Emerging for Quality Qualitative and Interpretive …

1 275 Emerging Criteria for Qualityin Qualitative and Interpretive ResearchYvonna S. LincolnTexas A&M UniversityNot only are the boundaries of Interpretive research as yet undefined, but criteria forjudging the Quality of such research are even more fluid and emergent. Developingcriteria are nominated and cautions in applying them are discussed. The author alsosuggests two critical insights: The most promising of these criteria are relational, andthey effectively collapse the distinction between Quality (rigor) and research inquiry-especially as it is practiced in some fields of socialscience research -has been an accepted form of serious inquiry for a farshorter time than it has been for other social sciences (for instance, anthropol-ogy and sociology). Consequently, as its acceptance has been debated, it hasbeen involved in intense cross-disciplinary discussions of what constitutes itsquality criteria.

2 I prefer to think of this issue of Quality as a dialogue aboutemerging criteria. I label this discussion that way because I believe that theentire field of Interpretive or Qualitative inquiry is itself still Emerging andbeing defined. There are far fewer fixed regulations in the discourse ofinterpretive scholarship than there are in more conventional forms of the midst of this ongoing discussion, however, some scholars arearguing that Interpretive research traditions have already moved beyonddiscussions of firm, fixed, or consensually derived criteria, which are declaredfoundational (or, at best, nonfoundational). As Smith (1993) points out, Thetask for interpretivists is to elaborate what lies beyond epistemology andbeyond the idea that there are special, abstract criteria for judging the qualityof research (p. 150), especially because interpretivist[s] see criteria not asabstract standards, but as an open-ended, evolving list of traits that charac-terize what we think research should do and be like (p.)

3 153). These scholarshave adopted a posture that is antifoundational, that is, they argue that itAuthor s Note: A previous version of this article was a keynote address delivered atthe Cosponsored Session, Divisions I, B, C, D, G, J, and AERA, Annual Meeting,American Educational research Association, San Francisco, California, April 18-22, Inquiry, Volume 1 Number 3,1995 275-289@ 1995 Sage Publications, Inc. at University of South Australia on February 12, from 276has moved beyond, or stepped to the side of, rigid dualisms that characterizeboth empiricist and postempiricist inquiry ( , subject-object, true-false,objective-subjective; see, , Smith, 1993, and Schwandt, 1995). But to arguethat antifoundationalism avoids modernist and foundational dualisms is tosidestep an important issue, to wit, how do we separate good research frompoor research across disciplines and traditions?

4 That question still engagesmany scholars, both those seeking to do such research and those seeking tounderstand and to use it. And as compelling and seductive as Schwandt s(1995) call for practical rationality is (as an antidote to the epistemologicproject of foundationalism), such community deliberation about rightness isnot likely to prevail anytime soon. In fact, community deliberation aboutrightness-the exercise of practical rationality itself-suggests (as doesSchwandt) that it has a rhetorical and persuasive (Smith, 1993, p. 16)character, which in turn suggests that listeners and dialogue participants havesome standards (criteria?) by which they can judge the power or persuasive-ness of various conversational and deliberative partners. We are consequentlyleft with criteria determined by a community of interpreters -not far fromwhere we are now. My own position is that conversations about criteria areimportant to the interpretivist community, if for no better reason than toengage and elaborate a complex and interesting dialogue and to create a spacefor a shared discourse wherein we might discover a new community first systematic consideration of criteria for new-paradigm inquirywas organized in 1981 by Bob Heinich, then the editor of the EducationalCommunications and Technology Journal.

5 Bob commissioned a keynote addresson rigor criteria for Interpretive research ; the invitees to the conference wereall journal editors in education seeking guidance on how to judge qualitativestudies submitted to them. That keynote address subsequently appeared inthe Educational Communications and Technology Journal (Guba & Lincoln,1982)under the title Epistemological and Methodological Bases of NaturalisticInquiry Those guidelines essentially proposed a set of criteria, which resem-bled the four that guided conventional inquiry (see Columns 1 and 2,Table 1). These criteria were what we now understand to be foundational, that is, they rested in assumptions that had been developed for an empiricistphilosophy of research , and spoke to the procedural and methodologicalconcerns that characterize empiricist and postempiricist research . Their pri-mary use now, in my view, is to help students understand that interpretivistinquiry requires as serious a consideration of systematic, thorough, consciousmethod as does empiricist inquiry I still use those methodological criteria toquestion doctoral students who are about to conduct dissertation criteria act as reminders that seeking out multiple constructions of theworld by multiple stakeholders has to be marked by serious, sustainedsearches for, and prolonged engagement with, those stakeholders and theirconstructions.

6 Others of my colleagues seem to be less concerned with at University of South Australia on February 12, from 277 TABLE 1: Criteria for Assessing Rigor or Trustworthiness in Researchmethod, but disciplined inquiry is still characterized in my mind by thought-ful decisions about design strategies, including a result of coming to understand the foundational nature of the originalfour criteria, Guba and I proposed five new criteria which took as theirepistemologic basis the claims, concerns, and issues of the new paradigm,which by this time had been expanded and refined (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).These new criteria were highly reflective of the commitment of inquiry tofairness (balance of stakeholder views), to the learning of respondents asmuch as to the learning of the researcher, to the open and democratic sharingof knowledge rather than the concentration of inquiry knowledge in thehands of a privileged elite, and to the fostering, stimulation, and enabling ofsocial action (see Column 3, Table 1; Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

7 Over the past decade, discussions of appropriate criteria have augmentedmore general debates about methodology Scholars have taken up the issueboth to defend their own work and to argue for new criteria. In retrospect,these proposals have made the field infinitely more complicated, but alsoinfinitely more responsive, rich, and politically and ethically sensitive andcomplex. And this is where it begins to be interesting. The issues that scholarsare proposing today make it clear that new paradigm inquiry is not, and neverwill be, second-rate conventional scientific inquiry It is scientific inquiry thatembraces a set of three new commitments: first, to new and emergent relationswith respondents; second, to a set of stances-professional, personal, andpolitical-toward the uses of inquiry and toward its ability to foster action;and finally, to a vision of research that enables and promotes social justice, at University of South Australia on February 12, from 278community, diversity, civic discourse, and caring.

8 As a result, any discussionof standards today necessarily signifies a radical shift in the vision of whatresearch is, what it is for, and who ought to have access to it (Guba & Lincoln,1989; Reason, 1993; Schwandt, 1995; Smith, 1993). Emerging CRITERIAIf one were to do a meta-analysis of these criteria, it would be quite clearthat nearly all of the Emerging criteria are relational, that is, they recognizeand validate relationships between the inquirer and those who participate inthe inquiry. This monism clearly brings the inquirer and those whose livesare being questioned into the kinds of communal contact that are not possiblein more traditional inquiry, which posits a detached observer s distancebetween the inquirer and the subject of her inquiry The various criteria thatI wish to discuss, however, are distinctly addressed to different interpretivecommunities, which might be usefully described as more formal or moreinformal.

9 Because of the specificity of the audience addressed, my discussionwill move from the more formal toward the more intimate. I shall concludewith a discussion of several caveats that can be usefully for Judging Qualityin the Inquiry CommunityElliott, Fischer, and Rennie (1994) presented a workshop at the Society forPsychotherapy research meeting in Pittsburgh in 1993, which was dedicatedto achieving some guidelines for judging Qualitative research that is submit-ted for publication. In a document that they describe as an integration of comments from panelists, audience, and a follow-up work group, theyhave proposed nine guidelines for publication. In the rationale for these nineguidelines, they observe the following:Diverse Qualitative approaches, such as empirical phenomenological psychol-ogy, ethnography, Qualitative discourse analysis, ethnomethodology, groundedtheory, narratology, social action research , and symbolic interactionism, haveall developed their own traditions of rigor, communication, and ways ofworking toward consensus.

10 Qualitative research is conducted not to confirmor disconfirm earlier findings, but rather to contribute to a process of continu-ous revision and enrichment of understanding of the experience or form ofaction under following guidelines are intended to characterize general traditions ofpublishability for Qualitative research , guidelines to which all authors holdthemselves in principle, although the particular expressions of the traditionsmay vary. (Elliott et al., 1994) at University of South Australia on February 12, from 279 Elliott and his colleagues (1994) have proposed that[(1) manuscripts be] of archival significance. That is .. [they] contribute to thebuilding of the discipline s body of knowledge and understanding. (2) Themanuscript specifies where the study fits within relevant literature and indicatesthe intended contributions (purposes or questions) of the study. (3) The proce-dures used are appropriate or responsive to the intended contributions (pur-poses of questions posed for the study).