THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CWMIATTTATINV/E RALLY. SEARCH THIRD EDITION EDITORS NORMAN K, DENZIN ty of Hlinois at Urbana-Cham YVONNA S$, LINCOLN Texas AGM Univ @sAce, Publications Shousznd Oaks « London # New DebCopyrigh: © 2005 by Sage Publications, Inc Allxights weserved. No part of this bouk may be reproduced or utilized in any form. of by any means, electronic or mechanical, incfuding photocopying, recording, ur by any information storage and retrieval syster, without permission in writing {rom the publisher, For information: Sage Publications, Ine. 6 245 Teller Road “Thousand Oaks, California 91320 Eomali: order@sagepeb.com Sage Publications Ltd. 1 Olivers Yard 59 City Road London ECIY 18P United Kingdom ‘Sage Publications Iudia Pvi. Ltd B-42, Panchshcel Enclave Post Box 4109 New Deini 10017 India Printed in the United States of America. ‘This book is printed on acid-free paper, ibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Datir The SA Yeonna S. Lincolt- pe Reved. of, Handbuok of qualitative research. 2nd ed. <2000. includes bibliegraphical references and index. ISBN 0-76:9-2757-3 (loth) 1, Social scienzes—Research, J. Denzin, Norman K, 11, Lincoln, Ywonna S, Ul) Hacdbook of qualitative researca, U2, #2455 2005 o01a'2—de22 E handbook of qualitative research / edited by Nornian K. Denzin, Ind ed. 2004026085 0% OF WY 19H 7654527 eer se’ ‘Aeguiting Editor: Lisa Cuevas Shaw acute Bilitor: Margo Crouppen Pryject Editor; Claadia A. Holtman Copy Editor: Dk Beck, Judy Selhorst, and 8. . Seberak Bypesetter. C&M Digitals (P? Lid Iuddexer: Kathleer Paparchontis: Cover Designer: Ravi BalasuriyaPREFACE third edition of the Haudbook of Qualitative Research, like the second edition, is virtuelly a new volume. Nearly two-thirds of the authors in this edition aze new contributors, deed, this edition includes 42 new chaplets, authors, and/ar_ coauthors, Among the shapter topics in this edition, 16 are totally new, inching contributions on indigenous inquiry, decolonizing methodologies, critical etkno- graphy, critical humanism and queer theory, performance ethnography, narrative inquiry, arts-based ingniry, online ethnography, analytic methodologies, Foucault's methodologies, talk and text, focus groups and critical pedagogy, relativism, crizeria and politics, the poetics of place, cultural and investigative pnetics, quali tative evaluation and social policy, social science inquiry in the new millennium, and an anthropology of the contemporary. All retura- ing authors have either suostantially revised their original contributions or have produced chapters that are completely new. This third edition of the Handbook of Quali tative Resexirch continues where the second edition ended, Over the past quarter century, a quiet :nethovlological evolution has been occurring in the social sciences; a blurring of disciplinary boundaries is taking place. The social and policy sciences and the humanities are drawing closer togerter in a mutuei focus on an interpretive, qualitative approach to research and theory. These are not new trends, but the extent to whick the “qualitative revoiution’ is taking over the social jiences and related pe I fields is nothing short of emazing. The overwhelmingly positive reactions to the Hirst and second editions of the Handbook affirm these observations, We continue to be astonished at the reception the previous editions have received. Researchers and teachers alike have found useful materials in ther from which to teach and Iaurch new inquiries, ‘Not surprisingly, howeve, this quiet revotutior has been met by resistance, which we discuss in Chapter 1, our inteoduction to this edition, ‘Needless to say; this resistance grows out of neo- conservative discourses (eg, the No Child Left Behind Act) and the recent report published by the National Research Council {see Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002), which have approotiated acopositivist, so-called evidence-based eniste- mologies. Leaders of nent assert thet qualitative research is nonscieatific, should not receive federal funds, and is of litle value in the sociai policy arena (see Lincola & Cannella, 2004). There continue to be raultigle social science and humanities audiences tor this Handbook: graduate students who wast to do iearr how t0.do qualitative research, interested facelty hoping to become better infarmed about the field, individu- als working :n policy settings who understand the value of qualitative reseasck methodologies and ‘want to leatn about the latest developments in the field, and factlty who are experts in one or more areas covered by the Handbook bat who also want is mov mixPreface Normin K, Denzin ant Yeonna S. Lincolt fe Research |. Introduction: ‘he Norman K, Denzin and Yvor Discipline ard Practice of Qual Lincoln PART [: LOCATING THE FIELD 2. Reform of the Social Sciences. and of Universities Through Action Resear Davai |. Greenwood and Morten Levin 3. Compositional Studies, in Two Parts: Critical Theorizing ard Analysis on Sock Michelle Fine and Lois Weis (ladjustice 4, On Tricky Ground: Researching the Native in the Age of Uncertainty Linder Tachiwet Smith 5. freeing Ourselves tom Neooolonial Domination. in Research: A Kampepa Maori Approach to Creating Knowledge Russell Bishop 6, Ethics anc Politics in Qualitative Research: Clifiond G, Christians 7. Institutional Review Boards and Methodclogical Conservatism: The Challenge to and tro-n Phenomenological Peradigmns, Yromna 8. Litcobe PART Il: PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN CONTENTION 8. Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions.and Emerging Confluence 9. Critical Ethnography: The Politics 0° Collaboration Douglas Foley and Angela Valenzuela 0, Narly Millennial Feminist Qualitative Kescarch: Challenges ad Comours Virginia Olesen 85 109 139 183 WtIL 12, 13, re The Moral Activist Role of Critical Race Theory Scholarship Gloria Ladson-Biltings and Jamel Donnor Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research, Joe L. Kincheloe and Peter Mckaren Methodologies for Cultural Studies: An Integrative Approach Paula Sautkko Critical Humanism and Queer Theory: Living With the Tensions Keu Planer PART If; STRATEGIES OF INQUIRY 15, 20, 21, 24, ve Research The Practice and Politics of Funded Qualitat Juiianne Cheek Perforinanice Ethnography: The Reenacting end Inciting of Culture Bryant Keith Alexander ‘Qualitative Case Studies Robert E. Stake “The Observation of Participation and the Emergence of Public Ethnography Barbara Tedteck Interpretive Practice and Social Action James A. Holstein and Jaber F Gubrium Grounded Theory in the 2st Century Applications for Advancing Sacial Justice Studies Kathy Charmaz Critical Ethnograghy as Street Performance: Reflections of Home, Rece, Murder, and Justice D.Sayini Madison Testimonio, Subalternity, and Narrative Authority John Beverley Perticipatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere Stephen Kemanis and Robin: Mcllaggart Clinical Research William L. Miller and Benjamin E Crabtree PART IV: METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS. 23. 26. Narrative Inquiry: Multiple Lenses, Approaches, Voices Susan E, Chase Arts-Based [nquiry: Performing Revolutionary Pedagogy Susan Finley 303 MB 357 375 a 43 483 507 559 605 641 631 6412. 30, a M4 I he Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political Involvement Andrea Fontana and janes 4. Frey Recontextualizing Observation: Eubnography, and the Prospects for a Progressive Political Agenda Michael ¥. Angrosino What’s New Visually? Douglas Harper Autocthrography: Making the Persoral Political Saucy Holman Jones The Methnds, Politics. and lithies of Representation in Online Ethnography Anmetie N. Markhaan Analytic Perspectives Paul Atkinson and Sara Delantont Foucault's Methodologies: Archeanlogy James joseph Scheurich and Kathryn Beil nd Gencalogy Kenzie Anayzing Talx and Text Anssi Peritkyld Focas Groups: Strategic Articulations of Pedagogy, Polities, and Inquizy George Kamteretis unl Greg Dimutriudis PART V: THE ART AND PRACTICES OF INTERPRETATION, EVALUATION, AND PRESENTATION a0. Relativism, Criteria, and Policies Joltn X. Smith and Phil Hodkinson Timancipstory Discourses and the Fttics and Politics of Interpretation Noriman K. Devin ‘writing: A Method of inquiry Laurel Richardson and Elizabeth Adams St Pierre Poetics for a Planet:Discourse 1 Sume Problems of Being-in- Jvan Brady lace Calturai Poesis: The Generativity of Emergent Things Kathleers Siewart “Aria in Time of War”: Investigative Poetry and the Politics of Witnessing Stephen j, Hartnett aned feremy D. Engels Qualitative Evaluation and Changing Social P Ernest R. House PART VI: THE FUTURE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 48. Afterthought: On Writings On Writing Sociology Zrgrscene Baume 695, 9 nS oy 999) 679 1027 1043 1069 1083 1089)44, Refunctioning Ethnography: ‘The Challenge of an Anthropology of the Contemporary Douglas R. Holmes and George E. Marcus Epilogue: The Eighth and Ninth Moments—Qualitative Research in/and the Fractured Future Yonna S. Lincoln and Norman K, Denzin Author Index Subject Index About the Editors About the Contributors 1999 15 127 3161 i197 11998m HANDUGUK UF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH tobe informee about the nuost recent develepmnenss inst field. We never imagineé these audiences ‘would be so large. Nor did we imagine that the Handbook would become a text used in under- graduate and graduate research methods courses, but it did. In 2003, we created from the Handbook’s second edition three new paperback volumes sroomn use: The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Sonategies of Qualitative Inquiry, and ie i interpreting Qualitative Material Qualitative inquiry, among eter things, is the name for a “reformist anovement that began in the carly 1970s in the academy” (Schwandt, 2000, 2 interpretive and critical paradigms, :n their maltigleZorms, ae centra! to this movemert. Indeed, tis movement encompasses multiple par- sacigsuatic formulations. it sis inchides complex epistemological end ethical criticisms of tradi- llonal social science research, The movernent now has its own journals, scientific associa ences, annual workshops, ane! faculty positions, The transformations in the field uf qualitative research that were Laking place in the carly 199s continued wo gain momentum as the decade unfolded. Many scholars began to judge the days of value-tree inguiry based on a Godls-eye view of reality to be over, Today many agree that all inguizy ‘s moral and political. By century's end, few looked beck with skepticism on the narrative turn. The turn had been taken, and that was all there was lw say about it, Many have now told their tales from the fiele, Kurthet, today we Jatow that men zad worsen write culture dilfier- ently, and thet writing itself is not an innocent practice, Experimentel, reflexive ways of writing first. person e*hnographic texts are now commonplace, Critical personal -wzeratives have become a cer. tral feature of counterhegemonic, decolonizing, methodologies (Mutua & Swadener, 2004, p. 16), Sociologists, anthropologists, and ectcators eon: ‘inue to explore new ways of composing ethnog- raphy, weiting fiction, drama, performance texts, and ethnographic poviry. Social science journals fooling Gedion contests, Civic journatisat 1s shaping calls for a civic, or public, ethnogeaphy, and cultura! criticism is now accepted practice ins, canter ‘Today there is a pressing need to show ho the practices of qualitative research can help crange the word in positive ways, So at the beginning of the 2ist century it is necessary to reengage the promise of qualitative zesearch as a form of radical democratic practice (Peshkin, 1993). In our letter inviting authors to contribute to this volume, we stated: i generation oF the handbook istedition established the ct that galtatve research had come of age asa field, ard “esc te be taken seriously. The second edition said we ceed to shew how qualitative research can ‘ve used 10 address ‘ssues of social justice, Now, in (ae thiad esltion, we want to he even more expfic: politcal We agree with Ginnie Olesen (2060,2,215)."Rage's fal enough.” We want you fo help iead the way, Howe do we move the cirtent generation oferta interpretive thought and inquiry beyond rape to progressive political action. to theory and method that conncet polities, pedagogy. and ethics toaction in the workI? We swan the third edition s+ catey qualative inquiry well sata the next cetury, We he new edition to advance a democratic ject committed te sncial justice in an age of uncer: tainty. At the same time, we want anthors who can chapters that will address practical, concrete $ssucs of ipleroertation wile critiquing the Bs and mapping key current and emergent the debates, and developments ‘Yhis is Uhe agenda of this third edition, to show how scholars can use the discourses of gi research to help create ard imagine a free demac- ratic society. ach of the cheptersin this vol defined by these commitments, in one way of nother. ‘ative We ask of a handbook that it do mary things. A handbook, ideally, should represent 3 dis: tion of the knowledge of a fields it should be a benchmark volume that synthesizes an existing literature, helping to define and shape tke present and future of that discipline. A handboo' charts the past, the present, and the feruze of the dis- courses at hand, ft represents the very bes think ing of tne very best scholars iv the world, iisseflexive, comprehensive, dialogical, accessible. is aathositative and defnitive Its subject matter is clearly defined, Its authors work within a shared framework. ts authors and editors seek to impuse onder on a field and a discipline, yet they respect and attempt te honor dive-sity actuss disciplinary and paradigmatic perspoctiv lished scholars, and to scholars wito wish to learn about the field, It ineludes information useful for hends-on research I sus scholars how they can rove Stomn ideas (0 inquiry, ‘rom inquiry to incer- pretation, fom interpretation to praxis, to action in the wi within larger disciplinary ard historical formcarions, t takes a stand on social jestice issues—it is mot just abo pure scholarship, Itis humble. Itis indispensable, Uhese understandings orgaaized tae first and second editions of :his Handbook. 1a metaphoric terms, :f you were to take one book on qualitative research with you to a desert island (or choose one book to read before a comprehensive gradu- aie examination}, that book would de a hand- book, In the spring and summer of 2002 we returned t0 this mandate, asking ourselves how bes: te: map what had happened in the field since the first and second editions were published. ld Tt locates fs pre Be THe “Fiup” oF Quavuiarive Rest, Our choice of a photograph of the Brooklyn Bridge for the cover of the seoond edition was deliberate. Like that complex structure, in that edition as well as this, the Handbook bridges the new and the alg, it joins: multiple it suretches across different landscapes. It offers a pathwey back and forth between the public and the >rivate, between science und the sacred, hesween disci ined inquiry acid artistic expression. terpretive communitic Methodological Fendamentalise 1 did not take us long to discover that the ‘ield” of qualitative research: had undergone Preface w si quantum leaps since the spring of 1991, when ‘we had planned the first edition. We ozo again ‘earned that the field ot qualxative research is defineé primarily by «series o® essential tensions, contradictions, and hesitations, These tensions- many of which emerged after 1991—work back and forth between competing defin‘tions and nef the field hheve tensions aes lodged wil id in recent years, the methodologice! conservatism embedded in the educational initiatives of George W, Susbis presi- dential administration have inscribed narrowly defined goverameatal reginces of truth. The new “gold standard” for producing knowledge that is worthwhile is based on qrantitative, eyperimenta design studies (Lincoln & Canela, 2004 This “methodological fundamentals & Cannella, 2004, p.7) returns to a muck discred- ited model of empirical inquiry. The experimertal quantitative mode! is ill suited te “examining the complex and dynamic contexis of publiceducation in its many forms, sites, and variations, especially considering the, subvle social differences or0- duced by gender, race,ethnicizy linguistic status,or ass, Indeed, multiple kinds of knowledge, pro- duced by multiple epistemologies and method ologies, are not only worth having but also demanded if policy legislation, ane practice are to Is” (Lincoln & Cannella, 2004, p. 7). Quelitative researchers twist and aura, wishir.this politicized space (Lather, 2004). Clearly. the :easions ond contradictions that characterize the field do aot exist within a uni- fied arena, Tie issues and concerns of qualita- researchers in nussing and healt care, for cxample, are decidedly different from: dhuse of researchers in etitural anthropology, where tical and evidence-based models of ingity aze of Jess importance, The questions that indigences scholars dea! with are often different frem those of ierestto critical theorists in educational research, Nor do the international disciplinary. netwerks of qualitative researchers necessarily cross ane anothe: speak to one another, read one another, Oar attempt in this volume, then, once again, is t0 solidify, interpret, and enganize « “file” of qualitative reseateh in fae fave of essential be sensitive to sacial naii pt HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH polical, paradigmatic differences and inherent contradictions umong sty'es and types of research, and over the barriers of disciplinary, national, racial, cultural, and gender differences. We pre- sent our discussion of how these tensions resolve themselves in our introductory and concluding chapters. We also address these tensions in the implicit dialogue we carry on with various con- field quite differently than we. For you, the reades, to understand why we have resolved these diiem- ras as we have, we must first locate ourselves in these tensions and contradictions Norman Denzin: is committed to a critical ped- agogyicritical race, coltural studies, perlozinance- based, posistructural position tar stresses the importance of polities anc social justice. Ywonna Lincoln is an avowed constructionist, postmod eenist,and feminist. likewise committed to social justice, who also places great value on theory anc paredigm formation. We share a belief in the limitations of positivism and its swecessor, post- positivism. Lincoln brings to the project she dis- ciplines of education, psychology, and history. whereas Denvin’s groundizg is in sociology. com- munications, anthropology, and the humanities. Our respeetive biases have shaped the construc- tian of this volume and have entered directly into our dialogues with eack other, Although we do not always agree—for example,an the questior. of whether paradigms can be crossed or integrated— our two voices are heard often in the following pages. OLvec editors, working Grunt aifferemt perspectives, would define the field and con- scruct this book in diferent ways, choose differ- cent spokespersons for the various :opics, focus on other concerns, emphasize differen: methods, or otherwise organize the contents differently. BL Orcantzation oF Tris VOLUME The organizat the general to the specific, the past to the present Part locates the field, starting with applied qual- itative research traditions in the academy, then takes up che topics of critical theorizing ond n af the Handhock: mou analysis on social (in}justice, researching natives in the “age of uncertainty” resisting neocolonial domination in the Maori context, and the polities and ethics of field research, Part I! isolates what we regard as the major historica: and contempo rary paradigms now structuring and influencing qualitative reseatch in the human discipline The chepters move from competing paradigms {positivist postpositivist, umotauctivisi, uitnal theory) to specific interpretive perspectives {cit ical ethnography, feminist discourse, critical race theory, cultura’ studies, and critica! humanism, and queer Weary). Part IM isolates the major scrategies of inquicy—hiscorically the research methods —that researchers can utilize in concrete studies. The contributors to this section embed their discus- sions of specific strategies of inquiry (performance ethnography, case study, public ethnography, inter retive practice, grounded theory, critical ethnog- raphy, festimonia, participatory action research, clinical research) in social justice topics. These chapters extensively explore the histories and uses of these strategies. Still, the question of methods begins with the design of the qualitative research project. This always begins with a socially situated researcher who moves fron a research question to a para- digm or perspective, to the empirical world. So located, the researcher then addresses the range of methods that can be employed in any stud. Ia Chapter 15, Julianne Cheek wisely observes that ‘questions surrounding ve practice an potitcs of funding qualitative research are often paramount at tais point in ary study. Globally, funding for qualitative research becomes more difficult as methodological conservatism gains mumert.i in neolizere) political cegimes, Pert 1V examines methods of collec:ing and anelyzing empirical materials. These include narrative inquiry; arts-based inquiry; interviewing; observation; the use of artifacts, documents and ds from th ethnography: interpretive perspectives; Fouceul’s methodologies; analyses of talk and text; and focus groups, Part V takes up the art and praczices of interpretation, evaluatioa, and presentation,including criteria for judging tae adequacy of quaktative materials in an age of relativism, the interpretive process, writing as 2 method of inquiry, the poetics of place, cultural pocisis, investigative poetry and the politics of witness: ing, and qualitative evaluation ané changing social policy. The three chapters in Pert VI specu Inte on the future and promise of the social sci ences and qualitative researc m en age of glodal rncerrainty, A PREPARATION OF THE. Revisep Hannsoex The idee of a new edition of the Handbook wes taken up seriously in an all-day meeting in New Orleans in April 2902, Thee the tof us met our editors at Sage, Alison Mudditt ard Margaret Seawe!l. Once again it became clear in our lengthy discussions that we needed input from individu with perspectives different frum our own, To accomplish this, we assembled an international ‘and interdisciplinary editorial board made up of highly prestigious scholars who assisted us in the selection of chapters written by equally presti- gious authors, the preparation of the table of con- tents, and the reading of (often mult gle drafts of) cach chapte: (the tames of all céitorial board menibers are listed on the page facing shis vol ames title page). We uscd our ecilorial board members as windows into theit respective disci- plines. We sought information from then on key lupies, perspectives, and controversies that necéed to-ne addressed, In our selection of editorial board members and chapter authors, we attempted 10 aosscut disciplinary, gender, race, paradigan, ard ational boundaries. Qer hope was that by seeking, board members’ views we would mi own disciplinary blinders. ‘We received extensive feedback fron the board memers, including suggestions for new chap- tere, different clants ta take an each of the chaps ters, and suggestions of authers for ditherent chapters, In addition t© asking each Hardbo0% author—internationally recogaized in his or ker Preface oo iit subject matter —to consider social just. ‘we asked each fo address such topics as history, epistemology, ontelogy, exemplary texts, key con- troversies, competing paradigms. and predictions about the future, e issues, Responding io Czities we have been gratified by the tremendous response from the Feld to the previous editions of the Handbook: it has been especially gratifying that hurdreds of professors around the world have chosen the Handbook {in one form or another) to be part of their assigned readings for students, We have also beer gratified by the titical regpunses to the worl, The Hasstbook has helped open space for a dialogue that seas tong overdue. Mary readers have found problems with cour approach to the field, and these problems indicate places where more conversations need to take place, Among the criticisms of the first and second editions have been she following: Tae Handbook’s frameworks was unwicldys the con Uributings cid not give enough uttention to the Chicago school; there was tou uch emphasis con the postmodern periost; we employed an arbi- trary Historical models the contents were too eclectic; we overerphasizeé she fifth aad sixth ‘moments and the crisis of representation; we gave too much attention te political correctness, and not enough to knowledge for its own sake; there ‘was not enough on how to do qualitative research, Some felt that 4 revolution had not occurred, and they wondered, too, haw we proposed to evaluate ‘qualitative zesezreb now that the narrative turn has been taken, We cannot spesie for the more then 120 authors who have contributed chapters to the firs, second, and third editions. Hach person has taken a starce an these issues. As editors, we have attempted “0 represent ¢ number of compesing or at cast contesting ideologies aad frames of refer ence, This Handbook is not, no: iy it intended to be. Denzin’s o= Lincoln's view from the bridge We are not saying that there is only ene way t0 dy research, or “hat one way is best, or that the so-called old ways are bad, We are just saying thisXV gL HANDMUDK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH is one way to conceptualize this field, and it is ¢ 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 witain and between these chapters, It is our hope that readers find spaces within these spaces thal work for them. I: is our desire that new dialogue take place within these spaces. This will be a gentle, probing, neiga- borly, and critical conversation, a conversation shat bridges the many diverse interpretive cou- raunities that today make up this field called cualitative research, We value passion, we invite titicism, we seek to initiate a discourse of resis- tance. Incernationally, qualitative researchers must streggtc against neoliberal regimes of tr science, and justice. 1 Derinine ThE Fir.p ‘The qualitative research community consists of groups of globally dispersed persons who are attempting to implement @ critical interoretive epproach that will help them (andl others) make sense of the terrifying conditions that define daily life in the first decade of this new century, These individuals employ constructivist theory, eritical theory, feminist theory, quee- theory, critical race theory, and cultural studies models of inter pretation, They locate themselves an the borde:s between postpositivism and poststructuralism, ‘They ase any amd all of the research stcaiegies (ease study, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, biographical, historical, participatory, and clinical) discussed in Part {1 of the Handbook, As interpretive bricofeurs (see Harper, 1987, pp. 9,74), the members of this group are adept at using all of the methods of collecting and analyzing empirical materials discussed by the authors of the chapters in Part LV, And, as writers and interpreters, these individuals wrestle with positivist, postposi evaluating their written work? These scholars constitute a loosely defined imernational interpretive communi:y. They are slowly corning to agreement on what constitures “good” and “bad?” or banal, or emancipatory, troubling both analysis and interpretation, They ae constantly challenging the distinction between the “real” and that which is constructed, under- steading that al: events and understandings are mediated ond made real throug interac tional and material practices, through discourse, conversation, writing, and narratives through scientific articles and realist, postieatist, and performance tales from the field, This group works at both the centers and the margins of those emerging interdisciplinar trarsnational formations that crisscross the bor- dors that separate communications, race and eth- riity religion, women's studies, sociology, history, anthropology, Literary criticism, patitica economics, social work, health care, and educe- tion, This work is characterized by a quiet change i. outlook, a transdisciplinary conversation, a pragmatic change in practices, polities, and habits, tt is ex this junc:ure—the vneasy, trou‘sled crossroads where neoliberalism, pragmatism, and postmodernism neet—ihat a quiet revolution is occurring, This revolution is defined by the pali- tics of representation, which asks, What is repre- sented in a text, and how should it be judged? We have left the world of naive realism, knowing now that text does not mirzor the world i creates the world, Further, there is no external world or final arbiter—lived experience, for example—against which a text can be judged Pragmatism is central to this conversation, for itis itselfa theoretical and philosophical concern, firmly rooted ia the pos:realist tradition. As such, itis a theoretical position that privileges practice and method over reflection and. deliberative action, Inceed, past modernism itself has ro pre- disposition to privilege ciscourse or text over obsezvation, Instead, postmodernism (and post- structuralism} would simply have us attend to discourse and performance as seriously as we the vehicles for sharing our observations with those who were not in the field with us. Its precisely the angst attending our recogni- tion of the hidden powers of discourses that1. Focusing her remarks an feminist issues, Olesent (2000) calls for “incisive scholarship to frame, direct, and hacness passioa in the interests of redressing grievors problems in many areas of womens healt" (p.215). These criteria range from: thoge e"dorsed hy postpositivits (variations an eidity and reability induding credibility and trustworthiness) to post structural, feminist standpoint concesns emphasizing eollabarative, evocative, performance 10 ethically responsible relations hetween researchers and nose they stud. 3. The realist text, Jameson (1999) argues, consteueted its version of the work: by “program- ‘ring. readers: by traning ther in new habits and ‘practices... such narratives mast cltimately produce chat very citeyury 0° Reality...of the seal, of the ‘objective’ or ‘external’ world, which is itself historical, may ande:go decisive modification in other modes of production, if nat in later stages of this one” (p. 166). ‘The new ellogeapnic text is producing its versions of | realty ang teaching readers Low to engage this view of the social world, SM Revkrences autknee, W.{1967;, Adleess upon) ceceiving the Nobel Prive for Literature, in M, Cowley (8.3, The portatte Fautkuer (Rex. €6. pp. 723-724). ‘New Yorks Wiking. Feuer, Maly Towne 1d Shavelson, Rj. (2002).Seieatitic ‘eultuce and educational research, Falucntionad Researches, 348). 4-18 Harper: D.(.987). Working knowledge: Skill and comm nity ina small shop. Chicago: Usivesity of icago Press Preface a six emesan, F (1990). Signaiies ofthe visible, New York: Routledge Lathes, 2 (2008), This és your father's paradigrs: Goverament intrusion and the cise of qualitative research in education, Qualitative tquiry: 18, 1-38, Lincoln, ¥.S., & Cannella... (2004). Dangerous dis courses; Methndologzeal conservatism and gov cancnental regimes of truth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10,5-14. Madison, D, . (1998), Pesformanees, personal earra tives, ard the polities of possibility. In S.J. Dailey (ld,), The fature af perjormence studies: Visions anil revisicns (pp. 276-285). Washington, DC: ational Communicatinn Assuciation Muztay K., & Swadener, 3. 1. (2008), Introduction, tr K. Mutua & BB, Swadener (Laks), Decolonizing essa jn eras-cultura contents: Critical persemal tives (pp. 1-23, Abany ‘New York Pass. Ghesen, ¥L, (2090). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium, InN. K. Denzin & YS. Lincolm (Eds.), Hawdiook of quali- tative research (2nd ed., 9p. 215-255), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peshkin, A. (1993) The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Resetrhor, 22(2), 24-30, Schwandt, TA, (2000), Three epistemlogical stances for qualitative inquiry: lotepretvisr, hermeneties, ‘nd social sonstructionism. InN. K, Denzin & YS.Lireoln Fas), Hondo of guaticatie research (2nd ed, pp. 189-213), Taousand Oaks, CA: Sage Smow, 0. (1999), Assessing the ways in which qualita tivefethnographic research contributes 13 social psychology: Introduction to special iss.2e. Soci Psychology Quarterly, 62, 97-100. ‘Trinh’ M. (1982), Framer framed, New York: Routledge. ‘ems, M. (2002). # speak fone the vowed saris my ino. New York: Petet Lang,leaves us now at the threshold of postmodernism: and that signals the advert of questiors that will Jeave none of us untouched, It is true that cor- temporary qualitative interpretive research exists within competing fields of discourse. Our present history of the field locates seven moments —and ao eighth and ninth, the future. These moments all circulate in the present, competing with and defining one another Thi disenurse ie maving in several directions at the same time. This has the cffect of simultaneously creating new spaces, new possiblities, and new formations for qualitative research methods while closing down othess ‘There are those who world manginslize and politicize the postmodern, poststractural versions of qualitative research, equating it with political correctness, with radical relativism, narratives of the self, ané azmchair commentary, Some would chastise this Handbook for not paying adequate homage to the hands-on, nuts-and-bolts approach iéwork, to texts that tell us how to study the I” world. Still others would seek a preferred, canonical, but flexible version of this project, returning to the Chicago schoo} or more recent for- mal, analytic, realist versions. Some would criticize the formation from within, contending thet the privileging of discourse over observation does not yield adeqtate criteria for evalcating interpretive work, wondering what to do when left only with voice and interpretation. Many ask for a normative framework for evaluating their own work. None cof these desires islkely 20 be satisied anytime soon, however. Conitestation, contradiction, and philo sophical tensions make tae achievement of consen suson any ofthese issues less than imminent. ‘We are not collating history here, although every chapter describes the history of a subfield Gur intention, which our contributors share, is to point to the fettre, where the “eld of qualitative research methods will be 10 years from now. Of course, many scholars in the field still work within frameworks defined by earlier hist moments. This is haw it shnuld he. There is na one way to do interpretive, qualitative inquiry, We are all interpretive ricolears stuck in the present working against the past as we move into a politically charged and challenging future. Preface ws sy TH Comperine DEFINITIONS OF Quanitarive ReskarcH MetHops ‘The open-ended nature of the qualitative researc project leads to a perpetual resistance against attempts to impose a single, umbrellalike para- diigm, over the entire project. There are multiple interpretive projects, including the decolonizing methodological project of indigenous schoiars; theories of crsical pedagogy: performance (2uto} ethnographies; standpoint epistemologtes; criti- I race theory: critical, public, pnetic, queer, materialist, feminist, and reflexive ethnographiess projects connecced to the British cultural studies ane Frankfurt schools; grounded theories of sev- eral varieties; malsiple strands of ethnomethod- ology: African American, prophetic, postmodern, and neopragmatic Marxism; a U.S.-based eritical cultural studics model; and transnational cultural studies pro‘ects The generic focus of each of chese versions of quelitative research moves in ive directions at the same time: (a) the “detour through interpretive theo:y” ane a politics ofthe focal, linked (b}10 the analysis of the politics of representation and the textual analyses of Hiterary and cultural forras, including their production, distribution, and con- sumption; (c) the ethnographic, qualitative stody and representation of these forms in eurryay life; (d} the investigation of new pedagogical and interpretive practices that interactively engage cal cultural ana'ysis in the classeoom and the local community; and (e) a utopian polities of possibility (Madison, 1998) that redresses social Injustices and imagines a radical democracy that is not yet a reality (Weems, 2002, p.3). I Wuose RevoLution? To summarize: & single, several-part thesis orge- nizes our reading of where the field of qualitative research methodology is today. Firs. this project has changed because the world that qualitative research confronts, withix and outside the acad- cemy; has changed, It has also changed because of the increasing sophistication—both theoreticalARCH xvi Bh HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RES and methodological—of intorpretivist researchers, everywhere. Disjuncture and difference, violence and terra, define the global poiltcal esonomty. his isa post- or ncocolonial world. It is necessary to think beyond the nation, or the local group, as the tocus of inquiry, Second, this is a world where ethrographic texts circulate like other commodities in an elec orld economy, 1 may be that eteagraphy is one of Cie major discourses of the neomodern world. But if this isso, itis to longer possible te take for granted what aayone means by ethno- graphy, even in traditional, realist qualitative research (see Snows 1999, p. 97.’ Global and loca egal processes have erased the personal and institutional distanee bewxeen the ethnographer and those he or she writes about. We do sat “own” the field notes we make about those we study. We do nol have an undisputed warrant to study anyone ur anything, Subjects row challenge how they have been wricten about, and mare than one ethnographer has been taker to coust. Vhird, this is a gendered project. Feminist, postcolonial, and queer theorists question the traditional logic of che heterosexual sarrative ethoogrephic text that reflezively positions the ethnographer’s gender-neutral (or masculine) se'f within a realist story. Today shere is no salidi- fied etinogrephic identity. The ethnographer works within a “hybrid” reality. Experience, Giscourse, and self-understandings collide with larger cultural assumptions concerning rac ethnicity, nationality, gender, class, and age. A cerlain identity is never possible; the ethno grapher must always ask nat “Who am 12° but “When, where, how am 12° (Irinh, 1992, p. 157}. Fourth, qualitative research is an inquiry project, but it is also 2 moral, allegorical, and therapeutic project. Ethnography is more than the record of human experience. ‘The ethno: gragher writes tiny moral tales, tales thar do more than ceiebrate cultural difference or bring a written as a prop, a pillar that, to paraphrase William Faulkner (1967, p. 724), will help men ane women endure and prevail in the opening years of the 21st century. Filth, slthougi the fieid of qualitative research is defined by constant breaks and ruptures, there is a shifting center to the project: the avowed humanistic and social justice commitment (0 stualy the social worlc from: the perspective of the inceracting individual. Front this principle low the fiberal and radical politics of action that are held by femisist, clinical, ethnic, critical, queer, critical race thenry, and cultural sindies researchers Although multiple interpretive communities now cisculate within the field of qualitative research, they are all united or this singie point, Sinth, cualitative research’s seventh and eighth moments will be defined by the work that ethmog- raphers do as they implement the above assum?- tions. These situations set the stage for qualitative rescarchis transformations in the 21st century Finally, we anticipate @ continued performance turn in qualitative inquiry, with writees perform:- ing their texts for others. p HANDBOOK TALES oF Tui Many of the difficelties we heve encourtered in developing this volume are common to any pau ject of substantial magnitude, Others arase from the essential tensions and contradictions that operate in this field at this histarical moment. AS was the case when we were working on the first and second editions, the “Tight” chapter authors ‘vere sometimes unavailable, too busy, ot over- committed, Consequently, we sought out others, who tured out iy be more itmagined possible. Few overlapping networks cut across the many disciplines we wore attempting tu cover, We were fortunate, in more than one instance, to have an editorial board member point us in a direction we bad not previously been giv” than we had aware existod. We are grateful to Michelle Fine for connecting us with the community of indigenous scholars in New Zealand, in particular Linda Bishop. ‘Tehiwai Smith and Russ ester this time around, there were still spaces we blundered into with little knowledge about whom, we should asi to do what. We confronted cisc'pli- nary and gencrational blinders—ineluding oarown—and discovered there are separate traditions surrounding each of our topics within cistinct nterpretive communities. It was often diffcult to know how to bridge these differences, and our “bridges” were olten makeshift constructions. We also nad to cope with vastly cilferent styles of thinking about a variety of topics based on disei- plinary, epistemological, gender, racial, ethnic, {and national holiefe hewmdarire. and ideologies. In many instances we unwittingly entered into political battles over who should write a given chapter, or over how a chapter should be written or evaluated. These disputes clearly pointed to the political nature of this project and to the fact that i not ceal, site for mul- cagh chapter isa poteutil tiple interpretations. Many times the politics of meaning came into play as we attempted to nego~ tiate ard navigate our way throcgh areas freught ‘with emotion. On more than one occasion we dis- agreed with both an author and an editorial Suard member. We often found ourselves adjudicating between competing editorial reviews, working the hy hens hetween meaning making and diplo- macy, Regretiaby, in some cases we hurt feelings «aud perhaps even damaged long. standing friend- ships. In such moments we sought forgiveness. ith the clarity of hindsight, we can see chat there are many things we would do differently today, and we apologize for the damage we have cone. We,as well as our authors ard advisers, strug gled with the meanings we wantec to bring to such terms as theory, paradignt, epistemology, interpretive framework, empirical materiale versus data, and research strategies, We discovered that the ve things to many diferent people, We abandoned the goal of being comprehen- sive, even with 2,000 manuscript pages. We fought with authors over deadlines and over the nuraber of pages we would give them, We also fought with authors ever how to conceptualize their chapter are found thet winat wes ch not necessarily clear to anyone else, We fought ith authors too aver when their chapters were done tantly secking their forbearance as we requested yet another revision. term qualitative search moans different Preface BL xn Reanine te Hawpzoox Were we to write our own critique of this book, we would point ce the shortcomings we seein it, wich Jn many senses are the same as those we saw in the 1994 and 2000 edisions. These incluce an overre- liance on the perspectives of var respective disc plines (sociology, communications, end education) Ai.as.a failure to involve more scholars fram international indigenous communities. This yol- ume does not provide a detailed treatment of the intersection of critical and indigenous inquiry. nor does it include a comerehensive chapter on human subject research and institationa, review boards. ‘We worked har 0 avoid these probieins, yer they remais. On sae other hand, in this address same of he problems that were present in the second edition. We have made @ greater effort to cover more areas of applied qualitative ‘wok, We have helped to initiate dialogues berween the aucors of various chapters. We have created spaces for more voices from other disciplines, espe- cily anzhzopology ahd communications, but we still have a shortfall of voives representing people cf eolor and of the Third Word, You, the reader, will certainly have your own responses to this book. responses that may higaligh otker issues that we have nut yet seen This is all in sae nature of the Handbook, and in the nature of doing qualitative research, This book is a social construction, a socially enacted, cocre- ated entity, and although it exists in a material focm, will no donbt be re-created in subsequent iterations as yoneratiuns uf scholars and graduate students use it, adapt it, and launch from it addi tional methocolngical, paradigmatic, theoret and practical work. tis not 3 final stateme: a starting point, a springboard for new thought and new work, work that is fresh and sensitive, thet blurs the bouncaries of ou disciplines out always sharpens our uncerstandings of the larger buman project. iis ous hope thind edi strengths and all its flaws, will contribute to the growing maturity end global induence of qu tive research in the human disciplines. And, 2s we ‘were originally mandated, we hope this convinces edition we do tiswi ml HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH you, she reader, that qualitative research now constitutes & field of study in its own right, allowing you to better anchor and locate your own work in the qualitative research tradition and its censral place in a radical democratic project 1 this happens, we will have succeeded in build- ing a bridge that serves us all wel BI AckNOWLEDGMENTS This Handbook would rot exist without its authors and the editorial board members who yave freely, often on very short notice, of their time, advice, and ever-courteous suggestions. We acknowledge fen masse the support af the sathors and the edito- rial board members, whose names are listed fac ing the title page. These individuals were able to offer both long-term, sustained commitments to the project ané short-term emergency assistance. There ave otter debts, intensely personal and loser to home, The Handbook woukd never have been possible without the ever-present help, sup- port, wisdom, and encouragement of our editors ard publishers at Sage: Alison Mudditt, Margaret Seasseli, and Lise Cuevas Shaw, Their grasp of this field, its history, and diversity is extraordinary. Their conceptions of what this project shou‘d look like have been extremely valuable, Theit energy keot us moving forward, Furthermore, whenever ‘we confronted a problem, Lisa was there with her assistance and good-natured humor Judy Selkorst, Astrid Virding, and Clandia Roffman moved the project through production with their usual grace and humor, Aisha Durham, Grant Kien, James Salvo, anc Li Xiung provided outs:anding proof reading skills, Ravi Balasariya designed the cover. We woulé also like to thank the ‘allowing individeals and institutions for their assistance, support, insights, ané patience: our respective universities and Gepartments, especially, at Ywonne’s university, Dean Jane Conoley, Associate Dean Emest Goetz. and Department Head Bryan R. Cole, each of whom facilitated this work in some iraportant way. In Urbana, David Monje was the sine qua non, His good humor and grace kept our ever-growing Biles in order and everyone on. the seme timetable. Without David, who inberised the mantle from Jack Bratich, this project would never have been completed. Norman also gratefully acknowledges the moral, intellectual, and financial support given to this project by Nean Ron Yates of the College of Communication and by Paula Treichler and Beuce Willams, past and present directors, respectively, of the Institute of Communication, Healso thanks Nina Richards and Torn Galer-Uinti, wo kept tne financial accounts straight. Claudia Hoffman at Sage helped move this projec: through produe- tions we ave extremely grateful to her, as. well as to D. J. Peck, A. |. Soiaczak, Judy Selhorst, and Kathleen Paparchontis for 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 10 our complaints, and generally displayed extraorcinary patience, forbearance, anc suppert. Finally, there are two groups of individuals who gave unstintingly of their time and energy to provide us with theie expertise and thoughtful reviews when we needed additional guidance. The first group is ou: Internesioral Advisory Board — the names of all board members are listed oppo site this volame’s sitle page. The second group consists of invited guest readers, whose names ate ‘isted below, Without the help of all these individ uals we would often have found curselves with less than complete understandings of the various traditions, perspectives,and methods represented in this volume, We would like to acknowledge the impoctant contributions of tke folloseing special readers to this project: Bryant Alevander, Tor Barone, Jack Z, Bratich, Susan: Chase, Shing-Ling Sarina Chen, Nadine Dolby, Susan Finley, Andrea Fontana, Jaber Guisrium, Stephen Hartnett, Siacy Holman Jones, Steve Jones, Ruthellen Josseison, Luis Miron, Ronald J. Pelias, Joha Prosses, johny Saldafia, Paula Saukko, Thomes Schwandt, Patrick Slactery, and Linda Tuliwai Smith, University of Iinors ae Urbana Champaign —Yvonna $. Lincoln Texas A&M UniversityINTRODUCTION The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln riting abou: scientific cesearch, including qualitative research, trom. the vantage point of the colonized, 4 position that sine chooses to privilege, Linda Twhiwai Smith (1999) states that “the term ‘research! is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism” She continues, “The word itself is probably one of she dirtiest ‘words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary... It is implicated in the worst excesses of coloniel- ism? with the ways ia which “knowledge about indigenous peoples was collected, classified, and then represented back 10 the West” (p. £}. This dirty word stirs up acger, silence, distrust, “It is so powesfu) that indigenous people even write poetry about researci”(p. 1). It is one of colonial- ism’ :nost sordid legacies, Sadly, qualitative research, in many if not all ofits forms (observation, participation, inter- viewing, ethnography), serves as a metaphor for colonial s use semiotics, narrative, content, discourse, archival and phonemic analy sis, even statistics, tables, graphs, and murabers, They also draw on and utilize the approaches, metiods, and technigces of ethnomethodology, phenomenology, hermeneacics, fercinism, rhi- deconstructioxism, ethnography, inter- viewing, psychoanalysis, cultural studies, survey research, and participant observation, among others." All of these research practices “ean pro- vide ‘rapertant insights and knowledge” (Nelson et al, 1992, p. 2). No specific mezave or practice can be privileged over any other. Many of these methods, or research practices, are used in other contexts ir: the human disciplines, ach bears the traces a its own disciplinary bistory. Tus there is an extensive history of the uses und meanings of ethnography and ethralogy in educa Tion (see in this volume Ladson-Bilings & Donnor, Chapter 11; Kindheloe & McLaren, Chapter 12); ‘of porticipant observation and ethaography in zomat anthropology (see Foley & Valenzuela, Chapter 95 Tedlocs, Chapter 18; Brady, Chapter 39), sociology (ove Holstein & Gubrium, Chapzer 18; Fantana & Frey, Chapter 27; Hazper, Chapter 29), communica tions (see Alexander, Chapter 16; Holmnan Jones, Chapter 30), and cultura: studies (sce Saukko, Chapter 13); of textual, hermeneutic, feminist, psy- alveralytic, arts-based, semiotic, and narrative analysis in cinema and literary studies (see Olesea. Chapter 16; Vialey, Chapter 26; Brady, Chupter 39): and of narrative, discourse, and conversational analysis in sociology, snedicine, communications, and educatioa (see Miller & Crabtree, Chapter 24; Chase, Chapter 25; Porakyla, Chapter 34). ‘The many histor‘es that surround each metho: or research strategy reveal how multiple uses ané meanings 2re brought to each practice, lextual Desir, 8 “incoln; Introduction m4 analyses in literary studies, for example, ofter treat texts as self-contained systems. On the other hhand,a researcher working from a cultural stucies ‘or feminist perspective reads a text in terms ofits jocacioa within a hiscorical cwomen: masked by 2 particular gender, rece, or class ideology. cultural studies use of ethnography would bring a set 0° unnéerstandings from feminism, postmadernism, and poststructuralist to the project. These under- standings would not be shared by mainstream postpositivis! saciologists. Similarly, postpositivis and poststrucrural historians bring different understandings ane uses to the methods aud Tisd- ings of historical research (see Tierney, 2000) These tensions and contradictions are all evident in the chapters in this volume. ‘These separate and raultiple uses and meas ings of the methods of qualitative research make it difficult for scholars to agree on any essential deGnition of the field, tor it is never just une thing." Sill. we must escablish a definition for purposes 0° this discussion, We borrow fom, and porap.rase, Nelson et as (1992, p. 4) attempt to define cultural studies Qualitative cescarch is an interdisciplinary, trans isciplinary, and sometimes. countercisciptinary field. W crosscuts the humanities and the social and physical sciences. Qualitative research is many things atthe same (ime. I is multiparadigmatic 2 fecus. (ss practitioners are sensitive to the value of the maltimethod approach, They are committed :0 the naturalistic perspective and to the interpretive understanding of human experience. At the same the field is inherently political and! shaped by multiple ethics] ard political postions Qualitative research emipraces two tersions 3 the same time. On the one and, itis drawn to ¢ broad, intespretive, postewperimenta, pestenoders ad critical sensoility, On the other hand, it is drawn to more aanosly defined positivs, postpostrvist, hamartstic, and naturalistic concep: tions of human experience and its analysis. Farther, these tensions can be combined inthe same projec bringing both postmodern and naturalistic, or bath «critical and humanistic. persoectives to bear: feminist, ‘This rather awkward statement means that ive weseerchyasasel uf practices, embraces8 m HANDBOOK 0! QUA:{TATIVE RESEARCH—CHAPTER 1 within its awn multiple disciplinary histories constant tensions and contracictions over the project itself including its reethods and the forms its findings and interpretations take, The Bld sprawls between and cuts across all of the human disciplines, even including, in some cases. the physical sciences. Its practitioners are various, committed to modern, postmodern, and postex- Pertmental sensibilities and the approaches to social research that these sensibilities imply. Resistances to Qualitative Studies The academic and disciplinary resistances to 4quelitative research illustrate the polities embed- ded in this field of discourse, The challenges to qualitative research are many. As Seale, Gobo, Gubrium, and Silverman (2004) observe, we can best understand these criticisms by “distin guish|ing! analytically the political (or external) tole of [qualitative] methodology from the proce ducal (or internal) one” {p. 7). Politics situate methodology within and outsice the academy. Procedural issues define how qualitative method- ology is used to produce knowledge about the world Often, the political and the procedural inter sect, Politicians and “hard” scientists sometimes call qualitative researchers journalists ar soft sci centists, The work of qualitative scholars is termed unscientific or only exploratory, or subjective. Lis called criticism rather then theory or science, or it is interpreted polizical'y, as a disguised Marxism or secular humanisn: (see Hub see also Denzin, 1997, pp, 258-261). These political and procedural resistances teflect an uneasy awareness that the interpretive traditions of qualitative sesearch commit the researcher to a critique of the positivis: or post positivist project, But the positivist resistance to qualitative research goes beyond the “ever-present desite to maintain a distinction between hard science and soft scholarship” (Carey, 1989, p. 9 see also Smith & Hodkinson. Chapter 36, th’s volume). The experimental (positivist) sciences (physics, chemistry, economics, and psychology, nple} are often seen as the crowning for exa achievements of Wester civilization, and in their practices itis assumed thar"truth” can transcend opinion and personal bias (Carey, 1982, p, 99: Schwandt, 19970, p, 309). Qual‘tative research is seea as an assault on this tradition, whose adher cents often retreat into a “value-ftee objectivist Scieace” (Carey, 1989, p, 104) model to defend their position. They seldom attemot to make explicit, or to crisique, the “moral ane political commitmeats in their own contingent work” (Carey, 1989, p. 104; see also Guba & Lincein, Chapter 8, this volume). Positivists further allege that the so-called new experimental qualitative researchers write fictioa, not science, and that these researchers have no way of verifying their truth stacements Ethnographic poetry and fiction signal the death cof empirical science, and there is litle to be goined dy atcempting to engage in moral criti cism. These critics presuune a stable, unchanging 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 culture. Under this model there is no preoc cupation with discourse and method as material interpretive practices that constitute zepresenta- sion and description. Thus is the textual, narrative ‘urn rejected by the positivists. ‘The oppasitior to positive science by the post- structuraliss is seen, then, a8 an attack on reason and truth. At the same time, the positivist scicace attack on qualitative researca is regarded as an attempt to legislate one version of truth over another. Politics and Reemergent Scientism ‘The scientifically based research (SBR) move- ment initiated in recent years by the National Research Council (NRC} has created a hostile political environment for qualitative reseatcn Cunnected to the federal legislation kaown as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, SBR embodies a reemergent scientism (Maxwell, 2004), a posi tivist,cvidence-based epistemology. The moveencourages researchers to employ “rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain telisle aad valid knowledge “ (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p. BO). The preSecred methodology employs well-defined causal models and independent and dependent variables. Researchers examine causal models in the comext of randornized controlled experiments, swhich allow far replication and gener= alization of thee results (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p. 8}, Under such a famework, qualitative research becomes suspect. Qualitative research does not require well-defined variables or causal models, ‘The observations and measurements of qualita tive scholars are not based on sabjects’ random assignment to experimental groups. Qualitative researchers do not generate “hard evidence” using such methods. At best, through case study, inter- view, and ethcographic methoés, researchers can gather descriptive materials that can be tested with experimental methods, The epistemologies of critical race, queer, postcolonial, feminist, and postmodern theories are zendered useless by the SBR perspective, relegated at best to the category of scholarship, not science (Ryan & Hood, 2004, p.81; St. Piecre, 2004, p. 132}, Critics of the SBR movement are united on she following points.“Bush science” (Later, 2004, p. 19} ead its experimental, evidence-based methodologies represent a tacialized, masculinist backlash to the proliferation of qualitative inquiry ‘methods over the past two decades. The movemrent endorses a narrow view of science (Maxwell, 2004) that celebrates a “neoclassical experimentalism that is a throwback to the Campbell-Stanley era ang its dogmatic adherence to aa exclusive reliance ‘on quantitative methods” (Howe, 2004, p. 42). The movement represents “nostalgia for 6 simple and ordered universe of science thet never was” (Popkevwitz, 2004, p.62}, With its emphasis on only ‘one form of scientific rigor, the NRC igcares the value of using complex historical, contextual, and political criteria to evaluate inquiry (Bloch, 2004), As Howe (2004) observes, neoclassical experi- mentalists extol evidence-based “raedical research as the model for educational research, particularly the random clinical trial” (p. 48). But dispensing a pill in a random clinical trial is quite unlike Denain & Lincoln: Introduction wx 5 “dispensing a curriculum? and the “effects” of an educational experiment cannot be easily mea- sured, unlike a “10-point reduction in ciastolic blood pressure” (p.48; see also Miller & Crabtree, Chapter 24, this voluire). Qualitative researchers must learn to chink outside tite box as they critique the NRC and its methodological guidelines (Atkinson, 2004). They sust apply their imaginations ard find new ways to define such terms as randomized design, causal motel, policy studies, and public science (Cannella & Lincoln, 2006s, 2914; Lincoln & Cannella, 2004a, 20043; Lincoln & Tierney, 2004; Weinstein, 2004). More deeply, qualitative researchers must resist conservative attempts to discredit qualita- ‘uve inquiry by placing it back inside the box of positivism, “Mixed-Methods Experimentatison As Howe (2004) notes, the SBR movement finds a place for qualitative methods in mixed-methoés experimental designs. In. such designs, qualitative rnethods may be “employed either singly or i combination with quantitative methods, including the use of randomized experimental designs” (p49), Mixed-methods designs are dizect descen- ants of classical experimentalism. They presume a methodological bierarcty in which quantitative methods are at the top and qualitative mechods are relegated to “a largely auxiliary role in pursuit of the technocrati aim of accumalating knowledge of ‘whar works” (pp. 33-88) The mixed-methods movement takes qualita- tive methods ont of their natucal home, which is within the critical, irxerpretive framework (Howe, 2004, p. 54; but see Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, p. 15), It divides inquiry into cicholomous cate- gories: exploration versus confirmation. Quali tative work is assigned to the first category, quantitative research to she second (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, p. 15). Like the classic experi- mental model, it excludes stakeholders from dialogue and active participation. in the research process. This weakens its democratic and dialog- ical disnensions and decreases the likelihood that ill be heard (Howe. previonsly silenced voices10 mw HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 2004, pp. S657), As Howe (2004) cautions, it is not just che “methodological fundamentalists) who have bought into [this| approach. A sizabie umber of rather influential ... educational researchers... have also signed on, This might be a compromise to the current political climate; i might be a hacklash against the perceived excesses of postmadernism: it might be bach, ft is an ominous development, whatever the expla nation” (p.57). Praguistic Criticisms of Antifoundationalism Seale etal. (2004) contest wha they regard as the excesses of an animechodological, “anything goes,’ romantic postriodernista that is associated with our project, ‘They assert that too often the approach we vale produces “low quality qua‘ita hh and research resus that are quite tive roses stereotypical and close to commir. sens” (p. 2} In comest, they propose a practice-based. prag- snatic approach that places reseerch practice at the ceater. They note that research involves an engagement “with a variety of things end peop! resczrch materials . theories, philasoph ical debates, values, sethods, tests. . esearch participants” (p. 2), (Actually, this epproach is quite close to our own, especially our view of the bricofeur and bricolage.) Seale e: al’s situated methodology rejects the antifoundational claim that there are only partial truths, shat the dividing line between fact anc. sction has broken down (p. 2). These scholars believe that this dividing Tine has not collapsed, ane that qualitative researchers should not accept stories if they do nor accore witk the best available facts (p.6). Gedly, these pragmarie procedural arguments. reproduce a variant of the evidence-based model and its criticisms of poststeustaral, perform sensibilities. They can be used to provide pol support for the methodological marginal of the posisions advanced by many af the contrib- ‘tors 10 this volume. socia ation ‘The complex. political terrain described above defines the many tracitioas and strands APTER 1 of qualitative sesearch: the British tradition and iss presence in other national contests: the American pragmatic, naturalistic, and inter~ pretive traditions in sociology, anthropology, communications, and educasion; the German and French phenomenological, hermeneutic, sem: otic, Marxist, structural, and poststructural per: spectives; feminist studies, African American dies, Latin studies, queer studies, studies of indigenous and aboriginal c.ltures, The polities of qualitative research creates a tension that informs cach of these tradition: itself is constantly being reexanvined and interro- gated as qualitative research confionts a changing historical world, aew intellectual positions, and its own institutional and acades ‘To summarize: Qual‘tative researc’ is many things to mary people. Its essence is twofold: 2 commitment to some version of the naturalistic, interpretive approach to its sudject matter and an ongoing critique of the politics and methods of postpositivism, We turn now toa brief diserssion of tite major differences beween qualiterive and ‘ouantitative approaches to research. We then Ciscuss ongoing differences and tensions within qualitative inquiry. This tension TE Quauirarive Versus QuavriTarive Reseanci qualities of entities and or processes and mean. ings that are not expetimentaliy examined oF measuced (if meesured af all} in terms of quan tity, amouns, intersiy, or frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher an whet is studied. and the situational ‘constraints that shape inquiry: Such researchers emphasize the value-laden nature o seek answers to guestions that steess how socizt ing, tn con: experience is creared and giver: mean tuasl, quantitative atudics raent and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes. Propoaents of such stud- sheir wock is done from within a value-tree fremework. ies claim thaResearch Styles: Doing the Same Things Differently? OF couse, both qualitative and quantitative researchers “think they know something ebout society worth telling to others, and they use a variety of forms, media ené means to comnnuni- cate their ideas and findings” (Becker, 1986, 122), Qualitative research ciffers from quantt- tative research it: five significant ways (Becker, 1936), These points of difference, discusseé in taen below, all involve Ciffereat ways of address ing the same set of issues. They return always to the polities of research and to who has the power to legislate cosrect solutions to social problems, Uses of positivism: and postpostivism, First, both perspectives ate shaped by the positivist and postpositivist traditions in the physical and secial sciences (see the discussion below, These two pos itivist science traditions hold to naive and critical realist positions concerning reality and its percep yn, In the positivist version it is contended that there is a reality out theze zo be studied, captured, ‘and understood, whereas the postposiivists argue that reality can never be fully apprehended, only approximated (Guba, 1990, p. 22), Postpasitivism relies on multiple methods as a way of capturing as much of realty as possible At the same time, ive theories. ‘Traditional evaluation criteria, such as iernal ard external valiit ualitative procedutes that lend themselves to structured {sometimes statistical) analysis. Compates-assisted methods of analysis that permit frequency counts, tabulations, and low-level statis tical analyses may also be employed. Tae positivist and postpositivist traditions linger like long shadows over the cualitative research project. Historically, qualitative research was desined within the positivist paradigm, waere qualitasive researciters. attempted ta do good positivist research with less rigorous methods and procedures, Some mid-20th-century qualita- tive researchers reported participant observation findings in terms 0: quasi-statistics (e.g, Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961). As recently as 1998, Siteuss and Corbin, two leading proponents phasives the visovery atid verification of Denzis: & Lincoln: Intcoduction wg 1 ‘of the grounded theory approach to qualitative research, attenrgted to modify the uscal carons of good {positivist} science to fit their own postpos- itivis: conception of rigorous research (but see ‘Chareaaz, Chapter 20, this volume; see also Glaser, 1992). Some applied researchers, while claiming tobe atheoretical, often it withis the positivist or postpasitivist framework by default. Flick (2002) usefully summerizes the dif- ferences between these two approaches to incuiry, noting that the quantitative approach fas been used for purposes of isolating “causes ad effects, operationalizing theoretical rela- tions. (and) measuring ard... qcam-ifying phenomena ,.. allowing the generalization of findings” (p. 3). But today doubt is cast on such projects: “Rapid social change and the resulting diversification of life worlds aze increasingly con fronting social researchers with new social con texts and perspectives. traditional dedvetive methodologies ... are failing... ths research is increasingly forced to make use of inductive strategies Instead of starting from theories and testing them... knowledge and practice are studied as local xnonsledge and practice" (p.2). Spindler and Spindler (1992) surnmarize their qualitative approach to quantitative materials: “Instrumentation and quantifcation are simply procedures employed to extend and reinforce ce lain Kinds of data, interpretations and test hypo- theses across samples, Both must be kept in their piace. One must avoid :heir premature or overly extensive use as a security mechanisn” (p69), Although many qualitative researchers in the rpustpositivist tradition use statistical measures, methods, and dacuments as a way of locating @ group of subjects within a larger population, they sekdom report their findings ia terms of the kinds of complex statistical measures or methods to which quantitative researchers are drawn (eg, path, regression, and log-linear analyses). Acceptance of posimoders sensibilities. The use of quantitative, positivist methods and assump- tions has been rejected by a new generation of ‘qualitative researchers who are attached to post srructural and/or postmodern sensibilities. These rescarchers arguc that positivist methods are but12. HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCE CHAPTER 1 sine way of telling stories about sociezies or social worlds. These methods may be no better or no ‘worse than any otfier methods; they just tell different kinds 0? stores ‘This tolerant view is not shaved by all qualita tive researchers (Huber, 1995), Many members of he critical Caeory, constructivist, poststructural, and postmacern schoels of thought reject posi- vist ane postpositivist criteria when evaluating their own work. They see these eritera as irele- vant tw their work and contené that such critesia reproduce only ce-tain kind of that silences too many voices. These researchers seek alternative methods for evaluating their work, including verisirilitude, emotionality, per- sonal responsibility, an ethic of caring, political praxis, multivniced texts, and diologues with subjects. In response, positivists and postpost sivists argue that what they do is good science, ‘ree of individual bias and subjectivity. As noted above, they see postmodernisin and poststcuc- turalism as attacks on reason and trat, Capturing the individual’ point of view Both qualitative end quantitative researchers concerned wita :ke individual's point of viow. However, qlitative investigators think they can get doser to the actor's perspective through detailed interviewing and observation. They argue that quantitative researchers are seldom able to capture their subjects’ perspectives because shey have to rely on more remote, infer- ential empirical methods and meterials, Many quantitative researchers regard the empirical materials produced by interpretive methods as tenreliable, impressionistic, anc not objective. are Examining the constraints of everyday life Qealitative researchers are more likely 10 confront and come up against the constraints of the everyday social world, They see this worl action and embed tneir findings in it. Quantita- tive researches abstract érom this world and seldom study it directly, They seek a nomothetic or ctic science based on probabiisties derived from the study of large nom’ domly selected cases. These kinds of statements stand abave and outside the constraints of everyday life. Qualitative researchers, on the other band, ae commitied 9 an emic, idiographic, case based position that directs attention to the specitics of particular cases. Securing rics descriptions, Qualitative researchers believe that rick descriptions o* the social world are valuable, whereas quantitative researchers, with their etic, aomothetic commitments, are less concerned with such detail, Quantitative deliberately unconcerned with rich descriptions because euch detail interrupts the process of developing generalizations. researchers. The five points of difference described abave reect qualitative and quantitative scholars’ com nitiments <0 different styles of researc’, different epistermologies, and different forms of representa- tior, Each work tradition i governed by a diferent set of genes; cach has its own lasses, its owa preferred forms of representation, interpresa- tion, trustworthiness, and textual evaluation (see Becker, 1986, pp. 134-135). Qualitative researchers use elhnnographic prose, historical narratives, first penn accusnts, still photogeaphs, He histories, ficcionalizedfacis? and biographical and autobio: graphical materials, among others. Quantitative rescarchers use mathematical models, statistical tables, and graphs, ad they usual’y write zbout their research in impersonal, zhind-person prose, @TrNsions Witkin “ATIVE RESEARCH It is erroneous to presume that all qualitative researchers share the same assumptions about the five points of difference described above. As the following cisckssion reveals, positivist, past positivist, and poststructural differences define and shape the discourses of qualitative researe’, Realists and postpesitivists within the inter- pretive, quabtacwe research (radtcion criticwe poststructuralists for taking the textual, a turn. These critics comtend that such work is navel gazing, t produces the cnaditioas “foe a dialogueof the deaf betweea itself and the community” Silverman, 1997, p. 240). Critics accuse those who, attempt to captcre the point of view of the inter- acting subject in the world of aaive humanism, of reproducing “s Romantic impulse which elevates the experiential to the level of the authentic” ‘verman, 1997, p. 248), Still ethers assert that those who take the textual, performance turn nore lived experi ence. Saw and Morrill (1995) argue thet “this performance turn, like the preocexpation with discourse ané storytelling, will take us further {ror the field of social action ard the real dramas of everyday life and thus signal (ae death knell of ethnograpity a8 an empirically groundeé enter prise” (p. 301). Of course, we disagree, Critical Realism For some, there is 3 third stream, between nave positivism: and poststructuralism. Critical realism: is an antipositivist movement in she social sciences Closely associated vith the works of Rey Bhaskar and Rom Harré (Denermars Ekstidim, Jakobsen, & Karlsson, 2002). Critical realists use the word crit: ea! i a particular way, ‘his is not “Frankfurt schoo!” critice! theory, although there are traces of social criticism here and there (See Danermark et al, 2002p. 201} Instead, cvtiat in this context refers co a sranscendental realism that reject ‘methodological individualism and universal aims to truth, Critical realists oppose Ingical positivist, relativiet, and antifoundationa! epistemalog'es Critical realists agree with the positivists that there is a world of events out these that is observable and pendent uf human consciousness. They holé that knowledge about this yerd structed. Society is made up of feeirg, thinking uman deings, and their interpretations of che ‘worid must be studied (Danesmark et al, 2002, 1p. 200), Critical realists reject a correspondence theory of teath, They believe that ceeity is arranged in levels and that scientific work must go beyond slaterments of regiarity to anaiysis of the zaeciua~ nisms, processes, and structures that account for the patterns that are observed. Still as postermpiricist, antifeundational. criti- cal theorists, we reject much of whet the critical socially con Denzin & Lincoln: Intreduetion aa 13 realists advocate. Throughout the past century social science and philosophy have beea continu ally tangied up with one anotber. Various “isms and philosophical movemenss have crisserossed sociological and educational discourses, from pes itivism :o postpasitivism, to analytic and linguistic philosophy, to hermeneuies, ssracturalism, post- seructuralism, Marxism, feminism, and current post-post version ki said that the logical positivists steered the social sciences om a rigorous course a! self-destruction We do aot think that critical realisra will keep the social science ship afloat. The social sciences are normative disciplines, always slecady embed ed in issues of value, ideology, power, desire, sx- siti, raisin, domination, repression, ang control. ‘We want social science that is contmitted up front to issues of social justice, equity, nonvialence, peace, and universal human rights, We do not want 2 cial science that says it can address these issues if it wants to. For us, that is no longer ax option. With these differences within and between interpretive traditions in hand, we mast raw briefly discuss the history of qualitasive research We break this history into eight historical moments, mindful that any history is always somewhat arbitrary and always at least partially a social construction, Tae History oF Quatianive Resi an The history of qualitative research reveals that the modern socia: science disciplines have taken as their mission “the analysis and understanding o£ the gutierned conduct ard social processes of society” (Viaich & Lyman, 2000,p.37), The notion that social scientists conlé carry out this task presupposed that they had the ability to observe this wor'd objectively. Qualitative inethods were a inajor too! of such observations,” Throughout the history of qualitative research, qualitative in in terms of hopes and values, “-efigious faiths, ‘occtpational and professional ideologies” (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, p, 39). Qualitative research (1i all reseerch) has always been judged on the14m HANDROOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH—CHAPTER I “standard of waether the work coramunicates ot something (© us® (Vidich & Lyman, 2000, 1.39), based on how we conceptualize our relity and our images of the world. Epistemology is the word that has historically defined these standards of evaluation, [n the contemporary period, a5 we have argueé above, many received discourses on epistemology are now being reevaluated. Vidich and 1yman’s (2000) work om the aistory of qualitative research, covers the fallov- ing (somewhat) overlapping stages: exrly ethaog raphy (to the 12th century), colonial ethnography (17th, i8th-, and :9th-century explorers), the ‘ethnography of the American kadian as “Ozher™ (late-19th- and carly-20th century anthropal- ogy), community studies and ethnogeaphies of America immigrants (early 20th century through the 1960s), studies of ethnicity and assimilation {nidcentury through the 1980s), and the present, which we call the eighth moment, {a each of these eras, researchers were and hhave been influenced by their political hopes and ideologies, discovering ndings in their research that confirmed their prior theories or beliefs, Early ethnograpkers confirmed the racial and cultural diversity of peoples throughout the glode and attempted to fit this diversity ina a theory about the origins of history, the races, and civilizations. Colonial ethnographers, before tae prolessionalizatioa of ethnography in the 20th century, fostered a colonial pluralism that left natives on their own as long as their leas could be co-opted by the colonial administration, European ethnographers studied Atricans, Asians, and other Thicd Word peoples af color, Early American ethrographers studied the American Indian from the perspective of the con- querer, who saw the lifeworld of the primitive as a window to the prekistoric past. The Calvinist mission to save the Indian was sooa transferred: to the mission of saving the “hordes” of immigrants who entesed tae United States with the begin. nings of industralization. Qualiative commutity stocline of the othnic Other praliferaed fran the carly 1900s to the 1960s and included the work of E, Franklin Frazier, Robert Pars, and Robert Redfield and their students, as well as William Foote Whyte, the Lynds, August Hollingshead, Herbert Gans, Star-ford Lyman, Arthur Vidich, and Joseph Bensman. The post-1960 ethnicity studies challerged the “melting pot” hypotheses of Park and his followers and corresponded to the emer. gence of ethnic studies programs that saw Native ns, Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans attempting to take control over the study of their own peoples. ‘The postmodern and poststructural challenge emerged in the mid-1980s. It questioned the assumptions that had organized this earlier history in each of its colonizing moments. Qual tative research that crosses the “postmode divide” requires the scholar, Vidich and Lyman {2006) argue, to“abandon all established and pre- conce:ved values, theories, perspectives .,.and prejudices as resources for ethnographic study” (p. 60). In this new era the qualitative researcher Goes more than observe history: he or she plays a part init, New tales from the field will now be writ- ten, end they will reflect the researchers’ direct and personal engagement with this historical period. Vidich and Lyman’ analysis covers she full sweep of ethnographic history. Ours is confined tn the 20th and 21st centuries and complements ary of their divisions. We begin with the early foundational work of the British and French a8 well as the Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Berkeley, and British scoolsof sociology and anthropology. This early foundation! period establishee the norms of classical cualitative and ethnographic research (see Gupta & Ferguson, 1997; Rosalde, 1989 Stocking, 1989). Tue Eicht Moments OF QUALITATIVE RESFARCH As we have noted above, we divide ou: history of dquaitative research in North America in the 20th century and heyone! inco eight phases, which we descr’be in turn belovs. the Lraditional Period We call the first moment the traditional period {this covers the secord and third phases discussed by Vidich s Lyman, 2000). It begins in the early19095 and continues until World War Tl. In this period, qualitative researchers wrote “objective?” colonizing acoounts of ‘eld experiences that were reflective ofthe positivist scientist paradigm. They were concerned with offering valid, reliable, and objective interpretations in their writings. ‘the “Othe:" whom they studied was alien, foreign, and strange. Here is Malinowssi (1967) discussing his field ‘experiences in New Guinea and the Trobriend Islands in the years 1914-15 and 1917-18, He is bartering his way into field data: Nothing whatever deaws me to stadies. ...0n che whole the village s: rother unfavorably, Tete is verte’ disorganizee Lon... the rowdiness und persistence ofthe people who laugh ed stare and ie discouraged me seme- wht... Went to the village hoping to photograph a few stagesof the bara dance, Thanded cut ha-ticks of tobacco, thea watched a few dances; then took pictunes—-but results were Foor... they would not pose Jong enough for time exposures. At romenis Twas fur‘ous at thera, particularly because after | gave them their portions of tosacco they all went away. {quoted in Geestz 1988, pp. 73-74) In aaother work, this lonely, frustrated, isolated field-worser describes his methods in the follow- ing words: face a chaos of facts. . this crude form they axe not scientific facts at all; they are absolutely elusive, and can only be fixed by interprets Only Faws and. gener are scientific faces, and field work consists only and exclusively in the interpretation of the chaotic social reality, in suhordinating it to general rules. (Malinowski, 1976/1948, p. 228; quoted in Geertz, 1988, p.81) In the field one bas to Malinowski’s ren:acks aze provocative, On the one hand they disparage fieldwork, but on :he other they speak of it within the glorified larguege of sclence, with laws and generalizations fashioned out of this selisame experience. During this period the field-worker was lion ‘zed, made into a larger-than Efe figure who went imo sie field and returned with stories abut strange peoples. Rosaldo {1989) describes this as Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction ww 15 the period of the Lore Ethnographer, the story of the man-scientist who went off in search of his native ina distant land. Tere this figure “encoan- tered the object of his quest... [and] underwent iss rite of passage by enduring the ultimate ordeal of fieldwork” (p, 30). Returning home with his Gata, the Lone Ethnographer wrote up an objective account of the culture studied, This account was structured by the norms of classical ethnography. This sacred bundle of terms (Rosaldo, 1989, p. 31) organized ethnographic texts around four beliefs and commitments: a commitment to shject'vism, a corsplicity with imperialism, a belief in mmonu- mentalism (the ethnography woulé create e muse- unlike picture ofthe culture studied), and a beiiet in timelessness (what was studied would never change), The Other was an “object” to be archived ‘This medel of the researcher, who could also write complex, dense theories shout what was studied, holds to the present day. The myth of the Lone Ethnographer depicts the birth of classic ethnography. ‘The texts of Malinowski, Radciffe-Brown, Margaret Mead, and Gregory Bateson are sill carefully studied for what they can tell the novice about fieldwork, texing field notes, and writing theory. But today the image of the Lone Echnographer has been shat- tered. Many scholars see the works of the classic ethnographers as relics from the colonial past (Rosalén, 1989, p.44). Whereas some feel nostalgia for this past, others celebrate its passing. Rosaldo (1989) quotes Cora Du Bois, a retired Harvard anthcopology professor, who lamented this ing at a conference in 1989, reflecting on the crisis in anthropology:"/T feel a distance] from the com. plexity and disarray of what I once found a justifi- able and challenging discipline, ...1: has been like moving from 2 distinguished art muscem into a garage sale” (p.44). Du Bois segards the classic ethnographies as pieces of timeless artwork contained in a maseum. She feels uncomfortable in the chaos of the garage sale, In contrast, Rasaldo (1989) is raven to this metaphor because*it provides a pre- cise image of the postcolonial st:uation where cul- tural artifacts flow between unlikely places, and othing is sacred, permanent, or sealed uff, The image of anthropology as a garage szle depicts out16 my HANDAGOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH—C present lubal situation” (p. 44), Indeed, many valuable teeasures may be found in unexpected places, if one is willing to lok long ané hard, Old standards nu longer hold. Ethnographies do. not produce timeless truths. The commitment ta objectivism 's now in doubt. Ihe complicity with imperialism is openly challenged :oday, and the belief in monnmentalism isa thing of the past owt begin at the end of the 19th century, wher: the novel and the social sciences had becomne distinguished as separate systems of discourse (Clough, 1998, pp. 21-22). However, the Chicago school, with ats emphasis on the te story and the “slive-of life approach to etnographic materials, sought to develop an interpretive metrodology that main- tained the centzality of the narrated life history approacn, This lec to the production of tests that ave the researcher-as-auchor the power to repre sent the sudject’s story. Written under the mantle of straightforward, sentiment-iree social realism, these texts used she language of ordinary people They articulated 2 social science version of liter ary natucalism, which often procuced the sympa- thetic ilesion that a solution to a soctal problem hac been found, Like the Depression-era juvenile delinquent and other “social problemas” ‘lms {Roffman & Purdy, 1981}, these accounts roman. ticized the subject. They turned the devians into sociological version of a screen hero, These sa Jogical stories, like their lm counter arts, usually kad heppy endings, as they followec individuals through the three stages of the ciassic morality tale: being in a stete of grace, being seduced by evil and felling, and finaily achieving redemation through sué’ring, The legacine af this fleet p Modernist Phase The modernist phase, or second momer builds on the canonical works from the traditional riod. Socia! realism, naturalism, and slice-of lite ethnographies are stil ved. This phase extended through the pastwar years to the 1970s and is still, present in the work of many (ior reviews, sec Wolcott, 1990, 1992, 1995, see alse Tedlock, Chapter 18, this volume). Jn this period many texts sou to formative qualiative methods (see. e.g.. Bogdan SHARTER 1 & Taylor, 1975; Cieourel, 1963; Filstead, 1970; Glaser & Strauss, 1967: Lofland, 1971, 1995: Lofland & Lofland, i984, 1995; laylor & Bogdan, 1998). The modernist ethnographer and socio: logical participant observer attempted rigorous qualitative smdies of imporsant social processes, including deviance and social contro! in the ciass room and society. This was a moment of creative ferment ‘Annew generation of graduate students across the hunzan disciplines encountered new intespre- Live cheories (ethinomethodology, phenomenol ‘ogy critical theory, femi te qualitative research practices that would let them give a voice (0 society's andecclass. Post positivism functioned as 2 powerful ep'stemo- logical paradigm, Reseerchers attempted to fit Campbell and Starleys (1963) model of internal and external validity to constructionist and inter- activist conceptions of the research act, They’ returned fo the texts of the Chicago school as sources of inspiration (see Denzin. 1979, 1978). A canonical text from this moment retains Bays int White (Becker et al, 1961; see also Becker, 1998), Firmly entrenched in mid-20th-century methodological discocrse, this work attempted to snake qualitative research 4s rigorous as its quan: ‘lative counterpart. Causal narratives were central to this project. This multimettod work combined open-ended and quasiestrucrured interviewing ‘with participant observation and the careful analysis of such materials in standardizee, stais- tical form, In his Cassie artide “Problems of Infezence and Proof in Perticipant Observatiany” Howard S, Becker (1958/1970) describes the use of quasi-statistics: nn}. Trey were dear Parsicipant vbservatians hase occasionally deen gathered in standardized form capable of being ‘ransformed into legicimate statistical ata, But the exigencies of te Geld usually prevent the collection of deta in such a form to meet the assumptioas of statistical tests, $0 that the observer dees what have been called “quasl-statissies! His conclusions, while implicitly aumerical, do not require precise quantification, (p.30) In the analysis 0° data, Becker notes, the qualita tive researche: takes a cue from are quartitativelyoriented colleagues. The sesezrcher lod for proba- bilities or support for azguments concerning the likelihood that, o° frequency with which,» conclu sion in “act applies ina specific situation (see also Becker, 1998, pp, 166-170). Thus did work in the modernist period clothe itself in the language and rhetoric of positivist and postpositivis: discourse ‘This was the goider. age of rigorous qualitative analysis, brackeied in sociology by Boy’ in Weate (Becker et al, 1961) at one end and The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) at the athe In education, qualitative research in this period was detined by George and Louise Spindler, Joles Henry, Harry Wolcott, and John Singleton. This form o! qualitative research is till present in the work of scliokars such uy Stuaass and Corbin (1998) and Ryan and Bernard (2000). ‘The “golden age” reinforced the picture of qual- itative researchers as cultural romantics, imbued with Promethean human pawers, they valorized villains and outside:s as heroes to mainstreart society. They embodied « belief in the contingency of self and saciety, and held to emancipatory ideals for“which ore lives and dies” They put in place a sragic and often iron view of society and sef, andl joined a long line of leftist cultural romantics that inclnded Emerson, Marx, James, Dewey, Gramsci, and Martin Luther King, jr, (West, 1984, chap.6). As this moment came to an end, the Vietnam. War was everywhere present in American society. In 1969, alongside these political currents, Herbert Blumer and Everett Hughes met with a geoup of young sociologists called the “Chicago Jeregulars” atte American Sociological Association wreetings held in Sen Francisco and shared their memo- ries of the “Chicago years” Lyn Lofland (1980) describes this time asa moment of creative ferent —schotar'y and pali- cal. The Sar Francisco meetings witnessed: not simply the Bkumer-Hughes event but a “counser= revolution”... a group frst came to... talk about the problems of being « sociologist and 2 female... the discigline seemed literally to Ye bursting with new .. ideas: labelling theory, sth norsethocalogy, contict theory, phenomenology ddrarnaturgical analysis (p.25 ‘Thus did the modernist phase come to an end. Denzin & Lincoln: Introduction 17 Blurred Genses: By the beginning of the third phase (1970- 1986), which we cal] the moment of biurred genres, ‘qualitative researchers had a full complement of paradigms, methods, and strategies 10 employ ia their research. Theories ranged from sym- nism to constructivism, natural’stic enology, ethnomethodology, critical theory, neo Marxist theory, semiotics, structuralism, anism, and vacious racialerhnic paradignns, Applied qual- “tative research was gaining in statuze, and the pol- ics and ethics of cualtative research— implicated as they were in various applications of this work— were topics af considerable concern, Research strategies and formats for reporting research ranged from grounded theory to the case study, 0 methods of historical, biographical, ethnographic, action, and clinical research. Diverse ways of col lecting and anaiyzing empirical materials were also available, including qualitative interviewing (open nied aad quasi-sttuctured) and observational, visual, personal experience, and documentary methods, Computers were entering the situation, tobe fully developed as aids in the analysis of qual jtarive data in the next decade, along with narrative, coment, and semiotic methods of reading inter views and cultural wexts. Tivo books by Clifford Geerte, The interpretation of Cultures (1973) and Loca! Knowledge (1983),