An appreciation of the book by Miller and Fredericks, Qualitative Research Methods
Some of us attended graduate school and had our early experience in an educational research that was dominated by experimental psychology. Prompted by Campbell and Stanley (1963) we were concerned with the validity of our research, but we believed that if only we found the correct experimental design and carried it out competently our results would be valid. With methods based on the probability calculus, we could arrive confidently at a "significance level." Others of us know little of statistics and experimental design, having studied in programs and with faculty who do not believe in realism and seek, for example, verstehen-"a type of historical or contemporary insight which cognitively reconstructs a plausible interpretation of an action or event given knowledge of the cultural 'rules'." (M&F, p. 74) It may well be that the latter group is now dominant in educational research, and many are quite confident in their methods and believe their results adequately justified. Some believe no more justification is possible (e.g., Smith and Heshusius, 1986). At least a small subset of researchers remains uneasy that qualitative approaches lack means for validation. It is this group that M&F addresses, of course, those that would be extremely happy to have a means to attain "qualitative confirmation." In our opinion, graduate students (especially those considering qualitative methods for their research) should study and assess M&F's rules and rationale, whatever camp they are in. M&F's presentation makes this much more difficult than necessary, but the issue is important enough to make the effort.
The overall organization of chapters is logical; once apprehended it is clear:
- The major issue in qualitative inquiry (confirmation-and introduction to rules)
- Hypotheses in qualitative research methods (defense of hypotheses and the nature of evidence)
- Additional rules of confirmation (M&F's version plus discussion of disconfirmation)
- Assessing qualitative studies (applying the rules to some published reports)
- Epistemological asides and conclusions (revisiting the intellectual roots)
Reading through the chapters, however, one finds complex concepts and intricate arguments that can only be clarified (usually!) by reading the appendixes:
- Some notes on the nature of indeterminacy
- Clarifying the "adequate evidence condition" in educational theory and research
- Reciprocal paradigm shifts and educational research: A further view of the quantitative-qualitative dilemma.
After all this work, however, you will find that qualitative confirmation is still a judgment call. We attempted to illustrate this with our own application of the rules to the "Glass study". The published report of that study was attractive to us because the "evidence instances" were so obvious and because they constituted a "methodologically unique class". Because all the data (interviews) was available, we could do some verification not usually available (search for negative instances not reported in the published version, for example). The studies analyzed by M&F in Chapter 4 did not provide as good a test of the method, but even this good test ended inconclusively, IOHO.
As with all works of genuine scholarship, one of the benefits of study is the acquaintance (or reacquaintance) it provides with key scholars and their ideas. M&F write from outside the "college" known best by the authors of this review, and we found many new and insightful sources. Most of us have heard of Quine but have not studied his books. Our inadequate preparation in philosophy left us ignorant of the seminal contributions of Winch, and we agree with M&F that, "It is amazing how much debate has been generated by the two rather modest works of Winch (1958, 1964)." (p. 74) Swinburne lurked unread in our library, as did Roth (shame, shame). We were led to an even stronger appreciation of Wolcott and introduced to the "cognitivist and semanticist", George Lakoff.
In summary, the presentation is sloppy, the writing dense and the organization suboptimal, but the topic is important and the fresh perspective welcome. We wish the authors would bring out an new and improved edition, but even if not we recommend the book to you.