. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction
Qualitative inquiry has been an old idea and its principles have been used in different disciplines. We can see that anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, and many others have carried out their investigations using this approach and employing terms like ethnography, participant observation, case study, and life history among others. The notion of qualitative inquiry might be related also to naturalistic inquiry. According to Williams (2005), qualitative inquiry is the research conducted in natural settings, which uses natural methods such as observation, interviewing, and writing that involves people who have natural interests in what they are studying [1].
This conception may be applied to researchers, teachers, and students focused in the field of Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
For a better understanding of this essay, I will use term qualitative inquiry in order to avoid possible confusion and to convey the question led characteristics of this approach. In the context of qualitative inquiry, Williams (2005) presents the idea that the paradigms for inquiry have received considerable attention in the practice of researchers and evaluators [2]. With this notion he explains that paradigms would be for example, the way people conceptualize their nature of reality, the way they try to know something and those things they are trying to know. In this paper I will describe four core traditions and relate to each other for comparison. This will permit an overview in the field of qualitative inquiry and the basic knowledge for anyone who would like to do qualitative inquiry as well. |
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ethnography
This tradition works mainly for groups of people. Researchers who do ethnography try to see what happens through the subjects' point of view. When the physical presence of the investigator is necessary, he or she becomes an observer that participates in the member's setting for gathering data and usually employs interviews as the main data source. Also, Richards (2003) points out that an ethnographer is a researcher who tries to describe and understand how an individual or group of individuals behaves socially and culturally [3].
Depending on the ethnographer's point of view, emic and etic appear as two perspectives to study a situation, that is, to look events from an insider and outsider point of view respectively. Due to the fact that an ethnographer becomes an observer, his or her presence is essential but requires large time of commitment on the part of the researcher. Within an ethnographic research there is one perspective that appears as essential for understanding the origins of ethnography. This is the naturalistic- ecological hypothesis proposed by Wilson (1982) [4]. This perspective considers the context as a significant element. This is, if I would like to know how language learners interact with the teacher, I should have to investigate this in the natural context (the classroom itself) in which this behavior occurs rather than in the experimental laboratory.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grounded Theory (GT)
What a researcher does here mainly is discovering a theory. In other words, it is an approach that generates a theory from the data. Most research approaches have data collection with a theory in mind. In the field of grounded theory, the researcher collects data and analyzes it and then tries to generate a theory based on the analysis. Each theory is then tested again and revised as new data is collected and analyzed. This continues until the researcher feels that there has been enough data and data analysis to generate a stable theory. As Richards (2003) says, this is a popular method because the steps are very explicit so researchers feel safe doing it [5].
| They basically do not have doubts as to whether they are doing the right thing or not. Most of grounded theories consist of interviews and observations. Nevertheless, Glaser and Strauss (cited in Merriam 2002) suggest other strong and valuable data. They suggest that collections of letters, speeches, literature and any materials which might be helpful to an investigation are also potential sources of data [6]. A researcher in GT collects, codes, and analyzes his data in order to develop his theory. This sampling procedure called by Glaser and Strauss (cited in Merriam 2002) as theoretical sampling allows researchers to compare different groups in order to find differences and similarities for possible categories [7]. Last, the sampling procedure also recommends that a GT research does do not only takes into account individuals but also sites and events. |
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case Study (CS)
The idea here is to consider what can be the object of a study. So, Merriam (2002) mentions that the object of a study will be the analysis that is considered as a unit or group of units and time and space will act as indicators [8]. Through interviews and maybe observations, the researcher can choose his or her case (a program, an individual, an event or an activity) knowing that the case is unique or typical. Another definition is the one developed by Adelman and Kemmis (cited in Nunan 1996, p.75) who suggest that a CS is the “instance in action” [9]. So, as a language teacher I can choose my instance (a foreign language learner) and find out how this case relates in context (his classmates).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Life History (LH)
Environment is considered here as an important aspect. Goodson (cited in Richards, 2003) states that LH involves more work than a life story because it is necessary to collect a vast variety of evidence. He also emphasizes that life story tellers could create this broader concept of life history of an individual based on his evidence given by interviews or discussions [10].
Moreover, interviews serve here as the main source of data but life but life history might also use documents, pictures, and other historical accounts. Also, Woods (cited in Richards 2003) claims that triangulation is an essential component to lose authenticity in the interviews [11]. In conducting such an the interview, it might be possible that the informant could not be telling the truth, for this, the attention to others sources like written personal accounts could give more plausibility to the history.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparisons
I have chosen the first two traditions to be compared because both have a close relationship. Ethnography and Grounded Theory use interviews and observations as their main sources of data collection. However, Glaser and Strauss (cited in Merriam 2002) offer a more varied option of documentary materials like letters, speeches, or pieces of literature [12].
Although both approaches study a group of individuals, Merriam (2002) indicates that that GT could also employ sites or events but at the same time GT might focus to develop a theory from people or individual in relation to a phenomenon [13]. Researchers in both approaches are required to stay constantly near their subjects collecting interviews made through day by day visits. An ethnographer is supposed to go beyond the observation; he or she takes an anthropological view as participating herself or himself in the field.
Due to the fact that an ethnographer concentrates on the behavior of a social group, the whole study will employ anthropological tendencies like cognitive and structural anthropology which talk about the interaction between people and its surrounding world (Silverman 2004) [14]. On the other hand, a researcher in GT needs to go through some steps for reaching its theory; he analyzes data in order to generate categories, which are like his bricks to construct the theory. So, whereas an ethnographer is guided from an anthropological view, the GT researcher's theory needs to meet certain social conditions that Glaser's study (cited in Merriam, 2002) proposes: the grounded theory has to make sense with the data, provide clarity to be explainable, to be important to the real problems and that it can be changed in some future [15].
Regarding to data analysis, these approaches certainly show a difference. The GT works as a comparative method of data analysis (developing categories) in the form of a system going through open, axial, and selective coding. However, an ethnographer would make use of describing, analyzing and interpreting the culture group chosen. Moreover, Merriam (2002) points out that in the process of GT there must be central category which relates directly to other categories [16].
The two other traditions, Case Study and Life History share some features as well. Both of them focus on examining an entity in terms of unit , For example, a CS could addresses an activity, a curriculum or an individual, and the LH might concentrate on the background of a person. Also, they both make use of the interviews mainly for their data sources. In addition, Richards (2003) offers a clear rationale for the existence of these traditions, he indicates that if TESOL certainly generalizes geographic, social and intellectual aspects, the need of specific cases should not be ignored [17]. Consequently, LH and CS appear as the alternatives which provide detailed descriptions, good quality and in-depth investigations.
 |
Generally, the four traditions here face different challenges. Data from interviews seems to be a careful task for GT and LH. In this sense, Richards (2003) explains that large amounts of interviews could produce different outcomes when for example a psychologist trying to obtain clinical interviews, he got significant evidence related to school life issues [18]. In addition, in Ethnography the analysis of interviews requires great periods of time and the researcher could feel pressured in trying to develop his theory. Moreover, an ethnographer deals also with time availability and his presence is essential for collecting data. Finally, in the CS the researcher focuses more on aspects dealing with selecting, type of case, rationale, and limits (Creswell, 1998) [19]. |
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions
After a comparative description of the four approaches in language learning, we can see how the notion of natural setting is significant to conduct a study. If our teaching practices are of the natural kind since we deal with people then we use data collection methods which are also natural. Interviews seem to be the only same method to collect data in the four previous traditions, the additional sources like observations, written accounts, pictures or literature pieces would be useful in accordance with the aims of the researcher's interests. But also, the researcher would like to have data triangulation and for that these additional accounts will be also necessary.
It can be also concluded that the concept of context is essential in almost all the four traditions. For example, in the Case Study approach, a language learner is the instance and one could investigate how that case functions in relation to the context of that language learner. At this point, there might no be clear difference to distinguish between ethnography and case study since both take into account a phenomenon in context.
Once we have our objectives clear along with our purposes we can make use of one of the approaches described earlier. There is no doubt that all four traditions serve a specific purpose, but at the same time, they also share some features. I might concentrate on the cultural behavior of a group, or I could focus in knowing the effects of a curriculum in an institution, or finding out about the experience and beliefs of a new teacher in a rural school after one year. However, it seems to be that the researcher needs first to determine what the purpose or his aims are going to be in his study; aspects like the setting, the subjects, the way and the tools he would choose for collecting data will provide a clear understanding of the type of tradition best fitted.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References
[1] Williams, D. (2005) Educators as Inquirers. Utah. Mckay School of Education, pp 42
[2] Williams, D. (2005) Educators as Inquirers. Utah. Mckay School of Education, pp 45
[3] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave
[4] Wilson, S. (1982). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Chicago.
Review of Educational Research, pp 248.
[5] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 18.
[6] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 142.
[7] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[8] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 178.
[9] Nunan, D. (1996) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, pp 75.
[10] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 22.
[11] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 22.
[12] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 142.
[13] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[14] Silverman, D. (2004) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London . Sage, pp 48.
[15] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[16] Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, pp 143.
[17] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 21.
[18] Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire. Palgrave, pp 23.
[19] Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California. Sage, pp 86.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bibliography
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California, Sage
Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire, Palgrave.
Silverman, D. (2004) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London, Sage.
Williams, D. (2005) Educators as Inquirers. Utah, Mckay School of Education.
Nunan, D. (1996) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S. (1982). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Chicago. Review of Educational Research.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Author
José Javier Timal Mota
Licenciatura Lenguas Modernas por la facultad de Lenguas de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP). Cursó la maestría en la Enseñanza de Idioma Inglés en la misma institución, de la cual desarrolla el proyecto de tesis sobre identidad social en un estudio de caso. Ponente en el Segundo Foro de Especialistas Universitarios en Lenguas Extranjeras en la BUAP. Actualmente es profesor de asignatura en la UVM-Puebla y en la Facultad de Lenguas de la BUAP.
