The cen-
tral hsuc has bce:1, and remains, about how the
political process operate.'!, how power is ,.w•r~·<<"rl
ar:d what those ;:iartidpating in the prucess
desire.
Hfmuse of cer:ain events owr tlu, past few
rears, including governmental attempts to man-
da:e research criteria in bot:1 the United States
and the Unitcc Kingdom, ii is dear that the rela-
tionship of power, politics, and criteria must
discussrd at much gre:.:~r length, ln thi-5 chap:er,
we elaborate on the~c is,ues.
The starting poi :11 fur our discussicn is a
reih:ralion of the main conclusion that Smith c:1d
Deemer (2000) reached in the secor,d rd:tion af
the Handbook: We have come to the end of our
attempts. to sr..:ure an c11istemological foundation
for uur k1:owkdgr and mu~t acknowledge that
we ,1re in the era of rehit Ms m.
¼e pursue th:, reiteration in two par:s. First,
we d'scuss !he well-know1: and :'requcntly
argued point that individual researche,s cannot
step r:utsidc thefr own social and h'storical
stancpoints. Because there :,, no po.;;s::1Uit y of
theory-free observation and knowledge, he
subject-object dualisrr, of empiricism is unten-
able and the claim to objectivity is a chimera.
Secnnd, we discuss the condition that t:ie con-
duct of research, and e~pecially :he Judgmc:1:s
about its wort'.1, represents soc:al activities. In
the a':isence of a11 epistemological foundation,
which is essential to any daim ti: •! er iteria can
he neutral ,md objective, decision~ ubc-ut what
the criteria for research are or should be, as well
as decisions about how criteria are put i:!to
;;;,actice, :-esult fron rnr;i?lex soc:al 'n:erac-
tions, And, as witr. all sL:ch mcial inleractions,
1111 915
916 11 HANDBOOK 011 QUALlTATIVE R?:SEARCH-CHAPTER 36
individuals and groups work to :'unher their
own interests, both legitimately and (occasion-
ally) illegitimately, a: though it must be added
that judgments abou: what is legitimate vernus
i]egitirnate are them selves socially determined
al any given t:me and place. These cond i:ions
• ake the process of determining research crite•
ria and how they are to be applied unavoidably
contestable anc. hence, political.
Follow;ng this revisiting, we then brie:ly note
two common responses to the demise of empiri-
cism and the end the pretense to objectivity,
define relativism, and discuss what the latter
• eans for the issue of criteria. Finally, we exam•
ine the role that politics plays, both generally ant
in the specific li.S. and U. K contexts at the l:Tne
when this chapter was being wdllen, in the ma:.sing
of judgments about the quality of social and edu-
cational resea::ch. This exami natior., in partku.ar,
focuses on :he politica: pressures that are beir:g
brought to bear in the attecipt to reestablish or
reassert that the broadly en: ?iridst understand-
ing, about research and criteria are the only
understandings that can, or should, be accepted.
We find ir: play here both a politics of avoidance
of the compelling a:guments advanced agabst
empiricism by relativist researchers and a politics
directed :;1! marginalizing the messenger,.
J\No basic de~1nitions are needed before
we begir:. Pi rst, we define politics in a conven-
tional sense as the process of allocating scarce
resources. Any desired reso:irce that is not totally
abundant-be it money, social prestige, recogr:i-
tion, researc.:i grants, or whakver---rnust be
divided :.ip through a politic.al process wifa some
people getting more and others getting less of
whatever is desired. Judgments about research
qua~i:y and what counts as research are ce1:tral
to the allocation of such scarce resources
researchers, It is here that the political dimen-
sions of research activity are most significant.
flower :s :he ability individuals or groups to
:-ealize their will even if others are o,:>posed. If
one knows the distribution of access to power in
a group, an organization, or a society, one can
i.:nderstand the distribution of scarce resou~ces
and vice versa.
Ill CRITERIA 11r:TIIOD
The point of research as traditio:rnlly, and thus
conventlonally, understood has long been thought
of as a matter of discoveri:1g the truth, With in the
empiricist epistemological perspective that has
dominated our understanding of research, truth
is defined as the accurate r,;presenta:iou an
indepe11de1:tly existing realitv. The accumulation
of knowledge is then::iy cons:cered to :;e the
accumulation of accu:ate rep:esentations of what
is (independently) o:itside of us. The paradig-
matic example of what also is called the spectator
theory of knowledge, witl: the accompanying def-
inition of t::uth in correspondence terms, involves
rhe cat ar:d the mat If one says the cat is on tr.e
mat a:id, in fact, we observe that frte cat is actually
on the mat, then words correspond lo reality and
the truth has been spoken.
The central problem with this empiricist per-
spective on inquiry is that of making gooc on
this :dea of correspondence. Makir:g good in this
context mear:s somehow connect:ng that which
empiricism separa:ed-the knowing subject
from the object of knowing-and doing so in
such a wav that the ac!i vities of the former
would not 'dis tort the reality of the latter. ,h.-
solution of choice to cash in this correspondence
theory, as has lor.g been noted in our social and
educational research textbooks, is a methodical
one. The puint is quite straightforward; If the
proper pmcedurcs are applied, the subjectivities
(e.g., opinions, ideologies) of the knowing
subject would be constra:ned and the knower
could thereby gain an accurate and objective
depiction of reality. Thuse re,earchers who
adhered to method would thereby possess, in
contrast to a] others, what one n: ig:1t call the
well-polished Cartesian mirror of :he mind.
Kerlinger ( l 979 i put it b!u n;ly:
The ?rocedures of science are objeclive-t:ot
the sdtmisK Scient'st~, like a11 men and women,
are opinionated, dogmatic, Iand] ideological. , ..
~hat :& the very reason fur insisting on pro,edu ra:
obj cc tivii r: :o get the whole busine~s mitside
o:::,;elves. (p. 264)
 Smith & Hodkinson: Relativisw, Criteria, and Politics
Method is thereby 1/ie crucial i:1 any
judgment made ,t'Juut the qJal':y of 1c,c,u;.,a,
Over the coi.:xse of the past half century,
empiricism as a thrnry of knowlcdge with :he
claims of objectiv'ry, neutrality, and so forth has
come on hard times; as a result, :he methodical
solution to fr1e problcr:1 of criteria has been very
serious:y undermined. f'h:ksophe:, of sciem;e,
and especially philosophers of social science, have
noted r.u:nemus :ntractab!r: problems associated
with this methodica'. solutio:1 to reconnect what
empiricism had separated-the daaEsm of the
knowing subject and the ob; eel of knowing.
Because this territory has been covered with
frequer.cy (for a b,ief recounting of this history,
see Smith, 1989), we need to mention o:ily a few
key points.
Within Anglo·America:i philosophical drc'.es,
a good case rnn be made that Hai:son and Kuhn
were central among those wh!l hroughl the
subject-object dualism issue to the forefront. At
tile co:-e of Hanson's ( 1958) arguments was the
now ~eemingly obvious point that "the theory,
hypo~:1esis, fra:nework, or backgroand helc by
an investigator can stro:1gly influei:ce what is
observed" (p. 7). A few years later, Kuhn ( 1962)
followed up on this Ene of reasoning with '.1is talk
about incommensurable paradigms, paradigm
shifts, the fact that all ki:owledge is framework
dependt:nt, and so forth. By the :nid • to late 1980s,
the wnrk ot numerous other people left litt:e
doubt tnat the c'.air., that theory·free knowledge
and observation is possible is intellectually
untenable: Ie.g., see Bernstein, 1983; Gi!damrr,
1993; Goodman, 1978; !:fagel, 1986; Putnam, 1981;
Taylor, 1971 J.
The arg:.iments made by these philosophers
combined with anolher series of arguments that
focused d trectly on the daim that method itself
was neutra'. or tha~ it could be the repository of
procedural objectivity. 1'1:e fact that such a claim
could not be susta:ted is the central message that
can be taken frnm foe work of Cherryholmes
(1988), Giddens (1976}, Hesse (1980),MacKenzie
(1981), Smifrt (I 985), and others. The result o! all
t'lis intellec:ual ferment was tne elaboration of il
nL:r:1her of points of great conse,1uencc for any
11. 917
discusslon of cri:eria, namely ~ha~ there is no
possibility of theory-free observation and know!.
the claim o: the duality of subject and object
carmot ·::,e made good, no special episte• ic privi•
lcge can be attached to any particular method
or set of methods, and we rannot have :he kind
access to an external extralinguistic referen: that
would allow us to c1ain the discovery of truth in
accurate representation or correspondence terms.
Based on these points, the only condusion that
can be reached is that we no '.anger can talk in
terms of a foundational epistemology and a direct
car.tact with reality. There is no possibility of the
object:ve stance or view-often called the uGod's
eye' point of vie.v-and all we can have are "the
,,anous points of view of actual persons reflect-
ing various interests and purposes that their
descriptions and theories subserve" (Putnam,
I981, p. SO}. 'With the demise of empiricism and
the methodical stance on ~-,-.o,:~ social and edu-
cational research must be seen for wl:at it has
always heen-a practical and moral act:v'.ty, not
an epistrmo'.ogical one. And because we ba,e no
epistemo:ogical foundation for our prac,kal and
rrural activities, any discussion of criteria must
come to terms with, in one form or ano.:her, the
issue of relativism.
• RESPONSES
Ove: the recent past, there have been at least two
general responses, with the usual r.umemus vari,
afans on theme, to tl:ose who have argued that
epistemological foundationalism is over and :hat
::he crite:ia for .iudging rc,earch cannot be "fixed"
but rather ue the product of ,ime• and place·
contingent soda! processes, In tl:e first instance,
some people have advanced various lines of argu·
ment that can he labeled, albeit loosely, as neore•
a:ist (e.g., see Bhaskar, : 979; Hammersley, L990;
Manicas. 1987; :vlimicas & Secore, 1983; Phillips
& Burbuies, 2000; Pring, 2000; see also Popper,
J959, · ':172, arguably the inteaectual precursor
of all neorealists). Second, other people recently
have atlempted lo reassert empiricism and crite,
tia as r:,_etl:oci (e.g., so far as educational research
9:R 11 HAND ROOK or, QUALl'!Al'lV E RESEARCH-CHAPTER 36
is concerned, see Oakley, 2000: Shavdson &
Towne, 2002; Slavin, 2002; 'loolcy & Darby, 1998 ).
Other than a brief sum:uar)', we do not disci;;;s
or critique the neorealist and reassertive posi-
tions and thci, respective approaches tu er iteria.
fn th<:' past, we have wriller. such "a:tempt to per-
suade" or «conversion" pieces, as we now have
come to call them, and these are readily available
to interested ~eaders (Garratt & Hodkimon, 1993;
llodkinson, 1998, 2C04; Hodkinson & Smit!:,
2004; Smith, 1993 ). Alfoougl: we think that the
phi:osophical exchanges we have engaged in have
been intr'g:i'ng and arc important lo keep a con-
version going, conversion by ,,r,.y of persuasive
argument seems to occur rather ,:-arel,: Trn:s, ii:
this chapter, we forgo such attempts and mily sum-
mar:ze briefly the previously noted positions,
with very limited com :nents, nnd then el abore :e
on our Mke on relativism, critcr la, and politics,
There is little question :hat non-r:ahe realists
or neorealists have made :iumerous sophisticated
attempts to address :he issue cri:eria, These
neon:alist respm1scs share in common a commit-
ment to a:1 ontological realism, on the 011e
and a constructivist epistemology, on the otl:er.
The former means that tl:ese neorealists are
cor:unitted to ::,mpositi{n that there is a real
world out lhen: independent of our interes1 in or
know:edge of that world. The latter announces
their rnmm:nnen: to ::ie idea tha: we can :iever
know for sure whether we have depicted that real•
ity as it really is. Although the line of argument
these ror:-11a1ve ll!'&!ists ur ncorea:i,t,,
",,,,~•· a belief in a real world independent of m:r
knowledge while also :na~ing it dear that our
knowledge of this 1:tctamgnitivc world is quilt
fa:lible" (lea,y, 1984, p. 918).
Given these dual corr:milments, the neoreaJsts
then argue that criteria that are not strktlr con-
tingen: on time and place can be developed.
Hammcrslcr (1990), for example, attempted to
elaborate criteria to hold off tht contingent ne:ure
of judgment or, put ditlerently: to prcvelll a slide
into what is, fo, hi:n, the void of rcla:ivisrr.. His
cr:teria of choke, or the two key elements neces-
sary for judging the validity of a sludy,are what he
miler, plausibility and credibiiity. In the former
instance, to say :hat a claim ls plau.sib:c is to say
that it ls "likely to he true given o·Jr existi:ig
knowledge" (p. 61 ). He argued that some daims
are so plausible that we can :mmediately accept
them al face va: :.ic, whereas other claims require
the prcscr.rntion of evidence. In the lat:er case, a
judgment about credibility m Jst be undertaken
"given the nature of the phenomena concer:icd,
the circumsta :ices of the research" (p. 6I), a!ld so
fon:1, And, as with plausibility, whe:1 a c'.aim lacks
face credibility, evidence ls required. However,
Ham:ne,sley furthi:r recognized tr.at t:1e p.irticu-
lar evidence presented by a ~searcher ill suppo:t
of the plausibility am;, credibility of a study must
itself be assessed for its ow;1 plausibility and
credb:H ty. Arc, as continued, "we may require
further evidence to support that ev:dencr,
which we shall judge in ter:ns of plausibility and
credibi'.ity" (p, 62).
For us, Hammersley':; ( 1990) argument
became deeply cntang:ed ir; an infinite
if not a hermeneutic circle. It is at this point
whi:r<' it was mx'°ssary for him to call on his
neorealism 10 do some wori-in ::,articular, the
work of making contact with reality b suc:i a
way as lo blunt this infinite regress or get one
out of the hermcnc:itic circle of interpretation.
Or, put dilterently, i~ was tir:ic for hi:n to call on
his version of realism to Jlfevenl the relativism
tha: would seen: to lie at the end of it all. This
was not ;he case, however, and any notions abo:it
correspondenc~ am! realism, no matte; how
subtle, pla)'ed no role of consequence for the
balance of Eammersley's discussion. His argu-
nents ultimately ended up at the only pkce they
could go-w:th a d:scussion of the norn:s
should govern discourse a:nong members of a
sc'entific community as they attempt to make
judg:nrnts about plausibili:y and credib:lity,
These are norms btceause they refer to wl:at
"should he" ar:d therebv' ,vielrl :o 110 final or
foum:atio:1al answers that are (O:ncstable anc
inevitably intluenced by pol it k:al processes.
A similar situa:ion can be pointed out with rel~
ere nee to t!le work of Man:cas ar:d Secor<l (l 983)
and the well known idea o! Wllrmnted assertahil,
ity. Their version of r.eorealism led them to :iote
 Smith & Hodkinson: Rclativ:sm, Criteria, and Pohi:cs 111 919
that "know;edge is a soda! and historical product"
(p, 401 ), there ts "no prein:crpreted 'given; and
the tebt of truth cannot be 'correspondence.'
Epistemologically, there can be nothir:g known to
which our ideas (sentences, faeories) can corre
spond" (p. 40!). Based on these points, Mankas
and Secord then addressed the issue of how to
runnect experiences, which are always-and can
cnly~be c:ulturally and historically media:ed,
with reallty independent fro • experience. Their
response was the negative assertion that i~hough
the:e is no theory-free observation, this "does not
elirr:hate the possibili:y of objectivi:y, construed
here as wa,ranted assertability" (p. 410), For us,
this placed ,hem 111 the same situation as was
faced by Hammersley (1990) because tl:e war-
rants that one br:ngs to judgments are themselves
socially and hismrkally conditioned-as are the
warrants that warrant the warra:its, and so fo:1h.
Again, the~· were caught in a herr:ieneutk circe or
an infini:e regress and were unable to offer a way
in which to access an eKternal referent that woulci
allow :hem out of the former or to stop the latter_
A second line of response, recently asserted
wit!: vigor in bo:h the United States and the United
Kingdom, holds that social and educational
inquiry should strongly embrace n,ore cn:dely
emp:ridst proced'Jres, even the experimental or
quasi-experirr.ental prncedures common to the
natural sciences. In the United States, this position
has been most widely advanced by tbe report
fro:n the National Research Council Com:nittee
(S:1.avelson & Towne, 2002). Thls repo,t was
supported by a contract between the National
Research Co·.mc'.l and the U.S, Department of
Education's Natior,al Educational Research Policy
aod Pr:orities Board. In the United Kingdom, a
similar but !ess harshly experimental pos'.tio:1 has
been advanced with the critique, of the quality
of British educational researc':t at the hands of
".'ooley with Darby (I 99S) and 11illage, Pearson,
Ar.derson, and Tamkin (1998), The former report
was commissioned by the Oftlce for Standards in
Education (OFSTED), the governmer:t-establishec
national inspection agency for schools, whereas
the latter report was sponsored by the governmen:
departmen: dtrect;y responsible for education.
In Chapter 3 of the Shavelson and Towne (2002)
report, the 1,rinc:ples of scientific inqt:iry were set
forth, These guiding principles for educational
research, not surprisingly, are very much like those
that have been central to standard, e:npiricisl·
b;;pired, introductory research texts. The terms of
discoJrse, for example, are those of replicate, gen-
eralize, random assignment, and so forth. l n
Chapte:- 5 of the repo:1, the corn mtttee fleshed out
these principles with a discussion of the .ic,,,1,1,
for conducing scientific educational research. What
they referred to as "more rigorous studies" are
those that are of an experimental :1ature with well•
defined hypotheses and so forth in p:ace before
data collect:on and analysis. Al this point, it is dear
that the methods or procedures employed by
researchers are the crucial fac:or in any judgment
of their research as good or bad.
?laced between these two chapters h the
Shave\,on and Towne (2002) report was one
which they addressed some of the unique :'eatures
of educator.al inquiry-and, again by extension,
social inquiry-thilt they argued set this inqu:ry
apart from other fit,>',ds of inquiry. They noted
factors mch as hurr.an volition, the central ro 1e of
ethics that limits cnntrnl group possibilities, rapid
changes 'n educational programs, and so forth.
These anci othe, conditions mean that educa-
tiona'. and social :-esearchers are not able to exer-
cise the same deg:-ee of control over their subject
matter as are, for example, physical scientists.
The committee's response to t'1.is diminution of
control was to say that educationa'. and social
researchers must "pay dose ?-~te1,tion to context"
wher. purst:ing ar:d bterpretir.g the res.u:ts of
their research. Exac,ly what they meant by paying
dose attention to context Wal! not clearly discussec..
V.'hat is dear, and what is most important, is that
they did not inc:uc.e the researcher as part of the
context. This position nms counter to the now gen-
erally accepted idea that we, even as researchers,
cannot ~mdertake theory-free observation and
produce theory free knowledge.
Finally, Shavelson and Towne's (2002)
comments about qualitative research and the
relatior:ship of quaiitative and quantitative
approaches to inquiry are difficult tu interpret in
920 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALJTK;JVF: RF:S:'/\RCH-CHAPT=.R 36
that there appeared to he some amb:g;iity
present. 'I11ey declared, with citations hut without
argument, that ,he two approaches are "episteno-
:ogically quite similar" 1111d ti1,H "we do not dis·
:inguish between fac1;1 as be:ng different forms
inquiry" (p. 19). That said, they also noted that
"sharp distinctions b.:tween qualitative and
q;ial itat:ve inquir)' have divideci the field* (p. 19 ).
Thi, comment was foilowed by a concern that
"t hr currer.t trend of sd,ools of education 10
:'avor qualitative methods, often at the expense
o:· qi:antitative methods, has inv:tec criticism"
(p. 19). This statement was ao~ supporled by
citations, and the nature of t::e criticism was ,1ot
ment ioncd. Not surprisingly, one Is then left m
wonder ahout whal the problem is he:-e. If bo:h
approaches are similar and we cannot distinguis:i
betwe,;n them, then what is the reason for the
concern .i:ul criticism~
lr. Chap:e, 5 of Shavclson and Towr:c's (2002)
report, however, their take on thr posit:011 of qual•
itative inquiry relative 10 qua:1titative inquiry
could be noted more dearly: They stated that
scientific studies must begin with dear qi:.cstions
that cRn :>~ researched empirically. They added,
More rigorous s1udk:; will begin with more pr,xise
s1ate;11ents or the :md,•rlyinp, theory driving the
inc;uiry anc will generally have a well-speciflc,i
hypotlwsis bclun, hheJ cL>llection and
phase is bq;un. Studies that do llOI start with dear
conceptual framewnrks and hypotheses nay ,till
b, scicntitk, althm:gh they are ohviouslv at a more
rudimentary and will generally re(Jllire follow-
o:: s:udv, :o cuntri:mte si"nificanfv
t> ' to sckntific
knowl<xlgc. (t, lO l;
Bee au se qualitative st ucii es are more loose! y
defined before data gathering -Jegir:s, they are
more md:men:a;y than quantitative studirs-
the lack of eolstemologica'. distinctim: between
them no1withstandir.g-and are prinarily valu•
ab:e for generating hypothcse,, for studies that
are more rigorous. (As m: aside, we must note
that this may have taken us "full d rde;' ,o to
speak. Abel's [ 1941!] comments abot: t how
Interpretive inquiry ts valuable for generating
l:ypot:ieses tn be tUf1':ed over :o real researchers
fur rigorous testing with :heir empiricist or
sc'.entific :ne:hods.)
The posit:o r. taken by Sh e.velson and Towne
(2002) is paralleled in the ciiscussions of researc:i
quality in the United Kingdom, as advanced
by 1ooley and Darby ( 1998) and Hillage ar:d ml-
leagues (1998), Tooley and Darby's approach was
10 analyze the quality of <"rlucatio:1al xsearcl:
articles that appeared in fnur high-status U.K.
academic journals. rhey declared that the overa[
standard of inquiry was far loo low ,rnd their
spon~,1, conduded tha1 "nuch leducatio:ial
research· that is puhlishd i;;, on th:s amdysis, at
best no more thaa ~n irrelevance or dis:raction"
(?.:).They found two main problems with a sig-
nificant portion of educatio:1al rcse2.rch. t;irst.
there was the issue of the in creasi :ig prominence
of qualitative research. Abot:: this gre:i:er inrremw,
they stated, "The key r,roblem lies :n the sJb1ec·
nv1ty qnalitati \/t resear::!:" (p. 43) becat:se of
the Iack, • osl par~ic:ilarly, of triangulation. In
addition, they we:.: very critical of t'le :arg,;;
amount of rs:s.:mch-overwhdmingly of a quali-
tative appro,Kh-tbat uses broad sociological
theorizing and/or fm:uses on the lives of di sad-
vantaged people and groups :n sodety. Thus,
Tooley and Darby chose for as an e:~;;':,: ~•!~ of
pa:1:icular strids:1:t criticisn: <1n article by Sparkes
( 1994) in which he argued that the oppressio:1&
faced by al esbian physka' education t<'ad1c, wcrt'
a soc:al issue ratl:er than an j :1dividua1one.
Hillage and colleagues ( 1998), following
Tooley and Darby ( 1998), also took an aJiproach
similar to that Shavdson and Towne (2002).
Hillage and colleagues stated that not enough
cdm:ational research wa~ of sufficient quality and
relevance to serve the neec:s of ;mictitioners and
policymakers. The e~sence of their er' tiqur was
that e,; .icational research in tht United Kingdom
was too small scale, was not cumulative, was too
ufkn of low standard, and (most inleresling)
was biased toward qua Ii tative case studie~. The
solution was oovinus: Wha: w:is needed was
more large-scale, cumulative re,earcl: based on a
scientific approach-in other words, an increase
in ,: Janlitative research and/or research usi n&
mixed methods.
 Allr.ough there ,ire c0rtainly many variatio:1&
among them, in - end, Shavclson and Towne
(21102), ,no'.ey and Dar':ly ( 1998), and Hillage and
co::eague:; (L 998) broadly sh a red tl:ree things,
l;irst, they aL wrote rejn1,ts spor:sored or funded
by gover r: mc1:: erh:cational agencies that had
decided to into the business of sponso,ing
certain criteria for judging research in a way
that has no precedent of which we are aware,
SecumJ, as they dcfi ned hig~-quality research,
they all reiterated-Lo one degree or ,rnotr.er-
Kcr'.i nger's ( l 979) approach and cmbracea a cnn-
frmation of the so thoroughly undermined
empiricist or spectator theory knowkcge and
favo,,:;C: tl:c definition of criteri~. as a certain set of
met hods, ri11ally, they all ex~•ressec a great deal of
ambiguity. at in what they wrote, about the
va:ue or standing of qualitat:ve inquiry when
co:11pare(: wilh the supposedly more rigoro•J;;,
methodologically driven approaches to research,
This kd all of them to condude that whereas
(Jualitativc ceseaxl:ers can be part of the cduca-
t:onal research dub, they can:mt be rigoroJs
members,
111 RFL~TlVIS'VI
for us, a,~ critics of :hese re,ponses 10 the demise
of empiricism and 6e realiza:ion that adherence
to method will not lead to theory-free knowledge
and 30 forth, the idea is to move past the episte-
mological project. to change nur metaphors and
imageries of research fm1:1 those of discovery and
fi:1ui:1g to those of cons!ructlng and ma king,
and to accept that relativisrr. is our im:s.:apable
condition a~ t1 nite humans_ However, to make
such statements a:1d employ the terr:1 rdmivism
is deeply problematic :br many people, Even the
mention of reiativism pmvokes slro:1gly r:egativs:
intellec:u ii and emotional reaction,,
For many writers, "refativism" is 0c.·-1ated with
some illogical ind irration;1l abyss where every
daim to knowledge has equal validity and credi-
bility with every other claim, They arg~c tl:at
such a position i:; not only uunsensical bt:: also
c.;1ngerous in that it can lead only lo ll form of
research anarchy a:,d. for that matter, cultural
an arc r.y. Bu I to say that relativism means
"anything goes'' :s :1onscnse for one simple
reason: Ko one believes that all thbgs are equal,
and no on;;: could lead his or her guided by
that belie[ \,\'e all hav;; preferences for some things
over other th:ngs, and we make dmkcs accord-
i:igly, This process preferring some thbgs 10
otr.cr things and making judgme:its accordingly
been going on since lime immemorial anc
will con Ii oue for as far as can be seen into the
future. Put differently, it is impossible to imagine
a l:u:nan life without judgmen: and d:scrimba-
tions_ Taylor (19891 expressed thr sin;at'or: as
fiillows: "To know who you are ls to ·,c oriented
b moral space, a space in whk:i questions arise
about what is good or bad, what i:;, worth doing
and what not, what :1as meaning a1:d imporlam:e
for you and whar is triviai and secondary" (p, 28),
To no~ make judgments is to lose sight of one's
orien:ation in such a moral space, that is, to fose
one's grounding as a hun:an,
We must also brie!ly address another 1ong•
,Gtanding canard, na:nely that relat: vism is sell~
xfuting_ The arg·,1:ne1:t is well kr:own: To say :hat
all ~h ing, arc relative i, to mak,: a nonrelative or
~bso!·,11e slah::1m;::1t and :hereby to c,ntradict one·
self and so forth, Hoth Korty (! Yl!'i J a:id Gadamer
( 1995) addr"ssed :his issue of sell~ re:uting, The
:aner agreed that :elativlsm is self-refuting but
:hc:i mair:tained that to makr this poir.t ls to r:1akc
a point of no interest bt:cai:se it "does nol express
any superior insight of value" (:i, 334), Rorty
(: 985 ), on the other hand, argued that it :s a mis-
take to think of relativism as a theory u: knowl-
edge :o compete with other theor'es of knowlrdge_
He di5pensed with :he self-refuting i,sue by stating
tha, because his type of pragma:ist is no: inter-
ested advanclr:g any "epis:en:ology, a fortiori, he
doi:s not have a relativist or:e" (p, 6),
We agree with these perspech ve, and hold that
relativism, a, we 1..ndersta1:d :he wndilion, is not
a theory of knowledgr and adva:1res no pretem;e
that we can escape our fini:e-or time· and
place-constrained-condition of be:ng in the
world, Taking a page from Godel', idea incon:-
pleten<:lis (Uofstadter, 1979), this situa:irm is only
922 • HANDBOOK OF Ql1iU.ITATTVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 36
what we should expect from any human (i.e.,
socially and h,storkally influenced} construction.
As such, relativism stands fo, :1othing more or
less than recognition of our human finitude. It is
not some:hing to be transcended; rather, it is
merely something with w'1ich we, as finite beings,
must learn lo live.
Schwandt (1996) summarized this nonfoun-
dational situ a:ion quite sucd:1ct'y:
We must le-.im fo live with uncertainty, with the
a·:isence of fi:;al vindi,ations, withou: the hope of
solutions in the form of episterr:ological guaran-
tees. Contingency, fa[lbilism, cialogue, and ddiber-
a:ion mark our wJy of being int~.: world. But these
ontological conditions are not eq uiwlent to eterna'.
ambiguity, the lack cf co:nn:'t:nent, [and I the
inability to act in the :ace of ur.certainty. (p. 59)
As such, our problem as inquirers is that of how
to make and defend judgments when the,e can ·Je
no appeal to foundations, to methcds, or to some-
thbg ou:side of the time- and place-constrained
socia: processes o[ lmowlec.ge cm1struclion.
This immediately engages us in complex soc:al
processes with obvious poli:ical implications.
D C:1.ITERIA
The end of the epistemological project, the shift ir:
metaphors from discovery to mnsl_:Ucting, and
the realization that social and ed;1cational inquirJ
is a pract'cal and moral affair all mean that crite•
ria must be thought of not as abs:ract sta:idards
but rather as socia:Jy constructed lists of charac-
teristics, As we approach judgment in any given
case, we :1ave in mind a list characteristics that
we use to judge the quality of that production. This
i3 not a weli-defir.ed and precisely specified li,t; tn
the contrary, this list of characteristics is always
open ,ended, in part unarticula:ed, and always
subject to constant interpretation and ceinterpre-
lalion, Moreover, lhe items on the list ca11 never be
the distillation of some abttractec. epistemology,
as has been attempted in the cas<" of empiricism
and method as criteria. Our lists. are inevitably
rooted in our standpoints ar.d are elaborated
through soda! interactions-or, in Gadamer's
(: 995) terms, they must evolve oul of and re!lecl
our "effective h:story [o, histories]" (pp. 30 '.-302).
The lists that we brl ng ;o judgment are open•
er.ded in that we have lr.e capacity to add items to
and si::btract items. from the lists. The limi :s for
recasting our lists derive uul primarily from the-
oretical labor bJt rather from the practical use to
which fae lists are put as wet! as from the soda!,
cultural, and historical contex:s in which they are
used. The limits on rr.od:fication are worked and
reworked within the context of actual practices or
appl:cations. Also, any lists that we bring to judg-
ment are only partly artkt:.lated and on I}' partly
rational. Some iter:1s can be more or less speci-
fied, wr.ereas others seem to resist such specifi-
cation. Polanvi's
'
(l
.
962) concern about tacit
knowledge applies very well in this case. We :na'.<e
what Be::ketl and Hager (2002) termed 'embod-
ied jadgments" about rcsearcll quality and value,
that is, judgments tr.at are practical and c,mo-
tional as well as discursively considered. When we
make judgments, we general:y can specify some
of the reasons, but otier tr.ings seem to be out
there-what might be called a surplus of mean-
ing that seems to stand just beyond our grasp, just
beyond our a::i:lity to completely specify or artic•
ulate, This does not mean that we should not, and
do not, atlempl to bring this surplus to fuller
articulation; it only n:eans that this can never be
done completely.
Furthermore, the lists that people think char-
acterize good versus bad research s:udies are
often contested, overlap one another, and partly
contradic: one another (Garratt & Hodkinson,
1998).Any list can be challenged. char:ge<l, and/or
modified not primarily througr. abstracted dis-
CUSl:iions of the items themselves but rather in
application to actual inquiries. For example,
somethi:lg "new~ :s prese:1.tec to us. Th:a was the
case with qualitative inqt:iry i:1 the recent ?<1St.
Qualitative work did not well with the empiri-
.;ist list of methodical cha,ac:eristics sam-
pling, null hypotheses) that were the basis for
distinguishing good research str:dies from bad
research studies. accept qua:ita:ive inc_·J'ry
mear.t that one had to reformulate one's Ii st of
 Sn:'th & Hodkinson: Relativism, Criteria,
characteristics and replace the exemP:aJs that are
always railed on :n the never.endh:g prncess of
making .iudgments. However, the key here is
"ru:cept" because people may choose, as many
have done, to preserve and reassert the existing
list of d:aracteristks that distinguish the good
from the b~d and thereby reject the "new" as some-
thing that does not even qua'.i"y :o he considered
as research. This, course, is a cumment that
h,.s been. and ls still, offered :.ip about q1:alitative
research.
1111 J\tlAKINC: JUDGMENTS ArlOlT RESE/17<,C:i
The various conditior:s noted in the prev:ous
section, in that they constrain all human
activit y-inchding social an.: educational
research and thus judgments about the quality of
such research-mean that politics a:id power are
part of that complex process by which we sort out
the good from the bad and the ind ifforrn:. The
hupe that method would allow us to make judg-
ments the ql:ality of research "uni aii:tedv
by our opinions, emotions, and sel:-interests has
been a false hope. Politics and power are par: of
the process of judgment and always have been.
At :imes, of course, when thece is a more
eral agreement a:nong researchers about how
research is concep tualir.ed and how the activity
should be conducted, tht> politics and powe,
aspects of judgment do not re,•eal 1hemselves to
any grea, extent At other times, such as when
there are '"m1-.,11;,,,, to conl'entional empiricist
forms of inquiry as h,u; recently been the case
with qualitative research-· especially when such
inquiry draws on pustmodcrnist 1:r:dersta1:cings,
philosophical hrrmeneutics, and so forth-pal it-
ical and power factors a~c r:rnch more obvious at
both a 1:1:cro level (i.e., within the research pro•
fession) and a macro level (i.e.. a situat'on where
outsice elements, such as government officia:s,
enter into the process). However, we m;ist :mme
diately note tl:at the betwern micro and
macro rs often very blurry indeed.
In a groum.i:ixakir:g study of tl:e school as
an organization, Hoyle ( 1982, 1986) coi:ied the
Politics 111 923
phrase "m:cropolitks;' an idea later expanded. by
Ball ( I987 ). Hoyle i. 982) described microp11!itics
as ir:cluding "those strategies by which incividuals
and groups in organizational contexts seek to use
tl:eir resources power and influence to furtl:er
tl:eir intexsts" (p. 88). One way of understanding
isrne, of re~earch judgment is as a micropolilical
process, ever. if the context is wider and :nore
comple.x than that of a particJlar organizatio:1.
Hodkinson (2004) arg·Jed that educational research
can be seen as a field in the sense described by
Bourdieu (e.g., Buurdieu & Wacquanl, 1992), That
is, academics st:-ive for distinction in that field,
using whatever capital (resources) they ha1,-e at
their disposal. One o: the major activities in si:ch a
field is tl:at people wurk to si:pport, preserve, or
strengthen those rules (o:- lists of characteristics)
that they approve of or are in their interests and/or
to change the rules (or lists) in a direction that
favors their i:ltercsts.
This d:fre to promote self-interc,1 is not the
only motivatior: for people. T'.1e politics of
research judgment is driven by deeply held and
sincere bcliefa about what determines research
,1uaHty and the role that ,e,earch should play, for
exam pie, ;n relation to policy and practice. That
is, people ma, defend method as the criterion for
judgment becai;se they truly believe that method-
ically d:iver: inquiry or the application of the "sci•
entific rr.ethod" is the bi:st way in which to solve
educationa: and social problems, to help educate
children, to hrhg greater equity to society, and so
forth. But then, this is also the case for those who
critique rr:ethodically divc:1 inquiry and insist
that we mi.:st change our metaphors. However,
this does not render tne proceirn any less political,
Such beliefs strengthen t:'1e resolve to asserl
particular approacl:es, that is, to win the political
strJggles over allocation of resources. The careers
and scJ-interes:s of those concerned are inti-
n:ately locked into those processes and strnggles.
In short, acadern ics ~t rive exp! icitly and
ir:iplidtly to i:ifluence :hose cr:teria (or lists of
characteristics) that determir.e research quafay
as well as to perform well against them. In Hoyle's
11982, 1986) terms, academics are micropolitkal.
Aspects of these rnles are cod:fied and written,
 111 IIA\JDtlOOK OF Q:;AUTi\TTVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 3~
Tl:ose who fund research have criteria against
whic:, hids will be judged, and journals have
criteria against whkh submitted articles can he
evaluated. However, such written codes take us
only so far, Mar:y uf the rules of acadc:nic
research are u11 codi:1ed, having develo?ed
through custom and ?rncticc, as we hive already
argued. Pact of the :nic:npolitics lies is the sekc·
tion and use of codes, contexts, and infor:nal
practices fr:at ·,est fit wic:i the interests uf a
researcher o, a gro .ip of r.:,,.:-,;11:caer Academics
arc, both as laypeople and as researchers, finite
beings living dur:ng the em of relativi;;rn.
Ah h,,u!Jh we strongly st:spcct that none of~~ is
is news to those who, ovc-r the years, have had
research articles puhli shed and rejected, it will
he:? to ilh:strate the pervasive presence ul mico·
political activity wi1h two brief examples. The
first example concerns the alloca:iun of sca,ce
puhl icarion space in a high ·status journal, tl:c
Hduc..rionai Researcher(ER), and the refreshing-
but all loo rare-r:rnsings of an editor ,,bout
the dl':cision-making process. A fow years ago,
Donmoyer {l ~96) talked a:mut his "gacekeeping"
role ,:s editor of ER during a time of what rr:any
called "paradigm pml iteration~' Donmoyer did an
excellent job of noting that r,e, as a gatekeeper,
could not "widen the gaks [he I monitors; ·he]
sin: ply gets to decide which so:i:s of people can
walk :hrough them" (p. 211). He also went on 10
note 1:1.at although different approaches to incui:y
might :ie incommcnsnrahle, he agreed wi:h
Bernstein (l\:183) :ha, this did not mean thev were
necessarily '.ogically incom?atible. That said,
Donmoyer ( 1996) then acknowledged that when
one moves away from the conceptual to :he actual
practice of publishing so:ne papers and rejecting
otl:crs, anci when one is in the ''cealr:1 of action ...
where resource, are often scarce and hard chokes
consequently have to be made, a sort of pragmatic
bcornmensurab:lity will inevitably com.: ir::o
play" (p. 20).
It is precisely at tr.is point of scarcity am: hard
choices, in light of philosoph:cal differe:ices ai:d
disputes con,;crning the nature of inquiry, that
powc~ and politics becor:ie ,•ery visible as par:
of the ,1 uahl y judgment process. This does not
mean that the process is necessarilr venal or
son:ehow tainted, ,ilthough it certain'.y ca:, he
and car. o:ten be judged as such-depending, of
course, on how "venal" ar:d "tainted" are defined.
All we w;sh tu convey here is that th is is the way
things are because ,-11e all are, at least in ?iltl,
political beings with a de, ire to advance our
respective sclf.'ntrrcsts.
Our seco:1 d example illustrates the Curren~
interest in reasserting empiricism as the ;:;hi:u-
sophical ba,is for sod.ii and educational in.:pl;j'
anc, in so dol ng, blurs the line between macro
ai:c micro. For reasons that will he n:adc dear
later, the U.K, governr:ient's Uepartmcnt for
Educat:or: and Employment, now the D;;par~men:
for Ecucation and Skills (DfES), funded the
Evidence for Policy and Practice Inform11tion and
Coordinating Centre (EPP] Cent:e) for 5 years
begin n: t1g in 2000. The remit wa, to support
groups of researchers and others in carrytng o-Jt
systematic re,ieVl'!i of existing research finci:igs. !t
was based or, earlier systematic xview work ir.
:nedical research under what hns hecoim~ knowr:
as the "Cochrane Collahoration." The founder of
the EPPI r..entre, Ann Oakey, is " de!ermined
advocate of scientifk research and the primacy of
the cont:ulled experiment (Oakley, 2000, 2003).
Within 1he cemer's ,;pproach, a syste:natk review
must m&.-t various criteria:
mc,ms oi spcdfying a particular atlSVl'erable
n;search quesnm; criteria a·w,ut what kinds of
st ;:dies ... will be in duded in, rnd exd:ided from,
lhe do::1ain of literahm· to surveyec; IT'.aklng
explicit, justifiable decisions ,.bout the me:hod·
ologkal quali:y of studies regarded as ge~erating
reliable findings; .. , Iand] has i11volved input
research users 2.t all sl:aj!CS i 11 :he review process.
{0,11-..lcy, 20;H, p. 24)
first two of the criteria demonstrate
uuashamedly cm?iricist underpinnings, The
research qucs1io:1 comes first and stands apart
from ,wd prio~ to the research that is to be
si:rvcycd in the review, and the quality of m:y
research to be considered is deten:,incd hy tl:c
methods used bv the n:searchern and how clearly.
;
they are described. Also of note ls tl:c fact that
 Smith & l:odkimon: Relativism, Criteria, and Politks
although user ilwolvement in the review process
is specified, <1cad,·mic know I,,dgc of tht'
field to be surveyed is not This implies tha, the
review pron:s; i; seen as a te.:hnk:al operation
that does not ,ophj,t kated resca,ch
understanding.
As Oakley (2000, 2003/ described t::em, the
EPPI processes appear to he designed to r:iaxi ·
mize ob; ecthity and minimize subjectivity. Part
' .
of that ob; cctivitv is t:i e dai :11 that "the basic
prindple behind EP f'I Centre reviews is trans-
pcrency of methods, which allows rt'pl ication and
upd,dng" (Gough & F.lbourne, 2002, p. 229). The
reality is less dear·cJt. Each EPPT groi.:p has to
determine its own chosen set of criteria-dearl)'
a social rnicropolitical process, In a training
event for these procedures attend el: b~· a culleague
in ;um: 2003. David Goi.:gh, deputy director of
tne E.PPI Centre, strrssed the fact thar during all
stages of the process, skilled it1,erpretation was
nec,:ssary, Groups -,vould need to debate what
their review c,uestion~ were, what criteria should
be applied, and lmw thu~e ,riteria wt:H: lo be
applied in respect of individual research papers,
In a group exercise, the significance of this ~or1 u:
j udgr:1ent making became apnare11:. Within one
gro•.ip. some pa,tidpants claimed that qualitative
.:ase study resce.rd1 cid not contain any empirical
data a:id. therefore, always should he excluded,
Others disagreed. Toward !:le ,md of this session,
Gough share,:! a jst oi ni1eria for judging cualita-
rive research. This is not an offidal EP ?1 list, b·.it
'1c dairr:ed that it was a list with which no one will
d:sagree:
an eiq,lkit account of thcoreti<.:al frnm~wur,1 .in,'lor
inclusion of literature xview; (ca:ly slated cims
and nhjectives; a dear d<'.scription ,1f t:r,ntcxl; a
clear de.,ciption of ~an:plr; a clear cc;crnmon of
fiekwo:k met;md~ indudi ng syskmalk dala
lee! inn; an analysis of data by r:iorc than on"
researcher; suftkien: tdg:::al d,1:a 10 mcd:ate
between evidence and interprrta:l:m.
T:1 is list is actually cont roversiol.
and many high-qi.:ality :esearcl: papers would
be rejected if all of lhcsc criteria were se:i·
ou,,ly enforced. For CYll rnplc, the !is: sits i,ery
111 925
uncomfortably with Wolcott's (l 999) dai:n tl:at
ethnography is research witr: no method or, at
least, often lacks what Gough termed "sysrema:i:;
data collection" or clear sample," It is "a way of
se,-im,: and ar:y aims may be general rather than
s:;,ecific.
. Becker's {1971 .i seminal work o:i becom•
ing a marijuana user would have failed on se,eml
of :hese criteria. as would '\.Vo:eott', (2002) own
0:1 the "sneaky iid~' The implkat:or: that
two (or more) poo:- interpretations a:e better than
one one :s common but is logically bizarre.
Mori;: ,criou~lv, what does "dear" mean in ~hi,
con:cxt, and at' what point does, for example, a
description of the sample beco1:1c c'ear a,
opposed to i.;ndear? Tl:e suspk:011 is tl:at dear
s:a:ids for the very p~edse-exactly iow many
mterviews wers: conductec with how :nar.y people
of what categories and so forth. Th;:r;: is also no
recognition in this list that in a short journal arti
de, meeting of these criteria fully might
leave :ittlc space tn actually present any findings_
Far from being scientific, trar:sparent, and
replicable, every aspect of the El'PI procedures is
,hot thamgh with subjective judgme:il making,
and there is a micropolitical purpose :.o the work.
Oakley and :ter colkagi,;es are strongI)' promoting
one approach to research and judgment-rr.aking
processes a·:mut research, as Oakley's (2000) book
makes In so doing, lite for researcher5 the
field who do not agree i:; being made mt.ch more
difficult. The potential seriousness nf th;s sihia
tion W'<IS apparent i:1 a convc rsat ion ':ietwee:1 one
of the authors (Hodki:1 son) a:1d the director of a
research prograr:1 of which he is a par:. T:1e di rec•
tor stressed the neec to ensure that llooks report•
ing the researd: rnntain full accounl s of the
method, including "th~ ?Itcist dates vf the field·
work;' lest tl:e hooks be exdnded by smne future
EP Pl groups, whose criteria are not yet even
known. The sorts of nonempirkist ways of judg·
ing quaJitat:ve research by Sparkes
(2002) are so fa~ off the agencia as to denied
existence. The fad that the EPP! Centx i, fur:dcd
by 1:ie lJ.K. government illustrates the link
between the m:cropolitks or judg111en1 and the
more :ecently obvious macropolitks of research
judgment.
 926 1111 HAJ\DBOOK OF Ql:AUTATJVE RF1'EARCII-CHAPTER 36
Iii NIACRO· LF.VEL Pour1r;s
The most interesting tum of events regarding
criteria for Judging inquiry has involved polit:cal
moves at what we !:ave def: ned as tl:e macro level.
Hy this, we mea:1 that concerns over :he issue of
criteria are no longer the virt uall y exchsive
prov:nce of researchers :h.e:nselves. In both. the
United Sta:~s and :he United Kingdom, there !:ave
been moves to governmentally establish, if r:ot
impose, certain criteria not only to judge the
quality of research hut also to distinguish w~at
qualifies as research a:1d what does not
Ir: the United States. the most signlflrnnt move
has been the 2002 leglslative reauthor:zation of the
Elementary, and Secondary, School Act of 1965
known as No Child Left Behbd (NCLB). 1n the
Cnited K'ngdoo, there have been a nun:ber of
governmental moves to :r:fluence o~ even establish
criteria for judg:ng the qi:ality of inquiry. Among
the more important of these arr the Just •discussed
funding by the DfES the E?PI Centre and the
govcmm('nt-ti:nded and-led National Educational
Research Forum (NERF). In both countries, the
icea has been to set OJI the kinds of things that
researchers n:ust do to have a quality study and
th"n restrict research funding to those researchers
who follow the rules or the prescribed methods.
In tb: KCLB legislation, the crit-eria for judging
the quality of research ~Lidie~ are elaborated In
tl:e definition of what is ,ailed scientifically based
research. The standards or criteria (Le., !is: of
characterist ks in our language) are that the st1:dy
be 1;y~tematic and empirical, involve rigorous data
analrsis (Le .• statistical an,dysis), employ reliable
and valid data collection procedures (e_g., repeated
measu:es), possess a stro:1g research design
(i.e., experimental or quasi·expcrirnemal), allow
for the possibility o: replication, and im·oke
exper: scrutiny of results.
These elements, not surprisingly, !:ave been
translated into a hierarchy of approaches. The
randomized control group ap;>roa,h is referred
to as the "gold standard'' for research. Qua,i•
cxperii:1ental designs are second in order in
tl:e hierarchy and are referred to as the "silver
standard." Correlational studies, des er iptive
studie.~, case smd i<>s, and the like are further
down the list. The question, of course, is where
qualitative inqu:ry into fae picture. Because
it does not meet the standarcs as 1:oted in the
legislation, su far as NCLB is concerned, qualita•
tive im.Jufry is not research-or, if it is accepted
as research, it must be thought of as quite rudi·
mentary indeed.
Why this elimir:atior: of qualitative rc!\earch
froo t:ie of scientific? At one level, it is
very likely the cast· that many people, includ-
ing rc,carc:1ers, believe philosophica:Jy or for
epistemological reasons that qualitati V(' inquiry
is not "real" research. This is a foe:i:lg that has
!:iccn rr.a:n:a'ned ·:ly many empiricb I·oriented
researchers s ins:c 1he 1980s, when qualitative
inquiry began to gain increasing attention. For
tlle:n, q u1l itative approac;,cs have bee:1, at worst,
a use'.es, d:stractio:1 or, at best, a wa}' of general·
i:1g possible resea,cl: ques:ions for much more
"rigorous" sdent'fic inYest:gahons with cont:ul
groups, statistical analysis, and so forth.
Be this as ii may, we suspect th,lt there is a
major reason for :his desire to impose crite,ia by
way of governmental intervention that pushes
qualitative inquiry to the si,ielines of accept·
able inquir1~ This reason center$ or. what we
refer to as tl:e subversive nature with regard to
empiricism-of qualitative inqn'ry. There is a
great deal :o be gained by social and educat:onal
researchers in teems of social prestige and eco-
nomic advantage by claiming :o be scientist~, on
par with natural s~ienhsls, and convinc:ng others
to honor this dai m. The problem is that mm:h of
qualitative inquiry was nurtured by philosophical
arguments that undrrmi ned the dai :ns, and even
the hopes, that a science of the soda] was possible
(on our inability to find law•like generalizations
and why this is important, see Smith, 1993; on the
systematic unpredictability uf tn: rmm affairs ar.d
the like, see (ziko, 1989, aad Maclnty:-e, 1984).
And, of ;;oursc, it must be noted that if there is r:o
science of the soda!, there can be no scientists of
the sodaL It hears repeadng; the~e is a great deal
at stake here for many people.
In a very si:nilar senst, when qi:aEtar h,·e
inquiry was s,ibversivc of the supposedly scientif:c
 Smi1h & Hr.dkinson: Relativism, Crirerla, and Politics III S2,
approach to incuiry, ii also was subversivt' of
the dai • s to neutral:ty anc o',; ectivity-that
comfortable image of the researcher as a "ne1:tral
b::okern of information policymakers. Many
ve-rsions of quali:ative ir,quiry offered the
challenge that research must have a direct
ameliorative intent and effect In an echo o: Marx,
rna:1y peop:e-althoi.:gh not necessarily being
M:mdsts-have argued :hat re5earch is nut just
about stuiying the wurld but <.lso a':mut changing
it As such, qualitative in,:;u:ry is very often driven
by social purpose to i:npnwe the lives of margin•
alized and op?res.~ed peoples. This is why qua Ii ta•
tive research is often driven by perspec:ives that
go .::ider labels such a5 pustcolonialist, fem in'st,
gay/lesbian, and dlsahlist. We suspec1 that for
many conventional researchers, anc certa:nly for
many officials in the government, this idea of
resea:-ch as direct social er:gagc:nen: poses an
unacceptable situation and must be controlled.
Fi:1aily, a speculative comment about what
KCLB might mean for the A• erican Educa-
tional Research Association (AERA) and why
Sh,r,elson and Towne (2002) discussed qualita-
ti•te inquiry with such ambiguity (as noted pre-
viously; is in order. A significant m.:mber of
AERA mem hers now thbk of themselve:; as
qualitative researchers. Certain!)', some would
accept methodical constraints and art acrnrd-
ingly, ever. though obeying methods is ~ nlike'.y
to gain them sigr:ificant res?ect from the scien•
t:tk types, Others, however, have adopted an
ameliorative agenda and are doing readers· theater,
autoethnographies, postmodernist approaches,
artistic a?p:,ia:hes, and so forth. Because the
nonn:ethodical are considered not to be doing
research at all, and the methodically orie1:~ed
qt:aEtatin researchers-faeir adherence to
r:iethod notwithstanding-are considered not
to be doing really :-igorous research, does this
mean that the AERA sho·1'.d divide :ts elf ii: to the
research members, the sort of research membe-rs.
and ,he nonresearch members? Or, perhaps,
should people go their own different ways and
form difa:rent associations? We sm;pect tha:
the thought of this is unacceptable, maybe rio:
to those who wrote t:ie .'JCLI! definition of
research bur pos8ibl y to Shavelson and Towne
(2002) and th members of the National Research
Council Committee. We can th:nk of no other
explanation for their waveri1:g comments about
tl:.e status of quali ta tivc research-yes it is
research, no it reallv. isn't research, rnavbe
, ii is
sor': of research, and so fon:i. \fayhe the rrpo,t
itself is a political document; a:1y hdiefa the
authors may have really had about ~he status of
quah :ative research aside, they had to temper
those beliefs in the face of tie facl faat there are
a whole lot of quaE ta:ive educational researchers
around. The politics of criteria is inescapable,
In the United Kingdom in the year 2000, the
then secretary of state for education argued tha:
the resea:·ch communit}' hac to do much more to
meet the neecs of policy:nakers and practition-
ers ( Blunkett, 2000). This stateme:it was foJowed
by a raft of government-led and -supported
initiatives to ensure ~hat this happened. The
funding of oa;_[ey's EPP! Centre ~as described
earlie1. Others induded the establishment of the
government funded and -lee. NERF, whose rolt>
was to coordinate and direct educationa I research
efforts, bringing together all major resea,c:1
funders, major joi;rnal editors, and key users of
research. Membershi:J in this group is by i:wita-
tion,and during i:s early days a simplistic empiri·
dst stance, if not a positivist one, was adopted, It
was originally ,suggested that the NERI' would
draw up "agreed criteria" that would be univer-
sally used by all funders and journals to ensure
that only high-quality educa:ional research sur-
vived (NERF. 2000). The NERI' later backed off,
in the of arguments that such an approach
would 'Jnde:mine acade:nic freeao •. The NERF
was paralleled and predated hy a major new
research program, the Teaching and Learning
Research Programme {TLRP). Although it was
administered by a:i independent goverr.ment·
funded agency, the Econo:nic and Social Research
f.oundl (ESRC), funding came Iron: other govern-
ment sources. The remit was :o produce high
quality scientific educatio:ial rescarcl: that would
lead directly to improvements in teaching and
lea,ning. Projects were to be relatively large, with
few under D00,000 and several over £800,000.
 II HANDBOOK OF QllAUTATIVE RESEARCH-C:l:APTER 36
Mixed qualitative and quantitative methods
were to be preferred ever qualitative research
alone. Money was also to be devoted to rese',m:h
capad:y building, 1:J:it i:Iitially for experimental
am! quantitative educational research. More
~ecently, this program has widened :ts approaches
h:u still rcta: n, a broadly empiricist rationale.
This concerted ar:d governmrnt•dr'vcn move-
ment to reform research in ways that make
it more "rigorous" and more useful to po'.icy-
makers does not apply only to educatio11. In the
U.K/English governme:1t str:icture t we need to
spec:fy Eng:and because recent partial devo'.Jtion
means that practices in Scotland, Wales, and
Nortber:1 1re;ar:d are becoming increasing! y
diffe::ent), major departments, such as the DiES,
are sc;,,mnc 1:cliloms. Si:,~"' the Labour Party
came to power in 1996, then: has been significa:it
growt'l of more centrali:red control through the
Cabinet Office, which answers directly ~o the
p:ime min;ster. In 2003, the Cab:net Office pub-
lished a major report or. the .:riteria that should
bt! used to j t:dge the worth of qualitative resea1ch
(Spencer, Ritchie, Lewis, & Dillon. 2003).
The ostensible purpose of this report is to aid
policymakers and others in judging the quality of
government-funded and -sponsored cva:;iation
,cports, which contained mainly or partly quali-
:alive data. However, the size and form of the
re?o,t suggest wider Jnart:culnted moth.es. The
re;:iu:t seto 01:: w:1at is claimed to be "a compre-
hem,ive and syste:na:ic review o"' :he ::.:search
literature relating to standards in qualitative
research" (Spencer et aL, 2003, p. 6). Through this
approach anc otncr approaches, ir:clud:ng "a
review of e1d,qfr1g "rnmeworks for reviewing
quai:ty ir: qualita:ivc rl.:'scarc:i" (p. I :he
authors produced their own framewo,k This is.
they claimed, suitable for judging ''qualitative
research more generally [than just evaluaLionsl"
(p. 17), especially re&earch that uses "interviews,
focus groups, observation, and documentary
analysis" '.P- : 9). The resnlting framework con
sists of 18 "'appraisal questions;' each of which
is accompanied by a series of "quality indica-
tors." These :terr.s are "recurrently citec as mark-
ers of qua:ity in the liternture, i::i pre-exisling
frameworks, ar.d in the interviews lwitl: some
researc:iers a:1 d polkymake rs] conducted for
1his s:.udf (p. 19).According to the a,-1thors, these
,Jues:ions entail ii:: erpretation in ;heir not
all will apply in every drcumstance, and addi-
tional questions will ;;omet:mes ':)e needed.
Above all, the autho,s claimed tl:at hecause their
framework is not "procedural;' it :s not subject
to previous criticisms of predetermir:ed am:
u 11 iver,al sets of researcl: criteria, which we
disc"Jssec earHer in the chapter.
Thus, tlcspite disduirm:rs, the fnrn:cwork fa
being set up as something approaching a defini-
tool that pulls toge(ner the ac.:umulated wis-
dom of the current times. Therefore, it becomes
the touchstone aga imt w hkl: other frameworks
and r:mst, if not all, q ualitalive researd1 outputs
ran be judged. 1 his view is reinforced when we
c1rn:11ine tho!l.: types of qualitative re;;earch that
Spencer and colleagues (2003) claimed arc not
covered. Ir. .,ddition to research not mi:1g inter-
views, focus groups, observations, or documen•
tar~· analysis, othe: research that is "out of scope''
includes n set of extren:e alternatives to which few
researchers, if any, could sign ;Jp. The:-e is spac8
here for only a couple of eium:;:iles: "An external
reality exists independently cf human construc-
tors a:id is accessible di n~ctly or exactly ... OR
there is no (shared) rcal:tv, '
onl,. alternative indi-
vidual human constructioml" {p. 50). Also out of
scope are stud:es where either ''it is possible to
produce accurate accounts which one knows with
certainty correspond directly with reality OR ...
there are no privile@ed accounts, Olli)· ilternali\'e
understandings" (,1. 50). The lorce of tht:~e sor:~
of sup?oscd qualifkation is that :iearly all ,eason
able rcsea:-cl: ?~rspectives are easily inckded.
In these ways, w:rnt starts as an attempt to help
policymakers use their own .:valuations ~nds up
as a goverr.mer::-sponsored framework to judge
ne,;rly all q1,:1!lit.itive research,
rhis all-encompassing and flexible fn:mework
has dear epistemological underpinnings that
were never critica:Jy ac'.,mowledged by Spercer
and colleagues (2003). The report dai:ne( "Fur
the purposes of this framework, the .;uality of the
qualita:ivc research that generates the evidence
 S1:1ilh & Hodkinsim: Re1ativism, Criteria, ii:1d Poli1 ks !Ill '11'1
. ..,, at the heart of anv' assessment
, .. is seen as !vino
:or a:1 evaluation output I" (p. le). method is the
prime detcnr: ina1:t of tmth. Thus, :o idrnti fy the
extent to whic'! a research report contributes to
knowledge, it is not necessary IO k:1nw much
about the substantive area to wl:kh tl:e contrib1e•
ticn is made. H.ath.:r, it is :nnre :r:1portan1 to check
whether there is a lileratun, review, wht:thc:r the
research design was "set in tl:c context of existing
knowledge/understanding'' (;1, 72), whe:her there
is a "credble/dear disc·Jssion of !:ow findings
have conlrib'.ited :o inowledge and undcrstanc •
i:ig [and] f: ridings Iand preser. ted or co nee p-
tual i:r.cd in a way :hat o[fer[ s I new insig:its"
(p, 22 ), and whether there is ''di scussi o:, of
li:nitatio:is of ev:dence and what remains
unknowni',mc:car" {p. 22).
This approach was presented as uncuntrm·er •
sia: despite detailed, if S'Jpcrficial,attention to the
paradigm debc:es in the report. J:lurthermo1e,
thrrr is something very odd about :his approach
wher. it is set alongside tl:e exclusionary cate-
gories described previously, From tb, neo~ealist
pers?ective ofSpcm.::cr and colleagues (2003), what
does it mean to daim that research ba s,:d 0:1 what
they cal:ed "na'fvc realism" ur "radical consl~uc-
tivism" is "oi; t of scope"? '!'his implies :hat issue,
of ontology am: epistemology arc natters of ;:ier·
sonal belief (::elati v:st in our terms) and that the
belie':, and values of e: ther the rcscan:hcr n:- the
~cscarch rcacer should dt'.lt:rminc the c·itcr ia that
~re applied. ;Jns,epr isingly, the implications of
such a stance arc not admowkdged or addressed
because the po:itkal at1d rhetorical pJrposc of
:hesc "out of scope'' exclusions is to leg;tlmil:e 11:e
u:1iver~aJty of the fra • c'A'ork despite explicit
claims that this is not the case.
Other than raising fu rthcr and ongoing
debates, it is the politkal context and purpo,e of
the report that makes this logka: paradox
signitlcant Tl:is framt>work is explidtly and
imp'.killy intended as a n:eans of jucgi:ig tl:c
worfa of qualilatiYe rcscarcb, with ,:ear ,utd obvi-
m:s implicalions for the alloc,1tion of s,arcc
research resource,--both the cdtural ,-:apit.il of
esteem and recogr.i t ion and the economic mp ital
o:: future research contract success. In cf:'ect,
Ih;ough this repor:, :he government '.Vas striving
om:e more to establish t: 1:lversal criteria for the
nmtrul of social and educational rcs<c,;1rch that the
NERF ,et a, its early g,ml hcfo,c lnckir:g off in
response to rharges rh <.: ic wa, ct; rtailing aca-
demic freeanr.. The deiailed and cor.p'.CY arti-
culation of a wide rar.11e of liternlure, :·ne tone of
V
sdf-cv:dcr:: reasona'.:ilenes,, and the a:guments
!hal a,~ advanced to deu mnslratt t:11: credibillt y
and ap?licability of this fr;,me,,•ork will r:ullify
any such aimpllstie response t'lis time around. If a
few of us are foolish enough tn adopt one of the
extreme positions that arc "out of scope;' we arc
free to do so, and the fr;.rncwork acknowledges
our existence outside its 'rame. Of cot:rsc, tl:osc
of i:s who do so shollld not exr'ect either ft:r:di ng
or esteem to fo!lov,,. If this framework :nfiltrates
irn;: i,cct forms of :J.K government research fund-
ing, such as th: aware of ESRC research co:ltrncts
or the evaluation of outputs used in the Resea,cl,
A,sessmen1 Ex!;'rcisc, political control over
restarch will become nearly univ~r,al.
Taken collectivel,, thesr initiatives 11monnt
to a delibemle ar:d powerfu] J.K. goverr:nent
ii::c:vention into fl:c conducl a:id nature of
educational research, ustensibly 10 improve its
quality and mak~ it more relevant to polictimikers
,lll,; policy :mplementers. As these inihatives
ch,mgcd the edi;rntional rrsea,d: m?.:; of the
1:nited Ki ngdo:n, rescarchc,s thrmseh·es became
engaged in a high-stakes po:itical ;,mcess. Some
celebrated the !1;;W dirnatc and worked hard to
x: nforce and st:engther: it while :10 doubt looking
for opportunities to further their own work a:1d
careers. Others worked tu oppose a:1d resist the
changes, trring to prese::Ye •'Paces fur alternative
re,ea,cl: c;:;p,oaches, induding the sorts of work
;ha: they wanted :o do, Still others Wllrked to pla}'
the 11;;,w regime ;1y describing research in ways
that might att:a:;;: Tl.RP funding hut without
subscribing :o ib original hardli nc philo~opby.
Ill INJ ERFSTING T!MRS
We dose w: th two co:n men ts aboa: lht increab·
ingly evident poEtical nati:re ,if research and
9j0 !II IIANDROO:< OF QUALIIATIVE RF.SF'ARCH-CHAPTFR 36
criteria. first, we have argued tl:at :he m!lJ()r
mac:-opolitical interventions of hoth the U.S. and
l,:,K, govc,nmenh into social and educational
research are frameu arou11d softer or harder
\·ersions of empiricism and neorealism. This
link, of cou,.sc, is not coincidental. There are
strong relations between gover:iments' desires to
predict and control complex social <111d eco·
nmmc pro,cesse~ ,md the well-known role that
pr~dic:ion and control of phenon:ena and
pro,2e,ses plays within empiricism. Put differ•
ently. current approaches a,e do:ninated by what
1Iabermas ( 1972) termed "technical interests"
and are also part of :he much wider social and
political growth of ar: audit society ( Power,
; 997) or an audit culture ( Strathern, 1997,
2000). 1he audit cult1:re is dominated by
attempts to measurr the succrss and value of
everything. Thus, in both the United States and
tl1e United Ki:igdo;n, education establis'.1ment,
are increas: ngly iudged comparatively aga: nst
measures such as the n,temion of students, ~he
proportions of smdents who complete the
courses, the '.cvels evenbal qualitkarion 6at
students attain, and standardized test scores. In
this context, it is hardly surprising tr.at there are
strong gm·ernmenl pressures for similar mea•
sured and mpposedly objective performance
criteria for research. It is this audit rultu re, and
its r.early universal a,sumptions of measured
value, that lies behind Shavdson and Towne's
(2002) report in the United States and the
Cahinet Office's report (Spencer al., 2003) in
:he United Kingdom. 111 this audit climate, the
view that research jndgmen: is a matter of
em bodiec interpretation, and that lis:s of er itcria
are tluid and changing, is alien self-indulgen~e
at best.
As Haber n:as ( 1972; argued. this link among
empi:ici sr:1, posith·isf:1, and government interesls
i, more than j ·Jst technical, Such technical
app:oaches detlec! attention away frn:n deeper
issues of vah;e a:id purpose. They rr.ake mdirn l
critiques much r:, ore difficult to :nount ar.d, as
we have seen, re:ider largely invislble partisan
ippmache~ to research under the politically use-
ful prctc:Ke t:1at judgments arc abm:: objec:ive
quality only.As Bourdieu ( 1998} wrote, ernpiricisf:1
and pusitivism are tools of the powerful:
The dominants, technocrats, and epistemocnits of
1he righ: or the left ~re hand ln glove wilh reason
and the universal: mw makes way through
universes in wh:ch murc and more techni~al,
au~•uu, jus:itlcations will be ::ecessary in order to
dominate and ir: w:ikh domina:ed can and
mus: also use rea~m: to dcfrnd ther::selves ag.i::ist
domim:1 io11, because the dominants nmst :ncreas·
i ngly invoke reason, and sdence, to exert their
dominal:on. (p. 90)
Second, wf th:nk that governmental inter-
ventir:m into the polit irs of criteria is an
announcement that the "cu 1:ure wars":, ave come
lo educational and social resea:-ch. Since the
I%Os, more strongly in lr.e United States and kss
so in the United Kingcor:i, there have been ongo•
ing batt:es over the shape of our socielies and
cul:ures. These disoutes over issues have ranged
fro • abortion, to gay/lesbia:1 marriage,, to tl:e
c,ntent of history and sociology and other
coi:rses in o;i r schools, to the rnntent of television
shows. I: seems that it was on! y a matter of time
unt i1 these types of divisions would '::lerome a
pruminent par: of our }udgmen:s about accept-
able versus ur:acceptable social a:id educational
research, And just as the social discourse has
become more stri~rnt, so migh; the ci scussions
of research qaali:.y in the future. Of course, we
ca :1 o:ily vrait and see.
For us, the conclusion to all of this is very
dear, There is no point in pretending that power
and politics,at both the micro level and the macro
level, are not a part of !he process by which we
make ji.:dg:nc:its about the quality llf research,
We live in the era of relativism, and there ,an be
no time· and place-independent criteria for
judgment-that is, criteria :hat arc "untainted"
by our various opinions, ideologies, emotions,
and self-interests. Power and politics are wilh us,
and the only issut:S are how power is used and
how the political process is playec out. And of
course, the answers will not. be found in episte•
:nology; inste.i.c, they will be, found in our rea5on
ing as finite practkal and mo::-al bei r.gs.

Ill REF:'REl'iCES
Abel, T. (1~48t The operdon c,db: w1·stehen.
A•r:.:rican /o:1ma: of Sodology, 2 I 1-2 ·. 8.
Ball, S. J. (198 7). The 1nicr11·1•0/i1 ics of rf;e sciwa!.
Lnndon: 1\.let':·.uen.
Be,;ke:, ft S. [JY71). Becoming a marihuan,1 user.,:.
!l. lt Cosin, :. R. Dale, (i. M. :.:sland, & Il. M. Sw'ft
(Eds.), SchMf and e,ir1-,t·,,, A s;,t:io/ogicol ,ca,icr
(pp. 14 > 147). l.011,lon: lbutledgc & Kcgan PauL
Be.::ke:t, D., & lfagc:r, I( (2002). Lifi:, wur.~, l.eamirig:
PmEli,:e in post modernity. Lnmltm: RLIJ1 ledge.
Bernstein, IL ( 1983 ). Beym1d nb/ei:ti·mm aiui re!a!lvism.
Philaddp:1la: l:niversity of Pennsylvania Press.
llr.askar, R. '.197'>). Th11 pmsibiiit;, of 11~ 1urafam.
Atlantic Hig!:lands, NJ: Humanilics
Blunkett, Ll. t2UOO, rebruary). I11J!1m1ec or irteiei·,mc,
social wien,e improve ,,:aver111wc111? Se.:r<:tary
rf State's cc,Jr.<1mic and Social Research Cuu m:il
lecture s::e<:ch, Londo ..
Bourdieu, P. (1998). l'raniml rewum. Cambridge, l'K:
Pclitjc
Bourdieu, P., & Wac<1m1r:t, L J D. ( l An inv it,1lfon
to rc'flexive sociology. C,m, bridge, l'olit y.
Chcrr}'holrnes,C. ( l 988).l'i:merand critic;sm. )kw York:
Co:umbia t:niversity, Teachers Cnllegf Pres,,.
Cziko, G. 11 '!89). U1:predirt,1bility and i ndekrmi:::sm
in human Jt>lmvmr: Argume:1t~ ,md implications
for e<lt1,3tfonal :esearch. Edurnti,mai Jieseard,e1;
181:l), 17-25.
1:onmoyer. R. ( 1996 ). l:ducational re;;r,. :ch in an t•rn of
p11rndigm prclifrra:iun: Wbr.:'s a ;<mr:ial editor to
dur Educ.;ti,mal ffr,eurrhe,;
Cada1m:r, H-G. ( Truth muI m,;tfi,ui (2::d rev.
cc., (. Weinsr.eimer & Ll. G. Ms."-ha::. Trr.:1,.).
t,cw Ycrk: Cros.,rnm:..
1;arrat1,), & Hodkinson, l: {1<191:1). Can there he crih>
ria :<Jr sdeding resl:"<1r.:h c1 ileria? I\ hermeneutical
analy,is of an inesrnpahlt: <lik•mmu, Qualiiatiw
Jnqu I1Ji 4, 5 J
Giddt'ns, A. {l<J7Ci). N'ew rn!e, of sod,l/ogf,:a/ method:
A posilrre critique of i11te,·rrcli1•c sociolo;;ies
t London: Hutd1i1m,n.
(:ond man, (1978 ). Wa)'S of 1wrl1bnctbng, rndia-
napdis, 11": Hacken,
Goug::. & Elbo,.rlle, {WC2). Systcmati, research
,ynlhe,is to inform policy, practk,>, amt democ-
ratic deb:itc.Soda! Palf,y umJ Soci,:ry, l, LL,-,,.:m
'ii!he~mas, I. '. l Knowicdgr "mJ hunw.11 interests
\2nd ed.;. Lo:idon: Hei11emam:.
Smith & Hodkinson: Relafr,is::1. Crilerfu, anc Politics 1111 93:
Hammersley, M. (1990), Reading ethnographic
'"'"m" I,· Au iti,al guide. L,;mdo11 Long1c:an.
Hanson, N. ( IY5S). Pimern; of .i1mwcry. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge lniwrsity Press.
Htu·l rigg, L ( l Yll'l). Claim, o( knoiv/edge. 'lalbha:is~c:
Fk1rida SLt1:c University Press.
Hesse, M. ( 198{) ,. Rl:vo/1111,ms rmd rernn;frudions fn
the philosophy (If science. Brighton, l K: l t,rvcsltr.
Hlllap.e, J., Pc:a:~nn, R., A11<lerso11, A., & Tc :nkin, P.
(1998) t:;x,,ellCn,::e in srhools, l.ondcm: lnstitule
for Rmploymenl Studies.
Hodki n,011, I'. (I '>98, Aug·.1st). Narvete :md bfas in
ed'.u::at'tmal rese,irrr: The Toolry Report Resew·ch
Intelligence,
Hodkinson, P. (2304). Rcs~ard1 a, J form of work:
F:xpert:se, rnmtmmil y, and methodological objc.·: •
ivity. llriti5h i:.ducalitm,1} Research fnunu1l, 30( I),
0
: 9-26.
Hodkinson, P., & Smith, I. (2004 ). Th~ rda:ic,nship
between re»earch, policy, and practice. In R. l'ri::g
& G. T:inmas (Eds.), Evidenu-based pr11c1ia
!pp. 15fl-lli3;. Huddngham, UK: Open t;niversi!t
Press.
llofamdtcr, IJ, (1979). G,5de/, Bach: An eteornl
g1•!de11 im11d. 'Jew York: Basic Books.
Eoylc, E. ( 1982) Mkropolitks of educational O"ganlza-
1:ons. E,1ucat101111i .'Wauage111mi and Admiuistra.
tlon, 10,
lloyk, E. (198(,) politics sdwol management
London: Hodder & Stough1011.
Kcrling~r, E ; 1979). &haviornl rescard,. J\ew
:-lo'.t, Rinehart & Wimton.
Kuhn, I. S. ! l 962 J, The structure af scierr/!)ic rc,voiutfrms.
, ... 1L<.liu: Ur::versity of Chicago :'ress.
Leary, ll. rI984 ). Phllosophy, ~syrhology, am: real it)"
ltmerirun P.,yc/11)1,,gist, -919.
Macl::tyrc, A !I 984). After virtue (2nd ed.). \lolrc
l>a::1c, IN: University of Kotr<' U~mc Press.
MacKe:iz.ic, D. II 981 ). St,nistics ill Grell/ Erfr,1iri:
1885-1\1.W. Edinburgh. l'K; Edin:mrgh
Univnsily Press.
Manicas, l~ (1987). A hi;tory ,md phifosophy the
social ,,11·i1r·,,,. Oxford, UK: !\as[ :lfarkweL
Manka,, }'., & ,,,,.,,,,, P. (1983}. ln:plkalfon, for
p,rchnlogy vf the new phifosoi,'iy of science.
linu:rfra n Psy·cht>fof!,'1SI, 399-413.
\f,igel, T ( I9116 ). 11u: vi,'W from nowhere. New York:
Dxfo~d ;Jniver,il y Press.
';\at:ona: l::ducation;tl R~sean;h Forum. (2GOOJ.Re.;,?Ul';li
development in education: A naficmtl slr:Ueg;,;
,onsultatfrm p,1per. Nottingham, t.: K: Aulh.:,r.
932 11 HANDBOOK OF Qt.:AUTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 36
Oakley.A. (2000). Experiments in .bwwing: Gmderand
method in the social ;dem:es. l.oncion: Polity.
Oakley, A. ( 2003 j, Research eviden;:e, k1:owlc.lge
r:1am1gement, and cdw,::ulional pra,lkc: Early
lessons from a syslcmatic approach. London
R,'l'iew ofEd,ication, I (I), 21- 33,
Phillips, I), C., & Burbules, N. C, (2000). Pi1>tp11,,itivism
and educatirn,al re,rnrch. La,:ham, ~:D: Rowmnn
& Utt:efie'd.
Polanyi, M. ( 1962). Persona! /wow/edge, Chicago:
t:'nivcrsity of Chicago Prns.
Popper, K, ( The it.1gic of scientific disc1wery.
London: Hutd:::1son.
Popper, K. ( 1972 ). Objcttive knowledge. Oxford, lJK:
Clarendon.
M. ( 1997), The audit ,aciery; Riluals ol verij1ra-
tio11. Oxford, Ult Oxforc U,1iversity Prc,1,,
Pring, It (1000), Pl1i/osophy educatumul re,e1ird1.
London: Continuum.
Putmm, H, (1981). Rea,rm, muh, and history,
Camt,r'dge, t:K: Cambridge University
Ro,ly, It (1985). Solida:ity or o:ijectivity? In
I. Rajchman & C. West (Eds.), Posf,ai,alytic philos•
ophy (pp. 3- 19). !',;ew Yorlc Colum·J'a University
Schwandt, T, (1996), Farewell tc c;iteriolugy. Quaiilatfw
Inquiry, 2, 58-n.
& Towne, L (2002). Scitn'{ftc reserm:h
in ed:11::a,lon. Washington, DC: National Academy
?ress.
Slavin, R, (2002). l:vidence-based pulide~: Transtorm-
i11g educational :iractke and rcsean:::. Edu ca/ ional
Ri>seardtet, 31(7). L Wokot:, H. i 1999). 1:t.~mig•aphy: A way
Smith, J K. : 1985). Soda! reality a~ mind-dependc::t
versus ::iind-inde;iendcm and tl1e ::1terprctatio::
llf trsl validity. Jaumal of R.rsearc/1 and D.mtlup-
mem in Edw:atfrm, f, 1-9.
Smith, I. K. (1989), The nature of social and educa-
1ional inquiry: Empir ici,m rem1s mll!rp,etutio,;,
J\'orwood, :XJ: Ablex.
S:nit::, J. (1991 ). After tlit demise of empiricism; The
problem 1fiw{,f!,ing sodai and ed,1catfrma! inquiry.
Nmwooc:, NJ: Ablex.
Smilh, J. K., & Deemer, IC (2000) problem of
criteria in the age of :elativism. In X, K, Denzin &
Y, S. Ur.coin (Eds.}, Hamibook of qiuilitutive
research !2nd pp, 877-396), Thcusand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sparkes, A. C, ( 1994). Sdt silence, ar,d invisihilitr as a
heginning teach,•r: A history of lesbian expe-
riem:e. British journal of' Sociology of Education,
15(1 ), 93-118
Spa::kes, A. ( 2002 J, Telimg tales i•r spor. a11d physical
activity: A quaHtativt· jc11rne): Leeds, l:K: Iluman
Kinet'<::s.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, ]., Lewis. J., & Dillon, L (2003 J.
Quality in qualitative e,~1111~/ian· ,4 framework far
,rnes.•ing wsem,·/1 evidence, London: Cabir:et Office.
Strathern, M. (: \197). ''Improving ratings"· Audi: in the
Sritish univcrs:ty system. Europe,m Revie·A?, 5,
305-)21.
Strnthern, M, (2UOO). The tyn::my of trat:sparency,
British Educatinr.ai Resrarch ]o,muil, 26, 309-J21.
Taylor, C, (I 971 }, Interp,etation and the sciences of
man. Re,·1ew of lvfov.1.pf;pin,
'Jlly!or, C. (I 989 ). $curces of the ;elf. Cambridge. UK:
Cam·J::idgc !Jnivers:ty Press.
Tooley, J., with Darby, D. (]998). Edurnti1m rese1m:h:
An OFSl'ED critique. :.ondor:: OFSTED.
seeing.
Walnut Creek, AltaM:ra.
W<1kr,tt, H, (2002). Sr,1:,;ky Kid and its ,iftemm//;: Ethics
and intimacy fn field·,;mr/c WE::mt Creek, CA:
Alt~Mirn.
37
------------------------""'U!$¥4:;;:;1,;;'t,0\'
EMANCIPATORY DISCOURSES
AND THE ETHICS AND
POLITICS OF INTERPRETATION
Norman K. Denzin
From :he point of the colonized, a positio~
from which l write, and choose to privileg,:, tr:,: :em:
"research" is inextricably linked tn European impe-
r:alism and mlonlalfam. The Itself, "research;'
fa probably u:ie o:: the dirt:e,t Wfl,di; the Indige-
nous world's vo~abular1.. ( Smith, l999, p. 1)
A story grows frorr: the inside oul and the inside
of :,,Javajolanc is so;nelhing l know liule of. llut I
know myself if I begin travding w:th an awal't'lless
of my own ignorance, :rustir:g my instincts, I can
look for my own stories unbe.!Jed in the land-
scq:es I travel through ....
I am not suggcst'llj! we cmufa:e Native
Peoples-in this tase, the Na\'ajn. We ca~'t. We are
no: Navajo. Beside~ their traditior.al stories don't
work for us. It's like drinking another :nan's medi-
cne. Their stn~es h11ld 1~ea11 it:g fur :.is only as
examples. They can teach us wha: is pos,ible, We
mu,t create and find our own stories, onr own
myt::s. (William;;, 1984. pp. 3, 5)
This chapter, in tl:e form of a manife.sto,
invites indigenous and noni ndigenous qualitative
resc-arclu:rs to think through the imp~kations of
a practical, progressive politics of perfor:native
inquiry, an emancipator:, dis,ourse connedin!!!
indigenous e?islemologies (Rains, Archibald, &
Deyhle, 200(1, p. 3381 theories of decoloni-
zation and the postcolonial (Soto, 2004, p.
Sv,adenc:- & Mutua, 2004, p. 255) with critical
pedagogy, with new ways of reading, wriling, and
pe:forming culture in the tirst cecade of a new
century (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2UIXl, p. 285 ). 1
I believe the performance-based human disc:,
plines can contribute :o radical social change,
to economic justice, to a utopian culturai politks
that extends lo ~alized cri tkal (race) theory
a:id the principles of a radical democracy tG all
aspects of decolonizing, indigenous societies
{Giroux, 2000a, pp. x, Kaomea, 2004, p. 31;
L. T Smith, 2000, p. 228; Swade:ier & Mutua,
2004, p, 257),
1 ad ,;ocate change tr.at "envisions a c.cmocracy
founded in a social justice tiiat is 'not yet"'
(Weems, 2002, p. 3). I believe that nonindgenous
ln:erpretive scholars should be part of this project
(see Denzin, 2004a, 2004b, in press;. How this
endeavor is ir.1 plem ented :n specific indigenous
contexts should be determined by the imiigennus
peoples j nvolvec. 1 also believe that this initiative
should be part of a larger conversation-nar:1.ely,
the global decolonizbg discourse connected ;o
the works of anticolonialist scholars, including
ii 933
934 111 IIAN0300K Of QUALITAf!VE RESEA:{CJI-CHAPTER 37
those of First Nations, Native An:crican, Alaskan,
Aa~r2lian Aboriginal, New Zealand Maori, and
f\'2tivc Hawaiian hcritll.ge (see in this voh: me
Smith, Cr.apter 4; Bishop, Cbapler 5; see alw
Mutua & Swadencr. 2004; S:nith, 1999).'
A postcolonia:, indig<'nm:s participa:ory theater
is centra I to this discourse ( Bal me & (arslensen,
200I; Greenwood, 2001 ).' (ontemporary imlige-
nous pla~wrights and performers revisit and make
a moc;;:ery of 19th-century rac:~t ;m1ctk:e~. T:iey
interrogate and tun: the 1ajJes on blackface rnin-
stn:lsy and the global colonial thca,er that repro-
duced rnr:st politics through smidfk cross-race
ar:d cross-gender performances. The show how
these performances used whiteface and blackfoce
h: the construction of c.ulonial models ofwhitene,s,
hla,k:ies.;;, gender, and national iden!iry (Kondo,
2000.p.83: Cilbert,20ll3).
Indigenous t::eater nurtures a critkai trans-
natioi:ai yet historically specific critical race
conscioll5 ness. It uses indigenous performance
as means o: political representation (Magowan,
2000, p. 3l I). Tbmugh lhe retlcxive use of histor-
ical res:agir:gs, masquerade, ventriloquism, and
doubly invi:,red performances iuvo.vir.g mcle
and frnrnle impcrsot1ators, this s,ibversive theater
undermir:es colonial racial represe:itations (Bean,
200 L pp. !lP-188}. It i ncmporal!'S traditional
indigenous and nonindigenmrn cultural texts into
frarne.vorks that disrupt colunial rr. odds ,ace
relations. This theater takes up key diasporic con-
cerns, including t~ose of memory, cultura: loss,
disor'enlat;oi:, violence. and exploitation (Balme
Carstensen, 2001, p. 45). Thi~ is a utopian the-
ater th,Jt addresses issues of equity, healing, a1,d
social justice ...
Cons idcr the following;
• :r: ht'l' play Hrnise Arrest (2UU3), Anna Deavcre
Smith rilfers "an epi: view of sl,mTy, sexual
conduc:, and the American preoidency. Twelve
actors, some in blad:face. play across line~ of
race, age and gender to 'bcrnme' l~ill C.:.nlon.
Thomas fe/lerwn, Sally Hcmings ... and a vast
array of historical and rnmrmporary figures'
: Kondo, 2000, p. 8 i ).
• In f;;ative Canadian Daniel ])avid Moses's play
/!!mighty ¼Jic,· r11J,1 Hi, Wife (1992), .Native
perfmmers, wearing whitefoce minstrel m;i,,1<,.
mock su,h histor:ca: ll,um:s as W: Id Bill Cody,
Sitting Bull, and yo _;ig :r:dian makkm, called
$;,eet Sioux (Ci:hert, 2003, p. 692).
• III Aust,al iu, Al:Joriginal theater groups
pe:form s:a1emen1, their indige :1ous righ·,,
der::anding L:iat pol i:(,:ian, partki pale in the;;e
perfo,mn::rc: events rn•pmducers n:ean ·
in~ ,atl:cr than as t-..:il nmsur:iers" (Magowan.
2000, pp. 317-318).
Thus do indigenous per:ormam:cs function as
strategics of critjq uc and empowerment.
The "Decade of the Worlc's Indigenous Peo;,les"
(1994-211114; Henderson, 2000, p. 168) has ended.
Non ind igcnous scholars have yet to learn from it,
to learn that 't is ti me to dismantle, deconstruct,
,rnd decoio:1ize Western epistemo:ogies from
within, to learn that reseaxr. docs not hav~ to
ne a dirty word, to learn that n::se,udi is always
already both moral and politcal.
:Shaped by the sociological irr:agir.ation
(Mills, 1959), building on George Herbt:rt Meads
( 1938) discursive, performative i,mdd the act,
critical quali!ath:e re;;carch imagim:s and i:;xplorcs
the :n:.iltiple ways in whid1 performance can he
understood, including us :mita:ion, or mimesis; as
constr:.i;;t:on, or poicsis; :md as n:ot ion or move-
ment, or kinesiJ (Conquergood, 1998, p. 3: ). The
re,c<1rcher-as-pcrforr:1er moves from a view of
performance 11, i11itatio11, or dramaturgical
ing (Goffman, 1959), to an emphasis on per:ur·
man;:e as liminality and cor.structio:i (McLaren,
1999;, then to a view of pcr!ormance as struggle, as
in:erventim:, as brea~ing and rem,1king, as kincsis,
3s a sociopolitica! act (Cor.qr:crgood, 1998, p. 32),
Viewed as struggles and intcrvent'm s, pcdor-
0
n:anccs ind performance events become tmns•
grcss ive ~chi eve • ents, political accoml,l ish men ts
that break thrm:g.h ''sedimented '.tleani:igs and
1101m.itive 1:-aditions" (Conquergood, 1998, p. 32).

.. is this pcri1,mative nrnde' of emancipatory
decolonized ind:gcnous ,esearch 1hat I develop
here (Garoian, 1999; Gilbert 200:~; Kondo, 2000;
Madison, 1999). IJ rawi:lg 0:1 Garoian ( :999 ),
Du Bois ( 1926), Gilbert 12003), Madison ( I•)98},
Magowan ( 2000). rn d Smith (2003), th',
::iodel enacts a utopian ;x:rformat:ve politics of
(see bdow). Extending inrliger:ou~
::iitiatives, ti: is model is commi ttcd to a form of
:evolulionary pol'tica'. theater :.hat pcrfor• s
?edagugies of dissent f01 tne new millennium
(Mc'.',aren, 1997b).
W.y arg;imen: in this chapter 1.:nfolds in sev,::ral
part,. Drawing throughout from an ongoing ~ic,•
formancc text, l begh with a srt of oh~rades Iha!
~onfront the 1:01:imlige:10;.is cr:tical tl:eor:sL l
then briefly disc1ss race, the call to performance,
and the history of indigenous theater. I next
address a group of concepts and be arguments
associa:ed with thrm; these indude the rnn ccpts
o: ir.digenous episte:nol ogy, pedagogy, discours<'f:
resistance, politics is pcrfo~mance, and coun"
. .
te,narratives as critical illqt,irv: I hrietlv a Bis:10p, C:1c.p1er 5, this volume). The deco.on i1.a-
variety of incigenuus pedagogics as well as the
concept of indigrnmi, research as lncalil);:d criti-
cal 11:wry. 1 rl,1homte variations within the per-
sonal narrative approacti to dno:onii.cd inq1:i,y,
extending Ri..:hardson's (2000) rr:odd of'\:reative
analytic practkest or CAP ethnogra,hy (p. 929).
Then, after outlining a pu: itics of re;istance, I con-
d udt> the chapter with a discussion of indgenous
models of power, truth, ethics, and soda! justice.
In the spirit of D·J Bois, Dewey, Mead, 3lumer,
hooks, and West, I intend 10 cteate a dialogue
betwee:1 inc igcnous and non111digenous members
of th~ qualitatiw rcseard1 commur: ity. I want to
move our discourse :mm: fuLy into the spaces
of a g'.obal yet Jc..:alized pregn:,sin,, p::rforma-
tive pragmatism. I WiH1'. to !'x:e1:d those polit:cal
impulses witnin the feminist pragmatist trad:-
tion that imagine a radical, dcn:ocratic utopia.
rollowir:g l)u Bois, hooks, and West, I see
in: :;:ul ses a, (onshmtly inkrrogati ng the rele-
vance of pragmatism and critical theory !or :·ace
lknzit:: Eman;ipatcry JJ:scourses J11 935
relations and inequality in the glohal neolibe:-al
capitali~: stale.
!II 0BST:\CI.ES CONl'RllNTl;IIG "HE
NONlNlJIGEl,Ol:S CRITICAL T:IEORIST
In proposing a cmwcrsari on betwten iui ige-
nous and nonin<llgenous scholars, I am mindful
of several difficulties. First, s.;holars mu5t :-i:,cist
the lcga~y of Western colonizing other.
Smi ~h ( 1999) observe, of Western colonizers,
"Thev C<.mc-, they saw, they named. they c:ai 1m:d"
(p. SO). As agents of colonial power, Wc,:crn
scientists discovered, extracted, appropriated,
rnmmoditied, and cJ st ributed j,:10wledgc about
thr indigenous othc-r. 1\tanr indigenous cr:tics
con lend that these practice:; have placed cor:1 rol
over research ir: the ha11ds of Western scholars.
This means, fo:- exam?le, that Maori are excluded
from discussions :once:-ning wl:o has contml over
the in: 1iat '0:1 of research about Maori, the r:1ctl:od-
ll;o61e~ used, the evaluations cr,d assessments
made, the resulting representation~, and the distri-
bmion o: 1he newly defined knowledg~
tion pmject chuUe:1ges research practices tha: per-
petuate Western power by misrepresenting and
csscn tializing ir:d:genous persons, of:en de.:iyir:g
them or ide1:tity.
A second difficulty is 1'.·iat critical, inter-
pretive pe,formance theo:'y and critic«I race
theory will r:o: work with ii: indigenous settings
withu ut modi !:cation. Tl:e criticisms of Graham
Smith (2000), Linda Tuhiwai Smith ( 1999, 2000),
Hishop 11994, l 998), Hatti~ :e (200Ua, 2000b },
Church] (1996}, Cook-Lynn (: 9\Hi), an<l
make this drar. Critical thcnrv's
•
criteria fur
self-de term ir.at:on and empow,'rmc•,1: perpetuate
neocolo:1 ial sentiments whi:e Iurnl ng ti:£: ind'ge·
nous person into an essentiali;:ed "other" who is
spokeu for ( flisr.cp, Chapter 5, thi, volume). The
rntegories of race, gender, and :·aciali:oe.: idcnti•
tirs cannut be turn(•d into frozec, essen:i.J terms,
nor is racial ide11tity ,1 fo,.~-tloating signifier
(Grande, 2000, p. 3°13). Critical theeq· 11:;i,1 be
localiicd, groi:nded in the specific meanings,
936 ml HAXDBOOK Of QL"ALITAJlVE RESEARCH-CHA?TER
traditions, customs, and com:nunity relations
that oper~:e in €".!ch indigenous setting. Localized
critical theory can vrork if the goals of critique,
resistance, struggle, and emandpadon are not
treated "' 'f thev haw "universal characteristks
'
that are indepe:idrnt of history, context, and
ager:c( (L. T. Smith, 2000, p. 229).
A third difficulty lies in the pressing need for
scholars to decolonize and dernnstruct those
stn:c:ures within the Weste~n academy that
privt:ege Western kuowledge systems and their
epistcmokigics (Mutua & Swadentr, 2004, p. lfJ;
Serna]! & Ki:1chelor, 1999). Indigenous knowl•
edge systems are too frequently nade into ubjects
of stt.dy, treated as if they were instances of q1111 int
ful k :heory held hy the membe~s of primitive
cultures. The dcco]o:iizing project ;everscs this
equation, making Western systems knowledge
tht: object of inquiry.
A four:h diffkJ!ty is that nunindigenous
sd:olar tnllst carefully and cautiously articulate
the spaces bctweer. decohmizing researc1::i prac-
tices and indigenous C{lm 1r. Lin ities (to para-
phrase Smith's comments in Chapter bis
volume}. These spaces are fraught with um;er-
tainty. Nco 1:beral and neoconservative poi it ical
cconorn k's turn knowledge ahem! inc:igenous
peoples into a co11rnodil y. Cod: kts 12xist between
con:peting epistemological and ethical fra:ne•
works, including in the area of !nstitutio:1al reg•
ulati ons rn ncerning human subject research.
Currently, research is regulated :iy positivi,:
epistemoiogies. Indigenous scholars and intel·
lectuals are pressed m produce tech:1kal kr:owl·
edge that conforms to Western standards of
truth and valid i:y. Conflicts over who :nitiattcs
and who oenefits from s·Jch research arc espe·
cially problematic. Scholars mi:st develop cultur-
ally ,csponsivc research practices !bat locate
power within indigenous commu:1ities, so that
these comrr::inities det1:nr:ine and define 1Nha1
constitute& acceptable research. Such work
em;ournge~ self-determ :nation and err: power·
ment (see Bl shop, Chapter 5, this volume).
In arguing for a dialogue be:.veen critical and
indigenous theorists, I must acknowledge rny pusi•
tion as ,m outside: In t:Je indigenoi:s colonizeri
experience. I write as a privileged Vvesterner, At the
same :ime, however, I seek to be an "allied other"
(Kaomea, 2004, p. Ylutua &: Swadener, 2004,
p. 4}, a fe]ow tr,m::ler of sorts, an antipositivist,
an ins:der who wishes to demnstruct the Western
academy and its positivist epistemologies from
withln. I endorse II critical epistemology that
C07\tests notions of objectivity and neutral:ty.
I believe ,hat all inquiry is mora: and political.
I vaiue auloethnographic, insider, participatory,
collaborative :nethodologies (Fine e;: aL, 2003).
The.e are narrative, prrformat've methodologies,
research pr,1ctices that are reflexively con seq uer:-
tia:, ethical. critical, respectful, and humble. These
practices require that scholars Iive with the conse•
quences of thei: rcseard: actions (Smith, 1999,
pp.137-139).
llll 'll II
In pro;:iosing a dialogue hetwern indigenous and
nonindigenous qualitat:ve researchero, in posi-
tioning myself as an "a:Hed other:• I am mindful of
1erry Tempest W1II ia:ns's cautious advict: about
oorn:wing stories and :1.arratives from indigenous
;:><!oples. :n her autoetimogrnphy Pieces of White
Shelf; A Journey «1 Navajoland ( l 984 ), she praises
tl:e wisdom of Nava.ifl storvteUe~s
, and the stories
they tell (pp. 3-4). But she also warns her non-
in<l'genous readers: We cannot emulate native
peoples. "We are not :Javajo • , . their tradi:ional
stories don't v,ork for ns .... ihei, stories holri
meaning for us only as exa;t1p\es. They can leach
us what :s possible. We must create and fi:1.d our
own stories" (p. 5).
As a nonindigenous scholar seeking a dia
logue with indigenou~ scholars, I must co:istruct
stories that are embedded in the :andscapes I
travel tl:mugh. These will he dlalogirnl coun•
ternarrativcs, ;;tur'.es of resistar.ce, of struggle, of
hope, .stories that cn•,lte spaces for mult:cultt:ral
conversations, storie.s err.bedded in the critical
democratic i:nagi nation. I brief])' sample below
from Searchingfor Yellowstone (Denzin, in press},
a work in :irogrcss,

Searching Yellowstone consisls o:· a ~eries of
coperforrr:ancc texts and plays, c,irh with multi
p'.e s::i,,ak:ing pans. D~aw:r.g en verbat'.in thea:cr,
I qmik :wm inh::r,icws. letters, books, and other
uocur11enls w ril :er: by historical and con tempo•
rary flgllres; in so • e cases, I prcsrnt m,1!erfol t::al
was originally wrilten as prose l:1 the format of
poetry." I ndia:1s in the Park" (excerpted below) is
a four-ait play of sorts. It can be performed on a
simple set, around a seminar !able, or on a ,tage
in front of un aucience. Overhead, a
images should be pmjc.:ted on a full-size screen.
'1h one side, !l large roving spotlight, the "Car:1 era
Eye; should stand, with its light moving from
speaker to speaker, returning ahv.,ys to the narra-
lor.5 ;v1ore than 35 inc:vidual, speak or are
quotcd, ,ome more than once. Audience members
are asked to p,1rticipate in the performance by
as;;uning speakir.g parts.
11!1 llll 1111
11'!1 P1m1.otiU6
"Indians in the Park" (Demit,, 2f1114a) e11acts a
c:itical cultu ra: politic, .:om:erning the represe11-
tations of Native Americans and their historical
presence in Yellowstone :Jational Pirk tlcg: rming
with the ~ting of chLdhood memory (Ulmer,
: 989, pp. 209, 211 ), l follow Ulmer's (l 989) and
Benjamin's (:983-1984, p. 24) advice concerning
histo:-y; that is, to write hi story mc>ans to quotr
hisUJ~}', aml to quuk l:i;,lory r:1 cans to rip the hhi-
toriad t1bjcct out of it:; wntext In so doing,
I expose the contradictions, cracks, and seams in
offldal ideo.ogy. T'ic intent is to rc.:'.iscover
past as a series of scrnes, inventionc:, emol iorn;,
images, and stories (Hcnjamin, : 969, p. • ~Jlmcr,
1989. p. 112), In bringing :he past into the a;itobi•
ographical present, [ insc,t myself i:ito the past
and create the condilicl:15 for ,cwriting and hence
r~ex?ericndng it.
The history at hand is the hi story of Native
Ame::kans it1 two cultural and symbolk lai:d
,capes, mid-:cnt ra: Iowa in tne 1940s and l 95Us
and Yellowstone National Park in the 1870s. I
~ead Yellowstone, America's fo;;t national park,
Dt>nrin: Err.,indpatory D1scourses Ill !l3 7
metaphorically. In and across the disco;irses that
hi,tnrica:ly define the park a:e deeply entrenched
meanings co11,erni ng narn re, cu lrnre, violence,
gem'er. wilderness, parks, whites, and Kat:v1:
A11:ericans (see Sch·Jlkry, 1997).
I situate voices and discourses in my
own biography. rhe place of Native Ar:1ericans in
the collective white i:naglnal ion :s al :m•iil entirely
a matter of rad,t myth. shifting :nean ir:gs of the
color .i:le, the "Veil of r.olor" (Du Bois, 1903/ I'l89,
pp. xxxi, 2-3 ), theatricality, and minst~elsy
(Spllldel, 2000),
For examp'.c:
Author's Aside :o Audience:
a d1ild I Eve<l insi,k this w:1ile imaginary.
4
I p:ayed a dress-up gam<' calld Cowhoy, and
Indians:' I watched !lrd Rider am;/ Li11le 8,w~er and
Tire Lont Ranger on S2.ttm:ay-ml}mi11g
On Saturday nights my grandfa:hcr me lo
set western movies-Shane. Stagecoach, Rmk:::11
,4miw, The 'i;;a:rciJ,,rs--at 1'l rnnd The<1ter in
rowa City~ ;nwn. J£nzh:> p,
1111 1111 a
Tr: challenging tl:c cultu:-al representa Iions of
Nat:ve Amer:cans, I follow Hall ( 1996;;) an<l Smith
( 1997), who argue that it is :10: cr.ough to :-eplace
negative representations with positive representa
lions!' The posit:ve-r.ega;ive debate rsscntializes
rncial :dentity and denies its "dynamic relation
to constn:c t:ons of class, gende:, sexual :ty [and]
region" (Smith, 1997, p. 4). lt takes two parties to
do radal mir:strelsy, Stereotypes of whiteness are
tangled up in :achll mytl:, minstrel shows that
replay the Wild i·Vesl, leading whites to kw'.<. like
.:owhovs and Native Americans to look like Indian£
(Dorst,' l ':l':19), I employ this cr::ical race theory and
crilical pedagogy to cuufront Yellowstorw Na:ional
Park and it& histories.
Hen: are some excerpts from "Indians in the
Pari':
111! 111! 111!
938 a HA:-!Lll!OOK m: QUALfTATIVH RESEARCH-CE APTER 37

Second Author's Aside to Audience: Their Shoshone guide,

I WJnlcd to be a cowboy whc:1 I grew up. S:i Sacagawcr.. a 15-ycar-old girl.
. .
M,uk, mv bro:hcr. On Satu:1lav """'"'· while
Grandma made hol dough1w:s for us 'n the new
proved indispc:isahk (Hor1on,20C3, p. 9U)
deep-fat fryer in he~ b'g cou::t~y kitchen. we
1111 1111 1111
Watched "cowboy and Indfa~." television shows: The
Vine Range;; Red Rider and Littlr Bea~er, The lloy
Ruger, Show, Hopal,mg Cassuly. IV:ark ar.d I had Voice 2: Skeptk: This is revisionist white
,owboy outfits-wiue-brimmec hats, leather vests, history!
chaps, and spurs. a:ong with toy pistols ,me holster..
Grnndpa bought ·.is a horse. I have a pl:olograph of 111 111 llll
Mark :ne in our cowboy mufits on th,· back of
swayba:ked Sonny, who was deaf in his righ: ear. Voice 3; Slaughter:
We'd ride Sonny around and around the corral. wav Sacagawea is elusive,
ing at Grandpa (irandma. When I was in fourth
::ctvc,
grade, I w,is Squanto::: the Thanksgiving play ahou:
the pilgrims. My akin was painted :irown. n,ythk
and real.
She i, the I.:!dfan princess
ll Acr l
require.: hy myths
Scene I: Sacagawea and Other Myths of discovery and rni:qucst.
(Slaughter, 2003, p. 86.l
Newsreel l
1111 llll 111
Voice I: Horton:
Voice ,1: Spindel:
Keeping the Legr:u:7 Alive If we do a census of the population ia
Two hundred years ago :he (;orps of Discrivery, .ed our coliectivc imaginalio:i.
by captain. Meriwether Lewis and William Chirk, imaginary Indians are one of the
struck out :ro:ri t0.e falls of Ohio, nea, Lou:svi.:c, largest demographic gmups.
Kentucky; In exp:ort :ht newly acquired terr'tory of
the Louisiana P·~:-ch~sc. Their 8,000 r..ile trek look They dance, they drum; they go oi1

them through :lerilous, forbidding ,ountr y by the warpath;

canoe, horseback and foot. Lewis, :he party's tdcn- t:iey arr always. your:g n:en who wt:ar
tis:, and Clark, surveyor. :-napped geological lea• trailing feather bo:me:s.
tures and ftxed the long'mdes and latitudes of the
rivi:rs and plains, Lewis di:scri':icd or preserved SyrnboHc scrva:11,, they serve as
specimens some 178 p:ants and mascots,
the ma'or:tc a,-ver -~nknown to science..
' l ' metaphors. We rely on the.~<" images
Nune of <:oursc, to am:.10:- us
to the land and verify m:.r account of
wculd have been possible
our own past Hut the:.e Indians exist
withoul the aid and assista::cc only
the Natlv~ Amcrkans they met in our imaginations. (Spindel, 2000,
p.8)
Inearly 50 tribes :n all]
the way. IIDIII

Scene 2: Park Performances
The Camera Eye (2)
Narrator: Staged perfo:mances based or: lore
and myth from Hollywood westerns
and Wild West shows represent and
connect Indian, with war bonnets,
horses, western landscapes, parks,
wilderness, tourism, :rn.:ure,and dan·
ger (see Spindel. 2000, p. 8). ''.'hese
representations simultaneously place
Native Americans within and outllide
white culture. hence the phrase
"Indians in the park:' Parks are safe
places, sites carved out of the wilde:-
ness, and otl:er S?aces where whites
go to view and experience nature and
the natural wor:d. Indians are uol
part of tr.is cultu:-al landscape. The
"natural world" they inhabit is out-
side the park. It is a wild, violent. and
u:idvilized worlci.
111111
"Remembering to l;orget'' is a second coperfor-
:nance text. It continues my inter:ugatio:i of the
cultural politics surroundi 11g the Lewis and Clark
expe,:ition of 1804 I806. It is a:so fracture.:, rev i-
sionist, personal :~ishlr)', an attempt at a persona:
mythology that con:ests the rhetorical uses of
nature, discovery, and science for political, pat:i•
otk purposes. This play is woven b, through, am:
around r:11:m,1rieo of blanket;;, famil:~s. Native
Amerkans, :]:iess, and Lewis and Clark in the
greater Yellows101:e region. The fullowing excerpt
is from Act I, Scene~ l and 2.
!II Acr 1
Scene 1: Getting Started
Course llrmounceme nt, Yclliwstone Association
institute, Summi:r 2003
"A long t::e Ye:towstone River with Lewis & Clark"
July 25-27, L':nit 19
Denzin: Emancipatory Discourses 111 939
Locatilm: Mammn:h Ho: Spr:ngsi'l'hree lforks, and
Dillon, Montana; Credll Pending; lnbtructor: Jim
Gacy,M.S,
sum (member'; foe $170)
In the summer of 1805, Lewi, and C!ark passed
through Lne Ydlowstoue rrgion en route to the
Pacific Ocean. They came up t::e Mi>l<miri River
from the Great Falls and
camped in the Three Forks area before
following the Jeffe~son River west to the
water, of the .'v1issonri sys1em al
Lemh: Pas,.
AImost 200 years later, we will walk in their
footsteps, see wha! they saw, read their jouma:s,
and
spe;.;.ilate on what :hey wou'.d lhink cf lhis
country today. We'll journey to Three
Forks am:: :h1:n there :o DiJon a::c
where we will look at some of
the impacts on the country since the ,fays of
Lewis and Ciark.
(pai:se)
'.twas something like the Lewis and Clarl<. . lrnvd•
lngJ \!edidne Shnw. ( Ro:;da, 191!4, ?· i 8; S<:C also
Ambrose, l 996, p.
(pause)
B:.:t th~ park did :101 cibt in 1805 W':at kind of
history is this:
(pause)
Our image [hist0ry] is ind is~olubly bound up
with t:Je :mag.: oi redemption. (Benjamin,
'J.
Scene 2: Canadian Blankets
Voice 2: Narrator (to audience, explaining
project): On July 5, 1955. my lather
retu~ned to our little house on Third
Street in Indianola, Iowa, from a fish-
ing trip in Ontario, Canada. Mother
 940 1111 HANDBOOK OF QUAUTATIVE RESEARCH-CffAPTER 37
greeted him at the door. s;ightly
drm:k, Dad handed her a Hudson's
Bay wool blanket as a p:csent and
promptly left fur the office. I still have
tha: blanket In this family we value
.such blankets and cxcl:ange them as
gi:ts. This exchange system gives me
:i smnewh,,t indir('c; histor:cal con-
11ectlnn ':o Lcw:s and Clark. Canada.
Hudson's Bay Company blankets,
,he 'ur t:.ide, 19th-century Br;:ish
and French traders, and Nn:ive
Americans. This connrcrion takes
rr:-: right into the myths about
Yellowstone Park, Lewis and Clark, :be
Corps of Discovery, and Sacagawca.
Lewis and Clark. it ;1 ppears, also
Iraded blankels for goodwill on tlwir
expecirion. Rut tl:is was a tainted
exchange, for in ma:1y instances
these :ilankets were carriers of
srna: lpox. Likew fae, the blanket my
father gijve to my 1m1t:ie~ was
embedded wit]: in a dise:ise exchai:ge
system, in this case alcoholism.
Although Dad's akoholi~m was not
foll-hlowr. in 1955, it would hecome
sc within 2 years uf his return from
that fishing trip,
11!1 1111 llll
Read together, me above excerpts model a form
wriring that moves hack and forth between per•
sonal and offidal history. Usir:g the language of
the colonizer, they quote history back to itself,
refusing to trea; !.-ewis and Clark and the past as if
they are things that can be in time, as per-
formances that can he unp:-oble:natically staged
in the presi:'11t l1:d~1;d, the historicai reenactment
of Lewis am: Clark's expedition is endowed with
special powers. II stands outside time. Perforrr.crs
brnevolendy re-create past, perfonning and
remembering it "lhe way it really was" (Benjamin,
1969, p, 257;.
Thete is great danger in such hisrori cal mas-
qucra..:es. The past is froze11 in tine. l'artkula,
versions of whi;rness and white history are
performed. The si:ls of the past are ig:iorcd, and
a peaceful ~1ond is forged bctws"cn the imagined
past and the pre,ent. Ln this nostalgic s;n1a:, the
benign paslness of Lewis and Clarks ex:;editior:
comes alive. Their h;storir journey of conquest is
celebrated. A territorial and cultural polit:c is
nified. TI1e whi:-: mmmun::r owns d1is la:1d, thio
r:ver, th:s pa,k, th:s place, mcar:ings. Ths:
white community and its city fathers have the
right to re-create on Ihii. land, 2nd in tr.,,se rultural
spaces, thdr ,ersio11 of the pa.st. their version of
how these Iwu 1:1e1: ~el pcd win th: West for
Thomas fe:ferso11 am: White Arnerka (Vl'illia:ns,
1997). I:, such a utopian sccr:ario, redemption for
the ha1u:ful of s:ns mmmitted by the exulnrcr, is
sought and ea~ ily achieved (,t:e Gros~ r:1rn, 2003,
?P· rndccd, redemption gives way :o celehr.;-
:ion, to a d1 splacement, a shift "'rom conquest to
ecoenv iron m.:rn alism, to nati:rc, the joy of floating
the rcllowslone or the Missm: ri River tmder the
banner of :..~wts and Clark.
B RACE, bJll!GL.:NOC~ VfHF;RS,
ANH Ill!: C,:.: TO PERl:OKMANCE
Many qualitative researche,s ar.d interpretive
ethnographers are in seventh n,oner.t, pt:r-
for ming cuh ure as they wr: tc it, uaderstand Ing
that the ci ~ :diug line betwt:en perfo:-mativ ity
(dnir.g} :1:1d perform:mcf-' (done) has disappeared
(Con,Juergood, 1998, p. 25), But even as this
disappearance occurs, matters ot racial injustic"
remain. The ind:gcnous is a racializcc other.
On this \V. E. B. Du (190111978), rcmbds
u8 that "the problem of the nventy-first century,
on a global scak, will be the problem of !he color
Jim:" (p. 281) ar.d that "modern demotTacy can-
not st:cceed ur::ess pmplcs of different races and
religions are also in:cgratcd into tl:e democratic
whole" (p. 288 ). T~ i, integration cannot imposed
by one culture or nation on a:10:her; it mlL~t come
Crom within the cuh ures involved.
Du Bois addressed r;ice .::.:nu a pcrforma:1-·e
standpoint Hr understood d1at "fron: rhe at rival of
the first African slaves on American soil .. , the def•
in'tior:s ar,d mt"anin!,;S t1f b:ack ncs~ have bten intri-
cately linked to issues of tl:eal.c~ ~. nd perform:mci!"

'.Elllm.2001, p. 4).' In his manifesto fur an ,ill-black,
i11digcno,1s theater, Di: Bui.s ( 1926} imagined a
for pedagogical performances that art:rnlate posi-
;ive blac~ "soc'al and ct:ltllral agC'ncy" (Ela:n, 200!,
:1.6), His radical theate: (Il:J Bois, 1926, p.134),like
:bt Anna Dcavcrc Smith (2003 ), is a political
;J:ea;er aboul b:acks, written bv blacks, blacks.
' ences a Far East sec ti 0:1 called the 'Dream of the
?ertormed by blacks in local theaters. ladkal indig•
enous tl::eater b a weqor: for fighting mdsm am'_
w"iiitc pr:vilege. Gilbert (2003) clabora:es on this
:0pic, showing how indigenous wh:teface perfor-
n:ance& '.tnscttle fixed racial a.tegnri~s based on
skin ailnr: "Sudi ads ... remind us of the historical
role played by :heatre in negotiating suppressed
fears and fantasies of colonizing :1ations'' (p. 680).
A Brief History of Indigenous Theater
Lhamo:1 (1998) traces :he ur'gins of ~):ack-
focc mh:strelsv in the United S:ates to the earlv
' '
1800s and r.1arketplace transacdons in :-Jew Ybrk
City. By the I 841ls, white performers in hlack-
foce where llSir:g blackness as a way to repre-
sent the color or 11onwhi te person$, ir; duding
Af~ican Americans, Asian Amnicans, ,md
Native Americans (Bean,2001, p.. Acrnrding
to l:\eau (20tl 1), the "first hfack minstre;s . . exisr,~d
as early as 1850" (:>. 177), and within" shon time
Afrkan A:ue:ican i:1ak and temale imperson•
alors where engagtc in satiric, subversive '>cr·trn·-
mances that were critica: o:' wbte slcrcotypes uf
b:acks (p. 187). Ellison (I 964) observes tllar such
b:ack per:ormers v,cre t~icksters, play-iog a joke
0:1 the white audience, laughing al the audk:w:,
a1:m:ig ths:n:selve.s, ,rndersti mling that hhu::,face
was a "counterfeiting uf the black American's
ider.tity" (p. Th:Js by the mid-1 'ith cent:uy a
subvers ivc theater was born wi :hin the rads!
inst itut km of :n instrelsy.
Gilbert (2003) c.escribes blackface mit1stre'sy
as the "symptomatic nl neteenth-century
form for an era of :erritorial expansion, mJt just in
the United States but al so ir1 other settler culonit:s
with growing non indigenous populat:ons"
(p.6113)_ Prom the 1850s forward, :nin,trelsy had
a trar.snatioual presence in the performances of
touring groups that perforrr:ed in AJst:alia,
New Zeiar1d, Canada, the United Stales, Britain,
De:1zln; :"mancipatmy l)j,cou1:;;:-s Ill! 941
Germany, Frnnce, Italy, India, Jamaka, Nigeria,
ar:d South Africa. Th,• Am,:,rirnn minstrel shew
traveled to the popular stage in tic.; Canadian
West, wh:re its subject ma:ler im::-1dcc narratives
about runaway slaves and :-lativc Canadians
(Gilberl, 2003, p. 683 J. When \'Vil Earn Cody's
Wild West .show :oured Eu:1)pe, it offered aud;
Drtei:t" ;Reddin, 1999, p. 158). In every geographic
location where the minstrel sl:ow appeared, it
validated racism aml im?e ri ,•Ji sm.
At the sa:ne time, indigenous performance
companies were contributing to a countcrdis-
coursc that embodied the critic:d nice conscious-
ness identified by Ellison (:964). Indians playing
lndiam for wh::cs and blacks playir:g ·,1.1.:ks for
whites wen, engaged i:1 reflexive, doubly inverted
perfor:i1a:1ce:; tl:at mockc-d and ridiculeu white
rad st stereotypes. Jn th is way, i ndige:io·Js theater
crit idzes :he rad al mas,J tierad.:- bch :nd black face.
In suc:1 performances the perfor1nativity of ;ace
k revealed. 'he i1,d:genous peilimuer in white-
face (or blackfa.:c) peels back, as in pentimcnto,
the colo:, ,111;: shade, of whitenes,, ~howing that
"white is a col or that cxis:s only because scm e
of us get told black ot· yellow or llldians"
(Gilbert, 2003, p. 689 ).
t:sing a ve1:uilul] uized l'i ,course, the white-
face perfo:mer forces spectators hi confront
thcmsc:vcs "m:rrorecifparodied i:i th: wh:teface
mhstrel :11ask" (Gilbert, 2003, p. 693). Native
Canadian wh itcface performer~ in Dan kl llavid
Muses':; play Almi6,iuy ~bice and His Wife (1992)
deploy ventriloquisir. to tun the tab:es ui: whites.
In :he stand-:JD section Df the :1lav, jusl befo:-e the
• • I '
finale, thr h:terloc·citor, dressed in top hat and tails
along with white gloves and studded white ·.)llclts
taunts the andiei:ce:
You're that redskin! You're that wag:m burner! Thal
fc,1ther head, Chle' l:lt:lk:' . :\n, Chief Shittir:g Bull!
Oh, nn. no. Blood:h i r,ry savt•,ge, Yes. you're primi-
tive, und vUized, a Gmla :::.:emu;, canniba,. Unruly
ml man, you la~k htHn1n intelligence! Stupidly
,toic,sick,de::cnlcd, foamit1g at :he maws~ Weirdly
mad and dangerous, :.frnhnl ic, d is!'Hs2d, :l irl y,
filthy, stinking, ill fotcd dege~ erate race, vanishing.
dying lazy, murlifying. (pp. 94-95; cuotetl ir:
c;iJber,, 2003, p. 693)
 Ill EAN:JBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 37
Throug:1 c.ouhle coding, race and geode:: =hangcs,
and be deploy:nent of minstrel trupe,, Moses
has Indians criticizing Indians playing Inclan.,. Jn
th:s way, Gilbert (2003) observes, Moses "critiques
heg.::rr:onically defined Indian stereotypes" (p. 692)
e,•en as he reflexively stages a grotesque spectade of
"Kative performers enacting their ow:i objectilica-
• "( p. 6<.l,3J,'
!:on
Sud: performances function as genea'.ogies.
As Gilbert (2003 J notes, they document the "his-
torical dissemination of p,1rtkdar performance
practices acros, space and time" (p. 696 J, By
manipula1 ing the tropes of minstrels,; indigenous
performers :ise whiteface and blackfacc to cri-
tique specific colo;1 ial practices. Thus Aboriginal
Australians in whiteface performancrs protest the
colonial habit of poisoning Aborigines with flour,
just as l.✓.oses uses Indians in whiteface in his
reenactr.1cnt of the massacre at Wounded Km.'e
(Gilbert, 2003, p, 696). 111 these ways, Crilhert
argues, whiteface ~is cont imrnlly sn bjcctcd to
processes of citation and a;ipropriation that trian-
gn'.,,tc white, black, and ir: digenous performance
traditions in complex ways" (:i. 096). lndige:1o;is
theatt'r th:i s exposes whiteness in its ordinary and
extreue fo:-ms. Made \·isible as a repressive sign
of violent racial dominu:ion, wh i:eness forcrd
to show it~ colors" (p. 698).
1111 JI 1lll
Son,e African Ar:ierkan autho:-ii, sud: as bell
hooks, haYe elabornteu the need for a black politi-
cal per:ormance aesthetk Writing about her child•
hood, hooks ( 1990Jhas described how she and her
sisters learr.cd about race in Amerka by watching
ihf Gd Sullivan show on ~unday nights ... , seeing
on th?.t show the great Loui~ Armstrong, Daddy,
.
who was usuallv silcr:t, would talk about the music.
the way Am;strong was being treated, and tlce ?Olit
i;:al ::iiplications of appearance. , , . rei;ponding
tn tdevised cultural pmdu..:tion, black per.pie row·d
express rage about radsm, . , . unfortunately . , .
black foils were not engaged in writing a body
cr:tia:: cultt,ral llnalysis. (;ip. ;~-1)
1111 Ill 1111
• INDIGENOUS Vo1c=s,
CRtJ'ltAL PEDAC,OGY, AI\D
EPlSTEMOIOG!ES OF RESISTAN"CB
Several scholars, such as Sandoval (2000), Collins
( 1998). Mutua and Swadener (2004), and Bistop
(Cha;:;ter 5, th:s volume}, !:ave observed :hat we
are in tie r.1idst of what Lopez (2998) calls
large-scale soda: movement of anticolo:1:a:Jst
discourse" (p, 226). This movement is cviden1
in th(' e:ne~ence and proliferat'on of indigenous
epistemologles and methodo:ogies (Sandoval,
2000), including the argumems of African
American, Chicanalo, Latinalo, Native American,
First Nations, Native Hawaiian, and Maori schol·
ars, These epistcmalogies are forms of critical
pe61gogy; that is, they embody a critical politics
of representation that is t'mbedded b the rituals
of indigenous conum:nities. A:ways already
po:itical, tb:y are relentlessly critical of transna-
tional capitalism and its destructive presence in
the ir:d igenous world (see Kincheloe & McLaren,
2000)
Epistemologies of Resistance
Indigenous pedagogies arc grou:1ded in a:i
oppositional conscioumes,; that resists "neocoio-
nizing postmodern global formations" (Sandova:,
2000, pp. 1-2 ). These pedagogies fold theoq, epi s•
temology, methodology, and praxis :11:0 strategies
of resistance t'-tat are unique to each indigenous
community. Thus the oppositional co:isciousness
of Kaupapa Maori research is botr: like and 'Jnlike
black feminist ep:stemology (Collins, 199l, 1998),
Chicana feminisms (Anzaldua, 1987; Moraga,
1993), "red pedagogy" (Grande, 2000; Harjo &
Bin:. 1997;, ar:d Hawaiian epistemology (Meyer,
2003). (,(lmmon to all is a commitmer.t to indi-
genism, to an indigenis~ outlook, that """'·S''°
the highest priority to the righs of indigenous
peoples, to the traditions, bodies knowledge,
and values that have "evo: ved over many thoi; ·
sands of yea,s by native peoples tr.e world over"
((Jmrchill, 1996, p. 509).
Indigenist pedagogies are inforrr.ed, in varying
and co:itested ways, by decolor:izing, revolutionary,

and social is: feminisms. Such fem in'sms, in turr,,
address issues of social jusfa:e, equal rights, ami
nationalisms of "every rnc:al, ethnic, gender, sex,
dass, religion, or loyalist type" (S,mcoval, :moo,
p. 7). Ci:derl/ng indigen:st formation is
a cmnmil;ncnt to n:oral praxis, to issues of sdf,
tleter:nimttion, empowerment, healing, love,
romm1mily ,olidi1rity, respect for lbe e-.irth, ar.d
respect for elders.
hd igenists resist :he po,hi viat ,nd postpusi·
tiv:st me:hodolog:cs of \Vestern sde:ice becai:se
:im: i:1digenous scholar, too frequently use these
:o~mat ions :o va Iidate colonizing k 11 ow ledge
about indigenous peoples. Indigen ists deploy,
instead, interp~etive stn°:cg ics and skills that fit
the nei:os, :anguages, and traditions of their rrs-
pective indigenous comt,t: ni ties. These strategics
emphasize personal per:ormance narratives and
tesriitmnfos.
A Mliori Hidagagy
Yiilori ~dmlar Russell Hi shop (I 994, PH8)
presents a collabcra:ive, participatory epislemo-
logkal moc.cl of Kaupapa Maori researc:1, which
is characterized hy the absence a 1:eed to be in
ccnt:ul and by a des're to be conne.:ted tu and
part of a moral community in whk:i a primarv
goal i, the compass:o:1ate unde1·standing of
another's mom! pos: Linn (see al~o Bisl1op, Chapter
5, :bis volume; He,imsius, 1994). The Miior: i ndi-
ge:1ist researcher wants to pa:1kipate in a collah•
orative, altruis:ic relationship in which, as Rish op
(1998) puts it, nothing desixd for the ,elf"
(p, 207). The rescn:d1 is ev;,iiuated against partici•
pant·driven criteria has~d in the cultural values
and practlce5 that cirnda:e in :-.faeri culture, indud•
ing metaphors thul stress seJr:detem:i nation, the
secredness cf rdationships,embodied understand-
::1g, and the priority of community over sflf
Researchers a:-e led to develop new storylincs am::
criteria of evaluation that reflect these under•
standings, These participant-dr:vcn c:-iteria func-
tion as resources for resistance against posi :iv isl
and neoco11servative de~ires to "cstahlisl: and
mainta'n control of the criteria for evaluating
Maori experience" 212),
De n;,.in: Emandpalory Discourses 111. 943
Sandoval (2000) observe$ that indiger:ists
er:act an ethically de:nocratizir.g stance that 's
committed to "equalizing power differentials
be:wecn humans" (p. l 14 ). The goal "is to consol-
idate and extend ... manifo,tos of liberation in
order to better identify and spedty a :node of
ema:1dpat:or. that is effective within firs: world
decolonizing global conditions during the twenty·
first cen:ury" (p. 2),
Treaties as Pedugogy
lntligrnist pedagogies confront and work
through government treaties, ideological :orma-
tions, h :storical documents, and broken prurr:ises
that connect indigenist groups and their fatts to
the capiialist colonizers, For exa:n pie, as (hurchill
( l 996) :10tes, during t::te ":int 90,odd years of ::s
cxi stence the United States entered into and ra:i,
lied nmn: than :;70 separate t,eaties , , , [and}
has . , . defaulted on its responsibilities under
every single treaty obligation it ever incur:·ed with
regard 10 l tidians" (pp. 516-51 see aho Stirling,
1965). The abcriginal rights of rirst Nations
tribe; in Canada we:-e nut recognized in law 11ntil
the Cunstitutim: Act of 1982 (llenderson, 2000,
p. 165). In New Zealand, Mauri debate the Trea:;·
of Waitangl, which v,as signed belw.:c;, Yi:iori
chiefs a:id the Britisr: Cmwn in 1840. This treaty
was defined as a cha,tcr for pow('r sharing
be! ween Maori and pakc!rn, or wbte senle rs,
be: in reality ii subjugated Maori to pc;keha
nation-state (Smit!:, 1999, p, 57; ,;cc also Bishop,
Cha::,te:: 5, th is volume).
Linda Srr:ith (2000) observes that Maori
at:er:1pts "to engage in the activities of tl:e state
through the mechanisms of the Treaty of Wai tangi
have won some space, .. (b11tJ this space is
severdy limited . , , as it has hac lo be wrestled
not only :"rom the state, but a:so :rom :om,
munit v of positivist scier:ti ,ls wbo,e regard for
Mao~i is not sympathetic (p. What is "r.ow
referred to a;'Kaupapa Maori research"' (p.224) is
an atten::,t to find a and of practices that
honors Maud cultcre, convinces Maori pwple of
the value nf research for Maori, and shows the
prikeha (whlte) research co:n munity the need for
g44 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 37
greater Maori involveme:lt in re,earcn, Kaupapa
!vfi:iori research is culturally safe and relevant, and
it involves the mentorship of Maori (p. 228).
A Red Pedagogy
Native American indigenous scholars thicken
the argument by a,ticulating a spoken ind lgenous
episte:nology "developed over thoimmds of years
of sustained livi:ig on this Land" (Rains et al.,
2000, p. 337). An American Ind:an or "red" p~da-
gogy (G:-.inde, 2000) criticizes s:mplislic readings
of rnce, e::rnicity, and identity This ;,edagogy
p,ivilcges personal identity perfor:n anee narra-
tives-that is, s:uries and poetry that empha-
self-<letermination a:id indiger.uus theory
(Brayboy, 2000). Grande (2000) descdbes the four
cha:-.icteri~lics of a red pedagogy: (a) poE,kally, it
maintains "a quest for sovereignty, am: the dis-
rnantling <1f global capitalism"; (b) epistemologi-
cally, it privileges indige:10.1s knowledge; (c) the
ea:-th is its "s?iritual center"i (d) socioc:ulturally, it
is grn;mded L1 "trbal and traditional ways of
ways of lifo"(p. 355 ). T:ie performance ofsuch rit
uals validates traditional ways of:i:e. The perfo,.
mance embodies the ritual. It is the riti:al. In t:iis
sense the performance becomes a form of pub:k
pedagogy. [t useti the aesthetic to :oregrnund cul-
tural mewings anc tu teach these meanings to
performcrn and audience members alike,
A Haw,iii,m Pcdugogy
Manulani Aluli Meye:'s (2003) discussion of
Hawaiian epistemology complements the above
descriptio:i of a red pedaf:!ogy. As Meye, :10:es,
a Hawaiian pedagogy resists col or. ia 1 systems
of kr.owing and educating; and it fights for an
authentic Hawnilar: ident':y {p. 192). It ddlnes
epistemology culturally; that is, it isserts that
there are spedfic Hawaiian ways of knowing and
being i:i the world {p, 187 ). According to :V.eyer,
se,;en themes shape this epistemology; spiri tu-
ality, physic,,! space, the ct:ltuml nature of the
senses, relational knowing, practkal knowing,
language as being, and the unity of mind a:id
body (p. 193 ),
This fra:nework stresses the place of morality
in knowledge productior:. Culture restores cul-
tr.re. Culture is sacr1:d. Culture is performec.
Spirituality is ·::iask to culture. It is sensuous an.::
embodied, involvi:1g all the .senses-taste, sight,
sme;J, hearing. and touch, Know:edge is experi-
,mced and expressed in sc:isuow, terms, in stories
and crlt:cal personal narratives that focus on thr
importance of practice and re;>etition (P- 185).
Kr.owledge is relational The self knows itself
through the other. Kr.owir:g the other and the self
locates the person in a relational context, Th is
involves harmony, balance, being generous, :.eing
respor:sible. being a good listener, and being kind.
Decolonizing the Arndemy
As [ have argued above. critical indigen ist
pecagogies contest the complicity of tile modern
university w[th neocolun:al forces (Battiste,
20110a). Tt:ey encou ,age and empower indige-
nous peoples to make colonizers con 'ront and
be accountable for the traumas of colon '1.ation,
In rethinking and radka]y transforming lhe
colonizing encounter, these pedagogies imagine
postcolonial societies that honor difference and
promote healing. lndigenist pedagogies atte:npt
to rebuild nations and their peoples through the
i:se of restorative indigenous ecologies. These
r:at:ve ecologies celebrate s~1rvival, remembering,
sharing, gender'.ng, new form, of naming, r:et-
worklng, protecting, and ccmocrati2ing daily life
(Battiste, 2000b; Smith, 1999, pp. I 42-162j.
Theory, method, ar.d epistemology are aligned
ir. tbs projec:, anchored in the mural philosoph:es
that are taken 'or granted ii: im.ligenoi:s cultures
and language communities (L T. Smith, 2000.
p, This worldv iew endorses pedagogics of
emancipation and empowerment, pedagogies that
enco;1;age struggles for autonomy, cultura: well-
being, cooperation, and mllective respor.sibility,
Suc:1 pedagogies demand that ir.digenous groups
own the research process, They speak :he truth "to
peopfo about the reality of their lives" (Collins,
1998, p. 198), equip them with the tool< tr:ey need
to resi.st oppression, and move them to struggle, to
search for justice (Cofans, 1998, pp, 198-199).

Indigenous Research as
Localized Critical Theory
In their commi :men ts, indigenous epistemolc-
overlap with critical theory. Indeed, Linda
Sr:1 i:n (2000) connec:s her version of indigenous
inquiry, Kaupapa Maori research, wi:h critical
theorv and culti:ral studies, suggesting, wi:h
Grah~:n Smi:h (2000), that Kaupapa Maori
research is a "local theoretical position that is the
modality through which the emanc:patory goal of
critical faeory, in a spedfic his:urical, political
and soda! context is pnu:li.sed" (LT. Smith, 2000,
p. 229; see also 3:,hop, Chapter 5, this volume).
However, critical theorr fits well with the Maori
wor:dv:ew, which asserts tl:at Maori are con-
nected to the universe aod their place h it
through the princ:?le of whakapapa. This princi-
ple tells Maori that they are the or direct
descer.dants of thr heavens_ Through this princi-
ple, Maor: trace their heritage to the \•ery begin-
ning of time (L. T. Smith, 2000, pp. 234-235).
Whakapapa turns the universe :nttl a moral
space where all tl:ings great and small are irter-
cor.r.ected, includ'.ng science and res~arch. Smith
(2000, ?· 239) argues that this and related beliefs
lead the Maori to eight questions about m:y
research project, including those projects guided
by critical theory:
L \l',11at r~earch do we w~nt done?
2. \¥ho1:1 is it fur?
l '\:Vhat difference will ii makel
4. Who will carry it o~t?
5. How do we want the ,esearch done?
6. How wil: w;: know it is worthw':'le?
7. Who will own t'1e research?
s. WhQ will benel:tr
T'iese questions are addressed to Maori and non-
.v!aori alike. For research to ·:,e acce?table, each
question must be answered in the affirmative:
that is, 'vlaori must conduct, own, and benefit
from any research that :s done on or for tl:em.
Denzin: Emancipatory Discourses II Y45
These eight questions serve to interpret
critical tr.eory throug':i a moral lens, through
key Maori principle~. induding whukapupa.
They shape the moral space that aiigns Kaapapa
Maori researc:1 wit!: cri t kal theory: Thus both
formations are situated with.in the antipositivist
debate. Both rest on an:ifoundatior:a~ episte-
mologies. Each p:-ivileges perfo,mative issues
of gender, race, class, equity, and social justice.
Each develo;;s its own understandings of com mu··
nity, critkJu~, resistance, straggle, and emancipa-
tion (LT. Smith, 2000, p. 228). Each understands
that the outcome of a struggle can never be pre-
dicted in advance, that struggle is always loci!!
and contingent. It is never final (I.. T Smith,
2000, p, 229).
As Linda Smith (2000) observes, by localizing
discourses of resistance, and by co:1:1ecting 1hese
discou::,es lo perfor:nance ethnography and crit-
ical pedagogy, Kaupapa Maori research enacts
what critical theory "actually offo:-is to O)Jpressed,
rnargi nalized and silenceri grot ?S .. - I6at is, J
th rough emancipa:ion groups sL:ch as the Maori
would take greia:er control of tl:eir own Eves and
humanity" (p. 229). This ::equires that indigenous
groups "take bold of the project of emancipalior:
and attempt to make it a reaEty on their own
terms" (p. 229). This means that inquiry is always
poli:ical ar:c moral, grou:ided in principles cen-
tered on autonomy, home, family, and kinship, on
a collective commi;nity vision that requires that
research not be a "purchased prndu.:: ... owned
by the state" '.p. 231 ).
:ocalized critical indigenous theory encourages
indigenists to confront key challenges co:mected
to the meanings of scie1:ce, community, and
democracy. G:aham Smith (2000, pp. 212-215)
and L:nda Sn:ith (2000) outlines these challenges,
asking that indigenists do the following;
I. Be proactive; they sho1i'.cl namr the world fo:
:hemselves. (Further, "being Maori •~ an essen
;lal criterion for carrying ou; Kaupapa Maori
research"; L. T Smi:h, 2000, pp. 229-230.}
2. Craft :heir own vers:on o:· sdcnce, including how
science and sde:itific ;mdcrs;andings will be
usec in their world.
 946 111 HAN L>BOOK OF Ql'ALJ'l:-\'.I': VE RRSF:ARCH-CH APTER
3. Develop " participatory mut:el (:f democracy
:l:at got-;, beyond tr.e "Westmiui,ter 'nne person,
cne volt, majority rule'" (G. Smilh,2000, ;i. 212).
4. ;Jse theory proacbcl y, as an agent (1f change, but
ac: in that are accountable to the indige-
llOU$ cnmmunily and not ;ust academy.
5. Resist new furms of colonizatior:. such .is tht·
North Amer'can Free Trade Agreer.1eot,
co:1:;.,sting neo:olo:: !al .::fort, to ,ommodify
indigenous knowledge.
R~· proactivcly framing part:cipalory views of
sc1::r:ce, democracy, and mmmunil y, indigenous
peoples :ake con:ml of their ow:i They
refose ro be sidetrac:,ed into alwa)·s res:io:1ding to
1:cnindigenous others' at:empts to define :heir lite
situations ;G. Smith, 2000, p. 210).
Pedagogies of Hllptc and Liberation
Linda Sr:1lth (I 999, pp. I 162) outlines
so:rie different imlige:m.1s prniccls that have
been developed in response to the continuing
pressures o~ coloniali sr:1 and col on ization, indud -
ing projects that cr1:1:1te, name, restore, democra-
tize. red a: r:i, protect, :emcr:1 her, and celehratc lost
his:o:-ies and cultural ""'·''"';;"·' These indige-
nous projects embody a ?edagogy of hope and
freedom. They Lim the pedagogies of oppression
and coloni1.atio:1 i:110 pedagog:cs of li::,eration.
They are nm purely utopian, for they n:ap con•
crete performances that can lead to positive rncial
trans~orrnations. ]11ey embody ways of resisting
the proce~s of colonization.
Smith's r:wrnl agenda privilt:ges four intcrpre•
tive research processes. Tr:e fir,i is deroloniwtiorr,
whid: re~laims indigenous cnltural p,acti ces and
reworks these practice~ at tr..e politica:, socfal.spir-
itual, am' ?Sychologkal levels. Healing, the secur:d
process, also involves restorative physical, sp: ri-
tual, psychologica:, and social prnctices. The third
process, fransformation, focuses on chang<'s tr.at
move back and forth from t:1e psychological lt'Vel
to the social, political, economic, and col lcctive
level,_ M()bifiz.ition, a: :he local, national, regior.al,
and global levels, is the: fourth bask: process. It
speaks to collective cf:orts tu change- Maori ~odety.
T:iese four interdependent processes encou:-
pass nf culturnl 1:mr,i val and coUective
self-determination. lr. instance they work
to <lecolonizc Western metb1d.,; and forms of
bquiry and lo empow<'r indigenous peoples.
Thrsr are frte states of "being ~hrnugh which
indigenous communities an, muvinlf [Smit:i,
1999, p. I 16)_ These s:a,cs involve spbtual ar:d
social practices. They are pedagogies cf healing
and hope, pedagogic, o: recovery, material prac-
lke~ that henefi t indige:ro·J s peoples hoth materi-
ally and spirirnally.
II CRITICAL PlcRSONAI. K<\RRAl"lVE
A5 Co~JNTERNARRX!IVE
The move to pcrfo:-mam:e has been accompallied
br· a shift in the- meanings of eth nograph)' and
e:hnograp:1ic writing. As Richardson (2000)
ob~ervcs, the narrative genres connected to
ethnograph k wriling have "been blurred, e:ilarged,
altered :o indude poetry [and] drama" (p. 92.',l).
She uses the tem1 creatire ana{vtic pmr:tice (CAP)
to dcsc,ibe these many different reflexive pcrfor-
r:iance narrative forms, whkr. include not only
performance autr.ethnogrnphy hm a:so short
stories, conversations, fiction, pcrsor:al na ~ra-
tives, u.:arn,c :w:1 fiction, photographic essays,
personal <:M,,m,. :iersonal na,rnl ives o[ the self.
writing•storles, sell~stor'es, fragmented am:! lay-
ered texts, aitkal autnbiogra phies, wemo'rs, prr-
imnal hi,<,;ories, rnl;urnl .:ritkism writing,,
co-co:1s1ructed prrform anee narratives, and per-
for:nance writings thal blur edges bct'll'een
te,t, rtp~tsentation, a:id ,ritkisr:L
Critical personal narratives an: counlernar-
ratives, testimonies, autoethnographies, perfor-
mance text,, stories.and acrnunls thal disrup, and
disturb discourse by exposing the complexities
and oontrad:ctiuns that exist under official history
(M1m:a & Swadener 2004 ). T:ie critical per,onal
narrative ;s a cei:tral genre of cunlt:mporary decol-
o:i !zing writbg. a creative analytic ;m1ctice,:: is
used to cril:dz~ "prevailing structures and rela ·
tiomhips of power and bequity in a relational
comext"(Mull!a & Swadener,2004, p. Hi).

Coun!ernarrati ves such as those presented in
Guuntdncmw: "h'onor Bound to Dejimd Preedom,"
"Indians in the Park;' ,nd "Rer:1embering to
forget" explore the "intersections of gender and
voice, border crossing, dual consciousness, multi-
plc identities. and ,:,eEhood in a ... post-colonial
and postmodern world'' (MulJa & Swader:c:r,
2004, p. lii). The testfrmmio is another form of
counternarrativc. 01:e of the purposes of the tcsti-
11w11io ii, :o raise polit:cal co::isdoumess by bear•
ing witness to social injustices experienced at
the group level (Mut'Ja & Swade1:er, 2004, p. JS}.
Linda Srr:itn (I 999) hegir:s her dscubsion of the
tfsrimonic, with these line~ fmm Menchu (1984;:
"My came is Riguberta Mcr:chu, r am twcnty-
yc2.rs o'.d, and this is my testimony" I).
Tl:e te,timonio pn:se:its ora'. evidence to an audi-
ence, often in the form of a monologue. Smith
rlescribes it, the indigenous testimonio is "a way of
talking about an ext,e:nely painful evei:t er series
cf events:• The testim:mio can constructed <lS "a
monologue a:id as a public pcrtimmnce" (p.144).
Critics have cuntt:nccd bat Menchu made
!:er story; tl:ey have concluded that it is 1101 the
:rulh hec,•use it cannot he verified through sden-
:ific methodology (Cook-Lynn, 2001 . p. 203; ,ee
als:i Beverley, 2000). lht, as Coor<-Lynn (20UI,
:;, 34) observes, respectfully, te,timor!io should be
read as n:rnembering and hn:oring the not
a$ facn:al truthfulness. Purt:icr, Cook-Lyn:1 r:otes.
Merchu was appealing to nonir:rilgenou~ audi
ences to rcsprct the treat ie.s 0f the past so th.it
indigenous and non:n<lige:1ot.:, peoples n:ig:it
::n:ikl new and harrr:oi:k11is relationsl:ips based
m: mutual respect and cooperation. Mcnch11 's
have ignored tne elh'cal tenets and utopian
impulses ';Jehind her story (pp. 34<t5 ).
The st,uggle of co:()11i1,rd indigenous peoples
to tell tl:eir own stories is at stake in cri :ic:~ms
of the testimcnic. Those who reject these stories
b1:c.rJse :hey do no: exhibit so-called :'actual trutl:-
fulnelili are denying indigtm;i.;,.; vokes thci, right-
ful place in this po:i:kal discourse (Cook-Lynn,
2001, p. 203},
The oontempomry neoroloni.:l world st,,gcs
existenti:d grounded in issues of race
and gender. Fullow:ng Turner ( I986, ?· 34), the
l)e1:zin: :Cmand1iato~y )l,ccurse; Ill 947
performance ethi:ographer enters l:lese existential
spaces, writing and ?erforr:1:ng personal nar~a-
tives that make racial prej Jdicc and oppression
visible. Fon:sing on mcial epiphanies, tl:e writer
imposes a utopian narrative 11:1 the text, b1ag:r.
i ng how situ a,ions of racial contli ct and strife
cou:d be different. The ulopia:1 countcrnarra-
tive offo,s 1:cpc, showing others how to""~'"):" 1n
actions that dccolnn ize, heal, and transform. I11
this way, critical pcr;;or:al narrn:ives extend Linda
Smith's proj,'c r.
Poet and social activist Mary Weems 12002,
p. xx) reads sign he:ow as s:1c crosses the state
line Indiana and Illinois:
"The People of Illinois Welcome You"
.:omes right afterthe I.Y~CH ROAD sign
and 1he LYNCH RO,'\ Dsig:i comes right 1J1er
I see a th in road strung with the hud:es
of black men like burn<'d oul lighls
tl:eir bark;, :wislir.!! in th wind,
~
the mad littcrcti witl: try out rope,,
gleaned chicke:1 p;;1rls. and dolh napkins
soilet~ wipii:g fae lips of the audience.
I knuw roads don·:
but :he wc:come s,1i:dwid1ed ':)etween
Ul~ word like
cuts off my air
and I pull to the side of the road
loosen my collar
and search fiir bones.
Narratives such as Viee,ns's embmet• tl'.r critica:
democratic storytelling imoginatio11. They arc
hopeful of peaceful, rmnv :olent cn:mge, under-
standing lhal hope, like frccc.m:1, is "an ontologi-
cal neal" (Freire, 1992/ l999, p. 8). Hupc:ful ~lories
arc grm:nded in struggles ami inten-en:ions :hat
enact the sacred values of :eve, carC', mnmnnity.
941l 111 HANDBOOK OP QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER J7
trust, a:1d well-being (rreire, 1992(1999, p. 9).
Hopeful stories confront and inter:ogate cy:iidsm,
the belief that change is not possible.
The critical democratic &lorytdling imagina-
:iun is pedagogical. As " form of instn:ction, it
helps persons think cr!tica!ly, historically, ar:d soc:-
ologkally. [, exposes the pedagogies of oppression
that produce injustice (see l'reire, 2001, p. 54). It
oontribt: :es to reflective ethical self-consciousness.
lt gives people a language and a ~et of pedagugi
cal prac:ices that turn oppre.,sion into freedo:n,
despair into hnpe, ha:red into love, c:oub: into
trust This ethical seU-consdousness shapes a
critical rada: se:f-awareness tl:at contributes :o
utopian drcarns of rac:al eq1:ality and racial Jusl :ce.
mt P0 RFORtl~ANCE,
Pc::)AGm,Y, AND Por.1T1cs
Clearly, the current historkal moment requires
mo~a ll y informed pcrformam:e- and arts-based
disc:plines that will help indigeno:is and non•
indigenous peoples recover meaning in :he face of
sensdess, brutal vio:~nce, v'.ulence that produces
vuicele,s ,creams of lerrcr and insanity. Global!},
cynicism an,: despair rein. Never have we had a
greater need fur a militant utopia:1ism to help us
imagine a wodd of contlct. oppressio:1,
ror,and death, We need oppositional performance
dii,ciplines that will show us how to create radical
utopian s;.,accs within our pub:ic institutions.
"?crformance-sensitive ways knowi:ig"
(Co:iq1:ergo0<.i, 1998, p. 26) contribute to an epis-
temological and poldcal pluralism that ch.cl·
lengcs existing wa;•s of knowing and rep,e.;;enting
the work:. Such fo:inations arc more bdusionarv
'
a:id better suited thar: other ways for thinking
aboul postcolonial or ''subaltern" cultural prac•
:ices (Cunquergooci, 1998, p. 26). Perfor:uancc
approaches to knowing insist on imr:ied:acy and
:nvolvement. They consist partial, plu,al,
bcomplete, and contingent understandings, not
analytic distance or detachment, the hallmarks of
positivist paradign:s (Conquergood, 1998, p. 26;
Pclias, 1999, pp. ix, xi).
The interpretive mc:hods, democratic poli•
tic,, and feminist romn:i;nitarian ebics of
performance (auto)ethnography offe, progressives
a series of tools for cou:w:ring reactionary
po Iit icai discourse. At stake is an "insurgent cul
ll:ral politics" [Giroux, 2000a, 127; see also
Giroux, 2000b) that cnallenges neofascis, state
apparati::ses." This cultural politics encourages
a cr:tical race consciousness that £ourishes
withir: tl:c: free and open spaces of a "vibrant
democratic pi::iUc culture and society" (Giroux,
2000a,p.
Within the spaces of th:s new performative
cultural politics, a radical democra:ic imagina-
tion redefines the rnr:cept of civic part kipalion
and public citizenship. w Struggle, resistance, and
dialogue are kry features of its pedagogy. The
rights of democratk citizenship are extended to
a!l segment& of public and private life, from t:ie
political to the economic, from the cultural to th1:
pcr~or:al. This pedagogy seeks to n:gc.lale market
a:i d economic rdations in :he name of soc:al jus-
tice and environmental causes. Agem;be democ-
racy requires hope, d issen:, and cri :Ic:sm.
These ideals embrace a democra:ic-socialis:-
!eminist agenda, This agenda queers straight
heterosexual democracy (Butler, 1997 l, It asserts
capitalism's fondamental incompatibility with
der.iocracy while thinking its v.'!ly into a model of
critical dtizen,hip that atten:pts to unthink white-
ness and the cultt:ral logics of white supre:nacy
(McLaren, 1997a, l997b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999,2001;
Roedi1;:er, 2002, West, 199 3), Jt seeks a revolutior:-
ary multicult:1ralism that is grounded in ,elent-
lcss resista:1..:c to tl:e stnct·J:es of r:eolibcralism,
It critique5 the ways in which the media arc used
to manufacture consent (Chomsky, IY96), It sets as
its goal tran,forma:ions of glohal .:apital, so that
individcals may hegin to "truly live as liberated
subjects of his:ory" DA..::.aren, 1997b, p. 290),
A Moral Crisis
Indgenous discourse thickc~ the argument,
for the central tensions in the world today go
bcym:d the c:"i.,es i:1 rapitailsm and neoliberallsm's
version of democracy, The central crisis, as de"inec
by Native Canadian, Kative Hawai:an, Maori, and
A:rncrican Ir.dian pedagogy, is spiritual, "rooted
in the increasingly viru!ent relatio:iship between

:,i:man beings and the rest of :mture" (Grande,
2000, p. 354 ). Ur.da Smith ( l 999 ), discusse; the
concept of spirituality wl,hin Maori discourse,
giving addfd r.1eaning to the crisis at hand:
The essence nf a person has a genea:cgy which
crrJ!d he traced back to an ean h parent .•• A
human pe;;;on does not st~nd alone, but shares
with other animate ... beings relationships based
on a shared "essence" of life .. )ncluding: 1:,e sig-
11llkarn::e of place, of land, kndscape, of 01her
things ln the universe.... Concerts of S,)irituality
which Chri.stiaJ1 ity atten:ptcd to dcstro~~ a:1d :hen
to appropriate, and fhen to da'm, ~re critical of
,esistance for indigenuus peoples. The value. atri
tudes. concepts and Jangu.1ge cmbc,'c'ed in beliefs
abo·~t spirituality represe:it ... the dearest con·
l,ast and mark of difference between indigenous
?Coples and the West. It is D:w of the fow parts of
t)urselves which the We,,t cannot decipher, cannot
:.mdcrsland and cannot mntrnl ... ;-et (p. 74)
A respt'ctfo: ?Crfor mance pedagogy honors
these views of spirituality, It works lo construct a
vision of the person and the envimnmenr that :s
compatible with these princ:plrs. l'his pedagogy
de:na1:ds a politics of hope, of loving, of caring
nonviole:1ce grounded ir: inclusive moral and
spiritual terms.
Performance (Auto) Ethnography
a, a Pedagogy ofrreedom
Within t.1;s framework, to extend Freire ( 1998)
and elaborate Glass (200!, p. 17). performance
autoethnography contributes to a concepfam of
educatior: and democracy as ?edagogies of
freedom. Dialugk performances enacting a per·
formar.cc•centered ethic provide materials for
critical :i:f:ection on radical democratic edi.:.ca•
tional practices. ln so doing, performance e:lmo•
graphy enacts a theory of sel:hood anci being. Tb.is
is an ethical, relational, and moral theory: The
purpose of "the partkula, type of relatior..alit y
we call research ought lo be cnhandng ... moral
agency" (Christians. 2002, p, 409; see also Lincoln,
1995, p. 287), moral discernment, critical am·
sdousness, ,rnd a radical po;i1 ics o: resistance.
Indeed, performance ethnography enrc~ t'te
<im,' r., of freedom by showing how, in ,:oncre:c
Denz:n: Ema::cipatory Discourses 11 949
situations, pe:-,uns produce history and ci,;Jrure,
"even as :i.istory and culture produce them" i Gla,s,
2001,p. I Performance tex!> provide the grounds
for liberation practice by opening up concrete situ-
ations that are being transformed through acts of
resistance. In this way, performance ethnography
advances the causes of liberation.
.. CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PEDAGOGY
A commitment lo critical performance pedagogy
and critical race theory gives the hun:an disci-
plines a valuable lever for militar:t utopian cul-
ti.:.ral criticism. In his book Im.pure Acts, Henry
Giroux (2000a) calls for a practka:, performative
view of pedagogy, politics, and cultural studies.
He se.:ks an interdiscip:inary project that woi;:d
enable theorists and educators to form a progres·
sive a:liance "connected to a broader .iotion of
cultural politics designed to fo:thrr racial, eco-
norn k, and political democracy" (p. 128 ).
Such a project engages a militan: utopianism,
a provisional Marxi,m w::hou: gua:-ante1:s, a cul-
tural studies that ts ar:tidpatory, interventionist,
ll!ld provislona I. It docs not hack away fmm tht:
contemporary world i;1 its multiple glob a: versions,
:r.duding the West, the Third Wo:ld, tl:e moral.
:JO!itkal, and geographic spaces oc-:upied by First
~ations and Fourth \Vo:"ld perso:i.s, persons in
marginal or liminal position, (Ladson Billi:igs,
2000, p. 263). Rather, it strategically engag~, this
world in those liminal spaces where lives are bent
and changed by the repressive structures of the
r.ew conservatisrr.. Th:s project pays particii.ar
attention to the dramatic im:rcases around the
world ir. don~estic violence, rape, child abuse, hate
crimes, and violence directec toward perso:i& vf
color (Comamff & Comamff, 2001, pp. 1-2).
Critical Race Theory and
Participatory, Performance Action Inquiry
Extencing critkal kgal thenry, critical race
theory theo:izes life ir. these liminai spaces, offer-
ing "pragmafa: slralegies for matcri al social
transformation» I Ladson-Billings, ;moo, p. 264 ).
Critical race theory assmnes that racism and
950 Ill HAN VB(J OK OF Qt:,\ LITATl VF. RESl::ARCH-CUA?TER
,vhite ,u prer:1 acy are the norms in U.S. sodety.
Critical m(c scholars use performalive, story·
tt·IEng autocthnograp!: k met'.iods to :.i:irnver the
ways in which ::acism operates in daily life.
Critical race theory c!:allengcs those nroliberals
who argue that civil rights havt been al!ained for
persons o[ color. It also criticizes those who argue
that the civil righ:s crusade is a long, slow s:rug•
gle ( Ladson-Hilling;,, 200C, :,, 264 J. Critical race
theorists argue that th c problem of me ism
rc:quires radic" l sud al char:ge ar:d !:tat neol iheral·
is rn and liberalism lark the mechanisms and
imaginations to ad1ic,·e s·c1ch cha1:ge (Ladson•
BIiiings, 2000, p. 264), Critical race :heorists con-
tend that whites have been tr:e main bcnefidarie,
of clv' 1 rights legis: at 01,,
Strateg:cally, critical race thellry <"X amines the
ways in which rnce is ?erforn:ed, indudi ng the
cultural logics and performative acts that inscribe
and create w!:iter:ess and nonwhitcne~s (McLaren,
1997b, t'· 278: Roediger, p. 17). In an age of
globalization and d iaspor ic, pos:.natimial identi•
t:es, the color liue shm1kl no longer be a:: issue,
but, sadly, it is ();lc[.aren, I997b, p. 278).
Drawi:,g on the complex :raditiuns c:11bedded
in participatory a1..1ion resca~cr. (Fine ct al.,2003·
Kemmis & McTagg-a~t, 2000;, critical pcdi1r-
mance pedagogy impkmer.:s a commitment to
participation and performa:1ce with, no:for, com·
munlty member;;. A rr.:il:fying foe wo,k of Fine
e'. al. (2003, pp. l 177), this project builds on
local knnwledge and experience developed at the
JOttom of socia 1 11ie::-<1 rchie,. Following Linda
Srr:ith's ( I999) 'cad, pa rl icipatory, pcrforma nee
work honors and respects local knowledge, cus•
!L11;1s, ar.d p:-actkes and incorporares :hose values
and beliefs into participatory, prrformance action
inquiry (Fine et aL, 2003, ;:t i 76 ).
Wor:-. in this partki?atory, activist per:or•
mance tradition gh'es back to the comrm:niry,
"creating a legacy of inquiry, a pmcess of change,
and material resm:rces to cr:able transfor:narions
' 5oc1a
Ill . I practJCcs
' " {'F'me e: aI., ~'00'.>, p. 17, "')
, ,
Through performance and par:ic: ?ati on, scholars
devdop a "participatory mode of com,ciousness"
(Bishop, l 99S, p. 208) that liJlds tr.em into the
moral accountabHit y structure;; of the group.
Ill CvnuRAJ. Pouncs AND AN
lNDmc::-1ous R':'sEARCH Ermc
Nonindigemms scholars have much to learn Imm
indigenous ,chofars a.ho ll[ how ,adical demo era•
tk: practices ca:1 be made to work, As I have indi-
cated ahm1e, scholars such as Graham Smith,
Linda Smith, i{ussel!Bbboparecommit:ed to
a set of moral arid pedagogical imperatives and,
as Smith (1999) notes, "to actE of reclaiming,
reform u!ating, ,md reconst it:.iting indigenous cul•
tme;; and languages .. , to the struggle to becmm:
self-determining" (p. 142). These ads ,ead to a
program Iha! is devoted to the pursuit of
soda! justice, fn ti.;m, a spedfk approac:. to
ir:q uir y 's req lli,ed. In his discussion of a Maori
approach to ere.iring .<,nowledge, Bishop (1998)
observes that researchers in Kaupapa Maori
wntexts are
re~o,iti,H :ed in such a wa} as to no kmgc: nee,:! :o
seek lo l'Oite to llthei;;, lt• m1p,1·,ver <1r,ers. ro
emattcip1te others, t:i :efer to others as iubi11gated
voice~, hut rather t:1 li.sten and partic'pak . _. i r a
1>rocc» tha: fadltates :he tl.:!vtlnpmem in penple of
o:
a scn5e of themse:ve!l as agcntk and having an
authoritative voice .... An indigenous Kaupapa
Mao:i approad1 to research ... ,;1alknges cofoni;tl
and neo-colo:iial discourses that inscribe "other,
ncss." ( pp. 207-208)
Tl:is part'<.:ipatory mode of knowing pri
vilcges sharing, sabjedivity, pt:rsonal kmr.vledge,
and l.:Ic specialized knowledge~ of oppressed
groups, It uses concre:c experience as a critcrior.
against whkh tn measure meaning anc truth. It
encourages a pa:1icipatory mode of co11sdous:1J,s.s
(Bishop, 1998, p. 205), asking that the researcher
gi 11e the group .i , as a way of honoring fae
group's sacred ,•)ace, if the: group picks up fr1e gift,
the group members aud :ht researcher can create
a shared reciprocal relationship (Rishop, 1998,
p. 207). This :-ehition.ship is built on unders:ar.d·
ings abom Maori beliefs and cultural practices,
In turn, the resea rc:h is cval uated against
Maor:-based criteria. As in rr~ire's revolu1io:iary
pedagogy. West's prophetic pragm.iti sm, ar.d
(ollins's Afrocenl ric fen: in ist moral ethic. dialogue
is valued as a :nethod tor assessing knowledge
claims in Maori culture. The Maori :noral position
also pr'v ileges sto,ytelling, l!stcni ng, voice, and
personal pcr:ormance narratives (Collins, 1991,
pp. 208-212). This moral pedagogy rests on an
ethic care, Iovc, aud persona: accou:itabi'.ity
that l:onnrs individual uniqueness and emotion•
ality in diilogae (Col:ins, 1991, pp. 215-217), This
is a performative, pedagogical etl:k, grour.de<l i:,
t'1c ritual, sacred spaces of family, .:omrnunity,
and everyday moral ( llishop, l \198, p. 203).
~: is not imposed by some elitemal bureauc:-atic
ager.cy.
Th[a vicw of k1:owing pa~a\lcls the commit
• ent within cert,lir. fo,ms of red pedagogy to the
performative as a way of being, a way of knowing,
and a way of expressir:g mmal to the commu-
:1:ty (Grande, 2000, p, 356; Graveline, 2000,
p. 361 ). Fyre Jean Graveline (2000, p. 263), a Melis
woman, spC"aks:
As Me:i s woman, scholar, activist, tem:her,
healer
I enact first Voice as pedagogy and
melhodology
Dhsc:-ving my o,.. :1 Eved experience as an
Educator
S:iaring meanings with Others , , .
My Voice is Heard
in concert with Students and Comrr..u:1:ty
Participants .. ,
I asked: \Vhat pedagogical practice~
Enacted througluny Model-h:-t:sc
.:ontribule to what kinr.s of transfor-
matim1al learning?
Por whmr:?
Moral Code, and the
Pcrformative as a Site of Resistance
Because it expresses and embodies moral ties to
the commu:1 ':y, the performalive view of neaning
serves to legitimate lr.digcr.ous worldviews,
Mcani:1g and resistance are embodied in the act
of perfo:mancc i:self. The performalive is politi•
cal, the site resh,1ance. At thi5 cri:ical level, tl:e
pcrforr:i ativ<" provides the cor.texl for resistance
to neoliberal and neoconservative attacks on the
legitimacy of the worldview h qt:estion, The per-
formative is where the so ui of the culture resides.
-~he perfor:native haunts the Ii n: i:1al spaces of
ci:::u re. :n their saned and secular perfonnances,
the nrm':iers of the culture honor one another and
the culture itself.
In attacking the perform11tive, critics attack
the culture? Smith (1999) states the dearly:
"The strugg:e :·or the valfr':ty of indigenous
knowledges may no lo:1ger be over the rerngnitfrm
that indigenous people have ways ofknowir:g lhe
wo~ld w::kh are unique, b·Jt over proving the
authenticity of, and control over, our own forms of
knowledge" (µ.104).
Scholars need a new set of moral and ethical
research protocols. Fitred to the ind:genous (and
nonindigcnous) perspective, these arc moral
matters. They arc shapecl by the feminist, ,'.0111·
rnunitar:an principles of sharir:g, red11rocity,
rdalionality, rnmmui:ity, and r:eighborlincss
(Lincoln, p. 287). They e:n :mdy a dialogic
ethic of love ar:c faith grounded in corr:;,,1ssion
(Kracci & Christ:ans, 2002, p. i3; \\Test, 199:1).
Accordingly, the ,nirpose of research is not :he
produ,;tion of new know:cdge per se, Rather, :he
purposes arc pcdagog'.cal, political, moral, and
ethical, involving the enhancement o: moral
agrncy, lhe -;,roduction of moral discer:1:ner:t, a
commitmen: to praxis, justice, an et:1:c of
tance, and a pe:-forrnative pedagogy that resists
oppressior. (Christiar:s, 2002, p, 409).
A code embodying these princi pies interrupts
the pract:ce of posi:ivist research, resists the idea
tha I re,earch is sor:iething that white men do to
ir.digenous peoples. Fmther, unlike the i11stilL1-
tiona: review boarc: model of Western ir:cuiry,
which is not conte:11 driven, au indigenous .:ode is
anchored in a particular culture and that C'Jit ure's
way of lifo; it wnnects moral :node! to a set o:·
po:itical and ethical actions lhal will increase
well-being in the indigenous culture. The code
952 n HANDBOOK 01' QIJAUTATIVE R:'Sl'ARCH-CHAPTER 37
refuse;; to tu:n ir,digenous peoples :n:o s;ib.lects
who are the natura: objects of white inquiry
(Smith, 1999, p. l l8). It rejects the Western utili-
tarian model of the ir:dividual as someone who
!:as rights distinct from :he rights the larger
group, "for example the right of an individual to
give hi.s or her own knowledge,or the right to give
in:ormed consent" {Smith, 1999, p. I I BJ-rights
that are not recognized in Maori culture, As Smith
(1999} observes, "Community und indigenous
rights or views in this area are generally not ...
,espected" (p. 118).
Research ethics for scho:ars working with the
:nerr.:iers of Maori and other indigenous commu•
"extend far beyond issues of individual
consent and confidentiality" (LT. Smith, 2000,
p. 241). The1,e ethics are not "prescribed ir. codes
of conduct for researchers but tend to be pre-
scribed for Maori reseaxhers ir. :ultural terms;'
advising resea:-d:ers to show respect for the Maor;
by exhibiting a willingness to listen, lo be humble,
tu be cautious, to avoid flauntir.g knowledge,
and to avoid trampling over th.: mana of people
(LT. Smith, :1.000, p. 242).
Turning the Tables on the Colonizers
He,e at the e:1d it is possible to im3gine
scenarios that tum the h1hle!l on the colcmi,.er.
It is possible to :magine, for example, research
practices that really do respect the rights of
human subjects, protocols for obtaining subjects'
informed consent that truly inform and do not
deceive, and research projects that not only do no
harm bur in fact benefit hur.1an oommun: ties.
Here I borrow from indigenous scholar Robe:1
Williams (1997, pp. 62-67), who takes us bc1ck to
Lewis and Clark and asks us to imagine another
version, or telling, of the ;,,ewis and Clark myth.
Williams turr.s Jefferson on himself, arguing
that it is possible to use the Lewis and Clark nar•
ratives as an 01:ca:;:011 for reimagining the human
rights af 1r.digemms peoples. Williams argues that
indigenous peoples should take up Jefterson's
theory of democracy and ,:ain, as whites did,
their natural, ir.alienable rights to self·r<'tugnilion,
self-governance, survival, autonomy, lile, liberty,
the pursuit of happiness, and sovereign authority
over their own lands.
Similarly. the celebrations of Lewis and Clark's
expedition that took place :n 2003-2004 can he
turned into political performances, transgressive
events. In this form of his:orical theater, Lewis
and Clark would be pushed aside, ignoreci. In
their place, performers would er:act a u:opian dis•
ruptive theater, redaimir:g and celebrating the
inaliena ::ile rights of Native Americans to own
and control their own histo,y. Thrse per:ormance
text, would be occasions for indigenou, peoples
to write their way into the journals, to of~er their
stories and narratives about lhe eff«ts of Lewis
and Clark on their ancestors and on themselves.
Like the writings of Willian: Least Heat-Moon
(1999), these tellings woulc recover b·1rled
his:ury, n:omer.ts, representations, ar.dent pic-
tographs that write across "all of us-red, white,
mixed" (p. 217). This theater would advance the
project of indigenous decolonization (Willians,
1997, p. 62). These performarce eve1,ts would
represent Lewis and Clark as colonizers whose
"unc.aunted courage" will no longer recog•
ni7.ed, honored. or celebrated.
1i!I Cm,c:us10:-i
The ethical and moral models tJf Russell Bishop,
Graham Smith, and Linda Smith call into ques•
tion the mo:e generk, utilitarian, biomedical
Western model of ethical inquiry (see C'.hrist:ans,
:1.000, 2002; Bracd & (]1ristians, They out·
a radcal ethical path for the future that
:ranscends the ins:itutional review 'Joard model,
which focuses almost exdusivel)· on the pro;-,lems
associated with betrayal, deception, and harm.
They ca: 1 for a collaborative soda: science
research model that makes the researcher respon•
sible not lo ~ n:moved l!isdpline (or institution)
but to lho,e studh:d. This model stresses per·
sonal accountability, rnring, the v11lue of individ-
m1I expressive:iess, the ca?acity for c:npathy, and
tl:e sharing of emotional i:y ( Collins, 1991 216 ).
This model implements collaborative, participa-
tory, performative inquir •: II forcefully aligns the

ethics of research wit'l a politics oi the oppressed,
wi:h a politics of resistance. hope, and freedom.
This model directs scholars to up moral
projects that re speer a:1d reel aim 'ndigemm& cul•
tural practices. Such work produces spiritual,
social, at1d psychologica: healing, which in turn
leads IQ multiple fon:1s of transformation at the
personal and soda! levels. These transforn:afan:s
s:i.ape the processes of mobilization and collective
action, and tr.e resulting actions help persons
realize a radical politics of po~sibiUty. This poli-
tics er.acts emanc:patory discourses and critical
pedagogies faat honor human differences and
draw inspiration from the struggles of indigenous
peop:es. In Estening to indigc nm;s storytellers, we
learn new ways ofbeln,g moral and political i!'. the
social work. Thus researc,~ ceases to be a c:irty
wu:d.
• NOTES
L Th is chapter extends some argun:ents I
prcscn: in my hook Perfi,rrnance E1hn11graphy (Drnzi:;.
WC.>, pp, 1-23, A per:i:lrmative culturu:
stuc:e, e:1act, a critical, .:ultu ral pedag()gy. It do,'s
so by using dk:ngue, perform~tivr writing, ,me the
staging and ;ierformance of lcx:s involving audience
members, Regarding the terms dewl:mization the
postcolonia/, which I u,1: hc1e, J sho·Jld be noted that
de;:olo:::zing research is ntll necessarily pnstmlonfal
:eseaxh. Decoloni1:a1inn is a process that critically
e111;agcs, a: all le\'els, ;::iperialfam, co:onial i~m, and
?OS:coloniality: Decolnnizing research implements
.::diguious episternologies and critical interpretive
:iractices that are shaped by ;ndigcnou, resear:h agen-
(Smith, 1999; p, 20). In this ,hapter, I draw on the
vm,k ,if Shohat (1992), Hall {l9'16b), Dimitriadis and
f'vld£:ih1 (2UOl ), and Swacener and Mum,: (:2004) in
trmt'nling the com:ep! of "post-colonial" -with Hall, I
.:sk, When was the colonial ever pos:? In ils hy;ihen-
,.tetl for;n. the term post-colonial func:io:1s as a temp()-
ral marker, implying H::earity and c'mi::ology, With
Sv,adener and :Vlutua, I ;irrfer th<' form p1Jstcoim1iai,
which implies a comtant, complex. intertwi:ied back-
and fo:th rel"lionshi:1 between pa~t and present
In this sen:;e there is no postci:unial, there are only
endles.~ vanitions on neoro:,mial formations (Soro.
2C04. p. Regarding the :er:11 criurni ped1Jgogy:
Denzin: Em1u:dpm1ry Discourses 111 953
As Kinchdoc and M.:La·en (20001 nme, rnilurnl
pmduc:;,m fonclions as ~" form of ~ducation, as i:
generates ~no"ledge, s'lapcs values, and constructs
!den:i:y. ... lly using 1::e term .~1/tum/ pedagogy, we
are spedfkally referring to the rar:;cula,ctdtural
agents pmdm::e particular hegemonic ways of """;,,.,"
(p. see also MtLm::n, 199da, p,441 ), Criti,al peda-
gogy attempts to disrupt and dcconstruct these cul•
tc:ral practkes perfurlllllti,dy in the name of a •·more
just, de:nocratk, and egali:ari;m society" (K:::cheloe &
/1,kLanm, 2000, p, but sec La:her, 1995 J.
2 .lso A.hcmft, Griliiths, a:1c T::l::: 1)002),
3atti ste ( WOO a, 200Cb), Balr::e and Chri ,topher
(2001 ), Beverley (20.U), His:,op (1994, 1998;, Chur~hill
( l 996), Cook (1998), Cru:ksha::k (1990),
E:lsworth (1989), Gilbe:·t (2003), Greenw"od {2n0l ),
Hi,)o and !lire ( 1997), Kondo (2000),Magcwan 2000),
~arker (2003), Menchu (: 984, 1998), Pratt (2001 ),
G. Smith (2000), L, T. S:nith (2000), and C. W:-1.-T.-R.
Smith (2000).
3. This theater often use, verbatim acccu nts
injustices and acts of ,·inle::1ce enwunte,ed in daily
Mienc>:a kow~k i (1995, 200 I) provides a hi ,tory of
-'verbatim :h~ater" and discus,~es cx:ens:ons of t:il~
Jpproach :l:at use oral history, pt1rlic1pant observe.-
lion, and lhc methods nf eth:10,lrama (scr also
Chessma:i, I9'll ). One cr.ntempnrary 11,e of ver'iatim
thrate~ i, the play Guantdn,,mo: ''Honor Round w
Defi:nd Freedom," ,:rcated by Victmia Bri1tain, a lormer
jnurnali~I, anJ Gillian Slovn, a novelist 7his play
adJr..,,scs the p:ight Br:tish c'tizens imprisone,; at
the U.S. naval base n: Gua1minarr;o Bay, Cuba, ir: the
peri:id since the Se::;tember 11, 2001, attacks
or: t;ie Unitec! States.According to Alan Ridi::g (1999),
writing for the New York Times. the '"powrr of
'Guantanan:u' is thal i; is oot really a play but a re-
enac:ment vfow, ,~xpressed In it:terviews, letters,
news conferences and S?eeches by various playe:s in
the pu~t-Sept. 1l Iraq war drama, Ii-om British Muslim
,ktainees :o la·,l'yers, from :,,fr. Rumsfe:d to Jack Straw,
Br:tailis foreign ,cunu; Riding notes that Nicolas
Kent, be play<s directo:, belicv,;:s that "poli::ai: t:Jeater
works he,e )n England] because the British have an
inna:e sense of ju slice. 'When we do about
injustice: he ,,aid. 'there is ,l groundswell of sympa-
thy ... people are fu:·ious that there isn't
process: •• , 'With lslamophob:a growing around the
worlc today; he said, 'I wanted 10 show rrm we. too,
think there j5 an injos:ke'" [p, Bl).
<;;, At ar.other level, imligcnou s parfaipawry
t:icatcr extends the pmject mnnectcd to Third Wo:ld
 lll IIA:-ID!:!0O1( Of QUALfTATIVE RESEARGI-CIIAP !'ER
popular lhca1cr-lhat polttkal theater "t:,ed b)·
opprt~,ed J'hitd Wo,ld l)eO!)le :,1 achieve justice and
dcvdcpm.:::l for :hcmsel,e,» ;Etherto::. : 988, p. 991}.
lhc lnlcrn,11io11al Popu.ar Theatre 1\]ia1m,, organized
i11 the 1980s, ,1 S<', ,xis ting forms of cultural expression
to ,,,,,u,., .. imprnvi,cd d rnmatic produc: :ens tl:at ana-
lyze situa:ions or povcrl y and op;,~ession. Th: s
r,,ots approach uSt'S agitprojl and slogar '1.ing •heater
pk<ccs .,.,,u., desigm,d to fome:,t political action) to
stimi:.:ate collective ;;warcness and collecti,e action a:
t::e :ouJ · Thi,formoftheaterras been popular in
: .atin America, in Africa, in p.irt s of Asia, in India, and
among Native pnp11la1ions i11 rhc A:'.',ericas (Fithe:1on,
p.
5. The Cw!:eu; Eyt: and Newsre,,l are Dos Pi!lis~s'.,
(1937) ten'.:s (and rnclhods) for inmrporating cu:ren:
<'Vents and ncwsworth1· items 11110 ,1 text.
6. The po~itive negative dcbat,· often neglects
i 11Jit\enous discouroe~, prempposcs ,onscm:.:s whrre
there may he ::cne, shu:s down ::uanrcd debate, and
ignores 1:1e perforr:1ative features of racial :dcmity
iSmith, 1997. pp. 3-4).
,. lk lk is, race and rnci,::1 w~rc serial mn-
st rm;t ion,. F'erformam:cs, mins:relsy, blackfoce are
powerful per:ormancc devices Iha: produce and re:1ro-
duce rhr ,:clor Du l\ois hdicH:J tba1 Afrk:an
!\mericar:s 11eoo pe:formmm: spaces wh;:rc they can
m·ct r,,1 how race is ~om!r:.:ctd. Conscq;icnlly, a~ Ela111
(2001, p:i. 5-6) observes, Afric2.:1 Amerkan theater
a11J pcr1i.1r:··ar1ce have heen crnlral sites liir !ht in:,·r•
:ng11tiu:1 ,:,f ra,~c a:1d the mim line (see alsc i;:,un &
Krnsm,r, 2CO, ). As l'lam rl(lle,, ''The inherent .:on-
;huClcdnc,s· of performance and the malleability of
the devicCo of' lhc tbcalcr serve :o reinforce the t:ieory
that bladrncss .. ,,nd rnce ... ,ue hyhr',:, fluid cm:-
c,,pts'' (pp. 4-5 ). S, u11r: H,II ( 1996a. p. i~ ccrrect in
:::s observation Lhal l'C 11:ons of c;,Jor have nevet been
su~wssfol in cscaJ1ng the po:i:ics and theaters of
{rncial) n:ptTSClllali:r..
11. Oihtr proj;:ct~ ill\'O]vc a focus 011 !e,t' monies,
new for ms story telling, ,1nd returmng to, as well as
rdraming and regcnd~ring, kry cu,wra· dehate,,.
9. I dd'inc fosdsm as a c,Jnservative, eKt:eme
right wing political, economic, and sodolegal s:ate for-
!:'. at iun characterized by aulhorit~rian forms of
ernm<'nt, extreme nationalism, manufactured cmi~ent
at key kvds of ;mblk opinion, rnds"i1, ,. large mii ita~y-
i::dustrial mmpl~,. foreign aggressh·eness, o111'
.:01111:-.uni:;111, statc-su?portcd corpcrnte capila.:sm,
sl;;ie-S[l' msn1 ed v'ulenu:, extreme n:sl,ic lions on
v1dual :·reedc,:n, anc. tendencie, toward an "Orwe\Han
wndit ion o( 11erpetual war , , , '. a::d] a naliotM 1
sccuri:y state in whi6 intelligence agencies ,md the
milit~ry replace publicly elected offki,ll, ln deddi ng
n~t:onal pri,:,rities" {Rorty, 2002, ?, 13).
IO. Here : here a re Qhviou, pulitical co1me,c:t,:ns to
Guy !lcbord's (:970) s1t~:atio11ist proj cct
I L Smilh (I 999. p. 99) ;,re;;ents 111 pcrformmivc
ways 10 be mloni1.ed, IO ways in wh:ch ~ckncc, lcch-
nology, and Wcsfi;rn i usti :uti1ms place indigcnou,
pwpks••~iodced, any group of ht::nan beings-dlcir
lrnguages, cJllures, and e'1virnnme:its, at :isk. Thrsc
ways ::idm:c the Human f.enome Diversity Proj,·c1
as a~ sckmifi.: e:Tort, :0 re~onslr:.:ct :irev inusly
ntinct m,.. j.i,:uc peop:e, and pro;ec:s tha: d,·nr
global ci:izer:ship to indigenous :ieoples while com•
nud::'ying, palcnling, and selli r,g indigrnorn; .::11:mrnl
tradition:; and r:tuals.
i.ewis, t!umrn s Jcfli'mm. ,md the ,1peui11g of' the
Amerinm We,i. New Y:,rk: Simon & Sch1Jster.
Anzald1ia, C. ( 1987 ). fMrderlands!fa frontera: The "•'W
mesriza. 5an F,,mdsco: Aunt Lute,
/1s:1crnft, ll., {;ritfohs, G.. & T::,1n, H. (2002). Ihe
empire w:·ites boct Theory ,m,J pracri,·e ir.
i:oionic;i litmm1r,~ (2t:<l ed.). Kl'\~ Yo:k Routledge,
B.tlme, C., & Carsten,en, (2001;. Home !irei:
Creating a Pac':1~ theatre in :he diaspora. Theatre
Rese,m:l! l!!ternatim;al, 26, .l.:i-46.
Ba:lislc, M. (2000a). l::tmduc:ion: llntblding 1he lessons
of coloni1,1tio11. In .\I. Battiste (Ed.}, Rl!daiminr
imiig,:nou, voice and xvi-xu;,
Vancouver: Un ive~ity ,:f llri:ish Columbia Press.
Ballislc, M, (2000b). Maintaining aborigi1rnl idcn:!ty:
Language and .::ultu:e in modern sodety. 1J1
M. Bauis;e (Ed,). J1ec/aimfr:g indigenous voice
,md vision (pp. 192-208). Vancouve Gnivtrs:ty
of Brit :sh Columbia Press.
lki\O, A. (200 I). Black mlns::elsy do~blc :nversiori,
circa :890. In H. I, Elam, Jr., & IJ. Krasner (Eds.;,
Afriau, Amerirnri .perfr,rm,mcc and theater
~ ~
imtory: A cri1ical 1-euder (pp 1i 1-191). New Y,mc
Oxford 1:nlvcrsity Press.
Bmiamin, W. (1969), fl!urnin11tfo11s (H. Zohn, Trnns.).
New York Harcourt, !~race & Work:.
llenjamin. W {191G-J98L). Tiieoretk.~ of knowledge:
T:ieory of progress. Philosop/:ical 1',mm1, 13
(1 l ·40.

Beve~lev, I. (20G0). Jes1imm1ia, suba:terr:ity, and
r:armtivc authority. In N. K Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Hand&oak ,,f qwilitative r1;search (2nd eti,
pp. ~:,:,-;,,o:>l. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Bi,hnp, R fJ994). lnitiat'::g e~?ower:ng re:;earch.
New Zealand Journal Ed1u:11ti,mal Studies. 29,
175·· 188.
Bi,hnp, IL (1998 J. Freeing ourselves from neo·colonial
dmninatio:: in research: A Milorl approach to
creating knowledie. fnternational J,1urr,ai of
Qualitative Su.dies itt Edui;arilm, 11, 199-219.
Br;w::i, S. L., & Cbristian,, C. G. (2002). Ecitors'
introdL:ction. In S. :.. llracd & G. Chr;stiar:s
(I'd,.), Moral engagement in p11blic life: Theori.m
for contempar,1ry etltics (pp. New York:
Peter
Brayl>oy, B. M. (20DD). The Indian and the researcher:
Tales from the field. lnternatfonal Journa! of
Q1//1litutive Studie, in F.duccnio11; 41 S-126.
Bu:ler, J. (l 997 ). Excimi>le speech: A politics of the
peifor'Ilative. :-.lew Yorls:: Routledge.
Chessman, P. I I 971 ). Production casebook. New
Theatre Quarterly, 1, l-6.
Cho::isky, N. (1996). CillSs warfare: lnter,>iews with
Drwid 11,m;sarr!i..in. Momoe, ME: C:immon
Courage.
Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and polih:s in qualila•
live resear,h. In I\. K. Jen:d11 & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Flandbooii: afqua!itafr1e re,eard, i2nd ed.,
pp. I Tlmu,aml li"cks, CA: Sage.
Chris:ians, C. G. (2IJ02). lntro<luclion. In Ethical issL1eS
and qualitative research ISpecial issue l.
Quall!atin? lnquiry, 8, 107-4 IO.
Churchill, W. (1996 ). I am an indigenist: Notes on
tht iceology of the Fourt:i 'Nodd. In W. Churchil:,
From a nati'.'e s,m: Selected essays in indigerc!im,
1985-1995 (pp. 509-~46). Bos:on: Sm:th End.
Collins, P.H. ( 199 l ). 11/r;ck feminist thought: K•ww!edge,
consci(!usness, and tlie politics of emp,:wermel!t.
:-le1'l York: Rou1ledgt', Chapman & Ha 11.
Collins, I~ Ii. (1998). Fighting words: Black wt1men and
rl;e fer justice. Minneapolis: University
'\1 innesola Press.
Comamff, & Comaroff, J. L. ( 2cm ). Mii:ennial
l'il,t thoughts on a second coming.
J. Comaroff & J. L. Comamff (Eds. J, Millennial
c11pita!i,m and the rnltun: of neoliberalism
[pp. l -56). Durham, NC: Duke Univc-rsity Press.
Conque7gnod, 11 (I 998 ). Beyond the t~xt: Toward a
perfor::iative cultural politics. in S.J. Dailey (Ed.J,
Tl1e fuwre perfor'/1,mff studies: Visions ,md
Denzill; Emancipator:, Discourses Ill
revisions (pp. 25•-36,l. Was::::igto11, DC: National
Communi,atio:i Association.
Cook-Lynn,E. ( 1998).American Indian lllleliee:ualism
and t'it new Ir.dian story. In ll. A. Mihesuah (Ed.),
Natives and academics: H.eseard1ing and writing
about America,; fmliau.; (pp. 11 D8). L::coln:
University a:' Nebraska Press.
Cook-Lynn, (2001 ). Ami•/11dianim1 moderir
,1merica: A voice from Jiuekeya~ earth. Cr'.Jana:
lcniverslty of lllimiis
Cruikshank, J, (in collaborat:on with Sidney, :\..
Smith, K, & l\ed, A.). (: 9S!l ). life lived like a smry.·
Life storie!; of tltree Yr,kon Native elder,. Lincoln:
Un:versity of Nebraska
Debord, G. {1970). Society of the specr~cle. De:roit:
Black& Red.
Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performana ethnography:
Cri,icr:.l pedagogy ,rnd the poiitirs oj culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin. N. K. (2004a). Indians i:: :he park. Q.ialita/fre
Research, 4(3;.
nemin. N. K. {2004.n). Remembering to forg~t: Lewis
and Clark .ind :-Jative Ameri.:ms in Yellowstone.
Ct1J111nwtl£utfr:m and Critical/Cultural St:,;dits, 1,
219-249.
.)en1.in, N. K. (in press}. Searching Ycllowstomi.
l.nndon: Sage.
Dimitriadi,, G., & McCarthy, C. (20()1 ). Reading ,md
teac~ ing the poiico!oni,11: From Baldwin lo
Basqttiat ,md beyond. New York; lem::hcrs College
Press.
Dorst, j. D. (1999). Looking west. P·1 iladdph ia;
University of Per:nsylvania Press.
Dos Pas sos, J. (193 7). US.A.: I. The 42nd parallel; II.
Nineteen nineteJ!•n; Ill. Tire big momJ. New l1Jrk:
Moder:: Library.
Du Bois. W. E. B. {1926, July). Kngv.ra Players Little
Kegro Thea:re: lhc story of a little theat:e move•
mer:t. Crisis, pp. 134- L'l6.
Du Bois, W. !l. ( 1978) The :iroblen: of the twentjeth
century j; the problem of the color line. In W. E. ll.
Il·,, Bo:s, On sociology and the black cr.mmr.miry
(Il. S. Green & FA Driver, Eds.) {pp. 281 289).
Chkago: J;niversity of Chkago ?res,. (Ori11,inal
wori< published l 9C l J
Du Bois, W. E. B. 0 989 ). the ;ou!s of black fo1.t
New York: Ba ntan:. (Origins] work ;n:blished
1903)
Ela:n, H.J., jr. (2001:,. The of race: An introd..:c•
lion. In H. J. Elam, Jr.. & D. Krasne~ (Eds_),
African
. .
American .1>rrfrmmmce and theater
:lS6 11!1 EANUBl)OK OF QUALlTPi:l\iE :lES~ARCH-Cl !APTER
~istvry: A cri1ica/ reader (pp. 16). \/,;;1»• Yori"..:
Oxfon: U:::versity Press.
Elam, H. ;., ]:-., & Krasner, D (Eds.). (2001 ). i'Jrimn
and theawr hi$tory: A l'rit•
New ,iuk: Oxford University Press.
icaf rtad;,r.
Elliscn, K ( 1964). Change :h:joke and the yoke. In
It Fllbm1, .~hadr.tum.i net (p:1. 45-5'1). New 'fork:
Random Ilouse.
::ll~wur lh, E. ( J989J. Why doesn't tbi, empmwr
ing? Working throug:i the repressive myths
crltiral • ethodak,g}·, llarvud Edun:uitm Rel'iew,
Etherton, M. (. 988), Third World poptdar theatre. In
M. lfanham (Ed.), The Cambrhige guid1.: to tlrnulre
(pp. 991-992). Cam bricge: Cambridge l'niversity
!'rrss.
:ine, M., Roberts, It, Torre, M., ;;pegui, ll., Bowen, I.,
l\::udin, K., ,:t al (2003). l'art:cipat(1ry acti£m
resear,~: From within and beyond prison
in fl 'vi. Camic, J.E. Rhodes, & L Yz.:dley (Ed5.},
(J11a/1tath'c research in p.,yd,ali1J1,y: Jixp,rn,1ing
persp,rtivcs in mcrlroliof,~,:)' and (pp. 1
198 J. Wash inglon, llC: Psyc'mloi; :,al
Assodalion.
rreire, P. (1991\). P~.tiag,igy •~·frcnlom: lirl!lcs, deirmr•
mcy, 1111d .:ourrgi: (I: Clarke, Tra::s. ). llculder,
CO Rowr::an & Uuk:idd.
Freire, P. ( l 999). Pedagogy of hope: i<,di;,wg PedaJ:!ogy
of the Oflf'rl'sscd. 'Jt·w York: Continuum. ( Origimd
wr:rk published 1992)
Freire, P. (200 I). Peduf~AV' /I{ ,ippre.ssed CW1h
annivcrs.u y ed.). New Y11rk: Conti11uu::1.
Garoian, C. R. ( I '199). Perfi;miing pd,,gr,gy: 10,,-ard rm
an o(poli,ics. ,thmw: State Un iversitv of New Yllrk
J • •
Press.
G1lber(, l:f. (2003). and white and re(aJd ,di over
aa0 ain: Ir:c :gemms mi nstn:'.,v, m comem:ioran
, f
Ca:iatlian and Al:strnlian the,itre. Trleain' Jcmm.;l,
679-698.
Giroux, H. (2:llltla). imp,ire am: The prac11rnl politic, of
rnllural studies. New vork: Routledge.
Giroux, E. (200C)b ). Stealing innocenl',:: Corpcratr
lures war 011 cl,iidron. New York: Palgravc.
3.. D. (200!) On Paulo Fn:irc'3 ph::us,,pby of
pmxis and :he fou11dat'cns of liberation edura-
tim:. liducati~ri,1l fl.e5earch;;r, 30(2 ), 15-2 5.
Gofa::an, E. (1959). The pres1m.ta1 ii>n ,fsi,lf in cveryd,17
'Jew Ym k; Doul•lexfay.
Gran,l,-, S. (2000). !\ merkan In;::an identity intel-
:er:11ali$m: The q:.esl for a new red pedagogy.
fotemational f(lur11al o} Qualilafiv,, in
Education, IJ,
Grnveline, f J. (2000). Circle a;; methodology: Enacting
an a·Joriginal paradigm. rmemaiirmaJ jm,rnal of
Qualiiarive Srudic; in Education, 361-370.
Greenwn~d, J, 12001 ). Within a lhin1 s::,accc. Re.Much in
Drama F:d11c11rian, 6, l \J:\- 205.
Grcsmnar:, I'. (2003) . .4dv,·n!Urin,~ 11/ong the Lewis and
Clark trail. San Francisco: Sierra Cluh.
IJali, ~- ( 1996,;), \>li'hat i, this "bla,:k" in black popL::ar
cuh::e·! : n :l Morley & K. · H. Chen (Ed;.), Stuari
Ha fl: trftfcal ,nc1ia}?ues in rnlfural st1.1dits
(;;p. 465-475). Lendon: Rcutledge.
Hall, S. (1996h ). Whe:: wa, "the post •colonial"r 11:inking
at th: Iimit In L Chambct s & L Curt ( Eel~.;, The
post-w/onii1/ que,licm: Common divided /,ori-
ZOUJ {pp. 242-260). Lnndon: lfoutledg,·.
Harfo, ;., & Bird, C (1997). Jntmductfon. In J. Harjo &
G. Bird !Eds.), Reim•rntmg tl,e enemys /ar,gur.;j,v:
(011.tempornry Native womens writings of Mmh
Ame rim (pp. : 9-31 ). New Yark: W.W. Norton.
Henc~r,011, J. (S.) V. (200:n. P11~tml:mial ledger draw-
in15: u,gal rcfor::i.111 rv.. Battiste (Ed.). Rcd1limi11g
imlig,mous ·..ofre arid vision (pp, · 61-171).
Van..:ouvcr: University of British Columb:a Pres5,
Hesht1,i11s, L (1994). F:Peing ourselves from ohjecliv·
ily: !>tam1ging subjectivity or turning toward a
(J,Htidp;tlo1 }' mode of :onsciousness. Educativna/
Reseurchet; 13{3), 15-22.
hooks, h. (1990 ). Yeaminw Race. gen,ier, 1md ci;/iural
p~11tics. llcst:m: Sn:1th Fnd.
Horton, S. (2003, Mar,h). Keeping the:: lcga,y ,11ivc.
Au,fobo•t Jl,iga:rine, pp, 90-93.
Kanmea, J. (2004). Dilemmas of an i::l:igcnous acadc-
m k: A nariv<' Hawaiian story. 111 K. Mutm & B. B.
Swadener (Eds. I, Decolmtizfng rese,m·h in truss•
:ult ural nm1ex'.;: Cril imf perwnal narrntives
[pp. Alh,my: State University of New 'fork
Press.
Kemmis, & McTaggar:, R. (2000). Partid;:iawry
actio~. research. In I\. Denzin & Y. S. Linrnlu
(Ed,.). Hmul/!ook of qi;a/itmive research (2nd ed.,
Thnus:md Oaks, CA: Sage.
K::1,;heloe,J. :.. , & 11-kLarcn. P. (201~0). Refainkingcriti ·
cal t:1cory and t]ualit":ive re,,eanJi. ln N.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (hfa. ), 11,incibook ofqua!i-
Mliw rc':Search (2nd ed., pf. 279-313;. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kondo, ). (2000). (Rc)vi,ions racr: Co::tempa,ary
race lhcu: y and ~ullurnl p,ilitics of r.icial

cr,,ssover :n d<K,, r::entary thealr,.
/oumal
Lc1dso1Hlillings, G. (20llll). Radalized discomscs and
elhnic episte:nologks. h 'J. K. Denzin & Y. S.
l.incoln lim1d/1ook ,lf qua!irarive ves.?~n11
(2nd ed.. pp. 257-277). Thou,and Oak.\,CA:
L,11h,,:, P.. ( l 9S8 ). Cr:tiGal pedagogy its a.1:n?lki·
Lies: A praxis of stuck place,. l'd1m1t;rmal Theory,
"'87-497,
Lrnst He:at-Mmm, W. (I 999). River hflrse: li voy,igt
c,cn>,o Amerfai. llrn,ton: Houghton Mifflin.
Lhamon, W T., Ir. ( 1998). Raising fllackface pet•
formance fmm Jm1 Crow w hop. Cambridge,
.'.14 A: Harvud Un iversitv Press.
•
Lh:co::i, Y. S. (1995). Emerging c:iteda fr.r quality in
qualitative and ir:terprelive in(r~::-y. Qualitative
lnquiry, I, 175-289.
l.optz, G. R. ( 1998}. :tellectio11s on epistemchigy and
standpoint theor:es: A :cspo:;se tr, "A Maori
a:iproach to cic,,,..,,l\ lnuwl..xlgc;' !ntematiom.J
Journal of Qualit<ttive 8tudfos in ,~Jumtinn, i I,
225-131.
Madison, D.S. '.I ,98). Performance~. personal oo,ra-
tives, aml :he politics of possibility. in S. J. Dailey
(F.d.:, The future cf performance studies: 'li,ions
and revisions :pii. 176-28n). W:.shingtnn,
National Comm Jni..:arion A5sociation.
J,fodi;n::, D. S. (1\199). Performing thco:ylembodied
writing. "r,d Performarm: Quarterly, 19,
: ()7-12,1.
Magowan, I' [2000). Dancing with a difference:
Reconfiguring the pocri,; 1,olitks Aboriginal
rl:ual as natkl:ial spe;;ta,::e, A,1slr11liar1 Journal af
AuthmpalogJ; il, 301:l-321.
,\farkcr, M. (20G3). Jndigti:cus voir.e, mmmunity,
and eri,temic v:olcnce: The ethno~rapher's
•·mtere$ t s'' ' ,;,t•mterests"ti1e etImogrn pI1e,.
w:rnt
Jr,ternatfonal Jmmu1! ()f Qu;;!itative .'?w,iies !.~
Education, 16, j6l-37::>.
McLar{:n, P. (1997a).'l'he ethnographer a, postrnmlmi
llancur: Crit ital refkxi vit;' and posthyhr:t!:ty as
mu ralive e:1gaj!ement. Ir. W. G. Tie,ney &: Y. S.
Lincoln (fals.), Reprcsentatfor1 and rhe tcxr: Re-
framing rhe narrative (l'P· I43-177). Albany:
Stale Unive,sity ,,f York Press,
McLaren, P. (1997h ), l<cmlutiomuy multiwlturalism:
!'edeigogit.; dissent f,cr the new rmilc1111ium.
Bouldc::, ((1: Westv'cw.
McLaren, P. '.I ~91la), ,tevnlntiona,y pedagogy in post•
,evolutionary times: Rt'lh:nking the pclitic:al
Denzin: Ema:idpotory IJisconr,cs r,l 95:;
economy of e;itical educ,. :ion. Ed11cationa!
Theory, 48, 43I -462.
McLaren, I~ (1998:;). White:1e,s is ... : The struggle
for poslcoloni.;J hyb:idity. In J. L Kim:hdoe,
S. Steinb.:rg, N. Rodriguez, I:< R. Chmmmlt (Eds.),
W/iite reign: Deploying whit.e~:ess in America
(pp. New St. Marti 11'0.
McLaren, P. (I 999). Srhooling ;;s a ritual pufurmancc:
1i•ward u poiilirnl ei.wwmy of edun:iticnalsymbais
aud gestures (3rd ed.). Lanhar::, MD: :{owmiln &
Littlefieltl.
Md.aren, I'. (2001 ). Che Guevara. Paulo and
the politic~ £lf hope: Recfair:1ir:g ,;ritical peda•
gogy, Cultural Studie,HCritical Metlwdofogies,
1, l:Jii-BL
Mrad, G. 11. ( l'J3!1). The philosopl,;, nf the acr. ""·~•1;v.
:Jn iversity of Chkago Press,
Mem.:hu, R. ; I984 ). J1 Rigoberta M,mclni: An lmii,m
wom11n in Guafema!ii ( E. flurgos· )eh my, Ed.;
A. Wr,ght, Trans.}. London: Verso.
Menchu, R. ( 1998 ). Cnissing border, (A. W,igr:t,
TrJns. ), London: Verso,
Meyer, r,I. A, ( 2003 ). Hc/011/u: Our time 1if hemming;
H,,waiia11 ,pi;tenwiagy mu/ eat!J writings
Hono.ulu: •Ai Pt11ift;z11 Press Native !looks.
.vJ,:11c;c11~,,wslk:, J. (1995). The th,•alcr o[ el lmogmphy:
The reconstLtLion of dmoiuaphy m:•J theater
with emancipatory potential. Qwiiilative l11q,.fry,
J, 36J-
\fa•11a1tkow,ki, J. (2001 ). Ethnodrama: Perfor:mxl
rc,can.::i-1 imita::om, am: polcntial. In P. A:k:nson,
A. Cof•ey, S, Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. H, Lofland
(his.), Handi:u;r,k of ethnography (pp. 458-476).
London:
Mills, C. W. (1959), The ,,1efologiwl imt1gin,1ti,w.
l\ew Yo:k Oxford Univer~ity Press.
Moraga, C. ( 1\193 ). The las, g!:!'ieration: l'rase and
pm1ry. Boston: So:.i:l~ End.
Moses, ll D. ( 1992). Almighty Voirn and his
:itratford, O'\f: Williams-Wallace.
Mu:i.:a, I<., & Swaden~r, B. II. (2004). lntrnducl:on. In
K. Mntua & B. B. Sw~dener ;Eds.), D1Kolomzh;g
research in crvss-rnl!urnl w111,,,:1s: Cl i,ical perso•,al
11armtiv,cs 1- 23). Albany: State Unii:ersity of
New York Press.
Pelias, R. J. (1999). Wriii.~gpc7formancc: P.Jeticizing t/1~
rc>seardtf?rs body. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
U:1iversiLy P:·ess.
Pratt, M, L (20:JI), l, Rigal:erta Men:clui and the
"culture In A. Arias (Ed.), Ilu: Rigabwa
938 r,1 l!AK[lBOOK OF Q!;A.,:TATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
Mrndnl .-ommi·ersy {pp. 29--48). Minneapolis;
University of Minnesota Pres5.
Raim, F. V., Archibald, J. A., & Dcyhlc, D. {20001.
Th ro:.igh our eyes and in our own "'or~s: The
vokes of indigencus scholn~s. Iriternati<mal
fourrial of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13,
337-342,
Reddin, P. (1999). Wild Wtst shows. Urhar:a; IJnivcrsit y
of Illinois
Ric;:ardsen, L (2000). Wr:ting: A r:;ethml of inquiry,
In N.K. nen,in &Y.S, :,incoln (Eds.),Handbmik
of qualira,ivc research (2nd ed., PP- 'iZJ•->'•11:!
Thuu.,and Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riding, A. (2004, June I On a l(>:idon stage, a hear-
ing fo: Gnan:ananw detainee;;, New rork rimes,
p.B2.
Roedigcr, D, (2002). Co!nred white: Transcending the
racial past. Heroke_eiy: Univrrsity of California
Press.
Ronda, J. P. ( 1984 ). Lewis am/ Clark among th,· Indians.
Lincoln: Universit}· ofNeb:"aska Pn:s5,
!forty. R. (2002, October 21 ). Fighting terrorism with
de:nocracy. Tiu, Nutian, 11-14.
Sandoval, C. (2000), Methodoiogy of tlte oppressed.
Minneapolis: Univer;cily of Mi nne;,ula Press.
Sch1.dlery, P. (1997). Scarchin,. for l'ellowsrone: lsmlogy
iltid womisr in the fast wilderness. Ho.,ton:
Houi:;hton ,\.liffiin,
SemJli, L M_, & Kincheloe, I. L. (1999), ln:roduc1lon:
What is indigenous knowledge and wh>• should
we stud;· it: In L M. Semali & J. L. Kir.chdue
(Eds.), Wi,~t is mdigenous kncw!edge? Vaices_(rom
the amdem.y {pp. , New i:o,k: Fll'.:ner.
Shohat. E. {1992). 'Jn:es on the pu,I colonial.
Forres, 99 ! l L
S!aughte,, 1'. P. (2003 ). Exploring lewis and Clark:
Reflectfr:ms an men ami wilderm:s.s. 'iew York:
Knopf
Smith, A. (2003). liouse arrt?st and Piano. New York:
-<\nchor.
Smith, C. WA,-I-R. (lUOO). Straying beyond the
boundaries of belief Maori cpistemologies inside
the Cl! rr iculnm. Eduauio11<1/ Philasophy and
Tiieory,JZ,
Smi:t: G. (2000). l'rotecti11g and :-especring indige·
nous knowledge. In l¥L Battiste (Ed.), Reduiming
ir1digetw,u voice and ,·ision (pp. 209-224).
Vancouver: Univencit y of British Colum:i'a Pre"~·
Smith, T. (1999 ). Decofonizing methodofogics:
R~sead1 umi imiiger:ous peoples. Duned::., 'Jew
Zci:and: Univers:ly of Otago Press.
Smith, L T. (2000). Kaupapa Miiori research. In
M. &ttislc Reclaiming mdigerwus ·.1oice
and Yi.iion [pp. -247). Vancouver: Unh·ersity
of British Columb:a Press.
S:nirh, V. (1997), Introduction. In V, Smith (Ed,),
RepreSRII! ing blackness: Issues m film ,;,nd ,•Meo
(pp. l-12). New flrunswick, NJ: Rntgers
University Press,
Soro, L D. (2004). Foreworc: Deco;onizing research in
cross-cult Jra! contexts: of voia: and power.
ln Mutua & B. B. Swadener (Eds,), l)ecohmb;-
rescarcl: in cross:-cult1m:;/ mntext.~: Critical
pemmal narratfres (pp. ix xi). Albany: State
U::lversily of :,few York Pre,~.
S:i'ndel. C. (2000 ). liancing ,it ha~iime: Sports and
the .-ontmversy over Ameriam Jndian mascols.
New York: New York Univers:ry Press.
Stirling, E. W (1965). The bc'an resc~ation sy,t<:m of
the N'orthfrn Plain~. In !,1. 5, Kennedy (Ed.), Th~
red man~ West (pp. 300-312). New York: 'fasting,
House,
Swadener, ll. B., & Mut'Ja, K. (200'1), Afterwnrc. In
K. M:i:11a & B. B. Swadener (Eds,), Dero/imizin:g
research in cross-cu/Jura/ contexts: Critical per-
sonal mFru1fres ('.1p. 255-260). Albanr: State
Un:ve:,ity o: New York Press.
11.::'Iler, V. M. (l':18f,). [>ewey, Dillht>y, and dcama: A:i
in the- a:;thropofogy of experience, itl V. M.
TL:;11er & E. ,\t Bmner (Ed,_), The a.mhrapoiog_y
,if experience (pp. 33 44). IJrhana: University of
Illinois l're,s.
Ulmer, G. L, (1\189). Teletheory: Grammatology In the
age of video. New York: Routledge,
Weems. M. (2002), I speak from the wound thut L, my
mouth, New York: Peter Lang.
West, C. ( 1993). Keeping the faith: PhiltJsophy and rare
m Am,eri,:a. New )orlc Rot:tledge.
Williams, R. A., Jr (1997). Thm:1a, ;rlftrso:::
Indigenous Ameri:an stOf}'teller. In J. ?. Ronda
(E<l.), Thomas Jefferson and the changing West:
1:-'rom conquen to conservation (pp, 43-74).
Albuquerque: Ur:iversity of 'Jew Mexico P:css.
William~. T. ]'. ( 1984). af white shell: A 1oumey
to Ka1·ajoland. A,buquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
38
WRITING
A Method of l11quiry
Laurel Richardson and Elizabeth Adams St. Pierre
T
world of ethnography r.as expanded in
ways that were unirr:aginable a derndr
ago, whe1: this chapter was first written
for the first edition of this Ilandbuok. Q:iali:ati,e
researchers in a varkty uf di,cipjne,-1m:dkine,
law, education, the social sciences, and the
humanities-have since found writing as a
method r,f b1q!1iry to he a viable in which to
learn about lherr:selves and their research topic.
Th.: :iterature is vast a:1d varied.
In !:!!ht of these develupments, this chapte:'s
revision is organ'zed into three parts. :n Par: I,
Lat:rel Richardson d:scusses (a) the contex:s of
social sdentillc writing both his:o::kallv and C0:1·
temporancously, (b) the creative analytical practice
etr.nog,aphy ge:m:, and (c) :he direct ion her work
has taker: during the past decade, induding "writ•
ing stories" and collaborations acro,s the humani•
tiesisocial sciences divide. In Part 2, Elizabeth
St Pierre provides an analysis of how writing as a
me:hod of inquiry coheres with the development
of ethical selves engiged in soda] ac:ion and sodal
reform. In Part 3, Richardson provides so:11e writ•
ing pnict:o;s/cxcrciscs for the qualita:ive w:iler.
Just as the chapter reflects ot: r own pro,ce.s,;es
ar:d prcforcr:ccs, we hope that your wri:i ng will do
the same, The more different voices are honored
withir: our q·,1alitative cor:imunity. the stri,n1;:e--
and more interesting-that comm ur: ity will be.
w P,, :1.T 1: QuAuTAnvE vv R1nKG
Laurel Richardson
A decade ago. in the first edition Handbook,
[ confessed that for years I had yavmed my way
t~ rough numerous supposedly cxcm plary qualita-
tl ve studies. Countless n:Jmbcrs of rexts !:ad I
abandoned half read, half scanned, I would order
a new book with great antic:?ation-the topic wis
one I was interested :n, the author was somtorce I
wanted to reaa--oi: to find the text boring. ln
"comi:lg out" to colleagues and students abm;~ my
secret displeasure wib much of qualitative w ~ii-
ing, I ti1u11d a community of like-minded discon-
tents. L':1dergraduates, graduates, and colleagu<'s
alike said that they :01.:r:d ;11uch of qualitative
writing to ::ie•-v·es•-c,ori
We had a seriom, problem; 1e~eard1 topic~
were riveting and researc:1 Vlh:able, but qi:alita-
tive books were underread. l:nHke quantitative
960 • HAN!ll\OOK DI' QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTE:R 38
work that car: car:-y its meaning in its tables and
sm:1:nMies, qualitative work can ils u:eaniug
in :ts entire t.:xL Just as a piece of Jte:ature :s
not eq ]i\·a tent :o its "plo: sumrr: a~y~ qu al: ta
tive res,:-arch is not cor.tabed in its abstract_
Qualitative research has to be read, rmt scanned;
its n:caning j,, in the reading, :t seemed fool'sh at
best, a;id narcissb:ic and whollv self-absorbed at
'
won,!, lo ~:1end months or years doir:g research
that ended up nN being read and not making a
difterence to anything hut the author's career_ ·, ~1s
there some way in which lo create texts tbat were
vital and made a dH'ferencer I latched onto the
id.-a of ·.vrfting ;;s a melhod ,if" inquiry.
I hac been 1aug:u.as perl:aps ycu were as well,
not to write until I knew what I wanted to say, that
is, unt :: my points were organized and o;itlined.
But I did nat '.ikc writinae that wav, , I felt con-
:;tr;:bed and bored. When I thought about those
writing instructions, I reali,~d that t:1ey cohered
v,ith medi.,nistic 5cienlim; and quantitative
re,ea,d,. l recognized that those writing instruc•
tions were- themselves a n:dohlsturical invention
cf our 191'1-cen t ury foreparcn:s. Foi,t i ng those
il,st ructions on quajt;; :i 1,'C researchers created
serious problems; :hey umlen:ut w,ili rig as a
i.:ynarnk cr~ative process, they undermined thr
confidence of hcgi nn ing qLal itill ive researches
becauc their cxperkn..:e of rese,m:::1 was incon-
sistent •,vith fie writing model. and they con•
tributcd to the llot ilia of 4uali tative w riling !:rnt
1•t~.s ,i::1p:y nol interesting to :ead because writers
wrote in the homogenized voice of"~dence,"
Qualltalive researchecS commonly speak of tie
importance of the indh:'dua: researcher's skills
and apt: :udes. The rescarchcr-rnlher tbm t:1e
the que;;t:on nai re, or the .:ens.us t8r,e--,,
the "instrnme:n,w The :110:e honed the resea:·d:er,
the bet:cr the possibility of excellent research.
Students ax tat1g:il lo be open-to observr, lis-
ten, qnrstion, and participate. But in the past, they
wcr,~ not bei:lg taught to nurture thci: w,iting
1:m,·e, During the past decade, however, rathe1
than suppressing their voices, qualitative writers
have been honing tl:eir writing skills. Learning to
write in nrw ,w.ys docs not iake iiway one', traci •
tional wriri ng skills any more than learn'.ng a
se~ond language reduCt:, one fluidity in one', first
language, Rather, a1: kind~ of <Jualitative writing
have tiourishrd.
\.Vr iti ng ln Contexts
languag<? is a cui:stitt. :ivc force, ere~. :i ng a par-
t !cular view of real'ty and of :he Self, P:11dud11g
"things" always involves value-what to produce,
what to name :he productions, and wh,.: the ,tla-
t io:1ship :le tween Ihe pruducers and the named
th: ngs will be, W:i!ing things is no exception. No
textual staging is ever innocent (including this
one). Styles of writir.g are ;1eitl:er fixec nnr neu-
lml but ratl:er reflect the hisndcally shift:ng
domination of pa:1:icular schools or pal"adigms,
Soda: scientific writi:1g. likr all other forms of
writing. :s a socioh :storkal construction am:,
therefore, is 11: utable.
Since the 17th cenu,y, the world of writi:lg
has been dh•ided into two separa:e ki:1ds: literary
and scientific. Literature, from J 7th century
onwarc, was associated with fiction, rheto:ic, and
subjectivity, whereas science was assoc:ated with
fact, "plain language;' and objectivity (Clifford &
Marcus, 1986, p. D'.1ring the 18th century, fae
Marquis de Condorcet introduced the term "social
sdenc,tCondorcet (asdted in Levine, 198S) con-
tended that "~nowledge of the trutl:" would be
"easy;• and that errnr would be "al:nost :mpossi-
ble;' if one adopted precise language about moral
and :;odal issi:es (p. 6). By the 19th ccntur}, litc:."a-
ture and science s:ood as :wo scpa rate dorm:i:ls.
Lite:ature was aligned with "art" and "colture"; it
contained :he values of "tas:e, aes::1el ks, ethics,
lumanity, and rrmralit y" (Clifford & yfa.:-cus, I986,
p, 6) as well as the Lg;11s lo met.a?l:orkal and
mnJ:guous langi:age. Gi wn to science was the
·:le lief that its words were o·:ijective, pred se, 1mam-
biguous, :wm:ontextual, and non 111 ctaphoricaL
As the 20th century i: nfolded, the relationships
between social sck:i:ifk writing and literary
writing grew ii: complexity. ·~he presumed solid
demarcatiuns be:wt't:11 "fact" and "fk:ior1" and
betwcer. "true" anc "imagined" were blu::red. :be
blu,ri r:g was most hotly debak<: around writing
for the public, lhat journalism. Dubbed by

Thomas Wolfe as the "new journalism:' writers
consciously b:·Jrred the bo'Jntlaries between fac:
and fiction a:id consciously made themselves the
cente:'ll their stor:es (for an excellent extended
discussion of the new jourr:alism, see Denzin,
1997, chap. 5). Dy the 1970s, "cmssovers" between
writing forms spawned tl:e naming of oxy.
moronic ''creative non fiction:"'faction:'
"ethnographic fiction:' the "nonfiction novel;" and
"t:-ue fiction:' By 1980, the novelist Ji L. Ooctorow
(as cited in Fi,1:k:n, 1985) would assert, "There is
no longer any $UCh things ,rn fictior: ur nonfiction,
there is only narrat:ve" (p. 7).
Desp:te the actual blurrbg of genre, and
despite our contemporary understanding that all
writin~ is narrative writing, I would contend that
there is s:ill one major difference that separate.s
ficion wri~ing from science writing. The differ
e:1ce is not whether the text rea:Jy is fiction or
nonfiction; rather. the difference is the daim that
the aufoo~ makes for the text Declaring that or:e's
work Is fiction is a different rhetorical :nove than
is declaring that one's work is soda! science. The
two gemes bring b different audiences and have
different impac:s on publics and politics-and
on how one's "trutl: claims" are to be evaluated.
:·hese differences should no! be overlooked or
minimized.
We are for:unatr, now, to be working :n a post-
moder:iist dima:e, a time when a m~ltitude of
appmaches to knowing and telling exist s:de by
The core of pos:modem ism is fae doubt that
any method or theory, any discourse or 8enre, or
any tradition or novelty b_as a univen,al and gen-
eral dairr. as 6e ",ight" or privi Ieged form of
authoritative knowledge. Postmodern ism ms•
pects all truth claims of masking and serving par-
ticular interests in local, cultural, and political
stn:.ggles, But conventional n:etl:ods of knowing
and telling are not automatically reje.:ted as false
or archaic. Rather, those standard metl:ods a~
opened to inqairy, new metr.ods are :ntroduced,
and then they a:so are subject to critiqi:e.
The postmodernist co:itext of doubt, theu, dis·
trusts all methods eqi:ally. No method has a priv·
ileged status. But a postmodernist position does
allow us to know "something" without claiming :o
Richardson & St Pierre: Writing Ill 561
know everything. Hav.ing a partial, local, and
hlstoriclll knowledge is still ;mowing. Ir. some way~,
"knowing" is easier, :iowever, because postmod-
emism recognizes the situational limitations of the
knower. Qualitative writers are off the hook, so to
s;,eak. They do not have to try to play God, writ:ng
as disembodied omni.dent narrators dain:ir.g uni-
\'ersal and aterr:poral general k:10wledge. They can
eschew the questionable metanarrativc of sden7itk
objectivity and still :,ave plenty :o say as situated
speake:s, subjectivities engaged :n knowingttelling
about the world as they perceive it
A particular kind of postmodernist thin~ing
that I have found to b~ especially helpful is post·
structuralisn: ( for application of the pers;,cc•
live in a research setting, see Davies, 1994),
Poststruct:1ralism links language, subjec:i vity,
social organization, and power. The centerpiece is
language, Language does not "reflect" social real-
ity but rather produces neaning and creates
social reality. :)ifferent languages and dif'rrent
discourses within a giver. language divide i.:p the
world and give it meani n~ in wars that are not
rcdacible to one another. Language is how social
orgai:ization and power are defined and contested
anc. the place where one's ser:se t1f self one's
subjectivity-is constructed, Understanding '.an·
14.1,;1,;;;;as ,;ompeti:ig discourses-competing ways
of giving :neaning and of organiz.ing the worki-
makes hu:guage a site of eiq,Jora:ion an,;: struggle.
Lang~age is not the resu:t o: one's intlividua:-
ity; rather, language mnstn:cts one's subjectivity
in ways that are historically and locally specific.
What something neans to individuals is deper:-
de:1t on the discourses ava::able to them. Fo,
example, be:ng h:t by one's spouse is experienced
differently dcpend'ng Oil whel:\er it is thought
of as being w:thin the ciscourse of ·'normal
marriage;' "ht:sband's rights;' or "wife bane ring."
If a woman sees male violence as normal or a
husband's right, she is unlikely to see it as wife
battering, which is an illegitimate use of power
that shoulc not be tole:.Jtcc. Similarly. when a
man is expc1sed tn the dis:ourne of "childhood
sexual abuse:' he may recategorize and remember his
ov.n traumatic childhnoc. experiences. Experience
and memory are, faus, open to contradictory
962 11 HANDBOOK 01' QCAL:TATIVE IIESEARCE-t:JIAPTl'.R 3R
interp,etati{l:1 s governed by soci,tl inte,es1s and
prev,J ling discourses. The individual is both the
site anc subject of these discursive stf'.lggles for
identity anu for remaking memory. Becaw,e tJe
individual is subject to multiple and competir:g
discourses in manv realms. one·s subj' ectlvity is
' '
s:dting a:1d cont:adictory-not stable. fixed, and
rigid,
Poststructuralism, thus, points to the cm:tin•
ual rncrcation of '.he self and social science; they
are known th c0ugh each other. Knowing the self
and krowing about the subject are intertwined,
partial, h:stork1ll loci! knowledges. Pos:s1ruc-
h.in,lisrn, then,perr:1::s-even invites or inc;tes,-
us to reflect u:1 our mtdmu and tu exµ'.,.m: m:w
ways of k:wwing.
Specifically, poststrucru ralism sngges:s two
important ideas to qualitative writers. First, it
direct~ us to understand ourselves rdk-xivdy as
persons wr::ing frnrn particular positions at
citk t:mes. Second, it frees us from tryi1:g to writi;:
a single :fxl in which everything is said al once tu
everyone. l'i :.i~turing our own voices releases tr:e
censorious hold of«sdence writing" on 01:r con-
sciousness as well as the arrogance it fosters in
our psyche; writing is validated as a r:iefaod of
knowing,
CAJ:l Ethr:ugrnphy
In the wake of post:nodcrnisl-im.:Lidng pos: •
s:ructurniisl, femir.ist, ,Juetr, and critk.1: rac,;
tbeory-crit:qi.:es llf trnditkmal quaE:ative
ing practices, the ,acrnsanctity of social science
writing co11Ventions has been challenged. The
ethnographic ge:1;e !:as been blurred, enlarged,
ar.d alte,ec with ,esearchers writing in different
formats fur a variety of audiences. ·:·hcse c:h nogra,
phies are '.ikc each other, however, ii: that they are
produced through creative analytical prac:ices. I
call lht"Tll "CAP :creali ve analytical proces,es I
ethnogra:il:ies'.'' :'his label car. in dude new work,
future work, or older work-wherever the at: :hor
mewed Ot:t sidle convenfamal social scientific
writing. etl:nographies are not alternative or
experimental; they are, in am! r{ themselves, valid
and desirable repn:scntations the social. In the
foreseeable f.1mrc, ;hcsc cthnographies r.u1y
indeed be :he most desira':1le representati or:s
because they invite pcopk in and open spaces for
thinking about the so,,;ial that elude us now.
The practices that produce CAP ethnography
are both creat:ve and analytkal.Anv dinosat:rian
. ' 1· ' I»
bereI, fs th at "crea1·1ve» am: " ana.y 1ca are con t ra·
dicmry and i:lcompatihle modes are standing in
the path of a meteor; they are doomed for ex··,m,.
tion. Witness :he evolution, proliferation, and
diversity of new e:hnographic "spccics"-auto•
cthnograp:,y, fiction, pot'try, drama, readers'
1hea1er, •.vri:ing stories, aphorisrr.s, layered
conversations, epistles, polyvocal texts. comedy,
satire, allegury, visual texts, :1ypertex:s, mi:seum
display,, choreographed findings. and perfor-
mance pieces, to name some of the categories
that arc: c.iscussed in the pages of this Handbook.
These new "spcdcs" of qualitative wr··,r«, adapt
to the kind of political/social world we inl:ahit-
a world of uncertainty; With many O'Jtkts for ;m::•
sentation and publication, CAP ctlrnograp:iics
:ierald a puadign: shifl (FJlis & Rochner, 19% ).
CAP ethnography displays the writing proces,s
and the w~iting product as deeply intertwined;
bo:h arc privileged. pruduc: canr:ot be sepa·
rated from the prnc uccr, :he :nod~ of ;m1duction,
or the method of knowing. Ile<ause both tradi •
:iom, 1 ,'tl:nogniphics and CAP rth11ograp:1ics, are
being produced witl:in the broader postmoc.•
ernist din::ate of"coub1:• readers (anc rev:ewers)
want ar:c desen·e to kr:uw how the res;;>archers
claim to know. How do the author:; position the
selves as k,mwers and tellers? The,e i~sues eng~ge
ir.:ertwined problems of subjectivit}; authority,
authorship, reflcx:vlty, a1:d p~ocess, on the one
r:and, and of representationa: fo,m, lln the o:he,.
Postmodcrr. ism claims tl:at w~iti ng is always
partial, local, and situational and that our
are always prt'l!ent no matter how hard we try to
suppress t'lerr: hut only partially present ::iecause
b om w!'itir.g we :epress parts of our selves as
we!L Working frum that premise frees us to w:ite
n::atemL m a variety ways-to tell retell.
T:1ere is no suc:1 thii:g as "'""··""' it right;' only
"gclli11g if' d::forently amto:m:c. and nuanced, Wiren
using ,.,,,.,;;u,,rnalytical practices, ethnographers

learn about the :op:cs and about themselves ::1at
which was unkr:owable and u11im3ginable us:ng
conventional analytical procedures, metaphors,
and writ i:1g formats.
In traditionally staged research, we valurize
"tt:angulation:' (For a discussion of tria:1gdation
as mct'md. se1: Denzin, 1978, For an application,
sec Statha:n, Richardson, & Coo;.., 199 L) In t:-im1-
gufo1 ion, a researcher deploys differer.I meth-
ods-interyiews, census data, doct:r:1e:1ts, and the
like-to "va!idatc'' tJ;idings, These methods, how-
ever, .:.u;y the same do:uam asstu:1ptions, indud-
ing the asrnr:1 ption Iha! there fo a "fixed point" [If
an "objec I" that can be triangulated, But in CAP
ethnogrnphics, researchers draw from literary;
artistic, 2r:d scientific genres, ole:1 breaking the
bounda,ies of those ge:1res as welt In what I :hink
of as a pos:modem isl dcconst ruction uf lria:igt:
litior., CAP text recognizes that there are far more
1han ~three sides" by wh :ch lo a;iproach the wo:ld.
We do ll()t triar:gulate; we crystallize.
I p,opose that :ne central imaginary for "valid-
ity" for postmodernist :e)(ts is not the triang;e-
a rigid, fiKed, two-dirnensiona: object. Rather, the
central ir:niginary is tl:e crystal, which combines
5ymrnetry ami ;rubs:an,;e with an infinite variety
o' sha?es, substar:ccs, transmutations, multidi-
mensiona.ities, and angles of approach. Crystals
grow, change, and arc altered, bi.:! thE}' arc fl{lt
an:orphous. Crystals are prisms :hat reflect exler-
nalit:es and refract within themselves, creat:ng
different colors, patter:1s, ar:c arrays r.asting off in
diffcroll d'rectio:ts, What we see depends on onr
angle repose-not triangulation bu: rather
crystallllation, rn CAP texts, we ba,e moved from
plane gevmetr y to light 1h1,,,"Qry, where light can be
hob waves and particles.
Trnrels With lfrnest: Crossing the /,itaaryl
Sociological Di•1ide ( Richardson & Lockridge,
2004) is a recent example of crystallizalion prac-
tke!i. Travels With Ernest is bu'lt on geographical
travels (e,g., Russia, [refand, BeirJt, Cope:ihagen,
Russia, ;,,edom1, St. Petersburg Beach) that I
shared with my husband Ernest Lockridge, who is
a novelist and professor of Engllsh, 1,Ne expcri,
enced the sae1e sites hut refracted them through
different professionai gender, sensibilities,
Richardson & St. ?ierrc: ',\'ri:ing Ill %3
biographies, spir:tnal a:1d emotional longings,
After we each inde?cndently wrote a narra:ive
account-a personal essay-insp:~cd by the
travel. we read each other's ~cco;int and engaged
in wide-rangii :g (laped/lmmcribed) conversa ·
tions ,1,cross d isci ?Ii nary lh:es about wr:ting,
ethics, au~horship, collaboration, wit:1essing,
fact!fictinn, aude:1ces, relationships, a:id the
intersection of observation and imagination,
The :ravels, thus, are physical, emotional, and
~n:ellectuaL
The collaborative proce;s modeled in 1rave/s
With Ernest honors each 11oke as separa~e and dis-
t:nct, explores the boundarie:; of observation and
in:agination, witnessing and retel:ing, memory
and :lkmo:dalizi ng, and it confirms the va.ue of
er ystal:ization. J rc:nain a sociologist; he remair:s a
novelist :-;'either of us giYes up onr core visioru, Jn
the process of our collaboration, however, we dis-
covered many :hings about oursdve;-about our
relationships to each other, our fam:lies, our work,
and our wr'.ting-that we would not have discov-
ered if we were nor colh,bornting. For cxar:ip:e, we
discovered that wr wanted the last piece in the
book to break the book's wr'ting forrr,at-to
model other possibilities, We constructed from
our co1:versation /. and it, multiple interr.ip:ions l a
movie script set :n onr own Lrcat Amer:can
Kitchen. We especially like that the collaborative
method we displayed in our text i, one that is open
to everyone; indeed, it is strategic writing :hrough
which established hierarchies between the
researcher and the n::searched, between the
student and the teacher, can be breached,
Crystallization, without losing structure,
deconstrm:ts the :raditio:ial idea of"validily"; we
':'eel hm'! there is no single truth, and we see how
texu validate themselves. CrystaUization providC1\
t:s w'th a deepened, complex, and thoroughly par•
ti al 'J!l de::standing of the topic. Paradoxically, we
know more a;1d doubt what we know. lngen iously,
we ~now there is always more to know.
fa•a!uating CAP f't/i nogrc,ph ie,
Because the epislemological :oundalions of
CAP ethnography differ from those of traditior.al
 964 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 38
soc:al science, the mnreptual apparatus by which
CAP ethnograpl:ies can be eva:i:a :ed diffe.
Although we are free, to present our texts in a
variety of forms to dh•erse ai.:diem:es, we have dif•
ferent co:istraints ar:sin,g fror:1 self-cunsciousncss
' about claims lo authorship, ant'lority, truth,
validity, and xliability. Self-reflexivity brirgs to
consciousness some of the co:np:ex political/
ideological agendas hidden :n our writing. ]ruth
claims are easily validated now; desires to
speak «for" others are suspect Tl:e greater free-
dom to experiment w[~h textual form, however,
does not guarantee a better prodi::ct. The oppo:-•
tunities for writing worthy texts-books and
ar:ic:es that are "good reads"-are multi pie,
exciting, and demanding. But the wo:-k is harder
and the guarantees are fewer. There is a lot more
for us to think about.
One major is;;ue is that of criter:a. How does
one judge an eth:iogra?hk work-new or tradi-
tional? Traditional ethnogra::ihers of good will
have legitinate concerns about how their
studentii' work will be evaluated if they choose to
write CAP eth:10graphy. I have :10 definitivr
ar.swer, to ease their concerns, but 1do have some
ideas and ;m::fercnces.
I see the et!:tnographic project as humanly
situated, always filtered through human iwes and
human perceptions, and hearing both the lh:1i
tations and the s:rengths of hur.1a:1 feelings.
Scientific supers:ructure is always resting cm the
foundation of h'Jman activity, belief, and under•
star:dings. I emphasiie ethnog,lipby as con-
structed ti: mugh research praaices. Research
practices are concerned with enlarged under•
standing. Science offers some research prac•
tices-litemture, creative arts, memor;· work
{l)avies et al., 1997), introspection (Ellis, 1991),
and cialogical (Ellis, 2004). Resean:he:s !:ave
many practices from which to choose and 0~1ght
not be constrni:u:d by habits of sumebody e:se's
mind.
I believe i:i holding CAP ethnography to h ig:1
and ditJirnlt standa,ds; mere novelty docs not
suffice. Here are four of the criteria I use when
reviewing papers or monographs submit:ed for
social sdentific publica:ion:
I. Substanrive cmitriimticm. Does this piece
contribute to our mrderstanding r,f social
Do.es the writer dem,mstrate a deeply grnund~d
(if embedded) social scienli:ic pcrspcctivd
Does this piece seem "true" -a cr•=diblc account
of a cultura:, soc:al, Individual, or communal
,en,<' of lhe "real"? (For some suggestions en
acrnmpli.,hing 1his, see Part 3 of this chapter.)
2. Aesrheti: merii. Rather :t:an redc:dng standarili;,
another standJ1C is ~dded. tiiis piece sue·
ceed aes:hetically? IJoes the use creative ana•
lytical prac:iccs open up the text i ml invi:e
interpretive rc,ponses? Is tr.e text artistically
shaped, satisfying, complex. and not bo,ing?
.3. Rqlexiviry. How has the author's sub;ec:ivity
bten both a producer ar.d a pruduct of this text?
Is there adequate self-awareness and ,elf-expo-
sure for the reader to make ;udgments about
point view? Docs the a::thor :mid himself or
herself accoun1/:1'.e to t:ie standari:s knowing
telling of the ?~'Oplt: he or she bis stm::ed?
4. Impact. Does this piece affect me cmoliona::y llr
intel:ec:ually' Does it generate ::ew questions or
move me to write? Does it move me to try new
mcarch practices or move me 10 aclion?
These are four my criteria. Science is one
lens, and creative arts is anotl:cr. We see more
deeply us' ng two lenses. I want to look through
bob ler.ses to see a "social science a'.'t form"-a
radically interpretive for:n of representation,
I am r,o: ionc in this desire_ l have found that
stude:its from div;;:rse social backgrounds and mar-
ginalized cultures are attracted to seeing the soda!
world through two lenses. Mar.y of these students
find CAP ethnography :iecko:1:ng and ;oin the qual-
itative community. The more fa:s happens, the
mure everyone w:ll prof::. T!1e implicatio:is of race
and gender would be stressed, not because it wo·Jld
he "politically correct" but rather because race and
ger:der are axes through whkh symbolic ar.d ac:ual
worlds have been constructed. Members of non-
dominant worlds know tha: and could insist that
this knowlecge he honored (cf Margolis & Ro:-nero,
1998). T:,e blurring of the humanities and the
social sciences would be welcomed, not because it is
"trendy" but rather because the b:urring coheres

more trdy with the lifo sense and learning style of
~o marry. This eew qualitative cmmnunity could,
through its t'leory, ~r:alytical practices, and diverse
me:11bcrship, reach beyond academia and teac;i 1111
of us about social iniustice and methods fur alle,4
ating it What quali:ative researcher interestrd in
;ocial life would not feel enriched by membership
in such a rnlti;.rally diverse and inviting commu •
nity? ·writing becomes more diverse and author
centered, less boring, a11d h·.1mb;er. These are propi-
tious opportunities. Sorr:c even speak of their work
as siritual.
v\'riting Stories and Personal Na :ratives
The ethnographic life is net 11eparab!e from the
Self. Who we a,c and what we can be-what we
car: study, how we can wr'.te about faat which we
study-are tied to how a knowledge system di sci·
plines itself ami its :nerr:bers and to its me:hods
for claiming authority over both the subje<:t mat-
ter and its members.
We have i:lnerited some ethnographic rules
tl:at are arbitrary, narrow, exdusio1;ary, distort-
ing, and afanati ng. Our tasi is to :1nd concrete
practices through whic:: we can construct our·
selves as ethical subjects e:1.gaged i:i etnica'.
ethnography-inspiring to read a:id to write.
Some of these practices include working
within theoretical schemata (e.g., sociology
knowledm::, fominb:n, critical race theorv, con•
Q '
struc:ivism, poststructuruHsm) that challenge
gro:mds of authority, writing on topic~ that mat
:er both personally anc collectively, experiencing
jouissance. experimenting with differem writing
fnrmats and audiences simultaneously, locating
oneself in multiple discourses and communities,
develo?iag critical literacy, fnding ways in which
to write/present/teach that are :.:ss hierarchal and
univocal, revealhg institutional secrets, using
po,itior.s of aJthorlty to in crease diversity bnth
in acc.derr. ic appointments and in journal pub-
lications, engaging in self•rellexivit>·, giving in
to synchronkity, asking for what one wants,
not t:inching frnr:1 wnere the writing takes one
emotionally or spirinmlly, and honoring the
emhodiedness and spatiality of one's labors.
Ric:iards,m & St. Pierre: W::iting 11 %5
T'.1.is last practice•--honoring the location o~
the self-encourages us to construct what I .:all
"writing stories?'These are narratives that situate
one's own w riti:lg ir. other parts of one's life such
as disdplinary constraints, academic debates.
deparrmenta l politics, ~ocial movements, com·
r.1unity struc:ures, ,esearch intrrrst.,, familiel
ties, and personal history. They offer critic,.!
refaxivity about the writing self in differen: con•
texts as a valuable creative analytical
They evuke new questio:1s about the sel: and the
subject; rerr:ind as that our work is grounded,
contextual, and rhizomatk: and derr:ystify the
xsea,cl:/writi:tg process and help others to do the
same. Tl:ey can e\·oke deeper parts of the self, heal
wounds, enhance the sense of self-or even alter
one's sense of lde:itity.
In Fie ids of Play: Constructing an Academ ic
Life (R:chardson, l 997 ), I make extensive use of
writing stories to contextualize 10 of my
sociological work, creating a text that :s more con•
gruent with poststructural 1,mcerstandings of the
sin:ated r:at1:re of know :ed11e. Putting my papers
and esl\ays in t'le cr.ronological order in v,hkh
they were conceptualized, I sorted them into two
piles; "keeper" and "reject:' w:1en I x:-ead my
first keeper-a pre~ide1:tial address to the r,; orth
Central Sociological Assuciatiou-mer:io,ics of
being patronized, marginalized, and punished by
my department chair and dean reemerged, I
stayed with those memories and wrote a writing
s:ory about the dis jJnct!on between my depart·
mental lite and my disd pli nary reputation.
Writing the story was :io: t'motio:ially easy: in
the writing, l was reliving :io~dic experiences,
but writing the story re leased 1:,e anger and
pain. Many ,1cademics who read ,hat story recog-
nize it as congruent with their experiencrs-thei r
untold stories,
I worked c:ironologically th rough the keeper
pile, rereading acd then writing the writi:ig story
eVOi.Cd hy the rereading-dJforc:it facets, ci:l't:r·
ent contex:s. Some stories required dwckir:g my
journals and files, but ;nos! did :io:. Somr stories
we;:e painful and too::C an interm inabk length of
time to write, b·Jt writing the:n loosened their
shadow hold on me. Other stor:es were joy:ul a:1d
966 lit HAKDJ\O()K 0~ QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAP".'ER .~8
reminded me of the good fortu:ies I have in
f~icn ds, c,1i'., ague,, and family.
0
Writing stories sensltize us to the potrr.:ir.l
con sequences of all o: our writing by bringing
home-inside our homes anc workplaces-
the etl:ks of n:prcsentatim1. Writing stories are
nol about peopl c and cultures ~o·.1t then::"-
ethnographic subjects (or object.,). Kather, they
i1 re nbout 01: rsc hies-our workspaces, disci •
plincs. bends, and family. What can we say
and with what co:rncquences? Writing stories
bring the dange~ and poignancy or ethnographic
representation "up dn>e and perso:1al:'
!:ach writing ~to:-y offe:-s its writer an np;ni:-tu-
:1 it y for r.iak:ng a situated and pr,;1gmatic elhiml
decbion about whether ;md where to publish the
stoi-y. l'or the :mist pa;t, I have four.c no ethical
problem in pubfo,hing stories tr.at reflect the
abuses of pow~,; I consider 1he damage done by
the abusers far greater than ,my dis,urnfi.irt :ny
s:o,irs night cause them, In contr,.st, I feel con
straint in pi:.:Jlishing about my immediate family
mcrnbers. l ch eek materials with them. [n the -:ase
of ir.ore di~:a:1t fom i ly me1:1be:-s, I change their
name;; and idc:itifying characte:'is: ic,. I w:lJ not
publish some of my re::ent w1·i:ing ·:,ecause doing
so wm::d seriously"dis.turb the family peace:' I set
that w rithg aw2,y for the time being, hoping that
I will ~tnd ,1 way w ?U ':,lish ii ir. :he fruure.
l rt one section of Fields of '
Plav
, ;Richardson.
1997), I tell two interwoven ,:,des of"writing rlle-
git'macf' 0:1e story is 11;y poetic representation of
an interview with Loui.,i May, an unwed r::10:her,
1,
and the other the research storv ······· how I ·wrote
that poem along with i:s dissemination, reception,
and c(mseqtwnce$ for me. There are multiple ille•
gitimacies in the stories-re child out of wedlock,
puetic rcprese ntation as research "fi nc.i :igs;' a fe:n-
inine voice in the s.oc:al sdcnces, ethnographic
re,e,rn:h on ethnographers and dramatic repre-
sentation of ~hi: research, ,;:motional presence of
the writer, and unbridled work jouiss.'.lnce.
i had thought that the research story was
complett, not necessariiy the onl;• story tl:at could
be told hut one thal .reflected fair:y, honeslly,
and sincerei y what rr:y ,esea rd1 expcrie:ices had
been. I still believe that. But missing from the
research ~tory, I c.i me m realize, were the persona:
biographical experienc~s that led me to author
s·1ch a story.
The idea of "lllegitimacy;' I have come to
acknowledge, has had a compelling hold on me.
In my research jourrn,l, I wrote, "My r11ree, in the
social sciences might be v'ewed as one long
adventure into illegitimacies'.' I asked myself why
I was drawn to construc:ing "texts of ;:legiti-
macy," induding the lex: of my academ:c life.
What is this struggb, I have wilb th~ acaden:y-
being in it and agai1:st it al the same time' How i.s
.
11:v' s:urv like and unl'ke the ,torit>, of others who
are sl:ugg!ing to makr Sense of themselves, to
retrieve thrir suppressed ;elves, to act ethically?
Refract:ng ''illegitimacy" through allusions,
glimpses, and extended views, I came to write a
personal essay, "\/1cspern:• ;he :lmil es,ay in Fields
of Play (Richardson, 1997). ''\'espe:,;" located my
;;cademic :ife in childhood experiences and
memories; it deepened my knowledge of my self
a:1d has resonated with others' experiences in
a.:ade:nia, In turn, the writing of "Vesper,," :ias
refracted aga; 11, giving 1;1e de,irr, strengtn. and
enough self-knowledge to narrativii,e other mem-
ories and rxpedences, ~o g:ve myself agency, and
lo cons:rurt myself anew for better or :or wor,e.
Wriring stories and persona; narratives have
increasingly become the structures through whicl:
l :11a;.e s~nsc of mr world, locating my particular
biogrnphicai experiences in larger historkal and
sociological contexts. UsinJ! writing as a r:1ethod of
dismvrry in conjunction with my u:iderstamling
of fe:ninist rercadings of Ddeuzig n tho:1gl:t, I have
altered my primary writing qm,stion fnm, "how to
write durir.g the crisis of representation" to "!:ow
tu dm:un:ent bccnm ing."
Lkc Zeno's arrow, I will never reach a destina•
:ion (de:itiny?). Bu1 u:;'.ike Zeno, instead of focus•
:r.g on the endpoint of a journey :ha~ never ends,
I fous on how the armwsmith~ made the arrow.
its piace in the,Juiver,and the quiver's pJacement-
displacer:iscnl rep:accme:1t--l11 the world. l look
al the !.'romises of progressive ideologies and per•
so:1aJ experience;; as ruins to be excavated, a, folds
to untold, a1; ?2.6s throi:gh academic mias:11<1.
I am convinced t bll in :he stor v (or sro:-ies J of
becoming, we have a gooc. chance' of decrn,truct-
ing the 1;udcrlying academic ideology-that

being a something (e.g., a successful professor, an
awesome theorist, a disc)Enarian maven, a cov•
ergirl femir.ist) is better thar: becoming. For me,
:10w, discovering the inlrkak iuterweavi:1gs of
class, race, gender, education, religion, and other
dversities that sl:aped me early on into :he kind
of sociologist I did beca • e is a practical way of
refracting the worlds-academ k ar:c other-in
which I live. None of us knows his or her fbal des•
tination, but all of us can kr,ow about the shape
makers of our lives that we can choose to con-
front, embrace, or ignore.
1 am not ccr~ain how others will docume:it
their becoming, but I have choser. structures that
suit my dispositior., theoretica~ orientation, and
writing life. 1 am "growing myself up" by refract-
ing my life through a sociolog:cal lens, fally
engagi:1g C. Wright MiJ:s's"sociology"-the inter-
section of the biographical and the historical. I
am discovering that my concerns for socia'. justice
across race, class, religion, gender, and ethnicity
derive from these early childhood experiences.
These !:ave solidified my next writing ques:ions.
now can I make my writing mattrr? How ca:1 I
write to :ielp speed into this world a den:ocratic
project of social justicel
I do not ha11<: catchy or simple answers, I knuw
that wl:en I :mr,e deeply into my writing, both ny
compassion for others and my actions on their
behalf incre.ase. My writing moves me into an inde-
pendent space where I see more dearly the interre-
latior:ships between and among peo?les worldwide.
Perhaps other writers have similar experiences.
Perhaps l'llnking deeply and writing about tme's
own life has led, or will lead, them to actions that
decre,ase the inequities between and among people
ar.d peoples a:,d that decrease the violence.
JII PART 2: \VRITING AS A
METHOD OF ~Ofv1ADIC bQUiRY
Elir..abeth Adams St. Pierre
My writing about writing as a method of
inquiry in this doubled text appears after Laurel
Richardson's fur good reason; i: is an eftect o:"
Richards • :i & St. Pierce: Writing 111
Richardson's work in tl:e sense that it is a
trajectory; a "line of tlight" (Deleuze & Parnet.
1977n987, p. 125 ), that maps what can hap;ien if
one takes seriously her charge :o think of writing
as a method of qi.:a\itadve inq1:iry. I read a very
early draft of this chapter, titled "Writing: A
Method of J}iscoverv;· , in IW2 in a socioloo,:,,v das,
that Richardson taught on post:11odern research
and wrilbg, I had :iee11 lra:nec years earlier, as an
English major, to think of expository writing as a
tracing of tl:ought already thought, as a transpar-
ent reflection of ;he known and the real-writi :ig
as represei::ation, as repetition. r still use that
strategy for certain pur;:iose, and certain audi-
ences even though I now chiefly use writing
to disrupt the known and the real-writing as
simufation (Baudri!lard, 1981 /: 988), as "si;:i,
versive re:,etition" (Butler, 1990, p, 32 ).
Thinking Richardson and Deleuz~ together,
I have callee my work in academia "nomadic
inquiry" (SL P:erre, :997a, 1997c), and a grea:
part of that inquiry is accor:1plished in the writing
because, fo~ me, wri1:ng is thinking. wr:ting is
analysis, writing is indeed a seductive and tanwed
method of di seovery, .Many writers ir: the human-
ities have known this all along, but R:chardson
has brought this understanding 10 ,1uaHtative
:nquiry in the social sciences. '.n so doing, she has
dcconstructed the concept method, putting this
ordinary category of qualitative inquiry sous
roture, or under erasuce (Spivak, I '174, p. xiv), and
thereby opened it up to different meanings.
Tl:is concept certai:lly neecs to he troubled.
Twn decades ago, Barthes (1984/1986) wrote,
"Method becomes a Law;'but the "w:ll-to-metl:oc
is ullimately sterile, eve::ything has ·:ieen put ir:to
the method, noth:ng remains for the writing"
(p. 318). Thus,he saic., is necessary.at a certain
mor:ient, to tum against Method, or at leas: to
regard it without any founding privilege" (p. 319).
In other words, it ls important to interrogate
whatever limits we have i:nposed on tl:c concept
method lest we diminish its possibilities in
knowledge production,
'!'his is one of postmodernisr:1's lessons-tr.at
foundatior.s are confngent ( Butler, 1992). In fact,
every foundational cor.cept of conventional,
inttrpretive qualitative inquiry, indud:ng method,
'168 II HANDBOOK Of QUALl'Ji\TIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTtR38
i., contingent, and postrnoderr. ists have deron•
s:ructed many of them, including data (St. Pierre,
1997b), validity (Lather, 1993; Scheurich,
1993 ), interviewing (Scheurich, 1995), the field
(St. Pierre, 199,c], experience (Scott, 1991), voice
(Finke, 1993; Jac:Sson, 211U3; L,Hher, 2000 ), reflex-
ivity (Pillow, 2lJ03), narrative (Nespor & Ba;ylske,
1991). and even ethnography (Hritzman, 1995;
Vi.,we.swaran, 19'}1). This is not to say that post-
modern qualitative researchers reject these con-
C<'pts am: others that have been defined in ,1
ccrMin way ·:ly :r.terpreliv ism; rather, researcher,,
have examined their e'.focts on peuple a:1d i<nuwl-
t'dge production du :ing decades of research and
have reinscribed them in different w.iys that, of
comse, must also be interrogated. Nor do post-
mod.:'ri: qua'l;:ative n,scarchers nccessar!ly te;ect
the v;ords :hcmselves; ,hat is, they rnnti nUe tu
use, for example, the words nwtiwd and da1a. As
Spivak O97'1) cautioned, we ar.:' obligec to work
with the "rcwurces of the old language, the Ian•
gi:age we already possess and whic!: possesses us.
'lb make a new word is to run the risk oi (orgetting
ti1e probkm or believing it solved" (p. xv).So, we
use old com:t:pts but ask them to co di:fercnt
work. Interestingly, it is rhc inability of la1:guage
to dose off meaning into co:icept :ha: pro:npL,
postmoder:1 qualitative researchers to critiq ur
the presumed coherency of the structure of con-
ven:ional, intt:rpretive qu;ilitative :nquiry. For
son:e of us, the ack;1uwledgment that that struc•
tun:: is, and always has been, contingent is good
news indt't:d.
Language and Meaning
Rk:hardson gestured toward t;1e work of!an·
guag.: eader in thi~ chapter, hm here I describe
in more detuil the tenuous relation between Jan.
guage and meaning lr1 order to gruJnd my later
discuss:or. of postrc?resentation in a pos tinter·
pretive wor;d, We know foat mi.:ch dernnstrm:tive
work has been done iu the human sdrnces since
the"linguislk turn' (Rorty, 1967), thr"postmnd-
e:·n turn" ( Hassan, I9:u;, the "cr:sis of kgi ti·
matimr' (Ha :iermas, I 97 3/1975), and the "crisi, uf
re))rcstntation" (Marrns & Fischer, 1986), all of
wh'ch employ a «cuuscim,.mess of a language
which does fl()! forget itself" (Barthcs, 1984/1986,
?· 319) o,, as Trinh (l 981.J) put it, a consc:oi:sness
tha: understands "language as language" (p. 17).
;l!ea,ly f01:r decades ago, Foucau : ( ~ 966/l 970 l
wrote that ·:anguage is not what it is hecause :t
has a meaning" (p. 35), and Derrida ( 1967/1974}
theorized dij)erance, which teaches us tl:at mean•
ing can:m: be fixed in language but is always
deferred. As Spivak ( 1974) explained, ·'word and
thing or tl:ought never in fact berome one"
(p. xvi}, so language ca:rnot serve as a transparent
medium that mirrors, "represents;" and contains
the world.
The ideas that meaning is not a "por'.able
property" (Sp'vak, 1974, p. lvii) and !hat language
cannut simply :rans.port meaning frnrr: une
person to another play havoc with thr Husserllan
proposition that there is a layer of prelingaistic
meanir:g (pure !nean:ng, ?Ure s:gnified) tha:
la11gu:1ge can express. In tr.is respect, po,ii:mdcrn
disrnurses differ from "the interpretive $Ciences
Ithat I proceed from the assumption Ihat there is
a deep truth which is bolh knowr. and hidde:1.
It is the job o:· interpru1at:un m bring this :ruth
to di&cuursc" (Dreyf1:s & Rab'now, 1982, p. 180).
These c:lscou::ses also pt~y havoc with the belief that
noise-free rational comr:ii:nication (Habermas,
1981/: 984, I 9H l /1987)-some kbd of transp,1rent
dialogue that car. lead lo conse:1su,-is possihlc, or
ever: des:ra!.ilc, since consensus often e.:ases differ-
euce. Further, Der,idis statement (as cited in
Spiva..<-, 1974) lhat "the thing itself ;1Jways escapes"
(p.lxix) throws i:lto radka duubt (and,sornewould
say, rr,akes ir:,;;Jeva::it) the l:ermeneutic assurr:ption
that we can, in fact, m:swerthc ontulugkal questio:1
"What is , , • question that grounds much
interpretive work.
But po,tmodcrnist,. af:er the Ii ngu :stic turn,
buspect that interpretation ls not be discovery of
mca:1 j ng in the world hut rathe, :he "illt mduc
tion of meaning» (Spivak, 1974,p.xxiii). If this :s
so, we ca:1 no longer Ireat wnrds as if they are
deeply and e,scntially meaningful or the: cxp,er>
en<es thc:y attempt to represent as "brut;; fact or
simple rralit( (Scott, 1991, p. 26). In this ca.~c,
tl:e io:erpreter has to assume the burden of
r
'
mean:ng-making, which is no longer a neutral
activity o:' ex?re,sion that simply matches word
to world. I:oucault ( 1967/ l998) wrute Ihat "inter·
pretation docs not clarify a matter to be inter·
preted, which offers its,•l f pass:vely; it can only
and vie kntly, an already-present inter pre-
tal ion, wbkh it must overr:1 row, up:,e\, s1:at;:er
with the blows of a hammer" (p. 275). However,
despite the dangers of the hermeneutic for
meaning, we interpret incessantly, perhaps
because of our "human inability to tolemte un de-
sc:-ibed chaos" /Spivak, 1974, p. xxEi). In this
regard, Foucault cited in Dreyfus & ,lri:iinnw,
1982) suggested !hat we are "rnnde:nncd to
r.:eaning'· (p. 118). Rut Derrida (1972/1981) had
another take on tnear::ing ar.d suggested, "1b risk
;'.'!Caning noth :ng is to starl to play, and fi :st to
enter into the ?Jay of differ.mce which prtver.ts
any word, ;my con ~ept, any n:ajor enunciation
from comir.g to s·.immarize and to govern , , .
diffe~ences" (p. 14). Derrida (1967/1974} called
this deconstructive work 1;,riting under erasure,
"letting go of each concept at :he very moment
thtl: I needed to use it" (p, xviii). The imp Iica•
tion$ for qi:ali:ative '.riquir 1 of imagining writ•
i11g as a le:ting go ui meaning eve:i meaning
prolitcrates rather than a search for and contain•
ment of r.1eaning arc hotb compdling and pm
found,
Clear >r, postmoderr. qualit,uive researchers
rnn no longer think of inqui:-y si • ply as a task
making meanir:g~comprehcndinis, understand-
ing, getting to bottom of the phem1mcmm
under investigation. As I r.1entioned earlier, this
does not me.in they reject meaning bt:t rathe~ that
they pt:, r:ieaning in its :ilace, They shitt the :ocus
fror.1 questions such as "What does this or that
meant to ques~iuns such as those posed by Scott
(1988): ":tow do meanings change? How have
some meanings emerged as normative and others
been eclipsed or disappeared? What do these
processes reveal about how power is constituted
and operates!" (p . .35). Bove ( 1990) offered acdi•
cio:1,ll questions, and I sug!;eSl that we can substi•
:utc any object af knowledge (e.g., marriage,
subject'vity, race) for the vmrd "discnurse" in lhe
following: "How does discourse fun ct ion' vVhere
Richard;,on & Wri:i11g Jl 96~
is it to be found? How does it get pruduced and
regtdated? What are its social .:f:ecls? How does it
. r (p.::,-4) •
exist.
A:id since Ric}:ardson and I especially love
writing, we have as~cd ou~selves these questions
about w~itinis and have posed another tl:at we
fbd provocative: What else might writing de
except mean? Deleuze and Cuattari 1]980119117)
offered some help here wl:en they suggested.
"writi:lg has nothing to do with signifying. It has
t(J co with surveying, mapp:ng, cve:i rea'.ms that
are yet to come" (pp. 4-5). Jn this sense, writing
becomes a "field of play" (Richardson, 1997) in
which we might loo;;cn the hold of received :nean•
that lim: ts our work and our lives and investi
gate ''to what extent the exer:ise of thinkil:g one's
own history can free thought frum what it thinks
silently and to allow it to think oth crw ise"
(Foucault, as cited in Racevsi<is, 1987, p. 22).
this way, the linguistic turn and the postmudcr:1
critique of interpretivism O?en up tht: concept
writing and enable us to use it as a method of
inquiry, a cundicion of possf::i;li, y for "produci11g
different knowtec.ge and producing knmvledge
differently" (St Pierre, 1997b, p, 175).
\.\lriting Under Ernsure:
A Politics and Eth !cs of Difficulty
So what might fae work wming tlS inquiry
be in postmodern qualitative research? What
might writing under erasure look like, ai:d how, in
lurn, r:1igh such wri>;ing rewrite inquiry i:sdf!
My own experiences b this regarc have er:ierged
fro'.'ll a long-term postn:odem qualitative research
project that has been bnth an interview sti:dy
with 36 older white southern ',vomen w:10 Iive in
my hometown anc in ethnography of the small
rural community b which they live (St Pier:-e.
l 9Y5).1t is important to note that this study wa,
not cesigned to do interpretive work-to answer
the quei;timl!i "who are these •,vomen?" ana "what
do they mea:i?" I r:ever presumed l i,;o:1ld know
u: undcrs:and the women-uncover their
antl:entic voices and <'S,'l('ntial natures and then
:-eprcsent them in rich thick description. Rafaer, my
task was twofold: (I) to use pos:modern ism to
970 111 HANDllOOK OF Ql:A".,lTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 38
study su!ljectivity by using Foucaults (l 984/1985,
1985/1986) ethical analysis, ca,e of the self, to
investigate the "art~ of existence" or ~prac:ices of
:he self" the women lreve used during thei: long
lives in the construction o: thel: subjectivities and
(2) to use postmodernism to study co:wentional
qualitative research methodology, which I believe
is generally both positivist and interpret: ve.
Also, since I call myself a w riter-tha1~ks to
Rkhardson (it :ook a soe.1ologist to teach this
E:iglish teacr.er writing)-! determined early in
the study :o use writing as a method of inquiry in
at least the:,e two senses: ( I) I would th 'nk of
wTiti ng as a method of data callection a'.ong with,
for example, intcrviewi:ig and observation and
(2) I would think of writing as a method ,1( data
analysis along with, for example, the tradi,
tional-and what I think of as struc:ural (and
positivist}-activlties of analytic induction; con-
stant comparison; coding, sorting, and categoriz
ing data; and so forth. It should be dear ac this
poin: that rnherenct of the positivist and/or
in:erpretiv ist concept method has already been
breached by investing it with these different and
multiple meanbgs and, henceforth, efforts to
maintain its unity may be futile. (Indeed, I hope
others w:'l follow my lead and imagine ofaer uses
for 'Nriting as a n:etl:od of inquiry.) Further, faese
two meth(Jds are not discrete as I have made them
out to Makhg such a distinctior: is w stay
within the confines of :he structu:e of coi: ven-
tional qualitative im;u:ry in whicl: we often sepa-
rate data co:lect:0:1 :'rom data analys:s.
Kevertheless, I retain the distinction temporarily
for the purpose of e:ucidation.
In my study. I used writing as a methoc of data
collect ion by gathering rogether, by collecting-
in the wrfring-all so,ts of data I had never re'<1d
about in interp::etive qc.alitative textbooks, some
of which I have called dream daw, sensual data,
emotio11af data, response data (St Pierre, 1997b),
and memory data !St. Pierre, 1995). Such data
might include, for ex.ample. a pesky dream about
an unsatisfying interview, the sharp angle uf :he
s,ntnem sun to which :ny i,ody happily turned,
my sorrow when I :cad the slender obituary of
one of my participants, my mother's dis:urbing
comment tilat ! !lac gotten something W:"Ong,
and very real "r:iemorj ies] of the future" (Deleuze,
198611988, p. I 07 ), a mournful time bereft of
th1:se women and others of their generation.
These data were neithe:· in ;ny interv!ew tran-
scripts nor in my fieldnotes wl:ere cata are sup-
posed to be, for how can one :extualize everything
one thir.ks and senses in the course of a stndy?
But they were always already in my m'nd and
body, and they cropped up u• expec:ediy and fit
tingly in rr,y writing-iugitive, fleeting data that
were excessive and out-of-category. :\1y point here
is that these data might nave escaped e:itirely if
I had not wrirten; they were cu'.lected only i11 the
writing.
, med writing as a method of data a:ialysis by
using writing to think; !bl is, i wrote my way into
particular spaces I could not have occupied br
sorting darn with a computer program or by
analytic induction. This was .::hizomatic wur'.t
( Dr!euze & Guatlari. 1980/: 987) in whkh I mad~
accidental and fortuitous connections I could not
foresee or control. My ;:m: nt here is that I did not
limit data analysis to :::onventional ;iractkes of
coding data and faen sorting it into categories
that I tlien grouped i:ito themes that became
section headings in an outline that organized and
governed my writing in advance of writing.
711ou,~ht happened in the writing. As I wrote, I
watchec: -word after wore appear on the computer
screen -ideas, theories, I had not thought before
I wrote them. Sometimes I wrote something .so
marvelous it startled me. I doubt l could have
thought such a thought by thinking alone.
And it is thinking of writing in this way :hat
breaks down the distinction in conventional ouaJ.
itative im:• u:rvI bctweer: data collection anc data
analysis one more assau: t to the strnctL'. re. Both
happen at once. As data ace colle:::ed i:i the writ-
ing-as :he researcher think.Jwrites about her
Latin teacher's instn:c:t'on tha'. one should thrive
in adversity; about a r:i ink shawl draped elegantly
on agii:g, upright shoulders: ahout the sweet, salty
taste of tiny country ham biscuits; about all the
other thir:gs in her life that seem unrelated to her
research project but are absoluldy unleashed
with:n it-she produces the strange anc wonderful

trans:tions from word to word, sentence to
ser.tence, thought to unt:10:1ght Data collection
and data analysis ~an:10t be separated when
writi:ig is a method of ir:qi:i ry. And po,ili visl
co:icepts, such as audit trails and dala sati.:ration,
be~ome absurd and ther. irrelevant in postrr:od-
ern qualitative- inquiry in which writing is a field
of play where anythi:ig can happen-and doe,.
There is 1rJch to :hink about here as convcr: •
tional quaE:ati,e inquiry come~ andone-in this
cJse, as writing deconst~ucts tne concept metho,I,
proliferating i:s mean :r:g and thereby collapsing
the strnct:ire that re: ird 011 ·.miry. Bur how
does one "write i: up" after the li.:lguist:c turn!
Postmodern qualitative researchers have been
cou,ageous and inve:i:ive in this work, and
Richa,drnn identil1ed a:id described t:iis wri:ing
both as "experimental writing" (Rirl:ardson,
I994) and as "CAP ethnographyn (Richardson,
2000). Of course, there is no model for this work
since each researcher and cad: study requires
difteren: w:-iting. I can, l;owever, bri1etly tell a
small w riling story about my own adventures
wit!". postr;;presentation.
I said earlier, in my ,1udy with the o:der
women of r.1y hometown, I set out tn study sub-
jectivity and qualitative inquiry usi:ig poststruc,
:ural analyses, su my charge was lo crit:qce both
the presurned unified structure of an autonomous,
conscious, kr:owing woman who could be deEv·
ered to the reader in ricn, thick description as we::
as fae presumed rational, coherent structure of
conventional qi.:alitalive inquiry thal coJ!d guaran-
ke true knowledge about the women. ;\!ever having
n,ad a post • odern quaEmtive texthDok, I initially
tried to force-to no avail-pos:modem method•
ology into the grid of interpretive/pos::ivist quali·
tat:ve i11q1:iry. When the lack of lit beca:ne
appa~ent and then absurd, I began deconstruct
that structure to make room for diffe:ence.
At t:le sarr:e time, I began :o assi.:me a wdkrly
refo:cnce to describe or represei:t my participams
and thereby encourage son:e kind of sentii:1ental
identification. After all, it was subjectivity, not
t!'.e women, bat was the object my inquiry.
I became wary of the not•so-innocent ass·Jmp-
tion of interprct[vism that the women should be
Rithardsm: & St. Pierre: Writing 111 9i I
drilled and mined for knowledge ("',\'ho are
they?" "Wb1t do they mean?") and then repre•
sented. This did not seem to be the kind of ethical
n:lahon :hese won:en who had taught me how m
be a wo:nan required of r.1e. I am ,e:ni nded here
of a comment by Anthony Lane, the film critic for
The Nt·w Yorker, who suggested that i:istead of
asking whether David Lynch's film, Mul!wl/und
/}rive, m,;1kes sense (~What doe, ii me-,;1n?"), view-
ers shouk a~k w:1at Laurence Olivier once
demanded of Dustin Ho"fman ("Is it safe"~)
(Lar.e, 2001). ln interpretive research, we believe
represen:ation is possible, if per:1aps unsafe, but
we do it anyway with many anxious disdaime~s.
In :iostn:odem research, we believe it isn't po~si-
ble or safe, and so we shJt the focus entirely,! n r:iy
case, away from the women to subjec:ivity. We
increasingly dist::ust the "old promise repre-
sentation" (B::itzman, 1995, p. 234) and, with
Pillow (2003), question a science whose goal is
repres1:ntat:m:.
In my own work, I have developed a certain
writerly incompctrn::e and ur:,:erachievement
:and am unable to write a text that "runs to n:eet
the reader" (Sommer, 1994, p. 530;, a rnmfort
(Lather & Sm'.thies, 1997) tha: gratit:~s the
interpretive er::itlemenl h, i;;:mw th.:: women.
Rather than being an "epistemological dead end"
(Sommer, 1994, p. 532) (thewmne-r: as objects that
can be known), the women are a line of flight that
take :ne elsewhere (the women as provocateurs).
This is not to deny the :mportanc~ of the women
or lo say tb1t they are not in my texts since they are
everywhere. ht:.1 I gesture toward them in oblique
ways in my w:iting by re'.ating, for example, one of
our vexing conversa:ions that burgeoned into
splendid and productive confusion about subje~•
tivity or by relating an aporia .,ibout methodology
they insist 1 t:i.ink. And when someone asks for a
story about the women, I glve them a good one,
and if tl:ey ask for ano,ner, I say, "Gn find your own
older women and :alk wit!! them. They have
stories to re!! that will (ha:ige your life:'
:-Je\•ertheless, I .ong lo write about t:i.ese
o:der women who are dying, dying, dyi ;1g and fear
l will socie,fay. but o:1ly after wrest Ii ng with that
postrepresentational question: What el1e mig.~r
971 Ill HA'lDBOOK OF Q;,~-\LITATTVE Rl'Sf:All.CH-CIIAPTER
wrilin.~ do ex,:ep' meun!' Th,1t writing will i!!v,)IW
a politics and ethi.:s ,,I difficulty that, on the one
hand, can <1nly be accomplished if I write but, on
the other, .:,umot be accomplished or1 the basis of
any thing I already kr:ow about writing. The re are
no rules for po,t represcmatlonal writing; there';;
nowhere to tum for amhorizing comfort.
·~vhal :.as pos tmodcrnis m done to ,1uallta-
ti ve inq·.1iry? I agree wi:h Richards,ds (l994l
11'Sponse to this qu<:'st ion: "I do not k:iow, hat I do
know I hat we c~:wo: go ba~k lo where we were"
(p. 524). ao Delct:ze and Parnet (1977/1987)
put :t, «It might be though! that nothing has
changed and nevertheless everything has
changed" (;i. 127). At this point, ; re!L:rn to the
rri:eria that Richardson h,:, sci for postmod,
ern ethnographic texts. Can the kind of writing
I have g~stu,ed toward l:ere-wri:ing m:der
1:::asure-exhibit a substantive cont:ibutior1,
aesthetic merit, reflexi\'ity, ir:ipact, and reflect
Eved experience? r believe it c,m. But e\'en more
i:nporta:1tly, writing as a method of inquiry
carries us 'ac,oss our thresholds, row,ird a desti-
nation which :s unknown, r.ot foreseeable, not
preexhtenl" (Deleu1e & Parnet, I 97711987, p.
perhaps towani the spectacular promise of wl:at
Derrida /1993/1994)
'
called the "democracv' to
(p. 64 l, a promise :hnsc who work for
social justice cannot not want. 1 think about tl:is
demo~r,:c,· olien since it ;:,mmises the possibility
of different relafo,,1;;-relations more gencro us
:han tho~c I :ive among, fertile relation, in which
people thrive.
Tile ;,aradox, howcver, is that this demo,Tacy
will never "presc:n itself in the for'i! of fo:l pres,
en<:e» (Derrida, 1993/ 1994, p. 65) but nonetheles~
demands that we prepare omselves for arri,·al.
Derrida ( 1993/1994) rxplaincd that it tL1rns on
the idea lr"at we :nust offer ''hos;:ii:al:ty without
reserw" to an "~Jterity that canr:ot be anticipated"
from whom we nothir:g in retu~n (:,. 65).
Thus, the selt:ng-to-v,ork or deconstruction in
the d~mocraq-co-co:ne :s grounded in our rel a"
:ion, w:th the Otr.1'r. In postmocern qualitative
i r:quiry, the possibilities for jusl and ethical
encounte,s with alteritv occur :i o: odv in the field
' '
of hun,,m activilv but also in the fie:d of the texc,
in our writing. In thc.~e overlapping spaces, we
prepare ourselves for a democracr that has nu
mode'., for a postjuridical justice that is al ways
conti!lgcnt on t'ie case at hand and must be
effaced even as it is pruduced. Sett: hg irrro a tran-
scendental justice and truth, som r ceep meaning
we think will save us, may announce a hick of
courage to think and live beyond our necessary
fictions.
E1h:cs tmder dcconstru,tion thc·:1, is nn-
grounded, it is "wha1 happens whrn we cannot
apply the rule," ( Keer.an, 1997, p. I). This ethics
of diff:cuhy hinges on a tangled responsibility lo
the Otl:er "that is not a mo:nent of security or of
cognitive certainty, Quite the contrary: the only
responsibility worthy of th.: ;1amc n1mes with the
wi6drawal of rules or t:it· knowl edge on which we
rr:ight rely Ill make rn:r decisions for us:' The
event of ethics occurs wher. we have"no grounds,
no alibis, no elsewhere to which we might r~fer
the :nstance of our decisions:' 111 tl:is sense, W!'
will always be unprepared ro be ethia1/. Moreover,
the removal of four.datior.s and orig!n.,ry mea,n-
ing, which were alway.~ already fictions, sin:::•ly
leaves cwrything as it is but without those rr.ark·
ers of certainty we counted on to st::e us intact
through a text responsibility. So, ho'N do we go
m: frorr: herd How do w~ get on with our work
anci ou rlivest
D.:'.euze ( 1969!199G) sur,gested that !he event~
in our lives-a:1d in this essay, l'm thinking
specifically of al: those relations wi:h lhe Other
tl:at ~'Jalitativc inquiry en~.blcs-tempt us tr.
be thcfr equai by ~,king for our "hest and most
perfect Eithe:- ct !:ics makfs co sense at all, or
this :s wh,,t it r:1eans and has :io:hing else to
,;1y: not to be unworthy ,if what happens [(I
r.is" (pp, 1411-149). -:·he event, t'len, calls us to be
worthy at the instant of decision, w'1en whal
h,,ppens is all there is-whe,1 meaning will
always come too late lo rescue us. At the edge of the
abyss, we step withoul ~eserve toward the Other.
This is decur.s!ruction at its finest a:id,' be'.ieve,
tl:e rnndition of Derrida's democ,acy,to-comt.
This democracy calls for a renewed "'belief in the
world" (Delcu,:e, 19YO/l995, p. 176} that, I ho:Je,
wil I erui hie relations impove,fo:ied than t~ e
ones we have thus far imagined and lived. :'\s I
said eadicr, the setting·to,work of dcco11st,m:tion

is already bei:lg acconp.ished by postnodern
qualitative 1c,,co11.m:i ;n all the fields of play in
which tl:e}' 1Nork.
As for me, I :1trut111le even:I cav; not to he
tRJ
unworthv of the older women of nw horre1own
' '
keep on teaching me ethics.1t may seem that
J am not writing about them in this essa;-, but I
assure yuu they are speaki::Jg to you in every word
rcac.. Brooding and writing about our desire
for their presence (meaning) in this text and
others l might write occupies mi:ch of my er:crgy,
yet I trust writing and know tha: one morning I
will awake:i and write :uward these women in a
way I cannot yet imagine. I trust you will do the
same, that ym: will i;se wri:ing as a mefaod of
inquirv to move into vour own impossibilit ,,
' , ' t;ieury to affect the world?
w:iere anything might happen-and wilL
Im. PART 3: WRII!N{i PRAC!'lCES
Laurel Richardson
Wrili!lfl, lhe creative pfforl, shm:ld (Vme
f:rst -al .feast ~..,{:,n1,~ part tJf t"very d,.1 v
of your life. ft i.s a wonderful tJ!e.»ing if
you wiff ose it. You wiJJ Of,com,• happier,
more e'llightened, albm,
light·he,1rled, ,md ger.Pmu, to e:v1:rybody
d,e. Even you:- heafrh will impmvf'. Colds
will dis,ippt>at and al! thf: orher ai/mer1 ts
of di,courafietrienl .ind boredom,
-Brerda Ue Jnd, If 'rou !Nan/ lo ~'\!Me
In what follows, I suy.,gest some ways nr using
writing as a method of knowing. 1 have chasen
exercises thal have been prodnrtive for stude:11s
bccai:.s.e tl:ey demystify writing, nur:ure the
researcher's voice, and serve the processes of dis-
covery about the self, t:'le world, and issues of
social justice. I ·wish that I ~o uld guara:itcc tl:em
to bring good health as well.
Metaphor
l:sing old worn-oJt metaphors, altl:m.:gh easy
and comforrnhle, invites stodginess and stiffocs~
afler a while. The stiffer you get, the less flexible
you are, Your ideas get igr:ored. If your wr:ting is
Richardson & St. Pierre: Writing 111 973
dic:ied, you will :10: "stretch your own :magir:a-
tion'' (Ouch! Hear the dkhe of :;>0inting out the
dic:ie!) and you will bore people.
L :n 11·.,!ditional social sdentific wr:ting, the
rr.ctaphor for theory is that ii is il "bi; ildi ng" (e.g.,
stmc~ure, foundat:on. constrnc:tim,, deconstn;c.
tion, :ramcwork, g:-and) (see the wonderful book
by Lakoff & Johnson. 1980). Consider a dif:erer.t
111<:laphor si;ch as "thco:-y as a tapestry;' "theory
. .
as an illness,""Iheorv as storv," or "tIu:o•v' as sm:1a
action" W:ite a parngraph about ''theory" using
.I
your :netaphor. Do you "see» diffor<"ntly and "feel"
d:fferently about tl1eorh:ing using an unusual
:netaphor? Do yo:i want you~ theory :o map dif-
ferently onto the sociil world? [)o you want your
2. Look at one of your papers and l:igblight
your netaphors and images. What are you saying
t:irough metaphor, you did not realize yo:i
were saying? What are you reinscrihir.g? Do you
want to co so: Can Ytl'J find lli'tarert mela?hor.s
· IJ1e matern1
:n. al changc I10w yo~1 ·.,see" ("'1et]'') .l
anc. your relationship :o it? Are your mixed
mernphors point:11g to confusion in your,elf m :o
social sci ,im:,:·s glos.,ing over of idea,? How do
your metaphors both re' nscrihc and resis: scdal
inequi:ie,?
\Vriting Formats
I. Chuo,;; a journal a:·tidt: that exempEfies
the maimtrearn writing conwr::ions of your dis·
dpline. How is the .irgument staged? Who is the
pre.mrr:ed audience! How does the a~tidc lr:scriht'
ideology? How does the author dairr. "aathori1y"
over the material? \'\'here is the ~uthor? Wher,:: are
"you" in the artidc; Who are the subjrcts e.nd
objects of research?
2. Choose a paper tl:at you have wr: :,c:1 fo, a
dass or published and that you ::i ink is pretty
good, Hmv did you follow the :mrms of your disci
pline? Were you consdous ,f doing so? \Vhat parts
did the professor/reviewer law::? Did you elide ove~
some di111cult \cl,eas throt:gh vagueness, jargon, a
call tu aufaotities, scieno: writing norms, ;u:d/o;
other rhmrkal c.cvic8s? Wha: voice, did yuu
cxdndc in your writing? Who is th~ ,udi~:1ce?
 974 • HAND BOOK 0~ QllALITATI VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 38
Wllerc are the subjects h the paper o, article?
Where are you? How do ym: fee: about the ?aper ur
article now? How do yo:.1 feel about your process of
consl,ucting it?
Creative Analytical Writing Practices
I. join or s:art a w,iting group, This could ·:le
a writing suppor: gruJp, a creative writ'.i:g group, a
poetry group, a dissertation group, a memoir
group, or the Eke (on dissertation and art:de writ-
ing. sec Hed,,er, 1986; "'ox, 1985; Richardson, 1990;
Wolrntt, 1990).
2. Work through a creative writing guide-
book (for some exceller:t guides, see Goldberg, 1986;
Hills, 1987; Ueland, 193811987; Weinstei:1, 1993).
.t Enroll in a creative writing workshop or
class. These ex?eriences are valuable for hoth
begim:hg and experienced researchers.
4, Use''writing up"fi~:dnotes asan o;:iportn-
i:ity to expand your writing vocabt::ary, habits of
t:10:ight, and attentiveness ,o your ser.ses and to
use as a bu'.wark against the censor:01;s voice of
science. Wl:cre better to develop your sense of
Self-your vo!ce-tha:i in :he process of doing
your re,earch? What better place to experiment
with point of view -seeing the world fro:n differ-
ent persons' per~pcctives-than in yo·Jr field-
notcs. Keep a jour r.al. \'\'rite writ i:ig stories, that
research s:ories,
5. Write a w~i!ing autobiography. ·:1iis would
be the story of how you learned to write, the ,.Ecta
of English classes (topk sentences? outlines? the
five-paragraph essay?), the dicta of social science
professors, how and where you w~ite now, your
idiosyncratic "writing ne,:u,, yoJ, 1e~ua1,, about
writing and a·:,m: t the writing process, and/or
your resistance to "value-free'' writing. (This 's an
exercise used by Arthur .Bochner,)
6. Jf yoJ w'sh to experiment with evflcat:ve
writing, a good place to begin is by tra:1,forming
your field notes into drama. See what ethno
graphic rules yoJ are using (e.g., fideEty to the
speech uf the partkipa nts, fidelity in the ore er of
the speakers and events) and what literary ones
you are invoking (e.g., limiting how long a speaker
speaks, keeping the "plot" moving along, develop-
ing character through actions). Writing dr.imatk
presentations accentuates et:iical considerntlm:s.
If you do:ibt Iha!, contrast writing up an eth:10-
graphic eve:it as a "typical" event with writing
it as a play, with you and your hosts ca,1 in roles
that will be performed before others. \\1110 has
ownership of spoken words? Ho., is audmr,hip
attributccr What if people do 1:ot like huw they
arc characteri:u:d< Are courtesy r:orms being
violaled? Experiment here with both oral and
written versions of JIOJr dran:a.
7. Experiment with transforming an in-dcpt:i
inten:'cw i;ito a poetic rcpresentalim:. 1ry using
only the words, rhythms, figures of speech, breath
points, pa1,:ses, syntax, and diction of the speake:.
\\'here are you in the ;ioem? W.1at do you know
ahout the intervkwee and about yourself that }~JU
did not knmv before you wrote poe:n? What
poetic devices have you sacrificed in the nai :1e of
sdencef
H. Wr::e a ":ayered text" (cf. Ronai, l 995;
Lather & Smith'es, :997). The layered text is a
strateiw for putting yourself Jr.to your text and
putting your text into fae literatures and tradltio:i,
of soda! sc'cm;e. Here is one ;JOssibilitv.
, , First, write
a short :iarrative of the seJ about some evennhal
is espcc:ally mean:ng:ul to you, Step back anc look
at the r:arrative from your disciplinary pc,spec-
tivc. T'.1en insert into the narrative-beginning,
midsections, end, or wherever-relcva:1t an<1;yt-
cal statementll or refcren;;es using a different type-
script. allernat ive page placement, or a split pag<'
or :11a:king the text in other ways. The layering can
be a multiple one, wit!: differer:t ways of r:1:irking
different theoretical :evels, different theories, dif-
ferent speakers, and so corth, ( This is an exercise
used hv' Carolvn
,
Ellis.)
9. Try some strategy for writing new
ethnography for socfal scien t:tk publications, Try
the ~seamle,.;s' text in which previous literati;re,
theory, and methods arr placrd in textually mean-
ingful way, rather tha:i in disjunctive sections (for
an exce]ent example, see Bochner, 1997), Try tl:e
"sandw:ch'' text in which traditional social science

themes are the "white bread" aro1:id the "fiUing"
(Ellis & Bochner, 1996). or try an "epilogue" expli-
cating the theoretical analytical wo:-k of the cre-
ativetext (cf. Eisnec, a, in 1996).
10. Consider a fieldwork setting. Consider the
various subject positions ya u have o: have had
within it For example, in a store you might be a
c:erk. a customer, a • anager, a femir.ist, a
capitalist, a parent, or a child. Write about the
s~tting (or an event in the settbg) from several
different subject positions. Wha: do you "know"
f:nm the different positions r Next, !el the different
points of view dialogue wi:h each other. \\.11al do
you discover through these cialogues? \'\'hat do
you lear:i about social i:lequities?
11. Write yo'Jr ''data" ln three dif:'erent ways-
for example, as a narrative account, a ?Oetic
rcprese:itation, and readers' theater. W:,at do you
know b each rendition that ym: did not know
b tl:c other renditions? How do the different
rem.litio:1s enrich ead1 other?
12. Write a narrative of the self fro• your
:io!r.t of view (e.g., sor.1etr:ing that 'rnppened in
vour fa,n ilvI or in vour
' ,
seminar). Then, interview
anolher participa:it (e.g., a family member or
seminar meu:ber) am.: have that participant le]
you his or her story of the event, yourself as
part of the participant~ story in the same way as
he or she is ;iart of your story. How do yo·J rewrite
your from the part'dpant's point of view?
(This is an exercise used by E:lis.)
11 Collaborative writing is a way in which w
see beyond one's own naturali,1;1s of style and atti-
tude, This is a::i exercise that I have used in my
teaching, but it vmuld be approprio:e for a wrlting
group as we::. Each member writes a story of his or
ber Fo~ example, it could be a feminist story, a
success story, a quest story, a cultural story, a pro-
fessional ,odal ization ~tory, a realist tale, a confes-
sional tale, or a discrimination story. Stories are
photocopied for the group. The group is then bro-
ken into subgroups (I pr~fcr groups of three). Each
subgroup collaborates on writing a new story-
the collec:tive slor~ of its membcrn. The collabora-
tion ;:an :ake anv form-cram a, poetrv, fiction,
' '
Ric:iardson & St W,iting 111 975
narrative of the sdvcs, re-.ilism, and :;u forth. The
mllahoratio:1 :s shared with the entire g:oup. Each
memberthen writes about his or her"'eelings about
the collaboration and what happened to his or :ier
story-ar:d life-i:1 the pmcess.
14. Consider a p.irt of your life outside of or
before academia with which vou have deeply
resonated, L'se that resonance as a "working
metaphor'' for understanding and reporting your
research. Studen:s have created excellent reports
and moored themse:ves through :he unex p1,;cted
lens (e.g., choreography, principles of now.:r
arrangement, art co:ttpos'tion, spo:tscasting).
Those resonances nurture a more integrated life.
15. Different forms of writing are ap;,ropriate
for different audences and different occasions.
Experimer.t with writing the same piece of
research for an "'-"·"" audience, a I::ade audi-
ence, the po?ula r pxss, policy mak.en, research
hosts, and so forth (Richardson, 1990). Thib is
a:i especially pmverful exercise for disser:aritm
students who mignt want to share their results ln
a "user-friendly" way with their fellow stude:its.
16. Write writing stories (Richardson, .9')7).
These are refa:xive accounts of how you happened
lo write the piecei; yo·J wrooc. The writing stories
can be about discipliaary pol:ti:;s, departmental
events, friendship netwmks. collegii.ll ties, family,
and/or personal biographical experiences. What
these writing stories do is situate your work in
contexts, tyir.g what can be a lonely and seem•
ingly separative task to the ebbs and flows of your
lite ar:d your self. Writing these stories reminds JS
of the conthual cocrea~ion of the self and social
science.
Willing i, doing something vou know
al,eady- there is no new irnagir;a1ive
under:;tandir;g m ii. And pre,cnily your
soul gets frigh Ifully stprile ancf dry
because you are so quick, :nappr, nnd
efficient aho111 doing one thir.g after
anOiher that yo11 have no tin;e for your
own Idea, !u come in ind dew/op and
gently shim,.
-Brenda Ueland, If You v%1m to ¾'rite
 Ill H,\\/DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE Rl!SEAIKH
1. Th~ (AP acrony:n re,onal,s with •car:" frnm the
Latin for ''head/ rap.;/. Because :h,; head is both :nind
md body, its mempl:orical use breaks down
mi::<l-bndy cbality. prnduct,, al:hnugh mediated
:h ro;.ighuut the body, cannot m,mlfesr wilhff~t •head•
wo~k;' In additioo, "cap;· hor'i as a mmn (product) and
as a verb ( p:'Occss), has mult: pie comrnun and
idiomatic mean i11g:; assocfan:1ms, some of w', ich
refract the :dayf;.ilne,s of the genre-a rounded head
mvering or a special head covcri::g indicating 1ic.:upa •
t:cn or me1:1hership in a particu'.ar group, the top oi a
building o~ fungwi, ~ sr::all tx?losive charge, any o:
several sizes of writing paper, put:ing the final toud1~s
011, 11·ing en to~l surpassing or ;iutdoing. And then,
there are :he olher assoda:ed wurd, :·rom the 1.atin
root, sucti as capillary and capital(ism}, :hat 'mmble
,onlextualfae Lhr labor.
Ill Rl:FERENC\'S
Barth,;s, R. ( l 986 ). 111.: rn,ll~ ,if /,:mguag,i (R. Howard,
Trans.). nerkcky: Ll1lveraily uf Califo:-nia P:es,.
(Original work published in 1984;
!>amlrilkmL f. (1988). Simulacra and ,imuk:tions. In
\L ,'u~ter '.Ed.), je,;;,i Ra:uirillard: s,,1~,:led wri/ •
Foss, I'. 0auun, & P. :leitchman, Trims.,
:ip. l ~ti-184). :itanford, CA: Stanfo,c; University
Press. (Origina 1 work published in J98i)
Becker, IL S. ( 1986). Writingfi1r social soe11tists: How to
finis/; your thesis, boa/;, ar ,micie. Chicago:
Ur::versity of th icago P,ess.
Bochner, A. '. I997). It's about ti me: Na:rntive and the
dirided Self Qualitatiw Inquiry, J, 418-43!!.
Bove, E A. (!990) Di$~Ours1;. In f! Licn:rk,hia &
I !,Id .aughlin (Eds.), Critirn! terms for litemry
swdy (pp. 50-65}. Chicago: Jniwr,i1:, of ct::a.go
Pu:s,.
1l.ritz:nan, D. I~ : I "l:ie ,Jucslion of belief":
Writing poststrucr;ral ethnography. fotema/ional
Journal of QuaUtmiw Studie.s i•1 £ducatio11, !t( 3I,
Butler, J. (199(1 ). Gender trouble: Femin.i1m am:/ t1ie
.rnb,•ersicm of idemity. ~ew York. Romledi:ic.
Butkr, I. ( L992). Contingent found11t:m1s: F~·miniir,•
and r'ie q::estlm1 of"1n1stmoderr.:sm." In 1. Bu:ier
& J. W Scutt (Eds.), fi11nir1HfS 11!1:oriz" the politi,·,ll
(pp. 3-21 I. New Yo,k: Roulledge.
CHAPTER
Clifford, & Marcus, G. F. (Eds.). (1986). IVritin,~
culture: Tim poeri,"S 1md politic;: of elimagrr.pliy.
Berkeley; t:nivcn.ity of Oil:fom ia
Davies, R ( I':/94). Post;·tructurali,t !lm1ry and r/;;ssroom
pr-.;ai,e. Gcek1ng, Australia: LJeak in U:iiversity
P:t·ss.
Davies, B., Dor::1cr, S., Ii<man. E., McAI iisrer, N., ff Reilly,
R., Rocco. d.:. Walker, (I 997). Rcpl ures :11 the
ski:: of sikr.ce: A collective biog~aphy. llecate; A
~>man~ lt11erdi;riplinary Jourm1/, 1311 ), 62-79.
DdeL:z,\ (1988). Paucaub (S. Hand, Trans.).
Minneaiiob: University of Minnesota Pre;s.
(Original wor:, pub Iishcd in 1986)
Dek1m:, (;. ( 199il). rh,, l,igic of sense (C. V. Bo::ndas,
l::d.; M, Lcs:er, Trans.). New York: Columb:a
lniversily Pn:ss. (Orig::ial work published in
1%9)
Delcuie, G. (1995). Negotiatitms: 1990 (M.
Joughin, T;;_ms.). New 'fork: Columbia Un ive:sil y
Press. (Origimtl work ,1'.:bli~hrd il'. 1990)
Dclcuze. (,., & Gua~lari, h (1987). Immcucrion:
Rhiwmc. In A llw,mu;,/ plutemu: l'apita!i,m and
schizophrenia (ll Masmmi, Trans .. pp,
:VJ i r: ne:ipuli s: U11iv;;rsity nf Minnesota Press.
(Original wDrk pulilished in 1980)
Dckuze. G., & Parnel, C. ( l 9571, Many politics. l::
Dialogues (I:. Tomlinson & n. Habbuimn, Trnns.).
l\'ew York: Columbia University l're~s. (Original
wcrk publiNhed in 1977)
llemin, '.'<. i 1978). a,., res~crrch act. New )lrrk:
McGraw-ILi!.
Demi11, N. K. (1997). Ir:terpn,tive etlmogra1,1,y:
E1Jmographk pra,:tices fi,r the 2 Isl c,mtu1y.
Tl1ou,m1<l Oaks, CA: Sage.
De~rida, J. (1974). Of .ri;rarrimal,1/ogy {G. SpivJk,
Tr:111,.). Baltimo:1:, MD: Jobs ll11pkins i"'••••,dtv
Pr~ss. (Original woi: published ::i 1967)
Derrida, J. (! (A. !Jass, Trans.) Cliia.go:
University Chicagn (Original work pll'.'·
Iished in 1972 i
Derrida, J. (199,,). Specters Mcrrx: Tl:e stc,te of
debt, the wor.~ of mourning. ,md the new imer!,a-
1i,ma! (P. Kam:.if, lran~J. New York: Routledge.
(Origin~] work puh:•shed in 1993)
Dreyfus, H. I.., & Rabin ow, !: (l 982). Michel rhucau/1:
lleyvml ,frurniralism and lierme•reutics (}nd ed.).
Chicago: l'. 11iver,il y of Chicago Press.
Ellis, (! 9'll ). Sor'ological introspcrtiuu and
l:rnotional cxperierre. 'i;m1bnlt. Interaction, 14,

Ellis, (2004). The etlwc;graphk "f": ,t mctlwdofogt.:ai
rrovel al10ut autn.:thrwgmphy. Walnul Creek, CA:
AltaMira.
El Es, C., & llodiner, A. I'.. (Eds.). (1946). Compo,ing
,llmography: Aiternativ.·fiirms o/' qualitative wril-
ing. Walnut Creek, CA: Altc.lVEra.
Finke, L. (1993 J, K11,,wl~ge a, bait frminis:n,
voice, mid the pedagogical ·~nrn::sciuus. Callegi:
English, 55( 11,
l'i,h;,.in, S. I: (]985). From faa rn fiction: /ourrrniism
and i11wginalil-e writing iu Ameria;. l!allinmrc,
MI); Juhns H•Jpkins L'.niversity Press.
hmcaul:, M. ( '.970). The order of' t/1/r;gs: An r1rcbw1/-
a{ !l,1: hwn,m s,:u:na·.t New York: Vii:tagc
IJ:Hl~. (Origimll work published in 1966)
Foucaul:. M. (1985 j. hi~wry ofwxuality, Vol. 2: The
usu of pl~tls<Ure {R. ;lurley, Trans.). Kew Yor:,.:
Vintage Books. (O,igi:1,11 work 1,ublisl:ed in l 'l84)
foucaul:, M" ( 1936). The hi,wry of.,cx;.a/ity, Vol. 3: 1'he
care of tiw (R. Hurley, Trans.). New
Vintage Bonks. ( lbginal work pu blish:d in ·1 985)
foucaul:, :VJ. {I YY!IJ . .:-liclzsche, f~eud, Marx. In J. D.
Faubion (I'd.), ,.1e,,t.~1:tir,, mf':iwd, and 1:pi,1,m10i
,;gy (J. Anders:m & (;, lknlzi, Trar.s., pp. ,.o,-,.,
'.\'ew Yi1rk: New Pres,. (01 iginal work p.1blishcd in
l%7J
fox. ivl. E {Ed.). ( 1985). Sdwlar(y .¥riling an,J p11hh,h-
i1:g: ls..,ues. pm/items, ,md saliitivns. Boulder, CO:
Wi:stview,
Go:dbc:g, I\ {1986). Writin,1; dow•1 tlw freeing
v1ri1,rr within Bostm:: Shamlxila.
H~bcrmas, J. (1975). l,egftin,arim: (T lvk:Canhy
Tr,ms.). Bo~mn: Beam::. (Original wo:"k published
::: 1~73}
Ifabe1mas, J, (1934). The ther,ry ,if commu nirni ive
r;rlfon, Vol. 1: R,<1$0tt and
(T McCarthy, TrJ ns. ). lfos:,1:1: Bra cu::.
(Origina. wor;1 published in l9l\l)
lh1be1111as, /. (1967). 'r/1;1 ;iieory of mmrmmicMive
Vol. 2: Li{.:warld and .1yst,w1: A cr!!'icn,e
jr1r.ctic111,lisl rru.ffm ~kC,utby, Tran,.). lfoslo:::
llea~on. !Original work pub·',hed in 198])
Has~an, l. ( 19D). Tiu p,,.;trnodcrn tum; m In K K. Denz'n & Y. S. Uncnln (Eds.), Uumllmok
po,;tmC1dern tfm,ry m1,i tu/lure. Col'.::11hu.s: Ohio
Slate L'nivl·r~ity Press.
Hills, It ( l987). Writi•!g in gen,nil 1md 1hc sh()rt ,wr7 in
p..irtisulilr Boston: l loughlon MJt1i:1.
lackson, A. {200). llhizovo,ality. bttermitfona/
lo,,mal ;1/' Q11a/iiath•e F:dut<iiiou, l 6,
693 710,
R:drnrdson & St. Pierre: Writing 111 !J77
Keen,rn, -:-. ! Fables of r.,spunsi/iility- Aberr.irwns
prdirnm.:nts in ethics um/ t•aliti.s. Stanford,
S:anford IJ11iversity Pre,,.
J. ,dwf': {;., & Johnson, M. ( I')~fl;. Metap!u;rs ;,•e live by.
Chicago: University of Chicagc Press.
J.ane, ,\. (2001, iktober 8). R<!ad trips. The Ne,;,
Yorker, p. k.
Lather, P ( 1993 ). ,'ertile nbsessb::: V,I iditv
str-.. cturall,m. Socm/ogica/ Quarterly,
Lathe,, P. (2000). Against empathy, voi,;e, and authec:,
tidl}'· ~\,Qrrren~ <i•i•uf,,·i:aud Rc.:;ei1rt:h •t 16-25.
1
Lathe,, P.. & $mi: hies, C. ( 1997 ). Trmibliiig the ,m1,;ds:
Wome11 !iv f,rg w/1h HIV! Ams. llnulde r, CO:
Wi.'S'. ,ie¼,
D. H. (1985). Tire )light from amingiii/y;
in social and rn!tumi theory. Chkag0: Ur i;ersity
Chicago P:es,.
'v:arcus, G. & Fis~her, M. :-.1. J, (1986).A crisi~ of rep
rt·,~r:l,Uion ::: the social sdeuces. lri G. E, Marcus
& M. M. J. Fisd1cr !Eds.),Ar:llirupr!ogy a, c,1/tuml
~riticj11e: h! ~xpcrimel!/al ,m:mrmt /11 the ~mmm
(pp. 7-16). Chicago: rn:ver>iry Df
Chicago Pres~.
,\,;argoli;;, IL & Romero, :,1, ( 1998). The dcparlmcnl is
very male, vcr} wh:k, very old, and vc,y .:o::scrv-
at ive: T:ie func:ioning of the hiddc:: -:urrbdmn
in 1:ratlL:atc
"""
soriolll,; v dc:,nrl
'\., . rrwn l,. Harm rd
Educatfonal R,,,,if,.,;, 68 I
Nespot, J,, & llaryls;,.,:, ]. (19gl), 'l,malin·
2 :·,d teacher knowledge. Amrmwi Eci11mliP,1,1/
Re.1•arc/, Jouma!, 28, 805-&23.
Pillow, ·w. S. (2003). Co1::ic~sion, rntharsis, o,
Rethinking the uses ,11 rdlex:v it y as mcthu,~ulogicll
power in qualita:ive intermuitmal J.1;,r,,11I
of'Qua/ir,nive Snufie! iti /Muraticm, 16(2.), 173-< %.
R11ccvskis, (l 987). \frhc I hmcauh, ;{amcau·s
nephe•,'f,.l:·d the qu1,sr:rn:1fidentity. In;. llcmaucr
& IJ. ;l.a&IT'U&sen (F'ds.), The,fir:..il 1-iiucau!t (pp. 21-
Ca mbridge, MA; MIT P:-ess"
Richardson, L. !I 990 t Wririug 1trarrries: Re,,c/; ing
dintm! :m,iiei'JC,;$,Newbury Par's, CA: Sage.
Richard,on, L (I "94). Wril' 11g: A method cf i nqulry.
of' qrw/ii,ltim n,11:m~:'1! (pp. 516-529>. Thou;,and
Oaks,
Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play; Cm:.muctir,g
,m aauiemir iii•'· N,·w flr,mswick, NJ: Rutger~
L:nivrrsity Prl'HiL
RichardMIII, L. (2000;. Writ:ng: A rneth[)d mq::.ry.
111 N K. llcruin & i'. S. Linccln (F.ds.J, Hw1d!Jaok
~78 111 HANDBOOK OF QUAL1TA71VE :{ESEARCH-CHAPTER
,1ua/ilative researrti (2nd ed., pp. 923-948).
IhousanJ Oaks, CA:
Ridurdsm:, L, & Lockridge, E. (2004). Travels .vith
Eme:;t: Crossing the lit.:raryisociolugic.il divide.
\\.'alnut CA: AltaMira.
Ronai, (1995). Mult ip;e reflections child sexua!
abuse: An argument for a layered ac.::oun:. Journal
of Cantem;,orary Ethnography, 395-426,
Rorly, Jl. (I 967). The linguistic turn: Essa,vs in
phi!osophical rnerlwd. Chicago: University of
Chicagc Press.
Saks, A. L (I 9%). Viewpoints: Should novels count
as dissertations in education/ Research in the
1eaching t1f English, 3(), 403-417,
Schcurich, J. (. (1993). The masi<:s nf va::ditv: A dccon.
,in:clivc investigation, !ntl!T1111.tio111Ji Journal of
QuaNtative Studies i11 F.duca1im1, 9(11 ),49-60.
Schrurkh, J. J. (1995 ). A postmodernist critique
resear<h interviewing. International Journal af
Qm11i1ative Siudies in Edu::arfrm, 11(3 ), 239-251.
Srntt, J. W (1988). Decoostruc:ir.g cq:.iality-vcrsus·
diffe~c:nce: Or, the u,es of poi;tstructuraltst theory
for for:iinism. FcmiJ1i$I St!1dies, 14(1), 3.l-50.
Srn:t, J. W. ( 1991}, The evidence of experience. Critical
lnq;;iry, 17, 773-797.
Sommer, D. C 994). Resista:il texts and irn;ompetent
reade:,. Poetics 'fba'ay, 15, 523-:'>51.
Spivak, G. C. ( 19?4). Trar.slator's preface. In J. Derrida,
Of grammatolog; W. C. Spivak, Tram., p;t ix-xc).
Baltimore. MD: Joht1s Hopkins tniversity Pre;;s.
Statham, A., Richardson, L, & Coo~. J. A, (1991 ;,
Ge11der and university teaching: A negotiated
dftference. Albany: Stale Univer,ity of :-Jew York
Press.
Pierre,E.A. ( 1995). Arts ofex!Jie11ce: Thew11structfon
1if subJtctivity in older, white southern worrum.
t;npubli,hed doctora, dis.erte.tion, Ohio State
Universi:;; Columbus, OH.
St. Pierre, E. A. (1997a). Circling the text Nomadic
wrltlr.g pra,t:ces, Qualitative fr1quiry, 3, 403-417,
St. Pierre, A. (1997b). Meti:odology in the fold and
the irrup:ion of tra:isgressive d,11a. lriternationa!
Journal of Qu11Jiiative Slmiit:, in Education, 10(2),
175-189,
Pie:-re,E. A,(1997cJ.Noma,!'c irquiry in ,he smooth
of the field: A p;eface. lnt1:rnati1ma/ Journal
ofQruilitatwe Studies inliducati:m, 10(3),363-383.
'Jifoh, M. 'f. (: 989). !+;1men, n~tive, other; Writing post•
ciiloniality and feminism. Bfoon:::igton: Indiana
University
Ueland, .ll. (1987}.1/you want IO write: A bnok about arl,
i•tdepem:Jmce, :1111i spirit. St. Paul, MN: Graywolf
Press. (Original wcrk published in 1938)
Visweswaran, K. ( l 994). Fictions of fem/11/st erh1iog'll·
phy, Min11eapo"s; Univers'ty of Minnesota Press.
We;nstdn, D. (l 993). '.Vriting fiir your lifi!: A guide
and companion tc the inner wurid), :,Jew Yo:k:
HarJ)l:rCollins.
wo;cou, H, F. (l990). Writing up qualitative research,
Newbury Park, CA:
 39
POETICS FOR A PLANET
Discourse on Some
Problems of Being-in-Place

Ivan Brady

We are dwe/ll,rs, wr: are nam,c:r,, we are !overs, we rtwiw homes ,md seaf<:/J for our
hfsrorie.~. /,mi whr n we look for tf1f:' hi~tory of our ,;ensibilttic;;, .. , it is to . , , the
0

:table element, the land that we must look for continuity.

-Seamts I leaney,
''The Sense of Place"

/he function of poetry is /o givo 11s iuc k the ,itualfons o{ mu drp;1m,.

B,Khcl d rd,
The Pof:lic,,

A pm?lics mu~t ret(Jm tu a 1·,ay of dreaming works ,ind lhe decfamliom lf'wt
;:;ccompany them, :;f conceiving their possihiiity, arid of vvorking for theu realil}'.

,=ern,md !"fa Ilyn, Jhe

Poetic Structure' uf the Wufd

Author's Not,. l 11,all~ Yvmma Lir:coln, Xonmrn K, l)c111ln. John f. Sherry, Jr., S!tpl:m Si;r;1vdi1:. lcwi,, ,md Slim l'arhs.s
thc:r generous ,Ym:111c111s ott :,,rl i,·r d mfh ol' this chapter I im also gralelul lo Beth .\.less;,:ia and Crj•>1al Knowfand fer
ted-nli.:tL sup;:,ort ,1long 1he wiry.

II!! 979
9110 a HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESlARCH-CHAPTl:R 39

Stonehenge, Wessex Clwlklands, July 1997

A Gift of the Journey

Magical megaliths. Stonehenge. Sun mask. Druid d,mce,
The ltand brushes the obelisk-mossy green ,md grey.
coM for a .,,;mmers day-dragging.fingerlips across
the texture. Braille for,, pulse? We wam 10 touch
the mrstery of this plare, eve'I as the mind's eye squints
for a glimpse of deeper meanings, seque,ter1t1:i itt time
arid cultural distance, S()me oj\vhich seem lo be murmured
in rhe eclipse of stones at dusk mid dmvn. But the magic
does not reside in lhe stones thernst!ves. fl is embedded in
tf1e reading the immersfrm ofself in place, and the puzzle
of the cirde that 011!;· gels more puzzling when spotted
by the eye of the sun, Like the morning 11ew, this
magic is tied to a clock vf nature. lt emerges from now!rer1:
and disappears just as mysteriously with the heat of midday
-or too m1,ch inspection. Poets who would see this clearly
must chase tlw beams gentiy. introspecti,1efv, as they refract
on the traces of magicians ,md asrronom,us who have danced
through the bosom of thc.-e sto11es in patterns and rhythms
we hope are coded within us all. The experience steps us
into ,mothtw reality and with all the power of ritual Wms
tiay co dr1mm, 111king us out of ourselves for a while to show
1is s,Jmethir;g ,1bout ourse/ve5--abou1 how we have been
and where we think we uud to be a kind of myrhopoeic
archaealogy. The best poets still know how ta do Magic,
it seem,,. is a gift of the joume)•.

This is a poem Twrote about r.1e6od (Brady,
2003b, p. 34). It sugge~t, that o:ie Cun get to know
marked as culti;rally distant thrnugh
careful reflections on curre:it experiences, tha:
is, introspectively and imaginatively. relatiw·
to wha~ever hard facts ur remnants r.1ay appear :o
lie at :,ar:c. That i1, how landscapes become semi-
otkall y rich, :iistorical, and perhaps even s,l(Te,•.
They are projections of self, of each of us-all
of us --now and before, But interpreting such
in1restments from previous in:iabitants is extraor-
dinarily difficult, if for no other reason than the
fact thar even wilt wic.ely shared cm1slructs
about the meaning of this place or ~ha, ir. any
society, individual interpretations cun vary
widely, The same place ca:1 ;m,an differen: things
to different prop11: :n ir1lensity of social and emo-
tional comm!tment, if not in more dramatically
different terms. eve:1 w!ler. !hey engage it on the
same rulrurally stamiardfaed premi,es (e.g.,
when Amcrka:is visit the Gra.r.d Canyon or .some
other richly defined sacred national retreat). A
sense of place, cspedally sacrrd space, shows al:
the vo1a ti:ity and variations of ritual inrerence.s

for :hes~ reasons (l!rady. 1999). .½oreover, as an
interpreter fmm another cultural epuch, excavat-
ing tr.st information in some semblance of its
original form from an otherwise mute landscape
cannot be done without a code or guide, l[vir:g or
otherwise, to the se:niotic investments of those
who have passed tha, way be:'ore arni ;>erhaps are
no lor.ger represented there (cf. Lame Deer &
Erdoes, 1972, pp. 96-107). And even then, interp~e-
ta:ior,s of artifac: use or texts slidr into the soup
of polyvalence and multivocality and themselves
bernme creative ri:juvenatio:1s of perfo:111ances
tied through time to a sea of sh i::ing landscapes-
to the intertexmalities of Ii fe that we study as
ethnographers. For these and other reasons, places
such as Stonehenge and the great petroglyph a~eas
of the American Southwest a,e steeped in mystery,
compelling and interesting in the shadows of their
kinships to us but puzz:es that are nonetheless ripe
for w:de-rnnging interpretations.
Tha: said, we must wonder what exactly e:rvi-
ronrnentally concerned critics, such as poet Gary
Snyder, nature writer Barry Lopez, mountain
cli:nber Ja~k Turner, and arl historia:i ::ii mon
Schama, have in mind when tl:ey exhort u, to
relearn rrspec: for :tie hmd we inhabit and to
renew our ties to places both sacred and less
exalted as a countermeasure to the thoughtless
destrnction of :nodem life,' l :hink that what tl:ey
want us :o k:iow is a kind of his:ory rhal includes,
but reaches far beyond, what we car: learn from
the archaeologies and histories or.e finds in
~
museums today (which are themselves, of cour5e,
speciajzed i:lterpretations in their own right). 2
These caring citizens share a quest for ;,ersonal
knowledge, for seV-cm1scious informa:ion about
being-in-place, and for participation that can
catch us in the act of complacency about whu we
are, where we have been, anci where we are going
and thereby rr.ight change our thinking about the
meaning oflite in :he landscapes of our respective
pasts and presents. V.'hat they seek is, in that
sense, more poetic than sc'entifk. Tl:ey are co •-
mit:ed :nore to methods of immersion and self-
conscious saturation than ro those of clinical
distandr.g as forms of learning. Each appro,.ch
in the extreme begs comparisons of peoples and
ISrady: Poetics for a Planet II ,8l
their changing environrnenta: circumstances, and
each t,1; those reasons is appropriate for pursu-
ing fae overall problem at hand, but the various
approaches do so on vastly ditlerent term, of
evidence 2.nd reporting. Our critics find common
ground in the micdle-respect for facts, as tney
can be determined more or less objectively,
that is mixed with the first-person powers of
poetic interpretatio:i and representation (no! i'Jsl
poetry). The overall effort loops !nto the area of
educated imagination, that is, t:ioughtfulness
focused on what is reasonable and possibie in
solvir.g puziles, On that score, poetics and science
sr.are common ground, In lerem.:e, speculation,
and metaphor play an important mle in both
cases:' The result, in this case, is approximately
what I have referred to elsewhere as "artfu I
science:'• It shows up here as prolegomena to a
poetics of pla.;e pushed through the following five
organizing qucs,iuns. What are wt: su ppost:'C lo
learn from such enviromnenml inquiries? What
are the sot:rces of infor:nation? What are the
obstacles in and prospects for doing so~ Whar cm
we hope to gain? How s:iall we !ell 1'ie smry?
W:iat follows is an a\lempt to answer thc~e
questions and. in the proce~s, oi.: tii ne a poeticsor
place w: th a con~cience." [t is roo:ec. in our
pmpensities to make senst of naterial and imag-
inative experiences through projections of being-
L1-the-world and the use of our culturaUy
appropriated bodies-our senst:ous-intellec:ual
apparatuses-as the primary instrun:ents for
doing so. It draws on landscapes variously
described as "home;' "wild;' anc "sacred;' where
tl:e sensuous is conspicuously brough: to the 'ore
tl:rough most forms of participa~ion (sites where
emotional content often dorni:lates conscious
interpretat'ons), lt pursues knowledge mostly
ignored or formally d:scounted by the extremes of
logical positivism. I~ advocates as a co:nplement
(not as a replacemer.t) a kind of kno·Ning and
reporting that (al promotes phenomeno'.ogy as a
philosophy that puts the observer (:he seeker, the
ki:ower J upfm:it in the equation of interp~eti ng
and representing experience; (b) pushes inter•
pretive anthropology bac~ into the loop of
sensual experience, a body-centered position that
 1!1 'iANDBOOK OF Qt:A;,:TATJVE Rli.'iFARCH~-C!l,\l'TRR 39
iudi.:des a co:1sideratio:1 of but transcends tl:e
sweeping metaphor that everything (e.g., people,
lancscapes) can and should be rendered as kxts
to interpreted; (c) finds somt: cur::inuity in the
structures and orientatio:rn of body-grou:ided,
nc·ss and myth (!espitc impmtant limitations
posed by language itself ilnd by epistemic inter-
ference between the presen: and our preliterate
past; and (d) gives poets special cachet through
their offering forms of knuwii:g and saying \robust
metaphors and more) tha: can engage rhc senses
and v:,ions of bci ng in- place in ways that both
exceed and cm:,p;emem more rnnve:1tional str,lte•
gics :r. anthropology and histo:-y. In defe:-ence to
thr critics named and tl:c need for advo,acy i:1 the
socfal sciences, all of th is ts :ied to rnnsidemrions
of who we think we ,:re, whe=r we have hem, and
IA> here wr might go frmr. here with the idea of
reclaiming respect for the lane: and its innabitants,
human and other.vise, past and p1'el>ent
Iii 0PPDRTUNCY: BF.ING THERF
I rravPl your fpngth. /;kc a river I I trav!:!1
your body, like a foren. I like a mountain
p,ifh fil,H 1:IJ(/s ,,l a cliff I / m:i vt'/ ,1/ong the
udge of ymK thou5 ht,, I and shadow
falls from your white fon,h!0,,ci, I
,hadow shatters, ;;ind I gatfac:1 !lui µ11::u::,
a:id go on with 1w hndj, [:,roping
-Octavio Paz, Piedra d,:, Sol"
"Ways of div idin~ up sp,ice vary enor:nm1sly
in inlricJC;- and sophistication, as du tech:1 iq ue,,
o:· judging size and distance:· Yi-Fu (I 979, p. 34)
tells us, and if we look for fur:danu,ntal principles
of spatial organiz,ition i:1 all cultures, we find
L1em 'n two kinds of facts: "the posture ~nd
structJre of the hu:nan body, and :he relations
(wl:elhe, close or distant) between hnrr:an
beings" (p, 34 ). \\'e organize the space we occupy
through inli:m,te experiences with these two
things lo malie it serve oi;r social and phy~ical
nee,:s. T:1a1 deeply evolvec: sense of p'.ace ls
strong and is linked to (among other things)
na:aE:v, kinshb, and n:ortality-to sacred and
' '
persoual space, spiritual help, t,,wd, the seasons,
am: the cahmdar (cf. Geertz, 1996, p. 259).
Perso1111 I space itself is a collecting ,enter for
experience and ident:·,y construction, as an indi
vidual and as a mcr:1ber of groups, and Is a renter
for recollectioo :hat can be variously hoa:tled Hr.cl
•," r"" wifa other~ th ,migh st,1 rytdling about life
as 1:ved (Brady, 2003b, pp. x'v-xvi. Y.ovement in
thr,e fields creates histories and also puts an
emphasis on the pres er::. TbrJghts about past
landscapes are necessarily groi:ndrd in contem-
porary prncess<?s of mind anc knowledge ahout
being-in-place, so the cleavage hrtween now and
what we think "nsed to be" cannot just give ::self
In ll s freely sai;s inttTpre:ation, Historical knowl-
edge of any kind involves a culturally construcled,
cognitively fil tcred, and red pro cal process, an
apprehensio:1 am; a repre~e:1.tatio:1 place ro
mind and back again, revo: ving 2nd evolving in
it, constructions." It is a mixed consc'uus and
uno:msciou.s process, x,,eiv,,c much !ii<.e the pal-
ten:s of puzLlements that we take lo task in :he
drde of stones and, therefore, subject to a 11ariet y
of selc;;:i ve pe,ccp t:m: biases anti omissions, if
1101 simply paving the high road inventing the
truth Lh • t w~ need to fii:d, the condusions that
cor.:1:ort and support us no matte, what the evi-
dence by other ,akula:ions.' Context :s the key to
it Knowing !he context of words, behaviors, 11nd
utifacts is practically everythir:g for determining
mean:r:g. \Vharevcr S:onehengc or other h:stori-
ml landscape, used to be, the larger point is that
they can be known in mea1: i:lg:ul dalRlrnlions
only as they arc grou r.ded by pexeptio:1 s :n the
mo:nents of our cu rrenl existence. 1'J There is no
way lo bypass thHt ?rocrss. That is the sine qua
non of a poetics of place, of being-in-place, ,md it
starts in the ultimate home-the embodied self.
ls ~:icre some common grour:d that can 'J~
apprehended th~ough the trowels, ·::iruslws, and
screems of senses that will give us a rcali~tk
impression of Ii fe in :mcic:i t places and thereby
acdress the concerns of our endro11mcn1al
We are o:ic species, one sobsp=dcs in bio,
log:cal furrr:, embodied more or the same
a,
everywncce, ar.c conscious beings we need !o
know (o, think we know) where we are before we

are able to c:honse cefinitive course,;: of aclion, The
comparative framework prnvided by that posture
gives us access lo other h·.1:nans through syrr. ,a.
thy and empathy, lhat is, hy tapplng into ":ellow
foding" wJb 1>:1e.:ulatior: and imaginal:on at
work, both nf wh:ch are essential parts of the
interpretive equation. Both um also be souped up
in sped al ways by being or.-s: '.e, in-p:ace-by
"being there'' (cf. Gcertz 1983)-ar.ywherc, That
by itself does not guara:1tee anything sped fie i tl
terms of knowledge of culture or place. Getting
there takes exhting knowledge fror:1 whk'1 one
c:an 1:pcate or launch a new perspective, thereby
invoki :1g a boatload of biases and related selective
constructions of mind about ,,,.•,rrivwhere onr is,
"home" or not, and so on, But the Fro-:esses of
proje~ting a physical ;;:id cu llurcd self on the
pla :es and momcnls at hand am! making sense of
them through an educated imagination-no
matter how fantastic (we can learn ti:ings only in
terms of what we already kn.ow :1-are fo :idaner:-
tal to human thought and, thus, to rnnditions of
being in ?lace. They provide a con:cxt for analo-
gie, between things present and past, Guided
toms of ~ :stor irnl a:id ancient ,.nlaces rclv' ;>re
'
cisely on such in•pr:-so1: emJ!ations to add rc,.i
ism (literally realization, an inter:ializing process l
to tlie expedencc (sec also (,oles, 1979; Saraydar,
1976: Sarayd ar & S:i imada, 1973 ). They al so ge:i •
erally provide specific scripts or guidebooks to fill
in h'sturk:al details. That combination of "heing
and seeing' writ :a rge ~iti:ates itself in what we
can call !he sensuous-intellectual continuum, the
biocultural grnunding :hat we all bring to con-
scimisness of being-in-pla~e th:ough our bodies
and that, becaus,' of it~ integmted and system:c
:1atun>, rnn be represen led in a rni:unun lran:e of
,efcrence (Blackburn, :971 ). ihat h, what make,
us tick and know that ½'e are ticking as sentient
beings, as :1:overs and make~s of mctap:io~s in
place-the haseline of being and seeing and
sharing it with other,,' 1
By using this model and relying especially mi
th:: comparativf' strengths of engaging ir. ";,ara!'1d
enterp,ises" as humans, 12 it follows that we can
tap into the stns:ious-intdlcctual continuum as we
bow and cxper ]em:<' it, heighten consciousness
[kady: l'oefa:s for a Pia ncl Ill •83
of our own cJltural:y constructed screer:s of
beliefs and behaviors (with and without scripts of
ex::icrt testimony), and drnw ,cas1mat1'.c conclu-
sions about how we are now as brings in and of
place and perhaps what it migJ11 havr hcen likr m
have occupied and our marks on particular
landscapes before us,
Ill GBTTINC THERE: Tilli
0'J'JUCli'.':Y or: SPACF. A;-;n PL,\CE
Man is nowhere any,vay/!Jr•cau.><' rro,vhete
,,; /Jere/Am'! ! am here to testify,
Kerouac, 1vlex1co City B!vf:'s n
"Gerting there" complements "being there" as
an :oportant concc:>t in e:hnography and must
be mainh1ined in any attempt to create a poetics
of placr. Approaching literature as au existenlial-
ist, anrl t :ierehy 1,~apfroggi:lg any narrowly ~extual
or ethnographic forr:is of dna'. ysio in favor of an
anthro?ology of experience, pm::/ethnographcr
MKhael Jackson puts a pren:ium on the rnean:r.g
in jou~ney ing rnthcr than 011 the sucki:d-up facts
tl: • t an ethnogmp:12r is likelr to report afler :1av-
hg reached and researd1<'d a destination. Jackson
( 1995 l argue, that "the aml:cntkity of ethno-
graphic knowledge depends oa cthnograp:ier
rccoun1i:1g in detail the events and encounters
that arc II ie grounds on wbch the ;•cry :xissibility
of this knowledge rests" (p. 163), Gc:ting to :ha:
point cognitively is seldom disn:ssed in any
eth::ographk context But that is whe~t a ;il:e-
:iomeno:ogical account of being-in-place must
hegiu, lei rm: star\ with myself, going and being
nowhere in particular {so:nething on the order
of rny currer:t employ men I), just ncgot iating my
own exi,tl'nce in space and place.'4
!'or :ne, space is trans;iarer.t,ethereal, abstrac,,
a vac 1.:1.: m cornerec ir: the mind's eye abs'rncly as
p,r·-,tv geo:net,y, It :, a cognitive and c'.11 l orally
ddlned cuntainer of smL, i:1to which concrete
ai:d meani:lgfol lhings can occur ur b" put Pl11ce,
in my comfortable view, is a filled tangible,
concrete, habitable, traversable, or defined specif
ically aga:nst such interests as those unavai'.able
984 D HANDBOOK QUALl'~ATIVERESEARCH-CHAPTER39
for human oceuvation (e.g., mountain peaks). II
is the geography of earth, mind, body, lived
experience, the semiotically enriched site of
events human and ofaerwise, It is where whatever
happens in my exper;ence does happen. My expe•
deuce also leads me to beEeve that all peop~e
make something :;pedal of their engagements
witn the properties of place, including drawing
boundaries of time, space, co:isdousr:ess, and
mcno,y of being in it to orie:it and defi r;e them
selves Isec also Basso 1996a, I 996b; Feld, 1982;
Feld & 13asso, 1996; low & Lawrence• Zuniga,
2003; Yi•Fu, 1979), They nake Hfe-in•place mean·
ir.gfu! and push i~ war beyond shelter making and
survival {Da:11,si & Perron, 1999, p. lJ7 ), They
turn it into signifying systems, render it in signs
and irr:ages of themselves, apprehend it through
metaphors and imagery of their owr: making-
their languages, cu'.tures, and histories-and use
it to gove:-n relations among families, i:atve and
stranger, own and other, things near and far,
thing.~ past and future, a:1d :he everyday realities
of being in particular place,, They :na,k it with
:heir cn:'::lraces an<l alienation, of kinship in a
composite world, their horizons and trails of
bstory, and the eschatologi~s of their fears, They
tind :: in the high peaks of their hearts and minds
and externalize the imprints of both in th<'
physical world by accident and by de!!ign while
ex?Joring, claiming, residing, nurt'Jring, repelli:Ig,
dtpos iting, ·:milding, storying, and sometimes
even erash:g the ;:ia6s of their lives. fur these
reasons, as soon as we start idenlifyi:1g features
of landscape (peopled or not) and marking off
1:ioundiries (adual or implied), we situate our•
selves in partict;\ir co:icepts of place-in some-
thing approximating, by structure and category,
the woddviews and histories of the cultures whose
members "'make seme" of these exper'ences-
ours and those of otiers.
Nevertheless, thinking about space as a
cm:tainer fo, plll:e can be misleading for analytic
purposes (cf. Hirsch & O'Henlon, 1995; Low &
Law·ence-luniga, 2003), especially when o:ie
projects that sequence on the ontogeny of place in
individual exoerience (cf. Thompson, 1989,
p. 12 7)-:he essence of a phenomenological
stance. 15 T:ie conceptual relationship between
space and place is transitional and metonymk, but
nor necessarily unidiiectional in our emerging cm:-
scio;isness. The connection of bringing place to
consciousness creates the Dusion that its meaning
is a fi.:i:ction of the la:1dscapc itself, something
exlemal a:id discovered, shaped beyond us, Jlut as
Schama (1995) says, "Before it .;an ever be a repose
for the sen.,es, landscape is the work of the mind. Its
scenery is built up as mud1 from state of memory
as from 1ayen of rod( (p;,. 6-7).A sense of being•
in-place is given to ;_is rognitively at some deep
level, but it is al,;o appropriated hy culture and ren-
de,ed meaningful in a variety of ways. II is a mam1-
fact'lred con,;:ept, a pan-human const,uct that
anchors our sense of meaningful locatfon-0'1r
position in space :e'ative to other specific people or
things (bduding social distance be'!ween persons
or objects )-and it comes to mind only as our rep·
rese:1tational capacity makes t.:1e world appear
twice, "once as a recalcitrant external reality and
agah: as a malleabie inner actuality" (Bra1:n, 1991,
p, 7)." Places in this way are turned into cultural
products, a:id our experiences of them, as Casey
( 1996) a,gnes persuasively,are":ieverprecultural or
presodal" (p. 17). Prom a pl1e11ome:iolollical per·
spective, the ontogeny is sud1 that we eme:"ge con-
sciously in an occupied place and a·::istract the
concept of •'Pace from that. In a phenomenological
acwunt, pface 's prior to space. It is where being-ii:-
:he-world happens.1 7 The how of it includes con-
crete immediacy in p,erception: Lowe (1982) says,
"Before anything else, it is for 111c a real, pre:heoret •
ica1 imrld, wherein ! u:idertake everyday living.
This ;s my prirr:ary reality" (p. 170).15 Moreover,
Casey (1996) continues, even though a phenome-
nologic;i] approarh has "its own prejudicial
commi:ments ar.d ethnocentr:c stances:' :ts com-
mitment to concrete description honors the experi-
e:ices its praditio11er.;1. Tha: cor.nects both the
a:it:1:-opulogical fieid-worker and the indigenes in
place; "Both have no choice !Jm to begin wib expe•
rience. JlJ3 Kant insi,ted, 'there can be no doubt Iha:
all our knowledge begins with experience'"
(p.16; see also Csordas, 1994).' 9
 flrndy: Poe: i,s for a Plane: 111 98:i

Iii IMAGl;'JA'l':<m: Pm~HRY TRANS:>ORT In fact, be suggests that "conscious:iess itsel( as

eitl:er a Budc::ist heap (skaiu/Jza) or a scientific
I think I hav,, wld bu. iii h.?w not, :rnrrative, is a landscape, for one cannot know
vo,, have llnderstood. th,,r a man
nntH without a world" (p. 127). Life this sense is a
who has a vision is not able to m,, 1/11, rnnsta:it process of negotiating :ancscapes (iuter-
pow1•r of it until iJllet hf' h,,;, pl!rfmmed :ial and external), and interpretation is as neces-
thQ vi,;ion w, e,1rli, for lhE: peuple lo ,t•(•, sary to the process as is brea1h Ing, no ma1tcr how
-Blnck Elk. /3l,,ck [/k Speaks"' bi iarre or fanlas~ic it may see:11 from t l:e outside
I.00 k"1:ig 1:1.
"
Th~se creative dimensio:1.s, fiexibiE;i~,, and
We can acd to the list of those con joir.cd
:ransitivc mingling., of process pose a variet v of
by a phcnomcnolog:cal perspective i}leidcggcr,
I971) ar.d use tha: :bought to i:wik a deeper
analytic problems and hcg t:ie question nf how
·we will tell !he of place, that struc:ure
im;estiga:ion of thr role of irneginat:0:1 and ere
our iives.LL The cor.cept of place cannot in any
ati\'ity in co:1strncti11g a poetics Cl"' place. Be.::ause
absuluh: way be separated from irn contents-
places function as grounds for our project:ons of
:rom the meanings assigne..: to localirm a:1d
self ai:d cu!tJre and a history of both-one pri·
:he activities or foatu res marked :n association
vatc, the lither public, all of it personal-and
with it. It cannot be seen as a "thing in itself:'
bcrnm;c we convert our pl.Ice e~?criem.cs inte the
That would require a:i unobtainable absolute or
"idioms" (the language and irna1ges) of the world
din kal view beyond the cultural constructions
as we know it, br'. ieve it, see it, and ordinarily
of human rnnsciousncss (and that is why both
argue it, the content ma)" include what noninit iat,is
'.ogkal posil:vism and, ultimately, hermeneu:k
s~c as 1:iythical impossibilities (j ncludbg land·
"brackrting" foil here). FlJt we ca:1 get closer
s.:aprs peop:ed by spirits,elc.V That interiori,ir:g
to the esse1:ce of the concept of p:arc-to the
,md largely uncunsdolL' pmcc~s is often taken for
concrete anci s:i bl ime and largely incffable
granted or cont1ated with the significance that
q·JaE:ies of :~ as a stabilizing, orienting fra:ne,,
people assign to what they see as the dominant or
work for action-by looking fur con: mon dencm-
«cefi:iitivc" ~ontecs of parlicular landscapes.
in~tors in the dive:-sity nrthe meanings as,igned
These are specific constructs for menta:ly ccntc,•
lo it by 011:-selves and others. Whatever 11:ey arc,
ing and filing m:c kind llf ex:>eri1:nce or c11,ot'1cr,
they ultimately for:n a comparative context with a
including the circumscriptions of turf traveled on
pe:i;on.ll se:ise home at the center.
foot or touched only in nur imaginations. Thu,,
place is de:ined J)' what we sec te,ms of land·
features through projc;;tions of self and cul· 111 U;\!VliRSAL PLACP:
tux and, therefiJre.by fantasy and wish folfilln:ent
HOME AN) H::Al<'fll
and other tra;>pings of consciourness in foe iden-
t i: y oi t":lc perceivers. ?or these same reason~,
He ha,1 no 11>1' i"m ,emu;1/ gm 1/{icarfo•;.
T'.1om;ison ( 1989) secs history as 1:nless ;hJ r gratific:J tfon cor1~i,,ed ol pure,
i1Korpo,e,<i o,fw.,. i le: had no use lot crea·
an it::agimi~y landscape a tableau :if ::mlllcs for wre <·omforts e:r•f,N arid v.ould have been
some, a murnl of scientific discoveries ,md tech· quite nint,•nt to ,ct up c.irnp on bi!rt:> ,tone.
11olt1gic". inventions for other,: and fo~ :hose who
-Patrick Suski ~d. Perfum1:''
averl their eyes from hori1.ons of mystey or 'lall-
way, of pnipag,m,la, !here ,till remain, an imer-
nal cinema o( unconsdous!y edited perceptions "Like a mirror;' Snyder (1990) writes, ''a plarc
in wt::ch sdf is the figure and na:ure the ground. can hold anything, on any scale" (p, 25 ). Everyone
(?, 117) know, that it holes a sense uf'home" a: its roots."'
'1!!6 JI HAN:)BOOK OF QUA:_ITATIVR RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39
We all have homes, and in some ways mme of us
has !he same one. Individual perceptior:s and
;;xperiences vary to the point where even family
experiences s:ian:,:! in the same geogrnphic loca-
tion, in a common dwelling. ar:d :n the same
hearth from childhood fO old age do not produce
clones. There are always individual versions of the
experience. We mark them with personal naml'll
and related daims, and we spend time pooling
thl'm more or less in our stories and related intc,-
actions with others as a way of constructing the
social reality of ever.ts that deflne home fo: all.
Ho:ne is, in :his sense. a place he:d in comm or. by
experier:ce but unpackable in its semiotic partk-
ula rs as a single version for each person invuived.
lt is never seam:ess whole, a single story. Ou,
imaginations free '.r. us other selves that sci
dom see the lii\ht. We lead several lives in the
course of one" (Jackson, 1995, p. 161),
Despite sometimes radical difforen ;;;es b
cultural content, in th:s ego-centered and rela
tivistic way our homes are the c;;sence of our
being-in-place and our bccom ings in li:e. Even at
their wec.kes: a:id most f,agmen:ed r:10me::it,,
they are grounded in hodily ex:,ertences as emn•
tionally loaded end scmiotica:ly coded r:1emvries,
eitner positive or negative.and they all have a net-
working or centrifugai qua:ity e:tm:f:ed to them.
These bundles Df thoughts and emotions fan out
as meaningful expectations ahDut how lifo is or
ought to he in ,elations with otl:ers, intersecting
with the hearth, and r.omes in surrounding
neighborhoods aral region, a1:c ultimately link•
ing up with the natal centers, the fetal and fa:al
places, the ancestral turfs of the rest of the world,
Various physicai and cultural processes make that
a shifting landscape, including natural disasters,
the aggrandizements and failures of colonial
expansions and conquering economies, !he for-
tunes and misfortunes of war, and the furrows of
migration plowed by faings such as hor:u:•
steading, job seeking, ::e•ugee evacua:ions, and
:he influential cultural ship jumpers-t~e bead,.
cumbers o:- llfc-rrosslng intD the "rnntiers o:
strangers and making homes there, Although
ce:tain adaptations must be made in new pl.ices
{including the option uf"going home"), on so:ne
scale migrants always carry their homes with
them in the form of :he '.anguages, cultures, ar:d
traditions tbt defined their natal places (Jackson,
l 995; .W.arshall, 2004). Tht-'Te is security in the
transportable nest llf knowlec15c that we call
culture-the histories a:id desires embedded in
knowing how to ma~e and prm1:sion a hearth, iu
deciding who should share it and tl:c wedding
bed, and in de:erminir.g wl:cre a:! of it literally
might be ?laced.'"
One good bet nowadays Is that most people
will not place a Iong- term heart/: in what they
consider to he a wilderness area. Doing so
through the orie:ita:kms and tran~port uf modern
culture puts manr elem er.ts of the environ me1~t
at risk, including ones own body especially for
the uninitiated. That would also constitute ret
another episode in-a com i:iuatio• of puwerful
forces alrciidv set in • o:ion bv-co:onization
' '
and urbanization. Hut these concerns :;an also be
very misleading. Wilde:-ness :ias always bee,1 fun-
damental to human experience. t'or hundreds of
thousands uf years, nature has been more than a
place to visit. Snyder ( 1990) says th at it i.; home, a
terr[tory with more and less familiar plac,;;s, Some
"are more diff:cult and remote, but ,dl arc known
and even named" (p. 7). fo Nonethei ess, some
places in our modcrr. experiences rrtiah decid-
edly "wild:' beyond the pale what must of us
wuu!d consider comfortable and sec'Jre habita-
tion. What urbanites see as wilderness today
helps to define the ccr:tering concept of non:e
place in the breach, tl:at is, by com:enaializing
w:-iat is plainly nu/ hon:e a:id that can foster
two dran:at:cally difforent co:1sequences, One is
to ,elegate such areas to a netherland of mind, out
sight and out concern, thereby letting the
strip and-sweep polides of e:onomk cevelop·
nent take their tolls on t:iese places unnot'.::ed,
Such cu::ure rur.s its course,economies are sthn-
ulated, hearths get provisioned by the substan-
tially employed, the rich get richer, ancestral
plm:~s get erased at exponential rates, and nu one
except the cevelopers, the politicians, the people
ex?lohed on the margins, and a few odd e:fmo-
graphers seer:i to care. The other consequence
is recognize wilderness a,, fom,cat:onal to our
T
l
;
:iistory of bei:1g-in-place in :he long run as
::umans, let alo:ie what is arguably a key to the
ft::tu;e of the planet ii self. Th :s reaction shows
up as an attempt to and preserve what
remains as wilderness. to learn from it some of
the things we 'Jsed to know about sustaining our•
selves in bmly and spirit, and that in tum makes
every su:h experience :i candidate for creating
sacred space. Mindful of the foundat:or:s of body
and home. :et :ne consider each of the categories
of wild and sacred landscapes in more detail and
then tal:S. about reiat'm:ships and how we
slory them in ways faa t matter,
JI Wn.o PLACES AND THE
ASSEMBLY OF Au. BEl;'JGS
TIie 1ain comes over the hi/I,, I like flut-
tering birds it come•,. If stand in my
hmthN', !ears I happy ,t,
thi! running
stre,im. ! Ho! 910tber. I Tread upon !he
wide u1c11;1,. / Lonefy rugged mountarns
rule !he fand.
-Archie V\lel er, ''The H .mter" 27
"Wild" places, su-:;h as home ti:rf a:id sacred
spaces, are where emotio:ial come:1t often
dDminates interpretations. lf you say that you are
going to live "in :he wile." or «go wi!d" or just be
"wild at parties:' no one ever thinks that you are
about to he placid and contemplative. Intcrnally,
we are in fact rooted in w:iatever was and is
"'id by ou:· biology-by our "creaturelir.ess ," As a
ccnscious motivation, aiming to "be wild" is a
comrr:itment of an embodied self :o irregular
and emotiunally stimulating mnditim:s. Ex.ter-
nally, wild is a condition of landscape that
modern ,-1,'esterners might conte:11plate in famasy
or engage in person as adventurers, explorers,
or castaways, among other marginal categories of
being. The point is that being of the flesh and
wo~king in and with wild ~hings in wild are'JS is a
source of spedal identity for most of us, a mar;zer
of unusual boundaries. When wild becomes a
wl1ere, it generally transforms into wilderness, a
condition of wild lar.dscape, a place V1tie,e meaning
Jindy: Poetics for a P:anet a 987
abounds. ft is, the~efore, ripe picking for poets
and artisans of all tvoes,
,' for all who would love
its riches and lament :ts losses. I: for ms anot:Jer
"architectonic" link to t:'le peoples and processes
that are fur.damental to a poetics place.2' But
where is i:? Gone? Seldom near? Far away and
«uo '"'"" for breath under the crush of a global
economy? Or, is it somehow aJ of abO\•e yet
always with us? Snyder 1.1990) has sorr.e answers.
A Western sense of "w:'.d" i, a place where
"nature" rules-a place marked by ancient a:1d
eternal activities, untamed animals, uncultivated
plants, ar.d "an orde:ing of irr:permanence:' if not
"unruliness, disorder, and violence" (Snyder, 1990,
p. 5). Although wilderness cannot be ,cen in any
wny other than through the screens of culti:re, it
:s commonly thought of as an environment that
's cult:.irally i:r.bdlt, ungoverned. unscarred, or
otherwise unmodified by humans. Encountering
:~ always gets our attention in special way.s. Where
we find it is imponan:. It is not confined to iso-
lated mountains. de;erts, or forrsts. Snyder ( 1990)
re:ninds us ghost wilderness r.ovcrs around
:he entire :ilanet; the millions of tiny seeds the
original vegetation are hid: r:g in the mud or: the
foot of an A:·ctic h:r:1,in the dry desert sa:id.5, o:- in
the wind" (p. '. 4). He suggests that it may, in fact,
return at some point, althoul!h not in "as fine a
world as the o:1e that was glbter:ing in the early
morning of the Holocene" (p. :4). Wildness, on the
other hand, is now and has ahvays been every-
where with its "ineradicable populations of fnngi,
moss, mold, yeast, and such tr.at sr:rround and
inha:ii: us. Deer mice on the back pore\ deer
bounding across the freel'r..ty, pigeons in the park,
spiders in the co~ners" (p. 14 ). Urbanites live con-
stantly in a sublimated or ignored wild:iess in this
sense (bug and vermin exte:minators take care
of ::1e rest), and altho~gl: ii can be a smm;e of
both reverence and wonder tor the people who
case its margins, enter it, and dwell in it for any
ler.gth of time, the wilderness where wildness
dominates. is often consciously displaced, moved
to its own outback in the geography of our mines
until iI shows up in a tdev i;,ion t r.welogue or the
vicarious thrill of ad,,er::ure nove's or Arctic
explorer accounts•turned-coffee table di$plays. 29
 9118 !Ill HANDBOOK OJ' QUALl1i\'.flVF: RESEARCH-CHAl'Tl::R 39
Tl:e wilderness that must people know is "a
charad~ of areas, mnes, a::td managemer.t plans
that is dr: ving the real wild into oblivion"
(J. 1l!rner, 1996, p. It is a nice place lo v:,it
thmt:gh the gkss of an automobile in the r: at:otal
parks of Na: robi or Yellowstone or in the few :irave
steps from the paved ro11ds 1:iat roll through these
areas like carpets for the conqueri t1g kings." Few
would war:t to live there. The farmers of these
margins gel a little doser to the cullually
untamed, but nnly on the other sides of their
More than anyone, their job for thousands
of yearn has been to erase the wllderncss,
stead ils meadows, :amr its grasses, and reptace
'ts original a:i'mals w:th iiveries and liveslock.
But all of the farme::s in wurld cannot hold
a candle to the envimnmenta[ corruptim:s ar.d
ern~ures of the great urhnn devcl opers. Our wild
fambcapcs have cha:iged as wilderr.esses have
disappeared,
S:iydcr (I 990) asks us to s:am! up and be
counted on both intellectually and ec;ilogically:
Wi'.dernc,1; is a place "':iere the w:id potent fol i,
;ully CKpressed, a diversity living nonliving
beings lfourhhing according to their nwn sor:, of
order, ecclogy we cf"wild systmt" When
an cco,i·ster:1 is fo:::, functioning, all me:'lbers are
present at tr.e assembly -:'o spcdk wildcr::e;;s
is ::i spei!k who:cne,s. Human beings c.::nc out
01 lh:11 w::ole::css, and co consicer the pos,ibil ity of
rcac1ivati11g membership In th,, ,\,si:mblr
Btinis is i:' no way re1sressivr. (p. 12)
But we have to ask how that can be done. How
will we know wl:en it is being done? Where is ,he
map for being-i:1 •place this w,ty? Some of fac:
answers lie in history. Ot:ier, lie h be politks and
sens!tivil ie;, of the moment The onlv sure way of
' '
puttir:g them together is to increase one's aware-
ness of and participation :r. the landscape, of
lived experier:ce," Moreover, raising the stakes on
bo:h our bring in-place and hav'ng bee1: there,
Lopez ( l990h ), asserts,
A sense of place must include. al the very least,
lmm,~edg,· cf what is inviolate abou: the ~elation·
ship between a people and the pfa.:c they occupy,
and certainly, ton, how !ht: destrucfon of th is
:-elatinnship, or t'le failure lo attend to ii, wounds
people, Living in l\orf1 America and ,rying to
dcvdn:i a philosophy of place-a 1-e:ogn i, i:in of :he
sp:,itua: and psychologk,d dimensions of g,ogra-
phy-i nevilably brings us back lo 01.:- beginnings
here. to the Spanish incursion. (p. 41)
It bri1:gs us back to the history of a pbce wl:ose
home crossi:!gs have :.iprooted practkally e·,cry-
tl:i:1g indigenous and wild a:1d have pushed it
arounc in a mov,i!Jle tragedy of cmss-cuhurnl
c,t:mallies and incrc:asing!y fluid disconnections
from lhc land i:self. 'l'hat marks a dr:11".latk
change f:nm what was once kindled and suppli ·
cated in rhe ,,orldvirws of many :n::ople, i:iduding
Xativc Americans Deloria, 199]}, lo
something profane and dangerous. Setting over-
romanhcized views of noble savages and pristir:e
nature aside, one can d :srnvrr :fu:: both kinds of
drcura,tances-supportivc and ,iccommodating
or dangerow, to one's well-being-can hold value
as ''sacred" at one level o, anolher. Only corrup-
:i on kills the prospect altogether.
lEII S,KR!'D SPACES AND 1\1 YTil
llwte is a p!:J.n, grNit impor!ar)ct' m
rmi on ,1 pim0 ·skfrled 1Jia1e,w in U!ah '.,
Uiata Mnuntains. t!k ,mci wc.ive
tr,1ffs 0/ mi •;ming l/Jmugh the trees and
All
into ihe c'K-,pe of cliffs ;md he,wy timbl:'r;
1·0;101,es pla;r/ KJ!. gorg,•d wit/1 hair and
hone, among s,,gebwsh and funip<:1: Tile
place resounds with vr>ir·;,, of hirds ,md
,malf rmimmal,. and <1 thousand ,rnells
ot /11cc wlfdeme55, lo me, this p!a, ,, i.,
cleanly lwiy. I c,1111101 explain ,vhy; f only
know th,ir twemy ii b;:,s ftlfcid me
with aw,• ;;;nd yeaming, ,,nd .mlitrnfP
p<:,Ke.II 1., a ,pace of greal ,,lur-dness.
seldom v1,1re,rJ . .i /-.,..·dys ,ipr>reci&tcd.
-Rich,ird PoulS<~n, Thv Purr:
rx,nu,i,.,n " o! 0H1,,r"
Pe,haps no o6er experiential domain :mows the
"madc:" or :mpEed impositions of culture on g"og
raphy more than plices hdd tn be sacrf'd hy the
beholders (Brady, 2004), They are precious by
dellnition. 01: the positive and more cumeutiunal
side of that, the romhi11atio:1 cf rultural Vl!!ues
and memory appli cd to suc:1 placts can produce a
poetics of reverie and respect, of awe and mystery,
if not specific ril'Jals dcs:gncd to aimmcmoratc
and renew such experiences." But we k:iow ;hat
the same can be experitmced differently
(the "pnra'.lax fa.:tm''}, Unlike step,1ing in the pud-
dle;, on a day road after a rain, one can step b some
sacred space as an outsider and never feel the
change i; As Nd son ( I\1/<3) observes quite correctly,
Reality is no: the world as it i, perceived r' ·•rtlv
the ;;;;;11,es; reality :s the wor'.d a~ it is :Jerccived h}·
the mind through the :-nedium of the ,enscs .. , ,
IIt j is wha: we have learned to see tl::ough ,mr m;;::
traditions, they do not alway, line up as equiv-
alent~ from one culture to the neirt The interns:
lions between Koyukon peopls: and nat~:,e ilb,trate
this dcar:y, for theirs is a world in wh'ch nature
move, with power and humans arr bound to a
s2edal ,ystcm of ,·nvirom:,enta: moralit}, (p.2J9)''
Such space is easily tram:neled by the unb: :ia;ed,
by the claim;; of interlopers-the mini-cokmfals
:hat ethnocentrism makes of us-who ;ee all
before them as an unfolding of their own :urf.
Access to the init:atc~• codes can save ~is fm:n :his
error, :hat a: Icast remind us that natural land-
scapes are everywhere :norc than phy,,iography.
They ore, first and foremost.repositories of 1r.can-
ing that, nut countbg our own impositions of
view and mi 1: :is an artifact or two to flag other
~·Joan pn::se:ice, are most likely to remain :nv:si-
b'.e without a l:vi ng guide.:"'
I:west: r:g the experiences of smell. taste, touch,
sight, .:.r:d hearing in a landscape whose feature5
endear fri em selves to us or frighten us is a way
o: appropria1ing meaningful conrcxts in w"lich
to exist; to a.:t in pleasure and remem~,:ance; to
meditate, marvel. and mystery over; lo reassu,e;
to rei~,:me; to remember as a reconsiue::ation of life
circumstances in pl,rns for t:ie future, for the next
,tep, prrhaps for :he rt'st of our lives a'.'ld the
cmplotmcnts of our deaths. Such projections can
mak.: sacred space in our n:ind's eye ar:d :he
':Jehaviors steered by it: 6cy create places for
communion, ecstatic im:m,rsion, or other forns
of poetic impiratiuu, on une ham!, a:1d places
for piaculnm, supplkatio:i m:t of fear and anx'ety
(Yi-Fu, 1979), literally places to be avok:ed except
under the mos: carefully calculated circumstances
(e.g" rituals of sacrifice), on the other." HJt the
separation of these forms is not always dca r
becau~e of cross-cul :ural rn :sunderslandr.gs and
the kr:owledge that opposite inter;iretatitms can
occupy !he same geogniphk locatior: (Brnt:y,
2003b, pp. 93-100; Fernancez,2003). There is also
always much that appears "in 'Jetween." Sacred
places can s:and alone as territory marked in the
mimL, of those who k:mw of them vicariously or in
pt'rson_ Hut when engaged in J'lerso:1 ,md remg-
nb:rd as st:ch, they ine\'itably beg q'.lrstions nf
bounda:ies (whc,e the sacred "ends" and somr-
thing more secular begb,} and thereb)· form an
avenue :o liminalil y. ttat is. to spiritual or imagi-
nary places am: condit:or.s of being not only
hL'rweci, p,1rticular people and their geography bnt
a:so in 11:c alignments of persons and spirits in a
comm:1:1ity that ostensibly shares such views.''
These are "neither here :10r there" wu..:e~ that
become a cros&ing grn:.mc for sense~ of s,·I :' and
ult ures, individuals .111d gnds, powerful Iar.d
scapes and ao.:ess to the subllr:,e, ~r:,or,t1 other
possibilities. That does not nlllke them any less
sti:nulating tu the imagina:ion or diminish the
need :o know how we, as intruders or observers,
might or n: ight nlll fit into them. On the contrnr y,
once discovered, culturally defined environmental
borders are even more 1:kely to hr conspicuous and
puu.ling if for no orher rt'ason :han the semiotic
diversity of their st imula:ions and expressions, J•,
Ill OPAQUE FACILITATOlt:
THE NATIVE J\,1YTH-MJND
ll1e Je..,.1ves on the trf:1":s 1 tfu, on
the hi!/s and 1r. th,:; v,;/Jey;, rf:I' warer,
in ihe creeks and in the ri ,;er, ,md rhe
lakes, (/le four-legged ,md the 1•1,1n-l1c;gged
and thl:' wi:11:1s the air- all danced
,mnorn,sr to the !'tttJ:ilC st;:;Nion 5
-Black Elk, Black tlk Speak,"'
 990 1111 HA:SDBOOK OF QtAUTATTVE RESl!ARl:1-l-CHAPTER 39
All other things bebg ec;ual, Language
corr: munkates the mental being and moods
corresponding :o it in the ,om1mmicator. "In the
?sychotopugrai;hic universe, language is also
subject to trans:'ormation, and it:: disintegra:ion
from a vehicle t.,1r recognizable human commur:i •
ration into something 'other'-'Jo:h divir:e and
demonic-also ,,,.,1101, the shift in the trnnscen•
dental world of merged subje~t and object"
il\elso:1, 1996, p. 106), That ma.1<es the story con-
text or :·orm of communica:ing voice para-
r:rnunt to its meaning, and it includes stories
about place, some of which are foci:.sed on places
t'lat are both wild an,i sacred.Among the gather·
ers and hi:n:ers of th.: wurld, these are sites that
are rich with meaning and power and that have
multiple uses (e.g., mens·rual seclusion, grave-
yards, ritual initiations) a:id realit:es tied to them,
They are the stuff of legends tied to human and
more-than-hur:1ar: landscapes, and the :nemories
of them "are very long" (Sn)'<:er, J990, pp. 81 82 J.' 1
(be rea:;011 for "the profound association between
,torytelling ar.d :he more-rhan-human terrain" in
tribal societies, as Abran (1996) sui;ge:,ts, is that it
''residrs :n the encomp"ssing, enveloping whole•
ness of a in relation to the chara<lers :ha: act
and move within it" (p. 163 ). Indeed, because "we
a,e situated '.n the land in mud, tl:e same way that
characters are situated in a story," the members of
a deeply oral cu:t:ire may expe:ience this relation
"as something more :han :m,rc amdogy; along
wit!: the other animal~. the stones, the :rees, and
the c:uuds., we ourse;ves arc characters within a
huge story :ha: is visibly unfolding all aroand
us, participants within the vast imag:natio:1 or
dreamir.g of the world" (p. 163)-and that is, at
best, a shifting lami,capc. a :11oving target, bt.:t
not totally beyond the scope of reclamations, 42
From his :ravels 1r. Au&tra:ia, Snyder (I 990 l
oilers the folluwi ng "as one ex:an,ple of the many
ways [in which I land~cape, rnytl:, and information
were braided together in preliterate societies":
We were Iraveling by t;Ud: over d:,t trnrt west from
Alice Spring, in the ,ompany (Jf a Pinrubi elder
r:amed Jir:::ny ·:-jungurray:. As we rn: led along the
dust}' road, sittinJl: back in the bed a pickup, he
began to speak rapidly to me, He was talking
about a mour:tain over there. telling me a stor 1·
about so:ne wallabies that came to that mountair.
in lhc dreamtime and got in:o some kind of mis•
c:1ief with ;mne lizard girls. had ha:tlly finished
tha: and he star:ed in on ano:her story about
another hi[ over he,c and another sto~y over there,
I ruu:c:i't keep up. I realized afte, about hdf an
huur uf thi; that lhese were tales to be told while
walking, and that I was experiencing a speeded-up
version what might be told over severai day,
of foo: :ravel, Xr. T;rngurray' fdt grac'ously
:ompelled to sh;ire ,1 b,)dy of lore wi:h me by virtue
simple facl that l was Lhere,
So ~member a time when ycu journeyed on
fom owr hundreds of miles, walking fast and tden
:ra.1e.·r1g a, nlght, traveling ::ight-long and :1apping
·•· lhe acada shace d:.:ring the day, and thcse stories
were told to you as yon went In }'OUT 1ravels with
an older person, you were given a map you muld
memorize, full of lore f. nd song and also practical
information, Off by yourself, you could sing those
songs to bring yom11elf back. And you could maybe
t~avel to a place that you'd ::ever been, ste,er:rr~ only
hy tht songs }'OU had !ear ,1ed, ( pp. 82-llJ)
Even this !::tie s:iippet about sacrerl space illus,
trates nicely the principle that exis,entia: inter-
preta dons situated in worldviews give place
a ten:po:al dirner.sion and aim reflect both the
predicaments and the solutions to theti posed
by changing environmental circumstances:U
Foct1sing in particular on Nat:ve An:erkan mate•
rials, Leonard and McC:ure (2004) see s'Jch
~tories as important
because them the n:y1 hie breaks through in:o
o::r present wllrld, embodying the very kinds of
houndary crnssi ng that are so central to all mylho-
kgical thinking, .~uch stories givr: w; a L'iirmce II! su,
ra feel, the pre,enr of mythic truth fn rile mids1 of our
pe11·.ptiam of C<mtemparary r~aliiy, Whether they
are the repositories national or ethnk identity
or :he site of supernatural revelation or v:sita::on,
whether Ibey are actual plm~s whe:e we can s:and
and hear :he echoc& of long-ago batlles or ::nagi-
nary places shaped by :he req·~:rements or my t'i;c
vision, sacred places serve to teach and remind us
of who we are and how we ought 10 behave in t1ur
day-to-day lives. , , . places, espedally in the

vui0us sen~es thal N,uive A:neric,rns use theterr:i,
caU tut to us to /1ewme "d,iw11 ;u earth:' to re::iem ·
ber and honor and revitalir.e our r;;sential conne,-
tions to the ear th and the natural world, to :he
,1II a,cu od u,. I hey i1wi1e us to ::,,mdate the
,pir ilual with such na:u;al material phct:omena 11s
mtmnt;;ir:s, rivers, tree,, and c.wc·s, 'J'he Mm: v
ri".w,ries about s,1.:red places n::ght j:i,t allow us 10'
see such oppo,l'<I hinarks a; p!lst versus present,
realistic ve:sm; mythologkal. or spirinrnl versus
materi.:.i a~ not so mutually exclusive. (p, 320,
cmphas:s ,iddl·d )''
Certain plac~s within the mutually owne,:
tcrr:cory of old cu: turcs, Snyder (1990) says, w,
loaded with "numinous lifo and spirit;' They a:e
"percdved to he of high spiritual den sitv because
of plant u~ anim,11 habitat lntensities, or associa•
tions 1,:lth legend, ur connections wit!: human
totemic a:1cescry, or because of some geomorpho-
logical anomaly, or some coniJination of quali-
(p. 93). They ar.:: cultural amt spiritual ''gores
th rough which or:e ca r:-it wo,1 Id t)C sa; d-more
e.i.sily be nmchcd :1y a larger-tha:1-human, la~ger-
:1:an-personal, view" (p. 93; see also Deloria, 1993;
.vhmn, 2003). Such sites offer a glimpse of the
internal workings ofbelief a:id behaviors that put
cultural histories into ecologie~ of p'.ace, some of
which mighl :ie seen ,1s "spirit ,ial game manage-
ment" (Snyder, 1990, ?· 87), r:,ey aiso show us
that sto,ytelling is muc:1 more than anu:scment
It is fundamental :o human life-cspc:cially (it
seems) in myth, IV here one c.m change the con-
tent and bend t:1 e strucmre to a.:hieve mm:non
uude:-i, tan ding of perennial problrms. Indeed,
Verc>ne ( 1976) finds that "human anderstai:ding
mt1st alv;ays have at its center the no:ion of the
myth, In its movement towa,d :he recollecting
nf o,igin, it discovers always again the myth, the
original power of image-ma:,ing or n:i:111::sis, the
science of whid:,as Vko says, is the first :hat must
be lea1ned" (p. 34).
Within limits of coherence of the whole,
cons :.,tency of t:Je:ne, an c related ~ tructural
concerns, rrwths are a flexible and highly general•
izable form of 5torytelling aboul the ?ast in
so:1al term~. ·:·hey are linked to the now and then
throL:gh one Gordian knot m another in tenr.s
3:ady: Poetics :er a Planet 111 991
alrr:ed sr,ecifically at stirring up somethir:g poetic
in the audie:1-:eY Poetry itself is tied rn rhe con-
text of the immedi a:e ar.d the imn:anenl, to the
pro~e;;ses ni"bcing tl:ere" and ser:suat saturation,
and to the arr of 11:e possible and not i:ecessaril~·
tl:e actual, in or out of what m:!,!ht sec:n to bt: an
obvious historical or my rhologkal .:omcxl (Brady;
2003b ), Like my:h, ;:mctry addresse,, the long nm
by allowbg fur diverse partirniars in accounti:lg
for CVE'nts of the moment i:l forms tap into
thr larger continuilies and commor.i:ili:ies of
being human. Aa;ess to some or this 1:1atcrial is
gu&ranteed through srndics of oral poetry, for
much of !bat is lied directly to the ti:nekcepi ngs
and implications uf ritual and n:y:h, to stories of
origins ,rnd the peopling, of landscapes through
<'Vents and discoveries over ti:lle as conceptual·
ized by the te;'ers-and ,'1:rhaps def1.:nded in
what is viewed from other perspectives as a mix
of !ar:lasy and reality (Tedlock, 191:13, p. 55). [n this
way, myths p:1wi de a complicated source o" lnfor -
t1atkn on 'Norldviews and assodated behaviors
pervades both history (w: fa its mix of literate
and pcliteratt= par:ic:pants) and prehistory (with
its exc:t.:sively preliterate partidpant.s) and
thereby helps to frai:1 c meaning and action in our
lives today:"'
Schar.1a (1995), in his provocatively aesthetic
and historical Landscape and 1\'1emory, argues
th,d :o put tl:at to work in environmental review
and renewal, ''what we n(:('d are new 'creation
myths' to repair :he dan111gc done by our reck-
lessly mechanical abuse of nature and to restore
the hala r.ce between man and the rest of lb:
organisms with wiich he shart:S tl:e planet" (p. 13;
sec also Kozinels & Sherry, 20(H; Leonard &
McClure,21J04, p, 324; Richardson, 1975; Saraydar,
1936; Sherry & Kozine:s, 2004;. 4i Wom::eri ng
whetter or not. this is a n:re for what ails. us is
nut ''tn deny the seriousness of our ecological
predicament, nor to cism:ss the urgei:cy with
which it needs repair and redress' !Scharna, 1995,
p. 14 ), but we have to ask about the old one, in the
p:-oi:ess;
Fur 11otwith,ta11ding the ,t,,umptinn, commonly
'"''"ren 1~, these lcxts, tha: \\/e$tern culture has
992 11 IIAND!lOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-(IIAl'Tf'.R 39
evolved by sloughing cf!' it& nature myths, they
have, ir: never gone a11Vay, For ,:, as we have
seen, our entire landscape tradition is the 1: roduct
of ,hared cuhnre, it is by th,' same token a tradition
built from a rich depos:t of myth,, mer:;ories, and
obsession,, The cults which we are t£1ld rn seek in
other cult::r,,s--of th.: primitive fo:est, of
the tiveroflife, o, tht sarnxl ::countai n-a re in
alive well and ,ii I a:>om us if wr only know
wlu:rr to look {.Jr rhem, (p, 14, cmp::as:s ---·--,
On the premise that "strength is often l:idden
benea:h the cmr:monplace; Schama's study is
"constructed as an excavation below our conven-
tional sight-level to recover the vebs of myth
and memory that Ee hened1 the surface" (p. 14),
It is an archae<}logy of knowledge, another archi•
tecto:;ic connection to a poetks of place that
supplements and gives new ins:ructiom, to the
more parochial endeavor,, of academic archaeol-
oi;y and history. tt is a deep:y poe1i1.ed effort
that may coach us into finding something of our
internal hL: r dusty gu :,:ebooks i:i the places set
aside as wilderness in our cult'Jral traditions and
in ?O:'trayal5 of those and other landscapes in
writing, piinting, ar:d photography, both past and
pre,cnt r: i~ "a way of leoking, nf rediscove,ing
whal we already have, ::r.it wh:ch somehow eLides
our recognition and out appreciation, Inslead
of being yet anot:ier explanalion whal we
:iave lost, it is an exploration of what we oa y yet
find" (p, 14),••
Snyder and others share the hopr. in this.
The na :ive oy:h · m' nd-fi rst encountered by
Europeans in North America by Cabeza de Vaca,
last known fully by the Native A:nerican lsl:i-is
"not cead am: gone, It is perenriially within us.
dormant as a hard-shelled seed, awaiting the fi,e
or !lood that awakes ii agairt (Snyder, 1990. p.13;
d. Saraydar, I 986 ). This thinking agal ;1 raises the
issue of both myth-time and history in relatim:
to landsrape, "We are all ~apable of extraordinary
transforna:ions, fn myth and story, the~e
changes are animal-:o•hur:1a:i, human-lo·ani
mal, animaHo-animal, or ever. farther leaps"
(Snyder, 1990, p, 20) to other shared forms of
being in place,;l( ind uding the dreams we have
had about such things and the oral and graph'c
reprcsei:tations we have left behind in the wincing
and sometime, bmken trails of being human
over the loq:! haul. "The essei:ti.il nature" of being
in any part of th:s equation, Snyde~ asserts whh
optim:sm, "remains clear and steady through
these changes" (p, 20), That does not
access to the particulan; of our pasts, of cm:r,e,
but it docs put us in a perpetual and rnn: parlt:ve
pre1>ent of sort~. We cannot lose s:g:H of oi:r,elves
even if we try, and yet even when wt- look dose:y,
we find fuzzy boundaries, much tu learn, and
much that is knowi: at some level but C:ifficult to
express,
ml lNTANGIBJ.E 0BS'JACLliS:
BEYOND WORDS
What mov,;s cm this archaic [er:~· I Wa.,
a,
wild and w,,/ling the source.
-N. Scott Morraoay,
Tfif> \1J/,1y m Rainy Mountain"
My th and his :ory are two related way,:. in
which we have kept records of hcl ng around as
mnscious he:ngs• b ·place for ma:ry i:1o·J sands of
yea,s : 2 Bt:: despite a track reco:d of sameness in
narrative form, especially written form, there is
nolh;ng in !:le rukhook that prech:des ionovat: on
in the presentation ef either (B,ady, 2004), T:ie
pervasiveness of myth in a] """'""-• of our Eves
shows that nol to be a new idea :n itself, and
history in its most conventional sense, spliced
into myth-time as a form of accou1:ling since
the advent of writii:g ,rnd the genre building of
moderr. academies, can also be a poem (Hrady,
2003b; Dening. 1995, 1998a}, Getting at the large
goa:s of envim:une:1ta: reform staked our here
might benefit hy bu i: d Ing 01: the ~ inds o(
narrative and artistic diversity in S::hama's (I 995)
compilation, not only by taking a new look at
son:e older ways of telling the story of being-
in·placs: b,:: also bt· carefully inspecEng wha,
exactly is conveyed by sut'.h ~terying by asking
abour the larger perceptual co:1text.
Reacing within and betweei: the lines cf
Schama's inspiring work suggests readily

that some of what we seek ln a poetics of place,
both ancier:t and modern, lies beyond words.
Language gathers at the roo: of all storytelling,
including myth, bt:t ,is Jeeks on (: 995 l it
due~ not exhaust ils cuntt:m ur its possibilities.
Experience covers everything. Words do not."'
Consciousness itself is mediated through Ian·
guage, and i:nage and every:hing that we k:10w
e171erges in one form or another from experiences
uf landscape and story. "Such a conception of
fieldwork implies a conception of writing"
(p. 113) and of langnage as constitutive of real:t};
but it docs not restrict the inqui::y to it even as it
puts considerable emphasis on "the creative and
ethical domair:s of human social existence"
(I ackson, 1982, p. The oral storyteller and the
w:-iter share the task of revealing "people to them-
selves and to thefr possibilities" {p. 2L 54 Further-
more, during this modern age,
one must h<,Ve :ecourse to art and literature if one
is lo keep alive a sense of what hard sc,:m:e, with
its passion for definitive con~epL, and SfSlemat ic
k nowle<lge, often forgoes or forgets. The painter
who dispenses with .1i,;11w.i;in crder to rc;mite the
field of artist•c vision 1-,•ith the of :he world,
or the ccmposer who cow:: boundaries
hetweer. what is deemed musk and ncise ... find a
natural ally in the philmoJ)her w::o, aware :hal con-
:ep:, never mver :he fullness cf human cxi,cricnce.
sees th;,t task of description as n:ore wn:pelli:ig
than that cf explanation Ii nduding descriptions of
being-in-place] (Jackson, I'l'lS, pp.4-~l"
Nonethl'less, posing a conund,um of sorts, it
is through the conveyance forms and content of
language a;id story that we rn-.1st enter an analysis
of places ai:d :he events that unfold in them. Like
the oral per:'onnances that house myths in sorr.e
embrace of 6e lon,g- ~un and second-tier transla-
tious of them by experts with thei~ own cultural
and tex:ual biases, we need to learn how to i:Jter
prel the places and t.'Vtnts nf others and relate
them to o:.ir own sensuous-intellectual experi-
ences with the best poss:ble !"ej)resentations,
e,
that is, in a man n true to wl:at we know, think,
and can say with reasonable persuasion. Bul the
sources of that information anc the language we
Brady: Poe:ks for a Planet 11 993
:ieed to use to understand and commu:ikate
i: are r:ot always easily obtaincc-if tl:ey are
obtained at all.
• LIMITED 0PPORTl:KITY:
ORA:. POETRY AND MYTH
[Sff:re-1 Road:] TherP are 1r;,es.. cn1gs,
go,ges. ,Ivers, precipilous places of precip·
itous land, various places of precloitous
lcina~ ,·arious preclpilous places, gorges,
variom gorges. fl Is a place o( wild a nl·
mals. a place of wild beasts, full of wifd
beasts. h is a place where one is put W
death by stealth; a place where one is put
ID dea 111 in ihe jaws of the wild beasts of
the ;;md of till' df'ad.
-Bernardino de
Sahagun, "Azt11c Dt:tin ton<;"'"
V,'lm: is lost from, o, crealed and added to,di3·
course when it is moved from o:w prrson to the
;iext in the same rnlturt poo:? Across cult1.:ral and
lingi:istic boundaries? It is impor:ant to remem-
ber the dialogk charn.:ter of such communica-
:ions am! to keep in mind Bakhtin's wisdun: that
:anguage never moves throug.1 uncluttered space.
It i5 heteroglossic and mutaally co:1structive in all
utterances-all ::ontcxts of development, recep•
tlon, and discovery (llolquist, 1981, p. xx; 1990,
p. 69), Combined with what can be learned from
history, archaeology, and on-s: te ~i<periences
(however changed over ti~e), .. e can bolster our
sense of past landscapes by studying the legends
and tales, the myths and mtanings, as we dis,iwer
them through oral and written texts and the per-
formances and translations of each. T'iey all are,
at one level or another, "'unctions oflang11age, and
in the que.st to unders:and the nature of being-in•
p:ace. lar:guage and ,torytclling are essential Int
also, in some ways, are lnadeq uate to the task.
ln sorr:e of his pioneering work on Kai ive
American narratives, Hymes ( I987} points out that
et:mopoetics r:ecessarily starts wilh language
(p. 80), that is first of ail a matte, of laking
seriously the ways in which narrators select and
 994 111 HANDBOOK OF QL'ALITAT:VE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39
group word," (p.4 J ), and that the stor:cs of'.'Jative
American ora: discourse "are to be 1:eard, or seen,
in lines, and thus are a form of poetry" (p. 49; see
a!so Krncber, 1983; Swam:, 1983; Tedloc~. l 972,
1983; Zolbrod, ~ 9S3 ). Thi~ is fairly recent and
profound thinking that runs ag8inst the g,ai n of
Western ethnocentr',ms co1:cerning what docs
a1:d doe, 1:ot cour.t as poelt}'· As Zolbrod ( J98.H
says, it ha, taken a w'1 :: c for scholars to rcrogn i,e
thal there is a subs:ant ial :J.i:i,e American ;x1etic
tra<lition one~ misperceived as little more than
·casual talc-11:lling" that ls conspicuously poetic
to those who know how to rcccgniie its ''implicit
semantic anc rhetorical patterns" and who uncer•
stand that performance and setting have ~a bea:-ing
on the utterance of a storyteller not evident in
ordinary prose" or in "the printed mecium conven •
:ionally employed by most trans:ators" (p. 227 ).'''
This is cmpowe~ing knowledge. Tedlock
(1983) argues that treating oral narratives as
dramatic :,octry
dea:ly promises ::l,lllY anc:ytic , . [undl aesthetic
iewards, The app,ircnt flatne.ss of many p,1,l tran,-
latim1s is not a rdkctio:: hu: a distortion d the
origina:s, caused by the di.:t11::or1 prm:rss, th<'
1mtio:· tlwt content and form arc i:ldepcnclent, a
pervasive dc.ifm:s;, to era! qualities, and a fix~..:
notion of Ult· bmmdary between poetry and pm,e.
Prese·:t cm1d!tkms, •,vhkh combine ::ew recording
techniql:cs with a grnw':1g sen.silivity :(l verbal ar1
;;s perfo:mcd "event" rather lh,m as fixed "obiect"
on tht page, promise the removal o:' previous
difficultic,. (pp. 54-55)
Moreover, taking advantage of :he poetic d me:1-
aion in every ac: of Spt<"ch or writing (which is
"related but 1,ot idemkal to ill! linguistic dirr.ension")
anc recognizing that all people in the world "cor.·
:inuously produce, reproduce, and rev i~~ thei,
own cultures in di.,Joguc.s among :he:nselves~
with o: witboul ethnegrap:1er~ present, as nn act
cf being humar., languages dialogical potcrdal f::m
be t:scd "to balai:cc each representation witt an
altcrnativt• represei:tation, producing poetry :hat
is hdlt on a process of trsnslation rather than rna<l.:
lo resist translation'' (":i:dluck, 1999, p. 155). But pro-
jecting the must mo<lern of mentalities-reading
as an avenue to interpretation-as a facile
metaphor on all that we wish to understand (e.g.,
"reading" om! performances and landscapes) can
!'le an obstacle in the srudy of both oral ar:d wrlt-
trn trnditiom, that is, a pro :,iem in translating
~ative American anc compa,ab:e oral prcscr:ta-
:iom firsthand and also in deci:ihering the writ-
ten translation,S we gel from uther.s before us (see,
e.g., Finnegan, 1992; Hyme5, I 987; Kroebc,, 1983;
Samydar, 19S6; Swann & Krupat, 1987: Tedlock,
1983, 1993, 1999). Times have changed, and our
sensibilities have changed a'ong with then:.
Jll PER( EPTU1i 1. 0RS1J\(LE5:
EPISTE,\:llC IN i'l:Rt'ER:.\JCE
At lirst therl' i, just £)ne line, horiLOntal
! A second <1ppt:ars I It'~ already cfo.,er
I Soon ooe noliu.•, iint:1~ e,·erywh1:,m I
They draw rapidly together I Too fate or.,•
rf"afizf's that I fheff• is 110 escape.
•-\Valier •ie:l:rnit Frltz.
NFess0 lw1g lfntrapmentj" '"
]i:xts arc an importrnt avenue to the discovery
of place in iis diver~e purch,1,cs an,:
appearancts
evcrywl1 ere, bu I using them as evidence for
ar.yt,ing is probltrr:atk, in 11art becRuse of the
creat:vi:its inherent in lext constn:cti1m and
reception that change with contexts of intcr,rc•
;ation (as we a!l know and as the history of
hermenemks and interpretive social sdenct in
grneral shows) and ln part because of diversity
Ir. textual form, performance, and apprecia:iun
(cf. l'i nnegan, 199.2, p. xii; Lansing, 1985 ). Orai or
vtrittcn, they are bound to be mult:vocal a:1d
polyva:,rnt aI une ievel or another :md a::e. there-
fore, always subject to mntexr~ensitive int..rprr-
lal iom, that we ou,sdves impose anc that can:iot
always be deter mfr ed for the original aL1thors
in the case of representations or rereadings, Tl:at
makes miginal me,:nings ch1sivc i. d. Ba ,thes,
:972, 1977; Brady, 1991b; :lerzfold, 2004, p. 39),
but it doe, r:ot prec::1de :he construction of
reasonable or agrceal)Jc i:1terpretations between
author and reader, speaker and hearer, for

mmmunicat'o1; would the:i be impossible (1lmdy,
2003b, p, r.x: v), Only the immaculate reception
gtt,s foiled in the process, a:1d we du ha,c some
empirka: dala to ndp J, steer arid .:u:itexLalize
the problem rationally !fat using oral ,:r wrlttt:n
text, as an a,enuc of access to really old things
and hcha~iors is doubly complicated for other
reaso:is as well, nut leas: because v,1e ax sepa::a:cd
from any pnssible dialogue witl: the origir:al
authors and from aboriginal con.:ept:ons of I'te
in place fi,::1dan:ental changes i:i percep:inns
of :he world-by w'1at we can cull from Foucault
(1972) as efl1ste1711c interference in the gaps
bet ween prehistory a:1d now, mnstly because of the
profound changes in our perccptiom of O'Jrselves,
our p,oducts, and our landscapes insinuated
through the invention of alphabetic literacy and
compounded by the mass p:oduc:ion nf text~ by
way of the printing press (Ailrnm, I996; Lov.ie,
1982), Our views of the nalllrt' of fac world anc our
e::ibodied place in it have char:gcd accordingly:'•
The rise of alphabetic literacy and its di.s;;erni-
nat'on through pri:iting tcclmology have hml a
profo;;nd effect Otl what Lowe ( l 982) calls 6c
"hierarchy of du: senses" and, :hus, on the way in
which we regisLer and store informatim, as
humans. One sea change (among others) in this
put a special premium 0:1 seeing over hearing in
the field of perceptinn and provided a means :or
separn!ing ki1uw:cdge frum speech. Lacking writ·
ten records, speech in an ur2 1 culture ful•llls many
limctioJt., that tend to be compartmentalized in
rl:irogmphk and typographic Speech is
communication in the latter, and k::iowledge is
primar::y preserved by writing, hi an oral rnltu re,
ho·,vever, "speech has lo fulfill ho:h functions of
preserving knowledge as well as of communica-
tion, for only in the act of speakir:g can its knowl-
edge be preserved» (p. 3J."0 O:al cultJrcs have"an
'artisan' form of oommun'catlon" wl:crc "stu,ies
llr:sc from the rhythms of a preindustrial order: a
world with time to listen, a language that h com-
munal and founded on sha,ed pcrc,11tions of
reality, a respect for wisdom bo,n of :he accrued
experience of generations, a:1d a sense of as
still organiztd around the :ydcs of nature" (Wolf,
I982, p. I08; ;,ee also Fe!d, 1996), This knowledge
Brady: Poetics for a Planet III W5
is reinforced through pcrsomd experiences ,lnd is
sha~ed through telling,, in uml prrformances-
sonk ancient, rnmc conterr. pora ,y, Some with
obvious colllinuiry through both, In tl:at connec•
tion it is important m recognize that the "residues
from the earlier type persis: lo alfoct the Iatcr
one" ( Lowe, I'182, p. 2 ). II follows that aboriginal
storvtelli1w a,1 art intrinskallv at ,,des wi h
' "
a culture organized around writing ' and ::1:: dis-
semination of'information"' (lVolf, 1982, p, 108),
and so it is problema:ic as a source of ,mcient ,my-
thing. By replacing or in ot:1cr w,iys intluendng
folk and oral tradition~, writte:i culture under-
mbes our ability to interpret them. The apparent
"na:ural ness" of ~see:ng
· ,, or " read';1:g" knowledge,
as opposed to making the more direct connection
betwe<'!l oml productions and aural register,,
makes all interpretations of preliterate communi-
cations subj cct to deep-seatei' biases by n:odern
interpn,krs,
The mix of ai:d1cnt and modern shows up in
rnntempor,1,y studies of oral narra:ivs:s and is
played oUI in a synchronic versm:1 of ~pisternic
:11terkre11ce that we can call e1>istc111ir pm1ling,
The pooling part n:ters :o the inevitable mix of
diachronic cuntinuitirs and ira;:es from differc:1t
traditions that .,how up at any given moment in
hi story. The pri:\d pie and cor,text of the pmbl ~:11
arc er.capsulated in Hnnegau's ( 1992) observa
lion that in folklore s:udies t!:cre i& now"a deep-
ening under~tanding o: the inrerm:tion of oral and
wriltEr: fo:ius as a regdar and surpri5ing process
across a m11ltl-dirne11s[onal conticrJm, rather
than as something \\~uch involves bridging mme
deep divide" (p. xiii, empha~:s adde{l; see alSt1
Ong, 1%7; Rofrlc:nherg,, 983, p, xxiii), Thar is ?rt·
cisely the scenario e:ico1111tered today hy ctl:nog•
raphers,linguisL,,and folklorist$ who seek secrets
t!ie past from thei~ contemporaries in other
cuJt1;res, mos: po'n:edly for OLlr purposes in
:he snidy o: oral narratives and ;,octrics as a mea-
sure of aborigi rial forms of thought and behavior
in andent la:idsca ~es," Despite some identifiable
p1c·se11;;e and sepa:atinns nf thosr 'orms in suc!l
cont~xts, the epistemic mndirions of current "tribal"
tellers ar(' as mixed as anyone else'~. They ,ire
modern people as well, a:1d so they ure influenced
 996 11. HANDBOOK OF Ql:Al,ITATfVE RESl'ARCJJ-CH1\PTER 39
by the though:s and premises of literacy at one level
or another b text and pe:formance (cf. Bauman,
1992; Finnegan, 1992; Fi:lnegan & 0 rbell, 1995;
Sammons & Sherzer, ,2000), Nonethe:ess, with
new sensitivities to the long-nm obstacles that
separate us, regardless of how subject to mud-
dling :hey are today, we need to be optimistic. The
very fart that there is cont:nuity with thir:gs
ancient in l'.1e oral narratives and poetries of
some si.:rviving tribal rraditions (see, Perrin,
1987, p. 154} ought lo spark our attention and
motivate us to refine our methods for studying
then. That would help us to ge: over the hump
of what we already know, namely that o:al 11arra-
d11es and poetry add an important suurce
to our quest for reclaiming a sense of being :n
ancient places!'
These are some of rhe particulars that give
motion and distinction to i:Jdividuals and whole
societies. '.:hey i:1dude fundamental ciifferen,es
that mus: be taken in:o account in any alte.mpt
to reconcile the separatio11s and connections of
language, story, and perfo:-mance within anc
between com :nunitle~, including ethnographers
and their informants caught up i:1 the • utual!y
constructing ar.d sli?pery ve:itr:loquisms (as
Denn is Ted lock would ~ay l of speaking for others.
That is equally true of attempts to re;:o:, cile tl:e
separations, and perhaps the traces of continuity,
between modern written texts anc the aborigi-
nally unwrittrn (Le., oral) accounts of being•i:1-
place before the advent of writing (see, e.g.,
Layton, 1997). It also raises the stakes on the
stui::y of sacred space in ,.boriginal contexts-
:esidual or lasting and reformed in our modern
day or not-to something on the order of !and·
scape poetics, to the study of poetries place on
bot:\ sides of the cultural fences that divide them.
There is no guaranteed method :o conquer it all.
!leanings can be slippery; fugitive, irreducibly
plural things-t:ains depa~ted from the station
le-aving only warm tracks behind for us to touch
and speculate on (Barthes, 1972. l 977, i 982;
Brady, 199Tb, pp. 10-11; 2003b, pp. xiii-xiv). But
ethnopoetk research to da:e shows plainly faat
sdf•awareness and ser.sitivity :o the impositions
of cull ural biases-the cultu:al "truths" tha: we
take for granted, see as ''natural" if we are aware of
them at all, or favor in some guise as the "truth
we need to find" to validate our identities-are
"ground zero tor eve:1 srartmg sueh pro;ects.
1'!"" • · ·
0'
Knowing about them advances the prospect of
resituating ourselves in myth-time and the
history of place through texts and associated
images. Like Snyder's Australian experience, that
journey w:11 also run the horizon of tr.e old and
the new. It will ~e h:storv as we see it and live it,
'
and so as wr:: create it, with all of the ln:erpretive
problems outlined so far, but with the distinct
adva:itage oflocating the experience i:1 a realistic
site-the !Jody itself, using language geared to
sensuous--intellectual grour:ding ar:d set analyti-
cally in an anthropology of ourselves.
• Roor FACILITATOR: POETICS AT H<JME
To understand the fashion oi any life, one
m us1 know thP land ft 1s lfv::d m and the
procession uf th,, year.
Mary Austin, The land of little RainM
GJll out the pueti; from among the bards and
other performers of lite as lived, put them on the
fH:aks of w:iat they consider to be their own lives
am: lands (Suiter, 2002), and they wiJ: likely share
the experience with you aa an epiphany of land-
scape-a dance with the sublime, the ande:it,
the foundational, rhe deeply personal poe!ry of
themselve,; as beings•in·place (Bachelard, 196f,
pp. 214-215).65 Ask them how they know so
much, and they will tell you that it is a matter of
being•il:.place :or the long run, of internalizing
its smells, sounds, and images-its flow of events
and artkulations o: people and things. It is a mat-
ter of ::iuilding an embodied !'!istory, tr:ey will say,
and sometimes of launching that history through
trips in fae wider world and then "coming home:'
We all have been sumewhere beyo:id the home-
stead and its heall:er, and we know that returns
can have a profound e:!lect on views of the or:gJna 1
experiences (Brady, 20113h). For one tl::.ing, nothing
remains txactly the same.•~ Merwin (1997} says,
"When I co • e back I find fa place that was never

there" (p. 121 ). Times, places, and people change
right under our noses. But triggered by sensuously
doused memories. recombir.g the local land·
scape with a l:ead full of new experiences (and
absence,) can yield a deeply contextualized puetic
that both reinforces and redefines one's place in
place, that is, by reworkbg the margins of self and
ober, native and stranger, old and :1ew, even as
the experience unfolds.66 Cor:ceptually reregister•
ing sumeth :r:g as simple as place names i:1 this
context-for example, by v'rtue of their marrying
"the legendary and the local" (or, say, in the c~.sc
of Gettysburg, the legendary and the national)-
can move the trekkers to special sentiments and
symbolis1:1 of thought and action. The process
is informed by both "being there" and "going
:here:' hy a tr.en and a now, and by what we know
from encounters with other culttrres, including
academic and aesthetic wurks (e.g., painted,
chanted, written) of other places, as pooled
and cumpared with exis:ing i<:nowledge of our
own (Agee & Evans, 1960; Bracy, 2003b; Heaney,
1980b; Kerouac, 1958, 1959, 1960; Williams. 1973,
?P· 1-12).67
All of these things "in:eranimate" :n the mind's
(Heaney, I9!l0b, p, 148), and they are be kinds
of :hings thal the poelic-n:inded Williams (1973)
says can be "summoned and celebrated by the
;,ower of poetry" (p. I i!ut the mental a,soc'a•
tfrms are not unfettered archaic rccoveri es.
'l"owadays they are sare to be a :nix of the kind, of
k1:owledge learnei.l at home, on one's own through
;,ersonai experience, am: through the social
entrainment, of formal ec1:cation (Heaney,
1980h, p. 131 ). Global networking and vast
· r,rreus.•s in access to public education, according
:o Hea:1ey ( L980b), ensure thu i:1 Irela:id, for
example, people are no longer Jn:iocent and that
unce local parishes :10w cast a wider net in the
world:
Yet those primary hw, 1if o.ir 11.i.ture are still
operative, We are dwellers, we are namers, we
are we make homes and search for ou~
histories ... .\'/her. we lock for .. history of ou~
sensibilities, I am convinced , .• thnt it is to . , , the
st.lble element, the land itself, that we m:::;t kmk
conl::mity, (pp. 148-149)
Brady: Poetcs for a ?lane! 11 997
And in the weave of personal emotilm, myth, and
symbol tnat Yeats once spun so effectively in Irish
consciousness of and place, so too do some
of the new puets "weave their individual feelingi;
rct:nd places they and we know, ir: a speech that
they and we share; and in a wor:d where ,he sacral
vision of place is almost completely eradicated
they offer in their art what Michael Longley has
ca]ed 'tl:e sacraments we invent for ourselves"'
(p, 1'18), Their work show; faat hn:u: and sacred
go hand in hand as much for the sake of groJnded
ident i:y-li:e,ally for locating a culturally
defined self-as for the conservation and defense
of an histor'cal sanctuary of collected selves, a
community, a plural being• in ·place, a gathering
of individuals with both shared anri redelinable
"roots" in mat~ers sacred and profane."" Poetry
latches on to that and represents for us places
that • atler plus something as dear as the self to
cherish as par: of them, as something inter•
animated and nuanced with the rest of life and
the landscapes of ils exprcs~ ion,
Perhaps it is also true that a ?lanct of poets so
embodied and emplaced wo·J\d be :,mch less
like;y to trammel the very source of its own exis-
tem.:e; to cut off the milk, the honey, the aesthetic
and ecological sustenance of its forests ar:d water-
holes, its peaks and valleys; to sha:ter the web
of life that ties ,:oral reef to caribou, owl and finch
to prairie g:-ass, buftalo to groi:nd squirrel, and
the winds of Sahara and stratosphere to the qual•
ity of life :n Chicago, Honolulu, and Madrid,
Removal from the thic;,, of it by cultural amnesia
or ignorance, ideological preference, or insuh,ted
physical means does not give this experience,
Persona: immersion does. It does not gaarantee
as a process love or admiration or ever: accep-
tance of whac is encountered. ft does furce the
issue of participation.'" The trick i, to do it and to
share 6e experience in ways that matter, perhaps
on the order of Yeats, who had, as Heaney ( 198Ob)
remarks, a dual purpose: (a) "co restore a body
of old legends and folk beliefs that woi::d bind
the people of the Iris!: place to the body their
world" and (b) "to suppler:ient this restored sense
of historical plac~ with a new :;et of associations
that wou:d accrue when a modem Irish literature,
 998 Ill HANDBOOK OF QUMJTATIVE Rl'SEARCH-CHAPTER 39
rooted 111 its own region a:1.d using its own speech,
woulc enter t'ie imaginations of hill countrymen"
(p. 135}. Fo:- that nourishn:ent, I think, we wU b1:
well se::ved by t~rning to the poets of place, Irish
or not, American aud Australian ahoriglnes
included, and find some ,'llly of hearing them that
both rcpr1:sents them accura:ely in translation
rnd resom1t,·s with our drepe,t beir.g.
!II HEAV, LIFTIN<~: Pons AT \VoRK
I think ·,vhi!e people ,1,e so afraid the
world they crP.>IPri t!1Jt tiif,Y don't w,inl
w st!€, feel. sr;;ell, or hear it
-lohn
To meet the goals consc:ence in a poetics of
pl.!ce, to move people Lo action ;n environmental
re:onn, we neec to get beyond considcraliuns
of strictly conventional representations and :nto
something richer, more rolnst, at1d more tuned to
tl:e wider domains of body-centered experience
as an avenue to (among other things) the sublime,
m epiphanies of place, 2.: home and elsewhere,
And if we succeed to some degree in ou~ rcdama-
tons aml rehear:,als of such experiences through
these means, we hu~e to ask :m: only about the
kinds of informal ion mustered in the process but,
unce again, also about who should tell the story
and on what ter:ns Levcnsor:, 2004; Weinstein,
1990; While, 2004).11 camml be :he usual social
sciellce sources. They pre!cr language that has the
life of uncommon rr:etaphor& and pe:-sonal par-
ticipation sc; aeezrd out of it. Theirs is a language
of mortification, 6at is, of dead metaphors and
dried-·Jp "'acts a2p:ied through distanced, or what
a:-e supposed to be clinica'., observations (cf.
Graves, ; ll48, pp. 22J-224). Poc,s take a di1Ierenl
tack. We all ,U:' to some degree defined hy when~
we are, where we have heer., and where we think
we are going. Our selves are insinuated ir. place
rnltt:.r.i.lly, historically, Ii ngui &tkall)~ and so forth
through the usual channels of socialization.
enculturation, a:1d individual lifo cxperiencrs.
Bui we are also i:1.sinmned in place sensually; as
sentient beings, ar:d poetry r:iarks sensual space
more consistently than dots any mhc~ form o!
representation (Brady, 2004). 71 Although poet~y
cannot (and will not try to) f:ee itself completely
from thr in,•vit,i'Jle screens and biases of alpha-
betk: !iteracy, it i:ses mctap'lo: as a tool for dis•
covering a:1d positi:lg relations amunl! 11:ings,
am:: a in:mersior: of self in the ~" ·-•;
of a much-traveled and cu lt·.1,all y markec. andc:1:
p.ace h;;s a hett, r chance of getting at a realistk
0
account r,f surh experiences prin:arily becaJse
uf its devotion to sensuous particulars, Poets are
potentially expert ntpresenters who offer compar-
ative cxperi1:nces in a wmn:only held dornain-
t:rnt of lhe body itself-and the ultimate aii:i
of poetic expression is :o touch the un:versr,I
through :he particular, to evoke and enter i:110
discourse about the sublime, w move the dis-
course to what de':'ines us all-what we share
as humans.'~
Thi,; argument n:ay 2pply to any fit1e'.y
wrought figura:ive language, whether verse or
prose, is, to poesis in general (Hally:1, 1990),
Joseph Co:1rad's pmvcrful prose may have the
sarr.e dfe:t as, or an even more exalted effect
than, find y crafted verse by inspiring its aud iem:c
with the kind of self-consciommcss of being that
can change lives Cush:ng. 1970; Hinsley,
1999}. As verse or prose, the content of poetic
reprcscntalio:1s exceeds the Ii ter..d; "All poetic
language is la11g,1agc strenuously composed
beyonc the requirements of information and
therefore striking, p<'rhaps most striking, when
most apparently 't:-anspare:1C' (Vendler, 191!5,
:1. 59), The "surplus" beyond the literal is infer-
ence and argumem by analogy and allegory,
a1:iong :nany other possible tmpic comblnalions
and prospects 1:c( While, 1978). In it, most c:-e-
ativc form, poetry, surplus mean ir:g is a protr-,t
agains: lhe cor:strains of the ordinary mies of
inquiry: "When a rhymr surprises and extends
t:le fixec relations bel ween words, that ii: itse:f
protests against neces.sity. Wben la:1guagc does
n:ure than enough, as i: does in all ach icved
poetry, it opts for the conditi<1m; of ovrd:e a:1.d
rebels at limit" (Eeaney, 1995, p. 158).1',,Jore
simple :n!mesis, poes;s is a process oi"being" a1:d

"doint in variable contexts, a dynamic and
rcHcxivc process of construction and selec:iun.1'
Becaus~ its r1;;.;eptior1 depends mar;,,edly on the
experiences, prcforcnccs, related biases of
the receiver (e.g., r!'ader, hrnrer), trying to legis
late the one correct inierprc:ation :s futi:c; no
aesthetic experience can be so gover:ied (Brady,
2003b, p, xvii), 74 Like myth, o:1e has to know how
to inkrpret these creations, To du that success•
folly, following Jackson ( I995 ), one has to know
something about how and under what drcun:·
stances they were produced.
What I am p~oposing :s mt:ch more than
a change in writing style. More than selective
ed::ing is required to gel from her,;: to :here in a
poetics uf pla,:e. We cannot rev' sil foundational
human experiences in the wildernesses of ou,
pasts sin: ply by writi:lg 1: p knowledge h1 the pre-
sent much as one might do in trying to
make a film it1 the etlu:og:--aphic p:·e,ent, that
i;, by erasing trn..:cs of modern occupation
through sele,·tive visi 01:s and contrived rcpl i-
cations. Poetry offers a difference in forms of
knowi:1g as well as representing," and as Howes
{I 99{)) ~ees it,
'lo a:::ount cf experimcntini; w:l:: one's writing style
:s going m ::iakc up for the ddkiency of foiling to
tx~•erimc:Jt w:tn one•~ pcrccpliom cr"scnsory ratio"
'lh undersla,:d a u1hun: is to "make sense" of
:t, ... !and that] i1wulw, m1,x than a "re;ection of
viquafo,m" ... or exchanging an car for an ey,-.
\faki ng sense involves, minimally, learning how to
/1e ;if twc ,ensoriu at once and reflecting Jpon how
the in:erplay of the senses in anotilcr cul:urls per,
,eptual ~ystem hmC; omvfiJ\t'S and div.-rgcs from
their interplay in Gn,!'s own !culture]. [p, 69)
V\lhat distinguisht'S :b;; best of this writng-
thoughtful prose, not poetry (ser, e.g., Ohm;ki•
Tierney, I 98 I; Seeger, 1981; Stoller & Olkes,
I 986, I 987 )-"is the extent to whkh expositions
on oder,, sounds, and tastes are treated as intrinsic
to the ethnographic message ratier than extrane·
ous, .• , 'fo analyze these expositions [exclusively I
as textual markers of having 'bee1: 11:ere' , , , would
be ce miss thdr point" ( Howe~, 199(1, p. 69; see also
Stoller, 1987, 2004):'' Moreover, the e:notional
Brady: Poetics for a Planet Ill 99'l
t:utl:s of such experiences are :>erhaps best
communicated emotionally (Sherry & Schouten,
2002, p. 219), a::d that i~ an open invitation ,o
poetic bodies everywhere (Joy & Sherry, 2003),
They all are eq1:ipped to make the case for how
they are at any g:ven time, with or without lines of
words that by some cs:imations in tl:e dar;.:
with eloquence.77
Poetry immerses itself and revels io these sen-
suil features (cf. Brady, 2003b, 2004; Ct1rpe:11er,
I 980; Cassen, 1993). In so doing, it favors :he
analytic perspect:ves embodied in p::tenomenol·
ogy and an anthropology of experience, A:l :hree
perspectives attempt to represent a "nahual" and
self-crn:,cious emerging in the world, a matter
that ·:l.::gins with experiences of space and p'.ace
.Jnd in some ways readies beyond langJage itself
as a form of knowing, 78 Each puts the observer
upfront in the equation of i:uerpreting and repre-
s~r:ting •-',"'"" starling with an Jprighl and
hor:zontal sent:ent being, present and accounting
for itself. B·Jt ead: has its intellectnal and methnd-
ological limitatio1:s as well. None offers perfect
vision. Aside frot:1 its ovm ulti :natc puzzks (apo-
rias; on time and being-in-place, other
considcratio:1s,a plu:nomcnologkal approach has
the problem of "tadt kr,uwledge'' as a fuziy but
strategic edge that Is difficult to know or a: :cast ll1
put into words ( Polanyi & Prosch, 197 5), It does
not deal with the unconsdo·Js b any accessible
way (Joy & Sherry, 2003, p, 279; Lakoff & Johns01:,
1999 J. The an:hropology of experience finds
words as sabscts, irnp~rfcct ,me Selective render-
ings of the forger rralm of what om be known
from being alive and awake as a sentient being,
and so must find some way in which to account
for these experiences. Poet, want to stretch the
limits language, to wring everything possib'.e
oul of words and :m:ta phork processes,
matcly to reach beyond the shortcomings uf
language in the landscape;; of literature, speech,
the sublime, and t:1c ineffable .ind then pa,, on
the whole bundle to .JI! who will lis:er.. They want
work, as Heaney (1995) remar~s about Dylan
Thor.rns's early poetry, "the back the
thrua: and the tmck uf t:J.e mind" (p, 141 ) answer
and mipptirt each n:her. Th,.: is bot:i the promise
 1000 111 EAN DBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39
and the genius of poetry, It might not always apply
or be accepted as intended, for any of several
reasons, 7• But the aim and the prospects of putting
a finger on ''that great unity whk:i is neither here
nor beyond" (p. 14! ), of creating interpretatior:s
that "still make a catch h the breath and establish a
positively bodilv hold upon the reader" when "the
wheel of total recognit 1on has been :urned" (p, 70),
of engaging «the mechanical gears of a metre" that
al~o takes hold "on the sprockets uf our creature
l:nei.s~ (p, 70 ), and in so many other ways of"rerov-
ering a past»or"p:-efiguringa future"(pp. 8-9),are
always :here. They are funded ':,y imagination, by a
:ieed to articulate wifa the physical and social e:ivi•
runments tbat st:rround us, and by an opportunity
to communicate abo:.it what :natters to us as we see
it in :he experie1:ces of life as lived.tlU
From that robust ground, tracking the sensual
and imaginative qi,;alities of experience throJgh
the emotionally open and rich language forms
of poetry may create desire (one hopes) in the
listene:: or reader to experience the same things il:
person, that is, in body. Getting to wme ~:Jthe:itic
emulation or understanding being h anc:ent
landscapes in that context is in part a job for
ethnographkally :nforr.ied :ranslators and in
part a job for the poets of all cu::ures; this is not
an e:hnkally proprietary thing (Hy:nes, 1987).
We cannot get there farough any procedure that
starts by attetr:;)[ing to throw O\lt the single rr:ost
important eler:1er.ts-the saturations of individ-
ual lives as lived, the biases of being personal,
interpreti11e, alive, and awake o:i a planet :hat ::an,
in the imaginaries uf some, al,o he inhabited by
ghosts of the past and fantasies of tl:e future (cf.
Heidegger, 1977, p. 333). That is the stuff of ordi-
nary reality, and it is in terms of such things that
we act first as cultured beings. By virtue its
secondary extractions, its fucus on stasis (linear
"snapshots" of events) rather than kines is (the
simultaneity of immersion or '\mgoing film" l and
ot:ier dista:idng techniques, hard ,;cience cannot
ever capture these realities.'[ 3ut neither is just
wri:ing poetry enough. Internalizing poesis as
experience by immersing in its subjects is wha:
matters most for depth of understanding, a:id
that must be followtd by an attempt to ma:<e it
as card\:lly coached and exact a sta:ement
(including fantasy) ofiived experience as we can.'2
If the "great function of poetry is to give us back
the slmations of our dreams" (Bachelard, 1964,
p. l 5), tl::e great demand oi ethnographic poetics
is. that we re:1der those experier:ces as clearly and
accurately as possible through our sense of bei :ig-
h:-pl~ce and the guidance of histories-ou, own
and those of others-that appear to contextualize
the material best (Hartr:ett & Engels, chap, 41,
tbs volume; on tr.e same problem i:i science,
cf. Hallyn, 1990), Such analyses can teach us
things that are not available in any other way
(Brady; 2003b, 2004).' 3 Among many uther p<'ls,i-
bilities. they can show us mystery and beauty and
the need for :iei ng in them as we pass ti: rough the
landscapes of our lives, ar:d that in itself may
motivate us to care about repairs where we see
breaches in our rights and opportunities to oon-
linuc." Poetry, in one very important sense of the
term, literally puts it all in place,
lll REPRISE: ROOTS AND F1:T1JRES
J1cn;J The word was born I in the
blood, I it grew i,'1 the dark body, pulsing,
I and rook rfight wlth the lips and mouth.
-Pablo Neruda, ''The \.\lord""'
['\Jext:J Long enough !11 the di:Sert ,, man
like other anima Is can li:am !o smell
watur. Can le;,rn, at !eiflst, the smell of
things asmciated with watN-the ur1/que
and heartening odot of ,fa, cononwood
!iJl example, which in the rnnvo:;
hlnd5 is the tree life.
-Ecward Abbey, Solitafn,00
We are tmim,':i,e, inventive, adaptable, a:1d
corporeal beings capable of making new and
renewed associations among things and thoughts.
Wizh that in mine, and in the interest of breaking
free as much as possible frorr, the forces and
for:r1s of modern llfi: that have ravaged the earth
and its ,indent creatures, if we have pumped up
the appetite for aa kind of experience deep

enoug:i lo change (JU~ sets.-es. our form of Ete»
(J. Turn er 1996, p. I04), m~,: if we a:so realize in
t :he process that "our em'.ogical cris's is not, at the
roots, caused by indi.:.,trial ization, cap: :alism, and
teciu:ology, but by a particular fo:'m of the human
;elf' (p. 104), then self-rencv,al and refunn are
applied agenda at nami. We :mve asked !:ow to
do that and found it to be problematic, vVliat is the
instrument' Hmv co we reir.,agine, reda'm, and
resurrec: some scm b'.ance of part kipatio•1 in the
cha:ig:r,g environmen,al cin:umsta;1ces the
past and app: y it lo the present? Creating SU/!•
taining a ;,ass:nr. i'or pla~e requires both pri:nary
and vicarious experience ai,d langm:ige suitable
for co:weY:ng the results rra li~tically, that is, as
they are conceptualized and felt and can be
explored creatively by lhe participants through
i:nr.;ersions ill subjed and place. Clinical abstrac·
thins lend to de.feat that project, or ut least bey
work in the wrong directions. BJ: none of it
comes to mind ,ind body i.:n fetterrd, beyond rul •
tun,, pe:::mnal bias, or predilections for certain
k: :ids of interpretations against others.
The critics say that one path to a fair dea dug
in this, of doing rnrrelhing that counts in the
Asse:n bly of A[ Behgs, is n,'w myth.~, new nppli
cations of r.ld 1:1yths, and thereby a renewed
appreeiation of continuities ll'i:h the poetries and
sacred spaces of yesterday. We neec to reengage
the srndy of myth ,.nd legend as embodied in
Iar:dscapes and :nodem tellings (see espedu: ,y
Abram, 1996; Basso, ·. 996a, 1996h; Feld & n.1,,sci,
1996; (rapanza m1, 2004). 'lo reopen om eyes to
the cross-c1:.tural and ecological collis:ons of
mod~rn lifo, to "reveal !he richnes,, antiquity, anl!
comple,fty of our lamlscape tra.:.ition" as a way uf
showing lhe high cost of ,~,ling r:othing (S;;har:ia,
I 995, p. 14 ), wt': need to move from our own con•
reptions a "natural" reading of .:ultural values
and landscapes-our own ':ilind ethnocen-
trisms-to somethir:g larger and more compara-
tive, enligl:teniqi, and pragmatic through careful
research and ca,efully reasoned imagim1tic11,
faKh of thcsf" efforts is a rnns:rucl: ve and tra:1s·
ferablc scnrcc of identity. fa1ch can tell us impur -
taut thing.~ about how we are and where we have
been and s:an thereby :nark a::t important sc r:se of
Brady: Poet ks for a Planet 111 : Oil I
whe~e we are going from here as humans. But
e:,ch also has its lacunae, its shortcomings, and
its impossibilities, and given :hat the action of
re•tisiting and reimagining circumstances creates
orig'nal :naterial, and tr.us another sm:rce of dis
tortion in the effort to recon:extualize the past
th,ough the ?resent, the bottom line bis to be not
simply a study of texts and artifacts b JI rather a
critical exercise in the la;ger and n:ore indusive
realm of an ar. :hropology of experience. Tb
.-nfranchise that, we :ired to rehi ,n consciously
to the sensuous (Abram, 1996), to the body as
instrument of all we can do a:1d know, and m
history and practice with all we can learn about
embodi:nent as sentient being, i1: the world.
Developing an unmmantkized but keenly felt
sense of being-in-place-of r:1e constructive
pow.:rs of getting there versus being there along
with the knowledge that the basic instrument ln
the process is our er:10:ionally loaded and cult1,;r•
ally coded physical selves-is :undamental to the
etfort. ,, The irmer and outer land5capes of our
bodies are the locations wi':crc these things take
What 'lappens to peot;,le :mder these cir•
.;umstanc:s is sensuous-intellectual experience.
a point nf ne~otialion m the landscape5 of life
(sor:1e of which shows 'JP in worldviews, rituals,
etc.), a1:d defines our cxIBtrnce, especially when
thing, go wro:,g as tl:cy have for us toda}' in the
"slow-motion explosions" (Snyder, 1990, pp. 4-Si
o: ex pamli:1g urban frontiers.
At the heart of these co11cerns is a pri:n.ary
sense of home and the structures of oi:.r very sur•
vival. Bass (2000) dec:ares v.'ith bsight that "the
more fragmented the world becomes, the more
critical it i, 6.at we trv and hold the weave of it
together, and the rr.ore' dearly we will notice that
which is still full and w'iole'' (p. 73; see also
Deloria, 1993; Snyder, l 978). Acded to the
inevitable conflic: ofl:u:nan interests and the nat•
ural world, that may be suffi c'ent reaso:i to renew
our inqt:iries amor.g aborigi :1al cultures "con•
ceming the :iature of :ime and space anc other
{invented) dichotomies; the relationship between
hope ,md the exercise of will; the role of dn::a1:-ts
and myths ir. hu:na1: life; and the therapeutic
aspects of long•ter:n intimacy with a landscape"
 1002 11 HAJ\)IWOK or QUALlTATIVF: REStARLll-CHAPTE:l 39
(Lopez, IYR6, pp. 368-369). We need ,u reclaim a
sense of sacred space, both as pe:sonal enlighten-
ment and in a r.1ore applied. sense as an avenue lo
deeper i: ndersta1:dngs of plau;! that will rnpporl
comr:1 itmeuls to social and environmrntal secu-
rity for future generations. To earn constructive
influence in thr A,;scmbly of A'.l llcings, we need
to immerse ourselves ir. it anc he info:med by it.
We :1eed to know and reevaluate the trar:sfor:na-
tions uf place ,rnd embecd~d in the 1and-
d history--privatc and publk, national
and colonial-including the destn.:ction of
meaning in the lar:d hy translating encnunters
wit:1 other creatures ar.d cultures into the signs. uf
em pi re. VVe need to know the secrets sleeping bot:i
in the hmd ,.ud in o,,rselves, the experiences
bdng-in-placc tr.al once made, the wilderness
sacred to ail whc would pass Ihat way or dwel:
there :n ,har,:d dom:nio:1. We r:eed to rediscover
the s.::crcd i:1 the wild and t'1e wilder;:ess :n ,rJr-
rcalisl ically, hut with ,ill the passion of a
commitrner.t tu survival in ar: untamed land. We
need to rekindle om :-rlationship with the wilder·
ness by pu:ting it in 1he k:nd of caring custudy
that we ,issig:i to our own ancestries and the off•
spring who gather al the hearth. We need to be a
d,Uzation tha: recmn:izcs ,. lessons learned from
the wild as Iraining for an "etiquette of freedom:'
as Snyricr ( 1990, p. 24) says, lhat"can live ful:y and
creatively together with wildness" (p. 6), and the
Ne\\' World is where we must start grnwiug it.
Such con:mitmcnts can launch the opportunity
for devdoping new sacred space, for resurrecting
clc mytbs, and :iir creating new my1:1s on which
:o hang our su rvlval in the long run, but only if we
find some powerful way of commun:cating th;;:
experience~.
Meaningful life presumes a vital existence :n
the first place, and as we know and I have said :n
triplicate hum<1ns tha: is accomplished
not only by knowi 11g rnd doir:g but ~.y also hy
sharing the knowledge. Telling ~hr story of piacc
ffie'cins teaching it as wt>ll, and Gruenewald (21l03)
has sorr:e spedfic thoughts 0:1 that matter
as applied to formal educatio,1, He argues that
a:,hough culture and place are deeply intertwi:ied,
our educ,11:or.al system obscures that rdat:onship
·,y distracting ou:, attention fron:, ,rnd our
response, to, i he actual contexts o: trJ r existences
in place (p. 621 ). We can join our chil<lren in tr.e
equ at Jon of solving some of lhese problems
by giving them firsthand exper;ences in different
pi aces-some wild, some nut su wild, but all dif
forent:,ued by rnmpari sons o:' the overbuilt urban
area,: and the never built few r<:maining wild
areas of the planet. They must be able to dis:in•
guish between human social environrr.ents and
natural environments and, i:i the process, to re,;;•
ognizc t'lat we a::e b:ological l1eings embedded in
and cm bodied by both. filtered through rhe .~ocial
co:,stmclions of cor:1 mun it y talk and rr:arked
{one hopes) with some exalted feelings, s;;ch
experiences may lead t he:11 to affin 'tics with the
plane: otherwise long diminisied by a frustrating
and destructiw seard1 for fulfillment in a s.:hrmi:
uf endless wunls with limited mea:1s. Perhap.~ i:
wi;J iead to a taning of the wild in 11'.eir :ninds hy
remgn:i:ing and accepting it for what it is-v>'ild,
our pa.st. our future, the place that more than any
other shows us what we are and are nut, where we
have been and mi;,sl bc-periaps by recognizing
tha: lh<! w:lderness is .:itimate:y our home, the
basel:nr of tl,e place we call our planet. Be:ter that
than hui:d ing it into oblivion- Be:ter that tha:;
squeezing its margins into creature habilat~
smaller than Japanese hotel roor:1s, ,kim:ing it lor
its pelts, or curra:ling it for rodeos, drt:uses, and
zoos of all ki:i.ds. Perhaps this montag,:: of old
t:11gedies and new hopes will lead to the con-
sc:oi:sness and rit:.ials needed to create the myths
of the fature, indud:ng a philusophy of pl~ce le,s
destructive o~ ,:eo:; vst e.:11 self, and the long n;n of
lmmanit1, Hislory has shown us that soa'.<lng the
land with cultural value~ :neans investing it with
the power lo change it and ffJrnelves!i Hmvcver
idca:istic and improbabk !hat :sin a world beset
,rnd distracted by the ha ~s:1 rea.ities of terrorism
and murder endorsed by :nst:-uctions from imag-
inary gods, thal is power that w,:. can reclaim
and use for soc:al and ecological justk:e b the
A~sembly of All Reir:g.s, h.unans and nonl:uma1:s
aE~e."';
The concept of bcing-in-pla~e embraces all of
this, and a poetic underpinn;ng helps to reveal the

pr<>ce1,s of putting that concep: to work in various
forms. Poet;v can educate move us into awe,
•
mystery, the sublime, and related realizations by
"stirring things up in us.'' It thriveS on empathy
and emulation and draws us into the sensuous
intellectual anchor for all knowing-that which
comes from lived experience, where words are a
subset of what i& known and poetk expression is
an attempt to render such experiences in texts
and performances in a manner t:iat often enlists
the art of the possible more directly than :1 dues
the focts of the ac:t"JaL While invested in radi-
cally different traditions of knowing, induding
an essential association with the n: "Jl!ilayered
metaphoric, of my:h (see, e.g., Barthes, I
DJndes, l 984; Graves, 1948; Meletinsky, 1998,
p. Schar:, a, l 995; Snyder, 1978; Thompson,
l ':189), poetry can also yield accurate and detailed
infor • a:ion on being and doing and thereby can
supplement even more directly the conventional
methods am: k:mwledge products of archaeology
and history. But a poetic stance (poetry and
more) always starts with the tr·Jth of raw experi-
ence, with life as lived and see:::i from the inskie,
from the ro:e of the pa~ticipant, nol from some
disembodied tortured analytic imposed from the
outside on tht' premise that our sen:ient selves get
in the way of discovery. By being inherently com-
parative, a poetic perspective also adc:esses
anthropology's first principle. It moves us :o d:-aw
compari~ons fmm our own immersions in life in
relation IO those of others, as separated from
them perhaps by :he cdmral diffore:1ces r,f age,
gender. generatior., personal characteristics, and
favored gods-by the gaps that !:ave e.lways
separated "own" from "othe:-'' in the landscapes of
cultures whose 'lome territories touch but do not
match. It begs comparisons between being now
and being ther,, bet\veen being one and being
other, between being here anc beir.g :here, and it
thereby sin:ates itself in our experience as funda-
mental :o knowing other people, their histories,
and the i:nv ironr.1ental complications of being-
in-place today.'" ll gives us knowable contexts for
constructing more or less satisfying meanings
about the nature of ,he world ,me. our place in it.
[n that n,spect. it enters the concerns of a:t ar:d
Brady: P,)eli.::S fer a Plan;;r • l UU,l
science with the opportunity to inform in both.
T:1e problem ir. each domain is to learn how to
listen. especially when the poesis is not drawr:
from our own culturnl wells.
The particulars of prelitc:-ate experiences :n
wild :md sacred space are rr.orc or less lost to us as
n:odern peoples through the dis?laceme:ns and
reorientations of la1:guage ai1d the concomitant
separn:ion of knowledge and thought that has
come with writing, the cul:ural erasures ar.C
amalgamations of coioniaHsm, and the appetites
of mindless Jrbao'zatlon. Bur the important
lessons of being a long-run creatcre in and
place are not. They are just too often o':>scured by
the pace and rapacious confusions of moder:1
lite. A conscientious effort to c.evelop a ;metic:s of
place, with careful attention paid to the sensuous
and intellectual components of our existence that
are lacec into our own and other cultural tradi·
lio:1s, and :o the possibilities ofbo:h reimmersing
and reinventing ourselves in the process, might
bring us as dose as we ever can be to the p~aks of
ct:r human ar.cestry. Coupled with a critical use
of the archaeologies, histories, rnd museologies
of the day, :ha: may give us ou, best glimpse of
being-in-place in ander,t cirdes of ,-n·,Ps. our
best c'.air:::i on the space$ of ancestral voices, lo:1g-
:ngs and desires, catast:uphes and dilemmas, jt1ys
anc defrats, the dreams of old horizons, and the
life forms that co:1textualized all of it prio~ to the
great steerage of a:?habetic literacy, fae indelible
foutprints of Columbus on the New \Vorld, and
the lam:ching of a loop of Western industrialism
into outer space :ha: '.·ms left no part of t:ie planet
untouchec. by its influence, Careful attention paid
to, and a willingness to a:t in, that context may
open :he agenda of self-renewal aod reform with
greater wisdom and less complacency about the
circu:nstances of our lives as lived. tn:erloper
in a:i anthropology of experience, a poe:ics uf
place wants to insir:uale itself iri this milieu by
starting with what makes JS the same, the cnrr:-
monalities of sentient beings as seen through the
diversities of our collective meaningful
tences. Being action oriemed, it strives to know
such th: ngs in every way possible and lo defend
them where they prnmote greater harmony in the
~Oll4 l!l HA:-IIJllOOK 0!' QUALITA'J'IVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER :19
As~e:1ibly uf AL Beings. In more ways :hat1 one,
thal is esscr:tial ethnograp'ly."'
JIii 1111 l!I
11!1 CODA
I know that it is unusual Wp:,t theory the sanu:
bo., ;.iith pu»ion and commitmenl in the study of
anytldng (Noam Chomsky to the contrary), and l
know Ihat I have romped through a wh!ile industry
af specialized interests in as mur.y disciplines on
the w,iy to this point. &., apithy revie·,,, of the struc-
ture of the argument-the landscape of this ;rxl, if
you will-might be us,1ul in conclusion. Hen: is
what I think I have done. In the interest of develop-
ing a conscientious and c'lrviromnentally crmcemed
poetics of place:, including cu/Ii vatmg sources of
ir,formalion on experiences at "harm" and in mod-
ern and ancient landscapes that might best be
described as "wild"and "sacr,id'' rwhile discu,mtine;
' Q
jar the purposes of thi, chapter, detailed discussions
o( the archaeologies and /u~,tories housed in muse·
ums thilt aro themselves specialized fntc r;>retatimB
of related material,). ! have emphasized the neetJ
(.:l} "being !f;ere" (cm site, grounded in the sen·
suous-intcllectuai contit:uun1 of the body itsrdfi
imagination, ,m,1 home experience, a data wurce
thar is Jimdamental to interpreting experience and
transfers to ancie/11 contexts mostly by educated
,m,.J,igy); {b) acwu11tit,g for 'g;;tting !here" in per·
srmal and epistemological terms; (c) studying
"rribaY poetries and myths as sources of body·
grounded in(ilrmation 'albeit complicated) on
worldi·iews and associated behav ion that vermdes
both historv , andprehistorv ' ,md is em/Jcdd~d oral
performan,·es (a source ofhard duta am/, gi'll'n the
paucity of expert native p,,rforn1ers, scarce ovpor-
timity) and wriffen texts (a source (f hard data
imd ple11tiful opp1Jrtunity pro ,idcd by secondary
ubservcTs), with the caution that we need to learn
FurN Ill interpret poetrie, and mythical thought
those contexts, especu,lly in the light of epistemic
problems insumated in Western perceptirms since
tlw development of writing a11d mass productfon
priming and in the light of cerrnin inadequacies of
language itself to convey experience.
As models uf and for imerpreting rl,ese
materials,/ ha~e compared (a) scim1ific approache,
(especia/Iy fogical po;itivimi with iu distanring
tethniqucs) and (b) artimli frameworks (wilh their
essential immersion tedmiques, ind111iing 1wm'er
bal representations ,md f>oetics) and collected thnn
imdar the heading of "artful £cience." I ha,e cu/ti.
va1ed the good Ji/ 1( ph,·1mm,•11o!ogy as /J philo•
sophfcal undcrpitmir;g for an anthropology of
experience and for poetics as a way ofknowing and
ro.mm1111icating experiencrts of being-in pface. l
have also given poetry per se special t'uchet under
this uml,re/1.i, both bccaus,! of and des.Vite ,wn·
po~iticn beyond rhe requirements of basic injorma·
tio11 anti bemme it is body grounded and can be u
powerful source of mnununica/ing at both ti sensu-
ous and an intellectual level, U,>1/fke the prerequi-
sites for _,-;,,,,,1:r;,. discrwery and rep11:S01tatim1,
phenomenology, /Joetirs, a11d an ,:rmhropology of
experience put the observer ut>front in the interpre-
tive equation as an active participant. Eur:h of these
.;ource.s has ils lacunae ,md other shortwmings rel-
.itive to the <>!her sources, Bui lhe wmpo.,ite aru:r,·
ticm paid 10 them in (lCCmmrs of b,•ing·in-pliue and
to cu!lure as something constructed out of the int/IT•
pl.ry of !he 5e.mes, filtered rlm,ugh imagination and
the historical ,h,ipings that indi,1iduals and groups
getjh1m socializutirm and enculturalfon in particu-
lar tnuiition, ,md perpetuate by swrytrlli11g, can
give the overut! ejjort an wJthemicity mmplemen•
tary to, but otherwise unavailable through, more
conventional rhinking philosophy, ,mthropology,
history, geography, ,md the socfo! science, in gm-
The resulr has important appJicatirms in
acti-,e research, fimm1l education, and concerns _ti1r
the quality of We on the planet.
11!1 NorP.s
I , Gee~l7. ( l 9%) write& lhat the anthrnpc):ogy
plan: ha~ a ",ort of r,relud ial q~ality, as if tl marled the
begin11ing rf sor::ething trat will readi far :ieyond the
matters under :::imediJte co::sid,'ration" and that il
"can be brought lo bear on t::c g:-ar,d complc:dtie~ that
plague the world" (p. fl :e rnrrcnt argument
move; hi that (lirectio11,

2, I do ::ot wi:,h t: s1ight the academic disciplines
of archaeology and history. 100, for not reviewing
the successes and failure, of m,1seology-tl:al com·
plex blend of represe:itational prnhlerns in arthaec,l-
1::story, and perfo:mmKC studies. ,'vlusrnms are an
important area of contest on problemo of ethnogra;ihic
represen:a!ion, authentiri1 y, and :he Iike (see cspodally
Karp & Levine, 1991 ). I cannot burden the wrrent
argument with ,ll of these ru;idcs. But l must r,~guc in
the ,ame bre:, th that wh,.t is presented here is rdc,ant
10 tl:e practilionc:s of those fidds, including thi! poli-
tics of their rc'i:lama::cns and present,1tim1s, if one
accepts ,:eccssi:;- of putting the observer in :he
equal ;un lif interpretation (e,g., compa:-e the :hemes
ot' this work with ,A llisc,n, llockcr, & Daw:,;m1, : 997;
Clifforc & Marcus, 1986; Clif:on, 1990; Dening, 20M:
Gewertz & Errington, 1991; Gn:enblatl, 1991;
Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983; lloddcr, l982, 19117, 198!!;
lYhrcus, 1998; Metcalf, 2002; l'ludct::iik, 1999; l'rntl,
I9•12; ';¼;If, I9~2; see aim Ear·r:cl! & Er:gds,
this volume), Ex:hing the observer is, for me, an unm::,
n:ptable fiction; (,md, of ;;;our:;e, that begs the whole
o:' postmodernisn: a11d \'arious levels of intel-
lectual shootouts and misfi:es (!l,ady, I998: Denzin
& Lincoln, 2000, 2001; Lincol 11 & lk:r.zin, 2003b),
Mon·ovcr, I have pott:; at:(! ,heir fictio,,$ in :he of
all of ii 2003l!), G've:, cc,nvenfams
aimc'<l ilt 1uotecting science from art and vice versa.
that is guaranteed tc be comrover,fol.
3. Roughly speaking, "Metaphor, calling one thini;
:h,• natr:e of another, :s IHJt a strange poetic eve;it,
lt is at !he heart uf language, t::.e direction of the
metaphors is important The> body's intb,n,e Isensa·
t:on and perception I spraad, outwards, to fcat:..res
tile e1wironment, and inwards lo the mind" :Aitchison,
2000, p. d, Bradr, l\l9Li,pp,69-71; Snyder, 1~90,
p, l!i 'i, On body •grnundul t~clap:·.ms and the use of
t'iem in sci.c:1,:e and every(fay life, see Brady (200Jb,
200,1), l:lrown (2003), Danesi ?• 1I' h:rmmdcr,
(2003), Gi:,b~ (1994), Hallyn (1990), K(lvecscs (2002),
Lakoff and ;ohnson (1999'), Laug:1,:11, McMmms, and
c'Aquili, (1992), Midgley (2001), Mo::tgomery ( 19961,
ond M, Turne, (l 996).
4, klr more on th.: concept of artful 5dtncc, see
lb.dy (1991a, ' b, lOOD, ll!O.ia, 2003h, 20ll4) and
B:ady and Knnlll~ (2000).
5. What I mc,m by ?Cetics fo;:ows Hallyn (I 990)
ir. his study of abd:.:cl km in ,c:em:e. He coes "nut use
the term pueti..:s in the Aristotdian sense ()fa sy,trrr: of
norrn.,tive n:lcs, but ri.ther in the sense that m:c
spc,1k, abcut the poetics (lf Jt1dnc or Ba::celair·c,
Brady: l'oc1ics for a Planet 111 HlOS
n~n:dr to de.,ig:mte ,I ,ollc,1 ion of ,:hl,ice£ made al
difforcnl levels (st vie, w:Jl;)O,it:cn, thei::atics , , ,) by
an author or a group, O:t Lhc one hand. these d1oicc;;
lead to operations 6at inform th,· coneele work. On
the other, they are lnaded with that more or
both determine arc determined by tbc arlistic
endeavor, for whi:h the work is the n:sult and sigr:,
Clt':natcly, a study cf poe:ics, in the sense underslo,,d
here, comes down to what Um'1er10 Eco coll, 'the pbn
tor shapir.g and stru:turing the wor~; ii is the proi;rar:::
for the exc,ution of a work, in:orrned by :,res·~pposi•
lions and exigencies w:inse traces one ca:: l:;c:atc, on
the one hand, inexplicit declarations, and r>n the other,
in the wnrk itself, to the extent th.t its ccmpleted fo,m,
with respect to other work,, gives wi111e8s to the iuten •
t,ons thal pn:sicied over its produ~tion. A poeti:s n:ust
return :o a way beaming works and the dedara-
!':ons tbat accornpa::y the::i, of rnnceiving their po:;s:,
bility, and of working fonheir reality" (pµ. 14-.5 J.
6, Pai (l9!H, p, Cumpare s,:1ama (1995,
pp,
7, Yi-ht (3'19) say,,"Thc organization ()fhmrnrn
spa,e is ,rniqm+y dependent cm :;ig:ll, Other serm,~
eipand and enrid: the visual ~pace" (p, 16). Sound
"en larges spa l i aI awareness lo in dude areas
behind the head that cannot be and it "dr,,ma•
tizes spatial ,·~pc,ienc~. Soundlc;~ sp,1cc feels calm
and lifeless despite lhe visible flow ot acl ivity in it, a;, in
1,r,ll:;h IingJ event, through binoculari, or on the te:evi,
sion screen w:th :1:e sound tur1:ed off" (p, 16), In hi8
view, "Taste, smell, and touch are capable of exquis:te
rc'inement They discrir::',:1ate among Lhe wealth ol'
seosations .ind articulate ...~us:atory,' olfoclor,,' and tex-
tud worli.'s," whe~eas "odors ·end chara-:!er to objects
and places, ~1aki11g !hem distinc;ive, ,•asier to ide~tify
and rcmemher"(p. 10).Ar,d he ''Can ,coses other
than sight and touch p;ovide a ,patially organized
world? 11 is :ios,,ihle lo argue that taste, odor, and even
hearing can net in themselves give us a s,·:tsc of space1"
(p. IO). 17ortunately."The qucstior: is :argely academic,
for rn~sl people lnnc!iuu with 6, five senses, and
these constantly reinforce each other to provide the
intri.:atdy o~cered and ,·motior.a llr cha~gc,,\ world in
wl:'ch we live" (p. to). See a.so Ackerman (1990) ar,d
the "st:nsorlurr: of the blind" L'e"ribec by Kuusistc
( 1998), The concept nf place is abo a pmdm:: or the
various cullll ral experiences, :!:mies, and beliefs abff.. l
thedrcJmstii::ces and transform11tions oflivei, a; lived
thmugh th!! $fnses. Bnt th,11 cces not mean that al'.
cul~·~:,e5 pu: the ~ame himm;hical valua::ons un scn-
s,,ry ec1:pc:'icnce or that they re:,resent the senses in
 1006 111 HANDBO()K OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39
storytelling about as lived in the same ways (Brady,
2003b, pp. 93-101; Carpenter,; 980; Toy & Sherry,20lJJ;
Mitchell, 1983; Nelson, 1980, 198,).
8. The logic :, thf ordinary logic of under-
standing for !:umam and their conjectural men-
talities. I: is bot:i structural and her1mmeutic in
prnce,s (Brndy, 1'l9J), b"J, I have conceptualized it
as a progrcs~ive he:rneneutk, as more of a spi ra 1 than
tb: dassic "hermeneutic cin;k;' to amm:rnoda:e
accretions anc shifts of knowledge that occur t:mJ•;gh
time (sec also Brady, 1991:i),
'I, There is a s.:ho:arly da.r:ger in that, of course,
esc•ec:ally when one seeks the truth of "what actually
happened" exclusive of the experiences of being :here
in body and spirit ( Dening, 2004), or vice versa, by
tr::nking that one can rely on'.y en the intuitions of
body and :acir knowlecge ro i1pprehend the pa rtkulars
of cultural perforrnance, But we need to accept the fact
t'lat mul:iple reality frameworks can be appliec tc all
experience and then do our best to defend the one we
prefu tn all others wl!hout deprecating or disr.1issing
out of hand rom;:,eting argmmmts and systems of
signification from, say, tribal world, On allowing
4
Suffident cc,gnitive 'spa=t' fo, cDnflicting ontologies
10 rnexfar;' see La;•ton (L997, p. 128).
rn. Brady (in press) and Dening (1974, 1980,
:988, 1995, 1996, t998a, 1998b,2004),
IL The semiotics of talk a• d thought, artifact and
architect, testament and text, teacher, traine,, seer,
shaman, priest, and dn-a1::er-the meaningful land•
scapes ot "every:mm" particularized in i::dividual
gmuv,-are precisely ,he kind of informat:<.m that
ls to dis.ipatt· wd: the death or disappeara:ice
of whole culture~ or populations, But alluding at
several lel'fls to the kinds of prcblerr:s ldenlifled in a
common frame by 18th-century l;alian philosopher
Giarr:battista Vico in his New Science (Tagliacozw &
Verene, 1976) and to works by vafious phenomenol~
gists (parfa:ularly Meriea·~·Ponty, 1962;, and following
an argument made explicit by Howes (1990), we can
that (a} al/ of this-culture itself-is "constructed
out of the ln1erplay of all the senses" (?· 68, see also
Laughlin & D'A,pil', i 974; Laughlin et al., 1992;
Stoller, 1987, 1989; Stoller & Olkes, I986, : 987}, (b) it is
embedded in a conjectural mentality that is cmr:pelled
to make sense of chang:ng rnvironmcntal circurn-
i;tances (Laughlin & 3rady 197&), and (c) it's filtered
:h roJgb imaginatior: and the hi storied shapings that
'ndividual, and groups get 'rorr: socializatiun and e:i;;ul-
t,,rnlion in particular :raditions, including language
and its :>Ody-grounded metaphors. The resultl ng
;,;nowledge is perpetuate<: largely s1orics-oral,
wntten, performed in olher ways-in units as ~mall
as pa,ables, giving new meanings to perceptions of
changing tnviro::mmtal circumstances (M, Iurner,
1996), Accounts of being-in-p:ace ultima:dy mu$!
reengage this :nix of sensuous-intelle.:tual properties
and procesSeS-tl:e hroac landscape of human expe-
rience that fo:rns a hrn:ly·centered srstem-to have
any leg ii :mate daim m authenticity
Engaging in parallel universes commrm
projects as sen:i,mt be::igs rr:akes it possible for us :o
understand each other (Merrell, 2000, pp, on
Vice's jimtasia, thinking through t:lt:' body, and :he ag:
of poetic wisd(Jm, see Verene, 1976; on Quine's p:ind•
pie of charity and rela:ed comrne:;ts, see Brady, 2000),
Thinking "6rough the body and :o sense ,he world as
an order uf bodies, with meaning not being separable
from b,idie~, is dlf:icult :o imtgine I Verene, 1976,
p, 3I; cf. Lowe, 1982), bu: a critical rereading r.:Vicn's
ar~;,::nenL~ abm.:t body-centeredness is r:onetheless
a re:n ender :hat we are all ani:nals-sensuous-
imellertual creatures-and that are so:ne uni·
versa] responses to things that we all share. The pcssi•
bilities for underste::ding the bcliefs experience-s
of others are grounded ::ioth in wmrmm sensory
appara:us that we occupy as biological beings and in
the comparable modes of t'iaught and acfa:m when
we respt1:1d to !he feelings and sensations of environ,
mental stimulatlon (Merrell, 2000, p, • The body is.
so to speak, in the mind, They are bnth wild" (Snyder,
1990, p, 16), The same poss:bilities must also oo ,cal•
in an interpretive relarion to or:ier communicatlvt
organisms (and tl:ing:; that are ooJeved 10 be ar.imated,
e.g., and trees), bat through the lnteracfae
pro,esses that lead :o the sodal construdion of
reality throug"i whaievc: culn1ra: sere-ens (Berge: &
Lm;krr:ann, 1966; see also Z(llbrod, 1983, pp. 227-228).
Compare Wilmsc:i ( 1999]: ''Separate Iives are congruen:
':1 experience, no matter how di,parate lhe:r c:dtural
environments. Once the word, are learned, native
speakers oi difforent langt.:ages begin :o n."C•Jgnize
each other-thirst thick under an ar'd sun, identi,:a.
errors in navigating unknown landsca:;es, paralle:
blunderings throc:gh ,exual awakening-in
images of their separate e,pedem:es, For i; is i::dividu-
als, :iot cultures, who meet and re-present their c0ntexlE
to each other" {p. xtl. See also Fle,d1er (15167, p. I!17),
13. Kerouac; I959, p, 106),
.4, .Because we are crea;u~es ln and of ollice--
embedded, embodied, and er::placed- i: is difficult to
ext,act a proper concept of place for c0musation a:1d
1
l
lnstructirr '(:,•er:,. l 996). But I n:ean to tlug the
process of heing and hecon::ng ~mpfoccd as a biolog: ·
ml and cult:.:· ;l system that i, "'"'"" to an inherent
creativity of :ien::eption and t·xprcssion and. above
to insi:ri11tinn.~ and trz.n,tercnccs b<:twt;Cn tr.e body
and its ,oc ;ccultu ra! milieu. Low and Lawrence-
Zuniga (20CJ), Merle,m-Ponty (]962), :-.tiler (19%),
and Spicgelbefj( (I 975). ·10 have practical v.iluc as a
prindple, that thcr,rght needs :o be played out
ob.;,::ned 111 the everrdnr world. On mimesis and its
complexities, see 1am;s1i; (1993). Fnr an ,·xquisite
ccarfauk:io:1 of theory pr,1.:.ticc in rnltural
'f'"'""• ,cc Stewart (]996). 0:: living persons and
practical pmi:,lcms, see Sm irr (1997, p.
15. c·s~edal :y 111.erleau ·Ponty (1962 J, Sp:egel:ierg
\ and adaplatiom, of Mer!emA'unl y's work in
,\l,ram (l,96) arc Gruenewald (21103), The upshot is
tm1: hur.:<1ns enter into a :1art'dp?.lory relation,hip
w:th olhPr phenomena through the multisensory per
cep!tJ(ln of dircc: experi,rnce. On phennmenology
sec Csordas (1994), Laughlin and llrady
{ l <Jill), and Laugnli:1 colleag·;es ( 1992 l.
16. T>:m, m.-aning is made, ·,ct founc. and mr.J.ing
sense of places is a rcci?t'Oflli and m,Hu ally construe:·
ing process, taking shape Jn,: acquiring 1rn,,rni11g
"when the inner r.:a'.m is projected onto the outer
scene'' :1kann, JS<i:, p, 71. fdd (1996) puts it this
'i\., place i~ ~em;ctl, senses are placed; a.~ places make
$en,e,senses :nake p:.i,c"(quo:,:d ir: Casey, 1996, p, 19),
17. l::frnngrap:.crs gencrall~ take ;.s to a"local :on;'
that is, to ,. plac.- where !1m1e1/img !1<1ppem. Uke
watchinJ; a mnv'e, we scltlom h,wc reason to focu~ on
the prnjectm 01· the serving ,1ppara111s. Phenomenolosy
brin~s the oh~erver's equipme::l lu the fore and makes
ii ra r: of the equation t11· meani ngfol constr~.ction and
partkipation. Compare I'hompson (1989): "So here I
sit, kicldng at the -~2rret: of a \1£1dnmsh and in in:agi
na:km, rolling the screen of b~,-:k and forth,
:ns:ru,ti;t.l by the natural ':h,tor y l,i life, l suspect f]at
w::at I .:m looking for are nm 'evenis· but thr~s::ckls oi
cmerge:1ce thil! are aloo prnject:nns of my own fra:ning
of JR,rccplions" (p, 135).
18. Followmi:: towe ( 1982), "By 'perception· I
:101 mean the neuro:ihysiology of pcn1:plion, or the
bc':,w:oral psy,h clogy of perce,1t:011, bm an immanent
dc;crip::on Jf pen:ep:itrn a, human exµui,mc,t,
Perception as the cruciai cn11neclion :ndu;ks lhc
s1:bjcc! as the perceiver, the act ;ierceiving, and the
crin1cn: of the perceived. The perceiving subjt:,l, from
,m cmbcdled location, appr:iach,:1; th<' world ru; a lived,
:wriwnrnl field. The ac: ,:f perceiving ;m:<e~ the
Brady: Poetics for a Planet 11 : 007
subject with th.: pcrcciR-d. And the content or the
ptffceived, which results foal act, affects the
subject's hear:::g in the world. Perception is faerefo::e
a re'lex've, integra: who'.c, ir.volving the pcr,tiver, the
act pcrceiv'::g, and the content of the perceived"
(p. 1), \foreover, according to J:lcld (1996), "?laces may
come into existen,e through t:ic expdcncc of bodily
sensation, but it is th~ough expres.,ion that bey rrnch
hc'ghtened trr.otional and arsthetk dimer:sions of
sensual inspiration" (p. 134), Among :he Kaluli, "the
poet:c, of place merge with the sen~uousne,s of place
as sou nds~ape and with the sensuah:y of the singing
voice"(}'. l 34),
19. We do not need Kant to tell us how fundamen
ta! anc lime are tc our lives.As Yi-Fu (1979) say,,
"'Sp,,ce and 'place' are familiar words dermtng com,
mon experiences.... Bask co::1ponents of the livc-c
wor'.d; we take thtm for grantee:. ¼'hen we think about
thcrr., however, they ::,ay assur:ie unex;,eeced rr.ea:i:::igs
and question, we had not thought to ask" (p. 3;,
Fo~ some conc;ele examples, see Ga]agher I 1993;.
20. Ndhardt (1959, p.: 73).
11. S,·c the various vm,ks by Claude tevi Str.:mss
regarding the fan:asy factor in all myth, l,1/vi-
Slrnm,,, I976), On creativity :magmatkrn in
general, s.·c c.q:,cciallr Miller ('.996). No ,ategories
phm, have an;· mc,ining wilhout i maginar:on. It has a
geograp::y of ii:; owu-1.mds,,wes of fear and n>r11fort
where puels virl ual wor:ds bridge the concrete and
the abstract, where the sign and its referent emerge in
consciousness as places so!I, roe~. sea, air, innumer-
able critters, and mind (Brady, 2003b). The expression
"leap ,if the imagination" is oflen he-,,,d ::1 discussions
of w~iti11g, but that may be less of a leap than "a saun ·
tering, a stepping '""""' into tht reality at hand
(Bass, 2000, p. 71). Sec also Ca~ghey (1984), and
Sherry (2003), and Wooley ( 1992 ). Crapanzano (2004 J
sav,, "Like James, :he ::terary critic lem S!arnbi:iski
stre,sf!i the detcrmini:111 role of the imaginalio:: in the
perception-the rnnstitution-oi reality, 'Insinuate,:
into percept ion itsell~ m'xed wi:h the operations
memo~r, opening up arcund us a horizon of the possi•
ble, escorting the project, hllpc, 1hr fen r, spccula•
tions t::e imaginatior. b much more than a faculty
for evoking images which ,fouble the world of our
direct perceptions; it :s a distancing ixiwer tha:1ks to
which we represent :o o:.:~selves dis:ant obje,:ts and
we dis ranee ourselves fmr:: present ~ealities. Hence, the
ambiguity tba; we discover eve;ywhcre; 1he imagina-
t ilm, ber:ause 't anticipates and previews, serves ac1ion,
draws us before the configuration of the real:zable
 :008 111 HAXDBOOK OF QlALl'l'ATIVE RF1iEARCH-CHAPTER 39
be:,,re it ;;an be rea:::wd.' .. , Not only does the
imasinative ,onsc:ousncss allow us to tran,ce::c:
(depas.serl the immediacy orthc present instant in n:der
to grasp a :'u:urr that is al Jlrst indistinc:, Starobinsk'
arg:.es, but it enables us to project O'~::'foblcs' in a
lion lhat does not have lo ::crkon with the 'evident
un iver::e.' II permits fidion, the game, a dream, mo'.1:
or l<"Ss volumary error, pure fascination. lt llg:1tet1~
ot.:~ exislence lmnspor1ing us into :h,· region of the
phantasm. In turn it focU!ates onr 'practical dor:,i na-
tion over !he re.ii' or ,nr breaking ties with (µ. I 74 ),
22. On art, scic:1ct·, at:d humanisrr:, see Bruner
(1986, 11;1. 4<J-3U). On extrnp11:ations from laconic
reprcscnlalions as simple a~ a dr.teline in a poem, see
Richardson (199%, p. 334i and llrady (200:lb, p, x:v),
We arc compelled to interpret such si1,rns wd cues
abom our environment because. in a generil sense.our
very existence a$ human creatures depend q nn iL Phi.:c
is lhc ancho, of fundamental human expe:ience. Bui
huw du we rt=:•L1g::::le it?" Do we .c1ow enough a '.10111 ii
to enjoy a fam:Jd :'"agin ing of passage the,e? If we
visit ,1 place at three sepa,a:e times, is it sr:ll the sm;ic
p:ace? Doe~ :l:e place remember US' ,ms1,vcrs arc
as rmt,h a function nf land,:,,::apc evol\'ing as tl:cy :ire
of finders finding wl:at they want or need to scc-
,1 cul!'~rnl meaning acd orienta:ior: probltm with
':'storkal im?licatirnw" (llra.::y, 2003b, p. xv).
su~kind (191!6, pp. !47-148).
24, A, might be expe~ted, the wncc::il of hnme a~ a
stabk place is deeply em':,edded in our Lhinking about
writing. ( )n language and tmbodicc s;,,iice,see Jackson
( 1995, p. 6) and Low end Ul'Nrencc•Zuniga (2lJ03,
pp. 6-7], The :-eal work for individuals centered more
er Stewart, 19%, p, 3, on Appalachia) in what
recoi1nh1: and pcrpe1t111lt ,;s a common home and
:he wider wnrk, is to ,foti:rmin~ how all of the;;e :11t1ted
:•tiolins• ol lifo intersect ~o as lo figure out who and by
what conum:malil:es of ancestral experience and
:1"]ated cu:1 urJI c'.iims shculd be grouped toge6er by
categ,,:·i· and a;;tual locatior: and whv and whut, in t\Ur
est::nat1on, shr.uld not. Th,u is c;~cncc ot kin,,hip
a classic set o[ nor:::s lb~ ccc:ding issues nf access
and tre~pass, that is, for dcd,ling who and what are
to be ind udcd or cxdudcd particular activities a:
particular til::cs in plzet:s we ca[ home,
On a larger s..:ak, one thinks :~1mediatelv'
~
A:nrrka in this conl{'Xt given :ts history as a collecting
point for intcrnntio:ml migrnum proce~scs and
diverse cultural inlcrests. On travel upmotecness,
see Snyder ;1990, !JP, ,.a--wi.On travel ,ls rm:tapho~,
see "'"""·(1'195,p. :)at:ciVanden:\bee:e(l992).
26, :-lu":1ing a place is II way of laming it, bringing
it al leJst to :he control o:' a mental ap:m1priatit\n i:: a
fom iliar set of s1l!1:1.s--10 !he level plau: pu::ctm1too
by the hearths and travels of the imag:nation if n0t of
the phys ca: self. Thar is lh~ same pn~::r.~s ap11lied
th ro.,;gh co:cnia I appropriations of others; that is,
transfali:ig them inlu uu1 own rnllural sy,tern of sign,s.
we re::der tr.em "subordinate;' al by categt\ry of
e~istt11cc. On the importanc(· of naming in h·~'"an
e:qierience, sec Ch~ylitz (1997) and Aitchison ('.'000,
:i, 94tf), Sdiama :1995) note,, "The wilderne:;s, afte~
all, docs not locate itself, does not name itself. [t wa~ an
act of Congress in l864 !hat establi ~h;;c Y(iser:1ile
Vall,•y as a :ilacc of sacred slgnificanc,· for the ::ation"
{p, 7). also Mo:naday ( 1969, ?·
. ',\'dk1 (1990, p. 14).
Z8, More or le;,,s foUowing Bakht::i, by "an;'~i:a:•
tonic," I mean the arrhiteetute of connections revealed
bdM:en individuals and their wider environments,
parts :11 whole in ch:mgi ng land5capes, including other
peo,:;lc ,:nd other points of view, over time (Holquist,
1990, p. 14911'). Sensitive to readings from both sides
of th<' culmra: ft>11c1;s that .separate us in fie:dwo,k and
in 1;e11,mt,, to the m·:.:ual ,onstru..:llons of
our interactions under those circumsl:.mces, a ,,oetics
place must be diafogk in nature. :unhermorc,
<liabgic poetics mmt first t\f all be able to identify
ru:id arrange re :ru:ions between 1m111ts of v:ew; it mus:
be c.dequale to the cv;n:ilex ,uchikclonics th,11 sh:ipe
the viewpoint of he author tow,ud his d1arnclers,
the characters toward 1l1e a ,J: hor, and of all of thes,·
toward each other" (p. 162).
Speaking of ar: incident in th, foothil:s ,if
the Rocky Mounta :::s. Smit;: (1997) recalls a telling
momenl "in the desniption ;if a colleague who hac
mken her class tc rhr mo,~::rnins, sat them ::: a c::de,
et:tidng them, in at1 ecologiml c;:c,cise, :n 'J;1;ath,· thi,
pla.;.e, to recoil,:;;, :he.rnsclves ,md rda6ms to,,,
'reconnect,' Sudd,nly, :he hi:.ivy so:rnd, of a
cirding them i:an b,, i':c,ml, fo:towcd by 1hc ,n,··sn-
lanwus and 1errilicd cvacuJton of the ,lace h1• the
recollectors, the br~athrn,, a n<l the
Whatever the pccagogy of the place may he, it ha,
little lo co with ~ warm relatimi;;hip with .m
im;;gincc na: ~x, llnd perhaps 1'.1,1re to do with the
courngc lo bcrt i;;ml ,me·~ own mortali: y :n the midst
of the ongoin~ project of self unc:erstanding" (p, 4),
The wild inspires us lo be pract:cL lt al~o can be a
10::gh cxpc:icncc 1Sny,kr, 199:l, p.
30. Ducking :he tele,i,,ion t,avelogues designed
to ;miducts on cr:mmerdal break~, the closest we

csually can cnme to wildernes, tocay ls to traffa i11 its
remainder i:-, places such as Yosemite, heavily ma~ked
by people-in eve:; crc>ated by people in so many
impo,t,mt ways. indndlng mapping and mark:::g it as
a preserve of sorts (Schama, 1993 )-or in the outback
stretch::s ol earth whert the tin:id r:ever tread, be it
alpine, desert, or swamp (Snyder, IY9tJ, ;,. 6). Snyder
(1990) sees these places a., "the shrin~s saved from all
t'ie land tha: was once known and on by lne orig-
inal people, the little bits left as t'ley were, I~sl iittle
places where ::itri nsic nature total'.y wails, blooms,
nests, giinb away. They make up only 2 percent of t::c
lam: of tht t:nitcc States" (p. l4).
31. lmmersior. ;:; :he unpaved i:as special merits
helping the process ur::old, '~\ week in the Ar:iazon,
t'le high A:ctic, or the northern side of the Western
Hirr:afaras;' J. Turne, ( 1996) wr'tes, can show us that
"what ccunts as wildness anc wilderness is dete:-
rnined not by the absence of people, but by the :·ela•
tiouship between pecple and p]a,;:e. A ;:,lace is wild;' 'le
"when it is self-willed lar:d. Na:tve peoples mua[y
(though definitclf not alwayi;) 'fit' that order, influenc-
ing it but not controlling it, :hough probably not from
a suf)erior set of values but because they lack the tech-
r.lcal means. Control increases w:th civilizatior:, and
• odern dviltzation, being largely abcut contro1 -an
ideology of control projected onto the entire world
• ust control o, wilc:ic,;s" (pp. 112-11
32, Ponlsen (I 982, p.116}.
33. Some sacred spaces,o( course, are purely rnan-
• ade in tb,ir physical construction (e.g., the Vietnam
• emcr:al in Washington, D.C.J, but even the~e are
likely to Je landscaped for beau: y will: a ''natural"
tl:eme (Osborne, 21l0l; Veliz, l '196). Otners are located
i:i co::sp:cuous landscapes, su,h as '.\1ount Sinai and
Devil's Moun:ai n, no:ie which is a "sacred" space in
it:; ow:: right. 7hey are i ntere, ting in their im:gularlties
er are novel to pecple who e::cour:ter them as neces-
sa:y interpreters of srace. But that vtry reading is a
primary source of significance-a prnject:on of
cultu:c, e:1d emotion that occt:;s somewhat ironically
th,cugh an appropriation of the otherwise nnobtaln·
able by wrapping the e;:pcr'ences in mrlaphor, by
acquiring places Jn image and imag::iation, and by
bringing th,m near through semiusis and falltasy, if
not actual p'1ysical presen:e. I;. his a:ialysis of Native
Amer:can sites, Gul:iford (2DOO) iden:ifies nine ratc-
gmiesof sacred phu:es: "( l) si:es assm::iated with emer-
gence and n::gration t.;.les; I2) site, of trails
p'lgrimage rm;tcs; (3) places essential to cultural sur•
vival; (4) altars; {S) vision quest sites; (6) ceremonia'.
Brady: Poetics fm a Planet a 1009
dance sites; (7) an:cstral ruins; (8) petroglyp'ls and
pictcgraphs; a:id (9) bur:al or massam: sites" (quoted
in Leonard & :vier.lure, 1[l04, p. 321 ). Building on thit
and Vint Delor;a's work on Na:i,e Amer:can sites,
Leonard a::c McClure (2004) identify sacred places on
two axes; ;me fr.at follows "a ronlimmm fro • historical!
actual t0 imaginary/metaphorical" and one 1hat follows
"a ccntinnum from h·~:nan to divine agency" {p. 325).
Ddoria gives us four calegori;:;; ""'"•l,''"" on a scale
of'ligency'-en:irely hu • an agency at one end versus
the agency of'"Iigher Powe~s• at the other" (p. 322). Sec
also Dundes (1984) and Lane ( 200 I).
Some sacred are deeply personal
pr:vate, On plao:, sacred to one person that fail to
move another, see Poulsen ( l 982, pp. 11 b-117 ).
35. True to this ex;:,erien:e, anti illustrative of the
power of poetry to address such issues :r. laconk ways,
see the defining principles and irony in f;,.,,,,,.·•(2004]
smart poem, "Mam n:als of North Amer:ca;' Despite the
importance of bunting in both cultures, nothing could
be fo~her removed from the place of man::r::als the
wor:d of the Koyukon (llrody, 1982; Ne:so::, I983 ).
36. O:ily lhe overall s:or)· form and pe,haps the
emotions shared experiences as sentient being,,in-
piace, espeda::y in :hi: conspicous places of whatever
we rnn r~ll '"nalllrc" t~day, can frame inferences
for us. The res! rr: ust ;;ome ....,..,,ua. repre.ser:ta-
t:ons (cf. Clarkson, 1998; }fodder, 1982, 1987, 198'1:
Lewin, 1986; Richardson, 1982; Zolbrod, 19117), fmn:
wr: tten :iisrory, or from that wonderful i11terim
;,oint -a living person whose know ledge pool ,un, a
continuum of se:11iotic. from early :ribal history to the
:iresent. Such guides are rare, of course, if they exi,1 a:
all in ultimate:y reliable forms. They all are influenced
by li:eracy and ~elated forms of communk:ation in the
rr:odem wor:c, but they can be found in our .;urrent
;andscapes. On tead:crs of S<.cred space, see Layton
{1997, p. 122) and Snyder (1990, pp. 12, 78). Un con•
tcmporarv hnrtknltural cx:ierts in the A:::er:car:
' .
Southwest, see Nabha:: ( I~82 ). Sec also .Behar {I99~ ),
Nelso:i ( 1980, 1983 ), Swann {1983 ), Swann and Krupat
(1987), and Ted lock ( 1972, 1983, 1990, 1993 ).
Xo:e imny that wha: arc olien held lu be
the m,1sl palatable and picturesque la::dscapes are
also scrnetimes the least habitable (Barthes, 1972.
pp. 74-77). With an overview of :he rcliltionships of
landscapes, aesthetics, and p:ea~ure as they might
::iblain in :he humijn specie;, Brown (1991 l "One
of the funda::1enta: assump:ions cvo:utionary psy-
chology is 6at ma:ters dosely related to our survival
and reproduction :-.ave a like:i::ood of engaging ou,
10: 0 !11 HANDBOOK OF QIJAIJTATIVE R::SEARCH-CHAPTER 39
em,otl()t:S. Thu;;, althoug:~ there migh: be linle ern.ern,e
a gem:rai adaptation for an aesthetic ~ense, a , , ,
disparate cofiec: i@ of emotio::-pmducing act:vit1es
and er:titie, may structure what we consider aes-
thetic ... Orians ( 19RO) has exarr:':1ed s·:d1 ma:ters
as the emmin:ial :-eacti(ins of explo:-ers tc, differe:1t nar
;1~al set:ings, the :andscaping and planting of
arid the cr'teria ~hat make pa:tic·/ar pieces of real
estate espefially \'alnable, ,o show thar h·.. :nam $Cem
rn have an in;.ate preference for set:ings that wculd
have been opti1m!: habitats for our Pleistocene torag·
i nil ancestors. We rive:., diffs, and .a van•
nahs.' :settings in whicr food, water, and protection (as
in we:-e in optimal comb:::ation. Key e:emc111s
in Orian,' argumen1s are :he emotional mi.t,,e of the
h;i man p>'eferences, and comparisons with habitat
,e;e,::tion in ofr...:r spc-ies, wher,; innate compon<:nl
ls less questlona:ik Here the argument is that we have
an innate tendency m prefer, seek out, and -:o::struct
certain kinds of selling, bc<.:i!l!Se we fed gcnd in
(pp. 115-L 15). On forest:; a:1d the cmcrg~ncc of
poetic w:sdo:n, compare R11bino:1· ( N'/6, p, 104),
This :s cs;,c<i,1lly true in tht: light of ,hr horr:-
tying events of Scplcm~1cr IL 2001, in the United
and the country's subscqurnt dcdar,,tion of wa:
on terrcrism (Lincoln & IJ.:nzin, 2003a}. Th.:- whole
problem can be framed in ils fond:1mc11:als as one of
S?a..:c and what i.s o: is fl(\\ alfowtd to take pl11ce
in it On JlOC'.ric& and pb,·e the different imaginar-
ies of country an<l city, see Willrnms ( 197 3). On en:er-
lng an age of human flourishing, see :.incoln ar.c: Iiuba
(.2000\. On Burning .\1an Project, see Kozinet, nnd
Sherry (2004) and Sherry and Kozinets (2004).
They are often represent<:d ',: the mix '11 more
than om: culture, soc:ety, and/or physical landscape,
the kind heterogeneous mne, we find bisec:c'd by
lhc ~olliding margir.s of cross cultural frontiers. They
arc "bu,·derlamh" of the here, and :he hereafter or are
•beaches" as Dening ( 1980, 19%) liberated the con-
<Cpl from the stere,l!ypec 1m.: "'" ,urf and sand.
On the U.~:.-1~1e,:1c,m h,m:er, sec alsn Brady (2003b,
pp. 89-91)). On Chicano narratives and the:: literary
and cultural borders, see lfosaldc, /1989).011 Australian
ahnriginal notions o: :respas., a11d ",patilll prohibitions
as a mcde ofhoundary making;' see Mu:::: \2003). On
fr;,ntiers and the possibilities of pa,.s:ng in:o my th
t::ne,see Snyder (1990, p. 14). On thecom:cpl c{":cgcn•
ernti;,n thmugh vio:rn,r:· sec Slo:kin ( 1973}.
40. l\eihardl( 1959, p. 35),
41, According to Snyder (. 990), 'Tor ;:magri
cuit·;ral people, the sites co:isidcrcd sa;;r,d and
spe.:i.il .:art ,,;ere of course w:ld" Ip. He ,1dds, "T:ie
ide, t hal 'wild' might also be 'si!m:d' ~~, tlmc>d lo t:1e
Oc;;ident only with the Romanti,; movement" (p, 80).
42, In answering the c;·-es:ion of why nafoe
cul:i.:"l:s in genrral Jlive sn much impo,tarn:e to p:aces,
Abram (I 996) sees the answer as obvious: "I:1 oral
cul:L:,cs the huma:i cy,'S and cars bw no: ycl shifted
their s ynacslhe:k participation fror:1 the aninliile
su,rou11di:·gs ttl Int' wrinm word. Parlkular moun•
tain,, canyons, streams, boulder-st:'fwn fields, o,
groves of lrees have 1101 yet lost ,h.: exprc,~ive potency
and d~namism with which lhcy sponlanco:,:sly pre,ent
lhcm,c'.vcs lo lhc senses. A pad:ufa: rlacc :n t':e
land is :1cvcr, for an oral cult1m;, jnsl a passive or inert
selling for the human cw::ts tha: uccur there./' is a11
11clive panidprmt /hose o::n,1 ve11a,s lpicdsdy a
poet :c poslurcl, Indeed, by virtue of it, untkrlyin~ and
enveloping presence, the p:acc may even be felt to
the s~·Jrcc, the primary power tha: exrm'.1:ses itself
through :he varions events :hat unfold there" (p.
lie ,u:l's, "It i, predsdy 'or rea:.zm that slurie, are
not told wit::out identifying tr.e earthly sites where t~e
ewn:s in those stories ormr. For the Western Apache,
as for traditionally oral peoples, human e,·ents
and encoun:c:rs simply ain::ol bt isola!t'd
plaa:s that engender . , , from tr.e Dis:ant '[k:e
s·orie, of the Koyuknn pmplt:, and from ,1f?odzaahi
tales the We,tl:'m h;>:1.:me,we b<i'gin to discern that
storytelling i~ a primary form ;:f h'..lman spe~king a
mode of discourse that mntin:!ally weds b:: human
comnnmity to tr.e land, Among the Koyukori, t':e
Distant Time serve, among orher things, to
prese :-ve a link !)erwee:·, human spee~h and the spoken
uuera:,,es of other species, while wr the W~tern
Apache, the agodzaaili narratives ,.-,n"»a deep asso•
c'ation brtwee,· morn I behavior and the fand a:id,
when 11ble to eV:ect a lasting kinship bet1>1cen
iier~ons and partkular place, .... The telling o(
~tor :es, !Jke s: nging and pray ins, woe Id s,,:111 ·.,, be an
a:mos: ceremoni,11 act,an ancient and necessnry mode
of speec:i thal tends the earth!} rootedness of human
h,nguaBe, Fer n, :rated events. as Basso reminds us,
a:ways happen some:vhcr.:. And for an or,,l CL1!:ure, 1:ial
locus is never mcn:1 7 inddmtal to :b1se m:rnrrcnces,
The events bclor.g, ll> ii were, w the and to tcll
the uf those events i, Ill kt the plm:c itself ,peak
lhrot1gh the idling" (p~. 162-163), See abo Bas,,o
(1996.J, 1996b), Carpente (19~0), Crapanzano (1Q04),
[;cld ~nd 11,,sso (l'l%},11r1d Selsrn1 (l9S3;.
43. On movements toward ,i·mholic order ::: mod
em :m:hi:..:cture and idea that every
r
)
form, wmpaie Pm,lsen { 124},
Schama ( 19~5) adds, "Ai:d it is just because an;;1er,t
places are constantly being g: vc=: the topdress;ng~
m:1df:nity (the forest primeval, example, turning
in:o the 'wilder:·ess pack') that the ~.mbiguitj' ()f the
mylhs at their core is so:",elimes hard lo rnakt out It i,
there,all the sarr.e" (pp, :5-16;,
Apropos of :he currcn: thesis, Ueloria ( 1993)
calls for "the ()Ossibilit 7· of nc•w ~acred places. under
scoring even rnore the :m:se11:t, o::goir:g :iature of the
:Zinds n": nte~actions hetwec:: the human and :he splri·
:~al rea:r'ls" (dted in Leonard & '.vlcClure, 2004, p. ,>24).
By dwelling on the .ant:-~age assoc'ated with
pr:mary emotions therefore, the limb:c system
of the brain;, :ioetrv, is c,l .:1able uf mov tr:~"" us sensuously'
"
am:, enm: :onall}', Si)eaking of !ht power nf poetry and
Dnm::ecv, Leavitt (l 997) s,1ys, ''Mu::h of this power is
already implied in tbc nature langu:ige itself. For
the s?eaking subject, a lingL::stic element-a phoneme
or word or gramnrntkal ?allem-1wt nnly says wral
it says, but docs so c,tsl a speci:ic form and carry:::g
spedfic implicarkms, Tha: is tCJ sny, lit1guistk
e·ement carries it not only a s,1n:antk load but
also both a rr.,1tcrfal nr,,,.,,,,,,,.a, a patteni of sound and
a cloud tJf cormoratitms and ,oloralions picket: up
rhrough !he sub;ect', Hie experiencr and the rkment,
or our uwn his:(iry of :ise, 111 sor1e drcumstanccs,
peo(•,e allcm: not udy ID wl:at is heing ;;,iid but equally
or primarily lo !he sound- and r,'eaning,rcsonanu-:,
o' how it :s being said. Thfa ';ie('tk mode of speech ptr-
<tp, ion' . . ,;nd pmductio 11 defines , .. foe puctk
function language: ];:mg::age carries wmclimes
~ctua:izcd but always :iotential pu:ich above and
btyond the punch of info~mation conveyed, The efec:
m,,y be <1esthe:ic, emotio:;al, or physkal" (p. On the
"thrill" or "physical errmion" thal ,an come re,,d,
i::g, ''lb: undisappoimed joy of finding that everything
l:ol<l, up and answers the desire it ilWab:ns; cm::pare
Hean,·y ( 19'15, pp. il-9), Rass (2000) notes that the artist
has a:; "imperative lo get as dose lo a thing as pos~ible,
not so much to create rr,ela(>:lors "' to uncover them;
to ped them way back lo their source. ~or r::e there is
·Jndeniahle sol Jee and exc:remcm in movini:,, in a.s dose
as pllssihle to t'iings, i:1 arl, llld in the woods-as
as possible to the source" (p, Ou em;1t:rn1,, and
landscapes,see also Brown (i!/91, pp. 115-116).
Abram (1996), Barthe, ( 1972), Re11jan:::1
( I%9;1 ), lkady (2003J, 2003b ), Crn1,at:1:r, :10 (20D4 ),
Gibbs ( 19g4 ), Hoftma:1 / 1999 ), aml .\<1eleti;isky ( 1998),
llache'.ard (1 %4), in his das,ic text '/'he P!lelks
iip.:ic,~. notes, "Great images have beth a history and a
Brady: ?oetics a v:anet 111 l0: 1
prehistory; they are always a blcn,i memory and
lege::d, with the re5:J:t thar we never experience an
image d:n:'dly, Indeed, ever~ g:-cat image :i.s an
unfathomable oneiric dept:: lo which the personal past
aJds spt,dal co:or' (?" 33), To him, "l>rimal images,
simple cng~avings are but so many invitatim:s n, start
imagining ai;ain. , , By 1iving in sue:: hm,ges as these,
in :::1ages thal are as stao:lizing as are, we could
start ll new lifi?,a lite tha: WOL:ld be our own, that would
t(l us 'n cur v.:ry depth,... , A:id ·.1ecausr of
:his vr1 y pr i m:tiveness, restored, desired, and e111eri
cnced throug:: simple images, an album of pktures of
huts would constitu:e a tcxtbDok of simple exercises
for the phenome::nlogy of the imag!r:ation" ( p. :n ),
Sd:ama'., (1995) :olleclion of images texts pre•
sems aaclly tbat-an album of experiences that give
us :he pasl (albeit recent} as both imaginative history
an,l a hismrv of the imaginatior.. It directs attent:on to
lhc nature of landscape as myth, and vice vers11,
on Americas lron:iers ;md is, chcrefore, most insrrm:•
live for our curren: ptirposcs and fair gmu~d tor ccn-
lcxtimliz.ing creations and renewal, of sacred space,
, finding (or rr-invcnting} new leaders for posi•
tive turns on sacrec space i~ consistent with t'Jt>: 1110,al
and etluc.il goals of uur environmental crilks (SL'(c,
Snyder, 1990, p. 78\ 'lol in :he process we must
also a,sk wh,,rher we rc~lly wan: :o renew these t':ings
as in our p~rsonal Jives and to integrate thc:n
uncritically in modem view~ of what is sacred. The
relativity of the concept-what is sacred fo, you i, t!vl
nece,sariiy the saJl'.C for others-has led, as I, Turner
( p, 22) reminds tis, In one violent confronla:ion
after another l:mrnghot,t hist(ll'}', .Moreover, a failim:, te
di~! i nguish bet ween formal and po:iular rclig:ons has
b"stardized t::c concept i11 cor.tempornry Ar::crica,
TJrner suggests :bn Disneyland, naliona: parks, the
site of Presidc:11 John E Kennedy's a,,assinalion, and
related "pilgrimage are sacred ",ecau~c of :he
fun~tion of cnlertainment and :ounsm ir. ou1 u1!ture.
In a commcxial culture, the sacred will have a mm•
merci;i; base, ror many Jeople, nothing is :none
lh,m the Snper !Jowl" (p, 12), Th;;\ :s not the sense of
"s,icr,,.:J" tha: Snyder has in mind, bu·. w::atever f~e
course of acticm taken, there is huge pcrso;:al re,pnnsi,
b:lil y.!ltuche<l to i:, for ourselves mid for !hr rnllective
fu lures of all who w,1Jld revisit !he savannah, and
fores:, of our beginnings with a sense of respe,t and
prcs,,rwition rather thai: r,pacious destruction,
48. Cons:cer Sc:iama (J 995): "Whel h,,r such :ela·
lionships are, faet, '·abitu,!l, al kast as hahitual as
t:ic urge tnwa,d dor:iination of 11all1re, said liJ be
 1012 II 'iANDllUOK 01' QUAL:TA.TJVF, RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39
signature of t:ie Wes;, I will leave the reader lo judge,
Jung evidently believec that the universality of nature
myths testified :o t:ieir psy.:hologiai I ':1dlspensability
iJ1 dealing with interio~ terrors and cravings. And the
anthropclogist of religio:: Mirce,: EEade assumed
ther.: to have survived, fully operational, in ;;iodern,as
well as t~aditional, c:ilture,~ (p. 15 ). Schama marks his
own view a, "necessarily more historical. and by that
token much confider.tly univemd, Not all cultures
err.brace nature and l,mdscape myths with exiua Iardor,
thos1e that do j!O through peitids of greater or less
.:::thusiasm, Whal the myths of ancient forest rr:ean for
on.: E:.m,pel!:1 mdonal trad't:on may ::-ansla1c ir:to
something entirely different in another• (p, 15).
Schama has ''tried not to let t::ese important differ-
ences in space ar:d tirc.c be swallowed up in the long
history oflar:dscape metapho:-s ske:ched in [his] book.
But while allowing lor these variations, it is the
in'oerited landscape myths and men:or:es share two
c:ommon characteristics: their surprising e:ic:urance
throul!h the centuries and their power to shape institu-
tions thct we still live ·..-1th. Natior:al idcnti:y, to lllke
just :he most obvious exami;ile, would lose m::.ch of :ts
ferocious enchantment wib:ut the myst:que cf a par-
:'cular landscape tradition: its topoguphy mapped,
elaborated, and enriched as a ho,m,bnd~ (pp. 15-16),
49, We are remi11dcd in the process that "under
standing the past traditions of landscape, can be a
srr,;,rce of illuminatnn for the present and the future;'
and with a lien on lh11t, Schama (1995 l savs that it can
also be a source redeeming ''tl:e hollowness of co::•
temporary life"(?. 17). lhis is no: a promise of vassaj!e
into Nirvana, an escape from !he evils of present
into something constr:.:cted out of blir:d fantasy and
a heavily romantkized pilst :hat can be regained in
the future, Schama is too much of a realist for that
In acknowledging 'the ambiguous legacy of nature
myths; he poir:ts out thal wt 11'.ust also "recognize
Iha: lar:dscapes wi[ no: always be simple 'places of
delight' -scenery as sedative, topography so ar::anged
to feast the For those eyes ... are seldom clarified
of the promptings of me:nory. And the memories are
no: all of pa~toral pi,nics" (p. 18).
50. Corr.pare Kroe'Jer (1983 ): "Ev:cience of , , .
interac:ivity is likdy 111 :mpre,s us mos: in stories, such
as thuse dealing with Coyote. ,hcse we fm,I baffiing
because Coyote ca:i be animal or man at any time and
withou: any ,eeming consistency. Th is is a crucial
ir.iaginath-e point The Indian imagination is not rn
rigidly tied as our own to given rr.ate:ial forms and
pattern,. For !IS, to be 'charac:ers' anima:s have :o
anthrcpomorphiled, Indian imag:nation recog·
nizes Coyote as both a~imal and ::1an, or either animal I.
llr man, the dua1i: y in 1act ::1aking him 'Coyote' rathe: .
than 'jus1' 1he exceedingly in:eresting four,footed
predator. The complexity of the Indian imaginatkn l
i, germane 10 the practical core of the hunting soJgs
we are considering here~ (p, Bright
(1987), Buller (1983 ), Uiamnnd (I 986 ), Emhart a~d
Lomatuway'ma (1984), Haile :1984), Hymes (1987),
Lopez (1977, 1986, 1990a), Snyder (1990), and '!edlod:
and ledlock (1975 ). On Abram, Merleau-Ponty, and ihe
phenomenological argument th al "places are the
ground of direct 'mman ex;ierienct'' and associated
assumptions i!bOut the interactions of the bocy with
tr::ngs, in duding the that "all objects or thi::gs are
'alive' anc capable of entering into a :da:ionshi p with
a h:.iman perce:ve:-:' see Gruenewald (2003, p. 623),
Momaday ( 1969, p, 6).
52, Consider Yi Fu (]979): "Three princ'pal types
[of sp.ice l, with large are~& of overlap, exljt ~ ttt
mythical, the pragmatic. and the abstract or theoreti•
cal. Mythical space is a conceptual schema, l:iut 1! :s
also pragmatic space in :he sense that wilhin tl:e
schc:;ia a large number of pr.inkal ac:ivities, such u
the planting and ha:Ves:ing of crops, are ordered. A
dilfercnce between my:hi.:al am' pragmatic space :s
tha: the latter i., de:i ned b;· a more limited set of em,
nomic acti,•ities. IOn "trails to heaven" a::d 'rr:aps
dreams;' see also Brody, 1982, pp. 46-47.J The ;eccgni·
tion of pragmatic space, such as belts of poor and rid:
soil, 's of cuu rse an lnte::ectual achievement. When ar:
ingenious person Irie~ to describe the soil patter.
cartographically, by r:ic.m~ of symbols a further move
toward the conceptual mode uccu rs. Ii; the Western
world, systems georr:etry-foat is, l::ghly abstra;;I
spaces-have bren treatec out uf primal spatial expe,
ne1:ice's"• (pp, 16-17;, Leonard and McClure (2(l04)
argue, "Myths wt:ich take IL' to .i sacred place where
rebve:iation or immortality is possible-whether
that p1ace is a garden, a forest, a moun:ain, a well,
lake, stream, fountain, ,,r ~[ver-have the effert of
transporting us bi!ck to the primordial and womb:lke
mndition 1:1a1 preceded our quotidian slrngg:es wi:'i
rr:cney, relatior:ships, and the eventual loss of cur
,,hyskal a:id mmtal puwers" (p. :325). Compare Brown
(1991. p. 1:6).
53. Snyder (~'l'l!J) likens language f[) "some kind cf
infinitely interfonil,· fu:nily of s;,ec:es sprc-ading or
mysteriously dedin i t:g over time, shamelessly e1d
endlessly hybridizing, changing its own rnles as ii
goes" {p. It is "a mind-body system that coevolved

wit:: onr needs and nerves. Like 11m,gi11a1for: and the
body, [i:] rises unhidden ... jwithJ a complexity that
ebdc, (L:~ ratinnal inlrllecr~~l capacil'cs" (p. 9),
However. in dcveioping his am hropolagy of experi•
encc, Jackson ( I 995) :nakes the cu11enl observation
that experience, unlik,· fa11guage, "cove~s everything
that i, the case. is why wor,is alone can never ,io
justice tc experience" (p. 160). "Wn:ds are signs,
"stand-ins. arhitrary "~d tempornry, even as Lmguage
reflects (and inmrmsl lhe shifting values •Jf the l'"°?le
whose minds it inhabils and :hrcugh" (Snyder,
: 990, p. 8 ), But ''no word is able to mntai:1 be mo eds
oi a moment" (lackson, 1995, p. "Life ,+~cits our
gm,p and ~.:mains at always iugitive;' never
cap:ured mmple:dy (p. 5). JI "outs:riils our vo,.ibu
lary" (p. 51, ":..ikc a in whfch there art clearings,
L:kc a forest lhwugh who,e sunlight filters and
foll" (p. 5;. "Theodor Adorno ,ailed this th,· :lntruth of
idmti:y, by which he mca;:t that concepts plunder but
m:ver exlwus: :be wealth of expe~ien,;e, Life cannot be
pressed Icxciusively: into the serv:,:c d language.
Concepts rt:[>resent cxpc!'iem,1; at the cost of leaving a
lot :.msaiil. So long as we ·:.se cmicepls tu c.it up cxperi ·
e::.:e, givir.g val~c to ,mme things at the expenst' of
others, , , , we ,ome p,m:hase on t'le world, to be
;.ure, 1Jut claiming that our concepts rnr,tain all that
can he u,d'~: ly said aboL:t ~,.. ~···"" we dnse off thr
pos,ihilit y of c·ltiq:.:c. It is only when we cease
tc co111rnl the world thar we t,m nvi:-rmme our r'ixatin11
rn the autard1y or wncepts" (p, "An anthrop<Jlogy
llf experience." Jac~;on says in that i:onnt>ction. "sharl'!>
with pht•nnmenology a skepticism reward de:erminate
S}'otems of ~ nmvlcc:ge. ft plays up :he inde,errr.imite,
ambiguou,. c:1d manifold character oi ::ved expcrienc:,
It demands that wt· rnlargc our field vis:011 l(l take
into a,mum things ce,1tral and pQripheraL :,xal and
5ubsidiary. rnumlnated imd penumb~al" 160). T'.,e~e
,:re the k:::ds of things. scmetimes esoteric, bundled up
by deep cult·Jnd «cnte~l& :hat are not easily di,covered
without access lo the granaries of knowledge thmugh
:he people who have tu:il1 them And even lhcn, unable
to the ''thing in i:sel C' we w'll have lo settle for
partial :7uths. On the dillkultr of describing the ;;'l::pc•
rienc<' of the due;ide, sec J)rca ( I1185),
Ric!iards,m ( 1999b) <1bserves, "lb say !1131 we
must he in a ~lory is nol lo ,ay that we h,ivt· our destiny
,1lrrady engraved in our neurons or awash in ll'Jr sub•
con,clir.1s. On fee contrnrv, our life ~ton1 .:ontinumi~:v
' ' '
unfolds. ,hi fts, changes. , . Both place ~tory have
to do witb where we arc, with locat'on, but the wfom, of
each is dist The podcs p[dce is preeminemly
Brady: Poetic~ for a Plane: 111 l;: 13
sensory. Smell, sound, tou:h, and e,pedally slght are
an:ib:1:eB o' place, which is consequently visual and
sp-c.tial. On :he other hand, word, strung together in
speech a 11d in w riling consdtme stories. Na:rative,
t:icrefo:e, ls vnbal and tem:mraL In place, our ,lomi-
nant m(ide ol'relating to one a:iodier i5 through seeing:
in written mirrative, ii fa throug": reading. lnteresting:y,
we use mcide as a metapl:orofthe other. ';!,'l:Cll we
want to emphasize lhat we're :nlerpret[ ng what we look
at, we speak ,L"reac.mg
" t h' e ,an{Iscape.' Co::verse.y,
' ' we
exc!aim, 'I sc;•:· to convey the insight gained by reading
a text" (p, 332), a:so Br-;,dy (2003b, pp, xiv-xv),
55. Bass (WOO) tell, the story of how n2tu~e
wri!fr,~ at a conference, "much m the initial confu~ion
of sc,me of the audieoc~kept talking about ,f)l.:Ctfi!cs:
~bout buffalo, aboul nativ.: medicines, abDut 11a rwhals,
carib(I'~. grizzlie:; and raveris; about the t>:ings they
knew-ar:d it was not until the second or r:~:r<l day
rhnt rhe audience bega!l to grun:b]e, 'What about the
writing?' Th<' panelists lno,:.ed at o:;e mother Jn wnfu
si@. Th is was the w:iting, The world they inhabited-
lhc S()·callcd nat·~~al world ofrnck and sand and wood
and ' be.:or::e so imbued wilt: power by their
livir.!! d,•eply w:thln it tha1 the only language they wm,
wmfilrlable with was that of fre S?ec::ic, deeply
a:id :iassiu:1ately did they inha:1,1 tl:eir landscapes-
phys icall y, emotionally, and $pir!t ual!y-:1:ar trees
became b(lth trees anc' metaphor;;; wol\,e;; were hoth
wolves and symbols; and the lives, :he mo•emen:s
uf these t!iings, had a logic and r1attern tr.at did not
transcend art bul hecarr.c art. They were living in
tl:eir stories. They had steppt'd ,11;ross that line, sn rhat
everyt:iing was sttry. They believ;:c intensely in the
w;1~d in whkh they lived" (Jl(l 71-72 ), This is an
ancienl prn<:ess so far sepa;11:ed from contemporary
write rs by the inventfon absorption of a:phabetic
litemcy : hat the particir•ants failed lo relvgnize it ur:til
they were called out for their "abscnn: of writing:'
de Sahag1tn (1985, pp. ,,rL-.,.
57. C:0•1sider ledlock ( 1983): "The argument ;h~t
American Indian spoken nam1tives are better under
stood (and translated) as dramatic poetry than as an
oral .:quivalent of writ:m prose fiction m,iy be sum-
mariiec: as follows, The content te::ds :oward the
fantastic rarbrr rhan fr.e prosaic, the emotions of the
cha:acters are evoked rathrr than c:escribec:, there are
r:o patterns of repet:tiun or parnllelis:;1 ~anging from
level of words to !bat o( w::ole epi,,o,les, tht: narra-
tor's vo'ce sh':h constantly in an:plilude and :one, and
lhc ffow that voice is paced by pauses th&t ,egment
its souncs into wh11r I have chosen to call lines. Of all
 JOJ,1 111 H,\~DllOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39
tht>se realitie~ of oral narrative and p(•rfo:m,mce, the
plainest and i;m,sesl is t:1e ~heer alternal:cn of mum!
and ,iknce; the resultant :ines often show an indcpt>n •
dence from intnnatio::, fmm syntax, and even from
boundar:es nf plot :;tructure, I underst~r:,: :r:c fonda-
rnental smmd shape spoken narrative in mu~h the
:.arne way that Ro:>er: W, Corr:gan und,'rstuod drama
when he wrote th2.t 'the playwright-and the
tran,:aror--cammr re,illy ht conc,·rncd with "good
proi,e" or with "good verse" ::1 the usu11l sense ol' those
tcr m,, structure is action, not whJ: is said c:r l:uw
it :s ,aid bu: when: II is ,:bov,' all the when, or what
drama:i~ts call 'timing; that is missing in printer.
(pp.
Frtti: (ur.k11own d3tc and S1l11rc;;}, trn1wlated by
Thomas F. ;'ov,;el I.
59. My think' ng on Ihis be ild, on l:'(iucau:t's
cnncept of <?pis1em,:s as th,· totality relatio~.s ir.
know] edge of a giver: epoch (L>rcyfo:,s & Rahinm'l,
l fl•Jui:,mll, 1970. which I have in this cese
a?pliec to the separation of l:mrnm activities before
,rnd after the invention of writin11 and the suhseque:1t
proliferations or it 1hro111;:1 rr:ass prnd(:crkm prit1ting,
Abram'~ ( 19961 ,rlkulalc lrn1tme::t of the distortions
posed hr studying prclil,'!'c1!c, U1rnui:,:: the mentalil y of
alphabetic litera~y is arplic{' directlv In ai:isiderations
of place and translation. Lowe ( l 982) ac extended
delinl:atlon ol tlrn rool of the proh:em: "Recen: s.::hol
c.~ship r;;:vc.1ls that communications media, hi ~rarthy
of sensing, and cpistem:c {1rd1er d1ange in ti me. Hence
the ;icrrcplual fa·ld mn.stituted by them differs from
perio,i to perk,d. Thrn~ is a history of pe~cqi,ion jfr.,lt
deli mils I the chang:ng cnntent of known'' ( p,
and it has changed tlr amatii:al I:: in the mmmunic~l'on
pools t::at have separated humar: sodetics before and
aftc:r Ihe advent of wri:ing a~ci its ptolifer,,lion tt:~ough
mass prod:.iction printing.
60. Lowe' ( 1982) :;ay~. "Without th~ s·Jpport of
prin:, spct'C:i ir: tea: culture is asslstcd by the art of
r::ernory. Rhythmic words a~e organ i7,ed [nto formu-
las and w1mr10;,:,lace,, then sel lo metric putc~~. In
way, Ihey can be recalled and recited w: th gm1t
faci,il y. That whic.1 can be red:ed and repealed will be
;irc~crwd. ':'he metric recitation of rhythmic formul,,s
and common:ilaces ;1rovides ,! ,omrm::::rn:i(mal grid
'.o determine knowledge in onl cultme, Only tho,e
phenomena which fit exisHng rorrnu.as and common-
places cm he pre.<e-rved .;s knowledge. The new and
distinctly different will soon be rorgotten. Knowledge
in oral c:.lllu re lhere:ore lends to he presen·ative and
unspecialized, its content :ionanalylical ht.:t for::mlai,"
(p. 3). He add,, "Tht lntrodurtion of wrillen language,
w:iether ideographic or alphabetic, an.I it~ 11reserva-
tion in some type of man uscipt consliLl,:d a chiro-
grapl: ic ct.::ture. A!though :: :ook ~ tim.: lo
acccmplish, wr'ti r, g even!l:ally detached knowledge
from 5pee.::h and memory. A w:ittcn language pre-
knowledge aflcr the ;icl speech and bey(1:id
of memory. Om: cm,:c over a of writ-
ing at wil I, lei rn it, and critic:ic ii; whcrras for:::ierly,
in an oral ,~: tu re, knowledge dept"ndcd on the pe,-
formar:ce of the speaker" (p. '!)_ On the modcrr:i:a1:ion
nf ·:1y th, see !la rt hes (
61, See Jackson ( pp. 157), El~ewhere,
/a,:kson ( I982) "Whcnt'vtr one retraces one's
ste11s in the hnaginalion, an [ncvil:ihle trimsfonnnion
Dcwrs, One gives though: to things cne did withcut
thinking, One replaces words act:.rnlly ,aid with a
vocabulary of one's own chnosir:g. l'ace-to-face rea:ity
is subverted hv a sct,l::c (}:dcr-written rralitv. l.ife
'
gets rendered as Iw:ittc:1 I language" (p.
.
In con-
slru,ting, this L:i~is, Jack,;;;:n draws "extensively on
many st udic, in ,he ethnography nf .,peaking" in an
effort to "avoid any inadvertent dombation of the world
cf preli:crnlc possibilitim by 1he mnr.e, of ahstrarr
analysis ,kvclopcd in literate culmres" (p. also
lido ck ( 1983): "I am 1em:::c!ed cf the Zuni who askt:d
r::e, '\'1,'hen I tell Lhese slories do you picture it, or i::o j'OU
jus: wr:lc it tluwn~"' (p. On G('t'rlz and cultures as
"tc:m":<l be ,ee also Ted.lock (1999, I'· :61).
62, Antluopo:,;gist, are generally happy lo
dttlare that shamanis::i (:l:e world's oldest profcssil)[:)
is t'.cc roo: of all perforrnative art-a point made cf:ec-
tvcly ·Jy the eti: mipoet Rorhe:1berg 1198 l: sec also
Rcthenherg & RNhet1herg, I983) ar:,1 the anthrcpolo •
gi,t "larner 11990 ), among others, links us :0 !ht
Paleolithic era lea. IOO,U()!J years igo) Jnd opcr.s up
cthm,graphlc lnqui ry ro what we ax ;:onside ring in
!he current work-an enlarged sense• or corr::1mniil
tiei. th ruugh hislo~}' of talk, performanc;:, myth,
p0t:try, hei:ig-in-;1 a.::e,
Fa, various expressions of tl:c same topk, m:-:1-
pare ,\bram (,996), Ah,1-Luglmd \1988), Bas,o (1996a,
:996h), lirody (1982), Clifton (1990), J>.::::mn (20031.
Dc:ndes (1972.), fold ( 1982), Feld & &s;o {J'196), Howes
(1990), Hymes (I ~87), focks,,:i (!91!2), K:ct'ber ( 191!3),
Lavie ( 199 I), Lar t~n (l 997;, Metc:ilf ( 2002), ,\.tun 11
(200J), Nabhan (1982), Rkoeur \1991), Ruthenberg
( 1972, , 985), Rothenberg & Rothenberg ( _'i8j ), Swar::: &
Kn;pat (I 987), R To:llock (I 992), Ll !edock ( l972, 1983,
1993, 1999), Zolbmri ( 19~3. 1987).
64, Austin (1997, p. 61),

65. The concept of the sublime as "tending to
inspire awe t:s1rnlly because of eleva:ed quallty (as (if
bff~ty, nnbility, or g~andeur) or transcem::ent excel-
lence" lig-.ire~ ':1tu our sentient existence and S'Jrv'val
prospec:s in several ways, Brown (; ~~:) says, "One o''
the fur:damental assumptions of evobt:onary p,~·chr>>
o5y is that rr:aners do.el}' related to our survival and
reproduction have a likelihood of engaging our emo-
tior.s. Thus, alt::ough there might be little evidence
of a general ada;itation for an aesthetic sense, a .•.
disparate collect'on emrdon ·::mxlucing ac!ivitie,
and enlities may sm:cture what we rnnsid,1r aesthetic"
(p. ll5), including the experie~,ces of bei:;g-in•place,
Writing abou; llurke, Bromwkh ( I997; says, "Burke's
ccndusion iii t'iat the feelings of the su'Jlime and the
beanti"u'. in life, ... which may al:;o be excited by
mo::ients of works in art, are an inseparnhle condition
of existence" ( p. JU). They push the edges and 6e
limits of hur::an natu:e, The theoris:'s )<lb "is to show
how the 111lective pr.wer~ of the sublime and beautiful
can be causes rr:ental activity without ideas or
images. Al the very will offer a possible :eason
why words above all can affect us like thi,. 'J'he mind
has a hunger for belief. and it has .a natural m:cency
toward abstraction. The appeal o: the sublime and the
beautiful mus; sor::ehow r"111te to tha: hunger and that
iencency of che mind, And words, whkh bear :10
,esemblance to thtngs, which at the heig::t of :heir
,n!luence on the passio:i~ leav1; no image at all, are
:::erefore the leadi11g artificial and na:ural source of
our sympathy with the sublime and beautiful'' (p. 32).
Compare IJenzin ( 1997) and Diamond ( 1987). Dcnz:n
; I 997) points out, •Mociemist ethnographers (.lnd
poe:s) stood <lutside their teXIS so as to prnduce a
se:ise of awe or reverence or respect for w;:iat is being
written abouL The writer was missing f~orn text
The postmodern writer also seeks the sublime, but
it Is a new sublime--a nostalgic su'JUme that trans•
gre;ses Diamond's poetry of JY<1iri. The new scribe
a sense of re spec I and awe for th.:: lost write, who
experiences what is being wri::en about. What was
previouslv unprese:itable (the writer':; experiences) is
llOW w!:at is presented, Paradoxically, that which is
most sought a'.'ter rema::is the most illusive" (p. 215).
66. Yi-Fu (1979) notes, ''Place can acquire deep
mean:::g for the adult through ;he steady accumula-
tio:i of sentiment over the years. Every piece helr-
il1orn furniture, or even a on the wall, tells a storyn
(p. 33).According to &hama ( 199,),"lh see 1r.e ghostly
outline of an old landscape beneath the superlk'al
rnvt:l'ing of t:,e m:;temporn:y is Ir> be made vivk.ly
Brady: Poet;cs for a 0 1am,t 11 1015
aware of the enduran,e of ro:e mylhs .... And ii is
just because anc:ent places are constantly being given
the to;icressings uf moder:i:ly (the fore1<t primeval,
for eKample. tnrnin!i into the "wilderness ;,ark') that
the ambiguity of the myths al their co:e is ,omelimes
hare to make nut. It is there, all the same'" [p. 16).
67. Historical tre'.<king can be at once a :iew and a
renc-wed experie:1a:. The "new" lnformation (as word,
image, sym·Jol, sensation, etc.) builds or. the "old" in
fhat process and has the prospecl ol resorting it all in
,IU m:wer terms, includir.g the extensive "mazcwa~•
resyntheses" of individ"als and groups in rev'rnlit.a-
tion rr.cvemmts (Wallace, 1970). Smith (:997; argu~,,
"l'he relation ship between prace and lat:guage is
perhaps be,t ur:dern:mid through the experience of
hrea;.:down-personal and collective-when one
experiences the sense 1::ar one's received la:iguage,
with all of its grammatical enframements and voca:m•
lary 1ools, is inadequate :o express what or.e is currently
rea'.:zing to be true about the world" (p, 3 ).
6B. On poets making place an elemrnt of their ow::
private myrho:ogy a~ opposed to surrendering olmli-
ently to the e.'l:isting my:hology of rlace, see Heaney
(1980b, p. I48 ). That i~ a sensuous and i11tellectrntl
mingling-a tension-a: past and p:esent in a nut-
shell, and therein lies s pa,1: tn a personal ;ioetics, to a
poetry of history and p;ace that spe~ks tc m11~cious•
r.ess, commitment. actitm, and myth-to a poss'bls:
"marriage between the geographical rnu".try and the
.
countrv of the mind, whether t'lat countrv. a:
mind takes irs tone unoonsdous: y from a shared oral
the
inherited culture, or from a consciously savored
ii'erary cuhure, or from b~:h ... that constit:Jtes the
sense of place in its ric:iest possible manifestation"
(p. 132). ::.ee al,o Graves ( 1948:14-15) a::,i of course,
Thoreau's (1854/1995) da%k, Walden.
69. Poetic also show :hat 1m mefl'ion
in place has :t, shlf!ings as well, its conlradktior.s and
alienations, and 1na1 the alienation, of an ethno
gn1pher are not res1rk1ec to eocom1tcrs with other
cultures (Da:non, 2003). Est:-ange::ient can happen
lhroug;. be intellectual ~:id aesthetic encr,,inters that
one !:as at home, :hat is, by freezing mo:nents arid
interpret':ig particulars as both ethnographers
and poets must do. On inspection, everything
is strange, and that car. be a powerfol source of alien-
atio=:, even :mm hearth and family Hieancy, 19!\0h,
pp. 137 138). On the o:her hand, Heaney ;.;nows that
staying with the comfort and imagination of a sum-
mers day m a strange and rural landscape :an bring
forth an aesthetic ,rnstof comm.1::ion with"prehlstork
 ml fl J11 HANIBOOK Or QUALrIAI'IV J: RESEARCH-CEI\P'."F,R
:imeles,ness:' The.se exper'ences must give way to :he
::,mgination, for that i, thr carpet on which Muses
~rand is the beacon that signals landing. The work
is subjec1ivt'., hlll tr:al should not :ie a ~'squalilkation
tor any:hing except mathem atks cra:-:i med i::ro teach•
ing for::1ula,. Partkipation and self-consc'ous inter•
pretatinn are how we learn almu; ou rsdvcs in place,
Nature =an he c'.1ore ir. our appre:iatio:;s ·.han can
"inanimate ~tone,"Jt can be "a~t;vc nature, ht.:manized,
and humanizing" (pp. 144-145).
70. Lame Deen:nd F.rdoe.s (1972, p. l!O).
71. for re'.a1e:.: work in ,in ar:rhropolugkal vein,see
cs::iec'ally the verse andior pros~ of Abu-Lughod
1 I 981! ). [lilllso (1996a, '. 996b ), Brnd1' (2003 :i, 2004 ),
Cahnman ~ (2000, 200 I), Diamond (1Yl\2, I%6, 19117),
(199J), i:e;c {I 982), f.cld ~ml ::lasso (199h),
:'lore~ (1 1999), Hartmll (2003), lleaney (1980a,
19871, Hymes (I 2GO :), ]ackwn (I ~95), Ku,sen:w
( I 998, I 999), Lavi.; {; 9':11 ), Lt'\v:s ( 2002 ), Lo?eZ
( 19'}1 ), Maynard (2003), Now,.:.. (2000), Prattis (1985 j,
Richardson I9')8a, 1998b, 1999n, 1999b, 2001 J,
R<Jsaldo (2003 ); Rose {1991 ). She:-ry ( Sir.10nel1i
{2001), Snyder (1%9, '.974), Stewart ( 19961, Suiter
(2002), Tarn (1991, 2002), ll. 'Je<llock (1992.}. an,;
D, Tcdlock ( 1990, 1993).
Compare Vcr:dlcr O985 ): "In trying to spea,
for 'all men and we men: the pod Josi ng sdlhooc
altorether" lP• 60).
Thompson (l 989) says, "What frames and
Je~nes J wurld b the act nf partidpa:i ng in a comext. fo
take par\ in s.omefhing is Ill take part from ati immensity
of possibililies" (pp. 129-130). a:so ·1auss1g (1993).
74. Kone of this i, :o say that poel:c \c1.ls
{induding myths) are em;ny of important or pr.::d.~r
informa:ion-ano:her hl ind p·ejudicc of ?OSiLivisti=
sw,ne1 (':lrndy.199I a, 1991 b, 1998, 2000, 2003a, 2003'::l;
Brady & Kumar, ZotlC )-or to 6at creath·ily in
thought and rnmmn11 icat ion en frnnchises a free,
for-all of interpretation, ungoverned br cxisl:ng
conslminls on sensibility, reality, darity, and possibil,
itr (Brady, 2003b, :i. xxiv). On the inversion, of poetry
and myth, compare Barth es ( 1972, p. 134).
l:w: ybody knows that wri ,ing d iffo~s
from poetry in fundarr,ental ways, lor example,
scit'lltific writing is more di::ical and k,s given to
t.:::cun::mm meta;ihors than is poct:y. But an impa:-
tant theoretical implication 1~at often goes umtpp1·eci
alcd in discussions is that each [crm tcch:.'.cal:y
pla}'S a c.ifferen: language game; the pusitiv[sts use
1ang·.1age that is si.:pposed to br transparent nr in11 isi-
'lle, wherea,, the :mm.inists (~nd most pcinted:y 1°,e
poe:s) do eKact:y the opposite by ww•nl,· displa~ing
their rresence as n'Jservers and autho:, in their works.
More than just a d ifferenre "style;' ea,:h mode uf
R'Presentution therehr ha., differe:11 criteria for ceci.1-
ing on acceptable or sati,,factory form~ cf exp~rsskm,
and the implication., of that ;,re enormous. Changii:g
the langna!;e of our cescriplions, as Wittgrosteir. ( 1974)
says, also changes the ana:ytk game itself; indudir:g
c:,angiJ 1g the pret1: i,ts for re~eardi entry pu:nts ( Brady,
2004).
76. See also Stolle: ( 1987, 2004) and loy ;;::d Sherry
(2003;. v:-Fu ( 1979) says,"The Eskiinos' sc:;sc of space
and place i, very differe:11 from lhat l\mcrkans"
{p. 5 ), Corn pare Carµentrr (1980 J and Dundes
77. Not all p;ietry trnvch w ilh C(j ual clle;,,livcne,x
aero~.~ prrsonal ,me cultural :iounda::ics-bu: then,
what does? On the roles of prdcrc:iccs and lii:m, on
who enter a world nu: of the': Dwn :rmking, and
on the importa nee of slipping any ruem it:to 11: ind
w:lh good cifcd, see IJrady (lUUU. p. 9S8). On Western
et'rnocentrisms, sec Zofo,nc (191!3 ).
On Aus I ~alian w ritcr David Maler~: and bei 11g
at a loss for words, see Smith ( 1997, p. 3). /. ftm1e,
(: 9S:6), i:tcr an c::cmn:tcr with a mountai;: lion,
"An aura of prehistory rr.arkec: the night l:ndoubtedly
11eople Slill lrn~c experiences with anin: als like those of
am::ienl epochs, howevc, unin:ellig'ble to n~1r 1110dern
Hws-unintclligiblt' becau,e we 110 longer know how
to describe lhem. The vocabularics of sh ..manism,
to,cm,, ,ynd:ronidtie,, and She arr tongue~ ag1,i11
m(lde bold vy melt eXperiei:cc,-experiences ma:11
·..,cl i,,,ve .;:c irretrievably k:st I bel icve i:i the experi-
ences, bu: I do not understand the vocabubrics. 1
:,err.ri1re this as my own fail':lg. My liie is devoid o[
?TOCtke~ :hat might Ii t:i, su;:h eveu:s and words. Ami
yet the exi!rtence of such experiemc is mo,ing-
beyond words' (p. 471. :l,forcover, in J discussion of
Hemingway, he the q uesl ion: Where is th, poin:
",.r which myth and nonlingulsrk prartkcs would i:Je
required to a1mmuni,ate?" ;p. 97). Or: the whil;:ncss of
t':e page and ex;1erien:ia l space beyond writing, see
;uarrm: (1988, cited in Rrndy, :99:a, ?- 341). On lht·
subjected hndy exceeding !rse. 0 Jnd bec0ming "a spac,·
of exce,~ in whkh th~ physk,ility of ct:lturnl politics
(vocality, tacti:ity, lou.:h, rcsomucc) cx,:;:e;Js tr:e
nali,ed da~itv 'system' and trn:isccndent under•
standing;' see ' .Slcwar: (I ')96, p. 130). Rkkmr
(2002-2003} argues, "Nature is not j11s: a linguistic
edifice and laJ1guagc is :.,c«tt1.. :J?1:,:., if it does ::ot refer
beyond ilsdf" ;p. 31 ). aim Masl1Jw ( I 964 j and
Sherry and Schou:cn (lOGZ).

Poetry :cses, ::mvever, if it doe, no: conform
at some IQ lhe enerien,e of it, audience, We must
be able to exchange experiences. l)11 separatin:is of
11rlvate and public voices, ,ee llf 11 ja mi:: ( 1969h, ~'- 156)
a:1d Wolf (1982, p, I08). On lrrk ;icetry, see Dar:1on
(2C-03) Tedlrn;;.; i, 1999, p, 56). On poe:ry and the
11eec: :or historical contexts, see Hartnett and Engels
(chap. LI, this volume), Or poetry the senses, see
S:ewa,t 12002), On ways of articulating history and
place t;:rough poe:ry and iiai nti ng, see Brady (20'.13h),
80, Addressing similar issues.Jackson ( 1995) says,
"I wanted to dcvelo;i a style cf wr'tl:·.g which would
b~ t3nsom::t with liwd ,:xperit>ncr in all its v,_ricty
and ~mbigui;( (p. 4), !ttduding ronocious~.ess itself
as a form or proje,;led and ;irosr>ective Jwarmess,
Consdousn('Ss •expn,sses interrclatior. ships between
self and other, sub;'ec: and object, which do not haYe to
be ,:onl ri,ed because :hey are the very preconditio:: of
our hun:an situation" (p. 169), ~foviug in Iha; intellec-
tual zone with an appealing and innovative mnced
vc,sc ;it:d prose account o:· tie:dwork in Afrka,
the poet/ethnographer \Vilmsen (1999), knowing lit;ic
of the local language, as his At'rican journey ·,cgan,
queries him.e!I: "While wall,kg in the dcb:iitating heat,
I asked myself how I was going to rm:kc :ny experience
inteUgihle to tither,:' (p. His answer' "It s,:·c'mcd lo
me t"tat a way :11 do this lay in exposing the simulrnncity
in indivkkal lifo: :-crnrrcn,cs in whkh
c,u;1menu:s resonate-1e~og1:.:ocd a:; ffi\!1110·
ries, expectations, :-ev,eries. info:ming e,ic:: momc:1lary
awarrnes~, shaping each" (pp, xi-xii). W::mscn con-
tinue,,, "I haYe tried 0:1:y :o trm~llllr lhr tcxt!m' of
e~:-erie1m, without claiming ii le be mine alone, , ..
! wanted to demo::,trate :hat ,inm:tane:ty of
en,e is not an e:s:cluswe pt?ro)';itive of today's ·mdd but
is a condition of being ::uman, , .. I wantfd :o :ind a
:o express the historicities ne,·sor1s in contact-
to express the fact that are mi alirn cdures, only
aliena1·::1g ways of ~ategorizi ng d'versity" (p. xiv).
8L But co:isidenhe notio:i of"mes.y i,,
"texts tr.at are aware d the:r own narcat:ve- appara-
tuses, that are sen~itive to how reality is soclalllyl .:on-
strm:ted, and that [u~derstand j tha: writing is a way of
'framing' realit}~ Messy texts are many
tual, always open-ended, and re,i~t,ml :o theoreti.;al
;:olism, bu: alwavs committed to cul:uca: c ~iticism"
:m:;zin, 19'!7, r,. 114), Accordir.g :o Drn,in {l'l97J,
"Ethnopoctks ,ind n,ircatives of the self are mes,y
,c>-:s: Thev ,ilw~vs n,turn lo the writer: v seu,-a self
' ' '
,pi:ls o,·er into the world being inscribed. This is a
writerly se:f with a particukl, hubris that b neither
Brady: Poetics fur a Planet n 1017
inso:ent n~r arrogant. 'fl:c podic ,elf is simply willing
to put on the line to rake :·isk:,. The~e ri,;,,,
are predica:d on a simple pmp,,sitinn: T:iis wrile,'s
p1:rnonal experience, ar1: worth ~haring with others.
Messy texts n:ake the write~ part of the writing project.
m,t jusl ,ubjcdivc accmml, uf
ex:,erience; they at:empt lo re:'.exively nm? the mn:ti-
ple discmirse, that "~cur in a g:v;::: social space [see
ei;pedally \'Vilmsen, 1999J. Hence, they are alway, mu!
1.vcuce-1, No :nterpretatinn is p,ivileged. ·:11ese texts
reject the principles (>f the realist ethnographic narra-
t'. ve that makes claims to both textual autonomy and
rpistemokgkai valid':y" (p. also Brady
!1998. 2000, 2003h, in press) Marcus; 1994).
"Theodor Adorno Bpeaks ol eKa~t la:1tat:,y' to
de;;cribe a genre of writing :l:al is rigorously empi:ical
hut, wi:htmt 'going hevm:c the drcumlerem:e' of the
emp:rical, rearranges mns:clhitions of experienced facts
in way& th;;t render them ;u;cessible and readable, It is
a method of writing that re;mdiates :he fonn of lineal
and progressive argumeritation. It is paratact'c. \Jo one
elemc::r is subordinated to another, Perha;:s the tcr:::
·ex.let fo:1 ion' best des,;ribes sud1 an approa.:h t:J eth:10-
graphic writing" (Jackson, pp. ; 63-164), Co::1pi1re
Brady (200Jb), Favero (2003),and W.etcalf (2002).
8l There ,m, other effects a& wdL Tedlock (1983;
argues, '"Evenr' orient11tl;111, together wi:h e~ imensi
fled ap?rccialion of f,rnlasy, r:as already :ed modcr:i
pods to recognize a kmship betwee:: t;;eir own
work and lhe ornl art of tribal pro:ilt'S, As Jerome
Rothenberg poims om in Tedmidans of rite S,ured,
both 'mod~ni' and tribal poets are co:1cerned with oral
performance, both es.cape the confines of Ari,stotelian
ralionaiism, both lransc('fld the conventional genre
boundaries wr:ttcn li1t::11a:~e, both snmctimcs
make u,~ of s:rippcd-down forms thal rec; uirc maii-
mal interpolation by audicm:cs'' kinds
of inkre,ls and !he focus on poetry and inlcrprerive
methods in general in ethnopoctirs jo,:: up wilh other
forms llf cx:,erimcntal texts in ma;i,ing "public what
sociologists and anthropologists have long kepi
hidden: the private feell:igs, doi,;bts, med dilemmas tha!
mnfm::t the !fold-worker in the llcki ,rn,,,,c (Dem.in,
1997, p, They "hmnanize thr etlmogr;1phk disd-
plineh .. , under a postmodern a~sthetic as,uruptiu:i
c!lnceming the sublime to make what was previously
unprese:itable part the pre,,enlation (p, 1l 5),
They ,'muhaneously break from and continue "the
ethnographic t:adition of represe:ili rig ~xp<'ricnces uf
others;' rejecting "the sea:ch for absolute truth tr.at fa
suspicious of totalizing theory;'break'::g down as par:
 JOH! Ill l:IANIJBOOK OF QL'ALlTATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER
of the process moral and inrellect:al distance
between reader and wri,er" {p, 215), and perhaps help-
,a
ing dose the gap with fresh approaches to what we,
as rr.odr:n peoples, have Jost (or buried or i:: other
ways ceprioritized) si nee the advent o: writing and the
reimwal from daily contact with the soil and animals
ou~ anciem sel,es,
84. Compare Lepez ( 1990b;: "If, in a philoso;iby of
place, we examin1: our love of the land-! do not mean
a :-omantk love, but the love Edward 1Nilson calls bio,,
ph:lia, :ove of what is aliV<:, and thr physical context in
which it lives, whict: we call 'the lmllo"' or 'the ca::e-
bra kt" or 1hr 'woody draw' or 'tl:e canyon-if, in mea-
suri r.g our love, we feel anger, l think we haw a further
nbligation. lt is to develop a hard and focused anger at
what continues t,, be done to lhe land not 60 t:1a1
pe0ple can survive, but so that a relatively few ?t:0ple
;:an amass wealth" (p, 42 ).
:,.leruc!a (I 997, p. 213),
86. Abbey (1968, p, ·
87, Fawning over rmble savages or pristine envi-
rnnmtnts anc: societies only doucs the issue. We need
t() catch ourselves in the ac: of oversim;ilifications and
ethnocentric wishes, Vie nred to be cognizant of the
fact !:lat, a5 Ear:nett and Engels point out elsewhere in
this volume (c':ap, 41 ), :he life circumstances of the
ancients were "like our own wcrld-wrackec with
political, economic, <1nd cuhunl dilemmas;'
88, Gru,mew,dd (2003) says, "An expanded frame-
work fur analyr.ing the power of place might include
more discussio:: of Native Ame~can and other indige-
nous traditions, natural history, psychology, anthro-
pology, architec:ure, sudo!ogy, cybernetics, e<:nlng'cal
scie::ce, and reagious studies, as well as all genres
of imaginativr literature. Unce one begins interrogat-
ing the powrr of place as a construct for analysis,
one sees ,hat ii might be, at:d increas:::gly is, appliro
constructively to any realm of human experience or
in,:r~::y. . , , The question is worth as":ng: Without
focused atte::t:on to placrs, what will become of
them-and of us?" (p. 646). On poetry in educational
rcsearch,see also CiJl::,mann (2003).
89. lly writing from their own body-grounded
experiences anc addressing dirrctly those of others
similarly embodis:d, both personally anc, mnsckn-
tiously, i;ioets can dice up wha: ails 11s into viv:d and
·::.,Jievable- accounts. That ls an cr::poweri11g and polit•
i<:al act, and pcets are not strangers to it On poetry and
;mlitics, see Heaney (1995, pp. I, 7-8 ), v,:;n Hall:Jerg
(1987), a:1d Rich (2003), On educational reform and
taking "teac'lers and students beyu::c: the ex;,ericnce
and study of places tl} engage them in the ,lO!itkal
process that cetcrmines what these places are ar,d
what they will bes:ome;' ,ee Grurnewald (2U03, pp. 62~.
640). also the pioneering thoughtful work
on "inves:igative poetry" lly Hartnett am' Engels (d:ap,
41, !his volume) a:id the power:ul testamer.t to poetic
rendering as a course social ac:ion in Hartnett
[2003).
90, Lopez ( i990b, 1998) and Snyder (1985).
In Arctic Dreams, Lopez ( l98~\ t:1at the "ethereal
and timeless powc, of the land, that union of what is
beautifJI with what is terrifying, is insistent It pene•
all cu:t ures, archaic a:id modern" (p, 368), And
jost as we arc necessarily ,ituated in the ]and, "':'he
land gets insidt us, and we must decide rn1e w,iy or
another what rhis means, what we will do ab:mt
accept ii as it is, attempt"to achieve congruence wfth a
reality that is already giveri a .. , reality nf 'horror
within mag:::ficence, ahsurd:ry wi!hin intelligibility,
suffer:ng jo}':'' as one could argue fits tl:e
worldviews of the Innit, or should we our pro·
found modrm ability t() alter the fand, that "ch.nge
it into so:ncthing else" (p, 368)? In one re,cie,··t. there is
no choler at alt ¾rhe long palle:n of p:1rely b:olo@kal
evolu:ion ... strongly suggests :hat a profuu::d col,
lision of human wi[ with immt;lahl~ aspects the
nat-.:,al order is in;;vitable" {p. 368). On place, technol-
ogy, and rrpresenra:ion, see also Sherry (2000),
9L Denzin ( 1997) knows that "good ethnography
alw.iys uses '.angm1ge poetkully, and gond poetry always
brings a situat:on alivein the mind of!he reader"(p.26).
Ill REFERENCES
Abbey, E. (I 968). Desert soli!£iire: A season in the
wilderness. New York: Ballan:ine.
Ab:ar:., D. ( i 996], The spell of the srnsuou;, :-Je:w York:
Random HoU5e.
Ahn-Lt:ghod, I,, (1988). Veilni sentiments: Ilcmor and
poetry i11 a Bedouin wcie!,v. Berkeley: University
of California ?res,.
Ackerman, D, ( 1990). A natural hi,tory of fhe senses,
New York: Vintage.
Agee, f., & Evans, iV, {]960). Lef us IIOW praise famous
men. :\few York: Ballantine,
Aitchison, J, (2000). The seeds llf ifieed,: language
origin and evolutia11. :-iew York: Cambridge
lJniver5i!y Press.
Allison, J., Hockey, J,, & Dawson, A, (Eds.). (1997). After
writing culture: Episf',;mology and prrLtis in c;;ntem-
porary amltropolcgy. New York: Routldge,

Amlin, M. (1997). Tiie land of lit1le rain, New Y(lrk:
Penguin.
6a~bdarc, G. {l 964 ). 'll'1e poetics of sp,i:c,r Boston:
lleacon.
Barthcs, R. (19i'2t Myt/wlagics {A. L~vers, Trans.).
New York: Hill & Wang.
.Barlbes, It {L977), fm;;;,1;e, rr.usic, te.u (S. neath, Trans.).
New York: Hill & Wang.
~arthcs, R. (l 982 ). The ernpi;,1 ol' signs {It Howard.
1runs). Ni:w 't'.:lrk: Hill & Wang.
N. (2000.Auam::i). Wh}' ;;;, n:all}' native w,itersi
Onon, pp. 69· 73.
!lasso, K. II. (1996a). Wisdom sits in p/,ices: L,:m,l·
sa1p1• and /angu,tg.-: ,mmng ,hi' We.,tem Apache.
Albu1:ucrq·.. e: University of New M,xico
Basso, K. H. :1996b). Wi,com sits in places: ;'Jot es on a
Western Apache landscape. In S. Fdd & K R
Basso (Eds.i, Smses llf placr (P?· 53-'JC). Sam,
I Bauman.
:iM: &hoot of Ams:r ican Research Press.
[Ed.J. (1992). Folklore, u,!tmal m,r:10,.
munce:,, 1,nd popular emertainment: A communi•
c1mo11s-cmtered hand~ollk. New Ymk: Oxford
rnivcrs:tv Pr,)ss.
llehar, lt: l993).1ranslwed woman: Crossing the border
t w•,h fs/,m11u11i ,/Ory. Boston: Beacon.
.' Benjamin, W. (196\la}. JUumbra1iom (H. Arendt, Ee.. ).
\ew York: Schockcn.
llenjamin, ·w. (I969b J. The storvteller. H, Arendt
( EdJ, i/Jumin~!hms (pp. 83-109 ). \few York:
Schockm.
Berger, P. L., & Luck:nann, T. (1%6). The s<Jdoloxy of
kt1ow!d,~r. N!'w Yor,c llouhleday.
llladd..-.:rr.. T. R. ( 1971). S,·nsuous· inlel ls:,tual compk-
me::larit yin sciew::.: Sz'ien,·e, 100:1-1007.
!lrady l. ( Ed. J. ( l 99 la). Amhrapologica! potties.
Savage. MD: Hnwman & L:1t:dicld.
Brady. I. /1991 b), am.: n,gi.:::1ent: Bringing
torlh ariful ""'""'"• In L Brady (Ed.), Antlrrc:,
pologica! poetic ( pp. 3-30). Savage, MD: Rowman
& Linlefield.
Brndr, I, (1993). Tribal fire and ,c:ibal In P. Benson
(Ed,), A11thmpafogy ,md litemtun: (pp. 248-278).
Urbana: t:niversity !Jlinoi, Prtss.
Brady, L( 993 ). Two :h<Jm,and wh~:? Anth ropolng-
ical morrents and methods for the nexl cenlllry.
American Arit/;r()poiogisr, WO, 5Hl-516.
Brady, I. :19991. Ritual as cngnilive procc,s, pertot·
manct as his10ry. Current Aniim!pafogy, 40,
243-24~.
Brady, I. (2000 ). Antr: r:1pological ;n;t·lics. ln N. K. Den7J11
& Y. S. Linco· o (Ed~.,. Handbook of quafitative
Brady: Poetics for a Plane! Ill 1019
resrarch (2nd ed., pp. 949-979}, T'musand Oaks,
Brady, I. (2003a). Pot·tics. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. E.
Rryml!:1, & ·;·. E Liao (Eds.), Tire S11ge encyclopedia
of social research meihods (pp, 1:125,-ltl,
Tlmu;;a::d Oaks, CA:
Br2.dy, L (2U03b). 1'he time al Darwin'.< Reef: Poet/,:
expfnr111im1s in anthmpolt'!gy a,rd /ii.<iary. Walnut
CA: A:taMirn.
llracy, L (2004j, In de'ern.e of lhc sc:isual: Meaning
co11structio11 in ethnography and poetics.
Qualitative inquiry, IO, 622.-64.4.
llracy, I. Cn pr~ss). Greg Dcning's lsla11ds and Be,iches
(or, '>'lhy some anthrnpologkal history is sus·
1•eded of being lilemture). B. V, Lal & [), Munro
(Ed,.), Ji:xts and tontexts: Essays on the fouruia•
,ifm~I texts of Pacific l~lands historiography.
Honolulu: Universi:y of Hawaii Press,
flracy, I., & K:.imar, A. (2000). Some thoughts on shar·
mg s,;ience. Sdence Education, 84, 507-523,
Brann. E. T. ( · 99 l ), The w,rtitl of t.~e imagination: Sum
a~,i mbmmce. Savage, MD: Rowman & Little:ield.
Bright, W. (1987). na:1.::al hi~tory of Old Man
Coyote. In B, :iwann & .'I. Kr:.: ?al (Eds.),
Rr,xwering worn' Essr.ys on l\'atiw American
li1era111re {:1p. 339-38i). ller;,e\ey: ll:,iver,i1y of
California Press.
Brody, :•, ( 19112 ), l,faps and dream;. 1" cw York:
Par..t':eon.
Bromwic:i, ll ( 1997). The suhl ime ·Jcforc ,u,sthetic~
arid politics. R,.r/tc;r,, I6! 4), 30-51.
Brown, D. E. (1991), Hurium iwiver~als. New York:
McGraw-H:IL
Brown, T. L {2003 J. Making truth: Metaphor in stience.
Chic,1go: U:1iversity of l:i inoi~ Pre~s.
Bru m.'1', J. (1986 ). Acrual minds, possible w&rlds.
Cambjdge, MA: Ha:-vard t:niversity Press.
l:lulkr, G. (1983 ). Commanche and Coyote, t':e cul•
lure makrr. In ll. Swann (Ed.). Snwo!hing
the grou11d: on Nati~e Ameri,~11 l1terMure
{:ip. 245-258). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Cahr.::;ann, M. (2000). Dri\·Jng thrnugh North Philly.
Qi.arterlv West, 98-99.
Ca'::imam1, M. (200 l,J\'ovember • December). fathering.
American l'oetr:; Review, p. 50.
(a hr:'.'1',aim, M. (2003 ). The craft, practice, p,:s,i-
hility of poetry in educational rese:.in;I:. t;r:111m-
tional Rrse~rche,; 32(3), ,..,,, "'·
Carpenter, E. ( 19!l:J ). :r \.\'i:tgenstein had been an
Eskimo. 'V,mm;J Histary, 8'9(2},
1020 11!1 HANlll\OOK 0~ QUALITATIVE RESEARCII-UlAPTER 39
F. S. (19961. How 10 get :rom spac" lu ;,;,m, in
a relatively short stretch of t::ne. In S, fold &
K. Basso (fds.), Senses ofpla::e (µp. , ,,,-,,,u, Sar:la
Fe, \/M: School of Amerkati Researd: Press.
Caugl:ey, J. I,. I I %4), hm1g)111rry ,,1.:ia/ }l;Orlds: A rnill,ral
approa.:li. lim::oh1: University of Nebraska P:css.
C'1eylltz, (: The /J<'<m> of imperiali!im: Tra11s,
la lien and colonization from the Jet1Wesl ta
Tarz,m. Philadelphia; l:riivcrsity o( Pt·nnsylvnr.ia
Press.
Clar,~or,. fl I!. '. I998), Archaeological in:agining,:
Cm:tc>.tu.il:z,,t:on of imiges. In 11 S. Whitley
(Ed.), Reader in ardu;eologim[ 1/,eory: l'osf•
fm11:e,sm1I and t/Jgnitiv., appm,irhes (p:i. I I'I- 130).
New York: Rou:lcdge.
"''""'"·"' C. ( i 993), lvorldJ of sens!i: fa;p/ori11!! uw,.:1.,;e,
in /n'.<!ory a,.rass· .:;;/iur,,s. New York: Routledge.
Clff:or,i, I, & Marcus, G. (Eds.). ( :986). Writing rnlture:
Tho poetics and politics of etl111ogmphy lkrkelqr:
Univcrsi:y of C,difomia Press.
Clif:011, [, A. (E<l,), ( 1990), 1'he invrntrii l>!Jfrm: Cultural
fi:•J hms ,!mi government policies. New Brunswick,
N']: ~·rnn,1:ct itm.
Coles, J. ( 1979). i:x1•erime11rai ard1aeo/ogy. New York:
Crapam:ano, V, ( 2004 ). !•nugitrntive lwrizrms: .411 essay
itt iittrury-phi/osr;J1himl ,mthropaiogy, Chice.go:
Universi:y of Ch imgn Press.
C,mda,, t : I994 ). l:im 1w,limeut ,w,I 1'xperie1ire; The
exist.mtial irra,md nf culture ,1111i seif. Cam·,1:!di;e,
UK: Carnhic'ge :J11iver;ity Press,
Cushing, EH. ( 197G). My advmtures in i'.u>rf. P.i:o Alto,
CA: Vv'est
Damon, (2003) So:rn: discourses m:/vf the divided
self: Lyric, ethnography, loneliness, Xcp
ICmcs-Culru mi Poetics I. 12, ., I- ,~,
Dane~i, !I•\. ( 1999 ). Sign, thought. 011d culmre. Toronto:
Canad'an Scho:ar,' Pre,s.
Danesi, !vi,, & l'emrn, R (1999/, Analyzing culture;.
Bloomingwn: Indiana Univers'ty Press,
de Sahagim, B, (19!15 ), Aztec de'::1itio11s, J~ J. Rothenberg
lEc.). 1edmiciansofthe sacred (2nd ed., pp.••,-...,,.
:lerkeley: University of California
Deloria, V, i 1993). r.od i., red: A native view of r.:(igum.
Gelder, Fu:..:r-Jm.
DeninB, (Ed,), ( Ma1quernn jo~rnui uf
faiw,mi Rd1arls, 1797-1824. Honolub: University
Press of HawaiL
Dening. G. ( ·, 980). Islands and ii1 aches: lJi!;cut,fSe on a
1
sfirnt !urui-Mun1ue::ils 1880. Eonolult::
L: n1versity Press of H.iwaiL
l)pning, G. ( 1988). Jr,c bm,nty: An ttimogmphic
~(dbm: :ric, Australia: LJnivcrs:l y of 1vlclbourne,
Dcparl:m:nt of History.
Dcning, G. (!•NS}. Thi! death af William Go1id1:
Hlmirys ,mthropoiogy. Melbourne, Australia:
:Vfolbournc t:nh'crsity
llening, G. (I 996J, Performunrns. Chicago: lnivernity
ofChicagu
Dening, G ( 19'18a:. Re!iding5tl'lri1ings. Mellxn::11,,
luslrnli~: Mc,bournc University Press.
llening, G, (1998b). Writing, rewriting beach.
Rethinking llistory, 2(2), I
Derring, (;. (2(J(J4). Beach e1wsi;igs: Voyaging arnm
times, culturrs, mid .1elf '>~dbo:::ne, A,rntral'a:
Melb:rnme L:niversity l're~s.
Denzin, t,,;, ifltcrpretive ,,tfwograp/;y:
H.~nographic practices for the 21st cer:triry,
Tt:ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K.,& Linc(1:n, ~'. S. (Ed,.). (2000), H1111dbaok
11fm1al1tative research ed.). Thousand Oak,,
CA: Sag;:,
llen:zin, N. K.,& :,incn:n, Y. S. (f,:k). (2002). The auali,
rativdnquiry reader. Tl:ousand Oak$, Cl\:
Diamond, S. /1%2). Totems, llarrytown, NY: Open
Boukl5taliou Hill.
Dia1mmc, S. ( 1986J, Going we;t, \/ortharnpton, NY:
Henne.s Hmise Press
Diamond, S. ( 1987). The beautiful and the ugly are or.e
thing, th.: s·Jblime an ether: Arelle,tion on .:ultur::.
Cultural AmhnipoltJg)', 2, 268-27 l,
Dreyfuss, H. :'..., & Rabin ow, P. I 19831. Midw! Foimmit:
R,jwtd structuralism and l:,·rrnm~uri,:,·, Chicago:
U::ivcrsity cf Chicago Pr~ss.
Duudes, A. (1972, May), Seeing i, ~iclk:Ying, Narnr11/
ifislar)t pp, ll-14.
llundc,, A. ( 1984). Sacre1J riarrafrte: Reading" in the
theory of myth. Berkeley: University of (alifcrnia
Press,
Ekkchart, M., & Lom,Huway'm., M. (1984). Hopi
Coyote talcs: ls:tttuwutsL Lincoln: :Jnivcrsily of
Ncbraslw
Farella, J. (1993). Tile wind in a jar. Albucucrqc,·:
l:nivcrsil y of New Mcxiai ?res,.
favero, I! (WtB). Phanl11~rns in a .... ,.,,.,"place:
idcn:ilkation in a ccntra: New Delhi ma:-kct
C11lturn! Ar,!lnvpaiug)\ 18, 551-584.
l'dd, S. 1: 1982 ). .'iowui and st'titimcnt: Birds, weeping,
poetics, mui !/(,mg in K11/uli expressi1m. PhL1ddphia:
lnivcrsity of l'cnnsy Ivan la Pri:sa.
S. ( 1996 ). Waterfalls o:' song: Ac: am:istemology
of plact' rc:.mmding :n Bosavi, Papm; New(;uinta.

In S. !i::d & K. H. B~s.,o (I'd,.), ,if place
(pp. 91-133). &mtn f,e, N;vf: Schod of Arnerkan
kid, & lfassu, K. 'i, ' ( 1996) . .~en,c.! o(pla:·e.
Sama l'c, NM: School of i\me~kim Rcscan::i.
f-ernander, J. (2003). En:ergence and convergence 111
sor.'.e Afria1:: pla,:::e,~. S. M. Low &
[). 1.awrence-Zui\iga (Eds.), 'fhe ,rnihropvlogy ,f
sp,Ke and piw:t· Lcc<llt11g ruirure (pp. 186·20J).
Oxford, UK: BlackwdL
Fim1cga~., R (19'12). 0ml po,Hry: rmfm.:, signiji-
ca~ce, (lti,/ sac/al context. Bloomington: lndfana
t:o'versil;
fomegai:, R., & Orbdl, lvL (Eds.). I 19'13l. Sm1t/1 Hw/tt
oral tr,iditfom Bli_:umingto,:; : ndiana Uniwrsil
Fl el cite:. (1967 ). fhe ff:tm wiw walked tlmmgl: 1ime.
Xew )ork: Random House.
Flore's, T {191'12). ~:dd 1m,·try Anrfiropology and
Ffwtwni.sm (}uarierly, 7( I), 1
florc;;, T. !1999). In Geneva, :-JY: H,,harl
WUiam Smith Collcg::s
l'oucault, M. ( 1970). The order of things: /11; arrlu,m/-
2/;;r of 1/ie humar; srn:na:,. :;few York: Rnndo::i
ilouw.
Fow.:aull. M. (1972). nu: archaealogy cf knr,w/edge.
N,·w York: Pantheon.
Fritz, V( H. :nnkr:r.wn). ~essdung IF.nt:11pme11:I (LE
l'ewdl. Tran,.}.
Ga'.la5her, W. (1993 J, J'h,- µ011'/!r pl,«~: Haw o;,r
surnmndi,1,~s shape r1ur thvughfs, emotions. and
actions. New '1-ork: ,Iarptr.
Ger:rtz, C. C9A3). r.ocal kmr1rledg,r: furilier in
int,>r/mrii,·e ilrtlhropology York: Ii.ls[:; Bonks.
Geertz, A!tem·,ml. In S, H.:.d & K. Bassn
(Ed~.), Senses of pfoce (pp. 2:i9 .a,2)_ '.on:a ~e,
NM: School of .Amc·bm lks,·arc:'. Press.
<;el'll'rtz, D. H., & Errington, E K. ( 1991}. Twi,tcd hfstu-
altere,J con:ex 1,: f(epmmlwg Ille (J1.imhri in
a world ,v,irn1. N,·w York: Cambridge lf:liversity
Press.
Gibhs, R. W,, ( l99·1), The poeti,s of l'ig11rt1tfre
1/iu;,gl!!, l111115 uage, m11i w1dersrrwdim,:. :;few York;
Ca:::h:cgc Uniwrsity Press.
Gr~,'!:~, R. {1948 ). The whitr, goddess: l\ hi:;1oricnl grmtt-
m,:; r c_f poetic my!/.. Xew Y,,;k Octa1;un.
Creen'.ilatt. S. ( ). Marc1elous po,.session,'° U;e
wmider af tile New l'\\:rf,i. Chicago: ~:niwrsil y of
(J1icago Press_
Gregor, :1 (20!14;. Mamm,11, r,f:',lo,th An::crka l;iuernJ.
Rarir1m,
Brady: Poetic, for a Plar:et 11 102:
Ciruem•w,dd, I)_ (2eOJ), Fnundafam, plac;:; A
1m1lt:dl~cipiina ry :h1111ework for ple.ce-conscious
educati:m. /lmeri,,m £ducatwnnl Mesearch
fa,mu1i, 40, 619-654
Gt:,Jiford, A. (2000). Samui objc>cts ar.d sacwd piace,:
/)reser·-'ing Iri/,11/ rradit iori. l!oulder, CO: Ur,:vcrsity
:l' Colorado Press.
Ha;:e, B. IL (I 984). Navajo Cay~te t!ilfi: fhe Curly
·ra Ahct!<lltirdi vcrsi,m. Li nc,i'1 n: l!:1ivc,,il y
Nebraska
Ha,.yn, E (1990). l"he /JOl!tic stmcture (If the wori,L·
Capernirns and Kephr. New York: Zone Books.
Harner, M. ( l 990). Tilt way af the _;lwman. :Jew 'fork:
Harper & Kow.
Hartnett, S. J. (2003 ). lnrnrcerarirn nariw1: fo vesfig111iv,1
prison poems ,f hope ,,nd '~rrar. Vl'alnu: Creek,
CA: Alta~lirn.
Hean<"y, S. ( I 911011 ). Poems i hew York:
Straus, & Giroux.
H,:ane}, S, \ l 980b ). Th~ sense place. l n i. !Jeane:
(I'd.), Preotrnpr1!ic115: :,e/,~cred prose, 19~8- I 9 78
(pp. 131-149 ). Lond0::: Faber & Fal:er.
He.inc}; S. ( 1987). 'Inc !l,iw l~.~Mn >.lew Ycrk: h:,:rnr,
Straus, & Giroux.
..
H,arie}, ' ....
' ('. \I,:,
"') . ·q
,.,.,
f,;,rrar, ,m,,u,. & Giroui..
Heidegger, M. ( I971 l. l'ot/ry 1i, /a11g1mgc and tlwught.
New York: !larptr & ll.1Jw.
Hcide!ll'(er, M_ ( I lluilding, dwelling, thinking. In
A. Hofstader {'Iran~. J, /'oetry, /u1,g11age, ,hm1gh1
{:1p, 145-16 l ). Ntw York: Harper & Row.
Hen.fold, M. (2004). 1'he l1udy ir-npo/f!ir; Arrisam
,mi{1ce in the i;lubv/ hierarchy o/' U1icago;
U:iiversity of Chicago l':es,.
llinskr, C. M. ( 1999 ). :Jfo or. L:lt: ma rg: ns: ethno
graphic poetics of Frank Hamilto~ Cushing.
Jourrml :if rhe Soutlrwl::il,
E::sch, E., & O' r:anlon, .\t (Eds.). (19% ). T'u: av,thro-
pofogy of !a1cdscape: J'erspectiue, ml place a~d
sp1m,. ~ew \brk; Ox fore U::: vc:·sity
l lob~b.iwm, E., & Ranger,'[ ' (I !:18:1). Tiie irwen-
tion rf irodition. New lhrk: Cambridgt Univers::y
i'tl'SS_
lloddcr, I. (: 982), 5)·mbols iu adt1n: Ef/moarch.,e11kigi-
mi s1!1dies ajmaieria! wltwe. Lond J::: Ca:::bridge
University Press.
HGdder, l. (1987 )- Com'l'rgi ng trndil ions: The sear,';
for symbolic meanings in archacdogy ,md gen-
graphy. In J. M_ Wagstaf (hi.}, l.andm1pe and
, 111,m,s• Geographii:11[ ,wd ard1t1colagirnl perspec-
tive; (pp. l34-:45J.0:diml, 'JK: Blackwell,
 l022 !Ill HANDBOOK OF Q[A::,:1AIIVE RK'>EARCH-CHAPTER 39
Hodder, I. (Ed.), 11989). The meanin.1; of things:
Material witme and ,ymbo!ic i-xpressiun. London:
Um'>'in Hyrr.an.
Hnffman, C (1999). The seven swry tower: A mythic
1oumey through space and rime. Carr.bridge, MA:
Perseus.
Hol,1uist, M, (1981 ;, Introduction. ln M. Bakhtin
(EdJ 1he d,'alogie irnag:mlliim: four fl)'
M. M. Bakhtin (pp. xv-xniv}. Austin: University
of Texas
Holq uisl, !vi. ( I99C ), Diaiogi.,rn: Bakhlin and his w9r/d.
Kew Yt!rk: Routledge.
Howes, ll. (199()). Con:ro[::ig !cx:uality: A call for a
return to the ~enses. Antlwopl)/cgica, 55-74.
Hymes, D. ( l Alllhologi,s narrato~,. [n
B. Swann & A Krupat (Eds.),Rern;,ering the word;
Essays 011 .Vilfh'e Ameriam literature (P?, 41-84),
Bcrkdey: l:nlverslty of Cal::hrn ia Press,
Hymes, J, {1995 ), Pon Orford. ,.\meriran 4mhro,
pulogist, 97, 659-660,
Hymc5, ll. (2001 ), Poetry. l:J Duranti {Ed.), terms
irr lang11age and mltur.· (p:>. 187-189). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
;a.;;,,m::, M. {1982) Allegories o{ rlie w/ldenwss: Ethics
aml ambigwty in Kumnki! na,rutives. Blomr..
Indiana University Press.
Jackson, M. ( 1995 ). At home in the wnr!d. nuri:am, NC:
Duke Universily
Joy, & Sherry, J. :r, (2003). Speaking oi art a~
embodied imagination: A mult:sensory aprmath
tr. understanding ae,thet ic experience. Journal of
Consumer Researc:h. 30, 259-282.
Juarrnz, R. (1988), ~criical poetry (W. S. Mrrwin,
lraos. }, San fnrncis-:o: '>forth Point Pres~.
Karp, i., & Levine, .S. {Eds.), {l 991 ). Exhib iring
rnlrure.i: The paetirs and p1/i/ ics of mu ,ei,m ,iis•
plaJ: Washington, DC: Smithson:an lmti!:n b1
Press.
Kerouac. J, (l95!l). i he IJharma l>ums. New i11rk:
Pe~guin.
Kerrr.iac, J. (1959}. :Wexiw City blues, New York: Grove.
Kerouac, i. (:96li). Lonesome /rav,der. Lnnco11:
Mayflower.
K611e.::ses. (2002), ,'letap.~11r: A J,ractica/ mtradiic-
lion, New York; O~ford l:niversity
Kozinets, R. V,, & Sher,y. J, Jr, (2:J04). Dam;ing on
common ground: Exploring the sacred a: 3uning
Ma11. In G.St. John (F.d.). Rave culture and religion
(pp. 287-303). New York: Reutlcdge.
Kroeber, K. r 1983 ), Puem, drc~m, ar.d the er. ns;:ming
of culture. In ll, Swann ( liLL), .,montliing if;.:
gro,mti: Essays ,m ,\i'a/ive Amerirnn om/ iitern/111r
(pp. 323-1'!3). Flcrkd,·y: U::iversity of CaEfomia
Press.
Kus~rn.,w, A. (l 998), Pa ems. Anthropofogy and
Humanis"', l], 2G9-2l0.
Ku,stmw, A. {1999). American m,mads. A11thmpology
a,;d Humanism, 24, 65-70.
K:.: :.:>i,to, S. ( 1998 ). Plane/ l)f tl.e blind: A me'l:oir
New York; Dial Press.
Lalmf:'. & Johnson, M. ( l\l'J9). PhilosopJ;v in 1he
Jli!sh: The eml•odied mind and du1!1enge lo
Western rlroug/11, New 'fork: 3asic Books.
:.anrn Deer, J, 0 Erc'ocs, R. ( Lame Deer; Seeker
cfvisim1,. New York: Pocket llooks,
Lanf, II. C. (2001 ). Giving voice to place: Three models
:or m:dermmding Americar: sacred space.
Religion and American Culture, I I ( 1), I.
Lan,ini;, J, S. {1983;, The aesthetic., of lhe sounding ,lf
t'-ie te~I. In J Rothc::berg & D. ,{othenberg (
.'iyn:posium of tire whole: A range of discourse
toward rm ethnopowcs (pp. 3crkclcy:
Ur 've:~ ity ({ Califur nia
1.a;:ghlin, C D,, Jr., & d'Aquili. F. (j, {l::.ds,J, (1974;,
Riagenetic s/ructura/i,w. ~ew York; Columbia
Un iversil y Pn,ss.
kughlin,C P.• Jr.,& l:tady,I. '(:9?8;.Exiinctirm
and ,;;1n•rval in hum rm populal ion,. New
Colum::i:a University Press.
Laughlin. C. D., Jr., 1\-kMan;:s, ;., & d'Aq·~ili, I'.
( 1992), Brain, ,ymlmf. and experience. New
Columbia Universi:, Press.
Lavie, S, (1'191). 1'/;e pGetic, of militruy occupacion;
Mzeim1 allegories Gf Hrdm1f1, identity rw,ie, Israeli
and Egyptfar, ,,,J,i, B,:;rkdcy: Uni11ersit)' of
ea:::i,rn ia
Layton, R. ( 1997). Representing and tramlaling
people's ;,:ace in the lands~ape of No:the,tt
Australia. In I. Allr son, J. Hockey, & A. Dawt:oll
(l'ds, J, After wri1i11g rnlture: Epi>temology and
praxis in cmitemp,,rary anthropology [pp.
14.3). New Routledge.
Lc:1vit1, J, (]997). Poetry 1md proph,Y,v: ne ,mthro-
polngy inspi,,ufrm. Ar:ior: lniverslty oi
Michigan
Leonard, S, & MrClt::e, M. (2004). Myth and lmowing:
An introducti,m it, world myt/rniogy: York:
McGraw-Hill.
Levenson, J.C. (2004). W,iting history ir, the age o'
Darwin, Rt1ri1,m, 23(3 ), 115-148.
Levi-StrJlls.s, C.,: 1976). Strw::t/iral anthropology (Vo:, 2)
York: Basic Books.

,t
Lewin, (l 986), An:hrop•Jlogh.t
cannot be ;ead '- ,tonl:'l> •.~ciem·e.
Lc'Wis. T. (2002), Five poems in :l:ree languages.
Aritlmipofogy and Hum.imsm, 27, 192-1 !J8.
L:ncoln, Y. & Denzin, N. (Eds.}. (2003al. 9/f I in
Americ~n culf11re, Wal:iut Cre<ek, CA: AltaM:ra,
Uncoln, Y, & Denz:::, N K, (Eds,), (2003'~1), fuming
poims i11 qualitative reS<?arch; Tying knots in "
handkerchief. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Lincolr:, ~-., & (2QCO), Paradlgr:ia1it contro·,er-
~ies, contradictiom, and emerging confluences.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. ~- Lincoln (Eds.), tiandbook
of qualila!ive ritsearch (2~d pp. 163-188).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
:.opez, B, ( 1977). Ci1-i11g birth to T~1md11r, sleeping with
Ms ,laughter: Coyote bui!d,; N,irth Amerirn,
New York: Avon.
Lopez. 3, (1986), An:tic dreams: lmagi11ation and ,lesire
in a northern laru:lscape. New York: Bantam
Lope?., ll. ( 199fr<1). Crow and we1uel ~rancisco:
North Point Press.
wpe1, B. ( 1990b ). The redL,covcry of North Amer'ka.
New Yo::k: Vintage,
l.opez, B. ( 1991, Autumn), Asens~ of p:ace. Old Oregon,
pp.15-17.
Lopez. B. ( 1998). De!ier/ tw:es/Riwr notes. 'Jew York:
Bard.
1.orca, R G, (1985 }. The dl:endc. Ir. J. Rntlie~.berg &
D. Rothenberg (Eds,), Sympo,mm of rhe whole: A
rang, of' discourse toward 1111 etJmop,1etics (ill), 43-
51). Berkeley: University of Califorr.:a Press.
Low, S. M., & Lawrence• Zuniga, D. (Ed,.). ( 2003). Tile
,mllm;pology of sJnKe and place: Loca!i11g .-uiiure.
Oxford, 1:K: f!\ackwdl,
Lowe, ll M, (: 982 ). History of bourgeofs perception,
Chicago: Universll y of Chicago l'ress.
l\'.arcus, (I 99,1). Whal comes (just; after "post"?
The case of etht:ogrnphy. In N, I{, Denzin & i'.. S,
Lin min (F.ds. ), Handbook of qu,,litatiw rese1m:h
(pp, 56:•-5.14J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;.
Ylarcu;, G, (1998), E!•mograpf~r thmugh thick and thin.
Princeto::, NJ: Princeton Univen;ity Press.
!I-far-shall, M. :2004). Namoluk ~eyomJ the reef The
mmsformarfoi; .if tl .Micr,mesian community.
Boukler, CO: Wcstview.
~fa,lnw, A. ;I, I 1964 ).11.eligirms, w1lues, and pealr.
riences. Columbus: Ohio State University ?res,.
~aynard, K. (2003, February). Thir:ccn ways of
looking a: a camel. l\nthropclogy ,\laws, pp. II, 11.
Meletir.sky,E.M, ( l998). 1'/u; poetir,; cif myth (G.Lano:ie
& A, Sadestsky, 'lransJ Ne:.\' York Routledge.
3radv: ?oetics "or a P:anet 111
'
Merleau •Ponty, .'11. ( 1962).Plumomenology ofperception.
London: Routledge & Kt-gan Paul.
Merrell, E (2000;. Change through signs ,if /Jody, mind,
and ianguage. Prosp~ct Heights, IL: Waveland.
Merwin, W. S. (I 997). Flawcr and hand: Poems
1977- i 983. Port Townsend, WA: Copper Can;vn
Metcalf. I~ (2002 ). They lie, wt Gen fog on with
anthropology. London: R1 ullt:dge.
Y.ic.gley, YI. (2001 ), Sm,nce ,wd poetry; N,w York:
Rot:tledge.
Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of geniu.,: imag1:ry and
creati1-i~v in science and art. Kew Yo:-k: Springer·
Verlag,
Mitchdi, R. G. (1993), Mountain experience: The psycho!•
ogy a11d sociology ofadvcmure, CJ, icago: University
of Chicago Pres,,
Momadah K S. (I 96'1 ). The to Rainy lvlo,mtain.
Al:mqncrq·.:t: l7nivtrsity of New Mexico Pres~.
Montg()mery, S. L ( l '19fi). The sciemific voice.
fork: Gui'.:ord.
Munn, N. IJ, (2003). Exdc:ded spaces: llgure i11 the
Australian aboriginal lar.dscap~. In S. M. I.cw &
D. ;.awrence-Zllf1l1\a ' The amhmpaiogy of
,pr«:e and place: loaning cu/u,re (p,,. 92-109).
Oxford, UK: Blackwel:.
f\ah'ian, G. P. (1982). The desc·r: smdls like min: A
ru1111ra!ist ill Papago /r:.fam rn1mtrJ San l'r.u:dsco:
Korth "oirr. Press.
Neilla rdt, J, G. (l 959 ). Bia.ck F1k spi'alrs. :-Jew York:
Pocke:
Nelson, R. K. (l'ldO). Shadow of ihe humer: Swrie.,
Esidmo /Jfi,_ Ch irngo: Univ.::rsity of Chicago Press.
Nt'lson, It K. (1983), Make pray~rs to the, rai-er;: A
Koyuk.on view of the nurtliem Chka!i,O:
t:nivcr,ily of Chicago Press.
Nelson, \c (I 996 ). H. P. T.ovec~a:t and :::e (meat
Hercsics.Jiarftan, 15(3), 92-121.
Neru;.fa, P. (I9971. ·:·he wore, In S, Mitchell ('!rans.), Full
w<1m:1.~, flesJily apple, hot moon: Seie.:ted poems
,if Pablo Nerudopp (pp. z:3-217). New York:
HarpcrCollins.
Nowak, M. (2ll00 ), Re')enants. Minneapolis:
House Press.
Ohr.uki-Tierney, E. ( '. 981;. Illness and hearing among
the Saklralin .Mm1. r.amhridge, UK: Caml::ricge
Univer,:ty Press.
Ong, W, ( 1967). T!Je preu:tm, ~I the word, \/ew Ha~en,
CT: Yale University Press.
Orill:1s, G. H. ( 1980), Haiiitill select io11: (ienera/ th.eory
,;ml applii:arimis to ltum,m beh..vfor. I;1 J. S. Lodan'
 1024 111 HAND3OOK O~ QlJAUTATrVF RESEA:lCH-CI lAI' !'Ell. 39
(Ed.), The avo/111io11 cf human sadal nehaviar
(pp. 49-(i6). New York: Elsevier.
Osborne, ll S. (2001 ). Lands..:apes, memory, mom.. •
• ents, and cornmcmoralion: l'u:tini; ic:entity m
its place. Ca;;adian Ethnic <:tu.•J:v, 39-77
0. ( 1981), Piedra de So/lS!msto11e Weinberger,
Trans.). :-/ew York: :-lcw Llirections,
Perrin, M. ( 1987 'I, The 1w;,- af the lieml Jndfons: Guaiiro
myths ,md ,ymbr>!~ (M. Hnebc:rg, Trans.), Austin;
Univer$ity of Texas
Pluc:,mnik, '.1999). Arch.;eological narratives and
other ways of lcll:::15. Cu:m:nl Anthropol(igy, 40,
65)-1:,78.
l'okmyi, M,, & Prosch, H. (l 975}. Me;ming, Chicago:
University of C1icogo JJress,
Poulsen, R, C, (1982), The pure ext1er:ien,ce of order:
,m rl;e symbolic: in the feik nrnterial :·ulturc
of wrs1er11 America. Alhac;uer,1ue: Univcrsil y :if
Kew Mexico Prc:;s,
Pratt, M, L, ,.,,~,. imperial TrilJ•el 11•rui11g and
mm.,cufl//mliou, \'mk: Ro:.:tledge,
Pra:tis, I. ( Ed,j. ( 198:'>). ReJlecti.ms: l'he anth1'opolcgica/
muse. Wa/ihington, DC: Amerka11 An:r.,opologkal
A8socialion,
Rich, A, (2003). What is fou11J there: Wrn,;bwks ~n
poetry and politics. New fork: Norton,
Rkhardso:·, M. (l '17 5). Anthrnpolog: st: :-he mrth
teller, Americun Eth'!ologisr, 2, 517 533.
Ri,hardson, M, (1982 ), lking-i::-lhc-pla:ro vernu,
b:ing-in• the..market: M;1terial c'.t urc and the
i:ons:mction of social real::}·, American
F:1/mologist, 9, 421-436.
Rkh,1rdson, M, ( 1998a), Poe:ics :n 1he f:dd and on 6e
page, Quali,ati'1e luqu1ry, 4, ,..,,--,,us
Richardson, M. ( l991lb). The poclks of a resurrection:
R,,-sc,•ing 30 year.~ of cha ngc in a Colom':ian
commu:::ty and in ,he anihropol~gical e111erprisr.
Amer iam Anlilmpi!lllgi,,, I :JO,
Richardson, M. f1999a ), l11e Anthro in Cali. Qualitariw:
Inquiry, 5, Jo,j-:•o:,,
:l.'cha:dson, M. : 1999b ), ::arrat:vic, the writ
::ig self: T'ie poetics of being the Garder: of
Eden. Sauthem Review, 35. 33U-3:17.
Ridrnrdso::, M, (2001 ), The Anthm wr:te, a Quali-
tative luquiry, 7, ;,9"--;,o.
Rickma:;, P, (2002-2C03/llcc,mbcr-January), The
poet's mete.physical role, Philasop/;y .Vo•;,
pp..30-31.
Rlcocur, R (: 991 ), Fram wxt to acti<m·
h,·rmer.utirs fl. Evamton, IL: J\'(irthwester:1
University P:es.g.
Rosaklo, R ( l 9~9;, Ullrure a11d !ruth: 1:~e remaking ,,j
sodat ana!ysi•t Roston~ Fkacon.
Rosaldo, R, (20:)3), Poems. Aruhropofogy o,i,l
Jlrumwism, I ' 1-1 Ll
Rose, D. ( I \191 ). !n search of expe:·ienrc: The anth~opo-
logkal poet irs Stanley Diamond. '.n I. llrac.v
i Ee,,), Anthmtrnloxi.:al poetics (pp. 2: 9-23'),
Savage, MD: R,,wm;in & Littlefield,
lfothenberg, I. (Ed.). (l'/72), Sllaking ,1,e pr.mpkin:
1raditicnal p~etry of the lndi,m North Americas.
h'ew York: :),i·,:blec'ay.
Rothenberg. ]. /1981). Pre-la,·,,s ,md other writ•i,,m1
'.\cw York: New Di rerliom,
lto:henberg, J. (Ed.). (; 985), Titdmicirms of rhe s,iae,l: A
r,m;,e ,,(poetriis fm'11 Ajrim, Amer1m, llsfo, ~:!lrop,,
arrd (h'canfa (2nd ed.). Bdu:l,·y: t:nivcrsity of
California P~ess.
lfothenherg, J., & Rolhenoc:i,, D. !Ed~.;. ( 19&3).
Symposimn a( the whole: A mn,e of discourse
t/1,vard an e1h1wpaerics. llerkeley: t:11 iversit y of
Ca.iforr::a Press.
Rubinoff, I.. ( I Vieu the verification ,,fhlstor-
kal interpretation. ln M, M. 'lagliacono & D. P,
Verene /Ecs.), arid cm1temporary tho:igf.:
(pp. 94 121 ). \J,,w York: Hmna::'tie, Prr,s,
Samm,:,ns, & Sh,:ric';, J, i (2000), 11-an,,laiing
l.a tir: Mnen:an n:rbal art. Was hi ngto:'., DC:
Smithscnian Institution Press.
Sar-Jyd,ir, S. C. (1976). Ex;,erimental archi1rology: A
dy11amk a?proach to res:otutructing :he past
l,riijans, 5, 10,
Saraydar, S. C. ( I91!6 ). ;\ re legend days over?
t'.ral,wpc;logy Huma;usm Quiirter{y, I J,
IO-J4,
Sam ydu. 5, & Shi r:'.ada, I. ( ll.xpubentol
ard1aco,ogy: A :iew outlook. American Ami:1uiiy,
38, 344-350.
Scham,, S. ( 1995). Ltmdm1pe and memory. t\c'w
KnopL
Seeger, A. ( l S75). lhe meaning of body ornaments,
I::tiuw 1o/{)\ 14, ,. I : -224.
( 1981 ), Nature ,md ,;11'.'iely in Cemral Brazil:
'lJw Suya lndians (y.w,110 Camb,idgr, MA:
Earvard University
S1<',rrv. J. E, l r. l 1997). Trivium Siam. C:.<1mm1pli;n.
Market!. and Culrun•, i(: J, 91 -9~.
s::crry, J, Ir. (2000). Pa,~, tcchnolugy, and ~epre-
scntation. /,,urn,:;/ of Ctmmme,
,,; 173-278.
Sh,·rr;•, J. "·· & Ko1,incts, R V. (2004). Sacre.: icono-
graphy :n se,ufar spocc: Altars,alrern,and alterity

al th: l!t::ning l,1rn Project J:1 C Otnc, &
IM. r.ow~ey (Ed.s.), C1>nt,~mpnrar;1 rnmwnpti,m
rituals: A re.;earclr anthology ( pp. 29 l l ).
Mahwa::, N:: I.aw reuce l::·lbamn.
Sherry,/. E, Jr., & Schouten, J. (2!J02).A rok fo: poetry
in consumer re~earch. foumai of 1.cr,ncmi<cr
Rrs,cardr, 234.
Sirnondli, J. (2001). Conflict zone: Exp:e.s.sion, of
work in Svui<..,·«>, A ntl. mpo/ogy a"d limm riism,
16, 91-100,
Slotkin, R. (1973), Rcgtm·mtfrm tl:rw11.h violma•: '1 Ju,
scma11/fcs of ,cci,,1 cr<'atiori ari.i control. :vrnsc,;c-
town, Wesl<:ya:i Jn iv,;,;rsit y Press.
Smith, D G, (Ed.). i 1997), The geography of theory and
the pedagogy ol' p18ce /mirnal af C11rr iculum
Tlreorizi11g, JJI J).
Snyder, G. (1969;. Ei<r!h hous~ hold. J,;e.,. Ynrk: New
Dircclion:,.
Snyder, G. ( l 'l7 4 ). 'forth- /,lmrd. 'Jew l\ew
Dirr ct ion,.
Snyder, C. : 1978 ). Myrlr, and rrcxt;. >Jew New
Duec lions.
Snv,ier,
' .
li. : l 985). Podrv and the Jlt:l11 itive: Notes on
poetry as an ecological Sll rvi,111 ted1'1 ique, In
J. J.othenherg & D. Ro:hc:nb~rg (Eds.),Symp1>£i!1m
of the whole: A runge vf di,wurn low1ml lln
etlmopoefics (pp. 90-103;, lkrkdcy; L:rnversity nf
California Pre,;;;.
Snyder, G. ( IS90). 71ir practice of wild. New Y<irk:
North Pnint Press.
S;iiegelberi;, H_ { Doing p!;,•rwmcnalog)': mi
~nd III ph.11muenolagr The Hague, N~the:bnd;:
Mart' nm Ki jhoff
Stewart, K. (1996 ). A space 1111 the ,ide of 1hr road:
Cultural poetic; in an 'bther" America. Princ.:lon.
NJ: Princeton t:niversity
Stewart, S. (1001). Poetry ,wd rhe fate or thr ,mN~.
Chicago: l:niversity ,,t' Chk~go l'ress.
Stoller, P.. (' Scr;su,ms sdw/arsi'lip. l'::i!a,klphia:
Uni,ersily of ?enr.sylvar, :a Press.
Stoller, I: ( 1989). The ta51e aj' ,-;rl:mographic The
se11s<!s In am!m.;po!ngy. Philadelphia: U:ihusity of
Pcrmsylva nia Press.
Stoller, P. (2004), Sensun:.:s e:hn:igraphy, A:'rican
pcrswisions, and social krmwledg,:. (./Uillifinivc
lnqmry, In, 81
Stdlcr, E. & Olkcs, ( 1986). Bad .,a,~ce, g,ltld ethrn,g•
rnrhy. Cu/11,ml Anlliropo/:Jg,x i, 336-352.
Stoller, P., & Olk,::,, C. : J987}. lr1 sorcerys shadow: A mem•
air :;f <1ppr<!lr!icf'ship ,:m:011g th;, .~,mghay :/
C.hiu1go: t:nivcrsi;y of Cr :cago
Brady: Poetic., for ,1 Planet Ill 102,
Suiter, I, (2~02). l'oe!s 011 the p,·aks: Gary Sm·,l,·r. Philip
Wlrnie"!, and fa.ck Ke1·011,1c in 1hr North C,urndes.
Wasb1gton, DC; Crnmte:pu::11.
Suskind, P. ( 198G). f>erfi,me: t/;e story af a murderer.
'Jew Yor ~: Pocket llooh.
Swann, ll (Bd.}. (l91HJ. ,\moothinl( ,h,·
gmumJ:
en N,1rfve Arnerh:an omJ literature. R,,,,1,,:1,,,..
Universi:y of Ca:: lorn 'a Press.
Swann, B., & K rupat, ;._ ff.:'s.). ( I987 )" flecovering
!he 'Word; m1 l\lntfve 1hneritan Jiterar11rt>.
R~r,eiry: Univers'ty of Califor~:a
M, & Ven•ne 1), P, ( '.ds, ), (I 976 J.
,md ::cm!~mpomry tlumglir. New York: Eumanities
P,css.
'fa:n, J\'. ( l'N l ). Jmm the Wim ving Mmmrai11:
Seb:ted ir: puclics urrrhropology.
Altv~q uerque; University of Kew Mexico Press.
Tam, N. (2002). &lectcd poems: 1.950-2000.
'.\'.i,idlctown, CT: Wes er,in [niver,ity Pres;,
'fut1ssi",~
M. i 1993). ,',fim<'siS and afrcr!tv: r1 1n,anh·u/11r
' #
/,istvry of il1,r ,er;se,. New York: Routledge,
'kdhJC:1, B. ( l 992 ). Th-e be,mtifi1i ,,nd 'r..: dang.:rm,s:
Llialagw,s wit/, f/;e li,ni indi,m,·. 'kw Yr rk:
l'engui1:.
'llccilock, ll" ( Hm!ing 1111! center: .V;;,rra1i1·e pveiry
of llie 1.uni lmiiw,,. New YL,rk: Ilia! l'rc&,.
'li:r.:nck, ~I. ( 198] ). J he ,pokcn w,mf und i lie 1,m·k
inlcrpreimimi. l'hilndelphi3: U11iversity ;if
Penn~rlv,mia ,'re~,.
fodl1Jck, D. ( I ~90). Vay, (ram " dream .i/,rumac.
Urbana: lnivasily llli11ois Prc,s,
Ted·.ock. D. ( 1'193). Brea//; ,m the mimir: l,!y:/:ic
wd visitm5 of :}w fo,ing ,\faya. A. buquerq·.1e:
University New Mexko Press.
Ted:ock. ( 1999). Poetry ai~d c·.hnography; Adialog:
cal app11·,acn. lln'lwopalugy u11d liumrmis11;, 24,
1 ~ 67.
Ted lock IJ., & 1edlock. U. (Eds.). ( Te(lc/iings /nmr
tire ,1merilun famh: i11dian n,I,,nonar,d pi111<1£:>·
pr:y New York: L'verl ight.
Tl:omp,on, W. L (I 91l9). lnw,~i11ary l,.mdsrn1-1e: M<ilin!;
1,wlds mvtr: and s.-ieim:. :,lcw \brk: St. Marlin's.
Tl:oremJ, r', D. ' {199 ', J. \1a(J.:n. lfost<,n: IloughLon
Miftlin. (Ori1:in,1l work 11uh:'shed in 111.'54)
Tur::er, J. (1996). Th,i ah,tr.icr wild. 'Jucsn:.: U:1ivtrsily
ofAriwna
for:icr, ]vL ( 1996). Tlr,' litcr.11 v mitrd, New fork: Oxford
0
University Press.
Van den Abeele. G. (1992). ]hr,-e/ a,
met11f1l;or: From
l,fommg,w lo RouS!!·e,1::1• .vli1111er1pc,1ls: t.:nivcrsity
or Y. ir::·.,,sota P,ess.
1026 • HANDBOOK 011 QUALl'IAJIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 39

Veliz, C (Ed.). ( 1996). Mam,>mmts fer an age wirliout W:lmsen, !'. N. ( 1999). Journ,•y, with flies. Chkago:
heroes. Hos:,m: Boston Univcrsi:y Pre,s. !Jniversit y of Chicago Press.
Vendler, H. ( 1985, Novemoer Looking poetry in \•iittgens:ein, L. (I 974). On certainty (G. E. M.
Ame~ica, New Yim\: Revie.w ofBooks, pp. 53-60. i\nscombe & G. :f. Von Wriii;hl, Eds.j. Oxfon::, UK:
Verene, D. P: ( Vko's phLosophr of imagination. !l:ackwell.
In M, M. Tagliacoao & I>. P, (Eds.), Vico Wolf, ll, J, (1982). Romantic n.;,.i•ision: Cul,urc
and c,ml,mipmwy thought (pp. 20-43). ;-,lew gfousmss in rdm,t,e11lh•cc11!ury A merirnn pui11t•
Humanities ?n·ss. ing ~mi Jiteral:.m. Chicago: Universi:y of Chicago
von Hallheri. R. ( 1987). f>oiltics /wet/.: value. Press.
Chkago: Unh·ersity ol' Chicago Press. Wolf, M. (1992).A thrin~-wld tale: Peminimi, pll.mtrnd•
Wallace, A, F, C. (1970). Rcvilaliia!ion movemen:.,. ernism, and c!hiwgraphic responsibility. Stanford,
In A, le Wallace (Ed.), Culture mui person:iii1y Stanl'urd Ut:;ve:Sily Press.
(pp. ·:88-189). Yock: R8ndnm House. Woo:ey, N. (1'191). Virtual worlds: A journey fr; hype
Weinstein. F. O99'J). Who ,hould write hiMory? SU.VI' and hypern.'ality Cambridge, M,\: Blackwell.
Research, 10(3), 20-21. T. (l Y79 ). Ltwdscapes oj' fc ar. >lew York:
Wel:er, A. (1990). Thr huntc:: In J. iJavis, 5, Mue,ke, ?an:hcon.
Iv'.. Narogin, & A. Shoemaker (Ed,.}, A,perl:l(lrk: Zob;0c, I'. : 1983). Poetry and ci.:lture: The Navajo
A w/lt,·t/on of b!.:u:k Auw11li,m writings (p. 14}. <'Xa mple, [n II. ~wan n (Ed.), Smoo,hing ,hr
Luci,, A,:stralia: University of Queensland P~ess. grmmd; 011 Narfre American oral !!tera,ure
W':ile, H. (i \l78).1im;ic, dis,cours1:: fasays in rnhura/ 1-244). Berke:er University of Califor::ia
crflicisnt Balti1c:ore, MD: John5 Hopkins Press.
Uni\,crsil y Pres.~. Zolbrcd, P G. ( 1987). When artifacts speak: Wr.at can
',-Vl:ilc, R. (2004). geography of Ameri:an ,,mpirc. they te:: us 1 1-i H. Swann & A. Kr-,1pa1 (Ecs.J,
Rarit~n, 2.i( 3j, 1-19. Rccovt'l'mg the word: on ,Vat h>c i\11t,'ficat1
Williar.is, R. (I '17.> ). Hie country a•id the city. :11.:w York: iiienJture ( pp. 13-40 ). Jl.erkelev: l:niversity o''
Oxford t:niv,·rs!ty Press. Califo~nia Press.
1021:1 Ill '!ANDBOOK OF QUAL;Ti\TIVE RESEARCH --CHAPTER 4U
resonan: i11 mater:al things, Bakhtin's ( 1982, 1984)
funcarr:cnlal theori,,ation anc' e:aboration of the
social poe:ics Iodged in language, texts, and social
worlds, and Barthess (: 975, 1977, IY81, ! 985)
intense and sustained h:sistcm:e on the workings
of spaces and pleasures in between, or out5:de,
or somehow in excess of the rerognized objc:rn
we call texts. experience, meanit1g, cor.cept, and
amdysis. Dclc·Jie a:1d Guattari (1987) polemidzed
the conflict brtween mea:i'ng,based models of
cu:ture and models that track actual rvents,
:on,iunctun:s, and articulations of forces to sec
what they do, ln the wake of their critique, they
oc:'.i nee a theory of the affective as a state of
potential, intensity, and 11itali1y (see also Guattari,
1995), Conte:11,?o:ary fe:riinist theor:sts, notably
'faraway (I 997, 2003 ), Stra!her:t ( 199 L 1992a,
1992b, :999), and Sedgwick (1992, 1993, :997,
2003 ), have carefully-and with e:1urmous cre-
ative energy o' tnei, own-worked to theor:1.e the
generativity in things cu;t:iral and to make room
for of thinking and writing it, as hai; Tau ~s:g
( 1986, !992, 1993, 1997, 1999)
1-lcre, r try to incite curiosity about tl:e vitality
a:1d volati:it y of cultural po.::sfa in cor1terr.:io,ary
U.S. public cull'Jre thrnuJ:!h a story of ethnQ-
g:-aphk enco.mte:-s (see also Stewa,t, 1996, 2000a,
2000b, 2002a, 2002h, 2003a, 2003b),
Ill 0Rm'.IIARY blTlJ\SITIFS:
A!'F:'.CT, Vni\LITY, Gu~ERATIVllY
This is a story about P" :ilic circulations in
moments of , ital in:2act. It rakes place in the
United States during an o:1goir:g present that
began some time ago. T:iis is ,1 time and place in
whkh an eme~gent assemblage made up of a wild
mix of th!r:gs-trchnologics, sensibilities, flows
nf power and money, daydreams, institutions,
ways of experiencing time and space, harries,
dramas, bodily states, a:id innuml'mble practices
of everyday ;if,-has bccon:e ac:i,·dy generative,
?rodudng wide-ranging impacts, dhcct:,, and
:nrrns of knowledge wi:h a lifo of their own. This
is wl:at l meai: by cultural pocs's.
Here, I offer some random examp:es of the
generat!v'ty o( all things in a s7atc of raltural
en:ergcnce, The objects of my story are emergent
vitdi:ies and the ordinary p:-a~:ice;; that instanti-
ate 11r a,t iculatc them, if only partiall r a:id flccl-
Caught, or gli IT, ,sed, in tr:cir very surge to
be rcaE,:ed, these are tbiug,~ that are necessarily
fogith·e, shJting, op;;,ornu:istic, polymorphous,
i:1discrim :natc, aggressive, dreamy, un sl eady,
pract:caf, unfinished, and ra.;!ically particular.
The writing here is one that tries to mimic felt
irr.pacts and half-k,rnwn effects as if the writing
were itself a form of life, It follows leads, sidesti•ps,
and delays, and it piles things up, creatii:g layers
un layers, in an effort lo drag th:11gs into view, lo
follow traj ecrories in motion, and to scope out
the shape ar:d shadows and :races of asscr:ib'.age,
that sofa!lfy and grow entrcndwd, µrrhap~ doing
rca: d:l :nage or holding real hope, and rhe:, d issi-
pah:, 1:rn,ph, rot, or give :" somcth ing new.
It talks to the reader not us a tmstcd guide care-
fully laying out the perfect links bctwee:i theoret•
lea! ca :cgorie,, and the real world ~1ut rather as a
subject caught in the powe:-ful tcnslon berwcen
what can be knnwn and told ar:d what remains
obscun, or unspeakable hnr is nonethekss real,
:ts tl:m,ghts are speculative, and its questions arc
tr:c n1ost bask. What is going on? What Eoating
in:bei:ces now travel throllgh p,1blic rm:tes of
circulation a11d come to roo~t in the seening!y
private domains nf hearts, homes, and d rca n, s?
Vihat forces ar:! bccomir:g sensate as form~,
styles, desire,, and practices? What does it mean
to say that par:k'Jlar events and strands of a:foct
g.:r.erale im?acts? How arc impa,ts registered in
lines of intensity? How arc people quile literally
charged up by the sheer surge of lhir:gs :n the
making? What does cuhL:rnl poesis look like?
Iii DR!'AM L;\ ND
T'1c roller-coaster rke of the American drea:n
had cooe into a sharp-edgro fuci s. Good
had. Wb:1ing and losing. Those were yom choi,
ces. Anxious l:aur.,ed ,e:uihili!ies tracktc
unwan:ed infiuences and veiled threats ;n idioms

of addiction, trauma, and conspiracy while
drea:ns of transcendem:e ,IIKl recluse set afloal
reckless :iopes of winning or esrnpe. Life was
animated in equal parB by ?i)Ssfoili:y and irr:,ms·
sibility, We lurched :!t:tween poles of hope and
despa:, as ovcrwmugh creams flopped to the
earth, 011:y to rise up again, inexplicably revital•
ized, like the monster in a horror rnovle llf the fool
wl:o keeps going back for more. lines of escape
were fascinating too-t'ic roc1:etir:g furtune, of
the rich and famous, the dream of a perfect get•
away .;ottage, the mudest success stories of people
gelling their lives together again. New lifestyles
proliferated at the same dlzzybg pace as did the
e?idemk of addictions and the selk1elp shelves
at the booksto:c.
The political dynamis:n of this tense mix of
dreams and nightmares registered in an everyday
life ir:fused with the effo~t to track and assimilate
the pDssibilities and threats lodged in thingi,,
r,;ew:y charged forms of :he desi,c to know, to
see, and to make a record of what was behind or
underneath surfaces and systems formed a net·
work of ordinary prac:ices. Prulife;ating practices
of turn:r.g desi ~es and ideals ir.to o atter ho:h
encoded tt:e everyday effort to • aster, lest. and
encounter er:1erge11t forces and demarcated a
state of being tu;ied in ;o tt:e mainstrea:n. The
new objec:s uf ma&S desire promised both im;h;.
s:on in the very w~nds of circulation and the
nested still life of a home or identity resting
securely in the eye of t'le storm,
As previous:y public spaces and forms of
expression were privatized, previously pri\•atiied
arenas of dreams. anxieties, ""'"'"''"' and mora:s
were writ large on public stages as scenes of
impact. Yet the world had become weirdly :nyste-
rious just when it started to seem like a rrivate life
writ large or some kind of mllccrivc psyche lnsti ·
tutionalized and expor:ed in a g:obal mutation.
It was like a net had gru·wn around a gdatbO'Js
mutating substance, creating a strange a11d loose
integration of pl,mes of ,;:xiste:1te and sensibili •
ties. Things h:td berome hoth highly abstract and
intensely concrete,and people had begun to try to
track emergen: forces and flows on these variegated
regist"rs wifao:.it really knowing w'iat they were
S:ewar,· Cultural l'ne,is Ill lff29
doing.Somehow it was all personal, but it was
somcth:ng huge flowing through things.
The frm ini,t sloga:1, "the personal is political;"
took on a new charge of intensity and sw: rled in
spin:1ing anri tloatbg contexts far beyo:td any
slmple ideological clarity or polit;.::aJ program.
Ill O,mtKARY Ltl'E
We were busy. Homes were filled wi:h the ground-
ing details of getting the rent money :ogethcr,
getting or keeping jobs, getting sick, getting well,
looking tor love, :rying to out of things we had
gotten ourselves into, eating in. working out, rais•
ing kics, walking dogs, remodeling homes, and
sl::opping. There were distractions, denials, shape
sb:ting furms of violence, practical solutions, and
real despair, Fo: some, one wrong move was all
il wok. Wor:-ie, ~wirled around the bodies in tl::e
dark. People bottomed out watching daytime tde•
visio:1. Credit cards were maxed out, There wa&
downsizing and unemployment. There was com-
petitiur: tu get kids into decent scl::ools and for
them tu keep 1:1eir grades up. Schedules had to be
ctm,lantly juggled to keep up with dance classes
or layocs. Dizzying layers of :a&ks filled in th;;
space of a day,
People took walks in thdr neighborhoods,
peering into windows by night ar:d murmuring
011e: beautiful tlowerbecs by day. Or, we scram•
bled to find ways to get to work and back on unre•
liable buses that quit :-mming nt :i:g:n. We baked
birthday cakes or ordered them from fae super
rr;arket decorated with rigger nr a go:f course,
We "flipped off" other drivers, read the luscious
novels a:1d sobering memoirs. disappeared in:o
l:le Internet, and shopped at Wal-Mar: and the
other megastores bee ause they were cheap, con•
venient, or new and had slogans such as ''(~tting
It Together" and "Go Home a Hem~·
Positions were taken, i:abits were loved and
hated, drea:ns were launched and wour.ded. There
was plea,1.ITe in a c:ever or funny image. Or in
being able to see righ: through :hings, Some
prop le rlaimed that they rnul<l above :he lluw
ar.d '"'31k n:i water. Others wore their imnv Eii:e an
'
 IC30 111 HAN:lBOOK Of (JUAIJTATIVE RESEARCH-Cc!APTER 40
access,Jrv that gave them room to maneuver.
There were a] fae dreams of p;; dty, :narlyrdmn, a
return to nature, gctt:ng real, having an edge, and
beati:lg rr.e system.
Jtist about everyone was part of the secret con•
spiracy of ordi nar)' life to get what l:e or she could
oi;t of it. There were the dirty pk:a,~ures of huling up
to watch or,e's secret bac TV show, taking a trip to
be mall, worki:1g out in spinning d,1.sses at the gym,
~pe:1ding nig:its on the Internet, or playing music
loud in the car on the way to the supermarket,
T:iere were gar., es you rnuld play. One was the
driving game of trying to predict when car
up ahead was gobg :o try to change lanes. Some
people developed a sixtl: sense about it. They d:,·
covered that if they cor,eenlrated on the rnr they
cou'.d sense when lt was considering a move, f'\'c'n
wlm: the driver was not signali1:g a lar..: change
and when the car itself was not surrc?titiously
leaning to the ecge of the lane or acting"nervou,:'
The game of the sixth Sl:'.nse became a pll:'.mmre
and a cor:1p ulsion in itsdt: ll ,pre ad fo,t, even
without the usual help of expert corr.men:ary.
Vou could try out fhis game b supermarket
checkout lines ,oo. There the was to try to
size up th: flow of a checkoct line in a glance, How
fast is that cash Does that wom ar: h:: ve
~oupoml That one look~ like a check w~iter. Thar
one looks ll:<c a talker. Bm the checkout tine game
was hare er ::1 en the driving game. Even a brilliant
choice rnuld be instantly defeated by a dreaded
price d:cck or the register rnn:1i11g out of
tape. A:1d once you made yo Jr choice, you were
stuck with it. Already impatii:nl, you might then
start to feel a little despera;e. You could swirc:, to
r:n:!titasking-makc a phone cal:, make lists :n
your head, or get to work on your palm pilot. 0:,
you could scan the surrounding bodies and
tabloid !1eadlines for a qukk thr'. 11 or an :rnnic
inner smirk at signs of other people's eccentricity
or gullibi: ity; Or, you coi;;d iusl check yourself out
by npenir:g and pag:ng ti: rough Home and Carden
or Clamour or Esquirt. You could relax into the
aura of lac tile bodies, 1ivl1111 room,, and garcens
that staged the jump f::om ~ar:tasy to flesh and
back again right before your T:1e glossy
images offered not so much a bli:cpri nt of how tu
look and live as the much more pmfom:l' .:xperi·
encc of watching images :ouch rr:atter.
JIii ODD li.10MENTS
At odd moments :n the co:.i,se of the day, yot
might rni,c your head in si:rprise or alarm at :he
u11canny sensation of a hal''-known influence.
Privat<' lives and tie public world :iac gotten their
wires crossed. Any hint of p1ivate movement
wou:d be ,mitthl out ar:d th:·own up on public
and people now took their cues so d: rcctly
from drculaling scr:sibilit:es that the term "'lard·
wired" bec:rn:e shorthand fur the state of things.
Public specters had gruw:i btimate. The imag-
inary had grown com::de m: pu':il k '>li!l,t,<:::.. All of
those bodks li:,ed up on the talk show;;, outing
their loved ones for Ibis or that monsl mus act. 0 r
the rea:ity TV shows, with tr.e camera busting in
0:1 : ntimate dramas of whoIr families addicted to
1mifing paint right out of the L11n. v\'e \.\uuld zoom
b to linger, almost lovingly, on :ne geJo:i-sized
jd, scattered around on the living mom ca~pet
and then pan oi.:.t to focus on the face, of the
parer:ts, and even the lit:'.e kids, with big rings of
white paint endrding thr!r cheeks and chins like
,qome c<.tnd of self-intlicted stigmata.
The tabor of looking had bl:'.en retooled a:id
upgraced so that we could cul baci and forth
bet ween the i1:1agcs poppi:lg :ip in the lil:i ng
mom anc some kind of real wmld out there,
Americas Afost Wamed aired photos of hank
robbers with and without bea rc.s so that you
could s,:a n the faces atthe 1ocal convenien::e sto:-e
looking for a match,
The st,eets were littered wj th cryp:ic, half-
written ~igm of personal/public disasters, 'P1e
daily sightings of ho:11r;cs, men ar:d women
holding llp signs whilr puppies played at their feet
could hau:it the solidity of things with the shock
of some:hing unsr,eakable, Hungry. Will work _fur
J ., d' I
JUOU. bO //U/:~$ you,
L

:'he sign hils !:le sens~s with a mes me ri,ing
and repdlent forcr. Too sad. The graph: c lettering
t::at pleads for the attention of tl:e passing cars
glances off the eye as something tu avoid like lhe
plagc:e. )foving on. Ju: it als,1 holds fascination
of catastmphe, the sei:,e that sor:iethi:1g is happen·
:ng, the sn:-gc of affect toward a ?mfound scene.
The handmade, h,rndhr'.c sign of the 'mmele,;s
on the side of the road pleads to be recognized, if
only in passir:g. ln its desperation, the sign makes
a gesture toward an ideological u:ntc, that daims
the v,,lue of willpower ("will work :or food") and
voices the dream of :-edemptfon ("God bless
you"). But it is abject; it offrrs no affect to mime,
no scene of a commm: desire, no line of vitality
to follow, no intimate secret to p: ;unb, no tips to
imbibe for sa'cty or good health. Instead, it sticis
out of tl:e side o:' vision. The shock of sornethiug
unreal because it is too real, too far out~ide the
rerngnized wurld. i.;r.speaiable. There :s no soda]
recipe fur what you can do about homelessness
or even what you can do with your when
rnnfronlcd wit:i lmmele~sness face tu face. Wt: li,e
in a profound social fear of encounters like this.
faen IO g:ance out of th<' co mer llf the ar
the sign on the side of the wad is a diz,yi :1g side-
step. What the glance finds in the scene ir glances
at, half panicked, is the exduded other's abject
to be indudec in the wir.d or ~irc:ilation-
the mainstream. Its mes,age i.;, tm, stark; it bt'gs.
lt the discourse of the mainstream to
the letter, pusl:ing it to the point of imitat:rn: or
parody or fraud. Jr makes the mainstrear:1 seem
unreal ai:d heartless-dead.
A dollar bill s1 uck oul of a car window gets a
quick su rgi: forward r~om one with the sign
and the heigl:tened, yet t:na ssimilated, affect aor
raw contact "God bless yo·J."
Now we are trudging the wugh terra:n o:bud-
ics and the sensuo~rn accun:ulation of i:npacts.
Ill. \VitATEVJ!R
Jokes had stark<.: lo circulate about how we might
as well wire ourselves directly to ser:sation but•
tons and just skip tru: ; tep of content altogether.
Skwarl: Cultu:al l'ueois Ill 103 ·
One day an e-:nail c,.ii:1e her way from Pei: ny, a
:riend in the' :1eighborhoml wl:o i:;.:cd to kce1> up
a running commentary on quirky char.icters and
scrncs spied from her studio windows or fabri •
cated on drowsy afrcmoon walks. Penny would
stop by :o report tidbits and then movr on,A light
:o'J ch. Whr::1 ,he u~ed the e mail, it was tu for
ward fJnny tales filled with deliciou~ descriptive
details sent to her frn:n :Jke-:ninded others build-
lr.g a carpus of matters to chew on. This one told
the talc of something that happtm:c shor:lr atkr
the al :acks of s~ptcm bcr I I, 20(11, in a medical
clinic where a friend of a friend nf Pe:i,1y's appar
ently workec:
Ot co:irn,. it's no! the rumcy <!,ca and the buik·
ing :s very rinky·di nk. Not a big :arget for anthrax,
lc:'s _just pul ii th,11 way. Sht works w:, h mot:icrs
w::o h,iv~ drug abuse pmlllems 1l t:d rhe office do\\c n-
olairs lr;:als iuvics [juwnilesl. Apparently one of
the wome:: who works downstairs lurncd 011 the
.tic lair condi::un,-r] (wim:uw unil) and a while
- .
dust spraved out all mer her. Yikes. Thcv. callc(I th.:
(UC 1Cc::trrs fo, rns,rm,r Cont:1,I and l'rcvc,,li,1n 1
and 1:wn in whitl' su i1s and :11a;;ks ilr,a,fod. 2,ly
who works upl;i'rs was dubious-:md so
the pt'a?k in her offic,' usl _i ,w,! vrnrkcc'
wh tie tht: downstairs w,1; rnrdoncd off ,;:id invcs!: ·
gr.too. They ruslml the M1hstanc~ off to the lab and
put ever)•(,nc who was in the of:kc on Cipro. Then
the test results came bade Low ,md behold, the
hstann-testcd ·Jnsitiv(· :br c:1c,1ind gm,.I, isn't
it? Ther think one (lf the jm·it:s bid his ,rash in the
a.Ii: whe:1 l:e was al, aid of being'""'•·•,,,.. I think
ifa a brillia 111 idea tn start pt.:::iping cocaine intn the
wor~place. No need for caffeine anym()re. Let's just
move right on Ufl tn :he next level pwductivity
inspiration. Whady:1 say?
JIii A Lrr1L1: Accwr::>J ', L1KF AN1 OTHER
She w"s ?. cafe in a small !own i:1 west Tei.as,
A place where randn:r, l:ang oul talking ,eed
prices, fertilize~, and mach:nes and where
strangrrs passing throng:: town are wekmne
cntcr:a'nment. The sJ:1 had gone dnwn, and she
was half.way through !,er fresh-killed steak a:id
baked potato when the biker ,;ouplc came ir, limping.
 1032 11 HA~DHDOK Ot QUAUTAT!Vl: RF.SEARCH-CHAPTER 40
All eyes rotated to wat,;:h them move to a :able
and sit down. The cou;>le talked intently, as if
something was up, and fro • tine to time tl:ey
exchanged startled !ooks. When she walked past
the couple'~ tahle rm her way out, bey raise.:'. 6eir
heads imc asked whether she was heading out on
tlie west road and whether she could look li,r bike
parts. They had hit a deer corning into tow:1 and
dumped thci, bike. Tl:e deer, they said, had fated
n:uch worse.
The room ca me to a dead s:op as all eus tu nee
in to 6c se:1.tience of the crash, ,:ill resonating i1;
tl:e bikers' bodies. Slowly. takir:g their sweet time,
people began to offer question, from their ta hies,
drawing out the detail,. :hen other stories began
to surface of other deer collisions and strange
events;., :ha: ,lace on the west road.
As she left, she ;::,i~tured how, during the days
to come, peop:e would keep their eyes open for
deer parts and bike pilrl& when they traveled thr
west road out of mwn. She imagined tha: there
would be more talk. Conversations would gather
am:md thr even, and spin o'finto other quest'o r:s
such as the overpop u[ation of deer, hunting :-egu-
:at:01, s, and the new law that legalized riding
without a hcl r:, et There might be discussions of
how to fix bikes (and especially this partic~1:ar
:nake of bike), what parts might break or twist
when the ::i:ke is dumped, snd who was a good
bike mechanic. Or, people might talk about the
condition of the roacs. The ir:1age of hitti:1g !he
wide open mad or s:eviving the deser: injured
might come up. T:ie ta:k might call up anytl:ing
fror:1 6e imago: of sheer speed en,01.: n:cring a
deer cat:ght in one's head:ights to the abol,acted
prir.dple.~ of free,:01:1, fate, and recklessness.
But one way or another, the lit(e accident
would compel a response. It wuuld shift peop:e's
life trnjec torie.~ in some s:na:l way. change them
by litcndly changing their course for a mil::.ite or a
day. The chance event might add a layer of story,
daydrea:n, and memory :o things. It might
unearth old resent • ents or suddenly hring u new
contlict to a head. H 11:ight even compel a search
for lessor:s learned. Resonating levels of body and
mind migb begin to rearrange them.selves into
simpler choices-good luck and bad luck, an irnal
Hves lost ar:d tl:reats to machine-p;0pe!led
huma:is, r'sk-taking wild rides and good uld
common sense.
But for now at least, and in some small way
in the future tuu, the talk would ,t"cretly draw its
force from the resonance t'ie event it.self. Its
simple a:1.d irrec.·Jdble singularity. And the 'labit
of watchir:g for something to happen would grow.
ScA'JNl'JG
Everyday life was now Infused w: th the effort to
track and assimilate the possibilitie& and threats
lodged in things. Newly charged forms of the des-
ire to know, ~o sec, and tu record what was behind
sud.let;, am: inside systems formtd a network of
o~dinary practices.
She wa-1 no different from an•'One else. All of her
life, she had been yelling "pay ,n:entim1:" but now
she was not sure whether that W'JS such a good idea.
Hypcrvigilance hac: taken root as people watched
and wai:ec fo, the 11er1 thing to happen. Like the
guy she beard about on the radio who spends his
whole lift' recording everything he does; "Got up at
6:30 am, s:ill dark, solashed cold waler on my face,
brJshed my teeth, 6:40 went to the bathroom, 6:45
made tea, birds started !n at "
Or, there was rhr t1cighbor 011 a little :ake in
Michigan whose ho::iby was recording his every
move on video-his walks in the neighborhood
and in the woods, his rides in his Ford Model
his forays into Poli~h folk dances ,.,.,here old
women went round and roun,~ the dance floor
tngefaer, the monthly spaghetti suppers at the
Catholic chorch in town. He gave one of !:is vid~us
to 'ier and her frirnds to warch. They played it one
night-three anthropologists peering at i,l:alever
came their way from the weird world out there. It
was a video of h ir:i walking ,,,ound the kke in the
winte1 snow and ice. They heard his every brea,h
and footstep. There were some dee droppings on
the path ar.d some snmv p:les with suspicious
shapes. T'.1en he was walking up to Bob and Ali.::e's
catl:n (the couple were in Mor;da for the winter),
and he was zooming in on a huge lump of some•
tbir:g ,hat was pushing out tl:e b,ack plastic

wrapped around the base o~ the house. Uh oh.
Co~dd be ice fron a broken water main. Maybe
:he whole house wa~ :u II of'i cc. The t1cig'lbor guy
wondered out lm1d, ii in facl it was ice, whc::
would happen when t '1e ic..: thawed. (ould be a
real pro":llcm. He said that ma}:be he would ser:d
a rnpy of his viden on to Bob ar:d Alkc cown in
Florid;;. Then he moved ll:1. Back to his breathing
and the icicles 011 t:x:cs and his fooh:eps in the
snow. Trac~ing the banal, ,canning for t:·auma.
Tl:e three ar:thror<)logists lookec at each other.
What was that' She was :1,csmerizcd by it, like it
~eld a key to how the ordinary could crack open
to reveal something big and hidden t'lat it had
,wallowd long ago. The ofae r two were :10: so
eas'ly swayed. It was some 1-'.ml of weirdness that
pt,shed banality to the poh:t uf idiocy and made
no seme at all. A 1r.1zzlc as to why anyone would
want :o record the dron i r:g samenes" cf thir:J,!S,
kmki1:g fo~ ~umething wo,th noting to come his
way. Snmc strange threat or promise that popped
u;, just for a minute and then sank bc'.nw the
surface agait1 as if noth:1:g had ever happened.
A shimmering-there one 11:i:mtt :md gone tlu:
next. Or maybe so:ne lvrical scene you would
want lo remember, Somc:hing wJh meaning.
All of this watching thing.~ was 1:10,tly a guod-
natured thing. Like happy campers, people would
put up w:th a lot of nothing i:1 horcs of a glimpse
o:' smncth 'ng. The ordinary 1,ro, t:1 e :nother lode
that they mined, hoping for a sighting of a half-
known something con:ing u;, for air.
I: could b.:: that ordinary things were hegir:-
ning to seem a little "otr;' ar:c :hat was whal drew
people's atter::ion tO them. Or, maybe :he ordinary
things had always ,ecrned a li1:tle off if you
stopped to think about t:1em.
Thcx were the obsess' ve cnr:i :nilsivcs who
kept trnc;,, of :hings beci,.1£e they had to ("Got up
at 6:30 a.m., st it: dark, splashed co1d water on my
face.... "). These people became ,ighti r:gs iu
themselves.
Or, f:ien: were tr.ose who gave shape to the:r
everyday by inven:ing practices o" m:r: ing it for
sumethi:1g differeia or special. People like her
friends, Joyce anc Bcb, who lived in tbe wood,
in :,,.:C\v Hampshire. lie 1vas a lumberjack. She
Stcw,rt: Cuh ural Pees is Ill H)33
deaned those little 1950s lourist cabins that
were ca'.lcd tb'ngs such as ''Swiss Village" and
"Sbmgrila:' She had '.cft her hus:.ami and lour
kids alkr }'C"drn of j,ing straight in a regime of
beatings under :he sign of Jesus. She went out the
back window o:ie day and never looked back.
Then she met Bob when she was tending bar, and
the two :ook a wa:k 011 l he wild sidr together that
lasted for a dozen hap;:iy years (although not with•
out trouble and plenty of it), lie had a crinking
pro blcm, and sb:: let him h::ve ii because '1c
wo,ked hard. He would hit the bottle when he gol
home at night and all weekend long. She called
him ''Dadd}"' even though she was a good 10 yeiirs
older and pus:i ing Sil.
Joyce and Bob mo,ed from rental cabin to re:1tal
cabin in !he north woods, They invited rnccoons
into their cabin as lf tl:e anirr:als were pets. They
got up at 5 a. :n. to write h the:r diaries, and then
when tl:ey got home at nig'.1t :hey would read their
daily entries out loud and l(lo~ at the artsy phcr.0,.,
of t:1:elups and bees• nest~ that Bob took. Finally,
they were able 'lJ get a "poo, people's'' Imm tu buy a
little cabh~ they ~lld :i,u:id in son:e God-forsaken
place on the north side of the :ake anc to fix it up.
But the:i a can: came from Joyce saying that Bob
had left her for "that floozy" l:c md in a bar.
Sh,· wonders whe:her Joyce sl ill keeps ,'. diary,
whether she s:lll far.cie~ fae serendipitous disccv-
ery of happ:nc.ss a:1CI kinks for ways w deposit it
in the ordinary, or whcthrr something else has
happened to her ordinary.
Ill THE ANTtlRCPOLOGlSTS
The anthropologl,ts kept doing the fun thing.~
tl:ey did togctr:c r. '._]ke knocking on 1he doors of
th Jillie fishermen:, huts on the fmZt:'n la/4e. Thry
would :nv::e themselves in "or a visit, but :he:,
they woi;~d sil down on the bench and the fisher-
men would not sav anvthine. Not even «wi:o are
• ' V
you:'" or "w hat arc you dorng · I:,ere:'" So, Ihey sat
together in a wild and awkward silence, star:ng
down ir:lo the hole in the ice and the deep dark
wolers below. The anth:npologists could not think
of a slng;e ques:ion that made any scnse al all.
 HB4 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RF.SF.ARCH-CHAPTER 40
\Vhen the anthropologists took walks i:1 the
woods, they would come across hunkrs. The
hunters wen, more talkative than the ice fisher-
men. That ts because they all wanted the friendly;
rm,y, overeduca:ed strangers to know that they
were r:ot "Barr.bi killers:' Maybe some other hunters
were, but not them-the :1ew b:-eed. They were
nice, and a lot of them had bee1: to college and bad
:hiags :o say about politics am.: the environment
and the state. Most of the time there was a woman
in :hr group. The others were teaching he: to hunt
Evrrvone-the antl:mpo:ogists too-would cower
when the mean-looking game wardens came
around a bend looking for poachers. The wardens
were the bad guys. They would drive slmvly past :n
po&tapocalyptic cars with bumerl pai :1t and gic.r.t
guns and spotlights mounted on :he hood. They
would fix us with hard stares, a;1d you could see
tl:e muscles jump ur:der their camouflage hi;i:ting
suit~. These guys were jumpy.
Ill Bl'I\/G JUMPV
Sometimes. the jumpy move would take over,
Lingis (: 9':14) saw that this had happened :n:mr:g
miners at the "'"'"" Cirde:
The young n::ner who showed me :he mint' put out
every cigarette he smoked on his hand, which was
~overed with scar tissue. -:-hen I saw the ::tl:er
young mincrt all had the backs of their cov-
ered with Scar tih;u;;; .•• , When my cy,· fdl 011 them
i; 'lir.ched, the huming u;,;,,t:c1.,c being
crushed and sensing :he p,in .... The r;•e dni:s not
read the meaning in a ,ig~: it,iu>np., fmm the :nark
tr. the pain ilr.d the burning cig,uett~, and
jumps to the fraternity signaled by tr:e hur::::1g
cigarettes. (p. 96 l
Jl!l A SLASHING
On the river in AusCn, Texas, in the early morning,
joggers pass over the long high bridge and slop
to stretch their hams:rings on its metal rails. Pairs
uf friends, a!:w,t to part for the day, will stop m
stare out at tl:e expanse of watery sights laic out
helow-:ishcrrnen in tla:-bot'omed boats sit
-:prig ht :n straight-backed chai ~s, g:ant blue herons
poise on d:mvned rnttonwoods. r:ew limestone
riansions perchrd on t:ic d iffs above throw retlec•
lions halfway across the rive:-. Crew boats pass
silently under the bridge like human-powered
wa:er b~1gs skin: r:, ing the s,1rface. Occasionally,
a riverboat will thrust itself slnwly up t:1e rive,,
dredging the hard mass of :he water up and over its
wheel. Here, the world-in-a-pktu:e still v:brates,as
if it w.is ji:st at that very moment that the real world
crossed paths with ar: i:nagined elsewhere and the
two realms hung suspenced toge:her in a still life.
Sometimes ~here a7t' scenes of quiet despecation.
Sometimes prnple lea,e memorials on t:i e
bridge.
One n:orning, a crude sign appea;ed, :aped to
the metal nding. Below it was a sh:ine yellow
r:blmns and a Sacred Heart of Jesus v,11 ive can de
with half-bur:1ed s:icks nf incense stuck in the
wax. The namrs. Angela and Jerry ',Vere writlen in
bold letters at the top of the sign, like the names
of young lovers repeated over a;1d over ia school
notebooks or graffi:ied on train tresdes. The
star-crossed lovers' names were harshly crossed
out and fol:owed by tl:e wo:rls"Rela:ionship dest•
myed, with malice by Federal Agents &. A.RD.
[Austin Police Department] beliefs gi.;aran-
teed under U.S. Constitutional Blll uf R:g:1ts. I
miss you Angela, Jessica, & Furry Dog Reef'
1t was signed "Always, Jerry."
Relow tl:c signa111re were two graphics: :be nk;;.-
:1arr:e "Yan~ee Girl" enci,ded by a pierced heart and
a thick black box e:1cab:r:g the prayer'· 1•lease Come
Back:' T:1en a final !:owl and. a promise:
Angd:1, Jessica ~nd l'urry Dog Ree£ ... I miss you.
May God :iave mercy on the S•Jufa of th,· hateful,
evil, vindictive people who conspired lo take you
from me, and did sci wit:i s·.:ccess. Angela, I wiJ love
you :1 lw::vs and forPver.
J mi,ss you babe.
Al the ::iottom, another pierced heart held
Yankee Girl in its wou11ded arms.

The sign was both cryptic and as crystal dear
.
as a scream. mtter furv' was its vitalitv and its end.
IL, drive to a sheer satisfaction ,;; u:vered like flesh
in its wavering letters. It heaved grief and lunging
at tl:e world not as a:1 uuter expression of an :nner
state but more directly as an act of the senses mek-
ing contact with pen ar:c paper and matches. Its
slashing was li'.<e the self-slashing young
women who cut themselves so fhey can feel
aEve or literally cone to their se1Jses. It had the
same se!f-sdfkient fullness and did not ask for
interpretation or dream of a :11can ing.
This is a sensibility· as common as it is strik-
ing. It is the kind of thir.g you see everyday. ln the
elaborate ?Oel:cs of graffiti-the signatures left
so artfully, the politics of slashing through them,
crossing them oat, erasing them, replicating Lhem
over ~own. Or in the signs of the homeless on
the side of t:1e road. Or in the countless verbal and
visu.il signs that come lo life oa the charged bor-
der between things pr:vate and things public. It
is the ;;_ind of sensibility that surges th rough the
wild conversation of AM radio talk shows and
Inter:iet lt acds force to the railing of the
en raged in everything from road rage,: o lellers to
the editor, to the face-to-face ::aging resen1 ments
of workplaces and intimate spaces. It ptrmeate,
politics from right wing to !eh: wing.
Somefr1ing i:1 its roughened surface points to a
residue in thir.gs, a something that refuses to dis,
appear. It draws attention, holds the visi:al fasci,
nation of unspeakable thir.gs-tnmsgress io:1s,
injustices, the depths of widespread hope! ess1:es,.
Wbat animates it is not a part:cular messaJ!e but
rather the more basic need to forcefully perform
the unrecogn izcd impact of thh:gs.
It fl~, tb: easy translation of pain and desire
into abs:ract values or com:nonsense coping.
Yet every day its dramas of surge and arrest are
bathed in the glow of some kind of mea:iing or
form of &smissat Then there are these que.,tious:
Will the gesture of the slas:1ing shimmer as a
curiosity passed on an everyday walking path,
and will you feel a little jolt as you pass? Or, will it
jus: go in one eye and out the other?
Sometimes, it might have •1itality of a pure
surge pashing back, gathering a ~oun:erfurce to a
Stewart: Cultural Poesis III J035
point of inre:isity th,;.: both slashes at it,elf an.:!
spits at th, world.
Other times, its viol en :e mear.s that it wiE
be erased, ignored, or drawn up, like blood in a
s~· ringe, to infuse new Iife into the enveloping cat-
egories of good sense, heallhy protest, productive
acts and lives, a:id mainstream moods by virtue
of its bad example. It will be unwi'.ling and unwit -
ting nourishment for the more setrlec! world of
calculation, representation, vah:e, a:,d necessi:y
that gave rise to its spilling fury to begin with. Yet
even tr.en, the sign, in its perverse singularity, wil'.
peep out of little cracks on barely public stages
simultaneously defying and de:nar.ding w: ~ness.
It will remain a ::,artially v:sible affecting presence
because what it registers is not only points of
breakdown in "the sy:;te:n" but also lines of poooi-
ble breakthrough beating llt1hidden in the h:ood
of I:ie mainstream,
A persor. walking by such signs n:igh be
tmiched by them or l:atdened to their obnoxious
demand:;. But e:ther way, a charge passes through
t:ie body a1:d lodge, in fae person as an irritation,
a confusion, a:1 amuse • ent. an ironic smirk, a
t:irill, a threa:. or a source of musing. For bctttr or
worse, signs that erup: as events teach us sorr.e-
thi ng of their own jumpy attention tu 'mpacts by
leaving v:scc,al :races in their wake.
• STRBSS
The lone body and !ht: sudal body had become
the livec. symptoms uf the rnntradictions, con-
flicts, po,sihilities, and haunted sensibilities of
pervasive force,, Stress was the lingua franca o:
the day. If you had it, you wc:-e onto something,
part of the speeding force of things-'n-the•
:na'.<ing. Bui it could pun cturc you too, leaving
you alone du ring times of exhaustion, claustm,
pho:.i\a, resentmen:, anc ambient foar.
The self became a th:ng filled with tne intri-
cate dramas of dreams lannched, wounded, and
finally satisfied or left behind. You could comfort
:I like a child. Or, you could looi< at the out; bes
it against the relief of ulher people's missed
opportun: ties. Or, you could inhabit it as a flood of
 1036 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITA".'IVE 1ESE,\ RCH-CHAl''iEH 40
event" and relationships caught in a repetitive
pattern that you recog:1ized only when you got to
the er.d of a cycle, and by then you were already
onto the next one.
Etere were little shocb :n the rhythms of
splurg: ng a:i d purg:ng ar:d in rnnsta 111 edgy
cor~ect:oris of the self-help regimes-take an
aspirin a day (or not),drink a glass of red wine a
day (or no:), eat butrer or low-fat :nargarinc or
canola oi i, eat oatr:1eal to strip the bad choleste:ol
from your arteries, eat s,,lmon to add the good
cholesteml, :ry amiox:dants or kava kava or
melatonin.
The fig lire of a beet'ed-t:? agency became a
breeding ground for all kinds of strategies of
comp'.aint, self-destruction, flight, re:r:vention, and
experimentation as if the world restec m: it~
shm:lcer,. Strnigbt talk about willpower anc pos-
itive t:iinking claimed that agency wns .ii.:at ,i mat-
ter of getting on track, as :fail the messy bu,ir:ess
nf real selves affected by events and haunted by
threats could he left behind in an out-uf-this-
world levitation a,t.
Against this te:-ide:icy, 11 new kit1d of mer:rnir
began to work the lone self into a fictional sacr i-
fice powcrfu I enough to drag t:ie 'Norld's :mpacts
o:u onto secret stages. Self-he!D g:-oups added
density 10 the mix, offering both practical rec: pes
-,elf- redeeming action and a h:1rd •hi :ting, lived
recognit:on of the Iwisted, all-pervasive ways
in which co:npJlsions per:ncatcd freedoms and
were reborn in the very surge to get free of them
once and for al
Iii T 1r: Bouv SrnwE;:;
1
The body bi.:ilds its substance out of l,1,•ers of sen-
sory impact laid down in course of strain:ng
upst rea • agair, st recalci:rant and a:ien foxes or
drifting dowr:stream, with its e>·es !rnfaed on the
watery douds and pass1r:g treetops overhead and
its ears submergec in t:1c f.ow that surrounds ii,
;nioys it, and curries it alo:ig. The body sL1rges
ward, gets on track, gets sidetracked, fa: 1s clown,
;m: ls itself up to crawl on hands and knees, flies
through the a:r, hits a wall, regroups, or beats a
retreat. It kr:ows ::self as states of vitality, exhaus.
t:or:, and renewal. It exerts its1:lf uut of m:cess::y
and for the love uf movement and then it pulls a
veil around itself to rest, buildh:g a :1est of worn
d othing redolent wi rh smells of sweat or cheap
perfJme or smoky wood fires burrowed i11to wooi.
The body cinnot help itsel[ l: is di'. extremist
seeking t'irills, a moderate sticking its toe in to
test the waters, a paranoid dr:usion looking for a
place lo hice. it is a rlln11 d ng fool :hrowing itsdf
at an object of roL1nd perfection in dogged
conviction tha: it '.s on the right track this h:ne,
\•1'ha1 the body knows, ii knows from the soell of
someth'ng prorni~ing or rancid ir: the air o, the
look uf a quickening or slackening of flesh. It
grows ponderous, gazi 11g m, its own form with
a Ze:1-like emptiness. As a new lover, it do:es on
revealed sea rs and zones in on fre,kles and moles
and ea,lobes. one of :he anxiou, a~iag, it is
drawn to the sight of r:cw jow Is a:id mutant hairs
and mottled 5kill ir: the balhmom mirror.
Tie body i:; hoth the persis:er:t si tc oi self-
rt'Cognition the thing that will always betray
you. It dreams of its own redemption and knows
better. It catches sight a movcmen: out of the
corner of its eve ar:d latches on to a hormwed inti-
'
macy or a plan that corr.cs as a gift to swrep it
tho tlow of the world and free it of its lone\ tles:1.
The body const: mcs and i;; c01:sumed. I. ike one
big pressr:re point, it is the ulace ,,..l1ex outside
forces come to roost, condeus ing like thickened
milk in the bot:om of the stnmach. It gmws slug-
gish and for sweet a1cci heavy lh:ngs to match
its inner weight. Or salty or caffeinated 6ings to
jolt it to attention.
Lavers of invei:ted l:fo forrn around the lmd v's
'
dreamy surges like tendons o;: fat.
.
Lifestyles ai:d industr:es pulse in a silent,
unknown reckoning of what to m:;kc o:· all frds.
The body builds itself out of layer on layer of
sensory impact II lovrs and dreads wha: makes
it At timt.,, it is shockc-d and thrilled to find itself
'n t:ic driver's seat. At other t'mes, it hole~ up,
,, ~aps itself in its layers, The world it
lives in spim wit!: the dancing poles of ups and
downs and rests its lanrels in a banality that hums
a tune of its owt1.

Ill Bmw FUR L1: Ii
She once took up l?ody fiir Uf~ on the <ldvkc: a
friend. Between ther:1, it was a j o~c. T:1cy callee'.
it their cult. But they also knt'W thal there was
so1m;:hing to a little extreme ;,e)f-transforn:al:01:.
Or al le,.sl the cffri rt. Body for Life was a ;Jesl-
sellbg hook with glossy"before-aud-after" pictures
of bodybuilders on the in.,ido cow rs. It ,tarted as a
bodybuilder',, movement-building, moncrma;cing
challe1:ge to the unwashed to put 61wn beer
and chips a:1d start loving life insts:ad of j t:st liv-
ir:g :t, to start thriviug and not just suniving, II
w2s" 12 w«,cKs to men:al anc physical 11lrcugt11:'
She was not at all taken with the !an:ied, nilrc.,
rr:usde 1:1an and muscle won:an look on the
ir:side covers, but the litt:e game of moYing her
eye~ back and :orth bctwccr: pair of before-
and-atter shot, caught her in a spell of momen-
tary satisfiictfon. Tht! s:ye junped happily betweei:
t:ic paired scenes. Now far ctnd ptile, now JT. ;isdrri
and oily and tan. Peck-a-boo. All of the bodies
were white. They r:iace her tr:ink of the :)Udy
plays t;n11 she was always running i:ltv wbeu ~he
lived in Las Vegas. At the post ofl:ce, or the
drive-in movie theater, or while waiti:ig jne to
get a new d~iver·s lkense. there wen: always halt~
caked bodybuilders wi!;: wet-okinncd snakes
c~,,?cd around their necks, or rr:oi:keys on lcaslc cs,
or stars-and-stripes halter !q;~ and permed ')lo:1d
r.air.
Her :'riend called the people in the pictures
"beefcakes?' Class seemed to be soi:1ehuw involved
:n of this, but people wo Jld swear up and dow:1
:hat those who were into ilody_frn Ufe ..:ame froi:1
all walks of lifo. That mmfortab.c claim 10 plain-
ness emerging out of some kind of mainstrea:n.
Smr.c ki:1d of rnaL culture. Ordim1r}' Americans
umnarkr,d hy anything but the will tl1 change
their bodies and by the real or imagined fruits
the:r s;iccess those glorious 12 weeks. They
were peop:e who had "::iecn catapulted out of the
:>ack seat life onto :he magic carpet ride th<1t
tmr:s flighty ,elfdt>feating dreams inlo vital gen-
erative t1esh.
They had experienced their bxakth roughs
when they ,aw the i1cspiring photos on the inside
S:ewar:: Cultural Poesis II !03 7
C<Jvers, or when they took a gond hard look
st their own eye-opening "bdore" p:ctu,i:s, or
wl:en-while watc:iing the :n,piratio:ial viceo
that they could get for a $13 donal ion 10 lhi.:
Make-A-Wis:1 Foundation-they were sLJddenly
released fro:n the feeling of being alone a n<l felt
hope instead. They began to crave the J 2-w·<'eir
prognur even :-non: than they craved a piece of
key lime pie or a
There is nothing ·weird a~ltY.lt !·ow this happ<:r:,.
It ls laid out step bv step like a 12-st.:p ,wogram
where 6e spiritual trcnsforma:ion flow, di:-ectly
through the flesh. Yoi; :'ollow the steps ;n book
as if it were a recipe book. rnnsuming ead: !ll;W
,,v,,.,..,,,,, with relish. You create 12 week goa!s out
of gos.samcr wishrs. Yon pull your (;rean,s
out of their s:i adow cx:stcnce into the light of day.
Okay then: You harness the force in your own
faintly beatiug desir<' lo change, Wov,! Okay,
You ask yourself ha rd questions. Yllu wrilc down
the answers. You speak your goa:s out '.oud wi:h
mimicked confidence every morning and night
until the confidence is real. You commit You
[m;us; forge: the zoning out and d :-ifthg down-
ot :earn. You create five daily habit$. You in:agine
other people looking at your :1cw body with
gl ~an:ing eyes, and }'OU r c,,r rhrir approvin11
conme:its until the .magining is effortk~s and
part ym:. You surrender :he :iegatlve
that hold eve~yone back, and you star l looking
l(lrw·,1rd. You realize that you will nevtr again ~ti
s:rictrnc'.<ed. Everyone who takes the ;2-week
d: allenge fcc:s E:«i a w j :1:1cr You do not :1eed a
carrot or: .i srkk anj1morc: ym: rnke your off
the prize (a :,Jood red Lan:bo:ghini Diah:oJ and
cve11 cousumer :c:ll,hism seems to fade into the
ba~kgnund of a half-lived pa~:. Now you are t:[):1-
su:n ing your hody, and your body is rni:suming
yoa. Ir ls more direct.
was not really interested lr: the inspirational
bus:1:ess, however, and ~he never actually t·ead tb:
book. She :,asst'd dir,xtly from the game of before-
aml-after photos 10 lhe charts near the end of the
book tlml tell you exactly what you haw :o de and
eclt She got reganized.She made copies of the exer-
cise c\arts so tl:at she rnuld fil: o:te 0111 each ,k y
like a daily diary. She memorizec: the acceptab'.e
1038 Ill HANDBOOK OF QCALJli\'l'[VE RESEARCE-CHAPTER 40
foods i:1 be three food groups and stocked u;,. She
ri:ua'.h:ed each meal and glcc"hlly took off the 7th
day each week, carefullr following instruction
to eat exactly whatever she wanted :hat day ar:d no
less. She ordered boxes of the shak..:s and power
bars and began to experirner:t with the recipes tr.at
made the choco'.ate shake taste like a banana split
and tur:1ed lhe vanilla shake into that famous
liquid key lime pie. S~e got the p'cture, She felt
the surge, She let :1 become a new piece of her
skeleto:1. Then there were the inevitable t:?S and
down,, the sliding in and out of ils partial cocoon.
A couple of yea rs later, long after she had con•
su:nec the program enough to reduce it :o a few
new p,ejud'ces about how to exercise and how to
eat dr:ftcd i:1to Body for Life Community.com
a'ld the dozens of listservs and chat rooms in its
nest Some were modeled as C:hri stian followsil.l ps:
The o:ilr rec uircme1:t lor meml:ersh i F is the
;o ht healthy. ·:'his is not just a set prindpl..:s bul
a sodcl y for peopl<' in artim1. Carry the message or
wither.... Those who huven't heen given the lrnth
not know the ahundan: we have found-a
Oc I, inlu life, a real Ii fe wib fn:edo:n,
Other listservs wex ''·Jst organized bv, state. fn
any of them, vou could dick on sorr:eone's name
' '
and Ltp wo u!d pop a Body for Life ?hoto, slipping
you right int(; the culm re of personal ads. l n the
chat rooms, tl:ing, got really concrete. One
wom,m confessed tha: she could smell the
chocolate right through the wrappers in the bow-I
of Halloween rnndr by the door, and someone
shouted 5up;mn i:1 capital letters: "HANG IN
THERE! YOU CAN DO IT!:!" A man happilr
obstssed about how to prepare his shakes:
My favorite is c::cm:ate, and to prepare lh'-' shake
I ah~ays os<' 3 cubes of from the Ru bberrnaid
mold, put t:lem [wit'1ool wale,) in the ;ar,and then
pour the water in. !Jse · 2 and a half ounce, and l
centimeter, blend for abour 55 seconds. "rrn.i
lhaw] Ill'' t,; use a slopwatd1! I think this is why:
love M}'Op:ex, bec·aui;e I blend i1 for more sc..:tmds
I ,lr'::k it cool without r:::;k or bananas,
People exchanged .stol'ies of ongoing tra-
gedie,, seeking workout partners to help them
get through the ordeals. Others just focused on
keeping up the network connections:
Good morning lo everyone. Ileen off for 2 few day,,
Lizzv-sorrv
l , :o hear about t'Dur
, rr:igraine-scarv!,
Jim-'t's t~u~ Yll:Jr picturei; don't do you justice!
Abs-I love your philmuphy! It's trne-we become
wha! we think about lleb-congratulat:ons ! Good
Jue;.: with your pho:o~-can't wait to see your p;o,
gre~s! If yo11 :lnd something that ,ov.-rs bruises,
let mr know--! bruise ;ust thinking about bump-
ing intu ,omething. Can': wai: to see )'OLI all al the
upcoming events!
All of lhese sdf-expres.sior:s are excessive ir:
their own way. They prndaim, conlei,s, obse,s,
and gush. But that is :10: because the body really
does jus: get on track and march forward armed
with the dra:na of success a11 d the :ninutia of
ciplinary practices, It is because it slumps a:1d
sidetracked and rejoins it~ Body for Lije se'.f.
lt is because ii wants and it does not want and
hcce.·Jse it rr ight do one thir:g or another. lt is
because it smells its war along tracks, e.nd new
t,acks intersect the old and car;V it away, It is
' '
because it catches things out of the corner of its
eye, am: hall~ hidden things on the sidelines a:-e
always the most compell!ng.
/i(Jrly for Ufe drat'IS its own life from the force
of a bodily surge enacting 1:ot the simple, deliber•
ate, one-way ~rnbodiment of dreams but rather
the pulsing impact of dream ar:d matter on each
other in a moment when the body is beside itself.
Caught in a • ovcment, tloatl ng suspended
between past and future, hesilatior. and forward
thrus,, pain and pleasure, knowlecge and igno•
ranee, the body vibrates or pulses. It is only when
the body remains part:y unactualized and unan•
c:ioced that it seems intimate, familiar, and alive.
This car. be lived as a• event-a mmnenl of
shock, di • ax, or awakening,, l:t!t there is also
son:ething of it in thr hanal and quotidian-a
continuous background radiation, il humming left
unremarked like a secret battery kept charged.
Body for Life that turning flt!eting fan-
ta~i es into 1he force of vitality is about 1,rnking a
decision, but makir:g a decision 1s irs,' If about

play hg games, looking al pictures, following
recipes, :nimicking desired state~. inve:ning
sodal imaginaries, and :alidng lo yourself in rhc
mirror. Gettii:g 0:1 track and slar·ing there is not
the simple and rnber choke or ,1 lifetime but
rather a thin li11c frnrr: which ym; can, a:1d proll~.-
bly will, :npp: e back to ordinary sloppine~s or
onro an "epidemic of tht• will" (Sedgwk:k, . 992)
st:ch as excessive dieting. T::cn the body might
swing itself back to a stale of moccration or
exhaustion, ,t:ck its toe in lo the waters, and
pull the hlm:i<ets over itself to hide,
The ,m;lifrrating cuiaues of :he :lody spin
madly around the palpable prorr:ise that foars and
pleasures and forays into the world can bt' Iii er-
ally made vital all-,;onsu n:ing passions. !ht Ihis
promise (,md threati is already there in th.: body
directly engaged by S:1 ffling public sen5ibilitit:s,
in th<' ,m:,es retoolal .ind set in motio:,, L:ke an
anten r:a, the bndy picks cp pJlscs that are hard to
hear, or hard to hear, ii; the norrr:aliz!ng universe of
cu:turnl ~odes, It stores the pulses in ,1 mxk muscle
or a limb, or ii follows them ,iusl to ~cc: where they
are going, It d11reo them and registers their impac:s,
It wants to be part of th c' r flow. It wants to be in
toucl:, :: wants to be 1oud1cc, It hums along with
them, fiexing musdes i:i a s:alc of readiness.
Jill so~.IF,TIMES Wu,'.'! You
HEAR SOMllONF ScRF.1\M , , ,
Laurie Andtnon had 2. show at the Guggenheim
Soho called "Your Fortune, $1 '.' A 5pooky wh:te
plastic owl percl:ed on a stool a da;kc:1ed corner
spewec our a ,eeam of two-bit advice, 1,em:hanl
commen:,1 ry, and ,tray advertising lingo plucked
oul of a rC".ilm of sbeer circulation, The owl's
mecl:ar:ical yd sensuously grain1· voice dro:1ed on
;md o•, tra.1sfixing •1cr :n a flood Ilallmark
greeting ca:d schleck. She W<,S fascinated lo see
how 6c Hood's ordinary ~ca'.i:y ••'P•n,,,. to
instantly deflate and bccmne both laugh,,::,[e and
alarmii:g fro:n owl's simple mim i,;king.
Then it saic something that SMlr~ she had
already been a:1xiously .:hai::ing ;o herself.
Stewart: Cul:ural Pocsis 11!1 !039
Sonu•! imes when you hear someo11e scream, it goes
in :me ear ar;d out lhe oilier. Some1imts it passes
right into the middle ofymir bmi ll and geJS stuck
there.
It was one c1:' those moments when tl:c i:1dis•
.;ri:ninatr flow dead in its :racks. The super-
satura1ed ,oup of ,ensor;· :im.ges and sounds
gently prodding and ma~sa&ing c1s like wave:; lap·
ping a shore take,, thi, oppcrnmitytn solidfy into
something n:omer::arily dear or even shocking.
Like :i trauma we bid forgotten or never quite reg·
istered that cumes back in a flash, Or like a whifc
of something hopeful or potentially exciting pass-
ir:g with the bree2e, \Ve perk up in a mix of rerng-
n:ti on, pleasure, and alarm,
One mi nu:e you are afloat in the ;'Calrr: of sheer
circulation. Ther. some r:mdon: sm:nd blte hits
you with a force that sc-:::ns to 'iring you to your
se:1ses, We sober up ir. :he face of a cn:el lucidity,
B1:: i: is 1he hungrv s.::nse t:1at 1:as heen awake:ied
that drives the wmk Dack into 1hr lami of
enchantment ';'he waves of des:re lap at o11r feet,
and we drift again, l:eld aloft by sheer den-
sity nf images, sen,ury signab, and ob;e,\s drawn
i:1tn p;ay in the dreamwo:ld,
Whe:1 ,le r.rar<l :he owl's line ahout screams
that pass right i:1to the middle of your hrain ?.1:d
get ,tuck there, she went hor:1c ai:d wrote down
a stor 1· that had ·'.)een '.edged :1: hc-r psyche ever
since sh1: ht,ard
'fhe story starb with ,I tJUes lion lodged ir: a
tart'le ,ens ate amdetr and then opens onto un
acs:hc;ic scene of the sen,es. The ,Jues:ion: Do
you ever wake up in the murni:lg, or in the middle
o:' the :1ight, with a sense nf sudden dread ar:d
,tart scmning your drea:ny br,lin fur :he memorr
o: what ,vou have done or a :mc>m
'
onition of what is
coming? Some do 11:is all of the lime: for thc1:1,
:his is w:rnt nu,nlng has become,
l':1c aesthetic scene: She has a big iron hrd
'01.~gcd against long wide window, lookir:g on:o
:he back deck. Tropical breezes waft over her in
:he night, carry:ng lhc ~wec:t and fotid ,mells of
iumquat l~es and mimosa hla,sllms, At dawn,
there are wild bird crics-n(urning doves aml
grackles and par~ot.s that once escaped t'leir pet
and now hreed in the trees. Al certain hours
1040 • HANDBOOK OF QUAI.ITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 40
in the still of the night, the train cries in the near
distance, The night pulses wi fa the high lonesome
sound of haunted rr.achine d:-eams roaming the
landscape.
\\ihen she has guests, me lets them use the
iron bed, and ,hey ,,.,ake up talking about the bed
a:id the wailing t:-ain as if they feel pleased to be
set dmvn in some kind of American Heartland.
But is only too happy to lay down a pallet on
th.: living room floor and fall into a deep s:eep
with 0:1 ly the s:nell of old ashes f::om the fireplace
because she knows why the train sings.
The train for Bobby, a homeless drunk
who laid himsdf down on the tracks o:1e night
a:id ?ll$Sed out as if he too could :ay down a pal-
:et and esG.?e fro;11 his ghosts. He and his old lady
had been down at th,:- free concert on the rive,
where some of tl:e street people party hard. The
weekly .:or:cert was their moment tu bt: al home in
pubEc, doing what everyone else was duinf:!, only
:nnre. Some would laugh loud or make announcc-
mer.ts or give people <Erections and advice. As the
cay wer.t to ft:!! dark, the poWer of music would
flmv out from the stage, touch spcllbounc bocies,
and spread out to tbe neon ,kyli nc rcflecti ;ig in
the dark glassy ex?ar:se of the r:vcr. There ',vere
alwa~ graccfu'. moments a dar:ce gesture, a wide
open smile, a sudden upsurge of generosity, the
stadec gratitude of pariahs who suddenly :ound
therr:sel,es seamlessly rubbing shoulders with
the housed. There ,,,ere always crashes too-
people falling down drunk in fror:t of the stage;
the vm7titing; a man lmddlcd and ?ale, too sick
to ;:iarty; flashes of hope and ease dashec on the
rocks of familiar fury, frustratio:1, humiliatio:1,
and grief; ?cople making spectades of them-
selves. Sometimes there were fights.
That night, Bobby had a fight with his old lady
and stomped off alone. He followed the trai:i
t:acks througl: :he wo<1ds to the hor:1cless camp.
where he sat on the tracks alone, taking stock in
a booze-soakec r.10mc:1t (If reprieve. He loved the
roma:1ce of the high lonesome sound in the
distance and the train's promise of tactility and
power-t;i,;: rumbling weight of power incarnate
rumbling past, th,: childhood memory of the
penny laid on the tracks, the way the tracks
carved ou: a "no man's land"w:i.ere sl:adows could
travel and li,•e.
He laid hlmself down on the icy cold tra:ks
and dosed his eyes, as if tempting fate, As if that
simple move held both the possibility of checking
out and a dream of contact with a :iu blic world
tl:at migh: indude hin,
Sumew :1ere in lhe middle of tlie long trni ri
passing over, he raised :1is head, awakening. They
say that if l:e had not woken up, th.-. train would
have passed righ: over hin:.
Now the train screams out a warn:ng when
it draws dose to that place on the tracks not far
from her iror. :,eJ, It oHen wakes her. Or :t lodges
in her sleep and comes as an unknown shock of
anxiety in the morning.
1l11111
Ill CODA
The sto~ies that make up my story-disparate
and arbitrary scenes of ir:1pact trackec thro~1gh
bodies, desires, or laburn and traced out of the
afterma:h of a passing surge registered, some-
how., in objects,
, acts, s:tuarions, and events-are
meant to be taken r.ot as representative examples
of ;oxes or condit:ons but rather as consl itutive
events and acts :r. themselves that animate and
literally make sense of forces at :he poi:it ot their
affective and material e:ne,gence. More directly
co:npell:ng than ideologies, and more fractious,
muhiplidtous, and unpredic:able ,han sy:nholic
representatkns of an abstract stractJrc brought
to bear on otherwise lifeless things, they are
actuil sites where forces have gathered to a poinl
of impact, o:- tlir:ations along the outer edges
of a phenomenon, or extreme rnses t:mt suggest
w:1ere a traiectorv might lead if it were to go
unchecked. They a:e not the kinds of things you
can get your hands on or wrap your mind around,
but they are things that have to he literally
trackec.
Rather than seek an explanation for :h ings
we presume to capture with carefull)· formu:ated
con ceptc1, my story proposes a for:11 of cultural

and political cr:tique thi! I:acks lived impacts
and rogue vitalities :hrough bodily agitations,
r.1odes of free-iloatir:g fasdn2:irm. and moments
of collective excitation or enervation. It a:tempts
to describe how people are quite literally charged
t:p by the sheer surge of things ir: the making.
My story. then, is not an exercise in represenla•
tion or a critique of represcntat ion; rather it is ;,
caDinet of cu:fosities designed to in dte cu rio.~ity:
Far fror:1 trying to present a final.or good enougr:,
story of something we mig':lt call "U.S. culture:• it
tries to cdlcct attention away from the obsessive
desire to diaractcrizc thing.~ m:ce a:ul for all long
enough to register the myr'ad stmncs of shifting
inft,ence that remain uncaptured by representa·
tior:al thinking. It presumes a "we"-the impactec
subjects of a wild asse:n·:11 age of influences-hut
it also take:s diffo:1;::1ce to be both far more funda•
mental and fur more tluld than rr.ocds of posi·
tior:ed s·.ih;ects have been able to suggest. It is nr.t
:,ormative. Its p'Jrpose is not to evaluate things as
5r:ally good or bad, and far fron: presum:1:g ,hat
:w:aning: or values run :ne world, it is d:awn to the
place where meaning per se co[apses and we a:1·
left with ?.cts am: gestures and immanent µossibil·
:ties. Rather tha:1 try to pinpoint the beating !ceart
of its beas:, it tracks the pulses of things as they
cross each other, come together, fragment, ar.d
,ecombine in some new surge. It :ries to cull atten•
:ion to the affects thata::ise in thecour,e of the per•
:eclly ordinary Efe as the promise, or threat, :h,il
wme:hing is :iappening-something capable of
:m:iact. \\1hethe: such affects are feared or shame·
lessly romantkizec, subd·.1ed or unleashed, they
?Oi:Jt Ill the generative imr::ianence lodged in
:hi ngs. Far from the named «feelin!,'S" (ff "emo•
:io:1i' inwntcd in discourses of murals, ideals, and
,<r:own subjec1ivities (leave that :o Hallmark and
1ne Famlly Channel), t'ley take us to the sarge of
intensity itself.
My story tries to follow lines of fo~ce as they
emer1:1e in moments of shock, or becor.1c reso:1ar::
in e\'eryday sensil:Jilities, or come to roost in a
stilled scene of recluse or h:ding. It tries to begin
the labor of knowing the efi:l'IS of current
reslructurings not as a fixed ':Judy of elements and
re::iresentations i:nposed on an innocent world
S:cwarl: Cultuni Poe,is II l 041
but rather as a literal:y n:oving mix of things that
~r:gages c.es1res, ways of being, and coHcrete
pl aces and objects.
• REFERENCES
.. ........... ---------
lla:Zht i r:, M. I 1982 ). The ,liaivgic imag inatit111
(K. llrostrom, Trans.). Austin: Lnivernity 1ifTexm;
Pre,».
Bakhtiu, M. [1984). Problems cf Dostoevsky~ pocti,s
(C. Emerson, T:ans.). Minneapolis: t.:nivcrsity of
Minnesota Pres.s.
Barth es, lt (1975 ). The ple,m,re of the rext : R. Miller,
".'ran~.). New York: Hill & Wa:ig.
Da:-thes, R, ( 1977). image-music-text (S. Heath,
-:-rans.). New )ork: Hill & Wang.
Barthes, It ( 1981). Camera lucida: Refiectirms 011
plrowgrapity Howard, ·rrans. ). New York: Hill &
\V.rng,
Barth es, R (1985 ). nu: respnnsibility offorms: i:ritiml
essays rm music, an, and repn•se,,1ta,im1 \ It Em'>'ard,
Trans.). '.'lew York: Hill & Wang.
Benjamin, w: (1999). Amide, Prcjecl (H, Eiland&:
McLaughlin, Trans.), C;1mbridge, MA: HJrvard
L'niversity Pr-~ss.
Bi::::;amin, W. (2003). vf German tragic
dmmu !). Osbornt, T~ons,). :-l~w Yo:k: Vi::rsu.
Ildcuzc, G., & Guattari, :'. (1987), A rlrnimmd plateaus
i B. Massur:1i, Trans.). Minneapo·. is: Universi:y of
Minnesota Press.
fouomlt, M. ( 1990). The ~istory ,,fsexuality.- Ar. mtm ·
dlmfon (R. Hurley, Trnns.J. New "brk; Vintage,
Guat:ari. .E (I 995). C.'1,ao~m<1si;~ An ethica-aestlwic par•
,uligm. Bloomingtor.: Indiana University
I!arm,ay, ll. ( 1997). M,Jdest witness, ,econd mtllennium.
Nt."'" York: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2003 ). The Companion Species M,mifostc:
Dogs, people, and significan/ o,hernts.1. Chicago:
Prickly Paradigm Pres~ (;Jni,ersity
Li11gi,, A. ( l 994). h.m,i,nr bodies. New York: Rout'.cdge.
Sedgwkk, I:. ( 1992). Epistemology cf tire do.;e1.
llerkelev· Unlve~5itv California Prtlis.
' '
(1993). l:pidtmics of :h~ will. In
Sedgwick. 11mder,cies (pp. ! 30- · Durham,
NC: :)uke Universi:y Press.
Sedgw'ck, E. ( 1997). l'-lovei g;uwg: Queer readings in
''"''""• Durham, NC: Duke t;niver.~ity Pn:,s.
Sedgw:ck, E. (2003). 7oucim1gfeeling; Ajji:ci, pedagogy,
per/ormaffrity. Dur'.:am, N(: Ouke ;Jni,e1~il;
Press.
!042 1111 IIAI\ DllOOK OF QUMJ TATIVE Rl'SEA RCH -CH APTER 40

Stewarl, I( (1996). ,4 on rhe side of ,he Strntherr,, M. ( 1'N 1), Parti,rf ranncctians, Savage, MD:
Cuiturf;l poetics in im "at,~er• America. Princeton. ffow,~1c1n & Littlefield,
\f J: P:facctun Ur.: vcr~it y Pre,~. Strathern, M, (199:!a). After nature. K.:w York:
Stcwa:l, K (2000a). Heal American dreams (can be Camhndge U11iversi:r Press .
.:lghtm1::cs). J. m•an (Ed.), C;i/tuml smdfrs nnd Strathcm, V., 11992b). l?iproducmg t!ie _n111m!.
polili::al theo1y lthr.ca, NY: Cornell Mancheste,, [ K: \fand1es1er llnivcrsil ~·
;Jniver~il y Pn.:,~. S:ra:hern, IV'.. C 999). Properly, s11fJsrai1re, ami ejJei:I.
Stewart, K. (2,JOOh). Still In I., !>erl ant ( F.d. l, London: Athk1::e Press.
lmim,icv (pp. 405-420). Chicago: University of Tau,sig, M. ( I986). Shamanism, mfonialism. ,md the
Chicago l'rcss. ma'!, Chkagr,: L"niversity of Chimgn Pre,$.
Stcwurl, K. i2002a), Ma:hine dreams. In J. &anduri & Taussig, M. (1992). The ru:rt'Ofl' ,y!len,. Xe,\ York:
Thurston (Eds.), Modern;s,,i, · Body, mcm- Routledge.
t1ry. mpit11l (pp. 21-28;. New York: Kew York T.1ussig, K (1993;, Mim,,,is ,,w/ a!!,'rily. New York:
~;nive~ir:t Pre:;.:;. Rolltkdgc.
Stew,:rt, l( (2002b). Sce:i<:!'. of Pubiil' C11/wre, 2. Taussig, M. ( 19'.i7). 'l'l,t magic r,f the statt. New Yoric
Stewart, l<, (2003a).Arresting images, fn P. lvlauhews & Roullcdgc.
0. Mc Whirler (Eds.), 1\est/:etic su/Jjerts: Pleasures, Taussig, M. 0 9119). DeJiu•tm,ml," l'ublic st'cm:y um/
ideologies, ,md etltii, (pp, 43!-4.~8). W.in::cariolis: the !abav the 11~g11, i·1e. :,tanford, CA: Stmford
University (if Minnesota Press. IJnivrn,i,y :'res,.
Stewar:, K. (200}b). The rierfecfv ::;rdinarv lift. Sdwhir Williams, It (1977).Marxism aud liierawre. New Yor;.::
'
and Femi1JJst Ordfrw, 2, I.
' '
Oi.ford Press.
41
"ARIA IN TIME OF WAR"
Investigative Poetry
and the Politics of i¥itnessil1g
Stephen J. Hartnett and Jeremy D. Engels
C
onlemporary i:1tcllectual production ir.
the hun:an:tics :, haunted by hvo ,can-
dalou, hypo,ri sics, First, althoug:1 mter-
1:lfo:iplim1rity am: ,m·ellem:e are the catchword;; of
the er:a, universities for the most p,lrt continue
to teach, I: ire, and te1: J ~e according to sruh i fyi ng
genre-boui:d traditions nit hr \:;a o fresh pcda-
1:,'l)gic~ l, arti ,tic, or intd'.ectual ambitions, Seco:1d,
although humanists can build fla,hy ca:eers
using words such as •adic.iL in ti?rvent ion, trans
gression, a:1d ci:unrer,~egemonic-even wiile fit-
I i:lg snugly into safe discrete fields-the number
of .1cadcmics doir.g p(dtk:11 work is em 'urrass-
i:1gly small. In contrast to these IWO driving
h)'pocrisics, we invoke the of Ra:,h Waldo
Erneroon, w:1u demanded in a .;er :nonic
from lfM I tha: a poet should striv~ toward
0
becoming "l he Knowrr. th_, Doer, and the Say~r!'
Aulbors' Note. A:i earlier ver,ior, of :he m.t:errnl in Section 1 this or
m::te:ial ,rno,racS courtc,y of the '<,1tbn2J Con:mu::kation A:icr,ocati:,,n. Parts of Scclin::s 2 am! 4 ul this e»a;· ap.:e,,re.l in a
scighlly differer! form in llartndt :2m.l); 1ha1 r::a!t•rial app,,ms ,:-,urtcsy o' Rowman & L:ttle':dd P,.i'::lishern, ',11e ,mtlwrs are
dcep,ly gra:efo for the diturial i11sij!h:, uf l\urma11 llenziu an:1 [van rsrndy,
Emerson (I 84M: 982) 1old readers that know-
inu, doing. and saving ''stand resocctivdv ;or the
,:, ✓ & ;
love of truth, for H:e luvt of good, and for lhe low
of hcauty" (p. Filtered throi.:gh & po.str:1od-
<"m :ens, we suggest that knowir:g indicates the
necessity of scholarship, that doing point, toward
ac1 i v'sm and other for1:1, of err:bod kt; knowl-
edge, and that saying calls for an examination of
am! rarticipation in the po: i tics of representation.
Read in this way--as calliug for the combination
of serious scholar~hip, pass:or:atc activism, and
cx?crimcntal repre,entation-Emerson's tra:1-
scendenralist d k:tn m serve~ as a ringing indic:-
mcnt of the hyj)oc,i~ ies des er ibed previously
and as a darion call for what we drscribe in
w:mt fo]ows as in vei rigut ive poet I)'·
Although alt en: pis to dcfi ne a genre are
doomed to failure :im: inevitably invite a cascade of
originally appeaml a, 11:ul <1:' '":nr1n<'l I ( l 9'l'J'i: th al
1044 11 HANDBOOK 01' QUAUTATIVB RESEARCH-CHAPTER 41
counterarguments, re:utations, and :nodificatio:1s,
w.: nom:theless begin wit:1 the prcm'se that inves-
tigative poetry exhihits these characteristics:
• An .i.tte:np! to ~uppler:ient poetic i:nagery with
ev idenc~ won throug:: schnlarly rescarc'l, with
the hope that merging ar: and archive r::akes
our poctr y more worldly and our politic, more
personal
• An attempt tn ust rdm:nce matter net only to
support politbil argun:ents b,it t1lso as a too:
to p,ovid<' n,aders w'th additional inform~tior:
and cr::power ment
• An allcrnpt to probicmatize he sdfby studying
:he complex interntikms amo::g individuals
and fr:eir political contexts. hence wit:iessing
both :h~ fracturing of r:,e seif and the deep
tha1 he or ~he examines
.
implication of the author in the verv fvslem$'
• An atte:11pt to r1mJ:emati1e politics by wil:1c;;s•
ing tte w~ y, that social struct ur<'s arc embot:ic,1
as liwd experience, hence adding to polili.:al
criticism ethnograpbic, phcn,:m1enologkal, and
exis•,rntial com?,m<"nt,
• An attempt to situa:e these ,pc,!inm about self
.;!ld .ociety within larger historical r:arra1:ves,
thcn:h}· offering poems that fumtion as gen,,~ -
bgkal critiques of power
• An at:empt '.O produce pccms tha, :ah: a :n·Jlti-
pcrnpectival appmach, not by =ekbrating or
,ritici1, :cg one l:r two voices but rather ~1r build·
ing a roostdation of multipk voices in ~onver-
satk•~
• A deep faith in the power of cornmitmer.t,
::-ieani::g that to write an ir;vestigativc P°"'fY of
witnes, the poet must put him,e::· or t:cll$e]f in
harm's Wilv and function not only as an ob~erv1:r
of pclilicJl crises but aim 11, a partidpant in
them
we eludd.ite these daims in wha: follows via a
series of case stnd;<'s. it is impo~sible :u begin this
essay, however, wi1hout noting that arguments
over the possible relationships ar:rnng poetry,
pnlitks, anc social justice-to say nothing rif the
methodological criteria offered earlier-are as
old as dvilizalion itself. As Birkcrts ( L987}
observes, "The ;:ioetry/politks debate began whe:i
Plato bootee tl:e poet from his ideal Republic,
may'ic even sooner; :t will go m: so long as there
ls languagen (p. 55). But unEke Birkerts and the
hundreds of other critics who have weighed in
with weighty pronouncenents 0:1 one aspect of
tl:1s debate, often in tones that we can only
de,rribe as partisan at :iest anc shrill at worst,
we want to hono, the epic a:id someti:nes comic
nature of that debate witho"Jt de,cending into it
Jr:stead, we offer readers a series o" interlock•
ing readings of some vrins of work that we have
found to be edify! ng. Our comments here ma1·
be tnk{;n, tl:en, not so mud: as our levying a::
argument a:iou: !:ow we think poets, activists,
a:1d sdlolars should proceed as o-J, sharing some
hopeful! y pedagog'.cal thoughts rm the :itcrary
ar:c act'.vist inspirations that have :ed o'Jr fasd-
nalion with and unbounded support for :nves-
t!galive poetry. i
Our cssar unfolds ir: four mov.:mer.ts. First, to
frame our arguments a'.Joi;: investiga1ive poetry,
we explore lhe poetic and polltical possibilities
embodied in recen: works by Carolyn Forchc and
fah-vard Sanders, rorche',, (2003) Blue Hour is a
hauntir.g, elegiac, and spir: tual :nedi :ation o:i 1he
cyer-piiing wreckage of violence. Sparne and
absl ract, with words floating in the J:ushed glim-
mer uf mi-where ar.d no-ti :ne, Forch e's devastat-
ing poemo feel like a dismal h:story lesson
detachro from his~ory: Sanders's (2000) Ameri::a,'
A History in \.e1:.e offers a d'fercnt :node:. Packed
w'th de ta its organized chronologically, and reac-
ing like d catechism of lessons g!eaned from the
Iost fragm cnts of m;r nat:o:rnl history, these
celebratory poen:s offer readers an ernpov,·e,ing
bves:igat io:i into the still great :irnmises of ll1e
American experiment By comparing tht'se texts,
we establisl: wme of the benefits ar:ci conse-
quences of pu::i;uing these different modes of
investigative poetry, Second, we review the liter-
ature regarding the recent turn across the human-
iii es to a concern with sod al justice, hence
groundlng our thor.ghts about investigative
pot'try within the tradition of engaged scholars
who use their positions as teachers and writers to
tr}· to help expand democm :ir. rights, econom[c
opportunities. anri cultural aspirations for an
ever larger cirde o• reades, students, and fellow
activists. Third, to illustrate some of the promises

and problems with one of the main ir.tellectual
traditions informing investigative poetry, we
examine the literary, peda.gog:cal, a:id anthropo-
logical ambitions of the movement known loosely
as elh riopoetics. Although our reading of the
various bra1:ches e:hnopoetks gra:1ts their
i• portant roles in initiating conversations aboat
m:.il:iculturalism, bringing a literary cor:scious•
ness to an:hropology, breaking down positivism,
and criticizing colonialism, our readings of spe-
cific ethnopoe1;1s finds t'lem to be consistently
::e:noved from questions power. Fourth, we cel-
ebrate the dense triurn phs of John Dos Pas sos, the
early Carolyn Forche, and Peter Dale Scott, all of
whom merge concerns for social jt.stke and a
commitment to writing a political poetry of
witness in tcrts :hat, aJthough hisrorical. polit:cal,
personal, philosophka:, and beautiful, consis•
ten:ly place a critique of power at the center of
their work, Taken as a whole, these !oar sections
offer readers a sweeping O\'ervir:w of the opportu
nitics and obliga:ions of both producing and con·
sum i:1g 'Aria in Time ofv1,ar"; that is, we celebrate
those who honor the persistence of poetry in the
face of l:arrnr, who commit the:r academic work
to social ji:stke, and who merge the two-
scholarship and poetry~ in the polit:cal wo~k of
witnessing.
a 1 Oscn.LATING BETWI:l'N
No-T~Mi: AND rnr BuzzA~D
OF FACTS: FoRc:tf:, SANIER5, AND
THE Qt:F.STION OF HISTORICAL CONTF:XT
We begin with eight haunting lines from "On
Earth:' the centcal poem from Forche's (2003)
unsettling Blue Hour:
a ranc.om life caught in the net of purpose (p. 26)
a search without hope for hope (p. 27)
Amcric2 a warship on thr horizon at morn
ing (p. 29)
and it is certain sorr.eone will be at that very
mo • ent pouring milk (p. 30)
Hartnett & Engds:"Aria in Time of War" 11 lC45
aria in time of war {p. 32)
black with -:iurnt-up me.ming (p. 35)
history cecaY:ng in:o images (p. 42)
inhabitl ng a body to be abolished (p. 45)
On and on it goes ir: relentless ethereal detail,
working methodically through a 48-page alpha-
betical:y structured poem meant w a?proxi mate
the feel of a Gnostic abecedarian hymn, end: ng
with but one entry for the ietter z: ''zero" (p. 68}.
These lines p:umpt readers to wonder about
the :.iystcrious relationships among agency and
chance, personal volition and hislorkal velocity
("a random life caught in the net of purpose"); to
empathkally waL< a mile in the shoes of someone
who bravely, yet apparer.dy fruitlessly, pursues
justice ("a search without hope for hope"); to pon•
der a world in which Anerican powe~ is feared by
faraway p;..xlples ("America a warship on the hori•
zon at rnoming"); to know that despite such
someone somewhere i, enJoy'r,g a quiet moment
of sustenance and plenty ("and it is certain some-
one will be at that very rr:ome1:t pouring • ilk");
to listen closely :o l:car whether the explosions of
war and the silen: misery of poverty are graced
with beauty ("aria in time of war"); to ask after all
t~at has been lost in the ever-piling wrec~age
of history ("black with b.1:nt-up meaning"); to
po:1der what it means to think tistorically in a
world that appears wit!: each day :o possess
meaning not from words and souncs and toud:es
and srr.ells but rather "mm the blinding whir or
nass-proc :iced pictures ("history decaying into
hmges"); and to imagine for a moment what it
must feel like to be one of the damned ("inhabit•
i:ig a body to be abolisl:edn), cor:dem:ied perhaps
to die on death row, or on skid row, or from the
torturous spiral into hopelessness, where one
inhab::s a body 1iat slowly loses r:1eaning. Thus,
l'orche ii:vites us on a terrifying voyage into the
mysteries of life during an age of mass-pro1h:ced
misery.
Readers are left :o fill in the blanks as they
choose, to complete the jigsaw puzzle of horror
by supplying details from their own warehouses
 1046 Ill HA l\DHOOK OF QUALrr~:n VE RESEARI }' -CHAPTER 4 l
of knowledge ar.d m.:mory ,u~d even fantasy, for
who can hold such sweeping imagery together
wirhoul moving from the reali,1 of rx;,crtisc and
expe,ience to imagination and project ion? The
danger of enabling such project ion is that it
invites readers to move f'rom thinking about :he
specitk causes ar:d wnscqwmces of hbturical Joss
lo nostc\lgicallj• longing for some abstract a/Jsencr.
As Lafapm ( 200 I) argues h: Writing History,
Writing Trauma, this shift from loss to absence is
potentially dangero:is because "when loss is con-
verted into (or er:cryptcd in an :ndiscrirninalely
gene:alized rhetoric of) absc:1~c, one faces the
impasse of e:ictJess melancholy" (p. 46). Y.ovbg
from the heal:hy mourning of specific historical
loss to the endless web of mdanc'.10iy is fue'.ed,
LaCapra claims, by a lendem::y "to shroud, per•
haps cve:1 to 1;:lht:rt:aEze, them [:1istorical los~es]
in a gcm:ni:ited discm:rse of absence" that relic&
on figures that .ire "abstract, e\·acuatcd, disem-
bodied" (pp. 48-49). forchc's dile:nma in Blw,
ffour, then, as in all works that strive to merge
hard-hJting politics and ;oyous poetic re,erit:
wh]e :-oaming across a wide swalb of time,
rt:vol ve~ arnui:d the quest ion of how to pmvide a
cosmopolitan, truly globali:dng perspective nn the
tragedy of Jiff without falling into the trap of
morose and politica]y ::;aralyzing l01:gi1:g :or
immaterial absence.'
In her il:troduction to the mugislerial ar:thol-
ogy of poems. Against florgeuing, Forcb• [1993}
argues, "Th,, ,mctry of witness frequently resorts
to pa:adox and difficult equivocation, to the imro•
cation of what is 11011here as if:t were . ... That it
must defy common sen~e to speak of the com•
r:ui:1 indic;1tes that tra<l itiunal modes of thought,
the purview of common sense, no longer :nake
sen sc" i p. 40). \Ve imagine that most readers will
grar1I the wisc101:i of r'iis claim, for w:10 has :m:
t:irilled 2: the truth conveyed in an oblique poem
or song or dance, bringir:g a rJm of sensemaking
1m:at,:r than anyth: ng ever found i:1 dry tomes
history or sociology or pulitkal $cienci:? And who
has not found himse.f ur hersel" walking th rough
historical wreckage nr worki:1g throJgh a nove.
with the eerie sense tl:at o~ she were conversing
with the dead (Gordon, 1997)? Hui at what point
does defying cor:unon ;;ense and invoking :he
dead fade into help:es, abstraction, into :he infi·
nitely n11catable layering of random projections
against one another (O'Rourkc, 2003)? Like flip·
ping distractedly through JOO channds u: late-
night tdcvi sion, or w~tching billboards tick by on
smr:c an or.vrr:01:s stretch highway, don't s;1ch
111\'0,ations of the dead and such refusals of com•
moo sense ·.iltimately leave readers awash in con•
fusion? Where are we? v\'ha: is tl:e date? What are
the stakes? Who ace the players? Why does this
mailer?
Sandern's /21100) America: A l:JiJt(iry in Verse
answers thesr <]ll~tions on every page."[ love the
way In)' nation seethesJ I love its creativity/ & the
fl ow o" its wild :1eeds:• Sanders po claims in h's
introduclion (p. 9). Clurnndi:1g the epic and syn·
:hesiz:ng sweep Whitman. Sanders thus olfors
:eaders a :ove poem qnaiificd by the kr:owledge
that "f know course/ :hat I have to trace the!
violence of my nation" (p. 8). These poems I11atter,
thei:, because they aspire to rewrite th1: his:ory
of America ci rm 1900-1 anc, b:1 investigating
specifa: hislor'cal losses, to pmvide readers with
t:1c factual knowlecge, rhetorical resources, and
poli :kal encouragement to try to rcd2.i m the
nation's better half from its lingcri11g-and
recently ascendant-dcm or:s. Sa 1:ders pursu;;s
lhb gual by studying natirnls player-;, insti
tutions, struggles, and sound~, which he offers
up in :1cwspaper-like snip?els org:mizal by years.
T:rns, whereas Forche's mehmcholy Blue /Jour
offer, a chillbg:y beautiful yet ultimate!}'
empowering :nc>di:ation on ali;ence, Sandern's
A.merfrn offers a compelling, If didac:ic, tribute w
the winners and :osers of specific historical ·:iattles.
As one of the "ni.;ndcrs of the 1950s micmpub
lishing culmre that frrcd artists from i:orporate
con,1rnin:s, as a scr.1 inal \Jew York hipster during
the beat generation, as an accomplished pre-pu:-ik
musician, as witness lo the travesty of the Demo..
crat k Con,enliun Chicago in 1961!, and nn and
on-ir: short, as one of :hrn;e m!raculow, figures
who seem to alwav; be at the crntcr wl: at is
'
happening-Sanders has for the 50 ur
so been a tireless and good-nat gadlly watch·
ing Ame rica ~:ruggk to achjeve !ht: glory uf its

promises. Give11 his ::ier,onal experiences with
sorr:e of !he lcariing artist;:; and activists who have
prompted Arr.ericas cl:tural anc polttkal changes
over the pas! decades, it rnmes as no surprise lhat
Sa::tders reminds readers that :1istory hinges h1
pa:1 on individual actors exercising agem::},
America accmdinwy offers a "who's who" GUilll);l,Jt
of heme:, and viJ:ains in <1..:lion.
For ex,implc, here is one t1f Sanders':, rmrny
loving Iributes to Isadora Duncan, who fl rst
darn:ed in America in 1908 and who
based her rcvolut ion in :Jan..-:e
on the natural grace of hodirs 1,mvi1:g in
Hcauty
It was andtnt, she said, from the form-lo, ing
Greeks
& so when she sl:owed a nbp'.e or k:1ee
she could dairn those ander.t roots
She was ar; advocate of free Jove
a political radka:
& a Siu r: ni ng en,blem re the women
who wanted to smoke, slrJt, paint
write, dance,&: fuck r:m:-e (p. tlO)
Sander~ GWOO) shows us a brave woma:1 dam:•
ing her and he:: sisters' way toward freed 011:, Clu~e
readers might want more poetk detail here. Just
how did reveal that nipple ,)r knee? What did
it loiik liker How did cr1r,1ds respor:d? Vvi're lovers
1.u:1ually rhinkfr1g D1mcm1 when they fucked
rmm: freely? But in lhei;e pu.:ms S,11:ders is less
interested in the micro.:og:cal details tr.an i:1 lhe
ways iconic figures and actions function synec•
doch ica[y, as representative parts that reveal the
majesty of tl:e whole. Indeed, as Sanders (1976}
declares in his 1:umifesto l1111esriga,ive Poetry, "the
es,em;c of :nvestigat've poetry" is to create "lines
of lvrk be-autv Ithat] uescem' from data dusters:•
. '
hence both seducing and empowering n;:adcrs
•Nith ''a melodk blizzard of d11t11·fragments" (p. 9).
Syneccuche is therefore the rhetorical trope :hat
enables Sanders to weave ir:dividual lines of
Hartnett & Engels: "Aria in Time nf War" Ill i 017
:.eauty into a collective swir: of data fragments
and thm to write poetk history,,
l ndccd, Ame rim b based largely on :he trope
of synecdoche, which hinges on the convertibility
':letween parts and wr_oles, 011 the representa-
tional elect rid :y assumed tu link aclors to t'.le!r
epochs. l'or example, whereas Duncan sta:1ds as
a rt:preser::ative wo:nar:, as the individual embod-
ime::11 (part) of the period's struggle for women's
freedom of rr.ind and movement (w l:ole;, so
Sanders reverses 1he ,xiuation and otters instin.;-
ticms (w:ioies) as symbolic aggregates of lncivid-
ual hope (part). Put d iffe::-ently, because even
except:onal ir:dividua:s are only as stro:,g as th.cir
larger umunun: :y boml :;, Sanders :s obliged to
represent not only radical individuals but also the
hope.sustaining and change·making institutions
that support their visior.ary work. For rxample,
Sanders's ir:vest:gations into the st:-uggle against
racial violence letd h:m to cele';)rate ,he !90':I
founding of the Nalioaal Association for the
Advirnccmem of Colored People (XAAC1 ):
& the:-e comes a l!me in !'.,e tirn:•track
w:1en you work for good, no mailer the dange:-
There comes a tlllle-
You rnn look in photo archives
at the sh i1:y•eyed trash
gathered ahou a lynching tree
as i: it were the homecom' ng pa race
........ therefore :he :,J"AACP. (pp. 83-84)
Al1hough Sanders is a relentless critic the
"shiny.eyed trasl:" who choo,e violence over
understanding, ~"""" may wish for more det,,ils
regarding the pleasures of crowcs at lynchings.
That is, instead of 4 lines describing the energies
of white supremac:sts, why not 30 lines showing
u.s in more detail what the alluded to-but not
dted-"photo archives" :each attentive viewers?
More than just a quibble abou: the focus or length
,~f thr poem, such questions carry for inves-
tigative poets a heavr methodological burden,
 1048 Ill HANDllO()i< OF QUALllATIVB RESEARCH-CHAl''l!!R 41
for we proceed with !he understar:ci ng that just
as melancholia stands as the paralyz:ng result
of failed mourning, so simply rebuking or.e's
e:1emics-even lynch mobs-begins the process
of moving from understanding specific historical
loss to projecting terms of generalized absence
a:id othernes~. In this case, the complexities of
white supremacy are glossed w:thin a heroic
tribute to :he NAA(P, bJt one cannot fathom the
gravity of the task faced by t:ie NAACP without
a more nuanced understanding of wl:at its
members were fighting against. We are thus a.~k-
ing for the poem to accept tl:e adm: ttedly heavy
bi:rden of plaring a mo:e dearly pedagogical
func:ion.'1
Moreover, without showing us the complexi-
ties of the players involved in a given st~uggl" in
a dearly pedagogical fu,hion, r:iuch nf Sanders's
America might !eel to some readers lIke an exerrise
in r:ostalgia. For exa • pie, here is one of his many
tribures to the Inte,national Wo,kers of the World:
In Fresno in '11
another pc0rest for the right of free speech
again the jails were packed
and \'\lobblies were singing ar.d givbg
speeches
le suppor!t>rs and the curious
gathered outside the jail
Wher: it was obvious that
more and more Wobblies were coming to
Fresno
to co:nmit dvil disobedience
the power strue t:J re rele:ited
and :1:sdnded the ban on speaking in the
streets. (pp. 87 -·88)
In 19: i, the Wobblies were fighting for workers'
rights, yet thry rocketed :nto national conscious-
r.es, a tcw years later because of their brave stand
against America entering World War I. But as
Sanders notes in his poems from the years 19:7
and 19 l 8, it woulc not ':le long before the
Espionage was crushing dissent, sending
thousands of protesters to jail and sh:pping boat-
loads of socialist, back to Europe. At the ,;ame
time, the draft scooped up additional thousands
of young men to be marched to their deaths
in Europe'~ Ike-infested trenches. Although many
readers will thrtll at the image of brave Wobblies
fghti ng for jJstice in hesno in 1911, the longer
view is ul :imately one o: defeat: the 'v\'obblies were
crushed, free speed: was curtailed, llnd America
sloughed off to a disastrously blooc y war, Regard-
less of what readers th: nk of this nar:-ative, the
pedagogical function of in,estigafo•e poetry sug-
that Sanders should l:ave offered ex tensive
referencing so that readers could make up their
own :ninds aboutthis version of the Wobblies and
America during the World \'Var I yet no such
reference matter is provided/
Nonetheless, despite the sense that ii is infused
with nostalgia, that it lacks the referer:cing matter
required to help readers take the pedagogical SH'P
of beginnhg their own resea:ch, an.± that it
sometin:es skims too quickly across the surface
uf eve,n ,_ Sanders\; America act11mulates into a
maj,;:stk--even awe-ins;ii::ing-muF.ttive, tor by
mov: ng from the exuberance and genius of ind i-
viduals (Duncan and her revolution?.ry dancing)
to the strength and dignity of o:ga:i:zations (the
NAACP and figh: against racism) to the brave
triumph of strugg:es for freedom (the Wobblies'
free speech vk:tory in Fresno b 19 ll) and hack
again, zigzagging all the while through a kaleido-
scopic montage of historical fragmen~s, the poem
offers a model of engaged citizenship, literally a
l:andbook of democracy i:1 action. Jndeed, whereas
"orche's Blue Hour can foe! oppressively bleak-
"collective memory a dread of things to come'
(p. 30), "scoop of ea,th; sliver; of fi::mu:,, meta-
carpals» (p. 51 }, "your mothe, wavir:g goodbye i:1
the flancs" (p. 68) Sanders's ,tmerica reminds
readers of the bravery uf our furehears and thus of
our obligations to continue their fights for justice.
In additio:1 tu this en;powcring and activating
fur.cLon, Sanders's ilmerica relishes the more trn-
dit;onally poetic slices of joy thot slither through

daily ex7erience. Indced, ·)y juxtaposir:g hor~or
against the frivolous, joyous, and sometimes bril-
liant aspects of daily ]if€, America provides a star·
tlingly honest gh:r1pse into the lived sensation of
watching history crash all arm:nd you. Sanders is
particularly interested in the relationship between
sou:id and pol 'tics, as in this passage about I
<ieorgc Gershwin's Piano Concerto
Pmkovie,cs Symphony
Aarun Cope,and's Symphony #1
and i:1 Chicago Loni, Armstrong began the
Hol l•ivc recordings
while Decen:brr Iii
the Grand Old Opr y began radio brnadc,.sts
Henry Ford, h,uingjan
set up a series of folk dances. (p,
Or.c could obviously write hundrecs of pages
on each of tl:rsc figures, hut Sanders appears to
be more interested in :etting readers figure our the
implications of such juxtapositions. Like Whitman's
famous ~atalogue ;xic ms, the1:, Sanders n,akes
no attempt to dive into the com:,Jexity of lhest'
figures, instead positioning them as kons loaded
with apparently self-evident meaning, • s synec-
doches rr.eant to suggest the larger forces at play.
For exarnple, it is assumed that one reads the line
about Armstrong and understands the impor•
trmce of the Hot rive muv'.nb away f:om big har:d
formats tu ward what would eventuallv, become
hard swinging bebop; it is assumed that one reads
tl:r line about the Grand Old Opry and under-
stands the slgni5cance of thr :mrns production
(via :-adio, press. and eventua!iy television) uf
a nostalgia•hased, quietly rads;, dowr: home
country aesthetic; ii is assun:ed Iha! one reads the
Hr:e ribout Copeland and underslarids how he
sought to merge the :;atio:i's man~· musical ver-
:1aculars into a majestic syr.ipl:01,y-of-the-wholl';
ancl so 011, wilh readers left to surruund each line
with their own comprehension, In this sense,
then, Sanders appears to be practicing less what
lfartnrn & Engels: inTimeofWar" Ill 1049
we a:e calling investigative poetry than a
Whitmiu: like catalogue poetry, for wl:al we have
herr an· nor so nuch invest:gations into the com-
plexity of specific mon:ents as suggestive shard,,
•lecting images, and pass:ng glimpses that are
:neant to be self.evidently and transpa:-ently
significant (B·Jell, 1968; Char:, Mason.1973;
Reed, l 977 ),
T:ie fact ~hat these terms-self-evident a:id
:ransparent-stand in absolute wmrast to the
allusive and impenetrabiy dense verse in forche's
Blue Hour demonstrates how even though hoth
Sanders and Forche strive to write J polit:cal and
:,i,tori cal poetry of witness, they prnclicc dra-
ma: ically diffcrc:1t forms of investigative poetry.
Indeed, !he vas: aesthetic differences between
Blue IJour and America raise a host o: questions
about the pos6ible relationships among c'ifferent
forms of poetry, politics, witncssir:g, and histori-
cal scholarship. :n fact, the poems addressed here
throw the terms listed eader into qucstio:1, for,:-
ing us to reappraise not only how 1:1.ey speak to
each other but also what they stand for in Ind r
own righ l, addressing how :nv;;,t [gal ive
puetry speaks to these issue,, it is m:ce~sary lo
rel'iev, tl:e ways that c0mc1:1porary schulars h,M.'
tried to reco11s.ider ,md :n me,ge historical, ;,ollti·
cal, and artistic works to produce engaged schol-
arship that is but I: w: Iness to and participant in
struggle, for sociid ji.:stice.
II. SlK:IAL JUSTICE
A'.\lD THE ORLJGATIONS AN)
DPPmrn:t,TJtES OF EXGAGED SCHOLARS
Although Porche and Sa:1de~s both dearly sec:
their poems as fulfilling political ro;es, their
diverge:1t aesthetic st rateg:es might leave readers
wondering about 'low the fight for ,ocial justice
figure;; intu such work, One 'Nay of answeri:lg that
question is to shift genres and to address the flood
of materials railing on scho'.ars to hccome 11:ure
active i:l their rnmmunities' various; struggles
for social justice, Although it i~ not d'fficult to
piece togel'.ler a loose genealogy intellecluals
 1050 111 'IAN [)BOOK or Ql:ALl'fATI VE RR5F.ARCH --Cl! APT ER 41
cLi:1::erned with issues of social justice over the past
centuries, we are glad ro sc,, that during recent
years scholars across a var:cty of disciplines have
begun a,guing in a systematic n:an:1er that those
tcacher-act:visls com :n ittcd to the euds of social
justice, while still cherishing the wondrously
messy :11eans democratic life, r:eed to approach
issues of sod,11 j llSI b: not only as of research
but also as sites of engager:u:nt with disadvan-
taged com mun it :es I Crabt:ee, I998; l'rey, 1998;
Hartnett, 1998), Located loosely between Forche's
mdancho!ic abser:ce and Sanders's exube,ant
lists, this social ji:stke l::erature calls. for scholar•
ship l:1.8t >'Peaks to sw;;:cping ideas by paying deft
at te:ition to local neecs.
Our thinking here is dee?IY indebted to
Dv,ight Conquergood, a perfon:iance studies
;,mfosso:- al Northwestern L:niversity who spent
years doir:g research on, ar. d advocari:lg on behalf
of, thc, gangs with whom he lived as a neighbor,
teacher, J:td su'::istitu:c father in the
r:1ated Cabrini Grec-n public hou~ing of Chicago.
Compe1goud lectured w:ddy about his a:peri-
en,;es and wrote ,ibout :he:n and th0ir implica-
1ior:s for m::adem ks and activists in two brilliar.t
bock chapters \ Conquergood, 1994, 1995},
Inspired by Conque:-good'~ :,,avery, La:ry Frey,
Banu::t l'carce, Mark Pollock, Lee Artz, and Brer:
Murphy, colleague, at Loyola University in Chirngp,
implore,! their fellow speech cm::imunication
sd1olars in 1996 to conduct research "not on[ y
abl>ut ·Jut for ,md in the mt,,re.,,ts of:hc people with
whom" their rescar:::, was concuc:ed ( Frey,
Pearce, Po'.lock, Artl, & Murphy, 1996, p. 1. 7).
-=:his means thal scholars can no longer asmr:ie
they are obj e..:tive outsiders analyzing stat fr
object~ of i:1quiry; instead, in th:, new model of
e:igagcd scholarship, researchers become subjec:s
mutu,11ly e:imeshed in l:lc processes they arc
s1·Jdyi:1g, Following Con,Jm:rgood's lead, then,
Frey and his collcagt:es ,isked engaged sch olurs to
channel their ,.cademk work to\;,ard pre$sing
corni~1t:n itj' needs ,ind t!:us to produce works that
''foregrr,nnd e:hkal concerns:• "com:nlt to struc-
tural analyses of et!:kal problems;' ''adopt an
activist orientation;' a:id "seek iden:ilication with
(p, I 11; see al ,o Adelman & Frey, 1997),
for specific ways of thini.ing about the
prOS?ects of teaching on, res!Earching about, and
fighting for social justice, we have been influenced
by Pierre Buurdieu's "ror a Scholarship With
(,ommitment:' an essay adaptixl fro1:1 a prescnta•
tion he gave as part of a panel organized by
Edwarc Saic" for the 1999 meetin12 of :he \todern
~
Language Association (MLA), l:!ounii,:u (2000)
re com r:1 ends that scholars hoping lo :r:ake a
difforcnce pursue fo:lr goa:s: (a) "produce and
disseminate instruments of defer.se against sym•
bolic (:01:1ination"; (b) engage in "disct:rsive ci-
tique;' meaning analyses of the "sociological
determinants oear 0:1 the prnducers of <lorn-
.mant usco-.irse
1· " ; \' cl"cou ::iter the pseudoscte:lL!C
. ·r.
authority of authorized expert,"; a:1d (d) "hdp to
create soda] conditions for the collec:ive produc-
t'rm of realist u:opias" (p. 42), We may co:iceptu•
alize th1:se :mpe:atives as point:ng :o fo-.u mode,
of critical activity, Erst is help:ng to tead1 and
popularize the cril ical thinking skills n&:<'ssary
for citizens to bffo:11e more consdentious cor:-
sumers of mas, media; we may think of this as
,ielnmking mltura/ symbolism, Second is demon-
s:rating through rigorous case stndies how dor:ii-
nant discourse rdlects the ec0nomk imperatives
of elite;;; we may th:nk of th:s as analyzing cfa.cs
privilege. Third i~ revealing and helping others
10 reveal the political assumptions and biases o:
experts witliin specific fields of inquiry; we may
think (lf this as &erorning rhewriml rritirs. Am:
fourth is bot:i imag:ning and advocating altema
tive ways o: be: ng; we rr.ay thin~ llf tr: is as mv,nt-
fng new possibilities. In that same panel, Elaine
Sea rry put this fourtr: imperative in lovely
:~:ms-terms faat would make Emerson a:id
Whilnan p:oud-argu: ng that teachers of litera•
tore ,md the arts share a special burden to culti•
vate in both their studen:s and lbeir cummunities
"a reverence for the work of the lmag!nation"
(Scarry, 2000, p. 21; see al,w Becker, 1994), The
task, then, :s to fulfill JlourdiC'is fo·Jr critical c:i-
tcri i in forms tr.al meet Scarry's aesthetic cr:teria,
hence ou; fascination with the possibililie; of
invest:gali ve poetry,
The one obvious shor:rnmi::g of the sugges•
tions cf Bomdicn, Sc.irry. and their fellow Y.LA

participants is that even while asking us to pursue
sch lilarsh'.p with commitmen:, they tend to privi-
lege certain t:aditiom,1 forms of textual produc-
tion,hem:e excluding (pcrna;:is unvdttingly) many
genres of human commi.:nication. This explains
Conquergood's insistence that engaged scholar-
ship and activism must take into account "the
enbodlcd dvnamk, that constitute rneaninuful
'
human interaction" "
by striving fur :1ermene1:-
tics of expedence, coprcsence, l:umility, anc vu>
nerabiiit ( Recent literatt:re on ethnography and
pcrforma:m: ,tudies has demonstrated the many
ways these impe:-atives may be pursued, obm with
st'Jnning results, yet as we detail in what follows,
we fear that much of this wor:.. has tended to fall
into a troubling pat:ern of sensationalism and
narcissis:n, celebrating the raw im :nediacy of
personal experience over any attempt to make
stmctural sense of the larger historical, poli :ical,
and cultural cond!rions sur:mmding daily life.
l'or both would-be investigative poets in par-
ticular and engaged scholars in general, then, t'.1e
methodological conundrum is striving to balance
self with society, tex:t with context, the existential
de]durn of the now with the scb1;arly rigor of
analysis-all the while honorir:g the oblig,:;ions
to social justice discussed :iere. Among the many
subgeures and s..tbmovements within contempo·
rary arts and letters, eth nopoetics stands as a
significant attempt :o tack:e these conundrums;
therefore, we turn to the problems ar.d possibili
ties e:hnopoetks as a case study of how poem
have sought to weave historical, political. and
persona: ma:erials into a poetry of witness.
Ill 3. THE LESSONS AKD
LEGACIES OF ET'iNO!:'OKrJCS
Et:rnopoetics could be labeled investigative'
poetry's immediate predecessor, fo, it was a sem-
inal attempt to make poetry political by r:ierging
a critique of colonialism, soft anthropology, and
a poetics of witni.'ssing. Thr term eth11opoelirs
lcdlock,
.
was co:ned in : 967 bv Jerome Rothenberg,. Jennis
their colleagues. As Rot:ienberg
( 1990) argues, the project of ethnopoetics peaked
Hartnett & Engels: '~\ria in Time or War" JI JU5 I
during fae late J970s before Alclu,rfogu, the
magaz:u.: that Rother:berg and ·1edlock foundec
in 1970 as an ex:hibition of ethnopoetic p:-a.:: ices,
finally sputtered out i:J 1980 {p. 8}. Like defir.ing
any advanced cultural and/or acadern•c prac-
tke, defining ethnopoetics is difficult (p. 8). As
Friedrich (in press) argi:es, the ,erm is "protean"
and :1as adopted many connotations during :he
past three decades. For rxample, foregrom~(1ing
its rolt' in pmctidng what hf.s since come to
be known as multiculturalism, 'ledlnck ( 1992)
defines ethnopoetics as the "study of the verbal
ar:s in a worldwide range of :anguages and rnl-
lJn:s" (?· 81). Likewise, Rothenberg ( I990) argues
th at cth nopoetks "refers to an at tern pl to investi-
gate on a transcultural sca'.e the range of possible
poetries that had not only been imagbed but pur
into practice by other hu1:1an beings" (p. 5). For
Tedlock and Rothenberg, then, ethnopoetics is a:1
attempt to think about poetry in a global cunte:tt
and thus to co:1sider the :-oles of pocls as wit-
nesses to, cr',ric< of, am! activists cor:1mitted to
healing the damage wrought by colonialism a:1d
viol en! :nodcrnity. Indeed, Rothenberg argues
:hat one of the chief goals ethnopoeti,s is tn
engage i:I "the struggle will: i:nperiali~JL racism,
chauvinism, etc'.' (p. 5). Tha: quo:atiun-ending
"etc?' is signif:cant, for it indicates the off-hand,
sloppy way in which much of Rothenberg's work
cm ethnopoetics collapses spccif:c political crises
o:
into one catch-all basket wrongs-you kmJll;
m[)dernity, colanialisrn, racism, chauvinism, etc.
In contrast to that sweeping "etc:', we have
argued here that investigat:ve pot·try is commit-
ted to a version of synecdoche in which grand
dal11:s can be s·Jpported only through micro-
logical analyses base..: on deep historical scl:ular-
ship. We return to this critique of the s'.oppy uses
of "etc:' that seem to plag'J~ enc Rothenberg
school of ethnopoetics la:er, bul for now we turn
to Friedrich, who argues 1ha1 the g.:nre falls into
two ca:egorks: analytic ar.d synthetic. Whereas
analytic ethnopoetics operates on a "meta" level
by ius?etling other e:hnopoetic wor~s, synthetic
erhnopoetics either creates an ai:t:iropological
poem that bridges a gap betwe<'n :wn cultures or
tra:islates a poem &orr. one culture to another; in
1052 11. HANDBOOK OF Qt:ALITAT:VE llESllARCll-CI IAl'TEll 41

both Sj•nthetic cases, the goal is to i:iakc om: The poem offers a beginner's loving guide to
culture familiar to another. For example, Friedric:i son, e basic fac:s about the Ar:asazi, namely that
(:n press l praises Snyder's "A :iasazi" for "wn- they live on diffs in the desc;rl, corn is a major
ve:iing a foreign culture and poetry i:,to poems part o: their culture, and they lh·e b dose prnx·
that speak to Western, specifically Americar:, imity with tl:eir gods in short, :hey are human.
scr:sitivities." S:1yder's poem is a fine exa • ple of Snyder (1974) takes 11.s to a d:fforcn ti me ,md
sy:1thrtic ct!: nopoe1 ks, then, be::ause :t does the pl2cc\ to a world he describes in "Control Burn" as
work of anthro,ulogy ir: the :onn of poetry; both one ''moreJlikcJwhcn it belonged to the I:,diansf
enticing and enabling reade:o to transcend their Before" (p. 19), Like Rother.berg's "etc,", that poem-
provincialism, ckllii ng "Fkli,rc" inckates tht louse way ir: which
II ere is how Snyder ( 1974) brings the Anasazi thit :,ranch of et:l :mpoetics envisirns itself as
to his readc rs: searching fur a p,e• oden:, prehistor:c, pre•Western
world of h:r:ocence and v'.rtue. But ·'Yf conveying
Anas,1zi, his sense Inst ci\'ilization in verse that reads
:l series of tc.:dbook stereotypes, Sr:ydcr teaches
Anasaz:, us llttle about the ci:.: Ure of the Anaoaz:. lndeed,
the romantkizat:or: Anasazi life makes the
tucked 'JP in defl s huhe diffs ·'Hefore'' of "Control Burn so:i:1d like a na1ve plea
grnwi ng strict fields of (or:1 to return to a world that is gone ar:d :o do so
while ignor:ng the that eve:i when it existed
sinking deeper and deeper in earth it was-like our own work'-wracked with politi-
to rour hips io Gods cal, econo:nk, and cultu:-al d:.emn:as.
Therefo,e, it is dit'tkult to imagine anthropo,o-
yo1:r head all tu med to eagle-down gists or hismrians taking such poems seriously.
& lightning :'or knees and elbows However, thr Snyder and some etlmopoels, the
function of such ::>oen:s is not so much to stand ~s
}'D'lr eyes :'ull of pollen ,igorous scho:arship as to stand as rhetorlcal plat•
the smell of bat.~. :orms fron, which to launch scathing critiques Df
Weste,n n:odernity: For example, Snyder's ( 1974)
the ll.: vor cf sandstone "The Call the W:lc." :caps forward ~'mm the
grit on the tongue. Anasazi to offer a blistering critique of"AL :hese
Amcrica:1s up in spcrial cities in the sky/Dumping
women poisons and explosives" (p. Published ,imid the
war in Victriam, th:s dear reference :o the sattm1•
birt:1ing t:or bombings sane t iom,(: b)' Presidt:nt Richard
.,- ·he of bddcrs in the dark, Nixon :nv::es readers to think about the deep his·
tork,11 connectio:is among Indian ge,10dde, envi•
trickling s:ream~ in ":: id den canyons ronmentd destruction, and the butcherr uncer
way in the na:ne of defeating communism. By
under the coki ml Ii ng dcsert th: nking in tb is 11; ;1ltitcmporal mam: er, by hold-
ing the Anasazi and the Vic: namese in one's mir.d
corn-bas;.:txt wide-eyed at the sarrc frne, Snyder gains his:urical ar:d
:-ed ':iaby political 1~verage :'or his da im in "Tomorrow's
Song''that
rock lip home,
Tie USA slowly lo~t ::, n:andate
Anas:ni. [p. 3) in tlw micdle and later twentieth ccntn:y

it never gave the :nountains and rh·ers,
trees and animals,
a vote.
all the people turned away from it. (p, 77)
Reading these lii1es in the midst of a:'lo:hcr set
of L.S.-:riggered wars, raging :ww in A:ghanistan
and Iraq, one:, s:ruck by the commonsensical-
yet so oiten nverlouked-argi:men: thal thers: is
an intimate relation between the violence used to
demolish nal ure and tl:c violenc<' used to n:urder
our fellow hur.1ans. Indeed, in the face of the
well-oiled machine:y of death that s,aughtered
the Jndiam, that murdered millions of Viet•
namese, that is rnrrently leveling A:ghan istan
and r:aq, and that has left a worldwide trai: of
ecological destruction in its path, we are st,uck by
how rdcvar.t-how powerful-this poem feels
30 ye,lrs atler its first publication (Thomas, ]995).
\\ihereas Snyder thu& uses loosely anthropo•
logical poems about the deep past to ga: n h:stori-
cal leverage for a political c:itiq ue of tr:c violence
of colonialisn: and ecological destnctio:i, uther
proponents o: ethno?oet'cs see the genre a, more
directly co nee med with pmdi:cing a form of cul-
t urn] criticis:n that points toward muhicultural-
isr:1, For example, in his ~cv:cw of cthnopoc:ics
in Symposium ,if the Whole: 11 Range of !>iscourse
Toward an Ethnopoetics, Tuner 0983) argues
that ethnopnetics is committed to «making visi-
ble.''" The r:10re we are aware of the nmlt:pl:city of
Others;' hr argues, "the more we bcrnme aware of
thr mu\t iplr ·selves' we contain, thr social roles
M: have 'internalized'"' (pp. 340-34 ! }. t'or 'Jtrner,
then, ethnopoelics explores the polyglot multi•
plicity of the social self, thus leading to a se:f-
reflexive humility that opens the doo~ to
multkulturaEsm: "Once they [ou; !ired versions
of 'self' I a,e 'made visible' faey ,ue revealed as
faintly mmic figure, .... It may be thatthe remg
nition of d,vcrsity in cultural voices has tl:c thcr•
apeujc: fonct:o:i of confrontir.g us with the
problem of the One and the Many-a :iew l'eflex-
ivity i:1 itself" (p, 341 ). This version efrnopoet•
ics bt:s !'unctions as verbal therapy, aspiring to
help its reader, <p:estion t:leir take:1Aor-granted
:fartnet: & Engels:"Aria ':: TimeofWG.," a 1053
cuhul".il assumptions, and includes the assmr.;,·
tio11 that deconstrucl i:lg tired versions of a uni-
fied Western self will help to bridge the dhtance
bd wee 1: the,e nuw prnblematiztri seh·es and the
multiple Othe:, whu lin!:\er uutshle the cu1:1fort-
ab le living rooms of the West. From th is pernpec -
tive, eth no poetics aspi rr., to produce cultural
criticism capable functionir.g bnt:1 as political
engagerr.ent and as persor.al therapy,
Gi ,en !!:is framework, let us re tun: to anot':1fr
p:ece of ethnopoetks, "The New (Colonial) Ball
Game" by Robert C Williamson. A professor of
aml:rnpology at the University of Saskatchewan,
Williamso:i speciaHzes in fieldwork o:i the Ir:·J::
Indians. Attemph1:g both to make the huml:ia-
tions of rnlonialism c:carer for the colonizer and
to vcr,: his own frustrations at the diHlculty of
the process of maki np, the invisiblc visible,
Williamso;'J (J985) offers :he fol lowing scene:
Then the ittlc nHrn
Who'c ji:st arrived
Aud tell im porlant
And. of course, responsible
Said :1:cely, pompously
With British vowels
As :ight and round
As his big ass
How everybody should be grateful
Fo, the Chr:stly whites
Who came, of course, lo help
And not to satisfy thenselves
And here in their own country
For their sakes
We all s:rn;ild
(A, it surely n:·Jst inevitably
Come to be
And the soo:ier, don't you see
 l 054 111 HAt;;DBOO K OF Qt:A LIT,\TTV'E RESEARCH-CHA?TER 41
The better for us all)-
Talk White
For once t:1eir words will fit
The words we hear be mosl
OK
Do this
Right r:ow
J\:1d hurry, see?
fuck off. (pp. 189- t90)
Brady [2000) claims that "by varying :heir
forms of exp:-essio:1 to inc'.'Jde poetry, anthropol-
ogists attempt to say things that might not be said
as effectively or a: all a:iy other way" (?, 956).
\\'illiamsun's (: 985) ?Oe1i:-ending and resoumi-
"Fuck off" surely fits this model, for it is hard
to imagine this line finding way into his pro-
tessior:al atademic work. So the poem gives
Williamson ;he linguistic latimde to say what he
cannot say elsewhere. But does this expressive lat-
ituc.c enable the poet to w:-ite a powerful poem?
:}oes tht> poem show w; anything that is r:ot
alread>· :he subject of hundreds, if not thousands,
of stereotypical in111gcs? We do not even know
where this colonial ballgame take;; place. what :he
date is, who the players are, or what game is being
played, so we are in the realm of a:,stracho:i, the
generic, the ahistorkal no-place of generalized
a11ticolor1ial a:1ger. The sm;1e ronc<:rns have been
raised about Porche\ Blue Hour. but at least that
poems stunning beauty leaves readers awash in
reverberating Jn:agcs that (hopefuI:y} provoke
further critical retlect'or., In traditional poetry
criticism, such abstract vers1: might be take:i as
a]egorical, as aspiring to offer a t ranshistorical
.
mum! lesson, vet Williamson's °Fuck off" hard:v'
counts as an allegory. even thOLig:1 the poem
mcceeds as thera~1y for its au :hor, who must have
been carry:ng that"Fuck off" around w::h iim for
quite a while just waiting to launch it into space,
the poem fails a, a poem and fails as anth ro-
pology, amounting ultimately to lit:!e more rhan a
self-serving rant. Moreover, g:ven the professed
pedagogical :unction of ethr:opoetks to trar:-
scend racism and cultural chau11:nism by making
dte faraway and the strange more human and
thus more familiar to Western readers, we would
have to that the poem is a pedagogical failure
as 'Nell, for it teaches us little about the people
being oppressed by the "little man" who speaks
wit!: "Bri:ish vowels."
We have seen how Snyder anthropol-
ogy, h:story, and poiitkal criticism to produce
blistering and beautiful poems that speak directly
to the ca,nage of t:1e war in Vietnam, and we have
watched as Williamson uses a poem about colo-
nialism as verbal therapy. To further complicate
our treatm<:nt of ethnopoetics, let 'JS inquire as
well about its practices as a form of cullural
tramlation. Alc!ierfrrgll was ar:iong the primary
sources of e:hnopoel:c.~. lts"Stalement oflntention"
(1970) da'.ms that "ALCHERINGA wil: not be a
schular:y 'journa'. of eth:lO?oetlcs' so much a, ~
place where tribal poet,y can appear in English
tra:1slation & ;;an act (in the oldest & newest of
poetic transla:ions) to change men's minds &
lives" (p. I). For example, consider this version of
"What Harm Has She Dreamt>"(1970),a Quechua
tribal poem translated in the first issue of
Ale.he ringa:
He tong hair is her pill ow
the girl is sleeping on her ha: r.
She blood
sl:e does not cry tears
she cries h:ood.
Wl:at is ,he dreaming?
whal harm is she dreaming?
Who hurt her?
who hu r1 her hear1 :Ike this?
Whistle to he:, whistle, whistle,
little bird
so she wakes

s0 she wakes now
whi5tle whistle
little bird, (p, 50)
The ?Oem presumably enables a Western audi-
ence m hear a Quechua orator i:nplicate the
viole:icc of colonialism, a force so powerful aml
insipid that it has seeped into the dreams of its
victims, The effort is dearlv hearttelt, vet without
' '
mas8ive prefatory Jr.formation, we suspect that
most readers will lt'arn little frnn:: :his poem
about the tri::ia 1en lture in question, Whtcre do the
tribe members live' Who is causing the tribe's
young women to cry tears of blond? T':ese may
seem like unfail' bu:-dens to place on any individ-
ual translation, yet without arswering these l:i,-
torically S[>edtlc (JUestim1s, the poemltrans'.at'm:
cannot help hut produce a vague and ,haracter-
le3s sense some premoc_ern other, some far-d:
culture about whid: we know litt!c if not nothing.
Rarhe r than bridg ir:g :he between ;;mug
Western assumptions of privi'.ege and the lived
ei::pcrk·nces of cuhu res on the fringe.< o: moder-
nity, those that have bcet1 shatte;1:;d by co!m:ial-
isrn, such poem, ,eave readers ur.informed,
clueless, •ecliug vag:iely touched yet 1101 empow-
ered to take any 1>pedf:c \lc:ion,
One nf the many goa,s of ethnopoetks was to
offe, such translations as a corrective to wha:
been widely crit:cizcd as the creeping 'Jiase, lead
ing to sloppy, if not downright t.'l!ploitative, :rans
lati ons of works and cultures of non-V{estern
peoples. As Basso (1988) argues, there is grow-
ing comrkt ion among ;ing:Jist:c ar.th ropologists
that the oml literatares of I\ at ive Amer:can peoiJle
have been inaccurately charncte:-ized. wrongly
represented, and improperly translated" (p. 809),
Such translating inaccurades pose a signi:1cant
problem fur cui:ural critics from a variety of fields,
for as Clifford (198811999) demonstrates in The
Predicarnenr of C11l!ure, anthropologists such as
Bronislaw :V.alinowski allowed their colonial
biases to sl:ape their fieldwmk m: othe, cultures,
hence leading to supposedly scienti1lc report-
ing !hat in fact mirrors Westen, prejudices
(pp, 92-113}, in response to this anthropological
Hartnell & F::ge:s:"Aria in Time ofWJr" Ill 10'.\5
d:icm ma, ethnopoct~ sought to p:-odui:e tr,msk1-
t ions that were closer to be spir:: of t'.,elr origi•
i:als, hence trying to bring to 1Nestern readers a
mo,e authentic sense of the fo:-eigi: cultures ,mder
consiceration. A'.though '.his is a:1 ad:nirnble goal,
the fact is that :here ca:\ be no direct and
unclouded : ranscrihing of a tribal ?Oem into forms
accessible to Wes:~rn readers, A.II trcmslatirms are
interpretations,
This fact is demo:istrated nicd y in ,Vine teen
\'V(JJS of l.oaking at iv.mg \'\lei, a fascinating study
'::iy Weinberger and Paz (: 987) nf I9 transla1 ions
of en eighth-century Buddhist poem by Wang
We:, Wein berger and Pa;; conclude, "In its way a
spiritual exercise, translation is dependent on the
di.ss.olntion of the tra:islator's ego: an absolute
humility toward the text. A bad translation ls the
ins'stent voice trar:slator-that i,, when
one secs no poet and hcaci; only tl:e translator
,peaking" (p, 17), Bui as Nim,teeu l'Vays of trwking
suggests, one always he,i:s the translator speak,
ing-ofte:1 rhythms and rni a:s tl:at bring new
depth and meaning rn the poen:, Ir1dcrd, because
all translations arc interpretivt' acl, :1111:, at their
bes:, aspire to fulfill pedagogical and artistic
knctinns, elhnopocts come to rcal:v: tr.at
I :anslation ls a !orm of cJ!tu ral crit idsm and
artistic production in owi, right (Alfred, J 999,
pp. 55-65; lfosaldo, 19891199.3, pp. Smitl:,
1999 ), Frmr. this perspec:ivc, then, translat iog
puems from cultures on the fringes of moderr.ity
amounts not so much to a doom;;:d attempt to
reclaim a lost past o:- m, unsullied Other as to
an attempt to multiply ... and hence add diveroit y
to-the voices mingling b our conversations
aboar the nurms, obligations, and hopes o:
modernity.
Given the swee::iing nature of that '.ast claim,
it is importaut before dos i:ig our discussion of
ethnopoet:cs to add yet another layer of co:n?li-
cating theoretical factors and one more sel of
readings of ethnl)poems. ¼'e acromplish both
tasks by turning 10 the work o: Ivan Brady, who for
many years has beer. a:nong the leading theorists
and artists of this vein of work Brady is partku-
lady inst:'nctive, for whe:-eas we have refc>rn:d pre,
vlou sly to \'Jrious strains of ethnopoetics, Brady
I056 m EANDBOOK OF QUALITA:'IVE cl£S.:ARCH-CHAl'TI:R 41
prefers :he term "anthropological poetic~:' For
Brady (.20!14), anthmpo:ogical poetic, consists of
three lnter:-elated yet disti:1:t categorie~: "ethno•
poetics, 't'Je emics of riat:ve poetr i~ that arc r:iid•
wi"cd by Westrr:1 poets'; nativ~ poetry, the poetry
of t;adiliomil r:Jll\'e poets; and ethnographic
poetics, 1h1:: poetic pmduc1 ions of ethnographers"
(p, 639). We haw already addressed examp:es of
native poetry (the Quechua poem "Wbat Hann
!las Sl:e Ilrem:i:?") and "e:hnographic poetics"
(Snyde:'s ''.i\nasazi" ,1:1<\ Williamson's "The New
(Colonial) Ball Came'), and sv we now focus on
Brady:, vi,rsior: of ctlmopoctks. In anfa ropology,
"cmic" ctlt.lils lL,i:lg the normative values and
symbolic c~":,:ll(ll,lits of studied rather than
,mposmg own cultural biases, and a '\r:id ·
wJe" is someone who helps in the process of birth
in ;,articular n1:d creation more generally (and
who rr:ay, as in the case of the midwife who
':lirthed the first author's first chik, he a :nan);
thus, for Brady, cthnopoctics re: ks or. the local
idioms cf groups studied by anthropologi<ilS and
:he llexihlc forms of Western poetry, 1n1:1slation,
ar:d str.rrte:ling to aid in the process of creating
11rw forms of expression,
To watch how this process unfolds, we turn
to Brady's (2003) :nasterfui 111e Time at Darwin's
l<cef: Poetic Exp/om lions in Antlmipology and
His tor;, We should r:cte that Brady is an accom
plishcd anthro:)ologist who specializes in Pacific
Island cuh ures, so whercas rhe ethnopoems and
;rans:at:ons discussed previously felt s:ender on
anthropological det.dls, Brady's poems ·:iristle
wit!: a lifetime of research and personal experi-
em:e; this expertise ;s retlected in helpful sets of
re'f'ren,ces and introciuctio:1s to dusters of poems.
As evidence the book's (and Brady's) remark-
ably broad sense of time and place, Darwins Reef
doses with ar. alphabetical "Place List" and a
chronological "Date Lis:; both of which include
iT:fo,mation relevant to the olhei. Fo: example,
the Place Lis: begins with ''Abaiang rs:a11d,
February 14, 1840;' doses ,vith 'TSMCRD, San
Diego, California, August 27, 1958;' and includes
60 other :ilace/time entries sandwiched in betwec:1
(pp, ' 12':I t Thus, before reading a si :igle poem,
readers recognize :"rom glancing th rough :he
Place U,t and Datt' List faat Darwin'.! Reef
add,csscs the long his:ory of naval rnn qL:cst,
beginning for the p.uposes of tl:is hook in the
South Pad fie during the 1840s, culminating in the
world's largest Aoat:ng arms depot, San Diego,
during lr.e late 1950s, and wreaking havoc on alt
the places in betweer:. The Place List and Da:e List
thus function as sem:otk machii:es of imagina-
tive yet histor:cally grounded suggestions, pro•
ci:JCing juxtapositions, layerings, and dues mea:it
to lcc.d the reader on g,x1g~ap;1ic and :er:1poral
journeys through the wreckage of rnior:ialism.
"Time" at narwin's Reef is therefore, as in
Snyder's (1974) Turtle lsl,wd, linear than :n
traditional historical writings and rr:ore like the
twisting, reverberatn1g, ecological, and even spir·
itua. form;; it uften takes in folklure. :or example,
in the poem that names the bnok, "The Time a:
Darwin's lleef"-locatcd with rhe place and date
IL,tings t:iat preface each poem as "l'laya de la
lv'.i:erte, South Pacit1c, July 4, l 969"-Brad)• con-
veys time a& "High Time, 1;05 p,:n,. Fiji time"
(local dock time, p. 69 ), as "Time to Ge: Down"
\fm:n the Cessna flying overhet1d, p. 69), as
"!slar:d Time" (the deep ecological time of natural
change, p. 70 ), as 'Copy time :n the coral" (the
n:ovements of coral reproduction as seen in ''ejac-
ulaling rncks'.' pp. 71-72),as "Magic Time" (p. 73),
and so on ;n a dh:,yi:lg multiplication of possi-
ble times, most of them rooted r.ot in Western
nolions of docks bJt rather in the natur.il tempo•
ral forms of tides. season,, and life cydes, Take11
together, these layered "t:mes" incicate a spir::u al
ser:se uf cu:np:cte11ess, uf multipEcities wuve1:
into an organic who;e, of ecological centeredness,
""u", assun:c that Brady's gorgeous
experiments in tem;:;o;-,al cnnfrsions lapse into
political mmplacency, "Pro em for the Queen cf
Spain" layef5 such tcn:poral dislocations ag,dnst
sp:itial and political fragme:1ts, hence creating a
sc"nse of bitte:" puelic ju<lgmeut. The bulk the
piece is a letter (fictional but true to its histo:kal
moment) from Fernando Jun'.pero Dominguez,
written ir. "New Spain" (Mexico) in 15 39, in w:iich
the writer :ban ks the queen for bringing to his
people: "the Embrace o'· the Mi,:,sion and the Love
of God, An:en" (p. 51). Th:s is a letler, then, tt:at

demonstrates hmv colunized proples internalized
oppression, in this case In the form of bowing to a
foreign god :,rought to the ~ew World by a foreign
empire. Tucked within the letter, however, B,ady
offers expletive-laced co:nmamls from U.S. troops
in Vietnam, who shout at the locals "Nam fuckin'
xuong dat! Lle fae fuck down! Or y'all gonna
fuckin' die:" (p. 51 ). The end matter following the
poem provides multiple historical references 01:
the history of Dominguez, so the poem fulfills the
pedagogical function of both sedc:xing readers
to think historically and then leacing them to the
necessary information to pmsue their own fur-
ther readings. Much like Snyder's juxtaposing the
Anasazi against Nixon's saturation bombing
Vietnamese ?eas,mts, then, Brady's inserting
dialogue from U, 5, so:diers within a 1539 :etter to
the queen nf Spain illustrates a sen,e of cuntinu-
ity :inking the Spanish invasion of Mexico ru the
U.S, invasion ofVietnan:. Against ;he deeply satis-
fying ecological tirr:es of "Tlme at Darwin's Reef,'
ther:, •p~oem fo:· the Queen of Spain" o:fers a chi 11•
i:'lg sense of imperial time, of the louping repeti•
tive hormrs of cm::qt:est.
Despite :his numbing sense of fae ways that
imperial powers have savaged weaker peoples for
centuries, the ':mlk of Brady's poems are commit-
:ed tu loving and often iwrgeous tributes to the
ways that even the strangest Others arc in fact not
.
on'.v humai: but also haman in wavs '
that are
deeply farnil'.ar to Western readers, for as Brady
(1991) argues el,ew:iere, ethnopoe:ns function by
"delinirig the humanity ofl:umankind and pos:t-
ing it as sm:u:thiq~ lo achieved in practke"
(p. 6), As derr:m:stmted in Darwin!; Reef, those
practices will be so multifarious, so convoluted,
2nd even so magical
,, that it takes remarkable ;_ind·
ncs.s and patience to appreciate their significance.
As Brady (2004) argues, "Ethnographic poets
meditate on the ethnographic experience or focus
on particulars arranged to elicit themes of general
hunmni:y that might apply cross-cdtura;Jy"
(p. 630). Brady's Danvins Reef offers us a glimpse
of what such cross-cultural, anthropo1ogica:, and
poetic conscio·Jsness might look like, hence
expanding our rotion of who coi.:n~s as our broth-
ers and sisters wh:le envisioning a new, better, and
Hartm!tt & Engels: ''.Aria i 11 Time of War" Ill 1057
more generous way of being in the world. Th'Js,
aJhough Brady flags these works as "poetic
explorations in amhmpology and hislory" in the
subtirle to Darwi11s Reef, our readings of them
would add that they are, like Snyder's poe:ns, both
politically progressive and deeply spiri,ua: medi·
tations, self-reflexive O?portunities for postn:od-
e~ns ro move past irony ~nd cynicism toward
somethir:g like multicultural commitment
As demonstra:ed ir. fae prea:ding paragra?hs,
we a,e deeply moved by Brady's contributions.
The only problem-and it is a probiem not so
much with Brady as with :nost works of art-is
that regimes of truth often obscure the ability or
the dtslre to see anothrr as human. Stereotypes
and prejudices doud judgment, making the gen-
.
eros:tv demonstrated in Bradv's '
texts a difficult
enterprise. Brady ( 2004) sees the ff,erarching
problem of anthropological ..,oe·tir< as one of
"pl uml 'krovrabies' and the frustrations of choos-
ing among them. (Or ha,•ing someone choose for
yo·J, someone or some institt1tion wit:1. the power
to enforce the choice, society, for ex11mple, Or
the Taliban. Or your department t.ead)" (p. 632).
This is a crucial pas.sage, for we sus,ied lhal this
parenthetiatl aside regarding power~ tlrnt fil-
ter through a] life, the power, :bar allow others
to "choose for you:• may be the rr:ost important
blockage preventing the ful:lllment of Brady's
vision. Indeed, the invesEgative poetry to which
we tum in our dos ii:g section begins from the
u'.'lderstanding that someone or some strJcl'J:-e
is always t::ying to choose for us, meaning that
our plural knowahles are often thr prodi:cls of
oppressive regimes, stultifyir:g cultural norms,
or burcaucralic dead weight. Whereas the ethno-
graphic poetry studied here offers us a com-
pelling set of models for thinking critically about
and engag:ng politically in the world-with
Brady's Darwin's llecfstanding as our ':;est exem-
plar of the rich pos~lbil i:ies of this work-wr still
Ili'ant to ask more fron: investigative poetry, for
wit:10:11 a nua1:ced and pecagogically rich articu-
;ation of how multiple forms of power fLter
through, and sometimes e\•e11 struc:ure, our con-
texts of ac:ion, we can ntver know how to rhetor
ically build consensus a:1d common humanity.
1038 1111 ; IAJ\ DUUOK Uf QlALTJl:I l VE Rf-'iEARCH -CHA JJTER 41
Ir: short, ir: the fina: scs:tion, we propose-not so
much as a critique of eth nogrnphic poetry as a
supplen:rnt to it-tblt sodery's po\,er 10 choose
for us is not an aside bu! rather the focal point
poetic criticism. T'.,e works we address in w:1at
follows thus r:10ve ;nvay from a sense of anthropo•
logical woud.:r toward hard-hittinJ:! µulitkal mid
poetic critique:; uf specific regin:es power.
Iii 4. TuR::t: i\ioLJEL'i Of
btVEST:GIITIVF. POETRY;
Dos PAssos, FoRCHE, AND Scorr
Th,:, works considered here are immersed com•
pletely in. and are fully aware of their ccn:?Ecity
with, the contradictioi:s of U.S. power; they
accordingly :'ci.:us or: case studies of ,•n,r,·,"11,,-.
military, po:itkal, and cu:tural oppression.
Indeed, the poems co:1sidered in this sectkm work
imminrntly. construc:ing their [nve,t:gari,e
poetry :·mm within the very soda! syste:ns they
hope to examine. Whereas the etl:nogrnphic
poetry cor.sidered previou,ly works fo an dluriug
sideways mann.:r, thinking about U.S. piwe~ by
working along its edges and using anthropology
to teach m 11hout the propks atfocted bv U.S.
power, the works considcrcc. :n what follows :ake
a more direct approach, In fact, Peter Da'.e Scott,
in patic ular, be"n at lacked by those who fiud
his pocmo loo ?Jl:tlcnl a:id nut puetk enough.
0 ur comments in this sectim, therefor<' are not
mear:t tu stand !lS norn:at:ve ttdg:nents about
what is :. better or more powerful form of poetry;
rather, we offer them as the tlnal piece of ot:r pu7.·
zle, as" dosing set of options and models of how
our best poets have str·Jgglcd to ..,,,,"'" historical
am: political crit:cism ir: ~. Ion:, of i:1vesligalive
First among these r:1.odels b foh::i Dos Passos's
U.S.A. trilogy, co:1sisting of The 42nd Parallel
( ! 930/ l969c), Ni11etee1; Ninefeen I I932/ l969a). and
Ihe Bi~ Muncy (l 936/1969b ). T:1c bulk of these
sprawling uuvels cur1sists of ~radii ional narratives
tollowing the m'sadvcnttircs of characters con•
fronted wid1 t'ic var:oi:s economic, cultJral, and
political complications following from the manic
boom-and-bust cycles of unn:gulated ce.p: :almn
and Arn~r!ca'., entry in:o World Viar 1. Each story
is followed, however, by short sections titled
Newsreels and the Car:1era Eye and by poetic
biographies of :he perioc 's key player,. The
Newsreels rnnsist of neWo;:,apcr hcac:Encs, snip•
pecS of newspaper stories, and matched refrai :1&
from popu'.ar song.~.. Oh say can ym, see . .. ,
Where do we go from here, boys 7 Arrayed 011 the
page as a string of discor.nected shards of evi·
de:1ce, these Newsreels provide both a dear
runr.er to form of Sanders's America and an
eerie g:impse intu the world of poptJar culture,
mass-p'.'Oduced misinformation, and :he vast
maJo,ity of events t'iat have simply fallen into
historical oblivion.
The ~cwsrecls are foll owed by Cam era Eye
aections in which DO& Pas sos offers disjointed
observations, litera!ly camern shots of turmoil. In
this case, wt watch the angry response of social-
ists in Paris to the Tn:aty of Versailles: "at the
Republique il bass la guerr: MORT AUX \I.ACHES
a le Pa:x de ,,-,,.,,.,,,,111, they've tom up the grat•
ings from around tl:c trees and arc throwing
stones and bi ts of casli runs at the fancydrcsscd
Re;m·:i:brn Cuards hissing w;,i,tihg poking at
the horses with umbrel:as ,craps of the inter·
11a1io1rn/"(Dos Passos, 1932/1969a, pp.396-397).
bdicated by the random gaps in the pa,1Sages
just quoted, the c:on fus:or: as to who is speaking,
and the bristling sense of confused immediacv,
these sections fade lrno the stream of conscious•
ncss, thus offering readers glirr.?ses into the frac•
tmed ex pcrknce of living daily l!fe amid epochal
historkal transto,mations. Dos P-<1ssos follows
tt ese blasts of existential conh:sion wit!: poetic
biograpl:ies, :rom whic:!1 we have taken this verse
on Rar.dolpt S. Bourne:
This little sparrm11 like man
tiny twi steel bit of tlcs:1 'ri a black cape,
always in pain a:1d aiEng,
p·,1t a pebble in lii.s sling
and hi: Goliath in the forehead with it
Wur, he wrote, is the healt,~ ofthe s!ate. (p. 120:,

Made popular in Zin:is ( 1980] magnificent
A Pmptes Hi:.tory af the Uniied Bourne's
pl:rase :ias stood for generations as m: i11dict:nent
C.S. mllitarist:i ( pp. 350-.,67). Ry ch:-onic:ing
:he strugg.es of lh :s largely forgott,:,o figure, Dos
Passos's b:ogra;ihkal poem 1:1:ric:ies our sense
of American hi'itory, mak: r:g it more sorn ber a:1d
personal. The combbalio:i of the explanatory
narratives, tht' evidence-offering Newsreels, the
e::ds:ent !al!y rich Camcrn Ey,:, scctio11s, and Ihe
poet:c biographies offers reacers four perspec ·
Live~ from which to approach history. Uos Passos
thus st:·ives to merge these four ?nodes of w:it-
ing to form a colirct:ve whole c<1,:ablc of think-
ing simultaneor.sly about the deep structural
integrity oi h:story and the baft1ing, awestruck
wonder and confusion th at fills eac:, smal I
moment of time.
A second impurtaut model of textual produc-
tion inCurnci og our arguement here is 1-m.>vided
Forc::e's The Coumry, Retwe,m Us (I \Ill l) and
rhe Angel of Ilistory ( 1994), her two book,; pr:or
to lllue Hour. Based on her jcmr:ialist'c work in
El Salvador during the height of that country's
civil war, The Country Rel ween Us uf:ers a modd
for a portry of witness ill which fae poe: is not
only a chror. i clcr of !:ope ard tcr ror but also a
partkipar: 1 in the processes she examines. The
poems in this remarb ble book thus Y<"er from
scalding polil ical critiques of Si1l vadora n tyrants
to self-implicating rurninaliuus on how even the
rrost mundane pleasures :n :he United States
bear the stain of the violence our government
fu;ids in tnc Third World. Uke su many of 1;s
who fir.d that our grassroots political work
changes the ways that we tl:iok about freedom
(Hartnett, 2003; Tan:u,:i·::iaum, 2000), Forche
t1nds tnat fa1 ing j n dose proximity to barbarism
in El Salvador casts shadows across dai'.y space.
forchc (l 981) is thus u11J:erve(: by the sense of
dccade:ice and ease signaled by "th<: iced rlr;nks
anc paper ·Jmbrellas, dean f toilets ar.d Los
Ange.es palm trees moving/ like lean women''
(p. Ii'). Like so many of us, she fo:ds :ht happy
ignorance of many Ame;ican~ regarding the
brutality rhat their cou:1try foists on thr world lo
he unbearable. Speaking to a friend, she laments,
11.ar1netr & Engels: "Aria in Time vfWar" 111 1059
you were born to a:1 :,land of greed
and grace ·where yen; nave :J~ ,;:en,e
of yourself as apart from others. It is
nut your right to feel powerless. Bene,
people :han you wece powerless. (p. 20)
Many of these better people appear i11 the
pages of The 1i11gei of History, whe;e Porche
( I994) expands her pcetry of wilnes;;, lo en com•
pass t'le European Holocaust and the impact of
the lni:cd States dropping nuclear b[Jmhs on
Japan. laking her title :rum the weJl. ;rnown story
told io Hcnjamin's (194011969) "Theses un :he
Philosophy of History;' whe~e en ange'. is blown
bac~ward in:o the future while wutching the pre-
sent produce an evrr-growing of wreckage
(pp. 257-258), Porche mc:..:es the horrors oi
World War II in persona: poer:u fu[ stories of
her lost relatives a:id friends, While leading read-
ers on this pe~sonally inflected '1istorical journey
ir.to barbarism, Porche speculates-ire~ Jently
th:uugh the voices of other writers and :il:iloso-
phers-0:1 the possibilities of forg:vcne,s. Much
like Brady's Darwin's Reef: ther:, 'fhe
Histcry i, less an investigative c:ter:,pl tr. name
name., and pir:poim causes faan ,, philosophical
attrmpt to make sense of persistence of hope
in the face of unspeakable suftering. Aphoristk
and enigmatic-and thus nearly impossible to
quote w: thout in duding of supporting
:na:erial the pcems accumu:ate powe, from
:heir many references to other texts, hence offer-
ing :eaders less a definitive statement than a
series of ·Jeauti"ul theses, each equipped w;th
what amount; to a Est of ~uggested readings. Thus,
while embodying ,he wonder ai:d openness of
,elegant poetry, Tl!e .411gei History stands uhi•
mately as a :Jedagu1:1i,al tool for wondering what it
means tu .:herish art during an age of destruction,
The third, and by far !he most impcrtant,
model of investigative poetry is Peter Dale Scntt's
Seculum trilogy. The first part o: the tri:ogy,
Coming to Jak1,rta; A Poem ,1bo11t Terror ( I988 ),
has bee1: lauded in The Hoston Re·iit'w as ''~cn:ark-
a·:,:c and un:1erving" (\'Veiner, 1995. p. 31 ), in
1060 111 HANDBOOK Ofi QUALITATIVI:: RESEARCH-(HAP'll:!R 41
London'.~ Times Litemry Supplement as work
of g,eat rk:hness and complexity" (Gunn, 1991,
p, l 9), in Parnassus as ",evolutionary" (Car.1pbell,
J9',l3, p, 395), and in a special issue of llGN I-by
no less a national he,o than :he Poet Laureate
Rober! Hass-as "the most impor:ant ?Olitical
poem to ii?pear in the English language ir. a very
long time" (Hass, 1990, p, 333). Like thes,· enthusi-
astic reviewers, we have been deeply impressed
by t:le sophistication and de?tti of Scott's ooE:kal
;;;nalys:s, t:Je epic sweep of his historical knowl-
the revelatory honesty of his selt~im;>Heating
poems, a:1d :hr sheer beauty of his verse. By i:1trr-
weaving these four qualities-political acumen,
historical grounding, self-reflexivity, anci poetic
beauty-Scott produces what we call an interdi,;-
ciplinary aesthetic, of prov ,;icm.al eloquence. That
is, by mergbg the four qualitie1; jnst noted, and by
doing so vmile confror.ting a political calamity,
Scott provides us with an empowering and elegant
example of :tie search for amid terror.
Coming to Jakarta was triggered by Scott's
(; 988) need to write "about the 1965 mctssacrefof
Indonesians by lndonesiansn (p, 24) while simulta-
neously questioning his own complicity-as poet,
professor, one-time diplomat, father, husbam!, and
activist-in the events that led to the Central
lntelligence Agency (CIA)-sponsort:d butchery of
more than 500,()(iO Indonesian "communists" fol-
lowing the coup that re;ilaced Sukarno with
Suharto! For example, lr.. the second poem of
Coming to Jakarta, we 6nd Scott ,,utll'rir,i:, from
the uprising in my stomach
agains: so much good food and
wine A:m',icr: or was it
givi :-ig or.e last b,oadcast too many
about the Letelier assassins
the hero'n traffic
a subject : no longer
to get a har.dle on, (p, l Of
These i'nes depict Smtt ,1,,; an activist/'ntellec-
tllal speaking publicly about the sub:e,ranean
Ii nks between assassination politics and the drug
war, as a typical ovcrconsu:ner gorged on too much
decadence, and as a consummate researcher who,
suffering frorr- ,he nausea brought on by tuo much
farr.iliarity with evil, wishes that the facts would
oyste:iously vanish into the comforting oblivion
of ignorance-but of course they du r:ot.' Instead,
h:story fo~ces illielf :nercilessly onto Scott (:988),
prodding him to engage in a relentless p·Jrsuit of
evidence, dragging :1 :m deeper and deepr~ into
both the psyd:ology and the political cronomy of
terroc
Already we are descei:c:ing
into these shadows which
har.g about as !f there
were someth:1:g m:i ch more urgent
left wholly unsaid, (p.: 3)
Reade:s interest«! in the facts of the lndonesiar.
massacre will find r:1ore thar: LOO soi:rces listed ir.
Scott's notes, which situa:e Suhar:o's coup and the
en~uing m1ticommuni~t genodde w:thin the over-
lapping polit:co-economic fra:nework of post-
Work: War 11 interr.ational finance: the transi:ior.
from modern, empire-drive:1, and ideologically
driven colonialism into the po5tmode::n neo.:ulo•
nialisr:i of multinationa: corporation;, undergrrurn:'
tl:i1L<. tanks, anu globetrotting mercer.aries; and the
continuing subversion of democratic politics at the
behest of the global castc-bounc thugs who r·c1r.
secret governments as if theyv."l:~e their own private
shnoting galleries. ·;·he researc"t used to dncume:1t
tr:ese charges is breathta«ing, thus offering readers
a tutorial in how to pursue interdisciplinary politi-
cal criticism, In thls sens.:, then, Scott is pe:haps the
most impressive cobbler of what we saw Sanders
( 1976) refer to earlier melodic blizzanl of data-
fragments" (p. 9).
But whe:-eas such melodic blizzards m 'ght leave
many re2.ders baffled, or at least searching for per-
sonal relevance in such waves of«data-fragments'.'

Scott weave~ his remarkable research arm:nd and
through moments of daily life, :1ence showing us
how power courses throngh eve:i the most mun-
dc.ne activities. For example, watch here as Scott
( 1988 J links :ht cisparate strands of tht· intcn',l-
tional political economy of terror, U.S. weapons
ma:1 u:acturer,, l:ulonesian and Sauci tycoons,
the re:use of Nixon's ie:ichrr:en, ;uid the friendlv•
neighbor:,ood :Jank:
and I thought of Ad1:an Khashoggi
l:lc Ir:done~krn shippi:ig r:1agnate
Sandi friend of l'ak
Chung Hee and Roy Fmmak
$106 millio11
in Lockheed co:nmis,ions
to Khashoggi alone
ar.d :wi ce ,hat
a:nount withdrawn by Khas'mggi
fro:n Re~mzo's bank in Key Jliscayne
in May and November '72
,md of Lim Suharto's cukong
who has bought the Ei';iemian bank
with a bra:ich on tl:e Berid.:,y campus
from pmfits on arr:1s deals_ (pp. 127 - ~ 28 l'
Scott'~ awesome courage in expo&ing the ,had--
0\\~f operatives and offshore bankers and behind•
the-scenes ·:ioardroom connertim:s that fuel
imperialism. in conjunction with his sweeping
grasp o~ history and his uncanny ability to render
such topics in recognizable terms-a bmnch on
the Berkeley campus-render Coming to Jakarta a
wo:ld ·dm,s. example of the detailal historical and
political analysis needed to render investigative
poetry persuasive.
In fact, it took nearly 15 years. following :he pub--
lication of Coming to jakarta for the ma:nst:earn
Hartnett & Engels: ..Atta in T:·111: of War" 11 1061
media ~o hegin to address the undc:world
CS. -lndor:esi a connections first expos al in Scott's
poem. For txamplc, it is now known that Freepo~I
MacMoRim, Texaco, ,'.lobii. Raytb:011, Hughes
A'n:rnft, and Merrill I.yr.ch (,unong others) are
major finandal sponsor, of the lLS. -Indonesia
Society, a lobb;-lng group cochaired h? Prcsidem
Ror.ald Reagan's "e,·r•• 0 of George
Sd:uh l, and foatur:ng James Riady as a trustee
and John Huang as a cm:sultaut. Thus, two of tl:e
centrnl figure.~ (Riady and Huang) i:1 one of the
Democratic party campaign finance scandals that
rocked the Clinton prcsiccncy Limed m:t to be
s.ig:1itkar.t U.S. - Indonesia Society figu ,es. Press
( 1997) observed at the time that the.,.,.,,.,., was "a
public rela,ion~ urgan for the Si.:.harto regime" (p.
: 9). Thus, ·:iei:earh the s·Jrfacc scar.dal of :he
Democndc party acce,:iting illegal foreign mm•
paign contributions, jm:rnalists found the much
deeper scandal of contindng links among
Suhar:o•~ brutal regime, U_SAmscd transnation-
als, and the U.S. government. That Srnlt's Cumir.g
w jakana c'xposed thr,l' wnncctlons 15 year,
before the mains,rea :11 pre,<1 would even consider
t;1em r1e1nr.·•1<tr, the remarkable depth anti
courage of the poem's political and hisc(dca'.
analysis. Using Scott'~ Coming Iv Juktma as a
i~odel, then, we argue that inve,tigat' ve poetry
1:ses rigorous research to mm:e nar.1es, to show
who owns what and ·,vhom, a:1d tl:us to lay :iare the
i:1.stitt:tional am: economic structures supporting
specific n:c<les of oppression.
Scott's work is jt:sl as impressive. however, as
an rxperiment il, remnstrncli rig a new and prnb-
lemat ic sense nf an endle,sly compmmi,<'c se:f 'n
;he :ace of te~ror, hence Scott's revelation tl,at
To have !earn: from terror
to see or.eseJ
:;s part ihe c ncmy
car: be a reassurance
whllteve:- ii is
arises within us. (p. 62)
lD6'.' 111 HAIC)BOOK 01' QUAL!TXTIVE RESEARCII-CIIAl'TE'l 41
Like the poems Dos P2.ssos and Forche,
then, Scott's poems perform a dialectical inter-
weaving of perspectives, Bach well,document,ed
sume o: politic:;.: ba~barism segues into personal
ob~ermt:or:s on the :iatare of complicity, each
persona'. ruminatilm on co:nplic::y lades into
questions of commitment and the historical
obligatim1 of engaged citizens :o at least attempt
to speak :rut]: to power, and each engagement
with tl :e numbing expanst' of global power poli-
1ics, in turn, leac, hac:s: to the suspicion th,1 : per-
haps grace can only be found, afte, all, amid those
moments when daily life is lived as an aesthetic
ex ,erie:1ce, Hence the preYale11ce i:l Listening t,;
the Cundle (Smit, 1992), the secund par! of th.:
Seculum trilogy, of sim pie pleasures
focused mi the mysteries
of da iline,s
baking bread 0:1 Satt,rdays
smelling the freshness
of sun-dried laundry
while you fold !he sheet
agairn;t yoi,;n;df
frm:1 the garden line, (p, 94)
Later in the poem, after chror.icl ing the
December 1980 murder American cvangcli,
cal~ working with p<"a,ants in El Salvador, Scott
( 1992) suggest~ 1t1,u
in s·Jch a tln:e ii is stil: gm1d
having da need until mid:1ig:1t
:o '.Hka's and Jol:n's :1ew band
a:ter the family lasagna
all generations
ou ~children ,md their friends
da11d r,g lt1gether singly, (p. 106)
'!error and grace thus .iostle each o6e: within
the infinitely textured particulars of the day:
l;rom the Bay Br:dgc
on the way home from the u;,e,a
•'OU could look down on lhe searchlights
of the Oakland Army :erminal
·,,here they loaded the cor1ta:r1cr,,
of pcl:ct-bomb~ and napalm. (Scntl, 1988,
p. 103)
:'ord1e', lir.e about "aria in :i me of war:'
then, Scott shows us how even the drive home
from the opera, that quintessential marker of high
art, leads one past place, of mass·produced vio·
:cnce, If you look aroimd, Scott tells us, you will
find yourself implirati:d in things you have pre1+
ou,,iy spem a greut deal ,i time and energy
pn:Jending not to recognize.
These r,i :,ha:1 k 1,m:nc:1t, of rt'a!ization r:ccd
not ::l<' paralyiing, r: owever, as &o:r sr.ow, us
again and ho., to channel them into a
renewed commitment to work not only poE :kally
fo, peace and justice but also persunaLy for some-
:hing approaching kind:1ess. In fact, in Minding
tlie Darkness, the :'lird volnme of tl:e Seculum tri'.
ogy, Scon (2000) turns increasingly to ~udrlhism
as a way of practicing what J:e calls mi:idfulnc;;s,
)iuch like Snyder's ecological consciousness in
T;;rtle Island, or Brady's 1,piritual sense of time
:n Darwin'., Reef, Scott's Buddhis:n is woven
throughoot the book as a counterthread :o his
poEtical criticism. Scott demonstrates Js cha!·
lenges a:1d opportunities most explicitly in fou:
poems chronicling Bt:ddhist retreats (pp. 72-80,
140-148, I 2.44).[ncontrasttotl:escathing
inves tigat: ve poetry of Coming to Jakarta and the
medit~ h\;e work :r: Ustcning lo Ihc Candle, then,
,",finding the Darkn1t» demons:rates a middle way
of mindful poJtics, of both critique o.nd contern,
p'.at:011. This turn to Buddhism dear'.y
Scott's hankering less s:noking gun that
will rip away the lies of ar:y givei: regime than :er
the wisdom that w:ll help hIm to live an:id so

much was:e and cruelty, Indeed, by tracking down
his footnotes; by rambling thmugh his childhood
traumas and parental pleasures: by forcing 011,•
selves to confro:lt both his and our complicitywith
the global carr:age of low-intensity anticommu•
nism, unabashed designer capitalism. and
pleasures of high culture; by making parnlactical
leaps from fragmentary images and quotntions
toward our own a?proxi male understanding of the
tex:; and by enthusiastically embodying a :urn
toward Buddhist values, Scot: teaches attentive
readers to treat :he poem a~ a heuristic-even
thernpentic device. The mysu:rious "somelhir:g
much :nore urgent / left wholly unsaid" (Scott,
: 988, p. l 3) appears here to be the reali 1.ation that
poetry-as a trigger for research, as a source of
grace, as a means of confron:ing terror, as a process
of self critique and recnnsl~uctior1-amuunts to a
self-regenerating process 'n which, as Scott say, in
an interv:ew, "one wor;;_s through personal resis-
tance and disempower:nent to re-empowcrmc:it"
(Scott, 1990, p, 303).
We are reminded here uf Terre nee Des Pres's
comment in a rou:1dtable discussion on the possi-
bilities of poUtkal poetry that
we lur:-, where we can for susteoam::e,and some of us
ta~c poclrv seriouslv in exa,;tly thi& wav.. , . When
' ' '
it co:;ies to the Bomb, er just tn the prospect of
empires in endless conflict, it see::1s dear we cannot
dn very !1'.ucli very fast So the immediate questicm
im't what to do bu I how t~ live. a::d snn:e o: us, at
least, turn f.:ir Ill poetry: ( Des Pres, 1986, p. 2 l)
The sustenan-::e of Coming to Jakarta, Listening
to the Candle, and l\llinding the Darkriess derives
from the pleasures of sharing one's burden as an
inilrmed and engaged citizen in a rapidly unrav-
eling democracy whlle not dl'Voh:lng into solip-
sism, cynicism, or m~.dness, Hence Scott's ( 1988)
prude:it ad\·ice about how to in the dosing
sector of Coming to Jakarta:
as for those of c.s
wh(l are lucky enough
not to sit hypnotized
Ha,tnet: & Engels: ''.i\ria ':: Time of War" II 1063
our hands on the steering wheel
which seems :o :iave detached itself
from the speeding vel:idc
it is ou:- job to say
rel«.~ trust
spend more ti:ue with your children
things can only go
a little better
if YO'J do no~ hang on so ha,d. (p. 129)
tm CO"!CLUStuN
We began our essay with the claim that despite
the prevalence ofbuznvords indicating rise of
interdiscipfinarity and intel:ectual border crossing,
the vast majority of scholarly production falls
'Jnder tl:e aegis of time-worn departme:1ta: and
disciplinary norms, We offered ethnographic a:1d
investigativc poetry as ways of moving past this
:1ypocri sy. Likewise, we argued tbat despite the
cult'J ral cache of terms such as radical, interven-
rion, and transgression, we know of only an
embarrassingly small number of academics
whose work engages in social justice conccrr.s.
The second sectio:1 of this accordingly
offered some guidelines for thinking a·:-iout how to
make social justice more centra~ to wcat hu:na:1
ists do. The th'rd and fourth sectiom then offered
case studies examining how different poets have
produced politically driven and interdiscipll-
nary investigative poems, laken together, the four
sections of the e,say offor umcre•.e examples of
how scholars, artists, and activists might hegi n
tack Iing the seven methodological proposa,s with
wh :ch we oprned the essay. We therefore hope to
have offered readers a series of working models,
conceptual prompts, and historical examples of
how to merge scholarship and poetry, social jus-
tice and self retlectior.. hence producing texts that
may serve fae role of "ariil in tirre of war:• Indeed,
given the remarkable ?roliferation cul: ural
offerings swimming in an apparently ever more
specialized world of consumerism-a
 1064 11 HAKDBOOK OF QC\: :TATIVR RFSRARCH-CHAPT£R 41
tre:1d ,,s problematic in poetry as in the ge1:ernl
culture at large-t:te combination of deta ilec
case studies and sweeping hislorkal daims tiat
marks the best inves:igf.:h;e poelf}' uffors a pow•
erfu 1mode, of e:1gaged, artfol, amt co;mo~:olitar:
citizer:ship. At their best, these models of aria ir
lime 1l war might we:J provide us, to borrm,: a
phrasr from an intcrviC'lv with Srnders (I 997),
"pathways thr,ngh thr chaos:)
li!l N!ITF.S
1, Bir:.;erls ( procc,ds lo m,ikc a fi:n::alist
ari;ume:·,t demom:rating his allcgiam:e lo a :rac!itional
version of poetry an,: an c::..;,:atcd vcrnin:: of politics,
For mon:: er::pow,:ring rr,pt1:isc, tn thi, cuestim:, ,er the
rolles:tei: in Joni.lii t 1983}, .for mcrr experimental
resp::ns,:i,, sec ih~ remarkablcw,:r;.,, in llern~tein ( 1990)
and Monme (1996), Fo: more pmgrnnum.b:: responses,
sec "The Art of the Mm:Jcsld' ( 1998).
2. Por a ens,• ,stmly nf the difference hrtween
healthy mou ming and p,iralyzing r::ekrncho: :a, see
Ka:ilan (2001). 5cc also rrcud {I pfl, 161,-179) for
hi, diagnosis of 1hr prnbkm.
l The p,issagcs quotnl here are nffe:'l'd in praise
Pound, wh(JSl' use uf su:h ''data clusters" was
poetical!} dubious at he,t and :,oliti,allv cangcrous at
worst (Hartn,·tt, 1995), On the rhetom:al complexities
o" syncx:do.:::e, see Hartnett (10{]2, pp, 155-l 72),
t Although lo:,g a suh,iect of schola:iy analysis,
Lhc 11lcasures of lynch mob, came tc pop·-:ar ,I ltcnl ion
v:a Without Sm1a1111r;,i: lp;cliir:6 Phclogr()p/1y in
Ame!'ica, a show that opened at the New York Historical
Sodc"ty on .V:arch 1·1, :mori, and thar has subscq11c:11ly
:ourcd icutinn, searing into the mind~ of :Is many
vicwe:s images of lynch n:c hs laughing,
barbecuing, and otherwise en,ioyin!, the spccladc of
d,·at:i, Som,, of the images fam: the ~xhib': may htc
,ccn unline at ;lie hc:mep~ge of the Kc1, l'ork Histo,kal
~,.. ,c,1 ()T Alle1c [2000), See
111 CvJllJllt:n'.S on
pleasures of racial violence in Hartman ( J<;97 ).
5, To the leg: sla!:nn ,r 11;:dcd to ::ere, see "An
to Puni,b Acts of lnt,Tlhcm:c., , " ( J:.::ie 15, 19: 7)
and ';\n :\ct to Amend,,," (April 16, 1918)-th, s,l·
called Espionage Acts-from Swt:lies at Large of the
u,,i;,cd Stares c,f Amerim (CS, C011!(r,,s,. 1919, pp.
21 I), also "Chapter May Jn, 1918,
ame11d1m:n1 10 llw Espionag<' in Suuure.s the
Uirired State, o( i\merim '.US, Congre:,s, 1918, pp,
553-554 ), for Eugc::e Vktnr :_kbs's hern:c response m
th~sc sec hfa J:.:m: , 6, 1918, "Canton Speech" in
Tlri l)ebs IAihile Bu,ik (n,d,, pp. 3-64), Pm LJS.
Supreme Court's upholding tt:csc laws, ,ee Sche11ck 1:
Fmhwerk v. and 1JrlJSv. li.S.(all .\1ay 1919) in
Supreme Repor,,•r '.West Publishing, 1920,
pp. '[ bis cahe is dted by lawyer, as S, Ct
247 :n,1•,).
6, for iir.,,lyscs of St;::arto'~ dominatio:: of
ln:kmcsi.l, hfa bmtal 1975 inYasion of East Ti l"lor,
and h,kana's plac~ in the new glo:ml ert,rnmv, see
Amfor,un (1995), Curtis ( 1995-1996), and Fa:irikant
( 19%)_ US complidy with .~uharto's occupation of
Hast J'imor and hi~ :ilomly rf press ion of nppositloi;al
greups in Indonesia rn::tir.ues, In fact, sin.:e Suhartfl's
lkcc:::bi:r l invasion of East Timor, in w:·id1 ::iore
:bm lOC,00\J F<'n;:ile-mnre ban 25'!1: the poi;uia•
:1<111--w,m, slaughtered, the United Slates has sold
lndime,,ia more thJn $1 I hi Ilion wo,th of advanced
weapm::y, Th~ 11intor, administration alone sold close
:o $270 ::i illion wort'i of ar::1s to Sl::-.arto Klare,
1994, rnd Washbu~n. : 9-'l?'., S·:harto was finally forced
?OW<"r in the spring of 1198. For cov,':'agc of
departure, see 'v!yda~s (1998) anc any major newspa-
per during :helcitter half Apr' and all of May I998.
7. Orlando :.etelier, the Chfean amb,:ssado: to lhe
U:-ii:ed ~tales, w:,s k'ilrd by a cat bomb in Washir.glon,
J,C,, i11 Sepll: 111 her 1976. R:ghr wing Cu ban ex ;1mr:-
ale:;, tra;::ed by DINA (lhc Ch:lcu:i &crt·t vnn,,, and
fa~ded throug,h illegal CIA conneclium, claimed
responsibility the blast Sc-e Scott and Marshall
( l 991, pp, :IU-:14),
8. The impulse here is reminiscent of the lament
that , arc limes/ 1 "":,h ::;y ignorance were/ more
con:plc:c" ::: Hass ( 3'1:1, p. td ). In :act, Smtt (1990',
later wrote of "grow:::g self-hatred fo, carrying
around a head full horror,; which 1::ost ;wo11lt' were
and :c~s willing 10 hear about" \p, 300).
9, Kltashoggi'~ fRU<:tual m:e as ba'.J,:<?r lo terror•
isr,; and thug~ has hl•rn ,cprised in hi,~ pnst-9/ 11 acting
as well, in bis cJsc wurking with Richard Perle, the
rcccmly disgrao,xl member of Prei;ide,1t (;c,nge W,
Bush's llefe:1,<' Pnli cy lloard. :iee Hersh ( 2004,
pp, 1!!9-20I;,
• REFER;::"ICES
Addn:an) M., & Frey, L (1997), Thefrat:fle cm,,Muniry:
Living Mgethc'r wirh Arris. M11hw,1h, ':-IJ: Lawrc:icc
l'rlhaum,

Alfrtd, I ( 1999). Peace, powe,; righteo11tties,: An ind;'ge•
1wus ruanili:, tu. N<"w Oi,Jci.: Uoi ,crsih
. '
Pres,.
Allen, J (Rd.). (2000). W,tiwu' smu:tr,ary: Lpnrhing
phnmj!,taphy m Ameri~"· Santa NM: Twin
Palms.
Anderson. 1 ( I Nt•v~mber Gravel ::i lakana's
shoes. /.or,,fon l~eview of Books, pp.1-5.
Basoo, K. ( 1958). A review of 'Jatiw Anwrican <li.m1t:r'ic:
Poeti~s and rhetoric ,\merf.:im l::',imologist,
805-810.
Becker, (Ed.). (199,;). The sulivasii·e imagi111111on:
cmd snC1t1I re5ponsibility. ~ew York:
An fjt,:, J'Otie(;;
Ro"1ledge.
Bcnjar::'.:1, W, C,969). Theses on the philo,rophy
history. In W. llenj,unin, Jllumir,mions (H.Arend!,
Ed.:1,:;d Trans., pp, 253-264). New York: Schocken
Books (Original work ;it:bHs"ed in 1'140}
Bcr::sicin, (Ed.). (I 990). Tl:e po Uri,, 1if poeric jiim1:
Poet •:r ,m(i pui,/fr po/fey. New York: Ro DI.
Birkcrls, S. ( 1987). «Poetry" and "politics." Margin, 4,
llrmrdeu, I' (l()~(l}. i·m a sd:olar~hip with t:r,1::mit
1mmt. l11 I~ frank::n ,:Ed.), Prufe,s11m: aun11ul
1,;.1;/fr.atioli uf tlir ML/I (pp. ~v·""", N~w 'iork:
Modem Language Associal ion.
Brady, I. (1991). llarmrn1}• an,1 argumcn:: Br:::ging
fo:1h the artful $Clc'ncc :ri L Brady (EJ.).
llnf/;ropal,,girnl /wrlics (pp. :,a1ra1:,c, M):
Rnwman & :.ittlefield.
llrzdy, I. (2000) . .'\.nthropologkal ?Octks. :n X. K.
i>e111in & ¥. S. 1.inrnl11 (Eds.). Handbook of,1ua!i-
cd., 949-979). 'lhous;ind
S,.ge.
!lr;;dv, L (2003). flie time ,it Uar1vi1,'., Jl.,,,f l'vetic expfo.
tati'l111 i11 .:111!Jm1polngy ,rnd histor;: Walnut Cn•ek,
CA: :\ltaM ira.
llradr, I. (2004 ). In dden,e uf the sem:ml: Meaning
,on;;trxtinn in ethnograph)' and ;mctics. Qualita•
tive fr,quiry, JO. 622-644.
Buell,: .• ( 1968), Tramcende:-,tali>t cat;:llo1c;ue rb,toric:
Vision versus fr.rm. A1mriaw I.ire rawre, 40( I),
325-3J9.
Campbell, M. (1993). Di,,aster, or :1,e scream of Juno's
,,eacock. Parii,u,u;, 17/18, 380-103,
Chari, V. K i 1972 ), Structure of Vl'I: :rr:1a11's catal;,gue
1•oems. Walt Wliirman l«:vi.:i,, 18(: ), 3-17.
Clifford, J. (I 999). The pudic,murnt of rulture:
Twentie,lt-(enwry etluwgraphj: litcnnur,:,, and
url. Carn::rid~e, MA: Harvard l:niversitv Pre;s.
' '
(Or]ginal work 1,uhlishe,;I in 1988)
Hartnell & Engels: ''Aria i11 Time of War" 11 1065
Conquergood, D. (1994 ). Homeboys hoods: Ga:ig
comimmkation and c1i't;lral wa,,,,, In L
(Ed.), Group cammumcarion m cm1text: St11d;,:.,
o( IWIUrar groups {pp. £;>-CU/. Hlllscak, NJ:
L1vm,nce Erlbaum.
Co:ic. uergood, D. (1995). B;tween ri;,:nr and relevartee:
Rethinking a1>1:lied ~om mun ication. In K. C:ssna
(Ed.), Applied conmr•,uicmi.m f~ /he 21 sl rrntury'
(pp. 79 96 ). Mahwah, KJ: Lawrence F.rlhaum.
Crabtree, (1993). Mutual err:powermc:ir in ,ro.ss-
c:,.:tural p;;rtki11atory developme::t and service
karn::ig: Le,sons in communicatinn and social
ju,tkf from projects in El sa:v11cor ar:,' Nicaragua.
j()ur111,! of Applied C,m1munica1fon Rrnt,m:h, 26,
1~2-:w~.
Cm tis, ill., (1995-1996), Hawks ever Ea,\ Timor:
Bri:ain arms Indonesia. Cc·,at Action Q~arterly,
55, 52-56.
Debs, c.. (11.d.J. The Debs white book. G::ard, KS:Appeal
to Rea,un.
Des Pres, I. (1986). :'oetry and politics. TriQ,,arterly,
6.5 17-29.
nos Passos, ,. (1%90). Nineteen mnete.m. 'fow York:
Signet {Or:ginal wi:d: publi,hed in
Dos ras,;os. J. C969b ), Tim Ing money. Kew York;
Signet {Original work :iubli,hed in J 936)
Dos Pass05, J. (1969c). r~,: parallel. New York:
Signet. (Original work ;iubli,hed in 1930)
Emcrwn,R. W: ( The poe:. fo L. Ziff (Ed,), Ralph
t~i,/do Emetsa11: Seleried (p~. 259-:::84),
Kew York: Penguin. (Original work published in
1844)
F;ibr:ka11:, G. (1996, Apd 9 ). f,JJ,1i y !hat bind
growt:1: OJm,ql leaders in Indonesia thre;1c11 its
fu!urt. The New iork Times, pp. CI-C2.
Forcht'., ( l 981). Tl«: country bei w,•n: 11~. :.Jew York:
l'c:.:nnial
hlrch~, (1993 ). /igamsl J~rg,mmg, Tl+>wlieih-cc11wr,r
poetry of witness. New York: Xo:ton.
forche, '.1994). The angel of /;istory. New 'tbrk:
Harper Pe:nmial.
l'orche. (2003 }. JJ/ue !iour, )kw York: HarpcrColli::s.
krnd, 5. ( 1963 ). Gen em/ psy,h,;logica/ iheory. New
York: Macmilla::.
L (]998;. (::Omnmn'cid:m just'cc
re,earch. /ouma! of f.,apiied Cnnmim;,:atio1;
H.esearch, 155· !M.
Frey, L., Pearce, 8., Pnlloc.k, M., A:tz, & Murphy, R.
( 1996). Looking for jus1k1: in all th~ wrong plac~s
On a co::mmnirntion approach lu · ;us:i~,'.
C,:mmnmimticm Studies, 47, 1111-127.
1066 11 H1\NDBOOK OP Qt:ALITATlVE RSSEARCH-CHAPTER 41
Friedri ~h, P, (in press), ~faximizing ethnopoetk,;
Toward fine-tun:r.g (an:h:npologkall experience.
ln C. Jordain & K. Tuite {Eds,), Etlmolinguistics:
The state of tlrn art. Mcntreal: Pides.
Gordon, A, ( l 99i j, Gho.11/y matters: Hauming arid the
socio/r,g,ca/ im,iginatfrm. Minneapclis: U::'vecSity
of ~1int1csota P~ess.
Gur:::, .. !1991 Febr·Jary I). Appetite for powtr. Times
l.iterary Supplem,ml, p.
Hartman, S, ( 1997}, Scenes ofsubjection: Turror, slwveiy,
,,r.d self making it, 11ineteenth•,:eniury America.
New York: Oxfon: U::iVfrsity PrtS$.
Hartnett, S. J. 0993), :'he idcclogics and semiotics
fasds:;1: Anilyzing ?ound\; C,mtos
Boim,iary 2, 20\ l), 65-93.
Hartnen, S. J, (i 998). Lincoln and Doug:as n:ect
rhe il:1olitio11is1 David Walker as prisr,ners ,foba!c
sla11e:-y: Empowering education, applied commu
n:c.1t10:i, and social justice. Jo1mwl Applied
Ccimmu,iim 1fon Researc/;, 26, 2J2-25J.
Hn,tnel:, S. J. (l'J'l'l). !'our mr·ditatim1~ on the search
grncc amidst tcr;or, lext and l'erjbrmance
Quarterly, /9, 196-216.
Hartnett, S, J, (2002). IJemocratic dissent and tl,e
c11l1tm1f fictions of antebellum Americ,,. U:bana:
Univcrnity of Illinois Pres•.
Hutnclt, S, J. (2003 ). Im:arcmuilm nation: J1westis.rative
priso,: poems of hope and terror. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaM ira.
Hass, IL ( 1973 ). Field J;llidr:. tJcw Haven, CT: Yale
University Press,
Ila», K ( 1990), Snme note& rn1 rnmini; tu Jakarta,
AWIJJ, Ji/Jl, J34-J6 l.
Mersh, S. (1004). Chain of cr.mmanci: The r()(ld from
911 / to Abu G!ir,ib. New York HarperColli ns.
Junes, R. ;Ed.). ( Poetry and politics: An !.lnlhol•
agy ofes,11ys. l\ew York; Quill.
:l'.apla:1, B. (200 I), Plea;;ure. rr.emory, and time suspen·
sion in Holocaust literature: Cdan and Delbo,
Comparative Uterature Si1«iie,, 38, J rn-J~':i,
Klare, '-1. ( 1994, :anuary IO), l.icense to kill: How the
U.S. is building u;:i military-industr:al complexes
:n the \Vorld. In These Times, pp, I419.
LaCapra, D. (2001 ), W'riring history, writing trauma,
f!alt1more, MD: lohns Hopkins Universit1·
Mason, J. (I973). Walt Whitma:i's catalogues: Rhi>:orkal
::,ea :is for two journers !n ''song of myself~'
ltrr,>1ri,:1,n l.ilera!ure, 45(1 ), 34-49,
Monme, J. (Ed.). (19%}. Poetry, communil}', move•
ment [special :ssuc].Diacriiics, 26(3/4).
Mydans, S. (I 9'l8, May 21). Suharto steps dow11 after
32 years in power. The New fork Time$, p;i.Al, A8.
O'Rourke, M, (2003, JJne 9). She's so ht"aV)~ Review of
Blue Haiir. The Nation, pp. 36 43.
Press, E. (: The Suharto lo':il,y, The Progr11s,iive,
61(5), 19-21.
Reed, M. ( I 977). first person pc:-sona and the t-ala•
logu~ in "song of myself' Wa!t Whilman Rtvie~;,
23(1},H7-I
Rosaldo, R. (1993}, Cu/11,re and trut.~: Tiie remaking
ofsm·i,il analysis. Boston: Beacon. (Original work
published in 1989)
Rother.berg, J. (1990;, Et:mopoel ics and ?Olitk,/Ihc
politi1.s uf ethncpoctics, In C. Bernstein (Ed.), Th;:
politics of po.ttk form: Po.:n:r and pulilic policy
(pp. 1-11). New York: Roof
Sarnfors, IL : 1976). lnvestigwive po~1ry. San Francism:
City Lig:t,.
,><1t.uc;,,, E, ! 1997, Nover::ber 18). Interview with
ilnmke Hnrvath. Review of Contemporary Fiction,
/9( I). Available: www.centerforboukct.:llurc.org
Sa:iders, (2000), Amerka: ,>\ hiswry iJ1 verse, V,JI. I:
1900-1939. Santa CA: Black Sparrow,
.,ca1 r,. E. (2000;, Beauty and the scholar's duty to
' ,,
JUS.1ce. " t:"t:ssu:m:
In r'!"t~
1
· An armual pubf' . o,f'
.rcailon
the :'H LA ( pp, l), New York: Moder:.
'..ang:.:age Assodatim:.
Scott, P D, ( 1988 ), Comi1:g to fakarta: A poem aboui
,ermr. N.ew York: l\lew Directions,
Scott, P, D (I99C). Eow I came m Jahr.a, AGNi,
297-304
Sulll, P, D. ( 1992). l,i_<tening to the candle: A p,.1em m;
impulse. New York: New Diredons,
Scott, P. D. (2000). Minding the darkness: A poem.fer the
year 2000. New York: New Directlr.ns.
S,oll, P. D.. & Marshall, J. (:991), Co.::air;e p"lilics:
[)rugs, armies, and the CJA in Centm/ America.
Berke:er University of California
Smith, L. T, ( I999;. Deco!m1izing method,;iogies:
Resm.irclr and inJigwou.i peoples. Londo::: Zed
Books.
Snyder, G. ( I9i 4). Tur!le Island. Xew York: Kew
Directions.
St~temmt of i:Jlcntion. ( I ~70). iild1aring.;lElhnopoe11cs,
l(I ), L
Tanncn·)aum, J. (2000). lli!:gwised ,H a porm: lvly yr,m
teaclring pm!try at San Qwmtin l'ris,m. Bostor::
Ncrth~as!ern tnivcrsity Prrss.
Tedlock, D. (19')2). Ethnopoe::cs. In R. Bauman (Ed.\
Folklore, rnlnmii performances, a11d popu/1.r
 Ear:nell & "A:·ia in Timt of Wm" • I067

New Oxford (pp. 2 Wash:ngton. DC: !;overnment

l'nivcrsity ?re,~.
The art of the m.:::ifesto 124 contrihutnrsj. (: 998). In
J. Rot'icnbcrg & P. :oris (l'ds.). Ponn.,;1,r tlu: mil
lennium, Vol. 2: From postwar to miilem;;;.irn
(pp. 403-453). Berkeley: Ui::ve:,ily of ai:::ornia
Press.
Thoma.¾, W. (i•l'J51. Scor,he,i earth: fiie militar)"., a.,,uult
on rhe mvin:mmenr. Philudelphia: New Sodet y.
Turner, V. (I 983). A review of 'kh110:1oetics:' In
I. Re then Jerg & D. Rothenberg (E,k ), ,'iympcsii.m
of fire 1,!w!e: .4 mngc a( discourse toward w1
e,l;rwt•ol'tic, (pp. 337 - 342 }, Bei·keky: Univcrsll y
of ,.,.. ,mu l'~c·ss.
4 the Un ired .'~!a!es
U.S. C,,11)lr,ess. (1918 ). Sum,le,;
Ame vim, Ci/ /he second session of the
jijih C:mgress, I917-19ld(Part 1: PuhlkAc:s and
Resolutions, pp. Wa ,hington, DC:
h;1,•2r'~":'l,ent Printing 0n1ce
[o:•,m,ss. (l 919). Sta,u/es .;/ large of tile l:nited
April /917-Mardi 1919
f':inting O:tcc.
Washburn.J. ( 19971. l\vi~ling ,;rm,: U.S. wea1)~ns
:ndustry get, it, way. -Uw i'wgressive, 61(5).
Weit1herger, E.,& l'az, 0. (l Y!!7). Nineteen. ways ()(/ool;-
inx at i\img Wi•i: /law u Cltfoese pot,n is Iran.<·
!ated. Wekefkld, RI: :,,1kJ;U i!dl.
Weiner, I. (l fehr:.:ary;. IRcvii.:w 1'1:1.:r Dale
c,,,.,su;!g lforder,: Sele.1e<I Slwrrer l'oetrl-' I.
flcston Review, pp. 31-33.
';-vest Publishing. (1920;. 11u, Sr,pr,·we Cauri •ep,ir11•r
'.Vol. pp. 254). St. ?au!, Ml\: Author.
'1-V;:at harm ha, .she dreamt? (R. [:Jdomwsky, I;ms.).
'. I ~7ll). Aldierirrga/Ethr,opoetics, I(l), :,(;.
W'lliamson, R. (: 9g_,;. The 1ww (colonial) ballgame. [n
J. 1. Prattis (Ed.), Rejle:rtions: Tl;e am/;ropol,,gfral
1:;1m: ( :,p, li19-. ',Vashington, DC: American
Anthropological A5sociatinn.
Zinn, H. (1980 l. A pe~ple's Iiistory u,,fted S,ules.
N"w York: Peren r.:at
42
QUALITATIVE
EVALUATION AND
CHANGING SOCIAL POLICY
Ernest R. House
I n 1965, the U,S. Congress passed the
Ele:m,nta ,y and Secor.da ry Education Act. At
the 1mastem:e of Senator Robert Kenntdy,
this bi!: indu<led an evaluation rider that became
the s:imulus for program evaluation. That same
year, President lymlon /olmsm, ir:t mduced the
Progra1r: Planning and Budgeting System (PPBS),
developed by tnc Pentago:i, to the U.S. Depart-
ment of llealt:1, :iducatiun, and Welfare, The goal
of the PPB!:i was :o ccvelo? government programs
that could be sta:e<l, mca~·.ircd, ;,nd evaluateLI in
cost benefit terms. faonom ists William Gorham
and Alice Rivlin headed the evaluation office
(i\kLaughlin, 1975).
Federal policy stipulated that ke}" deds ions for
social serv:ces would be n:ade at the h ig'.1er levels
of the rederal gove,nment. only true knowl•
eq;eabout social service, was<! µroductiou func-
tion specifying stable rdathmships between
inputs and 011tpu1 s. The only way of obtaining
such knowledge was through experimental and
s:atistical methods. "Information necessary to
impmvc th~ eftedveness of sochil services is
i:npossib,c 10 obtain any other w11.y·' (Riv1in, 1CJ71,
p. JOB), To that end, several large-scale expcri•
n:~nls were fondcc.
Camp bell and Stanley's (I 963) classic work
becr:me the methodologic;;.] guide. Experimental
studies becmne t 1:e new fad, with Campbe] r,nd
Stanley describing experiments
as the o::ly mc;;::s sett! i ng d:spu~es regarding
educatio::al pmc.icc, as the only way verifying
edurntim:al :::1pmvemen:s, and as the only way
of estn'ilishing " cumulative traditio:: in which
i mpmve:m:nts -:an he int:od ucec wilhout the
danger of c :addish discard of old wisdom in famr
of inferior m,vtlti,·,. (p.
During the early days of professional evalua•
:ion, both policymakers evalu11.tors put their
fai :h in large-scale q1:antitative studies such as
Fot:ow Tr.rough, Head Start, and the Income
Maintenance experimt'nt Policymakers .:.:id
many evaluators tr. ought that :hese large national
1!11 I 069
 \070 11 HAN:JBOOK OE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 42
studies would yield definitive findings tha: would
demonstrate which prog:-mns worked best. The
findings could serve as rhe basis for mandates
by the central government to reform inefficient
social services.
In time, these large studies proved to be
extremely disappointir:g. 0.1e problem was
their scale. The Follow Through experir:1ent cost
$500 rr:illion, and during one data collection
Follow Through evaluators collected 12 ~ons of
data. They were ovenvhelrr.ed by the logistics
to the point where they could not prodi.;,e timely
reports. Eventually, the government sponsors
reduced the study to a fraction of its original size
by reducing the n:imher of sites and variables.
A more serious problem was that the findings
of these studies p~oved to be equivocal. The stud-
ies did not produce :he a:itidpated dear-cut
resul~ that could be ger.eralized. For example,
when the :'ollow Thrm:gh data wrre analyzed, the
Yariance in test score outcomes across the dozen
early childhood programs being compared was
about as great as the variance within tl:ese pm•
grams. In other words, if a give:i early childhood
progra• had been implemented at six sites, two
might have good results. two might have
mediocre results, and two might have poor
res.1lts. This was riot the kind of conclusive evalu•
ative findi:ig on whkl: the government could base
national recommendat:or:s. Afler years of frustra•
tion and hundred& of n:il:io:is of dol]ars spent,
policymakers and most evaluators became disen-
chanted with large-scale studies becau.,e of :heir
cost, time scalt, and lack of definitive results.
\1eanwhile, evaluators we:e developing alter-
native approaches, including qualitative studies,
meta-analysis, and program theory. Small quali-
~afr,i: studies were praclicaL for example, if a
school district wanted an evaluation of its early
child:10od education program, interviewing
administrators, teachers, and students was a
simple and cheap method, and the findings were
easy to understand even if they couid not be pub
lished in scholar:y journals, Furthermo:e, gener•
ali,;ability was not the problem :hat i: was fur
large national studies. The demand on the local
study was that the results be tri:e for this place at
this time; they did not need to be :rue for sites all
over the country for ail time.
However, some evaluators did not consid1:r
qualitative studies to be scientific. Evaluators
engaged i:i intense internecine de!iates about the
scientific legitimacy of qualitative methods. This
dispute preoccupied tbe profession for 20 years,
ever: as qualitative studies became increasingly
popular. After many words and much rancor,
the field finaay accepted the idea that evaluation
studies could be cond:.icted in a numher of dif-
ferent ways '.Reichardt & Rallis, 1994). Eva:'Jation
becane metnodologically ec:imen[cal, althtrJgh
personal sensitiv::ies lingered. By 2000, tl:e quan•
titat:ve-qualitative dispute seemed to be history.
Another alternative to :arge-s cale qu a:iti-
lati ve studies was :neta-analysis (Glass, 1976).
Meta-analy,is was more acceptable to quanti•
tative :nerhodologists, a: :hough not without con•
troversy. In some ways, meta-analysis was a
natural si:ccessor to large-scale quant:tative stud-
Meta-analysis assembles the results of many
t:J.perime:1ta: .studies studies that have control
groups-and combines the fi:idings of these
sti:dies quamita:lvely by focusing on the difer·
ences between performances of the experimental
and contra: groups. The :edmique is n:ore racical
than it souncs given that researchers might
,ombine outcome.~ that are quire dif:'ercnt in
i<ind into summa:-v, scores. Meta-analvsis
' became
overwhelmingly popular in social ane medical
!'€:search to the point where today it is diffici.;!: to
pick up a major re,earch journal without finding
n:eta•amdyt:c studies.
A third alternative to large.scale experimental
snidics was program t:ieory (Chen & Rossi, 1987),
Pmgram theory consists of constructing a model
of the program that can be used to guide tr.c eval•
uation. Earlier, some researchers had advocated
basing evaluations on grand social theories, but
those attempts failed. First, there were no social
theories that had r:nch explana:ory power.
Second, if such theor'es existed, there was still the
quest'on of whether they could be used to evaluate
social p:ograms. For example, given the task of
evaluating automobiies, co·Jld evalJators use
theories of physics to do the job? It seems unilkely.

Evaluatorn reduced the grand theury runc~pt
:o throries for individual programs. This worked
better. The prog~am formulation is concrete
enough to guide evaluations, and it communicates
directly with program ?articipar:ts. P,ogran
:hoory delineates points where evaluators migh:
confirm whrther the ,:1mgram is working and
enables evalmn1rs to elim: natc rival hypotheses
and ma;.:e causa; attributions more easily (Lipsey,
1993}. Underlying q:ialitative studies, meta-
analysis, and program theory have b,,en changes
our conception of c.iusatio:1, These changes
suggest why tr.ese alternatives worked better than
:arge experimental studies_
Ill CHAN<;JNc; Co:-;cHPTIONS OF CAUSATION
T'.1e co:1ccption of causation that we inherited is
called 1he regularity or Hnmean theory of rnnsa-
:io •, named after David Hume's influential analy-
sis cause {House, I 991). Regularity describes
t~e ::.om:eption. Put s!mply, the reason why we
:-.now one even: c:msed another even: is th.it the
f::St event :ook place regu:arty before the other
event-regularity of succession. If one event
occurred and another event occurred after it
repeatedly, we would have reason to beEeve that
events wou:d occur together again. We look for
s11ccesston of events. In fact, Hume said that regu•
larity, along wi!h contiguity of events, is all there
is to causation, r:,e research task is to determine
the succession of eve.1ts. Put succinctly: If p, then
q; (); therefore q.
This notiDn o:' cause is the underlying basis for
most discussion~ of experimental design, and it is
manifest in early evaluation books; "One may
mulate an evaluation project ir, terms of a se~ies
of hypotheses which sta::c that '.Activities A, R, C
will produce lRl esults X, Y, (Such:nan, l 967,
p. 93 J. In otl:er wo:ds, if we have a Program A
under Crcumstances B and C, it will produce
Results X, Y, and 2. Furthermore, the perfect
desigr: for determining wl:etr.er the result has
occurred i~ the classic randomized control group
design. No error could result from employing :his
design, according to Suchman.
House: Lnanging Soc'cil Policy II 1071
Although this assertion sounds reasonable, it
falls apart on doser inspection. If we re:urn to the
Follow Througli_ studies, the same early childhood
program at six different sites prodm:rci different
outcor:ies_ Why? Because ,odal causatio:1 is more
corr: ?lex than the regularity theory suggests. Even
with the same prog.cam, !he,c are different
teachers at different sites who produce different
res'.!! rn. We might try to control for the teachers,
but there are so many variahles that might :nflu-
ence the ou:comes, the researchers cannot control
for all of faem. Put another way, the program is
not in and of itself an integrated causal mecha-
nism. Parts of the progr:un might interact wilh
elements in the er:vimnrnent to produce q;i:te
different effects,
Such considerations led Cronbach to abandon
treatment-interaction research altogether. He
tried to determine how student characteristics
and outco • e, interactec. There were so many
possihilit:es that could not be controlled, :ie gave
up trying. Put more :echnically, the effects of the
se,;ondary interactions of the variables were con-
sistently as strong as the main effects. Cronbach
(l 982) retlmu!!ht causation and devised a more
complex formulation: In S, all (ABC or DEF ur
JKL) are followed by P. In other words, in th:s par-
ticular setting, I~ the outcome, may be deternined
by ABC or DEF or JKL The proble:n for evaluators
is thal if A is t:ie program, we get P only If
Conditions B and C are also present. So we could
have A (the program) ar:l not have the outcome P.
More confounding, because P is caused by DEF
and )KL combinations as well, we might not :1ave
:he Program A but still gee P. Neither the presence
r:or the absence of the Program /\. determines P.
Succession of events is not a definitive test of
cau~e and effect. The classic control group design
will not produce definitive concbsions if causa-
tion is fais complex.
Even so, we could devise a determinate
research design using Cronbach's formulation,
albeit a very expensive and complex one. How•
ever, social cau,ation is more complex ::,an even
Cron"Jach's fo:-rnulation indicates. Cronbach
based his analysis. on Mackie (1974), a seminal
work on causation. Mackie's origir.al formulation
 1072 Ill IIA:-!DllOOK OF QU.\UTAT!VE RESEARCH-CH i\PTER
w·,1s this: All F (A ..• B •.. or D • , , II .. , or I are
P (the dots represent missi:1g causal factors we
do not k:mw about). We have huge gap, Jn our
knuwlcdgc of sodal event~-not o:ily gaps we do
not know about) but a,so gaps wr do not even
lrnnw we do :io: k r.ow about Ilecause we can
never fill :hose gaps, we can never he cerlain of
all that is involved. This does nol rr:ean that
cxp,crirm:nts arc hopeless, only that they have to
be interpreted rnrefully. They arc r:ac as foolproof
as advocates may dairr:. There are always things
we cannot account for.
Qualitative studies, met1Hmalysis, and pro-
gram heorr wori< better than large-scale ,tudies
because each approach takes account of a more
complex social rea Iiry by framing the study more
precisely, albeit in different ways. Qt:alitative sti:c-
ir.s show :he intcractior: of people and events with
oc~er causal factors in context, thereby lir:1iting
causal possibilitie, ai:c alt~rnatives (Maxwell,
1996). Meta-analysis uses individua I srndics, each
of w:ikh occurred ir. separate drcu mstances of
rk!i. variation, thereby n:aking generalization
possibk (Coo.t<.. 1993 ). Program theory delini:ate~
the domain investigated, lht:reby allowing the
posing of more precise questions (Lipsey, 1993).
ll!l. C-rANGlKG Co:-1cEPT10t-:s OF VA:.t:Es
A second iss·Jc tnat shaped development in
qualitative ,tudies is the changing conception
of vai u1:s, often phrased as the fact-value
dichmomy. This dichotomy is the belief :ha: facts
refer to one thu1g and values lo something
totally different. The fact-value dichotomy is a
?,,rticularly embarrassir.g ?:-Oblem given that
values .ie at the heart of evaluation. I douht that
anything in the hbtory of the field of t>valua:ion
has caused more trouble than this he: icf.
The distinction between facts and values has
been around for decaces. but the evaluation rnm-
n:un i:y ir.::erited it lh::ough the pos::ivists a:1d
tl:eir in fluem:e on social science. The logical posi-
tivists thougitt tha: facts (,mid he ascertained an..:'
that only facts were the fit su:,ject of science,
along wH1 ,malytk statements that were true by
definition such as plus I eqi:als 2." Pacts were
empirical and could be based on pristir.c obser-
vations, a poslt:m: called "foundationalfam:'
Values were something else. \Jidues might be
feelings, e:i1otion~-possibly useless metaphy
sical entities. Whatever thev' were, thev, were not
subject to scit'nt ifi c analysis. People simply
bel:everl in certain values or they did not. Values
were chosen. Rati o:1al discussion had little to do
with them. Tl:e role of scientists was tu uete~minc
facts. Others-pol: tidm1 s perhaps-could wor:-y
abu ut values,
:)onuld Campbell, on,' of the great founders of
tht' evaluation field, accepted :he fact-value
ckhotomy explicitly (Ca:npbel], IY82). However,
he did not accept foun('abmalism il.bO;Jt facts.
Counter to the positivists. tie contended that thNc
w~I'!: no pristine observations on w'tich factual
clriirns m u:d be based because all observations
are int: Jer:ced by prcconcept iom :hat people
hold. Knowle{:ge is still possibli: becai:sc allhough
one ca11not compare a fact :u a ?ristine ubser-
vatioll to d<:krminc whethe:- the fa.:t is tr:ie (as
posililfi,ts thought), one can cor:1pa:-c a fact to the
body of knowledge 10 which it rclales, The fact
should fit the whole body of beliefs. Occasionally,
the body of knowledge ha5 to c:rnnge lo accnm-
modatc the fact. In any case, one is comparing a
belief :o ;1 bocy of beliefs. not comparing a belief
to pure ob~ervati 0:1. This "nonfoundationalis:11'
was counter to positivist view,
:JnfortunatC:y, Campbell accepted the posi-
t ivi,t co:1ccption of values, Values could 1,ot be
cetermined rat:or.ally; tney to be chosen. lt
was nut the cvah:ator'.~ job to choose values. Or.ce
politidans, sponsors, or program developers
<l1:ter mined values, evalaators could examine the
outcomes of programs with criter:a based o:i
tl:osc values. Practically speaking, this meant that
cvalualors could 1; ot ev al uale the program goals
because the goals were dusdy connected to the
va: Jes. Eva Iuators ha(: little rhoke :mt to acc~pt
progmr.1 ar.d ;,olicy goa:, as they were.
Campbell had the correct idea about hut
not ahout values. Evaiuators can deal with both
fucts and values rationally. Fae~ and vuluts are
not separate kinds nf e:ililies altoge:hcr, although

:hey sometJ n:es appear to be th:11 way ( House &
Howl', 1999 ). Pacts am: value, (:actual dai:ns and
value claims) blend together in the condusi o::s of
evaluation studies and, indeed, blend together
:h::uui;:10ul evP.: uat ion studies, We night conceive
of fa,t, aa~: va.Jes schc r.1at:cally as lying on a
mntimmm like 1his:
Brute Facts __________ Bare Values
Whal we call and values are fact and
value da:r:i,, which are expre~sed as fact and
value stiuements. 'l'hey are beliefs i:.bo·Jt the
'NOrld. So1r:eti:11es these belie:':_, look as if they are
. .
str:ctlv fuctual without anv value built in. For
the statement "Diamonds are harder
th~n sted" may be trne or false, and it fits at the
left end of conlinu ur:1. There is lit:le individ-
ud preference built into it
A s1a1ement such as "Cabernet :s b.:tter than
chardonnay" fits better at the ,ight tnd of ,he con-
tinuum. It :, suffused with pc rsonal taste. What
about a stale1m:nt such as "rol:mv Tnrougb :s a
good educational progmm"? This statement con-
tains both fact and value aspects. The evaluatiYe
claim is ba.~cd on cr:teria from whkh the condu
,ion is drawn and is based on factual claims as
The stat1:n:ent fits :he middle of the con:in·
1u:11-a bler:d or factual and value claims, Mo,I
cvabat:ve conclusions foll toward rhe center of
:he continuum as blends of foes and values.
Context makes a huge di:ference in how a
slale:nent functions, A statemen: such as "George
Washington wai. the first president of the l:ni:ed
States"looks like a factual (historical) cfain:, But if
this stateme:it is made at a meM:i1:g feminist~
who a.re exrnriating :~e racist and :>at riarchal ori-
of the United States, the statcmcr.t becomes
evalc.ative in thi~ con:ext, The statement can be
factual and evaluative simultaneously. II does not
cease to be a factual claim. Similarly, daims that
migl:t seem factual in another rontext might be
evaluative in an evaluation.
Evalua:ive c'.aims are subject to rational 211aly-
in the way we ordi:iarily understand ra:ion~l
a:ialysis. First, the claims can be true or false, For
example, Fo:low Through may or may not be a
Hou5e: C::anging Socia: Polky 111, I 073
good cducatim:al prngram, Second, we can collect
evidence for and against the truth or falsity of the
d,dm. as we do in cvaluatiull stud:es. Third. the
evidence can be hfalsed or un'Jiased, and it can be
good or bad. Finally, the pmcedurrs for eviden:ial
assessment are cetermined by the evaluation
discipline,
Of cnursc, some claims are not easy to deter•
m:nc. In oome sitaat:ons. it might not be possibk·
10 ,:etrrmino truth or falsity. A:so, we might need
new procedu,es to help us collect. detrrmine, ar:d
process fact-value dairr:s. Just as we have de1•el-
uped procedures for factual claims, we
r:1ight develop procedures for col lct:tiug and prn-
cessi11g claims rhnt contain strong value aspects
so that our evaluative conclusions are un'iiased
regarding these da:ms as well, Tr:c daims blend
together in evaluation studies, :n the old view o;:
values, to the extent :ha: evaluative oondusions
were vulue hasec:, they were outside the purview
of the evaluator. In the :ev:sed view, values ore
subJ. cc: to rationa: analvsis lw the evaluator and
' '
o,:icrs, Va bes a:-e evalua:ions.
in a analysis of vaiues helps to
imi;,:e qualitative ri:searu Quali t:ativc rcs;::archers
have been criticized for collecting information
that merely rellcc:s :he opinions of those in aml
around the program when instead they should be
collecting data not distorted by hum.in judgment
Qualitative information :s viewed as too so bjec-
tivr. In facl, the \'lews, perspe.:~ivei;, aml values of
participants are vital pieces of information about
the success of the program-if p:-occssro prop•
crly. Indeec, there is no information in cvalua •
tions that does not ,cntair: l'alue elements, And
qualita:ive method, are best way in which to
approach value dai n:s, although they a::e not the
.
tmlv. wuv.
Iii CllANGJ.:-JG CONCF.PTIONS
OF SocJAL JusT:cE
The saga of value-free research and the reluctance
to do quaHtatiw research and evaluation wa~ not
simply a philosop:, kal ;,osition, The story mLJsl
be understood within the histo,ical, poEtical,
 IC74 111 HANDBOOK 01:' QUALITA71VE RES.SARCII-CHAPTER 42
and soc[al context in which the value-free ideas
drwloped. There are political reasons why qualita-
tive studies were viewed as too subjective and ille-
gitimate, Ultimate:y,it has to do w::h social justice.
Principles of social j'Jstice are used to asse1;s
whether the distributi<ln of hfnefits and burdens
among :nem·:)crs of a society arc appropriate.
fair, and moral. The substance of S'Jch assess-
men:s os'Jally consists of arguments about the
concepts of righ:s, deserts, or needs, When
applied to society as a whole, social justice per-
t.tins to w:ieber the institutions of a society are
arranged to produce appropriate, fair, and moral
disttibut:om of !Jenefi ts ar.c burdens among
societal members. As such, social justice is linked
d:rectly to the evaluation of social and educa-
tional programs because these en:ittes, am:I 6eir
eva! uations, affect directly the distribution of
benefits anc burdens.
In spite of the direct cor.ceptual link between
soda! justice and evaluation. social justice
con~erns are rm::inely omitted from evaluat:on
discussirns. There are two reasons for th is. First,
evaluators are not well Yersed in philosophy
or political sc:ence and feel unprepared to dis-
cuss such concepts. Many evalnators have had
methodological train: ng that does not deal witr:
social justice. Second, a:1d more importan:, soda,
justice concerns have Ion!! been excluded from
social science research for political reasons.
In her hism;y of :ne origins of American soc:al
science, Ross ( 199 I) documented how soc:al jus-
tice concc,ns were indeed topics of discussion in
the social sciences dnring the early 20th century
However, several "Red Scare" C?isodes. stemming
from fears of Mirxism, swept the l"ni:ed States
;u:d intimidated socir.l researchers. Some proni•
nc:1t economists ar.d sociologists were dismissed
from their universi:y positions for supporting
labor ur:ions, child labor laws, and other social
pu'.icies opposed by university boards t1f trustees,
whose n:em hers ca • e mostly from business..
The upshot was that many soda: scientists
;1:treated fro:11 Issues that might be seen as politically
risky i:ito concerns about res:arch :nefaodology.
:f social researd1ers could be persecuted for taking
stands on political and «vaiJe" iss'.les, they might
be safe by focusing on w'lich tests of statistical
significan.:e to employ or what sampling prnce·
c·.1res to use-iss'.les of 1m ir.terest to 'JOliticians
or boa:ds of trus:ee,L Those social researchers
who remained concerned about social justice were
relega:ed to :ne fringes of their disciplines as
being too political. Cer7airrly, given the history
of American soda! ~dence, the Marxists were
com,idered oul of bounds. Social science in other
countries had differenl orighs, and these dif·
ferences were reflected iti different discourses ir:
other countries where critical theory a:id ne0-
Marxist approaches were acceptable. Fur example,
qualitative evaluation in Brita:n was based on
political control co:isiderations. from the begin-
ning (MacDonald, 1977). In the U:iited States, case
studies were pror:1oted as a means of illumbating
the values of teaching and :earning (Stake, 1978).
On the other hand, if socia: sden:ists with lib·
eral posit:ons were ~ilenced or ignored (the late of
critical ethnographers). scholars on the political
right continued to promote policies. such as. steril•
ization of the poor and eli1:1ination of soc'al
programs. A long history of biologica: racism
stretching bac;_ to Gallon, Bu,I, Spearman,
1hman, Ien sen, and others (Gould, 19!!1) cont in·
uec. 'Jnabated, reflecting r~e political tempera-
ment o: the times. During the L990s, this long
tradition was manifested in The Bell Curve
(Herrnstein &: Murray, 19!14). Scholars in th :s
tradition dai m that they a:e va:ue neutral; tl:ey
are merely following scientific evlde:ice where it
leads tlle:n, i:nfortunate though that may he.
This shif: into safer political waters by
many social scient:sts wa;; bolstered intellectually
by a convenient philosophy of science-logical
:::,ositivlsm-that endorsed "value-free" research.
V.!lue.free soda! science became accepted research
dogma. In the view of logical positivists and those
ir:fluenced by them, values were nm researchable.
Only entitirs that could be confirmed by direct
reference to "facts" were appropr:ate for sde:itific
research.
Eve:itually, historical, philosoph :cal, and socio-
logical i:lve5 tigalio:1& into the nature of inquiry in
the hard sciences de:nonstrated ::,at the positivist
view of science was incorrect. Nonetheless, :he

posi1ivist interpretation of values cor:tinued, even
a• ong those who h;id giasped the nature of
nm:fm:nda1io:1alism ahout factui1l claims. Thi5
attitude toward vah::es. was reinforced by the
political dimate during the cold war, the prriod
when professional eval nation began. The origins
Ame:·ic<1n ~ocial science were forgotten, ant
research methodology remained the primary
focus of American social scientists. Por manv
'
evaluators, social justice issues in evnluatior,
n:ta :n nuances of illegitirr:acy .:.nd rtpolitics ."
The dominance of value-free social ,esearch
meant that the conception of social justice
embraced by ?Oliticiar.s would be accepted with•
O'Jt clralle.:ige in the ,,valuation of sodnl ;,rugrams
ar.d polic:es (except for those at the fringe e.g.,
nco•Marxis:s). Fur much the 20th century, the
'.beral Jtilitarian conception of justice prevailed.
This was identified with one of its main 1:ormu:a-
tors, John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianisr:1 is captured
in the phrase ":he greatest good fo: 1he grcate.st
number:• a::hough it is more sophisticated than
the slogan implies. The way in w:1ich this theorr
playcc. 0~1t in sucial policy was that overall bene•
tit.~ should be :ncrem,ed LO tht: nmxirman. Sodety
,hou Id be organ'zed to maximize overaJ benefits.
Hence, eveq'flne cm::(\ :iave more.
How those henef:ts were distributed was not
" major When applied to programs,
the m:ances of util itaria:t theory disappeared. The
p0Jifa5 of more klr everyone was more a.;ce?tablc
than the politics of distr'butim,. A, imple:-nrnted
in ro;earch practices, utilitarianism focused attl'r. ·
tion on outcomes. I[ the gross dor:1estlc product
increa,cs, that is good regardkss of :10w it is di>1rib·
uted. The prcsurnptiun is that there is more to dis·
tribute, even if not everyone gets more, Distribution
is not an iss:ie_ If an educa:io:ud program increases
overall tes, scores, the ,m1ount of the increase is
the :om~ regardless of thr cistri::i1:tion of scores or
resources-and sometimes regardless of !hr per-
sonal cosl:li of obtaining the gains. Quantitative
ou:come mellsw-e, fit wcll into such a framework;
qualii.11ive mctr.ods do not. Furthennore, ;ttc goals
of ~octal prog:--,m1s and policies, being value laden,
were not subject to rational ur empirical ar.alysis hy
evaluators. The goals had to be accepted.
House: Ch,1::glng Social Policy 111 1075
in the n:ajor refurrnlllation of morn] thinking
duri r:g the 20th centi:ry, fohn Rawls challcr.gcd
utilitarian theory with his "foeory of justke;'
w-1kh was more egalitarian than utilitar:anism,
With soph isticatcd pl:ilosophical argi:ment,
Rawls (:971) proposed two major pr:ndples of
justice by which to assess social arrangenents.
The first pril:ciple was :ha: every d tizen should
have basic civil liberties and rigl:!s and that these
rights w.::re :nv:olate. These individual r:g:1ts and
liberties doscly resembled :hose in the American
Bill of Rights. There was little controversy about
this prindple of justice.
The ,econc principle of .iustice, the "dif•
forem:e" prim:i11Ie, was controversial. Rawls argued
for the distri/nirion of benefits-not univ the over•
'
all level of benefits-to count as significant.
Inequalities of economic fortune werr pc,mitted
in the Rawlsian frarr:ework on!)' if those incquali ·
Iies h,f, ped the "least adv,;ntaged" people in
society, defined as :hose with the fewest resources.
For example, it was permissible to have medical
doctors earn high fees if surh fii,andnl im: uce
meats to study medk:ne helped poor people.
t:en,e, R"wb's theory was not strict;y egalitar·
ian bec,mse it did allow fur significant inequali·
ties in snc icty. The Rawlsian th<cory did shift the
focus to hmv the disadvantag~d wen: treated ,md,
in that sense, was more eg1::itarian 1han ut::itari-
anism, which all owed tracing off the be:1et:rs of
tbc least advantaged (e.g., the unemployed) if
sud:. a move increased the level of benefits for
sm::e111l n,ernber, as a whole {e.g., a lower :.ite of
ir. fation )_
Both utilitarian ar.d Rawl sian justice re.:;uired
manipulating social arranJlements to rr:aximize
benefits. wnlike utilitarianism, Rawlsiar. j1;stice
placed ;;ons:raints on the shape that the dis;ribu-
tkm of benefits could take. Soda. arra:igemcnts
sh,mld des:gnt.xl lo lend toward .:quilily
6e distribution of benefits. The effects of circum•
stances that a::e arbitrary from a moral point o:
view (e.g,, who one's pa,ents happen to be; should
be :nitigatcd to this end and, if m:<:essar,,, at the
expense of r:rnx imizing benefih. Distributions
resulting from the opcralimi of markets must be
l:ekl in c.1.eck i:' those distributions are unjust,
1076 a HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 42
according to the &econd principle. I Yet a third
theory of justice regards any distribution that
results from free markets as socially just, no matter
what that distribution looks like or what effects
it has. The interplay of free markets determines
social outcomes [Nozick, 1974). Th~s is called liber~
tarianism. To this point, it has not bren reflected in
the evaluation discourse any overt way, although
m~r:y evaluators may hold this view implicitly,)
rollowing Rawls, some evaluators applied his
theory to evaluation, arguing that evaluators
should he cor:cerned not only with overall test
score gains but also, for ex:ample, with how test
score gains were distributed among group,:;
i. House, 1980). How social benefits were distrib·
uted was important for evalua:ion. 1:1 addition,
evaluators might have to solicit the views of stake-
holders to determine which social benefits were at
issue. Quali:ative studies soliciting stakeholder
views were necessary.
Of course, concerns about the distribution of
benefits and calls for qualitative studies :noved
evaluators away from the value- free, quantitative
methodology that the social sciences had been nur-
turing. Event1ally, concern about stakeholders per-
meated the e\,aluation literature, even seeping into
quantitative studies, and an acceptar:ce of multiple
mrthods, multiple stakeholders, and multiple out•
comes in evaluation studies emerged, even among
those not accepting egalitarian social justice.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Rawls's theory
of justice came under criticism. One criticism
was that the theory of liberal egalitarianism was
'.nsensitive to diverse group ide:itities. In that
sense, it could op;iresslve and undemocrlltic.
The the-0ry focused on emnomk ineqi;alities with
litt:e regard for other benefits that people might
wan:. The criticism was tr.at liberal egalitarianism
identified the disadllllntaged solely in terms of the
relativelv low economic benefits thev possessed
' '
and proposed eliminating these cisadvantages by
implementing compensatory social programs.
Typically, this planning and evaluation process
was conceived as requiring :it!le input from those
rrwst affected. Liberal egalitarianism assumed
t'ut the benclits to be distributed, and the proce-
dures by which the distribution v.1Ju!d occur, were
uncontroversial. 1n fac,, the defined benefit$
might reflect only the interests of those i1: domi•
nant positions. For example, consider a high 1y
sexist curriculum with which girls, but not boys,
have great difficulty. Providing girls with help in
masterii:g this curriculum so as to remove their
disadvantage is not a solut!or.. The problem 1;es
with the sexist ci:rriculun. The distributive para-
digm i:nplled a top-down, expe,t-driven view:
Critics saw such an approach as too pate:-nalistic.
In respon~e, philosophers revised the egalii:ar-
ian theory of justice to take div~se identities
into account, that :s, 10 c!:tange the theory away
from eq ua lit y as a principle of distribution
toward equality as a principle of democratic
participation. In what might be called the "partic-
ipatory shift:' the requirements distribut:ve
justice and those of democracy were intertwined,
J1.:slice required giving stakeholders, partkulady
members of groups that had been exduded his-
torically, an effective voice in defining their ow:1
needs and negotiating benefits.
This shiftJng conception of social justice had
implications for evaluation. The participatory
paradigm fit views of evaluation L:i which t-qual-
ity wa, soaght not solely in the distribution of
predrtermined benefits hut also in the status and
voice or the participants themselves. Jlenefits
were to be examined and negotiated along with
:1eeds. policies, and practices. Democratic func-
tioning became an overarching ideal. ::.ome evalu ·
ators now advocate giving stakeholders ~oles to
play in the evaluation itself, although evaluators
differ on what roles participants should play
(Greene, Lincoln, Mathison, Mertens, & Ryan,
1998 ). (Many who endorse participatory eva1ua
tion do so because they believe 1hat stake!:tolders
are more likely to use the findings for pragmatic
reasons than because of social justice considera-
tions.) rn general, soda! justice continues to be
controversial for historical ar:d :iodtical reasons.
• Bu:m's NEOFUNDAME>17ALIST PoL!C!ES
- - · --· ·--
As evaluation gradually :110vecl away from quanti-
tative methods and value-free s:udies toward

multiple methodologies and qualitative studies
furnsed on stakeholders, socio! justice issues, anc
participatory techniques, these trends die not go
unnoticed ';;,y those in power, Not only did ceo-
conservatives view such studies as too permis-
sive, they did not like the direction in which the
entire society was headed, Pointing to wha: they
saw as postmodern excesses, they railed against
modern trends, mo.Uy lo lit tie avail,
'However, the events of September 11, 200 I,
changed gowrnmer:t polides regarding qJalitative
evaluation. The federal government is now promul-
gating what I call methodological fundamer:tal·
ism-a manifestation of neofunc!amentalism
of President George W, Bush's :-egime. The Bush
11dr:1ini1;tratior. has embraced a new fundamen:al-
ism that pe,meates many aspects of A:nerican lite.
Before the September l l terrorist attack, the Bush
adni:listration struggled to find traction. Bush
en:erged from a contested presidential election
with fewer votes than the Democratic contender.
Only through the peculiarities of the American
electoral system a:1d tr.e notorious handlir:g of bal ·
lots ir, Florida did Bush emerge the victor. As he
assuned office in January 2001, his legitimacy was
in question, his perrnnal abilities we,e the butt of
jn~es, and his popularity was in decline,
On Septem':,er l L, terrorists attaC:.<ed the Wo,ld
Trade Cc"nter and the Pen:agon, and Bush
assu meci the mantle of wartime president. The
moral fervor with w:ik:i he embraced this
transformation fit h:s personal, born-again, reli-
gious fundamentalism. Durir,g bs younge:- days,
he had been a heavy drinker and drug i.:.ser who
converted to religior., saving himself from per-
sonal ruin, in his vhl\V. He embraced the new role
that had been thrust on him with religious inten-
sity, and he proje.:ted this moral certainty onto
his administratio1: and :he country-a cou::itry
traumatized by the attacks. This simple mission
si;ited h:m. As ohservec by Condo:eezza Rice, his
then national security adviser, the worst thing sl:e
co:1ld say to Bush was that an issue was complex.
Previously, he had balanced the politics of his
administration with people from different factions
in the Re:m\Jlirnn party. He placed neocunserva-
tives, such as Dick C:ie!ley, Donald Rum~feld, and
'"'·'"· Changing Social Policy • JIJ77
P,!'Jl Wolfow:tz, :n key posts and balanced them
w:th moderates such as Colin Powell. In foreign
policy, :he r:eoconservative vision of preemptiVely
using American power to transforn the world
was checked by the realist view of maintaining
multilateral international relationships. However,
September l I provided neornnservatives with the
license they needed to pursue the hawkish po:l-
cies they had long advocattci, 'r.cluding the inva-
sion of Iraq, ar. obsessioi: of Wolfowitz, deputy
secretary of defense, His plan ca'.led for preemp-
tive military strikes on countries threatening
American interests. He had prepared this policy
during the first Bush administration, but the pre-
emptive position had been dismissed as being too
radical at that time. After September i 1, it beca:ne
official Amer:can doctrine. Bush's neofundamen•
talis.:n emerged in fu;] force.
Fundamentalism has seve,al characteristics.
First, there is one source of euth, be it the Bi:ile,
the Koran, the Tal.:nud, or whatever. Second,
so·Jrce of authority is located in the past, often in
a Golden Age, and is associated with particular
ind:viduals. Helie•;ers hark back to that lime.
Third, true believers have access to this funda-
mental truth, but others do not Applying ;he
truth leads to a radical transformatlo:1 of Ihe
world for the bette,·, Fu ndamentalis:s have a
prop:ietic vision of the future, that is, revelatoq·
insight. Fourth, having access to the source ot
truth means that believers are certain :hey a:-e
correct, They have moral certitude, a defbing
attribute, They are "elected:' Fifth, fundamental•
i,ts are not open to counterarguments, Indeed,
they are not open to other ideas ger.erally. They
cio not assimilate ev:dence thnt contradicts
rheir views. They dismiss conlra,y inlormat:or. or
:gnore Sixth, they are persuaded by arguments
consistent with thei: beliefa even when outsiders
find these argumentll to be incomplete, illogirnl,
or bizarre, Seve:1th, people who do not agree with
then do not have this insight, and fr.nda:nental-
lsts do not nred to listen to them. In fact, some-
times it is all right to n:usde nonbeErvcrs aside
·,ecause they do not understand and on:y impede
progress. Eighth, believers associate with other
true believers and avoid nonbelievers, tl:ereby
lD78 1ll HANDBOOK QUALITATIVE RES:iARCII-CllAPTE'{
dosing the cirde of belief and incrmsi11 g certainty.
Ninth, ttiL'}' find ways of pro:.nlgating their beliefs
by means other than rational persuasion-by
decree, pol icy, or laws-through forcing 01:iers to
conform rather than persuad:ng them-in short.
throi.:gh coercion. Finally, fundamentalhts try to
curtail the propagation of other viewpoints by
restricting the tlow of contrary ideas and those
who espouse them.
The Bush adrni:1:stration has exercised tl:is
new fundamentalism in foreign affairs, domestic
affairs, and even evaluation, In foreign policy.
the fun dam cntalism i:; evidenl in the invasion of
Ira..:;. T'he Golden Age for neooonservatiws was
the Rt'agan administratior:, and Reagan was tl:e
sacred figure. Many neoconservatives prefer to
call themselves Reagai:ites a1:d hope to resto,c the
duri:1g which the United State3 brought down
rhe Soviet Union and won the mid war, in their
view of history.
Bush's s:.i,,ec:1cs have taken on a. quasi-reli-
gio;is, liturgical tone, including phrases s:i..:h as
"axis of evil" as com ;n.red with Reagan's "the evil
en; ;i: re;' Bush believe; that he ls a great leader ]ke
Reagan, Churchill, or even Linmln. Ry his ow11
admission, he talks to God every i:ight. He has
surrounded himself ,'fith follow evangelicals who
see him as "chosen" his peculiar dection,
for w:1ich they prayed, And their prayers were
answe:-ed. >lo mailer what evidence wa, pre-
sented against his position on Iraq, it had no
effect. If 'ne Iraqi~ had no weapons of mass
destruction, they were hiding them, If the Iraqis
admitted to having wea :io:is, they had violated
:he U)I 1:iandate. If the war might be disastrous
:or the region, if mos: 11ation11 in tl:e wurld were
opposed to it, a:1d if world puhlic opinion was
overwhelmingly oppo~cd to it, 110 m,11 :er. Others
did nor ur.cerstand. They were "old E, rope~
unwilling to take risks.
Tl:e Dush team was cloied to counterevidem:e,
3ush lean: members ;m:sented argamc:its seen
by otliero as inconclusive and at tin:cs strange.
They concocted a revelatory vision of democratic
transfo:-mation for Iraq that Middle East experts
viewed as i:1,redibk. The more c:itkism !hat was
encountered fron: O'Jtside, the more they banded
together, like Presi..:enl John.so:i ,:nd his advisers
did during the war in Vietnam. Coercion was the
tool o: choice for compliance, wlie:ner it was used
ai:iainst enemies or allies. They either :;ad liule
sense of how others might react :o tb,ir actions or
did not care. The fundamentalibm of the Muslim
krrnrists w,1s cu m::tered with the new funda:nen-
ta:Jsm of the American president.
Methodological
Funda:nrntalism in Evaluation
Bush's neofundan:entalism has influenced
ofaer parts of the federal government, i:lduding
evaluat:o:L In evaluation, this takes the fonn of
methodological fondamentalisi::i. Government
agencies sponsor e,aluations have aggres•
,ivdy pushed the concep: of "evid~ncc-ba$ed"
pmgrcss, ;iolicies, and pmgrnms. The core oi the
evidence-based idea is tha: research and evalua-
tion must be ''scientific:' 111 this cefin::ion, scien-
tific mealiS that research a:1d ev.!luation Hlc\J.41/4>
m'J&t be base(: on experimer:ts, with rar:dorr:iz:ed
exp,;:dmen!s be:ng given stmng preference. O:her
ways of producing evidence are not scientific and
not acceptable. The,e i, llne method for dismver-
ing the trmh and one mcthlld only-the random-
ized experiment, This is a fundamentalist position,
This doctr:ne is embedded in Bus i's educ,;11 ion
legislalio:1, No Ciild Left Behind. In this legis:a-
tion (www.ed.gov). the term "scientific" ls
repeated more tha1: I00 times. The method of
lnqJiry is writtcr: into the lcg'slation it~e11: an
unusual eve11t. Imagine an at:ocation for research
i:1 phrsics specifyir:g the methods by which
phy;;:cists art :o conduct studies. In addition, the
U.S. Departme:11 of Edu cat in11 has established a
',\.'hat Works Clea,inghouse lo screen evidence-
based pmi ects and has encouraged the constn:c-
tion of lists of reseaxhcrs who comply with the
new n:ethodological strictures-a white list as
opposed to a black li~t.
An explicit rationale for evidence-based
prog rcss :s provided in a report prepared for
the US Drpartment Edm:at:on by rhc Council
for Evidence-Based PoEcies (2002). The cound
consists mostly of Washington insiders, bureau-
crats, and thi:1k tank follows plus some socia!
researchers. In accept:ng the report, Secretary of

Lducation Rod Paige remarked that Bush
edu.:alion policy was based on four concep:s:
accountability, options for paren:s, local control,
and evide:1ce-hascd inst7uction. The first two
policies have been znai nstays of the neoco:1&erva
:".ve educaticmil plat form for 8ome tirr:e. As for
evidc • ce-based instruclion, "for tl:e f:rst time we
are app:ying l:!e same :igorous .5tandards to edu-
cation research as are applied to medical rcscardi'
(Paige, 2002.). Standards will savt: the day once
again. The disdain for the opinions o:' professional
educators manifested in natio:ial and statewide
:estini; systems V.'a& now carriec into disdain for
:imlessional evaluators, disdain for professionals
hdng a hallmark of neoconscrvative µulicy
The basic ar!!urr.enr
,, of the Council for
Evidence-Based Pol:des (2002) rc;x1rt is that
educator: is a field of fads n1 wl:kh there has been
:w p:-ogress-progress me.isured by national
:ests for the past 30 years. Jn contrast, there
~a.~ heen great pmgcess in medicine: "OJ, extra-
ord; nary :nabiE :y to ra:se educational achieve-
n:cnt stands in stark contrast :o our remarkable
:n improving human health over the
same pcriud-progn:ss which ... is largely the
result of cviden(e-:rnsed government policies''
'.p. i). The daim is that progre~s in medicine has
resulted primarily :rom randomlied field tr:als.
Hence, lhe Depar:tm:nt E..:acation should
Ju:ld a "knowledge base'' of educational interven·
.
tim1s .moved effective bv randomized trials ar:d
should ,mw Ide b:rong incentives for the use of
sud'. i:itervcntions, "This stralcgy holds a key
to reversir:g decades of stagm1tiori in :\mc,icai:
education and sparking rapid. evidencc-c:riven
p:ugn:ss" (Cour:cil for Evidence-Based Policies,
2002, p. i}. Suer. is the revelatory vls ion for the
transformation of America • education, The
rcpo7t rec0mn:emls i :i ,.: all disuetionary funds
for lt'~e,,rd1 and evaluation be focused on ran•
dor:1ized :rials. Af:er all, other research designs
produce erroneous findings.
These arguments are weak, to say the least. They
may be suffident to persuade those who alr;;;ady
believe in randomized experiments or those who
lack knowledge of evalm1tion. They mu.d hardly
withstand the scruliny of scholars eval11atio11. It is
the case that educatior: is riddkd wi:h fads tl:at have
Eouse: Changing Soda! O H)79
no :c:seard: backing. ::1deoo, the neoconservatives
bve promoted many of these sue'! as cl:artrr
.5ehools, vouchers, and accountability through test
scores. One mighl also agree tha: the sd100'.s have
not :mproved much over the past 30 years and that
mcd:cine has sl:own progress.
However, medical progress has not been
prima~ily d·Jc to rar:domized fidd lrials.
Medd1:e is t;1c beneficiary of decades of brea'.(.
through research in 6e physical sc1e:ncc:s, notably
biop:rysks, biocher:iistry, biology, and molecular
biology, that has resulced in elaborate theuries
about human disease. my knowlcdgr,, no one
ifl medicine has received a Nohel Prize 'or pro•
moting rancomized studies. Field t,ials o:i ly test
ideas-a valuable service for sure, but hardly the
primary source of progress.
It is trur th;'lt education has no corresponding
theo:y on which to base its practices. The soda!
scie:ice~ faat rr,igl:t have p~nduced the underlying
theo:-y, primarily psyd10logy, have faikc to do so.
Actually, psychology i, a lielc that relies heavily on
randomized trials. Not only :ias psychology failed
to p~oduce viab:c theory for edt:cation, it has failed
to produce cures tor mental illness comparabk to
medical advan;;cs. Similarly, criminologr, which
.,:so ms;s rnndomizcd trials, has failed to ·:1rodt1'-:
511 lut:rn:s to crime. Otherwise. the U:1ited Slate&
would r.ot h,we 2 mi!Hor. people in p,iso:i.
As Noam Chomsky noted, psychology i, a
methodology without a substance. l\kmbcrs of
the Council for Evidence-Ilasec Policies, several of
whom are psydmlogists, would lrnve been more
honest to argue faat because :-andomized me~h-
ods have produced little of substance in psycho!,
ogy, maybe 6<:?y will produce something useful in
cducatim:. Actually, randomized t,ials are neither
the problem :ior the cure. l believe that we could
use more randomized field tr:als in evaluation,
but t:1e cv.1:igelical arguments advanced by these
proponents are eu:banassiug.
Attributes of Methodological
Fundame:1talism
In addiliou lo a reveh1l01 y vision that pmn:ises
transformation, merhodologic.il tundamentalisrn
ha°' other features of neofundamentalis:11. It has a
 1080 II HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 42
si:nple C;"edo: Only randomized experiments
produce 6e truth. There is o:ie source of :ruth-
:he randomized experiment. If we but follDw,
:: will lead us to a Golden Age. Methodo'.ogkal
fundamentalism even has a storied past. The Key
figure is Campbell, who championed the concept
of social experi:nents !IS ~he only \s"JY in whk:1 to
evabate social prog:ams early in the history of
evalua:ion. Although Campbell later relented,
admit:ing that there were other valid ways
acquiring knowledge about social programs,
many followers did not Apparent:y, they have
been biding their time and have found their
oppor:unity in Bush's neofundamentalism as :he
neocor.servalives have done with war policy.
The pres er iption for randomized trials has
been written into legislation without ex:ensive
discussion in the rrlevant professional communi•
ties, whose members would oppose such a narmw
prescription of how to condw;t research and eval
uation. But avo:cing cont,ary ideas is part of the
orientation, And uf course, the prescript:or. is
e1:fu:ced by government decree and incentives.
One sign iflcant omcomc of choosing randomized
experiments as the on:y method for conducting
studies is that it eliminates stakeholder views in
studies. Jv.:ost evaiualio:is now incorporate the
perspectives of stakeholder grot:ps. This exper'•
m~nml approad: precludes the views of stake·
ho'.ders. Such exclusion rr.:.1st !:.ave ap?cal for
:hose-,11hodo not want to be confused by contrary
:deas and complex issues,
rrom a philllsophy of sc:ence perspective, the
difficulty is that the ?rescripr:on i.s based on an
overly simplistic view of social causation, namely
the regularity theory causatio:i, as notc'd
eadier. Social programs are not dosed to outside
influences in the same way as exper:me • ts ir. the
physical world can be. Hence. definitive experi·
ments to test theories are not ?OSsib:e because
they sometimes arc in the physical world. This
is not to say that experiments cannot be useful.
They can be vah;able if they arc used the right
circumstances and are suriportcd :iy other evi•
dence that provides the context for interpreting
findings. Theol'y i; i:ot available :or this purpose
in social research, a1:d finriings are often interpreted
ideologically or politically. There is a need for
collecting and assessing various stakeholder
views to aid interpretation.
The appropriate situation for randomized field
trials is one si:nilar to evaluating p::tysica! entities,
For example, evaluatir.g drugs by way of random-
ized experiments i.s extremely useful because the
drugs tl:emselves can ::ie rep,odnced in identical
for:n. Drug treatment does • ot vary nearly as
much as sod al programs, although even i• drag
tria.s people react to drugs differeatly. When the
treatment focus.:s on en:ities that are difficult
to control, experiments become less useful. When
ed:1cational programs are placed in c.ifferent
.,ett'ngs, there arc dozens-if not hundreds-of
influences that are impossible to control eve • in
randomized experi:ne::its. This means that the
results vary even w:1en the treatment appears to
be the same. Rar.domized experi:nents are one
way of providing evidence, but they are not the
only way. Field txperiments are not appropriate in
all situations. neither are they foolproof.
Tl:e uHEty of randomize..: experiments was
discussed extensively in the evaluation commu-
ni:y long ago and was a:iandoned 11s :he sole way
in which to conduct studies. The experiments•
only advocates iost the debate, but now the same
doctrine has been resurrected. This time advo
have appealed to government officials, who
are easier to persuade given that they have lim:ted
expertise in rese11rch and evaluation. Government
officials often yearn for certi:ude in evaluation
findings as a way of bolstering their authori:y. lt
wouid make the task of mandating new programs
much easier and !es& cor:troversial. Evah:ators
have not been able to deliver such une11llivocal
findings, It is not diflicult to understand why a
method that promises certainty !:as appeal for
them. However, the certainty that fundamental·
ism provides is false.
So, after 40 yf'.irs, evaluation policy has come
foll circle. Whal is different this time around ls
that there i1, a sizable evaluation community that
has considered,discussed,an<l dismissed the nar•
,ow focus on experimental method that is being
promoted by the govern :nent. For those i:iterested
in how sue!: differences will play out. they might

.ook to history. Since founding, the United
Stale, ha., been swept repeatedly :.iy strong evan-
gelical movements that daim to have absnlule
:ruth ,,r.d a1tem11t tn res:rict ideas. :>ming I~e
2oth ccn:ury, these movement~ took the fi.mn of
anticommunism crusades, ar.d they hac a pro·
:om 1d m1 the shape of Amer ican soc:al
science. lt appears to be tirn ~ for the mdtk: of fae
cur:cn Lgeneration in evaluation to be tes:ed.
Campbell, D. {1982 ). Experiments 2.s argumm1 s. l11
E. It :fo..:se, S. IY.Jthisim,;. A. Pearst,'., & H. Prcskill
(£cs.). Evaluat/011 studies rri·iew ammal /No. 7,
pp. 117· 128). :leYerly Hill~,CA:
Campbell, D. T., & St~11ley, J, C, (: 9rL\). bpe1imen1a/
1111J qua,i•expenmcnt1;f designs for research.
Chicago: Rand :\,1c);ally.
Che::, H., & Rossi, P. H. (1987). F:valuati ng with stnsc:
The the:q· driven apprmd1 10 validi: y; i:1•:1iuot iu11
Rt:vitt'Wi 7, .c,i:,-J•.,.c.
Cook, T, [), (l 993), A quasi,sm::pling theo:y of th,
ge::eralirntio:: of rnnsal datior:sh I1,s. r11 L. ll.
Sedire,t & A, G, Scot l Ur,derstm1din,~
,:1;;s::s gem:rati:dng ab,,,!U the,n ~New
Direction., in Evaluation, No. 57, 1,;i. 39-~2;. San
Franc' sco: lnssey- Ba,,.
Couudl F.vidence,l:lased l'olici<:s. (2002). BritiJing
evidence drh·cn progress w eJurnlitm: A rernm•
rn,mde,i strategy Ju, the Departmer:t
lldmw wn. New York: Willia ::1 -:-. Grant
J1ounda1ion.
Lronbud1, L. ). (1982). f)tsit;ni11g ,!V/lllla!ion~ ,fedurn-
1fonul mui />mgrnm;. San Fr:mci m,:
Josscy-Bas,.
(i:a;s,G. \,: I 1976). Prim~:')',,'it'.mmlary,and mcrn-analy·
sis of rcsc,trch. Edufu/i,,;;a/ llrsearcher,
(i,mld, S. I. ( 1981 ), The mis>rze;isure of mun. New York:
Nnrlm:,
(iree11e, J., Lincr,:n, Y S., tv:,ithison, Mertens, D. rv: .,
& Ryan, K. (1998). Ad\·,mtages and cm,neIJ,15e,
11si11g i::d:.:,ive evaluation apprcai:hes i 11 evaL,atio::
Eouse: Changing Social 1'11lky 1111 HIS:
p!"tel: cc ,1merir1m Jvumal cf 1:·vut11t11ion, l 9,
101 1
:·krrnstein, R,)., & Murray, C. ( 1994). 'fhe bdl .:;in•t.
New York; Free Press,
:lo::se, F.. :<. ( 1980). 1:.,,,1/uatinx v11/idi!y. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
E. R. (1991). Reali;;m res,;;irch. J:'d~rn/ fount
Researcher, 20: 6),
:lo·.:sc, E. R., & Eowe, K. R. (1999). \Ir.hies in ev,iluatum
1m,i s,idal >'J'Jtarcn.':'hot:sar,d (hks, CA: Sag,'.
:Jpsey, M. W ( 1993). Theory as method: Small 1hcorics
of lm,lme:ils. b L 1l Sech re~: & A.
'.Eds.J, Undersl,mdmg etiuns and ge!!nalizing
a/:t>ul them (~cw Directions in Ev:iluation, No.
p:,. 5-.,8). San f.m~.ci,c·o: :ossey-llass,
Madlonald, Fl. ( 1977}. 4. pditical da5'ifi;;aton of
cvaluatio:1 studies. In D. Hamilton (fa\.), Beyond
the "umbers g,1me (pp. .t.,•a-,u, London:
Ma,milbn.
.vlac,dc, J. L. { Tlte cement ,ifthe 1111 i,er,e, Oxford,
UK: Clarendon.
.\'axwell, I, (1996 J. Usmg ,11.mlitatfr,· resetm:h ta
Jevei.Jp causal exp!mwlions. Working pape::,
Harvard Project ,m Schooling and Children,
Harvard Un:versil j",
v;,h.ughlin, M. W. ( I fraiu11tw11 mnf r1:form,
Carr:hric.ge. ,\lA: Ballinger.
'Jmi<·k, IL ( IY74). ,,,,,,,,11,,s11w,. ,md utopia. r-.:ew York:
Basic !look~.
Paige, R. (2/J02, November l 8). [Remarks at
Con.,olidation C1mfur.:ncc I, Washing:on, DC
R.11>tls, ), ( 1971). A tiu::ory vf jrm kc. Cambridgt, MA:
Belknap.
Rdch,i.rdt, C. S.. & Ralli,, S. E (El's.}. (1'194). T!w ~uali•
l11tivi,-quantitati1,e debate: New perspec/ ives (New
Directions in f'::ogram Evaluation, No. 61 ). S~n
Francisco: ln.s,n-B:,ss.
Riv'.:n, A.(' S;,teniatic thiirkingfor ,ociui ar/i,m.
W-ishi ng1on, DC: flron,iing; ln~:i:l1 lk,n.
Ross, D. (1991 ). The or'igfns 0f ,1meriom ,11::£111 ,nern"
r.am·Jridgc, UK: C:imbridge t:ni,,ersity
S:ake, :l.. E. (197!1). The ca5c st:.dv, me:hod in ,ocial
inquiry. faJunu frmal Re,e:ard1e1;
Such 111.m, E. A. (I %7). tvalu ... liw resemd1. 'Jew \ork:
Russell Sage.
Part VI
-----------------------~tfftt1v:.,.,,,.,.,
THE FUTURE OF
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

A
nd so we come to the end, which is only the starting point for a new beginning.
Severa! observatio:1s have structured our argumen7s to th :s point The field of
qualitative research continues to :ransfo::m itself: The changes took shape
dLring the early 1990s are gaining momentum, even as they co:1fiont multiple forms of
resis:ance during the first decade of this century, The ger:drred narrative turn has been
hlien. Fmmcational epistemologies, what Schwandt ( L997, p. 4l1) calls episterr.ologies
with the big E. have been replaced by constructivist, b::rmeneutic, feminist, poststrm:tura'.,
pragmatist, critical race, and queer theory approaches to soda! inquiry. Epistemology
with a small e has become normative, displaced by discourses on ethics and vah:es,
conversations on and about the good, and conversa:ions about the just and moral society.
We have argued throug