Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology How To Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards 1st Edition Heidi M. Levitt

Reporting Qualitative Research in
Psychology How to Meet APA Style

Journal Article Reporting Standards 1st
Edition Heidi M. Levitt
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/reporting-qualitative-research-in-psychology-how-to-
meet-apa-style-journal-article-reporting-standards-1st-edition-heidi-m-levitt/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Reporting quantitative research in psychology how to

meet APA style journal article reporting standards
Second Edition Harris M. Cooper
https://textbookfull.com/product/reporting-quantitative-research-
in-psychology-how-to-meet-apa-style-journal-article-reporting-
standards-second-edition-harris-m-cooper/
Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology How to

Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards 2nd
Edition Harris Cooper
https://textbookfull.com/product/reporting-quantitative-research-
in-psychology-how-to-meet-apa-style-journal-article-reporting-
standards-2nd-edition-harris-cooper/
Financial accounting : with International Financial

Reporting Standards (ch1-9 only) Kieso
https://textbookfull.com/product/financial-accounting-with-
international-financial-reporting-standards-ch1-9-only-kieso/
Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical

Sciences Peush Sahni
https://textbookfull.com/product/reporting-and-publishing-
research-in-the-biomedical-sciences-peush-sahni/
A Practical Approach to Using Statistics in Health
Research From Planning to Reporting 1st Edition Adam
Mackridge
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-practical-approach-to-using-
statistics-in-health-research-from-planning-to-reporting-1st-
edition-adam-mackridge/
New Trends in Public Sector Reporting: Integrated

Reporting and Beyond Francesca Manes-Rossi
https://textbookfull.com/product/new-trends-in-public-sector-
reporting-integrated-reporting-and-beyond-francesca-manes-rossi/
Financial Accounting with International Financial

Reporting Standards 4/e 4th Edition
Weygandt/Kimmel/Kieso
https://textbookfull.com/product/financial-accounting-with-
international-financial-reporting-standards-4-e-4th-edition-
weygandt-kimmel-kieso/
Financial Reporting for Islamic Financial Institutions

: Accounting Standards, Interpretation and Application
1st Edition Abdul Rauf Mahar
https://textbookfull.com/product/financial-reporting-for-islamic-
financial-institutions-accounting-standards-interpretation-and-
application-1st-edition-abdul-rauf-mahar/
Financial reporting in Australia Second Edition Loftus
https://textbookfull.com/product/financial-reporting-in-
australia-second-edition-loftus/
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Reporting
QUALITATIVE
Research in
Psychology
REVISED EDITION
Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal

Article Reporting Standards, by H. M. Levitt
Copyright © 2020 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Style Products
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition
Concise Guide to APA Style, Seventh Edition
Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA

Style Journal Article Reporting Standards, Second Edition, Revised

Harris Cooper
Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA

Style Journal Article Reporting Standards, Revised Edition
Heidi M. Levitt
Please visit https://apastyle.apa.org/products for more information about

APA Style products or to order.
Reporting
QUALITATIVE
Research in
Psychology
How to Meet APA Style Journal
Article Reporting Standards
REVISED EDITION
HEIDI M. LEVITT
Copyright © 2020 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Except as permitted
under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or
distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of scanning and
digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the
publisher.
The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors, and such opinions and
statements do not necessarily represent the policies of the American Psychological Association.
Published by
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
www.apa.org
Order Department
https://www.apa.org/pubs/books
order@apa.org
In the U.K., Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, copies may be ordered from Eurospan
https://www.eurospanbookstore.com/apa
info@eurospangroup.com
Typeset in Sabon, Futura, and Universe by Circle Graphics, Inc., Reisterstown, MD
Printer: Sheridan Books, Chelsea, MI

Cover Designer: Naylor Design, Washington, DC
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019954941
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record is available from the British Library.
Printed in the United States of America
https://doi.org/10.1037.0000179-000
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
Chapter 1. R
eporting Standards for Qualitative Research
in Psychology: What Are They, and Why Do
We Need Them? 3
Chapter 2. T
elling Your Qualitative Story: How the Purpose
of Your Research Influences Your Reporting 19
Chapter 3. M
ethodological Integrity: Establishing the Fidelity
and Utility of Your Research 29
Chapter 4. H
ow to Situate Your Mission: Title Page, Abstract,
and Introduction 43
Chapter 5. H
ow to Describe Your Inquiry Process:
The Method Section 51
Chapter 6. W
hat Did You Find? The Results Section 69
Chapter 7. W
hat Does It All Mean? The Discussion Section 83
Chapter 8. R
eporting a Qualitative Meta-Analysis: Key Features 91
v
vi CONTENTS
Chapter 9. R
eporting Mixed Methods Research:
Bridging Reporting Standards 111
Chapter 10. Considering Rhetorical Style and Methodological

Integrity: Troubleshooting and Tips for Publishing
and Reviewing 135
Appendix: Abstracts of the 15 Articles Used as Examples in Text 147

References 157
Index 167
About the Author 173

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the members of the American Psychological Association Publica-
tions and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Stan-
dards for Qualitative Research as our work together provided the foundation for this
book. Members include Michael Bamberg, John W. Creswell, David M. Frost, Ruthellen
Josselson, and Carola Suárez-Orozco. Also, I would like to thank the coauthors of the
Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology’s white paper on recommendations for
the design and review of qualitative research, whose work contributed toward these
standards: Sue L. Motulsky, Frederick J. Wertz, Susan L. Morrow, and Joseph G.
Ponterotto. In addition, I would like to thank Scott Churchill, Michelle Fine, Ruthellen
Josselson, Linda McMullen, and Frederick Wertz for their helpful comments and sug-
gestions on segments of this book. I also thank Rose Sokol-Chang, Linda Malnasi
McCarter, and David Becker for their support of these projects and the authors whose
articles provide the examples that appear throughout the text. On a personal note,
I thank Gloria, Tamara, and Shoshanna Levitt and Sharon Horne, Eden Levitt-Horne,
and Joshua Levitt-Horne.
vii
REVISED EDITION
Reporting
Psychology
Research in
QUALITATIVE
1
Reporting Standards for
Qualitative Research in
Psychology: What Are They,

and Why Do We Need Them?
E
veryone loves a good story. A well-written or well-told story can draw you in
and make you care about an issue that you never considered before. It can open
new doors and change relationships by helping you understand others’ experi-
ences more deeply. It can teach you to develop empathy or imagine how you might
feel if you were in a certain situation, time, or place. It can affirm reactions you have
had and values to which you aspire, and it can provide guidance on the type of person
you would like to be.
Before I learned about qualitative research, I would turn to novels and short sto-
ries when I faced complex dilemmas in my life. There, I could see how people suffered
through heartbreak, found inspiration, and overcame hardships. When trying to under-
stand myself, significant others, or clients, I did the same. Experiences that were not
making sense would become clearer as I could see how parts of a story fit within a holis-
tic account of how a person or a group of people made sense of themselves over time.
Strong qualitative research can have these same effects on its readers, deepening
their understanding of complex processes and guiding them to respond to an issue in a
new manner. The qualitative reporting standards described in this book were designed
to guide authors and reviewers to think through how to strengthen the presentation of
their work to increase its impact. I encourage you, as you read this book, to consider
how these standards can help you communicate the story of your research more clearly
and persuasively.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000179-001
Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards,
Revised Edition, by H. M. Levitt
Copyright © 2020 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
3
4 R E P O R T I N G Q U A L I TAT I V E R E S E A R C H I N P S Y C H O L O G Y
What Are Qualitative Journal Article

Reporting Standards?
Qualitative researchers are interested not only in telling stories but also in developing
knowledge to answer questions or solve problems. Once they have concluded their
research and gained new understandings, they want to communicate this information
to their field so that it can be used by others. Reporting standards are guidelines that
describe how to communicate findings clearly in journal articles so that readers can
access and understand the story of the research endeavor.
Recognizing that reporting standards can aid authors in the process of writing and
evaluating manuscripts and editors and reviewers in the process of evaluating those
manuscripts, the Publications and Communications (P&C) Board of the American
Psychological Association (APA) invited two task forces of researchers to develop
standards for reporting quantitative and qualitative research in journal articles. The
Quantitative Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS–Quant) Working Group
(Mark Appelbaum [chair], Harris Cooper, Rex B. Kline, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Arthur M.
Nezu, and Stephen M. Rao) developed standards for quantitative research (Appelbaum
et al., 2018), and a separate book (Cooper, 2020) details those standards.
The development of reporting standards for qualitative methods was an initiative
that was important to the P&C Board because use of these methods has increased rapidly
in the field of psychology. There are so many qualitative methods in use, framed within
multiple philosophical frameworks, that it can be challenging for journal reviewers who
are unfamiliar with qualitative methods to evaluate whether a manuscript should be
published. Reviewers who are unfamiliar with qualitative methods entirely or familiar
with only one method or one tradition of inquiry may inappropriately use that knowl-
edge to evaluate research that uses a different method or tradition. Others may adhere to
incongruous criteria that are based within quantitative standards. Similarly, editors who
do not have a background in qualitative research may be at a loss on how to adjudicate
when reviews of a manuscript differ. This state of affairs has meant that it can be quite
challenging to publish high-quality qualitative research.
To develop these standards, the P&C Board convened six researchers (Heidi M.
Levitt [chair], Michael Bamberg, John W. Creswell, David Frost, Ruthellen Josselson,
and Carola Suárez-Orozco) who had experience in using a variety of qualitative meth-
ods on a diverse range of topics and shared experience in journal editing. The Working
Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research (JARS–Qual)
considered readings related to qualitative reporting (e.g., Levitt, Motulsky, et al.,
2017; Madill & Gough, 2008; O’Brien et al., 2014; Tong et al., 2007; Walsh, 2015),
met in person to form the core of the standards, then worked together remotely to
develop recommendations. They sought feedback on these recommendations from
the P&C Board, the APA Council of Editors, and the International Committee of
the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology. In addition, they presented initial
standards at an APA convention to invite feedback from the general membership
(Levitt, Bamberg, et al., 2016). The final standards were published in American
Psychologist (Levitt, Bamberg, et al., 2018).
This book is based on the reporting standards developed by this group. An advan-
tage of this book is that it permits the space to expand on the ideas in those standards
and to articulate the rationale behind each. Knowing these rationales can be helpful as
R E P O R T I N G S TA N D A R D S F O R Q U A L I TAT I V E R E S E A R C H I N P S Y C H O L O G Y 5
you write up your own qualitative research as they will assist you in making decisions
about how to interpret the standards.
How to Use This Book to Improve Your Research

This book describes the distinctive elements of qualitative reporting and goes beyond
what is presented in the American Psychologist article on qualitative reporting (Levitt,
Bamberg, et al., 2018) and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (7th ed.; APA, 2020). It articulates decisions you may need to make as an
author as you decide how to present your work. It also provides examples to illustrate
a strong presentation style, and these can serve as helpful models. It does not review all
the information in the Publication Manual on writing style, so that book will be a helpful
guide as well.
Chapters 2 and 3 provide the conceptual undergirding for the reporting decisions
that authors make during the writing process. Chapter 2 describes how the reporting of
qualitative research is influenced by the purpose of a research project and the research
traditions in use. For instance, constructivist authors writing up a participatory action
study might intertwine their Method and Discussion sections as a way to highlight the
coconstruction of the findings and their implications and to avoid a style of presenta-
tion that suggests that the results are objective while the discussion is subjective. Their
approach to inquiry and their research tradition might guide them to present their work
in a manner that highlights the strengths of their work in relation to their goals and as
they are conceived within their tradition.
In Chapter 3, the concept of methodological integrity is discussed. Understanding
this concept is critical to successful writing on qualitative research. It guides authors
to report idiosyncratic aspects of their research in a way that conveys their rigor and
also to explain how they addressed gaps in integrity.
Chapters 4 through 7 consider the typical sections of a qualitative research paper—
the introductory sections, Method, Results, and Discussion. These chapters emphasize
aspects of reporting that are unique to qualitative research. They describe the general
elements that should be reported in qualitative papers and can assist authors in devel-
oping comprehensive reports that will support their review. Guidance is provided for
how to best present qualitative research, with rationales and illustrations.
The reporting standards for qualitative meta-analyses, which are integrative analy-
ses of findings from across primary qualitative research, are presented in Chapter 8.
These standards are distinct from the standards for both quantitative meta-analyses and
primary qualitative research. The chapter helps authors understand what is necessary
to include in these reports.
Mixed methods studies use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Chapter 9
describes the reporting standards for this form of research. Although the reporting
standards for mixed methods research draw on the standards for both quantitative
and qualitative research, they emphasize the need to report how these methods work
together to enhance understanding.
Finally, Chapter 10 includes a discussion of objectivist and constructivist rhetorical
styles in research reporting. It encourages researchers to consider how the phrasing of
their writing communicates their approach to inquiry and to engage readers using a
style that is coherent with their approach. Also, this chapter describes the process of
communicating with journal editors during the process of submitting a manuscript for
review, emphasizing issues that tend to arise when submitting qualitative research and
providing tips to facilitate the review. Finally, it describes future directions for quali-
tative research reporting as receptivity to and understanding of qualitative methods
continue to increase.
Three tables listing the JARS–Qual guidelines are presented in this book. Shortened
forms of these tables can be found online (https://apastyle.apa.org/jars). I also include
text boxes that excerpt portions of the JARS–Qual tables that are relevant to the topic
of each subsection, as appropriate. Table A1.1, in the appendix to this chapter, pre
sents the general qualitative standards. In the appendix to Chapter 8, the table present-
ing reporting standards for qualitative meta-analyses can be found. The appendix to
Chapter 9 contains the table of reporting standards for mixed methods research, as
well as a table that presents the JARS–Quant guidelines essential to understand when
reporting a mixed methods study. As you read the text, these tables will be a helpful
reference.
You will notice that the JARS–Qual tables have three columns, whereas the
JARS–Quant table has only two. The first column of the JARS–Qual tables contains
the element of the article to be reported. The divisions in this column suggest sections
and subsections that can be used to structure an article (e.g., introduction, objectives,
methods), but the tables also note that qualitative researchers sometimes alter or com-
bine sections and may opt to use a narrative format in papers. The second column of
the tables contains a description of the information to be reported. Whether sections
follow the outline in the JARS–Qual guidelines or are combined, the information
related to each element should be reported in the paper. The third column contains
recommendations and tips that can be useful for authors and reviewers to consider.
Understanding the rationale behind the reporting standards can help you make
sense of how to apply a standard within your own project. As will be described, some
of the standards may be adapted to better fit certain modes of research. As a researcher,
you know your research best, and there may be ways you can support the methodologi-
cal integrity of your work that are unique to your study and are not listed in the stan-
dards (which are meant to apply across qualitative studies). Be attuned to the modes of
presentation that may strengthen your work and allow the story you are telling to be
received as meaningful, innovative, and credible.
In addition, by describing the rationale for the standards, this book can help you
explain your reporting decisions to reviewers or editors. There are many places in the
reporting standards where we indicate that flexibility should be honored. In this book,
I describe why a given standard might not hold for all studies, and you may wish to
draw on these explanations in not only the writing process but the review process as
well. Understanding the rationale for variations in reporting can assist you in craft-
ing responses to reviewers and help reviewers and editors better understand your
decisions. Because this book explains the thinking behind the standards developed
by experts in qualitative methods in psychology, basing your explanations on this
thinking can help you be persuasive when submitting your papers to peer review or
responding to editors.
Appendix 1.1:
Journal Article Reporting
Standards for All Qualitative
Research Designs (JARS–Qual)
7
8
� Table A1.1. Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research (JARS–Qual): Information Recommended
R E P O R T I N G Q U A L I TAT I V E R E S E A R C H I N P S Y C H O L O G Y
for Inclusion in Manuscripts That Report Primary Qualitative Research
Recommendations for authors to consider

Paper section or element Description of information to be reported and notes for reviewers
Title page
Title • Identify key issues/topic under consideration.
Author note • Acknowledge funding sources or contributors.
• Acknowledge conflicts of interest, if any.
Abstract • State the problem/question/objectives under investigation. • Authors: Consider including at least one
• Indicate the study design, including types of participants or keyword that describes the method and
data sources, and analytic strategy, main results/findings, one that describes the types of partici-
and main implications/significance. pants or phenomenon under investigation.
• Identify five keywords. • Authors: Consider describing your
approach to inquiry when it will facilitate
the review process and intelligibility of
your paper. If your work is not grounded
in a specific approach to inquiry or your
approach would be too complicated to
explain in the allotted word count, how-
ever, it would not be advisable to provide
explication on this point in the abstract.
Introduction
Description of research • Frame the problem or question and its context. • Reviewers: The introduction may include
problem or question • Review, critique, and synthesize the applicable literature to case examples, personal narratives,
identify key issues/debates/theoretical frameworks in the vignettes, or other illustrative material.
relevant literature to clarify barriers, knowledge gaps, or
practical needs.
R E P O R T I N G S TA N D A R D S F O R Q U A L I TAT I V E R E S E A R C H I N P S Y C H O L O G Y
Study objectives/aims/ • State the purpose(s)/goal(s)/aim(s) of the study. • Authors: If relevant to objectives, explain
research goals • State the target audience, if specific. the relation of the current analysis to prior
• Provide the rationale for fit of design used to investigate articles/publications.
this purpose/goal (e.g., theory building, explanatory, devel- • Reviewers: Qualitative studies often legiti-
oping understanding, social action, description, highlighting mately need to be divided into multiple
social practices). manuscripts because of journal article
• Describe the approach to inquiry, if it illuminates the objec- page limitations, but each manuscript
tives and research rationale (e.g., descriptive, interpretive, should have a separate focus.
feminist, psychoanalytic, postpositivist, critical, postmodern, • Reviewers: Qualitative studies tend not to
or constructivist, or pragmatic approaches). identify hypotheses, but research ques-
tions and goals.
Method
Research design • Summarize the research design, including data collection • Reviewers: Method sections can be writ-
overview strategies, data analytic strategies, and, if illuminating, ten in a chronological or narrative format.
approaches to inquiry (e.g., descriptive, interpretive, femi- • Reviewers: Although they provide a
nist, psychoanalytic, postpositivist, critical, postmodern, method description that other investigators
constructivist, or pragmatic approaches). should be able to follow, it is not required
• Provide the rationale for the design selected. that other investigators arrive at the same
conclusions, but rather that their method
should lead them to conclusions with a
similar degree of methodological integrity.
• Reviewers: At times, elements may be rel-
evant to multiple sections and authors need
to organize what belongs in each subsec-
tion in order to describe the method coher-
ently and reduce redundancy. For instance,
the overview and the objectives statement
may be presented in one section.
(table continues)
9
� Table A1.1. (Continued)
10
• Reviewers: Processes of qualitative

research are often iterative versus linear,
may evolve through the inquiry process
and may move between data collection
and analysis in multiple formats. As a
result, data collection and analysis sections
might be combined.
• Reviewers: For the reasons above and
because qualitative methods often are
adapted and combined creatively, requiring
detailed description and rationale, an aver-
age qualitative Method section typically
is longer than an average quantitative
Method section.
Study participants or
data sources
Researcher description • Describe the researchers’ backgrounds in approaching • Authors: Prior understandings relevant to
the study, emphasizing their prior understandings of the the analysis could include, but are not
phenomena under study (e.g., interviewers, analysts, or limited to, descriptions of researchers’
research team). demographic/cultural characteristics,
• Describe how prior understandings of the phenomena credentials, experience with phenomena,
under study were managed and/or influenced the research training, values, and decisions in selecting
(e.g., enhancing, limiting, or structuring data collection and archives or material to analyze.
analysis). • Reviewers: Researchers differ in the exten-
siveness of reflexive self-description in
reports. It may not be possible for authors
to estimate the depth of description
desired by reviewers without guidance.
Participants or other • Provide the numbers of participants/documents/events
data sources analyzed.
• Describe the demographics/cultural information, perspec-
tives of participants or characteristics of data sources that
might influence the data collected.
• Describe existing data sources, if relevant (e.g., news
papers, Internet, archive).
• Provide data repository information for openly shared data,
if applicable.
• Describe archival searches or process of locating data for
analyses, if applicable.
Researcher–participant • Describe the relationships and interactions between
relationship researchers and participants relevant to the research pro-
cess and any impact on the research process (e.g., was
there a relationship prior to research, are there any ethical
considerations relevant to prior relationships).
Participant recruitment
Recruitment process • Describe the recruitment process description (e.g., face-to- • Reviewers: There is no agreed-upon
face, telephone, mail, email, recruitment protocols). minimum number of participants for a
• Describe any incentives or compensation, and provide qualitative study. Rather, the author should
assurance of relevant ethical processes of data collection provide a rationale for the number of par-
and consent process as relevant (may include institutional ticipants chosen.
review board approval, particular adaptations for vulnerable • Authors/Reviewers: The order of the
populations, safety monitoring). recruitment process and the selection pro-
• Describe the process via which the number of participants cess and their contents may be determined
was determined in relation to the study design. in relation to the authors’ methodological
• Provide any changes in numbers through attrition and final approach. Some authors will determine
number of participants/sources (if relevant, refusal rates or a selection process and then develop a
reasons for dropout). recruitment method based on those criteria.
• Describe the rationale for decision to halt data collection Other authors will develop a recruitment
(e.g., saturation). process and then select participants respon-
• Convey the study purpose as portrayed to participants, if sively in relation to evolving findings.
different from the purpose stated.
11
(table continues)
12

Participant selection • Describe the participants/data sources selection process • Authors: A statement can clarify how the
(e.g., purposive sampling methods such as maximum vari- number of participants fits with practices
ation, diversity sampling, or convenience sampling meth- in the design at hand, recognizing that
ods such as snowball selection, theoretical sampling) and transferability of findings in qualitative
inclusion/exclusion criteria. research to other contexts is based in
• Provide the general context for the study (when data were developing deep and contextualized under-
collected, sites of data collection). standings that can be applied by readers
• If your participant selection is from an archived data set, rather than quantitative estimates of error
describe the recruitment and selection process from that and generalizations to populations.
data set as well as any decisions in selecting sets of par- • Authors/Reviewers: The order of the
ticipants from that data set. recruitment process and the selection
process and their contents may be deter-
mined in relation to the authors’ meth-
odological approach. Some authors will
determine a selection process and then
develop a recruitment method based upon
those criteria. Other authors will develop
a recruitment process and then select
participants responsively in relation to
evolving findings.
Data collection
Data collection/ • State the form of data collected (e.g., interviews, question- • Reviewers: Researchers may use terms
identification naires, media, observation). for data collection that are coherent within
procedures • Describe the origins or evolution of the data-collection their research approach and process, such
protocol. as data identification, data collection, or
• Describe any alterations of data-collection strategy in data selection. Descriptions should be
response to the evolving findings or the study rationale. provided, however, in accessible terms in
• Describe the data-selection or data-collection process (e.g., relation to the readership.
were others present when data were collected, number of • Reviewers: It may not be useful for
times data were collected, duration of collection, context). researchers to reproduce all of the ques-
• Convey the extensiveness of engagement (e.g., depth of tions they asked in an interview, especially
engagement, time intensiveness of data collection). in the case of unstructured or semistruc-
• For interview and written studies, indicate the mean and tured interviews as questions are adapted
range of the time duration in the data-collection process to the content of each interview.
(e.g., interviews were held for 75 to 110 min, with an
average interview time of 90 min).
• Describe the management or use of reflexivity in the data-
collection process, as it illuminates the study.
• Describe questions asked in data collection: content of
central questions, form of questions (e.g., open vs. closed).
Recording and data • Identify data audio/visual recording methods, field notes,
transformation and transcription processes used.
Analysis
Data-analytic strategies • Describe the methods and procedures used and for what • Reviewers: Researchers may use terms
purpose/goal. for data analysis that are coherent within
• Explicate in detail the process of analysis, including some their research approach and process (e.g.,
discussion of the procedures (e.g., coding, thematic analy- interpretation, unitization, eidetic analysis,
sis, etc.), with a principle of transparency. coding). Descriptions should be provided,
• Describe coders or analysts and their training, if not already however, in accessible terms in relation to
described in the researcher description section (e.g., coder the readership.
selection, collaboration groups).
13
(table continues)
14

• Identify whether coding categories emerged from the • Authors: Provide rationales to illuminate
analyses or were developed a priori. analytic choices in relation to the study
• Identify units of analysis (e.g., entire transcript, unit, text) goals.
and how units were formed, if applicable.
• Describe the process of arriving at an analytic scheme, if
applicable (e.g., if one was developed before or during the
analysis or was emergent throughout).
• Provide illustrations and descriptions of their development,
if relevant.
• Indicate software, if used.
Methodological integrity • Demonstrate that the claims made from the analysis are • Reviewers: Research does not need to
warranted and have produced findings with methodologi- use all or any of the checks (as rigor is
cal integrity. The procedures that support methodological centrally based in the iterative process
integrity (i.e., fidelity and utility) typically are described of qualitative analyses, which inherently
across the relevant sections of a paper, but they could includes checks within the evolving, self-
be addressed in a separate section when elaboration or correcting iterative analyses), but their use
emphasis would be helpful. Issues of methodological can augment a study’s methodological
integrity include the following: integrity. Approaches to inquiry have differ-
• Assess the adequacy of the data in terms of the ability ent traditions in terms of using checks and
to capture forms of diversity most relevant to the ques- which checks are most valued.
tion, research goals, and inquiry approach.
• Describe how the researchers’ perspectives were man-
aged in both the data collection and analysis (e.g., to
limit their effect on the data collection, to structure the
analysis).
• Demonstrate that findings are grounded in the evidence
(e.g., using quotes, excerpts, or descriptions of
researchers’ engagement in data collection).
• Demonstrate that the contributions are insightful and
meaningful (e.g., in relation to the current literature and
the study goal).
• Provide relevant contextual information for findings
(e.g., setting of study, information about participants,
interview question asked is presented before excerpt as
needed).
• Present findings in a coherent manner that makes sense
of contradictions or disconfirming evidence in the data
(e.g., reconcile discrepancies, describe why a conflict
might exist in the findings).
• Demonstrate consistency with regard to the analytic pro-
cesses (e.g., analysts may use demonstrations of analyses
to support consistency, describe their development of
a stable perspective, interrater reliability, consensus) or
describe responses to inconsistencies, as relevant (e.g.,
coders switching midanalysis, an interruption in the ana-
lytic process). If alterations in methodological integrity
were made for ethical reasons, explicate those reasons
and the adjustments made.
(table continues)
15
16

• Describe how support for claims was supplemented by

any checks added to the qualitative analysis. Examples of
supplemental checks that can strengthen the research
may include
• transcripts/data collected returned to participants for
feedback;
• triangulation across multiple sources of information,
findings, or investigators;
• checks on the interview thoroughness or interviewer
demands;
• consensus or auditing process;
• member checks or participant feedback on findings;
• data displays/matrices;
• in-depth thick description, case examples, or illustrations;
• structured methods of researcher reflexivity (e.g., sending
memos, field notes, diary, logbooks, journals, bracketing);
and
• checks on the utility of findings in responding to the study
problem (e.g., an evaluation of whether a solution worked).
Findings/Results
Findings/Results • Describe research findings (e.g., themes, categories, • Reviewers: Findings sections tend to be
subsections narratives) and the meaning and understandings that longer than in quantitative papers because
the researcher has derived from the data analysis. of the demonstrative rhetoric needed to
• Demonstrate the analytic process of reaching findings permit the evaluation of the analytic
(e.g., quotes, excerpts of data). procedure.
• Present research findings in a way that is compatible with • Reviewers: Depending on the approach
the study design. to inquiry, findings and discussion may be
• Present synthesizing illustrations (e.g., diagrams, tables, combined or a personalized discursive style
models), if useful in organizing and conveying findings. might be used to portray the researchers’
Photographs or links to videos can be used. involvement in the analysis.
• Reviewers: Findings may or may not
include quantified information, depending
upon the study’s goals, approach to inquiry,
and study characteristics.
• Authors: Findings presented in an artistic
manner (e.g., a link to a dramatic pre-
sentation of findings) should also include
information in the reporting standards to
support the research presentation.
• Reviewers: Use quotes or excerpts to
augment data description (e.g., thick, evoca-
tive description, field notes, text excerpts),
but these should not replace the descrip-
tion of the findings of the analysis.
(table continues)
17
18
Discussion
Discussion subsections • Describe the central contributions and their significance in • Reviewers: Accounts could lead to mul-
advancing disciplinary understandings. tiple solutions rather than a single one.
• Describe the types of contributions made by findings (e.g., Many qualitative approaches hold that
challenging, elaborating on, and supporting prior research there may be more than one valid and use-
or theory in the literature describing the relevance) and ful set of findings from a given data set.
how findings can be best utilized.
• Identify similarities and differences from prior theories and
research findings.
• Reflect on any alternative explanations of the findings.
• Identify the study’s strengths and limitations (e.g., consider
how the quality, source, or types of the data or the analytic
processes might support or weaken its methodological
integrity).
• Describe the limits of the scope of transferability (e.g.,
what readers should bear in mind when using findings
across contexts).
• Revisit any ethical dilemmas or challenges that were
encountered, and provide related suggestions for future
researchers.
• Consider the implications for future research, policy, or
practice.
Note. Adapted from “Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology: The APA
Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report,” by H. M. Levitt, M. Bamberg, J. W. Creswell, D. M. Frost, R. Josselson, and C. Suárez-Orozco, 2018,
American Psychologist, 73(1), pp. 34–37 (https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151). Copyright 2018 by the American Psychological Association.
2
Telling Your Qualitative Story:
How the Purpose of Your
Research Influences
Your Reporting
R
esearchers engage in qualitative methods for varied purposes and construct proj
ects to meet differing goals, processes that are relevant for qualitative research
reporting. They convey their research stories for specific reasons that are mean
ingful to them and to their readers. Although I have long enjoyed designing quantitative
research studies to test my ideas, it was when I discovered qualitative methods that
I really began to consider being a researcher as a central occupational role. I was drawn
to the ability to explore and communicate stories that were grounded in the complex
ity of people’s lives. When beginning my academic career, it was incredible to me that
through interviews, people who had expertise in issues that I found fascinating would
share their experiences. I could learn from them and shape their knowledge and experi
ence into an empirical narrative to be shared with others.
As my interests varied, so did my studies. At one point I was sitting in an ancient
library located in the foothills of the Himalayas, drinking salt and butter tea and listen
ing to monks describe wisdom while chanting prayers resounded through the monastery
(Levitt, 1999). At another time, I was learning what it meant to be a femme lesbian
and finding my own identity shifting and changing (Levitt et al., 2003). In other
studies, I discovered what clients find helpful during sessions but do not share with
their therapists (Levitt et al., 2006) and what master therapists consider as they
tailor interventions to their clients’ needs (e.g., Levitt & Williams, 2010). Holding
central in my mind the goals of each study guided me as I engaged in writing the
manuscripts. I reflected on my experience of engaging in the research, the logic of the
methods I was using, and the tradition of inquiry within which I was working in an
effort to increase the transparency of my process.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000179-002
Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards,
Revised Edition, by H. M. Levitt
Copyright © 2020 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
19
To communicate qualitative research coherently, it is not enough to detail the steps

of a method; it is also important to understand the personal assumptions, methods, and
traditions within which you are working and the way that they frame your inquiry. As
I review the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research (JARS–Qual),
you will see that guidance often is framed in relation to the researchers’ goals, approach
to inquiry, or methods. In this chapter, I review some of these central concepts so that
it will make sense why they might influence research reporting and so that I can use
these terms to facilitate the discussion of reporting throughout the book.
What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research has been in use since the beginning of the field of psychology;
however, it often went unpublished because it did not fit the accepted mode of scientific
reporting of the time (Wertz, 2014). Profound shifts in psychological understanding have
been advanced by qualitative research, such as Sigmund Freud’s (1900) case studies,
Abraham Maslow’s (1968) studies on self-actualization, and Carol Gilligan’s (1977)
research on morality. These works generated tectonic shifts in the way the field con
ceptualized what it meant to be human (see Madill, 2015b; Wertz, 2014, for myriad
examples of transformative early qualitative research).
As researchers have come to articulate systematic procedures for qualitative methods,
the value of these methods has been increasingly recognized, and familiarity with them
has grown (e.g., Gergen et al., 2015). Over each of the past 5 decades, the number
of articles and dissertations using these methods has rapidly increased (Ponterotto,
2005a, 2005c). Multiple journals for qualitative researchers have been established (e.g.,
Qualitative Health Research, Qualitative Inquiry, Qualitative Psychology, Qualitative
Research in Psychology), and qualitative research is published in a wide range of
mainstream journals as well. In 2011, Division 5: Quantitative and Qualitative
Methods of the American Psychological Association (APA) established a subdivision
focused on qualitative methods, the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology.
In short, qualitative research methods have flourished in psychology, as they have
in many social sciences. As this has occurred, the ways to report qualitative research
have evolved and general expectations have developed.
Although the term qualitative research has come to encompass multiple methods
and inquiry traditions, it brings together a set of methods that share four central
characteristics:
1. Qualitative research involves the analysis of natural language and other forms of
human expression (e.g., text, artistic products) rather than numbers. This form
of data sets qualitative methods apart from statistical and mathematical analyses.
This verbal description means that the data can capture processes or experiences
that are ambiguous, inchoate, and complexly interrelated. Also, analyses of these
data often go beyond any beliefs or assumptions researchers might have held
prior to data collection to produce new insights, theories, descriptions, and
understandings.
2. Qualitative methods centralize an iterative process—that is, data are analyzed and
meanings are generated in a circular and repeating manner. As data are exam
ined, an initial understanding of the meaning they contain is developed, and then
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Miscellanies
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Miscellanies
Author: Ralph Waldo Emerson
Editor: Edward Waldo Emerson
Release date: October 5, 2023 [eBook #71812]
Language: English
Original publication: Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company,

1878
Credits: Emmanuel Ackerman and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file
was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

MISCELLANIES ***
MISCELLANIES
BY
RALPH WALDO EMERSON
BOSTON AND NEW YORK

HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
The Riverside Press, Cambridge
COPYRIGHT, 1878, BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON
COPYRIGHT, 1883, 1904, AND 1906, BY EDWARD W. EMERSON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PREFACE
The year after Mr. Emerson’s death, Mr. Cabot, in editing his
works, gathered into a volume the occasional writings which had
never been included in previous editions, although six of them had
been printed, either as pamphlets or in periodicals, long before, by
the author. These were the Sermon on The Lord’s Supper, the
Historical Address at Concord in 1835, that at the dedication of the
Soldiers’ Monument there in 1867, and that on Emancipation in the
British West Indies, the Essay on War, and the Editors’ Address in
the Massachusetts Quarterly Review. “American Civilization” had
been a portion of the article of that name in the Atlantic in 1862. “The
Fortune of the Republic” also had been printed as a pamphlet in
1874. Mr. Cabot said in his prefatory note, “In none was any change
from the original form made by me, except in the ‘Fortune of the
Republic,’ which was made up of several lectures, for the occasion
upon which it was read.” This was after Mr. Emerson was no longer
able to arrange his work and his friends had come to his aid.
The speeches at the John Brown, the Walter Scott, and the Free
Religious Association meetings had been printed, probably with Mr.
Emerson’s consent. The other pieces included by Mr. Cabot, namely,
the speeches on Theodore Parker, the Emancipation Proclamation,
Abraham Lincoln, at the Harvard Commemoration, “Woman,” the
addresses to Kossuth, and at the Burns Festival, had not been
published.
All that were in Mr. Cabot’s collection will be found here, although
the order has been slightly changed. To these I have added Mr.
Emerson’s letter to President Van Buren in 1838, his speech on the
Fugitive Slave Law in Concord soon after its enactment, that on
Shakspeare to the Saturday Club, and his remarks at the Humboldt
Centennial, and at the dinner to the Chinese Embassy; also the
addresses at the consecration of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery and at the
opening of the Concord Free Public Library. The oration before the
New England Society of New York in 1870, printed by them in their
recent volume, is not included, as most of the matter may be found
in the Historical Discourse at Concord and in the essay “Boston,” in
Natural History of Intellect.
I have given to the chapters mottoes, the most of them drawn from
Mr. Emerson’s writings.
EDWARD W. EMERSON.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. THE LORD’S SUPPER 1
II. HISTORICAL DISCOURSE AT CONCORD 27
III. LETTER TO PRESIDENT VAN BUREN 87
IV. EMANCIPATION IN THE BRITISH WEST INDIES 97
V. WAR 149
VI. THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW—ADDRESS AT
CONCORD 177
VII. THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW—LECTURE AT NEW
YORK 215
VIII. THE ASSAULT UPON MR. SUMNER 245
IX. SPEECH ON AFFAIRS IN KANSAS 253
X. JOHN BROWN—SPEECH AT BOSTON 265
XI. JOHN BROWN—SPEECH AT SALEM 275
XII. THEODORE PARKER 283
XIII. AMERICAN CIVILIZATION 295
XIV. THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION 313
XV. ABRAHAM LINCOLN 327
XVI. HARVARD COMMEMORATION SPEECH 339
XVII. DEDICATION OF THE SOLDIERS’ MONUMENT IN
CONCORD 347
XVIII. EDITORS’ ADDRESS 381
XIX. ADDRESS TO KOSSUTH 395
XX. WOMAN 403
XXI. CONSECRATION OF SLEEPY HOLLOW
CEMETERY 427
XXII. ROBERT BURNS 437
XXIII. SHAKSPEARE 445
XXIV. HUMBOLDT 455
XXV. WALTER SCOTT 461
XXVI. SPEECH AT BANQUET IN HONOR OF CHINESE
EMBASSY 469
XXVII. REMARKS AT ORGANIZATION OF FREE
RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION 475
XXVIII. SPEECH AT SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF
FREE RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION 483
XXIX. ADDRESS AT OPENING OF CONCORD FREE
PUBLIC LIBRARY 493
XXX. THE FORTUNE OF THE REPUBLIC 509
NOTES 545
I
THE LORD’S SUPPER
SERMON DELIVERED BEFORE THE SECOND

CHURCH IN BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1832
I like a church; I like a cowl,

I love a prophet of the soul;
And on my heart monastic aisles
Fall like sweet strains, or pensive smiles:
Yet not for all his faith can see
Would I that cowlèd churchman be.
Why should the vest on him allure,
Which I could not on me endure?
The word unto the prophet spoken

Was writ on tables yet unbroken;
The word by seers or sibyls told,
In groves of oak, or fanes of gold,
Still floats upon the morning wind,
Still whispers to the willing mind.
THE LORD’S SUPPER
The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but

righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.—
Romans xiv. 17.
In the history of the Church no subject has been more fruitful of
controversy than the Lord’s Supper. There never has been any
unanimity in the understanding of its nature, nor any uniformity in the
mode of celebrating it. Without considering the frivolous questions
which have been lately debated as to the posture in which men
should partake of it; whether mixed or unmixed wine should be
served; whether leavened or unleavened bread should be broken;—
the questions have been settled differently in every church, who
should be admitted to the feast, and how often it should be prepared.
In the Catholic Church, infants were at one time permitted and then
forbidden to partake; and since the ninth century the laity receive the
bread only, the cup being reserved to the priesthood. So, as to the
time of the solemnity. In the Fourth Lateran Council, it was decreed
that any believer should communicate at least once in a year,—at
Easter. Afterwards it was determined that this Sacrament should be
received three times in the year,—at Easter, Whitsuntide and
Christmas. But more important controversies have arisen respecting
its nature. The famous question of the Real Presence was the main
controversy between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome. The doctrine of the Consubstantiation taught by Luther was
denied by Calvin. In the Church of England, Archbishops Laud and
Wake maintained that the elements were an Eucharist, or sacrifice of
Thanksgiving to God; Cudworth and Warburton, that this was not a
sacrifice, but a sacrificial feast; and Bishop Hoadley, that it was
neither a sacrifice nor a feast after sacrifice, but a simple
commemoration. And finally, it is now near two hundred years since
the Society of Quakers denied the authority of the rite altogether, and
gave good reasons for disusing it.
I allude to these facts only to show that, so far from the Supper
being a tradition in which men are fully agreed, there has always
been the widest room for difference of opinion upon this particular.
Having recently given particular attention to this subject, I was led to
the conclusion that Jesus did not intend to establish an institution for
perpetual observance when he ate the Passover with his disciples;
and further, to the opinion that it is not expedient to celebrate it as we
do. I shall now endeavor to state distinctly my reasons for these two
opinions.
I. The authority of the rite.
An account of the Last Supper of Christ with his disciples is given
by the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
In St. Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. xxvi. 26-30) are recorded the words
of Jesus in giving bread and wine on that occasion to his disciples,
but no expression occurs intimating that this feast was hereafter to
be commemorated. In St. Mark (Mark xiv. 22-25) the same words are
recorded, and still with no intimation that the occasion was to be
remembered. St. Luke (Luke xxii. 19), after relating the breaking of
the bread, has these words: “This do in remembrance of me.” In St.
John, although other occurrences of the same evening are related,
this whole transaction is passed over without notice.
Now observe the facts. Two of the Evangelists, namely, Matthew
and John, were of the twelve disciples, and were present on that
occasion. Neither of them drops the slightest intimation of any
intention on the part of Jesus to set up anything permanent. John
especially, the beloved disciple, who has recorded with minuteness
the conversation and the transactions of that memorable evening,
has quite omitted such a notice. Neither does it appear to have come
to the knowledge of Mark, who, though not an eye-witness, relates
the other facts. This material fact, that the occasion was to be
remembered, is found in Luke alone, who was not present. There is
no reason, however, that we know, for rejecting the account of Luke.
I doubt not, the expression was used by Jesus. I shall presently
consider its meaning. I have only brought these accounts together,
that you may judge whether it is likely that a solemn institution, to be
continued to the end of time by all mankind, as they should come,
nation after nation, within the influence of the Christian religion,
would have been established in this slight manner—in a manner so
slight, that the intention of commemorating it should not appear, from
their narrative, to have caught the ear or dwelt in the mind of the only
two among the twelve who wrote down what happened.
Still we must suppose that the expression, “This do in
remembrance of me,” had come to the ear of Luke from some
disciple who was present. What did it really signify? It is a prophetic
and an affectionate expression. Jesus is a Jew, sitting with his
countrymen, celebrating their national feast. He thinks of his own
impending death, and wishes the minds of his disciples to be
prepared for it. “When hereafter,” he says to them, “you shall keep
the Passover, it will have an altered aspect to your eyes. It is now a
historical covenant of God with the Jewish nation. Hereafter it will
remind you of a new covenant sealed with my blood. In years to
come, as long as your people shall come up to Jerusalem to keep
this feast, the connection which has subsisted between us will give a
new meaning in your eyes to the national festival, as the anniversary
of my death.” I see natural feeling and beauty in the use of such
language from Jesus, a friend to his friends; I can readily imagine
that he was willing and desirous, when his disciples met, his memory
should hallow their intercourse; but I cannot bring myself to believe
that in the use of such an expression he looked beyond the living
generation, beyond the abolition of the festival he was celebrating,
and the scattering of the nation, and meant to impose a memorial
feast upon the whole world.
Without presuming to fix precisely the purpose in the mind of
Jesus, you will see that many opinions may be entertained of his
intention, all consistent with the opinion that he did not design a
perpetual ordinance. He may have foreseen that his disciples would
meet to remember him, and that with good effect. It may have
crossed his mind that this would be easily continued a hundred or a
thousand years,—as men more easily transmit a form than a virtue,
—and yet have been altogether out of his purpose to fasten it upon
men in all times and all countries.
But though the words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” do not
occur in Matthew, Mark or John, and although it should be granted
us that, taken alone, they do not necessarily import so much as is
usually thought, yet many persons are apt to imagine that the very
striking and personal manner in which the eating and drinking is
described, indicates a striking and formal purpose to found a festival.
And I admit that this impression might probably be left upon the mind
of one who read only the passages under consideration in the New
Testament. But this impression is removed by reading any narrative
of the mode in which the ancient or the modern Jews have kept the
Passover. It is then perceived that the leading circumstances in the
Gospels are only a faithful account of that ceremony. Jesus did not
celebrate the Passover, and afterwards the Supper, but the Supper
was the Passover. He did with his disciples exactly what every
master of a family in Jerusalem was doing at the same hour with his
household. It appears that the Jews ate the lamb and the
unleavened bread and drank wine after a prescribed manner. It was
the custom for the master of the feast to break the bread and to
bless it, using this formula, which the Talmudists have preserved to
us, “Blessed be Thou, O Lord, our God, who givest us the fruit of the
vine,”—and then to give the cup to all. Among the modern Jews, who
in their dispersion retain the Passover, a hymn is also sung after this
ceremony, specifying the twelve great works done by God for the
deliverance of their fathers out of Egypt.
But still it may be asked, Why did Jesus make expressions so
extraordinary and emphatic as these—“This is my body which is
broken for you. Take; eat. This is my blood which is shed for you.
Drink it”?—I reply they are not extraordinary expressions from him.
They were familiar in his mouth. He always taught by parables and
symbols. It was the national way of teaching, and was largely used
by him. Remember the readiness which he always showed to
spiritualize every occurrence. He stopped and wrote on the sand. He
admonished his disciples respecting the leaven of the Pharisees. He
instructed the woman of Samaria respecting living water. He
permitted himself to be anointed, declaring that it was for his
interment. He washed the feet of his disciples. These are admitted to
be symbolical actions and expressions. Here, in like manner, he calls
the bread his body, and bids the disciples eat. He had used the
same expression repeatedly before. The reason why St. John does
not repeat his words on this occasion seems to be that he had
reported a similar discourse of Jesus to the people of Capernaum
more at length already (John vi. 27-60). He there tells the Jews,
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you.” And when the Jews on that occasion
complained that they did not comprehend what he meant, he added
for their better understanding, and as if for our understanding, that
we might not think his body was to be actually eaten, that he only
meant we should live by his commandment. He closed his discourse
with these explanatory expressions: “The flesh profiteth nothing; the
words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life.”
Whilst I am upon this topic, I cannot help remarking that it is not a
little singular that we should have preserved this rite and insisted
upon perpetuating one symbolical act of Christ whilst we have totally
neglected all others,—particularly one other which had at least an
equal claim to our observance. Jesus washed the feet of his
disciples and told them that, as he had washed their feet, they ought
to wash one another’s feet; for he had given them an example, that
they should do as he had done to them. I ask any person who
believes the Supper to have been designed by Jesus to be
commemorated forever, to go and read the account of it in the other
Gospels, and then compare with it the account of this transaction in
St. John, and tell me if this be not much more explicitly authorized
than the Supper. It only differs in this, that we have found the Supper
used in New England and the washing of the feet not. But if we had
found it an established rite in our churches, on grounds of mere
authority, it would have been impossible to have argued against it.
That rite is used by the Church of Rome, and by the Sandemanians.
It has been very properly dropped by other Christians. Why? For two
reasons: (1) because it was a local custom, and unsuitable in
western countries; and (2) because it was typical, and all understood
that humility is the thing signified. But the Passover was local too,
and does not concern us, and its bread and wine were typical, and
do not help us to understand the redemption which they signified.
These views of the original account of the Lord’s Supper lead me to
esteem it an occasion full of solemn and prophetic interest, but never
intended by Jesus to be the foundation of a perpetual institution.
It appears, however, in Christian history that the disciples had very
early taken advantage of these impressive words of Christ to hold
religious meetings, where they broke bread and drank wine as
symbols. I look upon this fact as very natural in the circumstances of
the Church. The disciples lived together; they threw all their property
into a common stock; they were bound together by the memory of
Christ, and nothing could be more natural than that this eventful
evening should be affectionately remembered by them; that they,
Jews like Jesus, should adopt his expressions and his types, and
furthermore, that what was done with peculiar propriety by them, his
personal friends, with less propriety should come to be extended to
their companions also. In this way religious feasts grew up among
the early Christians. They were readily adopted by the Jewish
converts, who were familiar with religious feasts, and also by the
Pagan converts, whose idolatrous worship had been made up of
sacred festivals, and who very readily abused these to gross riot, as
appears from the censures of St. Paul. Many persons consider this
fact, the observance of such a memorial feast by the early disciples,
decisive of the question whether it ought to be observed by us.
There was good reason for his personal friends to remember their
friend and repeat his words. It was only too probable that among the
half-converted Pagans and Jews, any rite, any form, would find
favor, whilst yet unable to comprehend the spiritual character of
Christianity.
The circumstance, however, that St. Paul adopts these views, has
seemed to many persons conclusive in favor of the institution. I am
of opinion that it is wholly upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, and
not upon the Gospels, that the ordinance stands. Upon this matter of
St. Paul’s view of the Supper, a few important considerations must
be stated.
The end which he has in view, in the eleventh chapter of the first
Epistle, is not to enjoin upon his friends to observe the Supper, but to
censure their abuse of it. We quote the passage nowadays as if it
enjoined attendance upon the Supper; but he wrote it merely to
chide them for drunkenness. To make their enormity plainer, he goes
back to the origin of this religious feast to show what sort of feast
that was, out of which this riot of theirs came, and so relates the
transactions of the Last Supper. “I have received of the Lord,” he
says, “that which I delivered to you.” By this expression it is often
thought that a miraculous communication is implied; but certainly
without good reason, if it is remembered that St. Paul was living in
the lifetime of all the apostles who could give him an account of the
transaction; and it is contrary to all reason to suppose that God
should work a miracle to convey information that could so easily be
got by natural means. So that the import of the expression is that he
had received the story of an eye-witness such as we also possess.
But there is a material circumstance which diminishes our
confidence in the correctness of the Apostle’s view; and that is, the
observation that his mind had not escaped the prevalent error of the
primitive Church, the belief, namely, that the second coming of Christ
would shortly occur, until which time, he tells them, this feast was to
be kept. Elsewhere he tells them that at that time the world would be
burnt up with fire, and a new government established, in which the
Saints would sit on thrones; so slow were the disciples, during the
life and after the ascension of Christ, to receive the idea which we
receive, that his second coming was a spiritual kingdom, the
dominion of his religion in the hearts of men, to be extended
gradually over the whole world. In this manner we may see clearly
enough how this ancient ordinance got its footing among the early
Christians, and this single expectation of a speedy reappearance of
a temporal Messiah, which kept its influence even over so spiritual a
man as St. Paul, would naturally tend to preserve the use of the rite
when once established.
We arrive, then, at this conclusion: first, that it does not appear,
from a careful examination of the account of the Last Supper in the
Evangelists, that it was designed by Jesus to be perpetual; secondly,
that it does not appear that the opinion of St. Paul, all things
considered, ought to alter our opinion derived from the Evangelists.
One general remark before quitting this branch of this subject. We
ought to be cautious in taking even the best ascertained opinions
and practices of the primitive Church for our own. If it could be
satisfactorily shown that they esteemed it authorized and to be
transmitted forever, that does not settle the question for us. We know
how inveterately they were attached to their Jewish prejudices, and
how often even the influence of Christ failed to enlarge their views.
On every other subject succeeding times have learned to form a
judgment more in accordance with the spirit of Christianity than was
the practice of the early ages.
II. But it is said: “Admit that the rite was not designed to be
perpetual. What harm doth it? Here it stands, generally accepted,
under some form, by the Christian world, the undoubted occasion of
much good; is it not better it should remain?” This is the question of
expediency.
I proceed to state a few objections that in my judgment lie against
its use in its present form.
1. If the view which I have taken of the history of the institution be
correct, then the claim of authority should be dropped in
administering it. You say, every time you celebrate the rite, that
Jesus enjoined it; and the whole language you use conveys that
impression. But if you read the New Testament as I do, you do not
believe he did.
2. It has seemed to me that the use of this ordinance tends to
produce confusion in our views of the relation of the soul to God. It is
the old objection to the doctrine of the Trinity,—that the true worship
was transferred from God to Christ, or that such confusion was
introduced into the soul that an undivided worship was given
nowhere. Is not that the effect of the Lord’s Supper? I appeal now to
the convictions of communicants, and ask such persons whether
they have not been occasionally conscious of a painful confusion of
thought between the worship due to God and the commemoration
due to Christ. For the service does not stand upon the basis of a
voluntary act, but is imposed by authority. It is an expression of
gratitude to Christ, enjoined by Christ. There is an endeavor to keep
Jesus in mind, whilst yet the prayers are addressed to God. I fear it
is the effect of this ordinance to clothe Jesus with an authority which
he never claimed and which distracts the mind of the worshipper. I
know our opinions differ much respecting the nature and offices of
Christ, and the degree of veneration to which he is entitled. I am so
much a Unitarian as this: that I believe the human mind can admit
but one God, and that every effort to pay religious homage to more
than one being goes to take away all right ideas. I appeal, brethren,
to your individual experience. In the moment when you make the
least petition to God, though it be but a silent wish that he may
approve you, or add one moment to your life,—do you not, in the
very act, necessarily exclude all other beings from your thought? In
that act, the soul stands alone with God, and Jesus is no more
present to your mind than your brother or your child.[1]
But is not Jesus called in Scripture the Mediator? He is the
mediator in that only sense in which possibly any being can mediate
between God and man,—that is, an instructor of man. He teaches us
how to become like God. And a true disciple of Jesus will receive the
light he gives most thankfully; but the thanks he offers, and which an
exalted being will accept, are not compliments, commemorations,
but the use of that instruction.
3. Passing other objections, I come to this, that the use of the
elements, however suitable to the people and the modes of thought
in the East, where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to affect us.
Whatever long usage and strong association may have done in
some individuals to deaden this repulsion, I apprehend that their use
is rather tolerated than loved by any of us. We are not accustomed
to express our thoughts or emotions by symbolical actions. Most
men find the bread and wine no aid to devotion, and to some it is a
painful impediment. To eat bread is one thing; to love the precepts of
Christ and resolve to obey them is quite another.[2]
The statement of this objection leads me to say that I think this
difficulty, wherever it is felt, to be entitled to the greatest weight. It is
alone a sufficient objection to the ordinance. It is my own objection.
This mode of commemorating Christ is not suitable to me. That is
reason enough why I should abandon it. If I believed it was enjoined
by Jesus on his disciples, and that he even contemplated making
permanent this mode of commemoration, every way agreeable to an
Eastern mind, and yet on trial it was disagreeable to my own
feelings, I should not adopt it. I should choose other ways which, as
more effectual upon me, he would approve more. For I choose that
my remembrances of him should be pleasing, affecting, religious. I
will love him as a glorified friend, after the free way of friendship, and
not pay him a stiff sign of respect, as men do those whom they fear.
A passage read from his discourses, a moving provocation to works
like his, any act or meeting which tends to awaken a pure thought, a

Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology How To Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards 1st Edition Heidi M. Levitt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology How To Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards 1st Edition Heidi M. Levitt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reporting Qualitative Research in

Psychology How to Meet APA Style

Reporting quantitative research in psychology how to

Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology How to

Financial accounting : with International Financial

Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical

New Trends in Public Sector Reporting: Integrated

Financial Accounting with International Financial

Financial Reporting for Islamic Financial Institutions

Financial reporting in Australia Second Edition Loftus

Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal

Concise Guide to APA Style, Seventh Edition

Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA

Style Journal Article Reporting Standards, Second Edition, Revised

Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA

Please visit https://apastyle.apa.org/products for more information about

Typeset in Sabon, Futura, and Universe by Circle Graphics, Inc., Reisterstown, MD

Printer: Sheridan Books, Chelsea, MI

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019954941

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

Chapter 10. Considering Rhetorical Style and Methodological

Appendix: Abstracts of the 15 Articles Used as Examples in Text 147

About the Author 173

Psychology: What Are They,

What Are Qualitative Journal Article

How to Use This Book to Improve Your Research

Recommendations for authors to consider

• Reviewers: Processes of qualitative

Recommendations for authors to consider

Recommendations for authors to consider

Recommendations for authors to consider

• Describe how support for claims was supplemented by

To communicate qualitative research coherently, it is not enough to detail the steps

What Is Qualitative Research?

Author: Ralph Waldo Emerson

Editor: Edward Waldo Emerson

Release date: October 5, 2023 [eBook #71812]

Original publication: Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company,

Credits: Emmanuel Ackerman and the Online Distributed

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

BOSTON AND NEW YORK

SERMON DELIVERED BEFORE THE SECOND

I like a church; I like a cowl,

The word unto the prophet spoken

THE LORD’S SUPPER

The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but

You might also like

Chapter 10. Considering Rhetorical Style and Methodological