Realizing the Potential of Qualitative Designs in Education:

Guidelines for Research and Practice

Wayne A. Babchuk and Manijeh Badiee

The goal of this inquiry is to extend the conceptual guide for research and practice we
presented at the 2010 Midwest Research-to-Practice conference by further elaborating
upon the methodological procedures and practices needed to develop and implement
qualitative designs. Based on our own experiences in the field and in the classroom with
qualitative methodologies, we offer hands on strategies and techniques designed to
benefit those interested in conducting qualitative research across educational settings. We
believe and base much of our work on our shared view that qualitative methods are
exceptionally rewarding for the study of educational problems and issues and are
particularly compatible with practitioner-driven fields such as adult, continuing, and
community education that contain a strong practice component.
Introduction
The origins of qualitative research are traced to the early twentieth century and the work
of field anthropologists (e.g., Boas, Malinowski, Mead, Radcliffe-Brown, Evans-Pritchard),
Chicago School sociologists (e.g., Park, Burgess, Thomas, Wirth, Redfield), and pioneering
educational researchers who sought to interpret the complex maze of social interactions in the
classroom (see Vidich & Lyman, 2000; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; and Denzin & Lincoln, 2011 for
an overview of these traditions). These scholars set the stage for a major retooling of the research
enterprise within education and the social sciences sparked in the 1960s and 1970s by seminal
works of Becker, Geer, Hughes, and Strauss (1961) Boys in White, Glaser and Strauss (1967)
Discovery of Grounded Theory, Garfinkels (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Turners
(1967) The Forest of Symbols, Blumers (1969) Symbolic Interactionism, Geertzs (1973) The
Interpretation of Cultures, Gubas (1978) Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in
Educational Evaluation, and Spradleys (1979) Ethnographic Interview and (1980) Participant
Observation. This retooling of approaches reflected a growing epistemological and
methodological shift to accommodate multiple ways of knowing and understanding human
behavior and culture that take into account and give voice to the subjects of the research
process, i.e., the historically oppressed and maligned Other, that many believed had been
marginalized by the academys long-standing and stifling positivist research tradition.
Contemporary researchers began to follow the lead of educational anthropologists such as Harry
Wolcott and Louise and George Spindler, and drew inspiration from the writings of influential
scholars such as George Marcus and Michael Fischer, Alfred Schutz, Mary Douglas, Michel
Foucault, Jurgen Habermas, and Paulo Friere. Ultimately, a rapidly mushrooming
armamentarium of research approaches emerged and took hold in a diverse range of disciplines
including sociology, anthropology, communication studies, information systems, and
psychology, and in particular practitioner-driven fields such as education, social work, health
care, and nursing.
Those interested in utilizing qualitative designs are now faced with a seemingly
overwhelming number of approacheseach with its attendant epistemological and procedural

nuancesthat can befuddle both novice and experienced researchers (Creswell, 2007; Merriam,
2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). It is the goal of this inquiry to build upon the conceptual guide
offered at last years Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference (Babchuk & Badiee, 2010) to
further elaborate upon the methodological and procedural considerations that should be taken
into account when designing and implementing qualitative research in educational settings,
although these suggestions should prove useful for research in other disciplines. We begin by
providing a Qualitative Design Procedural Checklist that provides a fairly comprehensive list of
the components involved in designing and implementing qualitative research (and see Creswell,
2007, Chapter 3). We will review several important points made in last years session, and build
upon them to offer further suggestions for undertaking qualitative research.
Qualitative Research Design Procedural Checklist
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

o
o
o

o
o

Title (reflect the qualitative design used and communicate the central focus of the study)
Abstract (tight, succinct, and comprehensive)
Introduction and identification of the research problem (what is the topic, why it is an important topic to study,
why the study is needed, etc.)
Qualitative purpose statement (or problem statement)
Qualitative research central and sub-questions (consistent with the goals and rationale of the study, feasible,
well-written, and succinct)
A concise summary of relevant literature and how and where it is used in the study (consistent with the goals and
rationale of the study)
Researcher positioning/reflexivity (worldview, theoretical lens, and approach)
Definition of terms (clearly define terms and concepts used in the study)
Rationale for why qualitative research was selected (over quantitative or mixed methods)
Rationale for choice of qualitative approach (e.g., case study, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography,
narrative, discourse analysis, participatory research, etc.)
IRB and ethical considerations (identify permissions that have been granted)
Sample selection procedures documented and explained (include number and demographic information of
participants, how participants will be recruited and how they will benefit from the study; also provide site
selection criteria, etc.)
Data collection methods documented and justified (e.g., interviews, observations, document analysis, etc.).
Multiple forms of data used as one form of triangulation?
Data analysis methods (indicate general data coding and analysis procedures, use of software, multiple coders,
validation strategies, triangulation, etc.)
Discussion and presentation of research findings, results, and conclusions. What emerged? (narratives, models,
themes, theory, etc.). Use of visual representations (tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, flow charts), comparisons
to other research, implications for research and practice, strengths and limitations, suggestions for future
research
Attached data collection instruments
References cited pages

Practical Considerations for Conducting Qualitative Research

At the 2010 Midwest Research-to-Practice conference we covered several key topics
important to consider when beginning a qualitative research project most of which are included
in the Qualitative Research Design Procedural Checklist above. This checklist is based on core

aspects of Mini Research Project student assignments for graduate classes in the Department
of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)drawn from syllabi of
Dr. John Creswell and Dr. Dana Millerand was further modified by us when we co-taught
qualitative methods in the Department of Sociology (2010). A version of it is currently employed
by the first author who continues to teach methods courses in several departments at UNL.
To briefly review topics discussed in 2010, we suggested that researchers would benefit
from a broad understanding of the history of qualitative research in education and the social
sciences as outlined by Vidich and Lyman (2000), Bogdan and Biklen (2007), and Denzin and
Lincoln (2011), and a number of classic works and authors are listed in the introduction to this
manuscript. It is also important that researchers formulate and are able to articulate their own
world views by considering philosophical or epistemological perspectives of the research
enterprise. The labeling, classification, and elucidation of these perspectives or paradigms is not
uniform across researchers or fields, but a general understanding of often-referenced
terminology, key assumptions, and implications generally associated with each of these
paradigms is critical both for evaluating others research as well as the ability to conceptualize
and operationalize ones own research designs. These include positivist/post-positivist,
interpretive/constructivist, critical, and poststructural/postmodern (and there are others to
consider as well). Researchers should also be familiar with shared characteristics of qualitative
methodologies that distinguish this family of approaches from more traditional quantitative
designs. Some of these defining aspects are listed in Hatch (2002), Guba and Lincoln (2004);
Bogdan and Biklen (2007), Creswell (2007), Richards and Morse (2007), Corbin and Strauss
(2008), Merriam (2009), Stake (2010), Neuman (2011), and see Babchuk and Badiee (2010) for
a synthesis. Although there are numerous qualitative approaches from which to choose (see
Creswell, 2007, pp. 7-8), Creswell (2007), Richards and Morse (2007), Merriam (2009), Glesne
(2011), and Wertz, Charmaz, McMullen, Josselson, Anderson, and McSpadden (2011) all
identify and document popular contemporary methodologies and suggestions for their use.
In spite of the fact that there is no universally accepted format or set of procedures among
methodologists for how to construct a research design, interrelated stages or phases of the
research process cut across both qualitative and quantitative approaches. As mentioned by
Creswell (2007), all researchers seem to start with an issue or problem, examine the literature in
some way related to the problem, pose questions, gather data and analyze them, and write up
their reports (p. 41-42). The Qualitative Research Design Procedural Checklist above is not
intended to be a comprehensive list of all possible components of a research design nor do we
want to give the impression that components are rank or sequentially ordered. Several of these
components or steps or phases are closely interrelated processes that occur simultaneously.
Qualitative studies usually originate with the researcher(s) interest in a particular topic or
area leading to the formulation of a research problem and the identification of the specific need
for the research. Research problems are typically derived from a number of sources such as those
suggested by a mentor or advisor, the technical or nontechnical literature, personal or
professional experience, or from the research itself (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Of these,
identifying a gap in the scholarly literature is perhaps the most utilized source of research
problems in academe, although in practitioner-driven fields the research problem most often
comes from the researchers personal involvement in his or her own work setting. The purpose
statement itself evolves from and brings the research problem into focus. Merriam (2009)
compares this process to a funnel shape where the researcher moves from a general area of
interest at the top and moves through the funnel by identifying a gap in the literature and the

need for the study that is ultimately narrowed to the specific purpose of the study. The purpose
statement is often considered to be the most important statement in a qualitative study
(Creswell, 2007, p. 103) and therefore needs to be carefully crafted and clearly articulated.
Creswell (2007) provides a script of the purpose statement (pp. 103-104) and he and Merriam
(2009) offer several examples from the literature. The purpose statement provides the rationale
for the study and is followed by the specific research questions, which guide the inquiry. Some
researchers recommend utilizing one broad central overarching question followed by several
more specific sub-questions that can be topical or procedural (Creswell, 2007). These differ from
actual interview questions and set the stage for subsequent data collection and analysis.
The literature review in a qualitative study need not be as comprehensive as those typically
guiding quantitative investigations, but does play an important role. It is often used to set the
stage in the introduction and elaboration of the research problem and problem statement (i.e., to
identify a gap in the literature) as mentioned above. Qualitative studies also often include a
section titled Literature Review (Merriam, 2009), data analysis may involve comparisons to
relevant literature, and the findings/discussion sections always reference the relevant literature on
a topic. In a related vein, there has been some debate within qualitative research, and particularly
in grounded theory, regarding the extent to which the literature should be consulted prior to
beginning a qualitative study. Some have urged researchers to suspend this review until later in
data analysis to avoid forcing preconceived ideas on the data, but most feel unfamiliarity with
their topic prior to research is unrealistic and an unnecessary expectation (Charmaz, 2006).
Several strategies or types of purposive or purposeful nonrandom sampling are used in
qualitative research including maximum variation, convenience, typical, snowball, theoretical,
etc. (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Unlike in quantitative designs, qualitative researchers base
purposeful selection criteria of sites, individuals, and events on their relevance to advancing the
understanding of the research problem or question rather than on achieving population
representativeness. Numbers of sites and individuals to be sampled vary among qualitative
approaches according to the specifics of each design, but ordinarily researchers strive to flush out
the detail of the phenomenon of interest until they feel comfortable they have achieved
saturation or have developed a fairly comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
Qualitative researchers have historically collected data through interviews, observations,
and documents, but new forms of data such as audiovisual materials and those reflecting the
expanding role of the internet in research have emerged. Data collection methods tends to vary
somewhat across qualitative approaches, with interviews typically constituting the primary form
in phenomenology and grounded theory studies, whereas participant observation has long been
associated with ethnography. However, many contemporary researchers have attempted to
bolster the integrity of their studies by employing multiple forms of data collection in their
research as one form of triangulation. Similarly, data analysis procedures also vary according to
the type of qualitative approach, but most researchers stress the inductive and comparative nature
of qualitative research and the relatively flexible and ongoing iterative process of simultaneous
data collection and analysis needed to answer the research question(s) through coding, the
development of themes, theory, and visual representations. Qualitative data analysis generally
consists of preparing and organizing the collected data for analysis, reducing the data into themes
or patterns through a process of labeling, coding, and abstraction, and representing these data
visually in figures, tables, and in narrative form (Creswell, 2007). As stated by Merriam (2009)
Data analysis is a complex process that involves moving back and forth between concrete
bits of data and abstract concepts, between inductive and deductive reasoning, between

description and interpretation. These meanings or understandings or insights constitute

the findings of a study. Findings can be in the form of organized descriptive accounts,
themes or categories that cut across the data, or in the form of models and theories that
explain the data. Each of these forms reflects different analytical levels, ranging from
dealing with the concrete in simple description to high-level abstraction in theory
construction. (p. 176)
There are also differences in the analysis and representation of data according to type of
qualitative approach. Grounded theory and phenomenology have more highly structured
procedures for data analysis (although this varies according to the type of grounded theory or
phenomenology) whereas some methods (e.g., narrative) are less structured.
Conclusion
This inquiry extends the conceptual guidelines for research and practice presented at the
2010 Midwest Research-to-Practice conference. We provide a Qualitative Research Design
Procedural Checklist and expand upon several topics listed therein in terms of their importance
for the design and implementation of qualitative research. Due to space limitations, we were
unable to address all of the items listed in the checklist such as the use of computer software in
data analysis, standards of validation, evaluation, and reliability, triangulation, ethics, or the
writing of qualitative research reports. Nevertheless, we offer a framework, key references, and
suggestions for graduate students and others new to qualitative designs to begin designing their
own research. As in the past, we argue that qualitative designs, rapidly gaining popularity across
disciplines, provide a particularly rewarding avenue for conducting research particularly in
practitioner-driven fields such as adult, continuing, and extended education.
References Cited
Babchuk, W. A. (in press). Grounded theory as a Family of Methods: A genealogical analysis
to guide research. US-China Education Review, 8(9).
Babchuk, W. A. & Badiee, M. (2010). Realizing the potential of qualitative methodologies: A
conceptual guide for research and practice. In J. Dirkx (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th
Annual Midwest Research Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and
Community Education (pp. 25-31). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
September 26-28, 2010.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A.L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in
medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London: Sage.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a method of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. CSE
Monograph Series in Evaluation, 8. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation,
University of California.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing paradigms in qualitative research: Theories and
issues. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research:
A reader on theory and practice. New York: Oxford.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Ch. 4.
Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2007).Users guide for qualitative methods (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Stake, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press.
Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Vidich, A. J., & Lyman, S.M. (2000). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and
anthropology. In N.K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L.M., Ruthellen, J., Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E.
(2011). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Dr. Wayne A. Babchuk, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 931
Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0368. wbabchuk1@unl.edu.
Manijeh Badiee, Office of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research, University of NebraskaLincoln, 114 Teachers College Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0345. manijehb@gmail.com
Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and
Community Education, Lindenwood University, St. Louis, MO, September 21-23, 2011.