2.3 The qualitative dissertation: still hazy after all these years  (Page 4/14)

Numerous questions for faculty and students emerge from these considerations, such as: Will research agendas, including choice of methods, subtly align with national guidelines and will alternative topics and methods choices be diminished? What might be the professional consequences of pursuing what some consider substandard inquiry? How might the peer review processes for grants and journal publication be influenced, particularly regarding disenfranchised voices in their quest to be heard? How will these trends influence the socialization of doctoral students as scholars into the profession?

How Context Shapes Doctoral Studies

Clearly, the context in which doctoral students find themselves currently can shape their choices of topic and method both subtly and directly. When the top scholars and authors in education are writing on certain topics, this in turn shapes the national research agendas through journal publication and peer review. Research agendas for both individuals and entire fields of study can be shaped by a few reviewers (Becher, 1998). Certain topics can easily become marginalized through various peer review functions in academe, and marginalized voices in education often include those“new to the profession, persons of color, women, disabled persons, non-speakers of English, and international citizens”(Mullen&Fauske, 2006, p. 5). Although dissertation writing differs from writing for publication, these national trends still can influence the focus of doctoral studies. Often doctoral students work with faculty or groups of faculty and student researchers that have received grants—the focus of the grants themselves may have been determined by the sources of funds available. Most productive faculty regularly submit manuscripts for review with the hope of realizing publication and resulting influence in their fields. If researchers seek out funding that is predisposed to certain topics and/or kinds of research, then it follows that publications will be related to those predisposed topics and methods. If small scale, non-replicable studies with limited generalizability are not the“in vogue”topics and/or do not receive funding, the likelihood of publication is diminished. Thus, the socio-political context in which we work as scholars may have contributed to the continued haziness that surrounds the qualitative dissertation. We are fortunate that the AERA has taken a stand to protect alternative choices.

Ambiguity and Qualitative Methodology

I interpret these socio-political, contextual factors as they unfold in my professional lived experience. As a professor in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, I am fortunate to have worked with colleagues who respect and embrace qualitative methods, even those who are predisposed to quantitative inquiry. My reputation as a qualitative researcher in education leadership and teacher of qualitative methods has drawn certain students to me over time, just as it has repelled or redirected students to faculty who favor quantitative methods. I eventually found myself chairing almost exclusively qualitative dissertations, with an occasional mixed method design. Three kinds of students, with a few variations, have been drawn to me repeatedly, vary as a potential dissertation chair: (1) those who are intimidated by statistics or quantitative approaches generally, (2) those who perceive that qualitative methods are easier or more palatable, and (3) those who approach their learning and their work naturally through a qualitative lens. Students in the last category seem to achieve the best“fit”between their naturally occurring questions and their chosen method. The notion of a“good fit”between the dissertation chair, the choice of research topic, the appropriate method or methods, and the students themselves present an ambiguous and perplexing problem—a mini study in itself.