' APPLIED SOCIAL RESEARCH

METHODS SERIES
Series Editors
LEONARD BICKMAN, Peabody C ollege, Vanderb ilt Universily, Nashvllle
DEBR A J. ROG, Vanderbilt University, Washingto n, OC

1 SIJIIVEY RESEARCH METHOOS (Thlrd Edilion)

loy 11 OYD J. FOWLER, Jr.
26. SCALE DEVELOPMENT
by ROBERT F. DeVELLIS
QUAiaiTATIVE
RESEABCB
SVNTHESIZJNG RESEAACH (Th lrd Editlon) 27. STUOYING FAMILIES
l>y ~IA RRI S COOPEA by ANNE P. COPELANO and KATHLEEN M. WHITE
:1 METHODS FOR POUCY RESEARCH 28. EVENT HISTORY ANALYSIS
hy ANN MAJCHAZAK by KAZUO YAMAGUCHI
~. $ ECONDAAY AESEAACH (Second Edltlon)
by DAVID W. STEWART and M ICHAEL A. KAMINS
5. CASE STUOY RESEAACH (SecoQd Editlon)
by ROBERT K. YIN
29. RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
by GEOFFREY MARUYAMA
and STANLEY CENO
30. RESEARCHING PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
DESIGl\T
by ROSALIND J . DWORKIN
An
6 . META·ANALYTIC PAOCEOURES FOR SOCIAL
RE SEARCH (Revisad Edlllon) 31. PLANNING ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH
by ROBERT ROSENTHAL by JOAN E. SIEBER
7. TELEPHONE SURVEY METHOOS (Se cond Edition)
by PAUL J. LAVRAKAS
8. OIAGNOSING ORGANIZATIONS (Second Edition)
32. APPLIEO RESEARC H OESIGN
by TERRY E. HEDRICK,
LEONARD BICKMAN, and DEBRA J. ROG
Interactive \ , ,, ·...
.t ·~.•.

by MICHAEL l. HAARISON
9 . GAOUP TECHNIQUES FOR
33. DOING U ABAN RESEARCH
by GREGORY D. ANDRANOVICH
Approach 1· ·
·: •'.

IDEA BUILDING (Second Edilion) and GERRY RIPOSA

34. APPLI CATIONS OF CASE STUDY RESE ARCH

.
by CARL M. MOORE
10. NEEO ANALYSIS by ROBERT K. YIN
by JACK McKILLIP 35. INTRODUCTION TO FAC ET THEORY
1 1. LINKING AUDITING ANO META EVALUATION by SAMUEL SHYE and DOV ELJZUR
by THOMAS A. SCHWANDT wiU1 MICHAEL HOFFMAN
and EDWARD S. HALPERN
12. ETHICS ANO VALUES
IN APPLIED SOCIAL AE SEARCH
36 GRAPHING DATA
by GARY T. HENRY
37. RESEARCH METHODS IN SPECJAL EDUCATION
Second Edition
by ALLAN J KIMMEL by DONNA M. MERTENS
13. ONTIME ANO METHOD and JOHN A. McLAUGHLIN
by JAN ICE R. KELLY 38. IMPROVING SUAVEY QUESTIONS
and JOSEPH E. McGRATH by FLOYD J . FOWLER. Jr.
14 . RESEARCH IN HEALTH CARE SETTINGS 39. DATA COLLECTION ANO MANAGEMENT
by KATHLEEN E. GRADY by MAGDA STOUTHAMER·LOEBER
and BARBARA ST RUDLER WALLSTON and WELMOE T BOK VAN KAMMEN
15. PARTI CIPANT OBSEAVATION 40. MAIL SURVEYS
by DANNY L JORGENSEN by THOMAS W. MANGIONE
16 . INTERPRETIVE INTE AACTIONISM (Socond Edition) 41. QUALITATIVE RESEAR CH DESJGN (Sacond Edition)
by NOAMAN K. DEN ZIN by JOSEPH A. MAXWELL
17. ETHNOGRAPHY (Socond Edition) 42. ANALYZING COSTS, PROCEDURES,
by DAVID M. FETTEAMAN PROCESSES, ANO OUTCOMES
18. STANOARDIZED SURVEY INTERVIEWI NG IN HUMAN SERVICES
by FLOYD J. FOWLER, Jr.
and T HOMAS W. MANGIONE
19. PROOUCTIVITY MEASUAEMENT
by BAlAN T. YATES
43. DOING LEGAL RESEARCH
by ROBERT A. MOARIS. BRUCE D. SALES,
Joseph A. Maxwell
by AOBERT O. BRINKERHOFF and DANIEL W. SHUMAN
and DENNIS E. DAESSLER 44. RANDOMIZED EXPERIMENTS FOR PLANNING
:!0. FOCUS GROUPS ANO EVALUATJON
by DAVID W. STEWART by ROBERT F. BOR\JCH
;¡nd PREM N. SHAMDASANI 45. IIIEASURING COMMUNITY INDICATOAS
21. PRACT ICAL SAMPLING by PAUL J. GRUENEWALD, ANDREW J. TRENO, GAIL
hy GART T HENRY TAFF, and MICHAEL KLITZNER Applied Social Research Methods Series
22. DECISION RESEAACH 46. MIXED METHODOLOGY
hy .JOHN S. CARROLL by ABBAS TASHAKKORI and CHARLES TEDDLIE Volume 41
and f:111C J . J OHNSON 47. NARRATIVE RESEARCH
23. RESEARCH WITH HISPANIC POPULATI ONS
by GERAHIJO MARIN
by AMIA LIEBLICH, A IVKA TUVAL·MASHIACH, and
TAMAR ZILBER
,.
and BAH~ARA VANOSS MARIN 48. COMMUNICATING SOCIAL SCIENCE RE SEA ACH
24. JNTERNAL EVALUATION TO POLICY-MAKERS
by ARNOLD J. LOVE by ROGEA VAUGHAN and TERRY F. BUSS
25. COMPUTER SIMULATION APPLICATIONS 49 . PRACTI CAL META· ANALYSIS
by MARCIA LYNN WHICKER and LEE SIGELMAN by MARK W. LIPSEY and DAVID B. WILSON
 1'/1
1,. 1

J.J QUALITATIV E RESEAR C H DE SI GN

dcsign generally deal explicitly only with mt:thods, anJ neither address Lhe olher
components of design (in my model, goals, conceptual frameworks, research <.J.UestJOns, 2
and validiry) nor clarify Lhe actual funclioning and interrelatio nship of the parts of a J esign.
For a more detailed analysis uf lhe strenglhs and Jimitalio ns of lypological approaches
lo design, sce Maxwell and Loonús (2002). Goals
2. This tacking back and forlh is similar in sorne ways to t.he " hermene utic circlc"
of textual interpretation (Geertz, 1974). However, l am advocating an interactive rather
1 .1· than a sequential mo9el of research design primari ly becausc ! see designas pertai ning
1 :. lo the actual relationships of the components of a rcsearch srudy, nol because 1 take an
Why Are You Doing This Study?
" inlerpretivc" or " humani stic" as opposed to a "scienlitk" view of research. Thc ínter-
active modell present here ís drawn to a significant cxtent f rom rcsearch practices in
thc natural scicnces, particularly biology, and is applicable lo quantitalive as well as
qual italive research (Maxwell & Loomis, 2002). In contras!. Janesick ( 1994), who saw In pla11ning, as well as in assessing, etl111ographic research, we
qualitative research c.Jesign as an interpretive art form analogous to dance, ncvertheless
must consider its relevance as we/1 as its 11alidity.
stated that. "4ualitative research design begi ns wilh a question" (p. 2 1O) and presented
research design as a scq ue nce of decisions that the rcsearcher will need to makc al each - Ha mmers ley, L992, p. 85
stage of the rcsearch.
3. For addiúonal discussion and examples of whm a memo involves, see Bogdan
and Biklen (2003, pp. ll 4-116, 15 1-1 57), Miles and Huberman (1 994, pp. 72-75), and Anyone can fi nd an unanswered, empirically answerablc question for which
MiUs ( 1959). More detailed information on memos can be round in Strauss ( 1987, the answer isn ' t worth knowing; as Thoreau said, it is not worthwhile to go
chaps. 1, 5, and 6) and Strauss and Corbin (1990, chap. 12). around the world to count the cats in Zanzibar. In addition, it is easy to become
4. See Mi lis (1959) fnr advice on how to use memos in developing a research captivated by the stories of your informants, or by what's goi ng on in the set-
agenda <llld carcer. ting you are study ing. a mJ lose s ight of your reasons for studying these par-
ticular phenornena. f·3rendan Croskery ( 1995), rcflecting on his dissertation
research on f'ou r New foundland sc hool principn ls, admitled that

Thc study suffe re d rrom too many good intentinns ancl too littlc focuscd lhink-
ing .... 1 painfully discovcrcd that many o r the data (though imerestí ng) wcre no t
particularly relevan! lo Lhe core catcgory. (p. 348)

A clear understanding ofthc goals motivating your work will help you to avo id
losing you r way or spending time and cffort doing things that do n't advance
these goals.
The goals of your study are an important pan of your research design. (1 a m
using "goal" in a broad sense to include motives, desires. a nd purposcs-
anything that leads you lo do the study or that you want to accomplish by
doing it. 1) These goals serve two main functions for your researc h. First, they
hclp to guide your other design decisions to ensure that your study is worth
doing, that you gel something o f value out of it. Second, they are essential to
j11stijying yo ur stutly, a key task of a fund ing or d isse11ation proposal. Tn ad u i-
tion , as H ammersley (1 992, p. 28) noted, your goals inevitably shapc 11Jc
dcscriptiom, intt:rprc tati ons, and th eories you c reate i n your research . Tl wy

...
1
il·· 1,,
 QUALITATIVE RE SEA R CH DESIG N
thl:rcforc constitute not only important resuurces thaL you can draw on in
planning, conducting, and justifying the research, but also potential validity
tlzreats, or sources of bias for thc research results, that you will need to deal
¡. with (see Chapter 6).
PERSONAL, J>RACTI C AL,
AND INTELLE CTUA L GOALS
lt is useful to distinguish among three difJcrent kinds of goals for doing
a study: personal goals, practica! goals, and intell cctual (or scholarly) goals.
Personal goals are things that motívate you to do the study, but are not neces-
sarily important for others. They can include thc desire to change or improve
some situation that you're involved in, curiosity about a specific topic or event,
a prel'erence for conducting a particular type of rcsearch. or simply the nccd to
.~.¡
advance your career. These personal goals often overlap wi th your practica] or
;1 1 research goals, but they may also include decply rooted individual dcsires and
q needs thar bear little relationship to your "official'' rcasons for doing the study
(see Examplc 2.1).
Two majar decisions are often profoundly influcnced by the researchcr's
personal goals. One is the topic, issuc, or question selectcd for study.
Traditionally, students havc been told to base this decision on either faculty
advice or the literalure on their topic. Howcver, personal goals aml cxperiences
play an important role in many research studic.c; . Strauss and Corbin ( 1990)
argucd rhat
choosing a research problem through the professioonl or personal cxperi'ence
route muy sccm more hazardous than through the suggested [by faculty] or liter-
alure routes. This is not necessarily true. Thc touchstone of your own cxperience
may be more valuable an indicator for you of a p<>lentially suc~.:essful rescarch
endeavor. (pp. 35--36)
.tL A patticularl y important advantage of basing your research tapie on your
own experience is motivation. Lack of motivation causes many students to
IT'l'¡'i !'
never finish their di ssertations, anda strong personal interest in the topic and in
answering your rcscarch questions can counteract the inevitable interferencc
from work, family obligations, or just procrastination. Example 2.1 describes
., .1
how one student made a substantial change in her dissertation topic as a rcsull
' : 11
of her own life experiences and thc goals and interests that these created.
:.,;!
11'¡:
1. ¡¡ 1
(iOALS: W H Y ARE YOU D OING TH! S S T UDY ? 17
EXAMPLE 2.1
Using Personal Experience ro Choose a Disserrarion Topic
Caro\ Kaffenberger, a doctoral student in a counseling program, had care-
fu lly planned her dissertation research on the devclopmcnt or conflict
resolution skills in children, and was beginning work on her disscrtation
proposal. However, she found it hard to sustain her intcrcst in this topic.
Three years before she began her doctoral work, ber youngest daughter,
thcn 12, had bccn diagnosecl with a particularly deadly form oflcukcmia,
was hospitalized for 6 months and underwent a bone manow transplant,
went into remission and lhcn rclapscd, and required a secoml transplant
befare recovering 3 years later. This illncss bad initiated a family crisis,
and ca used major changes in the fami ly 's roles and responsibililics. Caro!
quit her job and moved into the hospital with hcr daughter. Her husband
continued lo work, maintained the house, and parented thcir son, who
was 15 at thc time of thc diagnosis. Thcir older daughter was away at
college, but was the donar for the bone marrow transplant'l.
Initially, Carol had felt that her l'amil y was coping well, but as the crisis
wore on. she was surprised by the amount of anger and emotional distress
expressed by the older siblings, anger that, despite her counseling training,
she did not understand. Watching her family gctting ''back to normal" after
thi s ordeal, she realized they were never going to be lhe samc. She also
realized that her prior assumptions about thcir cxpcrience had been incor-
rect, and she became very interested in understanding this experience.
At a doctoral sludent meeting, another studenl, who kncw of Carol's
involve ment with her daughter's cancer, asked ber about her dissertation
plans. Carol replied that she would be looking at childrcn's development
of conflict resolution skills, and briefly dcscribcd ber plans. The student
replied, "Whar a missed oppm1unity!" explaining that she thought study-
ing thc conscqucnccs for familics of adolescent canccr would be a Lcrrific
topic. After thinking about this, Caro! went to her advisor, mentioned the
student's idea, and askcd, "Is tttis crazy?" Her advisor rcplicd. "!'ve bccn
waiting for you to be ready to do this."
Caro! did a literature review and found that little was known about the
meaning and consequences of adolescent cancer for familics, particularl y
l'or siblings. She also found that, with increasi.ng survival rates, schools
were dealing with many more students who had been affected by a
l!i QUALITATlVE RESEARCH DESIGN
lcngthy experience with cancer, as eilher a survivor or the sibling of a
survivor, but had little experience in handling these issues. Motivated by
her own interest in this topic, the lack of available infonnation, and the
growing importance of this issue, she changcd her disse rtation to a study
of the long-term impact and meaning of adolesce nt cancer for survivors
and thcir siblings, and its effect on the sibling relationship. She enrolled
in my dissertation proposal course in the fa! 1 of 1997, defended her pro-
posa! in the spi·ing of 1998 , and defended her dísscrtation 1 year later.
S he says that she "loved every minute of her disscrtation"; she evcn took
her data with her on a vacation to Bermuda when shc was finishing her
data analysis (Kafl'enberger, 1999, personal communication).
A second deeision that is often influenced by personal goals and experíences
ís the choice of a qualitative approach. Locke, Spirduso, and Silvcrman ( 1993 )
argued that "every graduate studc nt who is tempted to employ a qualitative
design should confronl one question, 'Why do l want todo a <.¡ualitative study?'
and then answer it honestly" (p. 107). They cmphasizecl that qualitative research
is not easier than quantitative research and that seeking to avoid statisties bears
little relationship to having the personal interests and skills that qualitative
inquiry requires (pp. 107-ll 0). The key issue is the compatibility of your
reasons for "going qualitative" with your other goals, your research questions,
ancl the actual activities involved in doíng a qualítahve study. AJan Pe shkin's
motives (Example 2 .2) for doing qualitative research that he liked qualitative
fieldwork and that it suited his abilities-are perfectly legitímatc ones, if" you
choose research questions for which this is an appropriate strategy.
Traditionally, discussions of personal goals in research methods texts have
accepted. impl icitly or explicitly. the ideal of the objective, disinterestcd
scicntist. ami h;~vc cmphasized that the choice of research approaches and
methods should he ddcrmined by the research questions that you want to
answer. Howcvcr. it is clcar from autobiographíes of scientists (e.g., Heinrich,
1984) that decisions about research methods are often far more personal than
this, and the impmlancc of subjective motives and goals in science is sup-
ported by a grca1 dcal of historical, socíological, and philosophical work.
The grain oí trulh in thc traditional view is that your personal (and often uncx-
amincd) motives as rese archcr have important consequences for the validity of
your conclusions. If your data eollection and analysis are based on personal
desires witlwut a careful assessment of the irnplications of the latter for your
methods and conclusions, you are in danger of creating a flawed or biased study.
GOALS: WHY ARE YO U DOING THIS STUDY? 19
King Gustav of Sweden wanted a powerful warship to domínate the B a ltic, but
this desire led toan ill-considered decision to add a second gundeck to the Vasa,
causing it to capsize and sink and thus dealing a severe setback to his goals.
For all of these reasons, it is important that yo u recognize and take account of
!he personal goals that drive and influence your research. Attempting to exclude
your personal goals and concerns from the design of your research is neither
possible nor necessary. What is necessary is to be aware of these goals and how
they may be shaping your research, ami to think about how best to achieve them
and to deal with their influence. In addition, recognízíng your personal tiesto thc
study you want to conduct can provide you with a valuable source of insight,
theory, and data about the phenomena you are studying (Marshall & Rossman,
1999, pp. 25-30; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, pp. 4 2-43 ); thís source will be dis-
cussed in the next chapter in the sectíon titlcd "Experiential Knowledge."
Example 2.2 describes how one researcher 's personal goals and values influ-
enced (and were intluenced by) a series of qualítative studies.
EXAMPLE 2.2
The lmportance of Personal Vulues and ldentit.r·
Alan Peshkin's personal goals, rooted in his own values and identity,
profoundly íntlucnced several ethnographic studics he did of schools
and their communities (1991 , pp. 2X5- 295; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992,
pp. 93-1 07). In his first stucly, in a rural town he called Mansfield, he
liked the community and t'elt protective towmd it. This shaped the kind
of story that he told, a story about the importance of community and its
prcservation. In contras!, in his second study, an cthnography ora funda-
mentalist Christian school (whích he called Bethany Baptist Acitdemy,
BBA) and its community, he fclt alicnatcd, as a Jcw, from a community
that attemptcd to proselytize him:
When I began lo write ... l knew T was annoyed by my persono/ (as
opposed to resemch) experience at BBA. l soon became sharply aware that
my annoyance was pervasively prcsent, that I was wriling out of pique and
vcxation . Accordingly, I was not celebrating community at Bcthany. ami
community prevailed there no less robustly than ít had at Manslie ld. Why
not? 1 was more than annoyed in Bethany; my ox had becn gorcd. The
consequence was that the story 1 was feeling drawn to telJ had its origins in
my personal sense of threat. I was not at Bethany as a cool, di spassionate
observcr (are there a ny?); I was there as a Jew whose othemess was
 11''11
!1 e !!
i ¡:.
1 1 20 QUALITATIVF: RESEARCH DESIGN
li¡
1 ·1· dramatizcd directly and indirectly during eighteen months of tieldwork.
(Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 103)
H
1 1
1 :, In hindsight, Peshkin realized that if he had bee n less sympathetie
toward Mansfteld, he could have told a ilifferent, equally valid story
about this community, whereas if he had ide nt ified with Bcthany and
wanted to support and perpetuate it, he could legitimatel y have showcd
how it was much like Mansfield.
Tn a third study, this one of an urban, multiethnic and multiracial
school and community that he called Riverview, Peshkin resolved at the
outset to try to identify the aspects of his identity that he saw emerging
in his reactions. He listed six different subjectivc 'Ts" that inl]uenced
this study, each embodying its own goals. These included the Ethnic-
Maintenance 1 and the Community-Maintenancc l that he had discovered
in his earlier studies; an E-Pluribus-Unum l that supported the ethnic and
racial " mingling" that he saw going on; a Justicc-Seeking 1 that wanted
to correct the negative and biased images of Riverview held by its wealth-
ier neighbors; a Pedagogical-Me liorist l that was di sturbed by the poor
teaching that many mínority students received in Riverview and sought
to fi nd ways to improve this; anda Nonrescarch-Human 1 that was gratc-
ful fo r the wann reception he ancl his wife received in Ri verview, gener-
ated a concern for the people and community, and moderated otherwisc
sharp judgrnents he might ha ve made.
Peshkin strongly recommended that all researchers systematically
monitor their subjcctivity:
I see thi s monitoring as a necessary exercise, a workout, a tuning up of my
subjectivity to get it in shape. lt is a rehearsal for keeping the lines of my
sllbjcctivity open- and straight. And it is a warning to myself so that 1 may
avoid thc trap nf perceiving just what my own untamed sentiments have
sollght ottl and served up as data. (Peshkin, 1991, pp. 29~-294)
Exercisc 2. 1 is one way to engage in this monitoring.
In addition to influencing his questions and conclusions, Peshkin's
personal goals wcrc intimately involvcd in his choice of me thods. As he
stated, "1 likc licldwork, it suits me, and J concluded that rather than
pursuing rescarc h with questions in search of the ' right' methods of data
collection, 1 had a preferred rnethod of data collection in search of the
' right' question" (Glesne & Peshkín, 1992, p. 102).
•1
l.¡
!iOALS : WHY A R E YOU DOING THI S ST UDY? 21
In addition to your personal goals, there are two other kind s of goals (ones
that are important for other people, notj ust yourself) that I want to distinguish
and discuss. These a re practica] goals (including administrative or policy ·
goa ls) a rtd intellectual goals. Prac ti ca! goals are foc used on accomplishing
something- meeting some need, changing sorne situation, or achieving sorne
objective. lntellectua l goals, in contrast, are focu sed on understanding somc-
lhing-gaining ins íght into what is going on and why thi s is happening, or
ans wering sorne question that previous research has not adequately
addressed.
Both of these kincls of goals are legitimate parts of your design.
Howcver, they need to be distinguished , because while intellectual goals
are ofte n a fruitfu l starting point for framin g research questions, practica!
goals can' t nonnally be usecl in thi s stra ig htforward way. Research ques-
ti ons need to be questions that your study can po tentially answer, a nd ques-
ti on s that ask dircctly about how to accompl ish practica! goals, such as
"How should this program be modified to make it more eq uitabJe?" or
"Wh at can be done to inc rease students' motiva rion to learn scie nce?" are
not dircct ly a nswerable by a ny resea rch. Such questions have an inhere ntly
open-e nded nature (expresscd by term s s uc h as "can") or value co rnponcnt
(exprcssed by te rms such as "should") that no amount of data or anal ysis
can full y address.
On the other hand, rcsearch questions suc h as " Whal effect has this new pol-
icy had on program equity?" or "How did sLudents respond to this new science
currículum?'' are not on ly potentially answerable, but can advance thc practi-
ca! goals implied in the previous questi ons. For these reasons, you need to
frame your rescarch qucstions in ways that he lp your study to achieve your
practica! goa ls, rath er than smuggl ing these goa ls into thc research qucstions
themse lves, where they rnay intcrf'crc with thc coherence and feasibility of
your design. A common problem that my students have in developing rcscarch
questions is that they try to base thcsc qucsti ons directly on their practica!
goals, ending up with qucstions that not only can' t be a nswered by their
research, bnt fai l to adequately guide the re searc h itsclf. l will di scuss this
issue more. fully in Chaptc r 4 ; hcrc, I am simply emphasizing the difference
between these two types of goals.
The point is not to eliminate practic~l goals from your design; in addition
to the reasons givcn previonsly, practica! or policy objectives are particularly
important for just!fying your research. Don't ignore the~e goals, but under-
stand where thcy are coming from, thei r implications for your research, ami
how t hey can be produc tively employcd in planning and defending your
study.