Research in Nursing & Health, 2000, 23, 334±340

Focus on Research Methods

Whatever Happened toQualitative Description?

Margarete Sandelowski*

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, #7640, Carrington Hall, School of Nursing,

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

Received 10 September 1999; accepted 14 January 2000

Abstract: The general view of descriptive research as a lower level form ofinquiry has in¯uenced some researchers conducting qualitative research toclaim methods they are really not using and not to claim the method they areusing: namely, qualitative description. Qualitative descriptive studies haveas their goal a comprehensive summary of events in the everyday terms ofthose events. Researchers conducting qualitative descriptive studies stayclose to their data and to the surface of words and events. Qualitativedescriptive designs typically are an eclectic but reasonable combination ofsampling, and data collection, analysis, and re-presentation techniques.Qualitative descriptive study is the method of choice when straight descrip-tions of phenomena are desired. ß 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Res Nurs Health23:334±340, 2000

Keywords: qualitative description; qualitative research methods;qualitative content analysis; description and interpretation

Qualitative researchers now have the option tochoose from an increasing array of theoreticallyand technically sophisticated methods. Accord-ingly, it may seem strange to resurrect a plainerand considerably `̀ less sexy''1 method: namely,qualitative description. Yet it is precisely theincreasing complexity of qualitative methods andthe tyranny of method in nursing research thatmakes the rediscovery of qualitative descriptionnecessary.

Descriptive research is typically depicted inresearch texts as being on the lowest rung of thequantitative research design hierarchy. In thishierarchy, `̀ true'' experiments aimed at predic-tion and control are the gold standard and anyother design is non-experimental and weak (e.g.,Talbot, 1995). The view of description in quan-

titative research as the `̀ crudest form of inquiry''(Thorne, Kirkham, & MacDonald-Emes, 1997,p. 170) likely has negatively in¯uenced research-ers engaging in qualitative research, many ofwhom have felt obliged to defend their efforts assomething more than mere description. That is,they have sought `̀ epistemological credibility''(p. 170) by designating their work as phenomen-ology, grounded theory, ethnography, or narrativestudy. In too many cases, however, this effort hasresulted in `̀ posturing'' (Wolcott, 1992) aboutphenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography,or narrative study rather than in phenomenolo-gies, theories, ethnographies, or narrative inter-pretations. A confusing state of affairs existswhereby studies are called narrative, even thoughthey may include nothing more than minimallystructured, open-ended interviews; phenomeno-logic, even though they may include nothing morethan reports of the `̀ subjective'' experiences ofparticipants; or, ethnographic, even though they

*Professor.

1I am indebted to Joan Lynaugh for the phrase ``lesssexy,'' which she used to refer to things that areimportant but nevertheless fail to get the attentionthey deserve.

334 ß2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

may include nothing more than participants indifferent ethnic groups. Indeed, although they mayundeniably be worthwhile studies that yield valu-able information for practice, these so-called nar-rative, phenomenologic, and ethnographic studiesare often better described as qualitative descriptivestudies, albeit with narrative, phenomenologic, andethnographic overtones. I will return to the subjectof overtones in qualitative research later.

In the now vast qualitative methods literature,there is no comprehensive description of qualita-tive description as a distinctive method of equalstanding with other qualitative methods, althoughit is one of the most frequently employedmethodologic approaches in the practice disci-plines. Accordingly, in this paper, I describequalitative description as a method that research-ers can claim unashamedly without resorting tomethodological acrobatics. My presentation ofqualitative description was inspired, in part,by Thorne, Kirkham, and MacDonald-Emes'insightful discussion of `̀ interpretive descrip-tion'' (1997), but departs from that discussion andfrom Thorne's (1991) earlier related discussion of`̀ methodological orthodoxy'' in three ways. First,I see qualitative description as a categorical, asopposed to `̀ noncategorical alternative'' forinquiry; that is, the method already exists but isrelatively unacknowleged, as opposed to being anew, distinctively nursing adaptation of groundedtheory, phenomenology, and ethnography. Sec-ond, I see qualitative descriptive studies as lessinterpretive than `̀ interpretive description'' inthat they do not require researchers to move as farfrom or into their data. Third, they do not requirea conceptual or otherwise highly abstract render-ing of data. My depiction of qualitative descrip-tion departs from Artinian's useful discussion ofthe `̀ descriptive mode'' of qualitative inquiry(1988) in that I view it as producing a completeand valued end-product in itself, rather than asan `̀ entry point'' (p. 139) into other qualitativestudies: as she presented it, as a necessary preludeto grounded theory inquiry.

I refer to the method I present here as basic orfundamental qualitative description to differenti-ate it from other kinds of qualitative description,such as phenomenology, grounded theory, andethnography. Phenomenologic, grounded theory,and ethnographic studies are not exclusively inthe descriptive domain, though, as they may alsobe used to explain phenomena. Unfortunately, thewords basic, fundamental, and surface (a wordI use later in this article) connote somethingelementary, super®cial, simple, or merely preli-minary. In no way do I wish to reinforce, by using

these words, those invidious hierarchies thatpresent one method as easier, less valuable, lessdesirable, or less scienti®c than another. Nomethod is absolutely weak nor strong, but rathermore or less useful or appropriate in relation tocertain purposes. Accordingly, I present qualit-ative description here as a valuable method byitself. Comparisons to other methods are for thepurposesofillumination,not rankingordenigration.

QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIONVERSUS QUANTITATIVE

DESCRIPTION AND OTHERQUALITATIVE METHODS

All inquiry entails description, and all descriptionentails interpretation. Knowing any phenomenon(or event or experience) requires, at the very least,knowing the `̀ facts'' about that phenomenon. Yetthere are no `̀ facts'' outside the particular contextthat gives those facts meaning. Descriptionsalways depend on the perceptions, inclinations,sensitivities, and sensibilities of the describer(e.g., Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Giorgi,1992; Wolcott, 1994). `̀ There is no pure lookingwith a naked, innocent eye'' (Pearce, 1971, p. 4),and there is no `̀ `immaculate perception''' (Beercited in Wolcott, 1994, p. 13). Researchers seek-ing to describe an experience or event select whatthey will describe and, in the process of featuringcertain aspects of it, begin to transform thatexperience or event.

Although no description is free of interpretation,basic or fundamental qualitative description, asopposed to, for example, phenomenological orgrounded theory description, entails a kind ofinterpretation that is low-inference, or likely toresult in easier consensus among researchers. Eventhough one researcher may feature the feelings anda second researcher the events a woman reported inan interview, both researchers will likely agreethat, for example, the woman stated several timesthat she was angry and that she stated that hermother died one day after she herself learned shehad breast cancer. In the case of two researchersdescribing ostensibly the same scene, oneresearcher might feature the spatial arrangementin a room, while the second researcher will featurethe social interactions. But both researchers oughtto agree with each other's descriptions as accuraterenderings of the scene. That is, with low-inferencedescriptions, researchers will agree more readilyon the `̀ facts'' of the case, even if they may notfeature the same facts in their descriptions.DescriptionsÐwhether in the form of descriptive

QUALITATIVEDESCRIPTION/SANDELOWSKI 335

summaries of interview or observation dataÐentail researchers' choices about what to describe.But these descriptions must always accuratelyconvey events in their proper sequence, or havedescriptive validity, and the meanings participantsattributed to those events, or have interpretivevalidity (Maxwell, 1992). Although human beingscan never, and will likely never want to, describeeverything that is `̀ there,'' what they choose todescribe will be something that most observerswould agree is in fact `̀ there.''

Accordingly, although unavoidably interpre-tive, in that it is `̀ ®ltered through (human)perceptions'' (Wolcott, 1994, p. 13), basic quali-tative description is not highly interpretive in thesense that a researcher deliberately chooses todescribe an event in terms of a conceptual,philosophical, or other highly abstract frameworkor system. The description in qualitative descrip-tive studies entails the presentation of the facts ofthe case in everyday language. In contrast,phenomenological, theoretical, ethnographic, ornarrative descriptions re-present events in otherterms. Researchers are obliged to put much moreof their own interpretive spin on what they seeand hear. This spin derives, in part, from thesemethodologies themselves. Grounded theorystudy inclines the researcher to look for, andinterpret data as, elements in a `̀ conditional/consequential matrix'' (Strauss & Corbin, 1998,p. 181). Certain types of phenomenologic studiesincline the researcher to look for, and interpretdata in terms of, `̀ lifeworld existentials,'' such ascorporeality and temporality (Van Manen, 1990,p. 101). Such descriptions require researchers tomove farther into or beyond their data as theydemand not just reading words and scenes, butrather reading into, between, and over them (e.g.,McMahon, 1996; Poirier & Ayres, 1997). Wertz'(1983) analysis of the `̀ moments'' of a phenom-enological study is an excellent demonstration ofthe successive transformations from a partici-pant's description of an event to a researcher'sphenomenological description of that event.

Although less interpretive than phenomenolo-gical or grounded theory description, fundamen-tal qualitative description is more interpretivethan quantitative description, which typicallyentails surveys or other pre-structured means toobtain a common dataset on pre-selected vari-ables, and descriptive statistics to summarizethem. Quantitative descriptive studies entailinterpretation in that researchers set the horizonof expectations for the study by pre-selecting thevariables that will be studied, and in that theydraw conclusions from the results of statistical

tests, which are themselves based on sets ofassumptions. But it is a kind of interpretation thatdoes not move beyond these pre-set con®nes,including the operational de®nitions of conceptsand their representations as items in surveys andother measures. Quantitative description limitswhat can be learned about the meanings partici-pants give to events. Moreover, in quantitativedescription, researchers leave less room for theunanticipated (Becker, 1996, p. 61).

Researchers conducting qualitative studieswant to collect as much data as they can thatwill allow them to capture all of the elements ofan event that come together to make it the eventthat it is. As long as they are `̀ in the ®eld,'' theyare obliged to consider as data whatever theyobserve in the ®eld. Qualitative researcherscannot, as readily as quantitative researchers,`̀ insulate themselves from data'' (Becker, 1996,p. 56). Although `̀ full description is a will-o'-thewisp,'' the `̀ fuller'' description of qualitativedescription is preferable to qualitative researchersthan the con®ned, or (what they often perceive tobe the) `̀ skimpy'' description resulting fromquantitative surveys (p. 64). Finally, in quantita-tive research, there is a sharper line drawnbetween exploration (®nding out what is there)and description (describing what has been found)than in qualitative descriptive studies.

In summary, qualitative descriptive studiesoffer a comprehensive summary of an event inthe everyday terms of those events. Researchersconducting such studies seek descriptive validity,or an accurate accounting of events that mostpeople (including researchers and participants)observing the same event would agree is accurate,and interpretive validity, or an accurate account-ing of the meanings participants attributed tothose events that those participants would agree isaccurate (Maxwell, 1992). Researchers conduct-ing qualitative descriptive studies stay closer totheir data and to the surface of words and eventsthan researchers conducting grounded theory,phenomenologic, ethnographic, or narrative stu-dies. In qualitative descriptive studies, language isa vehicle of communication, not itself an inter-pretive structure that must be read. Yet suchsurface readings should not be considered super-®cial, or trivial and worthless. I intend the wordsurface here to convey the depth of penetrationinto, or the degree of interpretive activity around,reported or observed events. There is nothingtrivial or easy about getting the facts, and themeanings participants give to those facts, rightand then conveying them in a coherent and usefulmanner.

336 RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH

DESIGN FEATURESOF QUALITATIVE

DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES

Qualitative descriptive designs are typically aneclectic but reasonable and well-consideredcombination of sampling, and data collection,analysis, and re-presentational techniques. Inthe following sections, I describe typical designfeatures. Qualitative description is especiallyamenable to obtaining straight and largely un-adorned (i.e., minimally theorized or otherwisetransformed or spun) answers to questions ofspecial relevance to practitioners and policymakers. Examples of such questions include:What are the concerns of people about an event?What are people's responses (e.g., thoughts,feelings, attitudes) toward an event? Whatreasons do people have for using or not using aservice or procedure? Who uses a service andwhen do they use it? What factors facilitate andhinder recovery from an event?

Theoretical/Philosophical Orientation

Qualitative descriptive studies are arguably theleast `̀ theoretical'' of the spectrum of qualitativeapproaches, in that researchers conducting suchstudies are the least encumbered by pre-existingtheoretical and philosophical commitments. Incontrast to phenomenological, grounded theory,ethnographic, or narrative studies, which arebased on speci®c methodologic frameworksemerging from distinctive disciplinary traditions(e.g., Lowenberg, 1993), qualitative descriptivestudies tend to draw from the general tenets ofnaturalistic inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry is ageneric orientation to inquiry that includes notonly qualitative research, but also forms of be-havioral research involving humans and animals,such as ethological observation. Naturalisticinquiry implies only a commitment to studyingsomething in its natural state, or as it is, to theextent that this is possible in a research enterprise(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Willems, 1967). That is,in any naturalistic study, there is no pre-selectionof variables to study, no manipulation of vari-ables, and no a priori commitment to any onetheoretical view of a target phenomenon. Accord-ingly, the naturalist inquirer will use techniquesthat allow the target phenomenon to present itselfas it would if it were not under study.

Hues, tones, and textures. Although quali-tative descriptive studies are different fromphenomenologic, grounded theory, ethnographic,

and narrative studies, they may, nevertheless,have hues, tones, and textures from these appro-aches. Any one qualitative approach can have thelook, sound, or feel of other approaches. Charmaz(1990) described her grounded theory studies ashaving a phenomenological cast, and Sande-lowski, Holditch-Davis, and Harris (1992)described their grounded theory study as acquir-ing phenomenological and narrative casts.Indeed, qualitative work is produced not fromany `̀ pure'' use of a method, but from the use ofmethods that are variously textured, toned, andhued. There are ethnographic studies withgrounded theory overtones (e.g. Timmermans,1997) and grounded theory studies with ethno-graphic overtones (e.g., Kittell, Mans®eld, &Voda, 1998).

Accordingly, qualitative descriptive studiesmay have grounded theory overtones as research-ers may employ one or more techniques asso-ciated with grounded theory, such as a form ofconstant comparison, but not produce any theo-retical rendering of the target phenomenon (e.g.,Chow, 1998). Some qualitative descriptive stu-dies have narrative or phenomenological hues asresearchers might seriously attend to certainwords and phrases, or moments of experience,but not produce narrative or phenomenologicalrenderings of the target phenomenon (e.g.,Jablonski, 1994). Altheide's description of ethno-graphic content analysis (1987) presents qualita-tive content analysis (to be discussed furtherbelow) as a technique with ethnographic andgrounded theory overtones. Qualitative descrip-tive studies may also have shadings from largerparadigms, such as feminism.

Variously hued, toned, and textured studies arenot to be confused with erroneous references to ormisuses of methods or techniques. Researchersmay claim to have used theoretical sampling,constant comparison, narrative analysis, andphenomenological re¯ection when nothing abouttheir presentation indicates they used thesetechniques appropriately or at all. Researchersmay also explicitly combine techniques, as inmixed method studies (Tashakkori & Teddlie,1998).

Sampling

Virtually any of the purposeful sampling techni-ques Patton (1990) described may be used inqualitative descriptive studies. Especially useful,though, is maximum variation sampling, whichallows researchers to explore the common and

QUALITATIVEDESCRIPTION/SANDELOWSKI 337

unique manifestations of a target phenomenonacross a broad range of phenomenally and/ordemographically varied cases (Sandelowski,1995). Researchers may also choose to samplecases to represent a combination of pre-selectedvariables (Trost, 1986), or typical or unusualcases of a phenomenon, in order to describe it asit tends to appear or uncommonly appears. As inany qualitative study, the ultimate goal ofpurposeful sampling is to obtain cases deemedinformation-rich for the purposes of study. Theobligation of researchers is to defend their samp-ling strategies as reasonable for their purposes.

Data Collection

Data collection in qualitative descriptive studiesis typically directed toward discovering the who,what, and where of events or experiences, or theirbasic nature and shape. Data collection techni-ques usually include minimally to moderatelystructured open-ended individual and/or focusgroup interviews. Focus groups can usefully beviewed as the qualitative counterpart to thequantitative survey, in that they are typicallyused in qualitative research to obtain a broadrange of information about events. Data collec-tion techniques may also include observations oftargeted events and the examination of docu-ments and artifacts.

Data Analysis

Qualitative content analysis is the analysisstrategy of choice in qualitative descriptivestudies. Qualitative content analysis is a dynamicform of analysis of verbal and visual data that isoriented toward summarizing the informationalcontents of that data (Altheide, 1987; Morgan,1993).2 In contrast to quantitative content analy-sis, in which the researcher systematically appliesa pre-existing set of codes to the data, qualitativecontent analysis is data-derived: that is, codesalso are systematically applied, but they aregenerated from the data themselves in the course

of the study. Qualitative research is generallycharacterized by the simultaneous collection andanalysis of data whereby both mutually shapeeach other. Qualitative content analysis is simi-larly re¯exive and interactive as researcherscontinuously modify their treatment of data toaccommodate new data and new insights aboutthose data. Although researchers might also beginthe qualitative content analysis process with pre-existing coding systems, these systems are alwaysmodi®ed in the course of analysis, or may even bewholly discarded in favor of a new system, toensure the best ®t to the data. Miller and Crabtree(1992, p. 18) described this approach to analysisas the `̀ template analysis style.''

Both quantitative and qualitative contentanalyses entail counting responses and thenumbers of participants in each response cate-gory, but in qualitative content analysis, countingis a means to an end, not the end itself. Resear-chers may use a `̀ quasi-statistical analysis style''(Miller & Crabtree, 1992, p. 18) by summarizingtheir data numerically with descriptive statistics.But the end result of counting is not a quasi-statistical rendering of the data, but rather adescription of the patterns or regularities in thedata that have, in part, been discovered and thencon®rmed by counting. Qualitative content ana-lysis moves farther into the domain of interpreta-tion than quantitative content analysis in thatthere is an effort to understand not only themanifest (e.g., frequencies and means), but alsothe latent content of data. Yet qualitative contentanalysis is the least interpretive of the qualitativeanalysis approaches in that there is no mandate tore-present the data in any other terms but theirown. For example, Smeltzer (1994) described theconcerns of pregnant women with multiplesclerosis by asking them about their concernsand then organizing her ®ndings to catalog theseconcerns. Geller and Hotzman (1995) describedphysicians' perceptions concerning genetic test-ing by eliciting this information from them infocus groups and then summarizing their percep-tions. In these studies, concerns remained con-cerns and perceptions remained perceptions.They did not become, for example, conditionsfor or consequences of some event in a theory, nora `̀ strategic'' representation of self in a narrativerendering (Riessman, 1990).

Data Re-Presentation

The expected outcome of qualitative descriptivestudies is a straight descriptive summary of

2In a larger, generic sense, all human analyses oftexts entail the analysis of content. Accordingly,constant comparison, phenomenological, and thevarieties of statistical analyses are all examples ofcontent analysis. In the research literature, though,the term `content analysis' is a technical termdesignating speci®c approaches, including quanti-tative and qualitative content analysis (e.g.,Altheide, 1996).

338 RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH

the informational contents of data organized in away that best ®ts the data. For example, Smeltzer(1994) arranged her summary by time inpregnancy; that is, she described the pregnancy-related concerns of women with multiple sclero-sis as they appeared pre-conceptionally, antena-tally, intrapartally, and post-delivery. Geller andHoltzman (1995) arranged their summary intwo major categories re¯ecting the major topicsabout which they elicited information:(a) perceptions of obligations for disclosure,nondirectiveness, con®dentiality, and the genderand specialty differences in these perceptionsand (b) perceptions of barriers and incentivesto incorporate genetic testing into primary carepractice, including con®dence, ®nancing, patientdemand, and, again, the gender and specialtydifferences in these perceptions. Other ways toarrange data include: (a) actual or reversechronological order of events; (b) most pre-valent to least prevalent theme; (c) progressivefocusing, whereby researchers choose tomove either from describing the broad contextof an event to particular cases, or from parti-cular cases to the broad context; (d) a day-,week,- month-, or year-in-the life approachof actual person(s); and, (e) the Rashomoneffect, whereby the same event is describedfrom the perspective of more than one parti-cipant (Sandelowski, 1998; Wolcott, 1994,pp. 17±23).

Although such summaries might easily lendthemselves to more penetrating (as opposed tosurface) re-presentations of data, these are notrequired for a qualitative descriptive study to beconsidered methodologically `̀ good'' or practi-cally valuable. For example, the Rashomoneffect approach lends itself to further researcherinterpretations of different participants' versionsof the same event, but the mandate for theresearcher conducting a qualitative descriptivestudy is comprehensively and accurately todetail these versions. Accordingly, such sum-maries are valuable primarily as end-productsand, secondarily, as entry points for furtherstudy.

There is no mandate to produce anythingother than a descriptive summary of an event,organized in a way that best contains the datacollected and that will be most relevant tothe audience for whom it was written. But suchsummaries may themselves yield the workingconcepts, hypotheses, and thematic momentsfor future grounded theory or phenomenologicstudy, or themselves contain early versions ofthem.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the qualitative descriptive study isthe method of choice when straight descriptionsof phenomena are desired. Such study is espe-cially useful for researchers wanting to knowthe who, what, and where of events. Althoughfoundational to all qualitative research appro-aches, qualitative descriptive studies comprise avaluable methodologic approach in and ofthemselves. Researchers can unashamedly nametheir method as qualitative description. If theirstudies were designed with overtones from othermethods, they can describe what these overtoneswere, instead of inappropriately naming orimplementing these other methods.

So, whatever happened to qualitative descrip-tion? The method is alive and well, but needs onlyto be re-discovered as a valuable and distinctivecomponent of qualitative research and recoveredfor health sciences research.

REFERENCES

Altheide, D.L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis.Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65±77.

Altheide, D.L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Artinian, B.A. (1988). Qualitative modes of inquiry.Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 138±149.

Becker, H.S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitativeresearch. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. A. Shweder(Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Con-text and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 53±71).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Charmaz, K. (1990). `̀ Discovering'' chronic illness:Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine,30, 1161±1172.

Chow, S. (1998). Specialty group differences overtonsillectomy: Pediatricians versus otolaryngolo-gists. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 61±75.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995).Writing ethnographic ®eldnotes. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Geller, G., & Holtzman, N.A. (1995). A qualitativeassessment of primary care physicians' perceptionsabout the ethical and social implications of offeringgenetic testing. Qualitative Health Research, 5,97±116.

Giorgi, A. (1992). Description versus interpretation:Competing alternative strategies for qualitativeresearch. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,23, 119±135.

Jablonski, R.S. (1994). The experience of being mech-anically ventilated. Qualitative Health Research, 4,186±207.

Kittell, L.A., Mans®eld, P.K., & Voda, A.M. (1998).Keeping up appearances: The basic social process

QUALITATIVEDESCRIPTION/SANDELOWSKI 339

of the menopausal transition. Qualitative HealthResearch, 8, 618±633.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lowenberg, J.S. (1993). Interpretive research metho-dology: Broadening the dialogue. ANS: Advances inNursing Science, 16(2), 57±69.

Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity inqualitative research. Harvard Educational Review,62, 279±299.

McMahon, M. (1996). Signi®cant absences. Qualita-tive Inquiry, 2, 320±336.

Miller, W.L., & Crabtree, B.F. (1992). Primary careresearch: A multimethod typology and qualitativeroad map. In B.F. Crabtree & W.L. Miller (Eds.),Doing qualitative research (pp. 3±28). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D.L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: Aguide to paths not taken. Qualitative HealthResearch, 3, 112±121.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and re-search methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pearce, J.C. (1971). The crack in the cosmic egg:Challenging constructs of mind and reality. NewYork: Washington Square Press.

Poirier, S., & Ayres, L. (1997). Endings, secrets, andsilences: Overreading in narrative inquiry. Researchin Nursing & Health, 20, 551±557.

Riessman, C.K. (1990). Strategic uses of narrative inthe presentation of self and illness: A research note.Social Science & Medicine, 30, 1195±1200.

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitativeresearch. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 179±183.

Sandelowski, M. (1998). Writing a good read: Stra-tegies for re-presenting qualitative data. Research inNursing & Health, 21, 375±382.

Sandelowski, M., Holditch-Davis, D., & Harris, B.G.(1992). Using qualitative and quantitative methods:The transition to parenthood of infertile couples. InJ.F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitativemethods in family research (pp. 301±322). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Smeltzer, S.C. (1994). The concerns of pregnantwomen with multiple sclerosis. Qualitative HealthResearch, 4, 480±502.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Talbot, L.A. (1995). Principles and practice of nursingresearch. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed metho-dology: Combining qualitative and quantitativeapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thorne, S. (1991). Methodological orthodoxy inqualitative nursing research: Analysis of the issues.Qualitative Health Research, 1, 178±179.

Thorne, S., Kirkham, S.R., & MacDonald-Emes, J.(1997). Interpretive description: A noncategoricalqualitative alternative for developing nursing knowl-edge. Research in Nursing & Health, 20, 169±177.

Timmermans, S. (1997). High touch in high tech: Thepresence of relatives and friends during resuscitativeefforts. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 11,153±168.

Trost, J.E. (1986). Statistically nonrepresentativestrati®ed sampling: A sampling technique for quali-tative studies. Qualitative Sociology, 9, 54±57.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience:Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wertz, F.J. (1983). From everyday to psychologicaldescription: Analyzing the moments of a qualitativedata analysis. Journal of Phenomenological Psychol-ogy, 14, 197±241.

Willems, E.P. (1967). Toward an explicit rationale fornaturalistic research methods. Human Development,10, 138±154.

Wolcott, H.F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry.In M.D. Le Compte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research ineducation (pp. 3±52). New York: Academic Press.

Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data:Description, analysis, and interpretation. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

340 RESEARCH IN NURSING & HEALTH