Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research

Abstract

During the past 6 years (1989-1994), the Journal of Marriage and the Family has published 527 articles. Only 10 or 1.9% were qualitative, either entirely (4) or partly (1), or in a combination of qualitative and quantitative data (5). Four other articles were based on qualitative data, but the results were entirely quantified. These four articles would raise the total of qualitative papers to 15 or 2.8%. These statistics are rather startling, especially when considering that there is a large theoretical literature pertaining to qualitative research, numerous articles and texts on its methods, a rapidly growing body of empirical research with the family field as one of its major beneficiaries (Gilgun, Daly, & Handel, 1992; Rosenblatt & Fischer, 1993), and a well-organized network on qualitative family research, with a newsletter of the same name. JMF, however, is not unique in terms of rarely publishing qualitative articles (see LaRossa & Wolf, 1985; Nye, 1988, on family research). Editorial boards of high-profile journals in family studies, psychology, and sociology are composed of well-published scholars, only a minority of whom are experienced qualitative researchers. The result is that a majority of the qualitative articles submitted have to be evaluated by scholars who have little expertise in qualitative research, or by qualitative researchers who have no expertise in the substantive area of a submitted article or who subscribe to a different epistemology. In contrast, quantitative papers can generally be matched with reviewers who not only understand the methods, but are also knowledgeable in the substantive area covered. It thus becomes important to discuss some of the problems inherent in evaluating qualitative research. Consequently, the focus of this article is practical and not theoretical. We address naturalistic qualitative research in terms of methods. In addition, because qualitative research has become extremely varied, we have limited the purview of this article to epistemologies that involve the observation, interview, or written participation of family members, rather than the analysis or deconstruction of texts, for instance. The statistics presented earlier clearly indicate that JMF is a quantitative journal, with a readership primarily composed of quantitative researchers. We have, therefore, written this article for scholars who are quantitatively oriented: Our vocabulary and material covered reflect this focus. Because several qualitative approaches are included within the vast umbrella of naturalistic fieldwork, we also hope to reach qualitative researchers who are very specialized within one particular epistemology or qualitative approach. In order to retain a certain practical focus, we could not discuss postmodernist approaches. Moreover, because most of us are sociologically trained, the bulk of the literature reviewed falls within this discipline. We use a quantitative/qualitative dichotomy only for heuristic purposes. At a historical juncture where traditional, theoretical, and empirical alignments should at least cohabit and new configurations are appearing (Alexander & Colomy, 1990, p. 56), one can only hope for an improved understanding between advocates of both sets of approaches and a decrease in the either/or dichotomous thinking that devalues the efforts of any one approach to knowledge generation. This hope also extends to adherents of the several distinct qualitative epistemologies. In a first section, we present general information on qualitative research in terms of its goals and procedures. This is followed by a discussion of linkages between epistemologies and methods in qualitative research; our own diverse orientations are outlined at the end of this discussion. In a third section, we broach more specific aspects of the evaluation process. Then we examine frequently encountered problems in the evaluation process, focusing on problems unwittingly created both by reviewers and authors. …