2.3 The qualitative dissertation: still hazy after all these years  (Page 3/14)

This trend can have a particularly restrictive influence on educational and related research in the social sciences where the study of human behavior is of primary importance. Becher (1989) compares this swinging pendulum of research falling in and out of favor to fashion trends that are set by designers, rendering some styles more popular and acceptable than others, regardless of how well they fit the wearers. Similarly,“individual expressions and alternative styles are hence rendered unpopular and even objectionable; alternative voices and innovative research [are] deemed‘unauthorized’in light of trend-setting governmental publications”(Mullen&Fauske, 2006, p. 3). The AERA Executive Committee responded to the National Research Council’s six principles by supporting greater rigor in educational research while also arguing for greater inclusiveness of varied methodology, noting the“multiple components of quality research, including well-specified theory, sound problem formulation, reliance on appropriate research designs and methods, and integrity in the conduct of research and the communication of research findings”(AERA Resolution, 2003, p. 1). The AERA endorsement of alternative, more qualitative research methodologies is reflected in an analysis of the Division A Annual meeting program for 2000, revealing that more than half of the accepted papers/presentations were studies using qualitative methods (Hausman, 2001). Therefore, the premier educational research organization stepped out to challenge the National Research Council’s narrowly focused guidelines for what constitutes rigorous research in education; such a step has implications for doctoral students and faculty in educational leadership both in practice and in rhetoric.

The influence of national trends can and does impact the choice of both topic and method for dissertations and emerging research agendas. These national developments illustrate the prevalence of traditional views and language of research that often accompany quantitative methodology: investigation, replication, generalizability across studies, and more. Conversely, the language of qualitative methodology appears rarely in these reports: inquiry, description, case study, etc. This observation is indicative of the persistence of the quantitative-oriented paradigm that is exacerbated by the plethora of terms related to qualitative inquiry and the lack of common understanding of those terms: ethnography, personal narrative, naturalistic inquiry, case study, participant and non-participant observation, grand tour versus selective interviews, situated perspectives, self as researcher, researcher biases, etc. The“thickness”and complexity of the qualitative paradigm confounds the ready acceptance that comes from shared understandings in a linguistic community of scholars (Young, 1990). The choice of qualitative method is further complicated by“the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the multiple, simultaneous processes of doing qualitative research and of being the research instrument”(Meloy, 2002, p. 182). It is no wonder that haziness around qualitative methodology persist.