Naturalistic inquiry

438

Book Reviews

been the junior high school level with little pre- and post-school integration. It is pointed out that some experimental efforts toward greater desegregation have begun. Readers may find some of the earlier chapters not directly relevant to the U.S. school desegreation situations. However, this volume as a whole presents a rare cross-cultural perspective to school desegregation-one of the most important educational and social issues of all ethnically heterogeneous societies. Emil R. Specs Illinois University-

Southern

Carbondale,

NATURALISTIC

Illinois

INQUIRY

Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,

1985, 416 pp., $25.00 (Cloth)

Naturalistic Inquiry attempts to document and to fix a place for a form of inquiry which would be a genuine alternative to positivistic social science methodology. It draws upon the resources of educational research and evaluation literature. The authors properly state that it is an introductory book to the thinking about and doing of naturalistic inquiry. The word, introductory, should be stressed because the authors clearly emphasize that there is no real effort to ground this book in the philosophical and epistemological literature. Generally, the first seven chapters are arguments against conventional methodology and positivism, as well as arguments for the adoption of the naturalistic paradigm. Chapters 1 and 2 give an overview of positivism in an introductory form. This approach is a quasi-philosophy of science and history of ideas. The intellectual tradition endorsed is contemporary British “critical” ethnography and philosophy of science mainly by Rom Harre and Mary Hesse. Chapter 3, “Constructed Realities,” is a short chapter devoted to asserting multiple realities as a characteristic of our time and of the new science. Conspicuously absent is a discussion of the literature on social construction of reality which is well over two decades old in sociology and widely available in communication. Chapter 4 deals with the relationship between inquirer and the objects of inquiry. This chapter is not only critical to the naturalist paradigm but also to the whole enterprise of social science. The dualism of subject-object is taken to task which has been a cornerstone of positivist philosophy. This chapter, however, needs to deal with a “new” objectivity as well. As the author’s philosophical mentor, Mary Hesse, states (quoted at the top of Chapter 13) “the guarantee of objectivity in human science is the

Book

Reviews

439

participation in the dialogue between the investigator and the investigated, in which reciprocal interaction occurs.” It seems odd that this pertinent issue is not addressed. Chapter 5 is an excellent discussion of the theory of generalization in classical science and its related problems. This chapter, however, suffers to the degree it argues in the negative fashion and eventually ends up in a philosophical debate on the relationship between the universal and the particular, grounding a new paradigm on a universal principle: there are no universals. To this nonsequitor in contemporary social science there needs to be a genuine discussion of part-whole relationship as it would be understood in this new paradigm. Continuing on the discussion of generalization in science, Chapter 6 presents an excellent critique of causality. This critique is handled marvelously from inside the concept itself. In this sense. a true critique is provided. This may serve as an excellent model for methodologists and researchers alike of how a critique ought to be handled if it is to be a convincing presentation rather than a mere assault. This chapter also presents an adequate history of ideas related to the origins of the concept, causality, and thus making it sufficiently illuminating. Chapter 7, “Is Being Value-Free Variable?“, may be somewhat tedious to readers who do not see why the authors are referring to Darwin, Lemarck, and Galileo. (And some may not.) But, this is a refreshing discussion because it focuses on the critical issues of the consequences of the value-free position in traditional science. The authors again remind us that a value-free position in itself is a valued position. The significant point is that such a position fosters the ritualization of method and, as a consequence, affirms control rather than discovery as the product of science. Chapter 8 moves from the quasi-theoretical, quasi-historical development of the naturalistic inquiry into the pragmatics of doing it. This chapter is intended to display a repertoire of methods that are valuable for the practice of naturalistic inquiry. Of particular interest in this chapter is the discussion of purpose sampling and the role of qualitative methods as a human field instrument. Chapter 9, “Designing a Naturalistic Inquiry,” is an excellent “nuts and bolts” chapter. Anyone who has been involved in field research will thoroughly enjoy and approve of this chapter. It should also be extremely helpful for students entering the field. Chapter 10, “Implementing the Naturalistic Inquiry,” deals with the topic of entree. Entree is an important topic which deserves a whole chapter to itself rather than a few pages. The salient aspect of entree is that the respondent must receive a relevant “payoff’for their participation. Clearly this requires a negotiation, a trust building through communication practices. The authors do not discuss this necessity to the extent that it would impress upon the reader that all good field research is a communication practice and does not come automatically with the mantle of naturalist armed with good intentions. Similarly, the authors’ discussion of the interview does not emphasize strongly enough that the kind of information received in an interview is not just a person responding