2.3 The qualitative dissertation: still hazy after all these years

I recall my qualitative dissertation study of leadership succession completed in the early 1980s for which the data sources were non-participant observations, interviews, and documents. My advisor and chair was an assistant professor in a department generally open to but not evenly expert in qualitative methodology. Other students warned me to pursue a more concretely manageable and quantitative study, but I, along with two other brave students, chose the seemingly more formidable qualitative journey. We faced perceived and real obstacles related to our choices that the quantitative focused students did not. Selection of committee members was tricky; getting through the Institutional Review Board proved complicated.

Finding similar studies as models for the literature review was daunting. In addition to complications in the processes, the time that full immersion in the data collection and analysis differed from the time that the quantitative studies took. Much of their conceptualization and theoretical structure was in place before data collection began while our sensitizing framework was still emerging, and we were still immersed (sometimes it felt like more like wallowing) in the data with“sensitizing frameworks”that guided our data collection without limiting constant comparative possibilities. Although we experienced the dissertation journey differently than many of those students who pursued quantitative studies, we maintained our energy and focus with mutual support and the sustaining belief that we were pioneers forging the way for qualitative studies in education leadership.

Indeed many qualitative studies in the field have followed, and acceptance of qualitative papers for presentation and publication has definitely increased in the 1990s (Hausman, 2001). Yet when chairing dissertation committees in the late nineties, I found the qualitative dissertation study in many ways still hazy and elusive to both students and professors alike. I wondered why this haziness persisted and began to systematically explore the methodological context of academe as well as the perceptions that shape and inform chairing as well as writing the qualitative dissertation. Given the long history of qualitative research in the social sciences, one would assume that the pursuit of a qualitative dissertation study has become commonplace. Why did I sense that shallow understandings of qualitative inquiry as well as a lack of shared language persist? I attribute this phenomenon in part to the iterative nature of qualitative method and misleading perceptions about effort and rigor among students and faculty. Also, the consistent use of the traditional language of quantitative investigation seemed to further confound full acceptance and embrace of qualitative dissertations.

To explicate and make transparent these hazy elements of qualitative dissertations, I review the current socio-political context of academe and how certain trends in research foci and methodology influence the work of scholars. I also reflect on and synthesize my own experience as a qualitative researcher and dissertation advisor with experiences of others through a review of the literature on writing qualitative studies and dissertations. Those experiences explain the“author’s path”or story (Boyatzis, 1998, p. xiv) and“way of seeing”themes in the experience over time (p.1). Vignettes of my experiences illustrate that story, indicated by italics with names and specifics altered for confidentiality. My experiences are compared to what others have learned, offering implications and suggestions for negotiating the hazy“fog”that can surround the qualitative dissertation process.