Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy & Leavy, Patricia. (2005). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Reviewed by Wes Clarkson, University of Texas at El Paso

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy & Leavy, Patricia. (2005). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Pp. x + 404 $44.95   ISBN 0-7619-2827-8 Reviewed by Wes Clarkson University of Texas at El Paso June 12, 2006 The Practice of Qualitative Research is yet another manual on the methodology of qualitative research among the 1,800 similar book titles currently on the market, as evidenced by searches of online book sellers. Why such a plethora of books on an arcane topic? Could it be related to the arbitrary and artificial dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research? Our authors state that qualitative research is an immense field of study with multiple methods for collecting data and a large number of manners for interpreting information, yet they also say that it is a unique and different methodology for creating knowledge. Can one be truly all-inclusive and unique at the same time? Is our academic rhetoric regarding research relative to current practices of understanding, or is it so much deleterious debate among a small community of academe? Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research The authors state that qualitative research involves coming to understand an issue within society through the eyes of the ones being studied, by interacting with their interpretation and experience of this issue. From this procedure researchers derive concepts and insights into society and individual behaviors. Quantitative research is based on predetermined concepts that are tested through a variety of instruments and statistical procedures. The main difference emphasized here is not the use of quantifiable data but rather the organizational trajectory of the research project. Qualitative supposedly starts without any concept in mind and then allows the data derived from the study to suggest concepts, while quantitative begins with a distinct concept in mind and strives to prove or disprove that concept. Both methods seek some sort of truth, knowledge, or understanding by developing or proving some concept. This all sounds like the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning or teacher centered and constructivist instruction. Which is the right approach to the generation of knowledge? Which provides us with better answers to society’s questions? In a section on sampling, validity, and reliability within qualitative research design, the traditionally understood differences between quantitative and qualitative design seem to become a little blurred. The authors suggest that the sample selected be a very cohesive one based on the direction of the project. This implies a lot of pre-study of target groups in order to determine whom to investigate and why. It also sounds like the type of hypothesis generation that occurs in quantitative research, except we just call it something else. Where does this information come from? How does the researcher decide on the cohesiveness of the group without a priori knowledge of the group and its issues? This procedure implies a lot of pre-fieldwork study and the decision to pursue certain topics, stopping just short of calling this type of activity as hypothesis generation. The blurriness is increased as they discuss validity from the standpoint of craftsmanship, communication, and pragmatism. Validity in quantitative terms asks whether or not the instrument measures what it says it measures. Does an IQ test really measure intelligence? Does a state exam for high school students measure what they have learned in high school? Heese-Biber and Leavy seem to have a similar idea when they refer to the credibility of the researcher, the degree of openness in later discussions about research findings, and the affect that the research has on those studied. All of the qualitative and quantitative ideas about validity seem to fall under the general heading of whether or not the research helps us understand the truth about a situation or provides us with a level of knowledge and understanding that we did not experience before. So, does qualitative validity really differ from quantitative validity, just because we adopt a different definition for the term? Reliability is described in terms of internal reliability, a term used in quantitative research to examine the construction of an instrument. Who is the researcher? What did he do during the field work? Did he document everything properly? Did he analyze everything properly? Did he create an adequate sample? Much in this short discussion is repetitive of some of the ideas regarding validity. The craftsmanship in the validity section refers, in part, to the identity and training of the practitioner in the reliability section. Documentation and analysis of data, as measures of reliability, can be directly correlated to the idea of open discussions of meaning which is part of the discussion of communicative validity. Perhaps we are attempting to discuss qualitative studies using the same terminology used for quantitative research, (by using the terms samples, validity, and reliability) instead of developing a set of terms that are more clearly identified with the ideals of qualitative research. If the difference between the two is simply procedural, then we should not be speaking of a dichotomy, but if the difference goes much deeper, then we should take up the challenge of explaining it in a manner accessible to and entry level university student of research design. Feminist Point of View Hesse-Biber and Leavy approach their writing from a strictly feminist point of view, devoting an extensive section in the first chapter to its explanation and defense. Later, example after example used in the main text of the chapters, refer back to a study by Hesse-Biber related to young women’s body image. The authors use the concept of “feminist standpoint epistemology” as the backbone for their discussion. This concept implies that each individual living in a society develops a psychological and philosophical point of view based on his/her place within the hierarchical structure of that society and the sum total of all life experiences that he/she has endured. Each such standpoint engenders a distinct type of knowledge for the individual (epistemology), leading him/her to interpret reality in a unique fashion (phenomenology). Hesse-Biber and Leavy imply that a feminist version of “standpoint epistemology” leads to certain topics and approaches for research design, namely qualitative research using interviews, focus groups, oral histories, etc. The feminist approach is also a revolutionary one. In the authors’ minds, research ought to immediately lead to serious discussions regarding inequities and eventually to radical activism on the part of the subjugated individuals being studied. Any researcher with this type of agenda, though, will tend to consider only certain types of projects, all of which will be related to a group that the researcher perceives as being dominated by another group. The philosophical hazard here does not relate to the fact that the researcher wants to help people, but to the limits this puts on his selection of groups to study. He may tend to ignore some whom he perceives as being in control, when it is just the perception of control that is evident as opposed to the reality. One difficulty with this text is the fact that the same avowedly feminist research project—Hesse-Biber’s body image research—is used over and over again to illustrate a large number of points throughout the book. I felt that they had gotten their point across the first time or two they used this example, without the need for the repeated references and explanations. A number of different scenarios, as examples, might have increased my engagement, rather than causing me to gloss over pages at a time, with the mental comment that they had already discussed this matter quite well in the previous chapter. Philosophies of Research The authors lump all qualitative research into two philosophically opposing camps: the constructivist/interpretive paradigm and the critical paradigm, where they, of course, occupy the high ground with other critical writers. The constructivists write as if social reality is a fixed object to be discovered and explained while criticalists write about power structures and the domination of one group over another. The critical point of view eschews the idea of absolute truth, claiming that this idea always leads to the subjugation of one group by another in society. They view oppression as the most important and pervasive essential element of societies, but we must ask whether or not this very idea about oppression resembles many of the absolute truths of the positivist viewpoint? Is there really a difference between constructivism and ciriticalism other than an emphasis on one or more of the many characteristics of human societies? Does research always have to lead to revolution and change or does it always describe those elements that researchers value the most? Ethnography It is curious that ethnography is lumped together with interviews, focus groups, and content analysis, as methods of data collection, rather than as an over-arching methodology or style of qualitative research. Doesn’t ethnography fit better into a group composed of case study, grounded theory, arts-based research, etc.? All of these can use interviews, focus groups, and content analysis within the process of data collection. Focus Groups The chapter on focus groups is typical of the rest in structure, content, and form. It discusses the background and history of the technique and provides a sample script drawn from an actual focus group interview. Then it discusses research design for this type of study and the need for standardization of questions, a curious idea for a qualitative study. It has a behind-the-scenes vignette drawn from the words of another researcher and a very short section on data analysis. Every chapter ends with a glossary, discussion questions, websites, and references. As a beginning level text on qualitative research, I believe that Hesse-Biber and Leavy have provided us with a very accessible explanation of the method, though it is limited in scope by discussing only a small number of the methods used by practitioners. The book has a definite place in programs where the student needs a strong grounding in one area of research before moving on to doing beginner level field work. The feminist rhetoric throughout the book will definitely create a lot of discussion in the classroom, but it may overshadow the methodology discussed in the minds of those who are not convinced as to the validity of this stance. Usefulness of This Book Heese-Biber and Leavy have provided us with an excellent textbook for the beginning level of the study of qualitative research. It is just technical enough that an intelligent under graduate could use it to produce an elementary level research using some of the cookie cutter methodology presented in the how-to sections of the chapters. Professors teaching women’s studies courses, political science courses based on civil rights movements, and research classes in schools of nursing would be able to identify clearly with the concepts taught on these pages. I should make a final comment about this volume. The more I read and worked with Heese-Biber and Leavy’s content the less I liked it. I became frustrated with issues discussed by the authors, but I had a very hard time determining why. Then I ran across a comment made by Margaret LeCompte and Jean Schensul in Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research that explained it all to me. Heese-Biber and Leavy, as feminist writers, are activists in their approach to research. They seek out topics based on the idealism of making concrete changes in society through research. I, on the other hand, am an interpretivist, one who looks at the world and describes what he sees in a manner that will help others understand their own realities better. I recognize now that the feminist rhetoric was getting in the way of my own understanding of the ideas of these authors because I was not allowing them their own perspective. Perhaps that is a generic mistake made by phenomenologists; once we arrive at a synthesis of the data we collect and make our interpretations, we close a doorway in our minds to other kinds of interpretations. Reference LeCompte, M.D. & Schensul, J.J. (1999) Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. About the Reviewer Wes Clarkson University of Texas at El Paso Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.