- Email: [email protected]
In response to Lee Sechrest's 1991 AEA presidential address: “Roots: Back to our first generations,” February 1991, 1–7
In Response
In Response to Lee Sechrest’s 1991 AEA Presidential Address: “Roots: Back to our First Generations,” DAVID
February 1991,1-7.
M. FETTERMAN
At the meeting in Chicago, I was troubled by the Presidential address and I felt compelled as an evaluator and as President-elect to respond in this forum. I have since heard similar reactions from many colleagues. While I find myself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing the remarks of a parting President, Lee’s intelligence and courage, as well as his contribution to the organization, deserve a straightforward and honest reply. Lee’s remarks included a blanket attack on qualitative inquiry. The strength of his comments is understandable in context-a severe attack on the quantitative approach by his predecessor, national mathematical illiteracy (a subject I too am concerned about as a qualitative researcher, citizen, and father), and haphazard training programs for evaluators. However, the imprecision of his remarks and the cutting tone with which he dismisses all qualitative research are neither understandable nor excusable. First of all, Lee discusses naturalistic inquiry as though it were the only qualitative approach. In fact, there are numerous approaches; most are based in science, some in art. One approach may be radically phenomenological, another mildly positivistic in style, tone, and formation. I have devoted a fair amount of time to help dispel the misconception that qualitative inquiry is a homogeneous or monolithic enterprise. Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution presents a detailed discussion of some of the more common approaches in the field, including ethnography, naturalistic inquiry, generic (sociological) qualitative inquiry, connoisseurship, and criticism, as well as a few completely new approaches. Ironically, in addressing only one mode of qualitative inquiry, Lee falls prey to one of the pitfalls he sees in qualitative research: inadequate representation (using an N of 1) and thus poor generalizability or, worse, gross misrepresentation. It goes without David M. Fetterman * AEA Resident-elect_ American Institutes for Research, P. 0. Box of Education, Stanford University. Evaluation
I113, Palo
Alto, CA 94302; and School
Copyright 0 1992 by JAI Press, Inc.
Practice, Vol. 13. No. 3, 1992. pp. 171-172.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0886-1633
171
172
EVALUATION
PRACTICE,
(13)3,1992
saying (or it should) that the position espoused by proponents of one qualitative approach does not necessarily represent the views of all qualitative researchers. (I leave the specific defense of naturalistic inquiry to the past President.) Further, he ignores the fact that one of the most popular, respected, funded, and applied approaches-ethnography-requires a qualitative/quantitative mix, using parametric and nonparametric statistics. The best quantitative work requires a similar mix. Clearly, one should do a basic review of the literature before attempting such sweeping criticisms. Lee’s statement that he is unaware of any published results of qualitative studies was particularly startling and unnerving to many in his audience. As President, he should be aware of a broad spectrum of published studies in the literature, particularly as that literature represents the organization. To that end, immediately after his presentation I gave him a long list of published qualitative studies that have had an impact on policy, programs, and theory. Among those studies are efforts that have influenced legislation, national educational policy, and-one of the most intractable domains-higher education management. I was troubled also by his jest about the qualitative researcher who wrote 0.0325 instead of 32.5 in noting the percent of his time in a proposal. I sympathize with his real concern about the diminution of statistics courses, but I find such witticisms more divisive than illuminating. The qualitative/quantitative debate is an old one, and I do not want to perpetuate it here. Those who would continue it will find an appropriate forum in plenary sessions and journals. I do not advocate shying away from controversy, but I think the Presidential address calls for a more conciliatory and constructive note. I think most researchers-qualitative and quantitative-are interested in building on the work of the last generation, not in sending them off to die on an intellectual ice floe. Most of us are aware that we wouldn’t be here if not for the pioneering efforts of the previous generation. As a representative of the current generation and of this organization, I hope my remarks will serve as a bridge between generations and between researchers, rather than widening the gap between them.
In Response to Lee Sechrest’s 1991 AEA Presidential Address: “Roots: Back to our First Generations,” DAVID
February 1991,1-7.
M. FETTERMAN
At the meeting in Chicago, I was troubled by the Presidential address and I felt compelled as an evaluator and as President-elect to respond in this forum. I have since heard similar reactions from many colleagues. While I find myself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing the remarks of a parting President, Lee’s intelligence and courage, as well as his contribution to the organization, deserve a straightforward and honest reply. Lee’s remarks included a blanket attack on qualitative inquiry. The strength of his comments is understandable in context-a severe attack on the quantitative approach by his predecessor, national mathematical illiteracy (a subject I too am concerned about as a qualitative researcher, citizen, and father), and haphazard training programs for evaluators. However, the imprecision of his remarks and the cutting tone with which he dismisses all qualitative research are neither understandable nor excusable. First of all, Lee discusses naturalistic inquiry as though it were the only qualitative approach. In fact, there are numerous approaches; most are based in science, some in art. One approach may be radically phenomenological, another mildly positivistic in style, tone, and formation. I have devoted a fair amount of time to help dispel the misconception that qualitative inquiry is a homogeneous or monolithic enterprise. Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution presents a detailed discussion of some of the more common approaches in the field, including ethnography, naturalistic inquiry, generic (sociological) qualitative inquiry, connoisseurship, and criticism, as well as a few completely new approaches. Ironically, in addressing only one mode of qualitative inquiry, Lee falls prey to one of the pitfalls he sees in qualitative research: inadequate representation (using an N of 1) and thus poor generalizability or, worse, gross misrepresentation. It goes without David M. Fetterman * AEA Resident-elect_ American Institutes for Research, P. 0. Box of Education, Stanford University. Evaluation
I113, Palo
Alto, CA 94302; and School
Copyright 0 1992 by JAI Press, Inc.
Practice, Vol. 13. No. 3, 1992. pp. 171-172.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0886-1633
171
172
EVALUATION
PRACTICE,
(13)3,1992
saying (or it should) that the position espoused by proponents of one qualitative approach does not necessarily represent the views of all qualitative researchers. (I leave the specific defense of naturalistic inquiry to the past President.) Further, he ignores the fact that one of the most popular, respected, funded, and applied approaches-ethnography-requires a qualitative/quantitative mix, using parametric and nonparametric statistics. The best quantitative work requires a similar mix. Clearly, one should do a basic review of the literature before attempting such sweeping criticisms. Lee’s statement that he is unaware of any published results of qualitative studies was particularly startling and unnerving to many in his audience. As President, he should be aware of a broad spectrum of published studies in the literature, particularly as that literature represents the organization. To that end, immediately after his presentation I gave him a long list of published qualitative studies that have had an impact on policy, programs, and theory. Among those studies are efforts that have influenced legislation, national educational policy, and-one of the most intractable domains-higher education management. I was troubled also by his jest about the qualitative researcher who wrote 0.0325 instead of 32.5 in noting the percent of his time in a proposal. I sympathize with his real concern about the diminution of statistics courses, but I find such witticisms more divisive than illuminating. The qualitative/quantitative debate is an old one, and I do not want to perpetuate it here. Those who would continue it will find an appropriate forum in plenary sessions and journals. I do not advocate shying away from controversy, but I think the Presidential address calls for a more conciliatory and constructive note. I think most researchers-qualitative and quantitative-are interested in building on the work of the last generation, not in sending them off to die on an intellectual ice floe. Most of us are aware that we wouldn’t be here if not for the pioneering efforts of the previous generation. As a representative of the current generation and of this organization, I hope my remarks will serve as a bridge between generations and between researchers, rather than widening the gap between them.