Standards for Qualitative Research in Education

Margaret Eisenhart

A Prolegomenon on Standards

Howe, K. & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19 (4), 2-9.

The Trajectory of Debate 1980-90

- Entrenched quantitative methods and standards vs. a highly suspect newcomer

- Two strands:

1. Research methods vs. epistemologies

2. Research methods for different purposes

Our position:

Side with the second strandDistinguish standards for specific research

designs from standards for the general value of an educational research study

Focus on standards for general value

The Nature of General Standards

Abstract Refer to the educational value (or value

added) Apply to both quantitative and qualitative

methods

5 General Standards (guiding principles)

1. Specific data collection and analysis methods must be competently applied.

2. Contributions from previous theories, previous research, other relevant literature and researcher subjectivity (bias) should be made explicit

3. The fit between research questions, data collection and data analysis should be clear.

4. Overall warrant (validity) must be established by rejecting rival or alternative inferences or explanations.

5. Value constraints must be recognized and met.

--Educational research should be valuable to education (external value).

--Educational research should be ethical (internal value).

What’s Happened to the Debate about Qualitative Standards since 1990?

Epistemology takes center stage

Internal value constraints receive lots of attention

Other general standards receive little attention

National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles in Education Research (est. 2000).

NRC (2000). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

SRE’s 6 General Principles for High Quality, Scientific Research in Education

1. Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically

2. Link research to relevant theory

3. Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question

4. Provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning

5. Replicate and generalize across studies

6. Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and debate

Side-by Side ComparisonHowe & Eisenhart

1. Competent application of methods

2. External contributions made explicit

3. Fit of research questions, data collection and analysis

4. Overall warrant established

5. Internal and external value constraints met

NRC

1. Link research to relevant

theory

2. Use appropriate methods

3. Pose significant questions

4. Provide a chain of reasoning

5. Replicate and generalize

6. Disclose research for scrutiny and debate

Can We Talk about Shared Standards for the Trustworthiness (Validity and Reliability) of Educational Research?

I think so, but both qualitative and quantitative researchers have to take this effort seriously.

Necessary First Steps (qualitative and quantitative)

Share a definition of trustworthiness One possibility: When the evidence for the results

reported is sound and when the argument made based on the results is strong

Make strategies for achieving trustworthiness a formal component of all research designs

Qualitative Strategies for Trustworthiness

Identify threats to understanding (of social context, meanings, a group, etc.) in situ.

Key Q: How could the researcher’s understandings be wrong?

Key ReferencesMaxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research

design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. (2002). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A.M. Huberman & M.B. Miles (Eds.) The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 37-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

4 Kinds of Understandings that Qualitative Research Provides

Descriptive understanding Interpretive understandingTheoretical understandingGeneralizability

Descriptive validity: Could the description be wrong?

Descriptive accounts must be factually accurate—where the physical, concrete, or behavioral details are agreed to by both researcher(s) and participants.

Main threat:

Inaccurate or incomplete evidence

Main strategies to reduce threat:

Detailed evidenceTriangulation of data sources

Interpretive validity: Could the interpretation be wrong?

Interpretations must be meaningful to study participants, or meaningful from the participants’ perspective.

Main threat:

Imposing the researcher’s own perspective

Main strategies to reduce threat:

Systematic testing of emergent interpretations against participants’ words and actions

Member checks

Theoretical validity: Could the theory be wrong?

A theory must provide a good explanation for the phenomena studied. Both the concepts and the relationships among them must be valid.

Main threat:

Discrepant data, negative cases, or rival explanations not taken seriously

Main strategies to reduce threat:Systematic attempts to find discrepant data and

disprove alternative explanationsConsensus of other researchers

Qualitative generalization

2 kinds

Internal (within group or site, but beyond those studied directly)

External (to other groups or sites)

Main threat to internal generalizability:

Those observed and interviewed not typical of whole group

Main strategy to reduce threat:

Purposeful samplingSurveying

Main threats to external generalizability:

Phenomena studied is a special or idiosyncratic case

Main strategies to reduce threat:

Site selection Assess generalizability of theory or big idea, not findings

A Note on Reliability

Qualitative research does not attempt to eliminate variance between researchers or the researcher’s influence on the setting.

It does attempt to illuminate how a researcher’s values, expectations, and background influence the study.

Threat: Researcher’s influence unclear

Strategy: Audit trails

Conclusion

General standards for qualitative (or quantitative) research in education are within our reach, but to get there, we must get passed epistemological battles and turn our attention squarely to standards for trustworthiness (validity) that are meaningful (relevant) and useful in our field.