Qualitative Research: A Response to Atkinson, Delamont, and Hammersley

Abstract

The recent publication of Jacob's second work on qualitative research traditions (1987) and the response from Atkinson, Delamont, and Hammersley (1988) have opened up an interesting set of questions for qualitative researchers. The original arguments by the latter, to the effect that focusing on traditions was not a useful way to proceed, and that Jacobs in any event ignored a large body of research (British) in her analyses, seem to me to be off the point. Jacob has answered those criticisms elegantly and succintly, I believe, in her response (1989). But it appears that both parties to the exchange have missed a critical point, and it is that point I wish to address here. Qualitative research-of whatever stripe or tradition-has not had a very long or prominent history in educational research in this country. Although researchers have long conducted qualitative research in various forms since John Dewey, the mainstream tradition has been largely quantitative and predominantly positivist in orientation. It is only recently-within the last 15 years or less-that scholarly journals have seriously considered publishing the products of qualitative inquiry and, even then, editors have had some difficulty in getting competent reviewers for such articles, in distinguishing whether the materials were worthy of being sent out for review, and in determining whether the work provided met the criteria for rigor (or trustworthiness). Since the bulk of qualitative research has only just begun to see the light of day in the United States, continuing dialogue regarding its meaning, and the styles that may characterize it, appears to be a genuine effort to avoid closing down the conversation (Smith & Heshusius, 1986). But much more is at stake here than whether Jacob engaged in academic ethnocentrism (which I believe she did not). The focus on traditions within qualitative research sensitizes the field (of qualitative researchers in particular, and educational researchers more generally) to a problem first raised by Mary Lee Smith (1987). Smith argued that, despite the seeming overlap in names applied to qualitative research-ethnographic, naturalistic (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), case study (e.g., the work of Robert Stake), or qualitative (e.g., Miles & Huberman, 1984)-there were distinct traditions, which carried with them significant implications for several issues with which researchers ought to be concerned. Among those issues were not only the labels applied to different strains of research, but questions of the nature of reality (the ontological question); of object fields judged to be appropriate for study; of beliefs about the merits of different research methods (including what techniques ought to be the mainstay of the researcher's craft); of ways of presenting findings and interpretations (case study only describes the format, and rarely tells anything about what should be the rightful