APPLlED SOCIAL RESEARCHMETHODS SERIES

Series Editors

lEONARO BICKMAN, Peabody Gollege, Vanderbilt University, Nashville

DEBRA J. ROG, Vanderb,lt University, Washington, DC

r. SURVEY RESEARCH METHODS (Third Edltlon)

by FlOYO J FOWLER. Jr.

2. SYNTHESIZING AESEAACH (Thlrd Edlllon)

by HARRIS COOPER

3. METHODS FOA POllCY RESEAACH

by ANN MAJCHRZAK

4. SECONDARV RESEAACH (Stocond Edltlon)

by DAVID W. STEWART and MICHAEl A. KAMINS

5. CASE STUDY RESEAACH (Second Edllion)

by ROBERT K. YIN

6. META-ANAlYTIC PROCEDURES FOR SOCIAL

RESEARCH (Aevlaed Edlllon)

by ROBERT ROSENTHAL

7. TElEPHONE SUAVE Y METHODS (Second Edllion)

by PAUL J. LAVRAKAS

6. DIAGNOSING ORGANIZATlONS (Stocond Editlon)

by MICHAEL r, HARRISON

9. GROUP TECHNIQUES FOA

IDE" BUILDING (Sacond Edlllon)

by CARL M. MOOHE

10. NEED ANALYSIS

by JACK McKILlIP

I1 LINKING AIIDITING AND META EVALUATION

by THOMAS A. SCHWANDT

ano EOWARD S. HALPERN

12. ETHICS ANO VALIIES

IN APPlIED SOCIAL RESEARCH

by ALLAN J. KIMMEl

13. ONTIME AND METHOD

by JANICE A. KELLY

and JOSEPH E. McGRATH

14. AESEAACH IN HE"LTH CARE SETTtNGS

.by KATHLEEN E. GRIIDY

and BARBARA STRUDLER WAllSTON

:5. PARTICIPANT OBSERVATlON

by DANNY l. JORGENSEN

6. INTERPRETlvE INTEAACTIONISM (Second Edilion)

by NORMAN K. DENZIN

7. ETHNOGRAPHY (Second Edition)

by DAVID M. FET1ERMAN

6. STANDAROtZED SIIRVEY INTERVIEWING

by FlOYD J. FOWlER, Jr.

and THOMAS W. MANGIONE

9. PAOOUCTIVtTY MEASUREMENT

by ROBERT O. BRINKERHOFF

and DENNIS E. DRESSlER

~O. FOCUS GAOUPS

by DAVID W. STEWART

and PREM N. SHAMOASANI

~" PRACTtCAL SAMPLtNG

by GART T. HENRY

'2. OECISION RESEAACH

by JOHN S. CARROlL

and ERIC J. JOHNSON

'3. RESEARCH WITH HISP"NIC POPULATIONS

by GERARDO MARIN

and BARBAR" VANOSS MARIN

4. INTERNAL EVALUATION

by ARNOLO J. LOVE

5. COMPUTER SIMULATION APPlICATIONS

by MARCI" LYNN WHIGKER and LEE SIGELMAN

26. SCALE DEVELOPMENT

by ROBERT F. DeVELLlS

27. STUDYING FAMllIES

by ANNE P. COPELAND and KATHLEEN M. WHITE

26. EYENT HISTORY ANALYSIS

by KAZUO YAMAGUCHI

29. AESEARCH IN EOUCATIONAL SETTINGS

by GEOHREY MAAUYAMA

and STANLEY DENO

30. AESEAACHING PERSONS WITH MENTALILLNESS

by AOSAlIND J. DWORKIN

31. PLANNING ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE AESEARCH

by JOAN E. SIEBEA

32. APPlIED RESEARCH DESIGN

by TEAAY E. HEDRICK.

I.EONARO BICKMAN, and OEBAA J. AOG

33. DOING URBAN AESEARCH

by GREGOAY D. ANORANOVICH

and GEAAV AIf'OSA

34 APPLlCATlONS OF CASE STUDY RESEARCH

by ROBEAT K. YIN

35. INTRODUCTlON TO FACET THEORY

by SAMlJEL SHYE ano DOV EUZUR

will'l MICHAEl tlOFfMAN

36. GR"PHING DATA

by GARY T. ftENAY

37. AESEARCH METHClDS IN SP.ECIAL EDUCATION

hy DONNA M. MEATENS

and JOHN A. McLAlJGHlIN

38. IMPROVINO SURVEY QUESTIONS

by FLOVD J. fOWLER. Jr.

39. DATA COLLECTION "ND MANAOEMENT

by MAGDA STOU1 tlAMER-LOEBER

and WELMOET BOK VAN KAMMEN

40. MAIL SURVEVS

by THOMAS W. MANGIONE

41. QUAlITATIVE AESE"RCH OESIGN (Second Edlli,,")

by JOSEPtI A. MAXWELL

42. ANAlYZING COSTS, PROCEDURES,

PAOCESSES, ANO OUTCOMES

IN HUMAN SERVICES

by BAlAN T YATES

43. OOIN(; LEGAL AESEARCH

by AOBER r A MOAAIS, BAUCE D. SALES,

and DANiel W. SHUMAN

44. AANOOMIZED EXPERIMENTS FOA PLANNINO

ANO EVALUATION

by 110B[AT F. BORUCH

45. MEASUAING COMMUNITY INDICATORS

by PAlJL J. GAUENEWALD, ANOAEW J. TAENO. GAIL

TAFF, and MICHAEL KlITZNEA

46. MIXEO METHOOOLOGY

hy ABBAS TASHAKKORI and CHAALES TEOOllE

41. NARRATIVE RESEARCH

by AMIA I.IEBLlCH, AIVKA TUVAL-MASHIACH, and

TAMAR ZllBER

48. COMMUNICATING SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

TO POLtCY-MAKERS

by AOGER V"UGHAN and TERRY F. BUSS

49. PRACTlCAL META-ANALY818

by MAAK W. lIPSEY and DAVID 8. WILSON

For infonnation:

Copyright Q 2005 by Sage Publicatiuns, Inc.

Al! rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any forrn

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopyíng, recording, or by

any information storage and reuieval systern, without permission in writing from the

publisher.

Sagc Publicauons, lnc.

2455 Tcller Roau

Thousand Oaks, California 91.\20

E-mail: order(g)sagepull.{:olll

Sage Publications LId.

1 Oliver's Yard

55 City Road

London EC 1 y 1SI'

United Kingdom

Sagc Publications India 1'\1. Lid.

B·A2, Panchsheel Enclave

Post Box 410')

New Delhi 1 1 (J () 17 India

Printed in the Unitcd Stutes 01"America

Library of COIIXII'H Cataíoging-in-t'ublication lrata

Maxwell. Joseph Alex, IlJ41-Qualitativc research design: An interactive approach I

Joseph A. Maxwell.-:!nd ed.

p. cm.-(Applied social reseurch methods series; no. 411

lncludes bibliographical references ami index.

ISBN 0-7619-2607-0 (cloth) - ISBN 0-7t> 19-2608-1) (pbk.)

1. Research--Mcthodolugy. 1. Titlc. 11. Series.

Q180.55.M4M3lJ 2005

OOI.4'2-<lc22 2004013006

05 06 07 10 lJ 8 7 6 S 4 3

Acouisitions Editor:

Editorial Assistont:

Production Editor:

Copy Editor:

Typesetter:

Proojreader:

Indexer:

Cover Designer:

Lisa Cuevas Shaw

Margo Heth Crouppen

Melanie Birdsall

Mattson Publishing Services, LLC

C&M Digitals (1') Ltd.

Chery I 1<ivard

Sylvia Cuate»

Janet Foulger

3

Conceptual Framework

What Do You Think Is Goiog Oo?

Biologist Bernd Heinrich (1\)84, pp. 141·-151) and his associates once spent a

summer conducting detailed, systernatic research on ant lions, srnall insects

that trap ants in pits they have dug. Returning lo the university in

Heinrich was surprised to discover that his results were quite differenl

those published by other researchcrs, Rcdoing his experiments the following

surnmer lo try 10 understand these discrepancies, Heinrich Iound that

his Iellow researchers had becn led asrray by an unexamined assumption

had rnade about the ant lions ' time Irame: Thcir observations hadn 't been

enough 10 detect some key aspects of these insects' behavior, As he concluded,

"even carefully collected rcsulrs can he misleading if the underlying context

assurnptions is wrong' (1984, p. 151).

For this reason, the conceptual framework of your study-the

concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and Iheories

informs your research-is a key partof your design

1994; Robson, 2(02). Miles and Huberman

framework as a visual or written product, one

cally or in narrative Iorrn, the main things lo be

or variables-ami the presumed rclationships

I use the terrn in a broader sense that

that you hold about the phenornena srudied.

or no\. This may also be called the "theoretical

for the study.

The most irnportunt thing to understand

that it is primarily a conception or model

study, and of what is going on with these

the phenomena that yOll are investigating.

the rest of your design-to he1p

realistic and relevan! research

QUALIl'ATJVE RESEARCIt flJ<:SIGN

and identify potential validity threats lo your conclusions. 11also helps you

justify your research, something Idiscuss in more detai] in Chupter 7. In this

chapter, Idiscuss the differeru sources for this rheory, and how lo use theory

effectively in your designo Idescribe the nuture of Iheory in more deruil later

in the chapter, in dealing with the uses uf exisiing theory, Here, I waut tu

emphasize that your conceptual Iramework is a theory, however tcntative or

incompleto it may be.

What is otten called the "rescarch problem" is a part 01' yuur conceptual

framework, and formuluring the researeh probleru is oftcn secn as a keytask

in dcsigning your srudy. It is part of your conceptual tramework (although it

is often treated as a separute couiponent 01'a research dexign) because it

identifies sometlnug that is going VII in the world, something that is itsvlf

problernatic or thai has consequenccs rhat are problematic. Your research

problem tunctions (in cumbination with your goals) tojustijv yuur srudy, to

show people why your rcsearch i~ important. In addition, rhis problcm is

sornerhing that is not fully understood, or ihat we dou't adequutely know

how to deal with, und rherefore we wanl more informutiou about u. Not.

every study will have an explicit statemcnt of a reseurch problcm, but every

worthwhile research design contains an implicit or explicit idcntiticution of

some issue or problem, intcllectuul or practical, abOUI which more informa-

uon is needed. (The justification of "necdcd" is where your goals come inro

play.)

Many writers label the pan of a research desigu, proposal, or published

paper that dcals with the conceptual frarncwork 01' a study the "literature

revicw," This can be a dangerously misleuding term. In devclopiug yuur con-

ceptual framework, yOllshould not simply summarize some body 01'theoretical

or ernpirical publications, for three reasons:

J. It can lead lo a narrow focus on "the lirerature," ignnring other concep-

tual resources that may he 01"equal or greater irnportance Ior your study. As

Locke, Spirduso, and Silvermau (1993) poinred out. "in any active area of

inquiry Ihe currenl knowledge hase is nol in Ihe library-il is in Ihe invisihle

college 01'informal associalions among resean:h workers"(p. ,lX),This kltowl-

edge can be fllund in unpuhlished papers, disscrlalions in progress, "lid granl

appli(~alions, as well as in Ihe heads 01'researchers working in Ihis t¡eld, Locke

et al. (1993) slaled lhal "the be~1inllllducliün lo lhe clIJn~nl slatus nI'a research

area isdose associalion wilh atlvisurs who kllow Ihe terrilory" (p. 49). 111addi-

lion, an e.xclusive orienlalion \(Iward "Ihe lilcralure" leads you lo ignore your

own experience, your speculal.ive Ihinking (discussed below inIhe seclion tilled

"Thoughl Experimellls"), alld any pilol and exploratory research Ihal you've

done.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THlNK IS GOING ON?

2. lt tends to generate astrategy 01'"covering the field" rather than focusing

specifically on those studies and theories that are particularly relevant to your

research. Literature reviews that lose sight 01'this need Ior relevance often

degenerute into a series 01'"book reports" on the literature, with no clear

connecring Ihread or argurnent. The relevant studies may be only asmall part

of the reseurch in a defined field, and may range across a numher of different

upproaches and disciplines.' In fact, the rnost productive conceptual frame-

works are often those that intégrate ditferent approaches, lines of investigation,

or theories that no one had previously connected, Bernd Heinrich used Adam

Srnith 's The Wea/,h of Nations in developing a theory of bumblebee foraging

ami energy balance rhat ernphasized individual initiative. cornpetition, and a

spontuneous division 01'labor, ruther than genetic dererminauon or centralized

control (Heinrich, IlJ79, pp. 144-146, 1984, p. 79).

3. It can lead you to think that your task is sirnply descriptive-e-to repon

what previous researchers have Iound or whal theories have been proposed,

In constructing aconceptual framework, your purpose is not only descriptive,

bUI also critical; yOIl need to understand (and dearly communicate in your

proposal) what problems (including ethical problems) there have been with

previous research and theory, what conrrudictions or holcs you have found in

existing views, and how your study can make an original contribution lOour

understanding. You necd to treat "the literature" nOI as au authority to be

deferred to, but as a usetul but fallihle source of ideas ahout whar's going on,

and .ro uuempt lo see alternauve Wl1ys of fruming the issues. For good

examples 01' Ihi~ attitude, see Exarnplc 3.2 and the "Context" scction 01'

Martha Regan-Smiih's proposal (see the Appendix).

Another way 01' puuing this is that the conceptual frumework Ior your

research study is something that is constructed, not found. It incorporates

pieces that are borrowed from elsewhere, but the structure, the overall coher-

ence, is something that yOI/ build, not something that exists ready-rnade. II is

importanl Ior you lo pay auention 10 rhe exisiing theories and research that are

relevant \o what you plan lü study, because Ihes\:! are often key sources for

understanding whal is going <ln wilh lhese phcnolllcna. However. these

theories and results are often partial, Illisleading, or simply wrong. Bemd

Heinrich found Ihal Illany 01'Iht~ideas aboUI anl lions in the lilerature wcre

incorrect, and his suhsequent research led lo a much more emnprehensive and

well-supporled Iheory 01'Iheir behavior. You will need lo critieally examine

each idea or researeh Ijnding to see ir il is a valid and useflll module for

consiructing a Iheory Iha! will adeqllately infnrm your sluuy.

This idea thal e.xisling Iheol'y and resean:h provide "modules" Ihal you can

use in your OWII research was developed al lenglh by Becker (1986,

pp. 141-146). As he stated,

3S

~6 QUALITATlVE RESEARCII DESIGN

1am a/ways collecting such prcfahricated parts for use in future argumcnts. Much

of my reading is governed by a search for such useful modules. Sometimes I

know I need a particular theoretical part and even have a good idea 01'whcre lo

findit(often thanks 10 my graduate training intheory, 10 saya good word for what

Iso often feellike maligning). (1986, p. 144)

Before describing the sources of these modules, 1want to discuss aparticu-

larly important part of your conceptual framework-the research paradigm(s)

within which you sitúate your work.

CONNECTlNG WITH A RESEARCH I'ARADIGM

One of the critical decisions that you will need to rnake indesigning your study

isthe paradigrn (or paradigrns) within which you will situate your work. This use

of the term "paradigm," which derives from the work 01'the historian of

science Thomas Kuhn,refers loasetofverygeneral philosophical assumptions

about rhenatur,eoftheworld (ontology) andhow wecan understand it(episte-

rnology), assumptions that tend to be shared by researchers working in a

specific fieldortradition. Paradigms alsotypically include specific methodolog-

ical stratcgies linked lo these assurnptions, and identify particular studies Ihat

are seen asexemplifying these assumptions and rnethods. Althe most abstract

andgeneral level,cxamplcs ofsueh paradigms arephilosophical positions such.as positivism, constructivism, realisrn, and pragrnatism. each embodying very

different ideas about reality and how wecan gainknowledge of ir.Atasorne-

what more specific level, paradigms that are relevant to qualitative research

incIude interpretivism, critica] theory,feminism, postmodernism, andphenorne-

nology, and thereareeven more specific traditions within these.

Itiswellbeyond thescope ofthisbook lodescribe these paradigms andhow

they can infonn aqualitative study: good discussions of these issues can be

found inCreswelí (1998) and Schrarn (1003). However, 1want lo make sev-

eral points that are relevant lo using paradigms in your research design:

l. Although some people refer lo "the qualitative paradigm," there are

many different paradigms within qualitative research, sorne of which diffcr

radically in their assurnprions and implications (cf. Denzin & Lincoln, 200ü;

Pitman & Maxwell, (992). 11will be important to your research design (and

your proposal) lo make explicit which paradigm(s) your work will draw on,

since a cIear paradigmatic stanee helps to guide your design decisions and lo

justify these decisions. Using an established paradigm allows you to build on

a coherent and well-developed approach to research, rather than having to

construct all of this yourself.

CONCEPTUAl. f,'RAMEWORK: WIIAT DO VO\]

2. You don't have lo adopt in total a single paradigrn

possible lo combine aspects of different paradigms and

do this, yOIl will need to carefully assess (he cornpatibility

borrow from each. Schrarn (2003, p. 79) gave a valuable

bined the ethnographic and life history traditions in

an experienced reacher's adjustrneru to a new school

3. Your selection of a paradigm (m paradigms)

free choice. You have already madc many assumptions

topic, and how we can undcrstand these, even ir you

examined these. Choosing a paradigm or tradition

ing which paradigms best fit with your own assumptions

preferences; Becker (1986, pp. 16-17) made the

in general. Trying to work within a paradigm

assurnptions is like trying lo do a physically

don't tit-at best you'Il be uncornfortable, al worst

the job well. Such a lack of tit may not be obvious

only as yon develop your conceptual

methods, since these should also be compatible

Writing mernos is a valuable way of revealing

tions and incompatibilities (ef. Becker,

e,f

t·i

IIIi

!

IIiI

¡!¡

There are four rnain sources for the modules that you can use 10construct

the conceptual frarnework for your study: (1) your OWIl experiential knowl-

edge, (2)existing theory and research, (3)your pilot andexploratory research,

ami (4) thought experirnents, 1 will begin wirh .experiential knowledge,

because itisboth one ofthe most irnportant conceptual resources and theone

that is1110S1 seriously neglectcd in works 011 research designo 1will then deal

with the use 01'existing theory and research inresearch design, inthe process

introducing H1001,known as"concept mapping," thatcanbevaluable indevel-

oping aconceptual framework Ioryour study. Finally, 1will discuss the uses

01'your own pilot research and "thought experimcnts" ingenerating prelimi-

nary ortentative theories about your subject.

EXPERIENTlAL KNOWLEIJGE

Traditionally, what you bring lo the research from your own background and

identity hás been treated as "bias," something whose influence needs lo be

eliminated from the design, rather than a valuable component of it.This has

been true to some extent even in qualitative research, despite the fact thatqualitative researchers have long recognized that inthis field,theresearcher is

QUAI.ITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

the instrument of the research. In opposition lo the traditional view, C. Wright

Milis, in a classic essay, argued that

the most admirable scholars withiu the schol.uly cornrnunity ... do not splii their

work trom iheu' lives. 'I'hey seern 1,.iake both too seriously tu allow sud, disso-

ciation, and they waut to use euch Ior rhe euricluucnt 01'iheother. (195'), p. 1')5)

Sepurating yUllr rcsearch Irom other aspects of yOllr lifc cuts you olf from

a major source nI' insights, hypotheses, and validity checks. Alall Pexhk in,

dixcussing the rolc 01'subjectiviry in lile research he had done. concluded that

the subjectivity that originally I had taken a, an atflunon. somerhing 1') bear

because it clluld not be toregone, could. to the contrury, he tukeu as "virtuous."

My subjectivity is the havis tor 11••z~·'l.lJ·y that 1arn uble tutell Itis a,trell,!lh (In

Ibuild. lt lIIa~~, 111t' wh••Iam as a persou and as a reseurc ha, t>qllll'l'iflg

pcrspecuves and i",J~hts that shape ull ihar 1do as a reseurcher. trum

topic clear Ihrllllgh to the emphuses I make in my writing. Set:1I

subjecuvity is sornerhing lo capitulizc on I uthcr thuu lo exorcise.

lIlany 01' the same points in divcusxing what he

researcher's technical kuowledge, research

perieuces. He urgued that

nut be ignOlcd hccausc nI" the usual canons gov-

personal cxperience und data as likcly to bias the

In the squashing 01' valuable experienria! .l.ua. We

your expericncc, thcre is potential g,)ld iherc!' IllJX7. p. I 1)

somerirnes seem to ~ystelllali<:ally ignore what their

their OWIl cxperience about the seuings or issues rhey pro-

can seriously dumage the proposal's credibility.

ami Strauss emphasized thut this is not a license to uncritically

assumprions and vulucs un thc reseurch. Reuson (1 ~X8, 19(4)

subjectivity" to refer lo

in which we do IWl sllpl'r"ss our pruuary ex perieuce ; nor

ourseh'e, to he ,>Wt:¡Jl away ¡¡nd uVt:J"whelllled by it:

alld lI~e it as par! 01' the inquiry prol'ess. (1 \IX!!,

or your idelllily all\l experielll'e in your research

Ihemdical ¡¡lid philnsophical support (e.g., Berg &

l.in<:oln, 2000; Janscn & Peshkin, 1'.i92). The philusupher

(1<)87. 19(0) argut:d Ihal thcre call1lot. cven in principie,

a "(Jull's eye virw." a Vil'W thal is lhe one trlle "ohjel'tive"

40 QUAl.Il'ATlVF. RESEARCII nESIGN

topic, and being struck by two studcnts' bringing up issues of the righrs of

particular groups to retain their cultural heritages; it was an issue that had

never consciously occurred 10 me. Ami l'm sure that my misspent youth

reading science fiction rathcr than studying had a powerful influence on

rny sense of the importance of tolerancc and understanding 01'diversiry: 1

wrote my essay for my application to college on tolerance in high sehool

society. But 1didn 't think rnuch about where all this carne from.

It was ralking to the philosopher Arnelie Rorty in the surnmer 01' 1991

that really triggered my awareness oí'these roots. She had given a talk on

the concept of moral diversity in Plato, ami l gave her acopy of my draft

paper on diversiry and solidarity. We met tor lunch scveral weeks later lo

discuss these issues, and at one point she asked me how my concern with

diversity connected with my background and experienccs. l was sur-

prised by the question, and found I really couldn 't answer it. She, on the

had thought about this a lot, and talked about her parents erni-

from Belgium to the US, deciding they were going lo be Iarmers

"real Americans," and with no background in farming, buying land

rural Wesl Virginia and learning how to survive and fit into a comrnu-

of people vcry different froru thernselves.

made me start thinking, and l realized that as far back as lean

I've Iclt different from other people, and had a lot of difficul-

result of this difference and my inability ro "lit in" with pcers,

or other people generally, This was all eompounded by my own

and tendency to isol ate rnyself', and by the frequent rnoves that

family made while I was growing IIp ....

way in which this connects with my work on diversity is that rny

main stratcgy for dealing with my difference frorn others, as far back as

1can remernber, was no/ to try lo be more like them (sirnilarity-based),

bUIlo try tobehelpful lo thern (contiguity-based). This isahit oversirn-

plified, because l aIso saw myself as somewhai ofa "social chameleon,"

adapting lo whatever situation 1was in, bUI this adaptation was much

more an interactionul adaptation than one of becoming Iundarnentally

similar to other people.

lt now secms incomprehensible to me that l never saw the connections

bctween this background and my academic work ....

[The rernainder of the memo discusses the specific connections

between my experience and the theory of diversity and community that

1had been developing, which sees both similarity (shared characteristics)

and contiguity (interaction) as possible sourees of solidarity and cornmunity

(Maxwell, n.d.).)

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT D() vou THlNK IS GOING ON"

EXAMPLE 3.2

How One Researcher Used Her Personal

Experience 10 Refocus Her Research Problem

1 had spent countless hours in the Iibrary. reading the Iiterature on

women 's practice of breast self-examinatilln (BSE). The articles con-

sisted of some research studies, sorne editorials in major medieal joumals,

and some essays. The research base was very weak, mainly surveys ask-

ing some group of women whether they did BSE, and if noto why not.

The groups often were not large or representative. The questions and for-

mat varied tremendously from study to study. That most women did not

do it was clear, having been Iound repeatedly. Why they did not do it was

not at all c1ear. l was developing a long Iist 01"possible reasons women

did not do ít, They seerned to faIl into three categories: (1) Women were

ignoranl of how or why to do BSE;(2) women were too modest to touch

themselves: and (3) women were 100 fearful of what they would find. The

reasons all seemed quite plausible, hut somchow were not satisfactory.

The quesrion kept repeating itself, "Why don't wornen do BSE?" Then

1 asked the question 01' myself. "Why dont 1 do BSE?" l knew none of

the reasons explained my behavior. Then l changed the question: "What

would get me 10 do it?" lt occurred to me that, if a friend called each

month and asked if l had done it, I would do it, either in anticipation

her call or immediately afterward. Changing the question to a positive

one completely changed my way 01' thinking about the problern: "Whar

would encourage wornen 10 do BSE?" The new question opened a range

of possibilities by puuing BSE in thc context of behavior modification,

which offered a variety 01" lestable techniques for changing behavior,

(Grady & Wallston, 1988, p. 4\)

J'RIOR THEORY ANO RESEARCII

The second major source of modules for your conceptual framework is

prior theory and research--not simply puhlished work, but other people's

theories and empirical research as a whole. I will begin with theory. because

it is for most people the more probleruatic and confusing of the two, and

then deal with using prior research for other purposes than as a source of

theory.

4)

42 QUAUTATIVl<: RESEARCH DESIGN

I'm using the term "theory" to refer lo sornething that is considerably

broader than its usual meaning in discussions of research rnethods. By

"theory," 1 rnean simply a set 01"concepts and the proposed relationships

among these , a structure that is iutended lo represent or model something

about the world. As Let.orupre and Preissle (I\}1J3,p.239) stated, "theorizing

is siuiply the cognitive process ufdiscovering or mauipulating abstraer cate-

gories ami the relutionships amoug these catcgories." My only modification

of this is to include not simply absrruct caregorics, but concrete and specific

concepts as well.

This use encompasses everytlung trurn so-called "graud theory," such as

behaviorisrn, psychoanalyxis, or rational choice theory, to specific, cveryduy

explanations Di"aparticular event or state, sud, as "Dora (IlIY H-year-üIJ daughter)

doesn ~I want to gu lo school today because she's angry al her teachcr Ior

correciing her yesterduy.t'That is. l' 111 not using "theory" to denote a particular

level of complexuy, ubstraction. (Ir gcuerutity of expluuatury propositions, but

to refer 10 the entire rtlIIge of such proposirions. AII such ex planations have

fundamental teatures in cormuon, ami tor my purpoxes thc similaritics are more

important thun the ditlerences.:'

Thus, theory is not an arcane and mysterious eruity that al some point in

your training you learn lO understand and master, As Groucho Murx used lo

say 011 the 11J50s TV gallle show tí/ti Bet Ytmr Lile. "It's an ordinury houschold

word, sornething you use cvery duy." The simplcst form 01"theury ((I!lsiSIS

of two concepts joined by a pioposed relariouship. Such a iheory can be as

general as "Posirive reintorcement leads to continuauon of the reintorced

behavior," or as specific as "A" usteroid impact cuused rhc extinction 01' Ihe

dinosaurs." The iruportunt point is wluumukes thisarheory: the linkiug of 1\'i0

concepts by a proposed relatiouship.

A major functiou 01theory is lo pruvide a model or map of whv the world

is the way itis (Suauss. 1995). It is a simplificution of rhe world, but a sun-

plificarionaimed al clarifying ami cxplaining some aspect 01"how it works.

Theory is a statement about what is going on with the phenorncnu thar you

wanl to understand. 11is not sirnply a "framework," alrhough il can provide

that, bUIa story about what you think is happening ami why. A useful iheory

is one that tells an enlighlcnin¡! srory about xome phe numeuon, one that

gives you new insighls ami broadells your unúerstanding of lhal ph':lIllllle-

non. (See Ihe discussion of cau~<J1prncesses in Chapter 2.)

Glaser ami Slraus~ 's lerm "grounded Iheory" (1967), which has haJ an

importalll inl1uence on C]lIalilalive research. does nol refer lo :lIly parlicular

leve! of Ilteory, bUI lO lheory Ihal is indllelively devcloped during a stlldy

(or series of studie~) and in COIlSlalllinlcraclion with Ihe dilla fn'lll Ihat slUúy.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON? 43

This theory is"grounded" in the actual data collected, incontrast to theory that

is developed conceptually and then simply tested against empirical data. In

qualitative research, both existing theory and grounded theory are legitimate

and valuable.

The Uses of Exísting Theory

Using existing thcory in qualitative research has both advunruges and risks,

as discussed carlier, The advuntages ol' existing rheory can be illustrated hy

two meraphors:

Theory is ti COUT rloset, (1.got this metaphor Irorn Jane Margolis, who once

described Murxisrn as a coat closet: "You can Irang anything in it.") A useful

high-Ievcl theory givcs you a frarnework for rnaking sense of what you see.

Particular pieces 01"data, which otherwise might xeern unconnected or irrele-

vunt 10 une anorhcr or 10 your research quesiions, can be rclated by fitting them

into the theory. The cuncepts of rhe existing theory are the "coat hooks" in the

closct; they providc places 10 "hang" data, shuwing their relationship to other

data. However, no rheory will accomrnodate all data equally well; a theory that

neatly organizes some data will leave orher data disheveled and lying on the

1100r, with no place to pul them.

Theory is a spotlight. A usetul theory illuminutes what you seco 11 draws

atremion \o particular events or phenomena, ano _,hed, light on

might otherwisc go unnoriced or misunderstood. Bernd Heinrich,

inciden: in his investigarion of the feeding habits 01" c.uerpillars, stated

The c lipped leaf ,1\)0.1 OUI liS ir f1aggccJ in red, because it didn't

tions or theories about how I thought Ihings ought lo he. My

W<JS 0"'; of wonder. HuI the wonder was actually

that crowded my rnind and vied wirh each

lIad 1110 theories al ull, the parrially eaten

nOliced. (1984. pp. 133-114)

By Ihe sarne token, howcver, a Iheory

leave olher areas in darkness: no theory

A sIudy lhal lIl<Jkes cxcellenl use

EX<JllIplc 3.3.

44 QLJALlTATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

EXAMJ>LE 3..'

Using Existing Theory

Eliot Freidson's book Doctoring Together: A Studv nf Professional Social

Control (1975) is an accounr of his research in a medical group practice,

trying to understand hnw the physicians and administrators he studied iden-

tified and dealt with violaiions 01'professional norms. In conceptualizing

what wasgoing on in this practice. he used three broadiheories 01'the social

organization ami control 01'work. He referred to these as the entrepreneur-

ial, or physician-rnercham, model, deriving from the work of Adarn Smith;

the bureaucratic, or physician-official, rnodel, deriving loasubstantial cxteut

from Max Weber; and the professioual, or physician-craftsman, model,

which has been lessclearlyconceprualized andidenrified than the others. He

showed how all thrce theories provide insight into the day-to-day work ofthe

group he studied. und he drcw Iar-ranging implications for public policy

frorn his results.

Freidson also used existing iheory in a more focused (and unexpected)

way to ilJuminate the results of his research. He argued that the social

noríns held by the physicians he studied allowed considerable differences

01'opinion about both the technical standards of work performance and

the best way to Mal with pauenrs. These norms "limited the critical eval-

uation of colleagues' work and discouraged the expression of criricism'

(p. 241). However, the uorms also strongly opposed any outside control

of the physiciuns' practice, defining physicians as the only ones capable

01'judging medical work. "The professional was treated as an individual

free 10 follow his own judgrnent without constraint. so long as his behav-

ior was short of blatant or gross deficiencies in performance and incon-

venience 10colleagucs" (p. 241). Freidson continued:

This is a very special kind of conununity rhat, structurally and normarively.

parallels that described by Jesse R. Pius as the "de linquent cornmunity" of

French schoolchildren inparticular ami French collectivities ingeneral dur-

ing the first half of the twenticrh century .... lts norrns and practicc wcre

such as 10 both draw all members togethcr detcnsively againsi the outside

world ... ando imernally, lo aJlow each his freedorn to act as he willed.

(pp. 243-244)

He presented striking similarities between the rnedical practice he stud-

ied and the Frenen peer group structure identitied by Pitts. He coined the

phrase "professional delinquenl community" to refer to professional

groups such as Ihe onc he described, and used Pitts's theory lo illurninate

the process by which Ihis sort of community develops and persists.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU Tl-lINK IS GOING ON? 45

However, Beckcr (1986) warncc\ rhatthe existing literature, and theassumptions

ernbedded in ir. can deform the way you frarne your research, causing you to

overlook important ways 01'conceptualizing your study 01' key implications

of your results, Thc literature has the advantage of what he calls "ideological

hegcrnony," so that it is difficult lo see any phenornenon in ways that are dif-

ferent frorn those thatare prevalent in the literature. Trying 10 lit your insights

into this established framework can deforrn your argument, weakening its

logic and making it harder for you 10 see what a new way of framing the phe-

nomenon might coniribute. He explained how his own research Otl marijuana

use was deformed by existing Iheory:

When 1hegan srudying marijuana use in 1951, the ideologically dominant qlles-

tion, the only one worth looking al, was "Why e10people do a weird thing like

that?" and the ideologically preferred way of answering it was 10 find a psycho-

logical trait or social attribute which ditferenriated people who did from people

who didu't ... IM)y eagerness 10 show ihat this Iiterature (dominated hy psy-

chologists ami cnrninologists) was wrong led me10ignore what rny research was

really aboui. I had hlundcred onro, and then proceeded 10 ignore. a rnuch larger

and more uueresting question: how do people lcarn 10 define their own internal

experiences? (198ó. pp. 147-148)

rliad the sarne experiencc with rny dissertation research on kinship in an

lnuit comrnunity in northern Canada. Al the time thal Iconducted the research,

the literature on kinship in anthropology was dominated by adebate between

two theories 01'the meaning 01'kinship, onc holding that in all societies kinship

was fundamentally a rnatter of biological rclationship. the other arguing that

biology was only one possible rneaning of kinship terms, another being social

relatedness. I framed my dissertation (Maxwell, 1(86) in terms of these two

theories. arguing that rny evidcnce mainly snpported the second of these

thcories. though with significant modifications. It was only years later that I

realized that my research could be frarned in a more fundamental and interest-

ing way-Wh<11 isthe nature of relationship andsolidarity in small, traditional

comrnunities? Are these based 011, and conceptualized interms of. sirnilarity (in

this case. biological sirnilarity or shared genetic substance) or social interac-

tion? (See Example 3.1.) My research could have been much more productive

if Ihad grasped this theoretical way of framing the study at the outset.

Becker argued that there is no waylOhe sure when the dominant approach

is wrong or misleading or when your alternative is superior. What you can do

is to try lo identify the ideological components of the established approach,

and to see what happens when yOll abandon these assurnptions. He clairned

Ihat "a scrious scholar ought roulinely lo inspect competing ways of talking

aboul Ihe same sllbject rnatter," and cautioned. "use the literature, don't let it

use you" (1986, p. 149). An awareness of alternat.ive sources of concepls and

~

46 QUAI.1TATIVE RESEARCH OESIGN

theories ahout the phcuomenu you are studying-s-including sources other than

"the literature'l-c-is an importaut couuterweight to the ideologicul hegeruony

of existing theory and research.

There are thus lWOmain ways in which qualitative researchers often fail

10 make guod use lIf exisring thcory: by not using il enough, und by relying

100 hcavily and uucriricaily un ir. The first Iails to explicitty apply any prior

analytic abstractions or thcoretical framework lo the study, thus rnissing the

insighis thut ouly exisling theory can provide. Evcry rcsearch dcsign needs

theory 01" the phenomeua yuu are suidying, evcn if it is only aconuuon-

sense one, lo guide the other design decisions you make. The second rypeof

failure has the opposite problern: lt imposes theory on the study, shoehorning

questions, rnethods, and dala into preconceived categories aud preventing rhe

researcher trom secing evenrs und relationships that don't fit the thcory,

The irnposition of dominaut iheories isaserious ethical problcm, 1101simply

a scientific 01' practica! one (Limoln, 199U); it can marginulizeor dismiss the

theories 01'participants in rhercseanh, und conceal or minimizc oppression or

explouauon of rhc group studicd. (In some cases, the dominuut theory ixitself

ethically problctnatic, a;, in the case of thcories of the problems thut disudvan-

taged groups encounrer that unjustifiubly "hlume the viciim.") Tohe genuinely

qualitarive research, astudy mus: tuke account of rhe theories uud perspectives

01' those studicd, rather than rclying cniirely 011 estahlished vicws or the

researcher's IJWIIperspective.

The teusiou beiweeu these rwo problerns in applying iheory (underuse and

overuse) isan inescapable par! of resenrch, not something that can be "solvcd"

by some technique 01' insight. A kcy strategy rol' dealing with this is crnhodied

in the scieruific merhod. as well as in irnerprerive approachcs such as

hermeneutics: Develop or horruw theories and coutinually 11'.\1 thcm, looking

1'01' discrepant data und ahernutive ways (includiug ihe research parucipants '

ways) nI'making scnse 01'the data. (1discuss this further in Chupier 6, a\ acen-

tral issue in validiry.) Hcrnd Heinrich described xeurching Ior crows nests. in

which you look through the trees fur a dilrk spOI against lhe sky, and lhen lry

10 see aglimmcr 01'li!!hl through il(re••1crows' nesls are opaque): "It was Iike

science: l¡rsl yOlllo"k lúr sOlllelhing, and then when you lhink yOllhave it you

do your best 10 prow y\.lur~c1t v,'rollg" (19H4, p. 2K).

(,ONCEI''!' MAJ'S

For tnally sllldenh, lhe dcveloplllclIl ..\IIdusc ut theory i;, lhe !nosl daunling

part 1.11'a ljllalilalive ~ludy. Al lhis POilll, lherdure, 1wanl lo inlroduce a !UDI

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THlNK IS GOING ON? 47

for developing and c\arifying theory, known as "concept rnapping." This was

originally developed by Joseph Novak (Novak &Gowin, 191:(4), first as a way

to understand how students learned science, and then as a tool for teaching

science. A sunilar stralegy is one that Miles and Huberman (191)4, pp. 18-22)

called a "conceptual frumework." Anselrn Strauss (1987, p. 170) provided a

third variarion, which he called .11I "integrauve diagram." These approaches

have so much in cornmon that 1will present thern as 11single strategy, ignor-

ing for the morncnt some important differences in the way rhey are used.

Figures 3.1 lo 3.5 provide a variery of ex.uuplcs 01'concept maps; further

examples 'can be tound in Miles und Huberman (1994) und Strauss (1987,

pp. 17()-1R3).

As these figures illustrate, a concept map (lf a theory is a visual display of

that theory-i-u picture 01' whut the theory says is ,lioillg 011 wit.h the phenome-

non yOl! 're studying, These Illaps do not depict the study itselí', nor are they a

specilic part 01'either a rescarch design 01' a proposal. [However, concept rnaps

C(JI/ be used lo visually preseru the design or operurion 01' a study-my

of reseurch design (¡:¡gure 1.1) is just such a IlIilP.J Rather, concept

is a tool 1'01' dcveloping the conceptual trnrncwork Ior your

theory, a concept map consists 01' two rhings: concepts ami the

among these, These are usually represented, respcctively, as labeled

boxes and as arrows 01' lines connectiug these.

There are several reasons for creating concept rnups:

l. To pul! togethcr, and make visible, what your implicit

clurify an exisring theory. This can allow yOl~ to see the

thcory, irs limitations, and its relevunce Ior your study,

2. Tu develop theory. Like IllCIIlOS, concepi rnaps are a

on pupcr": they can help you see une xpected counecrions,

or contradictions in your theory and help you to figure out

these.

('onn'l>! maps l!~lIally require considt'rablc reworking

10 the point where they are lllos1 hclprul to yuu; don'l

final llJap 011 !tl<' f¡rsl t.fy. One uscful way nI' developing

a blackboard, wherc yOll ..:an erasc unsuccessful altempts

seem tu v"urk \Vell, and play Wilh possible arrangelllents

(The disadvanlage uf' ,his is IhJl il d()e~,1I '1 aUlolllatically

trail" ut' )'our ¡Illelllpls; sudl a lrail can help )'011

lheory has changed ano avoid repealing lhe ~ame mistakes.)

1. IncfudinQ

2. Modeling

3. Symbolizing

4. Ad~O~~~i~~ /

5:¿.~__. -==r==- I- .... _.. --- --- -._._._-L--.. . . _

48QUt\LITt\TlVE RESt:ARCII

...---------.....

LEAOERSHIP

CONTEXT

PEACEIVED

LEAOERSHIP ROLES

1. Te8ching

2. Farnily

3. Books

4. Coursework

5. Peers

6. Teaehers

7.lnse",iee

/

,

Wisdom

that

(lile

50 QUAUTATIVE RF:SEARCH DESIGN

involvement

in lur trade

pressure

from Cree

widespread w~~

with other tri~

-----Á;9h importance

"'01 male sotidaruv

'--- --~extension of )

brolher terrns to

other (81é1tlve~ in

own qenerauon

-----------/

substitutlon 01 comrade

lerm lor orotner lerm in

close retattonsnlps

the events and influences leading to the

in Blackleet society by Ihe late 1800s.

Blackleel were involved in the lur trade.

guns), a grealer value 01 women's

a higllly unequal distribution 01 weallh

bison hunling, and a massive increase

large numbers 01 wives lo

allowed Ihe Blackleel lo

tribes Ihal had previously

hunling crealed a grealer

use 01 brother lerms

this solidarity. However.

wilhin a man's generation

other generalions

use 01 brother

"cornrade,"

o _.

Kin Tcrminology

Kiuship SystCIIIS." hy

01" Chicago, C11H1 "The EVlllutillll

Account," by J. A. Muxwell, 1'J7H.

....------

. New

S2 QI.I¡\LITATlVE RESEARCII lH:SU;N

EXERCISE 3.1

Creating (/ Concept Mapfor Your Studv

How do you dcvelop a concept map? First, you need lo have a set of COI1-

to work with. These can come frorn existing theory, Irom your OWI1

or from the pcople you are studying=-rheir OWIl concepts 01'

what's going on (discussed below in the section titled "Pilot Research").

The main thing to keep in mind is that at this point you are Irying lo rep-

resent the theory )'011 already IUII'e about the phenomena you are study-

primarily lo invent a new theory.

d011'1 already have a clear conceptual frarnework Ior this, there

strarcgies you can use lo develop your map. Strauss (19!l7,

and Miles and Huberrnan (1994, p. 22) provided additional

how to develop concepr rnaps Ior your study,

can think about the key words you use in talking about this topic: rhesc

represent important concepts in your theory. You can pull sorne 01'

these concepts directly from things you've already wrinen about your

research,

2. You can take something you've already written and try to map the theory

that is implicit (or explicit) in this r (This is ottcn the best approach tnr

people who dou't think visually and prefcr to work with prose.)

3. You can take one kcy concepi. idea, 01' term and brainstorrn all 01' the things

that might he related to this. then go back ami select those that seern most

directly relevant to your study.

4. You can ask sorneone 10 interview you about your ropic, probing for

you Ihink is going 011 ami why: then listen 10 the tape und

you use in talking ubout it. Don't ignore concepts based

own experience rather than "the literature"; these can be central

framework.

you've generated sorne conccpts to work with. ask yourself

related. What connections do you' see among thern?

Strauss, 1987, p. 179) suggested beginning with one

and drawing "tendrils" lo others. What do you think

connections between the concepts you're using?

a concept map aren't the circles, but the arrows; these

relaüonships belween Ihe concepts ór events. Ask yourself

queslions: Whal do.I mean by Ihis particular arrow?

it stand [or?

rather than

categories you

ways 01'

to see what

connecuons,

a narrative

are studying.

the diagram. Figures

narratives;

Strauss {I987,

part of

For exarnple, it

for

(1986) described

they mark

of this

stuck in what

which all the

arrows everywhcre.

al the

thal may he

It can he

your theory.

in your

oftcn works

out.

explicit

way lo

dilfcrent

properties.

a calegory

concept

54 QUALITATIVa.: RESEARCIf DESIGN

you're studying, and different maps incorpórate different understandings of

whar's going on. You should try OUIalternative maps for the theory you are

developing, raiher than sticking rigidly with une Iormulauon. There are also

differcnt kinds o" concepr maps, with different purposes; these include:

a. an abstraer tr.unework rnapping the retutionship among conceprs

b. a"Ilowchurtv-like account uf eveuts ami huw yOll think these are connecred

c. a causal network of variables In influences

d. a treelike diugnuu ur thc meunings of words (e.g., Mi\c~ & Hubennau. 1994.

p.133)

Vcnn diagrarn, reprcsenting conccpts as overlappiug circles (e.g .. Miles &

2·N)

one 01 these in a given study ; the bortom line is rheir

udvancing your understanding 01' what 's going 011. MOSI

examples are best suited lu studies 01' social

rhe mostuseful models for a study of rnean-

another, Remember Ihal a concept map is not

developing theory and making Ihat iheory more

that a conccpt ITlilp is not something rhar yllll do

should go back ano rework your concept maps

phenomena you are siudying develops, Re care-

elegaut; this may he the visual equivalent 01' what

writing" (19X6, p. 2M), und suggests Ihat you may he

at the expense 01' insight.

use conccpt maps in diftcrcnt ways. Novak and Gowin took

concepts ami relarionships could be almost any-

thcir counections in order to kcep these cleur. Miles and

other hand, were much more focused=-their connections

relutionships or influeuces. My advicc is 10 aim Ior

You can start with a fairly diffuse map, huI you should

make it a rnap of a real theory of what 's going on.

une lhal you may \101 want lo think ubout until ajier

conc;,pl map, is Ihe difference helween \'{/ril1lu;e

2 on Ihe disliuuion hetween variance

10 lclllhe difference is Ihal a vari,lIlce:! map

conccpts Ihal can take dilferclll values, and

general causal or corrdaliollal rdaliollship

lhings, which are conceplualized as vari-

tells lt stllry; Iltere is a hegirllling and an

56 QIJAUTATlVE RESEARCII IIESIC;N

Doing this \ViII oftcn rcquire Ihinking rhrough the implications uf your thcory

or understanding ro see ir these are consisrent with othcrs' findings. This is one

exampJe of a "thought experiment,' whieh 1discuss later in Ihis chupter,

Finally, prior research can help yOll generate thcory. Bernd Hcinrich. while

conducring his ihesis research 011 thermoregulauon in sphinx rnoths (19X4,

pp. 55-68), discovered that his experimental tinding that rhcse moths maintain

a constan! body temperaturc while f1ying was directly contradictcdby othcrs

research. He describcd his response as fo\lows:

As a first step in rny decision In proceed, 1 spent a few monihs in rhe library read-

ing about inseci phvsiologv in general and cverything ahout sphinx mnths in par-

ticular. Sornething in the known physiology and morphology nught provide a

clue. lt would he uecessary lo collect more and more dctails on the prohlcm until

visuatize il as closely as if it were a rock sitting in the palm

to find OUI /10"· rhc moths were thermoregulating ...

across an obscure Frenen papel' of 1919 by Franz Brocher

of the blood circulatory system in sphinx moths, The odd thing

moths is that the aorta makes a loop through their ihorucic rnusclcs.

insects, it passes underneath thcse muscles .... (Hcinrich,

gave Hcinrich rhe critica! e/uc to how these morhs were

temperature: They were shuntiug hlood through the thoracic

move the moths' wings) 10 cool these musclcs, which

and then losing Ihe excess heat from the abdomen,

car's water purnp ami radiaior cool the engine. This theory

subsequenr expcrimcnts.

of course, lo be come 100 immersed in the luerature;

"you may drown in it ... Perhaps the point is lo know

read, ami when you ought not to" (1959. p. 214). One

dealing with this problem was, in rcading, lo always

studies Ihal could test the ideas he gaincd from the

[or actual research and as an cxercise 01' the iruugi-

These two strategies connect lo the final two sourccs

pilot studies and rhought expcriments.

ANn EXI'LORATORY STlJDIES

some 01' the same fUllctions as prior research, hut-

preciscly on your own concems and theories. You

specifically lo test your ideas or mel.hods and explore

out a

Example

adolescent

used a

Howa

Dissertation

disserration

believed

a study.

01'

of

Third,

a convenienr

frorn

valuable

lo

hadn't

how lhey

specific

gaincd

her conceptual

58 QtlALlTATIVE RJo:SJo:ARCH IlESIGN

research and her prior beliefs hallledher tounderestimate the long-rerm

consequences of the cancel' experieuce for her family. She learned that

she ueeded to step back and listcn lo parricipants ' experiences in new

ways. Finally, shc tound that her own children 's responses werc some-

limes guarded andpredictable, due10 theconsequences 01' whut they suid

1'01' family relutionships, ano tended lo miniruize negative feelings or

blame. Alihough rhe pil.« srudy was valuuhle, it could 1101fully unswer

the questions she hud 1Kuttenberger, 1<)99).

One important use that pilot studies have in qualuarive research is 10

develop an understunding ,,1'the concepts ¡IIlUtheories held by the people you

are studying=-what is often calleJ "interpretution." This isnot simply asource

01'additional conceprs tor your OWI1rhcory, ones that are drawn írum the lun-

guage ofparticipants; thi-,is arype 01'concept that Strauss ( IlJK7,pp. :n-:q)

culled "in-vivo codes.' More uuportant, it provides yOIlwith an understunding

01'the meaning that these phenomeua and everus have for [he people who are

involved in them, aud the perspectives Ihal inform iheir actions. These mean-

ings ami perspeciives are not iheorctical ubstractions: they are real. as real as

people 's behavior, though not as directly visible. Pcoples ideas, meanings,

ami values are essenual parts of the siruarions and activities you study, and

if yol.ldon't understand these, your theories about whar's going 011will olten

be inroruplete or misiakcn (Maxwell. 2004a; Mcnzcl, 197H). In a qualiturive

study, rhese meanings "lid perspectives should constitute a key coruponcnt 01'

your theory; as discussed in Chapier 2. they are one of the things your theory

is about, nOI simplv a source 01'rheoreucal insights and building blocks for the

íane •.. InExample 3.2, the nouns und values held by the physicians studied hy

Freidson were a rnajor pan o" what was going on in rhemedical pracucc, aud

are fundamental lo his theory. Such 1J1{'illlingsand pcrspecuves are also key

componems '0" all 01'Ihe previou~ e.'\amplt:s nI'concepl maps (Figures 3.I (O

3.5). Even in r'igure 3.5, in which Ihe concepts are llloslly slaled in IcrlllS ot'

behavior 01:conle.xlUal intlut:nces, ".iob insecurily" rdcrs lo P(,/,Cl:'íl'l'd insecu-

rily; ir pal1icipuIllS wt:re IIllaw.are Ihal Iheir job<; mighl he eliminalcd, !.heir

behavior wouldn'l be affccted.

TIIOll(;HT EXI'I':MIMENTS

Thoughl experilllelll~ have a Ion!! ami rcspected tradililln in Ihe physical

scicllces (rnuch 01'Eillsleill's wl.lrl-was based llll Ihllughl e.'\perilll"nIS) and are

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WIIAT DO YOtJ TlIINK IS GOlNG ON?

regulurly used in social sciences such as economics, bUI have received little

attcntion as an explicit technique in discussions of research design, particu-

larly qualitative research designo The best guide lo thought experiments in the

social scieuces that Iknow of is that 01'Lave and March 0975), who used the .

phrase "speculative model building" 1'01'this concept. Don't be intimidated by

the word "model"; models are no more esoieric than theory, and Lave and

March detined "model" as "a simplified picture of a part of rhe real world"

(p. 3). They described their book as "a practica! guide lo speculation," and

provideu a detailed introduction 10 the developmeut and use \Ir speculative

modcls of sorne process that could have produced anobserved result. Although

the urientation 01' their later chapters is mainly quantitative, the first three

chaprers are very readable and extrernely useful for qualitative researchers,

Lave and Murch stated,

\Ve \ViIItrcat rnodels (lf lunnun behavior as a tonn of art, ano their development

as a kind 01'vtudio cxercise. Like all art, iuodel building requires acombinarion

of discipline ano pluytulness. It is an urt that is learnable. It has explicit

techniques, and pructice leads loimprovement. (11)75, p.4)

Thought expcriments challeuge you 10 come upwith plausible explanations

tor your ami others ' observations, and lo Ihink about huw lo support 01'dis-

preve ihese. They draw on both theory and experience lo answer "what if"

quesiions, (1mi to explore the logical implications of your models, assump-

tions, and expectations 01'thc things you plan lo study. They can both gerrer-

ate new theo •.•etical modcls and insights, and test your currem iheory for

problerns; in fuct, 01/ theory building involves thought experiments to sume

extern. They encourage creutivity and a sense 01'discovery, and can help you lo

make explicit the expcrieruinl knowledge rhat you alreudy possess. Example 3.5

'is <111illustrarion 01"Ihis kind of speculativc Ihinking, and Exercise 3.2 (based

on une of Lave and Murch's examples) provides a simple pruhlern on which lo

practice your speculative skilis. According lo Lave and March, "thc best wayto learu aOoul lI\odel building is lo do il" (llJ75, p. 10).

EXAMPLI'; 3.5

Usil/g <1 Tlwttglll Lxperillu'l1/ lO Develop

a Iheory lit(hePer.l'í.\(t!nce 0./IIlíferaev

Ollt: 'lfmy studenls, doillg rcsearch on ilJiteracy inlhe Middle Eaq, llst:d

Ihe ":llllL'eplof "cycle 01' illilcl'UCy" in a 11I\:1110explaining Ihe pcrsi~len;:e of

!'

6()()UAI.ITATIVE RESEAI(c/1 UESIGN

illiteracy in parts of this arca. This concept has a certain irnmediate

plausibility-c-illiterate parenls are much more likely lo have illiteratc

children than are literato parents. However, my first reacuon to thc memo

was 10 pcrform a thought experiment-e-tu try lo Ihink of a process by which

illiteracy in one gcneration would create illiteracy in the ncxr generarion.

Lack 01' reading materials in the horne would have SOIl1C impacr, as mighr

parerual values regarding litcracy, Howevcr, none (lf rhesc sccmed power-

tul enough to reproduce illitcracy al a time when mOSI children havc access

10 schooling. On the other hand, I cOI/Id easily imagine (ami support with

data that this student hadpresented) acycle 01'povcrtv, in which poor, illit-

erate farnilies would be under great pressure 1.0 kcep rhcir children OUI of

school lo work in the home 01' in farrning. depriving thcm of ihcir rnaiu

opportunity tolearn 10 read and write.Asaresult, thcsc childrens lack01'

schooling would make it difficult 101' thern lo gel jobs that would cnahle

them to escape from poverty, rhusrecrearing the conditions that led lo thcir

nwn illitcracy. This theory suggests that reducing poverty woukl have a

major impact on illireracy, It ulso implies that research on the causes of

illiteracy needs lo address the role 01'economic factors.

EXERCISE 3,2

Creating (1 Model of the Development of Friendship Patterns

Suppose we were interested in pauerns 01' friendship among college

students, Why are sorne people friends and not others? We might begin

by asking al! of the residents of single roorns along aparticular dorrnuory

corridor to give us a list of their friends. These lists 01'friends are our

initial data, the results we wish lo understand.

Irwe stare al thelistsfor a while, we eventually notice apattern inthem.

Friends tend lo live close lo one another: Ihey tend lo have adjacenl dormi-

tory rooms. What process could have produced this pauern 01friendship?

STOP AND THINK. Take a minute lo lhink

of a possible process that might produce this observed result.

One possible process that rnight have led lo this result is that students

can choose their donnitory rooms, and that groups of friends tend lo

choose adjacenl rooms, This process is a speculation about the world. lf:","~ real world were like our model· world. me observed facts should

CONCFI'f'lJAL FRAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOll THINI\ IS <.iOINC' ON? 61

match the model's prediction, Thus, we have found a model, a process,

that accounrs for our results,

We do not SIOp here, however. We next ask what other irnplications this

model has. For one, it implies that students in each dormirory friendship

group rnust have known one another previously: •.hus, they must have

auended the university the previous year; thus, rhere will be fewer friend-

ship clusters among freshmen.

A survey 01'both a freshman dorm and ajunior-senior dorm shows that

there are as many friendship clusters among íreshrnen as among juniors and

seniors. This would nOIhe predicted by our model, unless the students knew

one anothcr in high school. However, examining the backgrounds of the

freshmen shows Ihat almost all of them come from different high schools.

So our model does not do a very good job 01'explaining what we

observed. Sornc process other than mutual selection by prior friends must

be involved. So we try lo imagine another process that could have lee!10

these resulis. Our new speculation is Ihat most college students come

from similar backgrounds, and thus have enough in C0l111110nthat they

could becorne friends. Pairs of students who live near each other will have

more opportunities for intcraction. and are more likely lo discover these

comrnon interests and values, thus becoming friends. This new specula-

tion explains the presence 01'friendship c1ustcrs in freshrnan donns as

well as injunior-senior dorms.

STOP AND THINK. What other

implicatiuns does this model have that

would allow you lo test it? 110M'would you test ir!

One irnplication is that since the chanee of contact increases over lime, the

friendship clusrers should become larger as the school ycar progresses.

Youcould test this by surveying students al several differenl limes during

the year. Ir you did so and discovered that the prediction was correct, the

mode l would secrn more impressive. (Can yOl1 think of other testable

implicarions")

=-Adapted frorn Lave and March. (1975. pp. 10-12).

One issue that Lave and March's example does /101 deal with is the

possibility of altcmative models that also predict most 01'the sarne things

as the model you have developed. This is one of the most challenging

aspects of model building, and the souree of acommon flaw in theoretical

modeling-accepting a model that successfully predicts a substantial

62 QUAUTATIV.~ RES¡':ARCH ()F.SIGN

number of things, without seriously attempting to come up with altemative

models Ihat would make the same (or better) predictions. For example,

Lave and March make an assumption, a widespread one in modem

Westem societies, that friendship is necessarily based un common char-

ucteristics-c-shared intereslS and values. An alternative model would be

one ihat abandons Ihis assumptiou, aud postulates that friendship can be

created by intcraction irsell', and not necessurily by common charucteris-

rics (see Exarnple 3.Il.

STOP ANIl TltlNK. What tests could

distinguish between these two models?

One possible test would be lo investigate the beliefs, interests, and val-

ues 01"freshman dormitory students at both the beginning and the end of

the year, losee ifpairs offriends consistently had more in common althe

beginning 01"the year than did pairs of students in the same dorrn who did

not become friends, (Determining this similarity at the beginning of the

year addresses a possible alternative explanation for greater sirnilarity of

beliefs and interests within friendship pairs-v-that this sirnilarity is a

result of their friendship, rather than a cause.) lf you find that pairs of

friends did not consistently have more in eommon than pairs of non-

friends, then Lave and March's model seerns less plausible (al least with-

out modification), because it predicts that friends will huye more in

cornrnon than nonfriends. My a1ternative model does predict the observed

result, and therefore would deserve further consideration and testing.

Eventually, you might develop a more complex model that incorporates

both processes.

AlI of the tests described previously (and the standard approach lo

rnodel testing in general) are based on variance theory-c-measuring

seleeted variables lo see if they fit the rnodel's predictions. However,

there is a much more direct way lo test the model-illvestigate the actual

process, rather than just its predicted consequenees (Menzel, 1978,

pp. 163-168). For exarnple, you might do participant observation of

student interactions at the beginning of the year, looking al how friend-

ships originate, or interview students about how theybecame friends with

other students. This realist, process-oriented approach to model testing is

rnuch bctter suited lo qualitative research than is predicting outcornes

(Maxwell, 2004:\, 2004e).

CONCEPTUAL FKAMEWORK: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON'! 63

IiI

Experience, prior theory and research, pilot studies, and thought experiments

are the Iour major sources 01'the conceptual frarnework for your study. Putting

togeiher a conceptual Iramework frorn these sources is u unique process for

euch xtudy. and specific guidelines Ior how 10do this are nOI (Ir much use; you

shuuld look at examples of others ' conceptual trameworks to see how they

have dune this. The main Ihillg In keep in mind is thc need Ior integration 61'

thcxc cornponents with one unother, and wuh yOllr goals and research ques-

liollS. The couuertiuus bciween your conceptual íramework aud yuur research

questions will be taken up in the next chupier.

NOTES

l. Furamore deiailed explanation of Ihis point. see l.ocke, Spirduso. andSilvennan

(2000, pp. 6K-n'J). üne qualification lo this principle is ueeded tor the "literature

review" in a dissertatinn or dissertation proposal. Some advisors 01' committee

mernbers ser.this a, adcmousuution thut you know the literuturc inthe field of your

study. relevant or not. 11'you are in this siruation, your literature review will need lo be

more comprehensive than 1describe. However, you still need loidenrify thework that

is rnost relcvant to your study and the specific ideas that you can use in your concep-

tual frarnework (and other aspects of your design), becausc doiug this is essentiul lo

crenting a coherent presenrution of, and argument Ior,your research plans.

2. For a detailcd aCCOUll101'thc ways in which reseurchers can use theory in foro

llIulaling their goals, reseurch questions, and methods, see LeComple and Preissle

(1993, pp. 115-157)

3. Miles und Huberman tended lOreter tovariunce maps as"causal networks," and

to process maps as"eveut-state networks" (19Q4. pp. 101- 171).This incorrectly equates

causal unalysis wirhvariance analysis: process aualysis can ti/so be causal. asdiscussed

inChaptcr 2 rcf. Max we+l, 20(Ha).