Shank, Gary D. (2002). Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach

	Shank, Gary D. (2002). Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall. 224 pp. $29       ISBN 0-13-020987-2 Reviewed by David Fetterman Stanford University August 30, 2002 "Good researchers know their own strengths, and build upon them. This is a far more useful strategy than trying to identify and correct our weaknesses. Once we know and understand our strengths, we can use them to compensate and correct for our weaknesses" (Shank, 2002, p. 16). This is a constructive approach to life and one that I have adopted as I reviewed this book. Shank's strength, as represented in this book, is conceptual, rather than practical. He understands the theory and philosophy underlying qualitative inquiry. As he states: "We will be much less concerned here with learning all the details and techniques that we currently call qualitative research, and much more concerned with discovering and shaping what the field can come to be" (p. 11). Therefore, my review will focus on his ability to convey the conceptual foundation of qualitative research, since it purposely does not focus on the techniques of how to conduct qualitative research. In addition, I will follow the format of the text, beginning with observing and ending with writing. Basic Personal Skills Shank skillfully presents qualitative research as an extension of our natural talents. He highlights our ability to observe, converse, participate, and interpret. These skills need to be refined and channeled, however, they represent the "basic personal skills needed to do qualitative research" (3). Shank takes a step beyond these skills and explains that "qualitative research is a systematic empirical inquiry into meaning" (page 11). He also recognizes the need for advanced skills as we expand "our understanding of meaning in empirical settings" (p. 11). These skills include conceptualizing, reasoning, analyzing, narrating, and writing. Fundamentally, however, the book is about personal skills in the pursuit of qualitative inquiry. These skills include focused, refined, and directed forms of observation. Similarly, focused forms of conversing are required. Participation in other people's lives (such as fieldwork or action research) is a sine qua non of qualitative work. Finally, interpretation is considered the most significant distinguishing feature of qualitative inquiry. In essence, qualitative inquiry is about making meaning. Observing A brief review of technological advancements in human inquiry reveals a tension in the book. Three technologies are discussed: the mirror, the window, and the lantern. The mirror is a reflective form of inquiry in which we see ourselves and metaphorically see others. Shank points out how this form of inquiry and speculation has receded into the background and attributes this shift to the role of science in contemporary thought. (This is a critical observation, foreshadowing the tension between science and qualitative inquiry in this text,) The window represent a second technology more closely aligned with modern science. It is the clear unbiased view of reality. This is where science, in my opinion, is unnecessarily pitted against qualitative inquiry. Shank states that qualitative inquiry is not the child of either of these traditions. He states that it is linked, instead, to the lantern. The purpose of the lantern and by inference qualitative inquiry is illumination. I agree that qualitative inquiry is often illuminative and insightful. However, Shank states that "We are neither contemplative mirror researchers nor unbiased window researchers" (11). I think this position might be overstated or at least off target. Instead I would argue that qualitative inquiry is the child of many traditions. There are facets of every qualitative researcher that are reflective and "objective" in orientation. Moreover, there are qualitative researchers who identify closely with each of these ways of knowing. This disagreement in no way detracts from the author's ability to use metaphors to convey meaning. This talented scholar captures the imagination with his images and helps the reader make meaning, even when that meaning leads to disagreements. It is the mark of a sensitive researcher and cogent writer. Shank's talent is further showcased in his discussion about observation. Many researchers, qualitative and quantitative, rarely give any serious thought to ways of perceiving and observing. Shank's list of embracer, photographer, tape recorder, categorizer, baseliner, abstracter, interacter, and reflecter is characteristic of his gift as a teacher and fieldworker. He reminds us how focusing on one way of knowing or perceiving, although valuable in itself, might jeopardize other ways of knowing or perceiving. For example, a "photographer" might be so focused on visual stimuli that they do not hear sounds right in front of them. Similarly, the "tape recorder" type might be so immersed in sound that they cannot see the gestures and body language that accompany them or see the physical context of that sound and those words. In addition to categorizing these significant differences in how we observe, Shank even handedly presents the strengths and weakness of each type of observer. Conversing Shank's skill and experience also shine through during his discussion about conversing. His view of the world is simple "an interview is a form of conversation" (p. 34). One might be tempted to argue with this statement, comparing two distinct forms of communication. However, this would miss his intent. He is conveying more than an arguable fact here. He is using this position to highlight the artful nature of a good interview. The interviewer who flows seamlessly from topic to topic while maintaining the research focus is like the jazz musician who artfully uses improvisation and riffs to reveal a mood and feeling. The less skilled interviewer often asks too many questions, leads or dominates the interview, and needs to maintain too much control. This results in a more stilted interview and less valuable data. Shank also explores the more nuanced dynamics of interviews, ranging from the emotive function in which feelings are conveyed along with the verbal messages to conative functions or messages with a persuasive function. Shank's brief discussion about the role of the phatic function reveals his sensitivity to the subtle side of signals. He asks, "Have you noticed that, if you walk down a hall three times in one hour and pass the same person, you make a slight act of acknowledgement each time?" The signal is that there is a channel between the parties or an opening for interaction. Shank's reference to and appreciation of James Spradley's work is another type of signal about Shank's values. Spradley highlighted the value of simplicity and transparency in writing and helped a generation of students appreciate how certain types of questions generate specific types of responses. Spradley had a major influence on my own style. References to authors of this nature and caliber convey an awareness of standards of excellence in the field. Participation Participation or fieldwork represents the next building block in qualitative research. It is based on observation and conversation. Fieldwork can take many forms including case study and ethnography. Yin represents the more structured version and Stake along with the majority of qualitative case study researchers represent less structured and more narrative approach (at least in comparison). Shank also discusses Merriam and Lawrence-Lightfoot's work. However, differentiating types of case studies according to a scientific and non-scientific paradigm might have been helpful in this area. For example, Shavelson's somewhat controversial NRC report on educational research distinguishes scientific approaches in qualitative research such as ethnography from non-scientific approaches like portraiture. The classifications are open to debate; however, it is a useful tool to help the initiate assess the strengths and weaknesses of a given qualitative approach within the current context of research. Shank accurately notes that: "Ethnography is "one of the oldest and most venerable of all qualitative research methods" (p. 56). His exploration into issues of entry, rapport, and finding informants was useful. The discussion about etic and emic perspectives, which are critical to most forms of qualitative research, was brief and probably inappropriately labeled "a quick aside" given its role in defining qualitative research. The conceptual focus on field notes and the discussion about the ethnographer as narrator was instructive. Shank notes that many ethnographies are "made" as much as "found". Conceptually this highlights the role of interpretation, storytelling, and making meaning rather than the mechanical process of data collection and analysis. Although this is the critical level to focus on, it is important not to denigrate the foundation of meaning— which is the appropriate, mechanical process of recording what you see and hear. Shank's emphasis on ethnography shedding light on poorly understood areas is precisely on target. My only concern with this section of the book is that there is too much of an emphasis on ethnography as an art verses a science. This is an unnecessary contrast. There is an art and a science to ethnography, as there is in most professions. There is not an automatic tension between fieldwork and science. In addition, the emphasis on the personal cost of ethnography in this chapter is useful but too negative and misses the personal growth and development directly associated with participation or fieldwork. Similarly, Shank associates self-discovery with action research but neglects its role in ethnography. Interpreting "The most basic form of interpretation is description" (p. 74). This is an astute point. Description requires interpretation, discrimination, and a careful selection of the relevant facts. It is also the basis for a more formal level of interpretation. Many introductions to qualitative research gloss over this point, but it is fundamental to the endeavor. Thick description is at the heart of most qualitative description. Thick description involves sufficient detail to convey the cultural meaning of the event or situation. It is not an endless series of loosely connected and misleading facts. Instead it is enough detail to clearly describe the situation in a meaningful manner. Many students error on either the side of too thin a description (inadequate detail) or an overly elaborate compilation of facts and observations that confuse the reader about what's important in the researcher's record. Shank's emphasis on clarity and meaning is welcome. In addition, his point that description is not an artistic description or anything we want it to be is also welcome, "it is about describing what is present, on its own terms." (77). Shank presents three frameworks for interpretation including grounded theory, phenomenology, and semiotics. The first two are the most commonly used guiding frameworks in qualitative research. True to the approach adopted in this book, the author provides a clearly presented conceptual or theoretical approach to doing fieldwork (p. 77), even though my bias is toward combining a conceptual or theoretical approach with a pragmatic step-by-step approach (Fetterman 1998). Conceptualizing This chapter admirably addresses the issues of reliability, validity, and generalizability. The concepts of trustworthiness and triangulation are mentioned but not explored, even though they are fundamental to most qualitative research. This discussion would have benefited from a few simple examples or explanations, such as seeing the same event every day as a form of reliability. The author captures the contrast between qualitative and other forms of research when he explains: "Generalizability is most often a push toward breath, and qualitative research is much more concerned with depth." (p. 94). However, there is another level of generalizability that is overlooked in this discussion. Although it is difficult to generalize about the details or specifics with an N of one, the dynamics are another story. For example, a study of one university campus would probably note the conflicting views of faculty and administrators as they are engaged in the academic mission on a daily basis. Although the specifics would be different at every campus in the United States the same dynamics of this relationship probably exist on almost every campus. On still another level, qualitative findings are composed of hundreds if not thousands of events that allow the researcher to generalize about that specific behavior or set of circumstances within that specific setting. Generalizability is limited to that setting but that setting is in itself a rather large universe or series of data points. The author does not shy away from the significance of multiple realities in this chapter. He discusses it head on and helps the reader understand the value of a person's perception of reality in spite of an objective, concrete reality. This links in with multiple emic or insider perspectives of reality. Similarly, he presents a clear and straightforward discussion about ethics within the context of conceptualizing qualitative research, ranging from do no harm to doing good work. The chapter also includes a discussion about types of qualitative questions, such as hypothesis testing, exploration, and exegesis. Shank's discussion about not only the need to adjust for unanticipated circumstances in the field, but the importance of embracing tactical methods to allow for creativity and flexibility helps the initiate understand the essence of doing good qualitative work. Reasoning, Analyzing, Narrating, and Writing The next four chapters cover the final passages in this text. Reasoning focuses on logic, comparing deduction and induction, and abduction or reasoning toward meaning. The bottom line here, however, is "To do qualitative research, you have to think logically." (p. 116). The role of metaphor and literature search are discussed within this context as well. Analyzing involves coding and chunking or thematic analysis. This, in essence, is the search for patterns in data. This typically involves the inductive approach, feedback and comparison, and saturation. Shank does an excellent job of summarizing Miles and Huberman's hierarchy of meaning-making strategies, from the search for basic themes to coherence-making strategies. The two-paragraph description about computer analysis of qualitative data could have been expanded to provide some information about how these are useful conceptually, as well as methodologically. The second paragraph in this section focused on problems rather than how these tools might be used to conceptualize (as well as sort) data throughout the study. The inclusion of a few pages about qualitative evaluation models was welcome. However, the Patton reference was dated citing a 1990 version of his Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods book, instead of his most recent 2001 version. In addition, standard references in field were absent, including a few of my own books such as, Ethnography in Educational Evaluation (Fetterman 1984), Educational Evaluation: Ethnography in Theory, Practice, and Politics (Fetterman 1986), Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution (Fetterman, 1988), and Speaking the Language of Power: Communication, Collaboration, and Advocacy (translating ethnography into action) (Fetterman 1993). This may simply be a function of a sociological, rather than an anthropological frame of reference. There was also no reference to significant professional associations in this area such as the American Evaluation Association's Qualitative Methods Topical Interest Group or the American Anthropological Association's various groups including the Council on Anthropology and Education's Ethnographic Approaches to Evaluation in Education Committee. I was surprised by the absence of any reference to evaluation approaches that resonate with the author's philosophy as conveyed in his text, such as participatory, collaborative, and empowerment forms of evaluation (See Cousins, Donohue, and Bloom, 1996; Fetterman, 2001; King 1998, Whitmore, 1998). All of them heavily rely on qualitative methods and concepts. Narrating is about putting bits and pieces into a coherent story and as Shank notes "story is the enemy of chance" (p. 148). It is a way of making sense of individual incidents. Narrating or telling a story is a way of making meaning. Making meaning, however, is not a simple task. Aside from the methodological considerations, Shank brings us on a tour of postmodern genres that shape and re-shape meaning. Writing is typically the final phase in most qualitative research, although I would argue that it is critical from beginning to end. This chapter highlights rhetorical devices or "tropes" as well as some practical advice and conventions. (The remaining chapters provide useful caveats and concerns.) Conclusion In sum, the book is excellent at helping the new qualitative researchers grasp and hopefully internalize many of the conceptual and philosophical foundations of the approach. It even offers some useful exercises. Conceptually it is sound and captures the spirit of what doing qualitative research is all about. However, (and here is the obligatory critique required of every book review), this book will need to be supplemented with a how-to book that presents specific techniques and skills in a logical sequence for any new qualitative researcher learning how to do qualitative research. This observation is more of an assessment of the book as a tool of instruction, than a critique of the book, since it was not designed to fulfill this second mission. However, an argument can be made (as the author has in fact stated) that the best way or only way to learn how to do qualitative research is by doing it. Overall, however, Shank successfully guides us through the conceptual level of personal skills required in qualitative inquiry. References Cousins, J.B., Donohue, J.J., and Bloom, G.A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators' self-reported opinions, practices, and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17(3), 207-226. Fetterman, D.M. (2001). Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Fetterman, D.M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by Step (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Fetterman, D.M. (1993). (Ed.) Speaking the Language of Power: Communication, Collaboration, and Advocacy (translating ethnography into action). London: Falmer Press. Fetterman, D.M. (1988). (Ed.) Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution. New York, NY: Praeger Press. Fetterman, D.M. and Pitman, M.A. (1986). (Eds.) Educational Evaluation: Ethnography in Theory, Practice, and Politics. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE. Fetterman, D.M. (Ed.) Ethnography in Educational Evaluation. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE. King, J. A. (1998). Making sense of participatory evaluation practice. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. (New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 80, pp. 57-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Shavelson, R. (2001). NRC report on educational research. Whitmore, E. (Ed.) (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. (New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass About the Reviewer David Fetterman Consulting Professor of Education and Anthropology Director, Empowerment Evaluation Director, MA Policy Analysis Program Director, MA Evaluation Program School of Education Stanford University