Methods to Their Madness: The Case for Qualitative Research

The Review of Higher Education Winter 1984, Volume 7, No. 2 Pages 179-186 Copyright © 1984 Association for the Study of Higher Education All Rights Reserved METHODS TO THEIR MADNESS: THE CASE FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AN ESSAY REVIEW John R. Thelin Eileen Kuhns and S. V. Martorana, Editors, Qualitative Methods For Institutional Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982) 125 pages. Eugene Webb, Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, Lee Sechrest, and Janet Belew Grove, Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981) x + 394 pages. Robert C. Bogdan and Sari Knopp Biklen, qualitative Research for Educa­ tion: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1982) xv + 253 pages. Colin B. Burke, American Collegiate Populations: A Test of the Traditional View (New York and London: New York University Press, 1982) ix + 373 pages. Good research in higher education, like pornography, is difficult to define. However, as suggested by one U. S. Supreme Court Justice, we are confident that “we know it when we see it.” Using this standard, let us review recent works that contribute to a recurrent controversy: namely, the place of “qualitative methods” in higher education re­ search. At stake is the legitimacy of those whose studies make use of “ethonography,” “field notes,” “archival records,” “triangulation,” and “institutional clutter” for analyzing colleges and universities. Are these to be accepted as enduring entries in the research lexicon? Or, Author’s note: I wish to thank the Committee on Faculty Research Grants o f the College o f Wiliam and Maryfor the Summer research award that made this project possible. John R. Thelin is an associate professor of education at The College o f William and Mary. 179 180 The Review of Higher Education are the “qualitative methods” advocates to be dismissed as a lunatic fringe? What are the methods in this research madness? One reason the qualitative methods phenomenon no longer can be taken lightly is its visibility—numerous well-known researchers and policy analysts in higher education have clustered under its umbrella. In Qualitative Methods for Institutional Research, Editors Eileen Kuhns and S. V. Martorana have assembled an impressive cast to sing the praises and explore the intricacies of qualitative methods. Pub­ lished as part of the “New Directions” series sponsored by the Association for Institutional Research, the volume is geared directly to the higher education audience. Arthur Levine, George Bonham, Jerry Gaff, and Mark Curtis are “national influentials” and spokesmen for colleges and universities—so, their endorsement commands attention, if not agreement. And, since the higher education cosmos does not end at DuPont Circle, the editors have wisely looked beyond Washington, D. C. to enlist the support of established researchers from major universities and associations through out the country. Contributors include Michael Quinn Patton, Norman Denzin, Michael Tierney, F. Craig Johnson, R. C. Lacher, Alan Northrop, and Kenneth Kraemer. Their summaries provide the reader an up-dated account as to how such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, mathematics, political science, history, and public administration respectively employ quali­ tative methods in research strategies. Discipline-by-discipline summa­ ries then lead to selections that argue for application to such higher education areas as management and finance, admissions, academic policies, curricular reform, and student life. The connection between research and administration is, of course, neither smooth nor inevitable. Two mathematicians, F. Craig Johnson and R. C. Lacher, humorously start their essay with an apocryphal encounter at a campus bar among an institutional research analyst, the president’s assistant, and a mathematics professor. Each comments on the shortcomings of the others’ work and, “After a thoughtful pause, the talk shifts to football, since no one seems to have any idea what the others are talking about.” The authors then provide useful groundrules and definitions for making “qualitative methods” part of the campus research and decision making fabric. The anthology would be more convincing if some authors devoted space to completed (and, successful) projects that actually used quali­ tative measures—rather than projections for potential applications. Perhaps the most important (and troubling) issues come early in the opening essay “Qualitative Methods and Approaches: What Are they?,” by Michael Quinn Patton. All goes smoothly as the author outlines tenets of...