Peter Adler

Understanding and evaluating qualitative research

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. …

Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Preadolescent Cliques

A critical structural form organizing the social arrangement of childrens lives is the clique. This primary group colors the character of childrens preadolescent years and shapes their socialization to adult life. In this paper we draw on longitudinal participant observation and on depth interviews with advanced elementary-school children to explore the central feature of clique dynamics : the techniques of inclusion and exclusion. Cliques are circles of power wherein leaders attain and wield influence over their followers by cyclically building them up and cutting them down, first drawing them into the elite inner circle and allowing them to bask in the glow of popularity and acceptance, and then reducing them to positions of dependence and subjugation by turning the group against them. We conclude by discussing the generic features of these inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics, the characteristics of this cyclical pattern, the implications of this socializing experience for the broader societal dynamics of power and manipulation, and the kind of in-group/out-group differentiation that can lead to prejudice and discrimination.

Fieldwork with children

While there is an expanding literature of qualitative studies with children, there is relatively little that examines the actual fieldwork process with them. This book looks at fieldwork with children from a number of perspectives, and helps to address the needs of researchers working with children. Robyn M Holmes overviews the study of children in the early chapters, discussing basic methodology and considering the school as the primary site for studying children. In later chapters, she examines closely how a researchers personal attributes, such as gender and ethnicity, can and do affect research with children.

Managing gender : affirmative action and organizational power in Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand sport

and frameworks from which to study diversity in organizations. Readers more familiar with the literature and research on diversity may find some old ground covered in the volume, but there is still a good deal of freshness in the perspectives offered. A noteworthy feature of the chapters, beyond their very useful literature reviews, is that they could stimulate future research. The treatment of workplace diversity in the volume is neither superficial nor rhetorical, but theoretically rich. There is much here for scholars looking for promising conceptual frames for studying the multiple facets and levels of diversity.

Shifts and Oscillations in Deviant Careers: The Case of Upper-Level Drug Dealers and Smugglers

This is the first study of drug trafficking in the United States to penetrate the upper eschelons of the marijuana and cocaine business—the smugglers and their primary dealers. We spent six years observing and interviewing these traffickers and their associates in southwestern California and examining their typical career paths. We show how drug traffickers enter the business and rise to the top, how they become disenchanted due to the rising social and legal costs of upper-level drug trafficking, how and why they either voluntarily or involuntarily leave the business, and why so many end up returning to their deviant careers, or to other careers within the drug world.

OF RHETORIC AND REPRESENTATION: The Four Faces of Ethnography

Influenced by the new literary movement and postmodernism, in the 1990s sociologists began to reflexively examine their writings as texts, looking critically at the way they shape reality and articulate their descriptions and conceptualizations. Advancing this thread, in our presidential address we offer an overarching analysis of ethnographic writing, identifying four current genres and deconstructing their rhetoric: classical, mainstream, postmodern, and public ethnography. We focus on the differences in their epistemological, organizational, locational, and stylistic self-presentations with an eye toward better understanding how these speak to their intended audiences, both within and outside of the discipline.

Self-Injurers as Loners: The Social Organization of Solitary Deviance

ABSTRACT In this paper we examine the social organization of people who deliberately destroy or damage their own body tissue without suicidal intent. Best and Luckenbill (1982) have proposed two typologies of deviance performed by solitary actors: loners, who lack the regular association with fellow deviants and have no membership in a deviant subculture, and individual deviants, who are the actors and objects of their behaviors, yet socialize with others like them. Based on a convenience sample of 40 in-depth interviews with people who self-cut, burn, brand, scratch, bite, and bone-break, we describe and analyze the way their behaviors correspond to and differ from other forms of individual and loner deviance.

Parent-as-researcher : The politics of researching in the personal life

Several roles for conducting ethnographic research with children have been discussed, but one that has been omitted is the parent-as-researcher. In this paper, we describe some of the methodological advantages and disadvantages of the longitudinal ethnography of preadolescent children we conducted in our community using this methodological approach. We discuss the implications of our role lodging in this complete membership stance and the type of role relations, role identification, and role bifurcation that arose from this combined research/membership approach. We conclude by addressing the ethical issues associated with researching the community of ones own children.

The Deviance Society

ABSTRACT Debate has recently become lively about the state of the sociology of deviance in our discipline. While some have condemned it as stale, lacking in new theoretical advances, we disagree with this assessment. We assert, rather, that the field of deviance offers unparalleled insight into society, particularly in current times. Deviance thrives in America, from the underbelly of hidden life worlds to the new frontiers of discovery and social change. Although groups resist the label of deviance and its consequences, the process of deviance-making has become so important that it is understood and practiced across a broad spectrum of people. In the following pages we offer some examples of the way concepts and theories of deviance have filtered into commonsense understanding of the world and how they illuminate the stratification, dynamics, and turmoil of America.

The Role of Momentum in Sport

B OCIOLOGY OF SPORT has only recently gained appreciation as a legitimate area for sociological inquiry. Previously considered a light recreational pastime, sport in America is increasingly recognized as a major institution. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of several contributors who have laid the groundwork for this field (Sage, 1968; Loy and Kenyon, 1969; Edwards, 1973; Talamini and Page, 1973; Ball and Loy, 1975). Interest has been directed toward sport as representative of our society and as a noteworthy concern itself. The range of analyses, though, has not been adequately broad,