maxwell conceptual framework. what do you think is going on
TRANSCRIPT
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).