Roberta Spalter-Roth
Research and
Development Department, ASA Executive Office
The
"science" in social science is often equated with predictive, quantitative
models. But many sociologists do qualitative research. Can this research be
scientific? How can it be strengthened and properly evaluated? Participants at
a recent workshop held on the Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research,
funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, agreed that the quantitative
and qualitative approaches were significantly different, but that qualitative
research played an important role in the understanding of social structures and
processes, mainly answering questions about how social processes work.
The
purposes of the workshop were threefold. First, provide a primer for those
submitting NSF grant proposals as to how to make qualitative projects
competitive in NSF peer review. Second, provide guidance to reviewers
concerning the characteristics of strong qualitative research. And third,
provide a training manual. A report summarizing the workshop outcome was
co-authored by Charles Ragin of
/start.htm.
Developing
Standards
According
to Nagel, "the workshop grew out of the interest of NSF sociology program
officers as well as NSF panelists who felt unclear as to how to review
qualitative proposals. There was general agreement about the lack of uniform
standards for evaluation."
Although,
many sociologists avoid applying for NSF grants because they believe that only
quantitative research is funded, in fact, about one-fourth of regular grants
and one-third to one-half of dissertation grants in sociology fund qualitative
research. Sociology program officers have noted that more and more of the
dissertation grants use qualitative methods.
The
workshop brought together scholars, who work in qualitative research, with the
idea of contributing to building this aspect of sociological inquiry as a
discipline. Although there was some disagreement about methods among the
panelists that can be seen in the papers appended to the workshop summary,
there also were areas of convergence. According to Nagel, there was strong
agreement that because NSF funds theoretically driven, rigorous research,
qualitative proposals should not be submitted at an early stage before anything
is known about the topic, and, if possible, reliance on "grounded theory"
should be avoided. The project should be located in a theoretical context.
Investigators should describe how the research will contribute to theory, if
successful, and, they should describe how the researcher's ideas or hunches
could be disconfirmed, if not successful.
Among the
guidelines to investigators in the Executive Summary are the following
recommendations:
These
criteria should not be limited to NSF applications, but rather to sociology as
a discipline. The report also recommended ways to strengthen qualitative
research including proposing qualitative methods training, holding additional
workshops on qualitative research methods, and disseminating qualitative
proposal review criteria.
The
Sociology Program at NSF has taken some of its own advice. Along with the
Political Science, Anthropology, Law and Social Science, and the Methodology
and Statistics programs are co-funding a follow-up workshop to be held in
mid-May, with sociologist Michelle Lamont as the Principal Investigator. In
addition, the Sociology Program at NSF seeks rigorous qualitative research
proposals to advance this area of sociological research. Full proposals are due
by May 16, 2005. More information can be found on the NSF website at www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/sqrmii.jsp.
Summing up the purpose of this effort, White said, "The
Sociology Program appreciates diversity in substantive focus and research
methods. We hope that the workshop and follow-up activities on qualitative
methods will communicate that we are interested in supporting strong
qualitative research projects and want everyone to be on the same page as to
what constitutes a high quality project for NSF."
From: S palter-Ross,
Roberta. " Putting the
Science in Qualitative Methodology". Footnotes. American Sociological
Association.