- Email: [email protected]
Qualitative methods
74
cations of that for training, planning, and decision making. Other sessions that are planned include a presession on data analysis with qualitative methods, a workshop on evaluation of internship experiences, a symposium on personnel evaluation, a report on field testing the Effectiveness Indicatorsfor Special Education, and a business meeting for the TIG. OUf members are a diverse group of people, representing special education, vocational education, regular education, nontraditional education, preschool through postdoctoral training, and the extension service. Several individuals have spoken to me about having subgroups within the TIG. For example, Ken Olsen (University of Kentucky) would like to start a Special Education subgroup. I encourage anyone who is interested in forming such a subgroup to contact me so that we can form a network of subgroups in order to better serve the interests of our membership. Donna M. Mertens, President, TIG: Educational Evaluation DEFR-FH Room 406; Gallaudet University; 800 Florida Ave., NE: Washington, DC 20002. (202) 651-5202.
Qualitative Methods As of October, 1986, approximately 30 percent of AEA members had chosen the Qualitative Methods Topical Interest Group (QM-TIG) as one of their three TIG affiliations. AT the QM-TIG meeting at last year's AEA annual conference in Kansas City, a survey of the membership was suggested as one means of discovering the needs and interests of this group. In January of this year, a briefquestionnaire was mailed to about 550 QM-TIG members and approximately 26 percent of the membership responded. This report summarizes the results of that survey. Responses were received from all fifty states, Canada, and Australia. Most of those responding were affiliated with a college or university
75
(53%). Other affiliations included local/state/federal social service agencies (10%); non-profit organizations (10%); local/state/federal education agencies (8%); consulting firms (6%); business and industry (5%), and a variety of other agencies including state energy offices, state employment and training offices, etc. (9%). A wide variety of content/ specialty areas were represented including higher, adult, and special education evaluation; health education evaluation; organizational training; business and industry evaluation; public policy/ administration; social servicesevaluation; and evaluation methodology. The majority of respondents (54%) had not attended an AEA conference, and a majority either were not planning to attend (38%) or were undecided about attending (19%) the 1987conference in Boston. Respondents listed benefits that they expected to receive from their participation in the QM-TIG, as networking, the exchange of ideas/ information, enhancing/improving knowledge, and learning more about qualitative methods. The questionnaire asked members about the services that they would be willing to offer the TIG. About 85 percent of those responding offered services such as sharing experiences/ information/ results of studies; serving as a presenter/discussant, and reviewing papers and proposals. The remaining 15percent indicated either that they were not sure what services they could offer or were unable to offer any service. Several respondents stated that they might be better able to answer this question if they knew specifically what kind of services were needed. Finally, an informal needs analysis was performed by asking members to rate eight topical areas on two dimensions-importance and need for knowledge. The eight topical areas (ranked in order of importance based on the needs analysis) included: foundations of qualitative methods; planning a qualitative inquiry; techniques of interviewing; combining qualitative and quantitative data; methods for analyzing qualitative data; procedures for writing case studies; procedures for checking the quality/integrity of qualitative inquiry; techniques for document and record analysis. The chair of the QM-TIG and others are currently reviewing the results of the survey and soliciting additional ideas from QM-TIG members. A principal concern is how to meet some of the needs of the apparently sizable portion of the active and interested QM-TIG membership that does not attend the annual conference, given the limited budget of the TIG. The results of the needs analysis suggests
76
some areas in which to sponsor or invite sessions, symposia, or processions for the benefit of those attending the annual conference. David Fetterman, chairperson of the TIG, and Wei Li Fang, coordinator, welcome members' suggestions. David can be reached at the School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, (415) 725-0081. Wei Li can be reached at the School of Medicine, Box 382, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, (804) 924-8367. Thanks to Tom Schwandt at the University ofIllinois at Chicago for designing the questionnaire and analyzing the results.
Evaluation with a Social Purpose: Incorporating as a Nonprofit Organization Steven E. Mayer Rainbow Research, Inc. Minneapolis, MN
ADVANTAGES OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION I will use the context of Rainbow Research's own history to present what we see as the pros and cons of nonprofit incorporation. Governance First, nonprofit status is conferred on a corporation, "not an individual. While individuals can incorporate as a for-profit organization, I know of no states that allow individuals to incorporate as nonprofit. Because of their special purposes and eligibility for taxexemption, nonprofit organizations are subjected to greater scrutiny and greater public accountability than for profits. State law (not Federal) specifies the minimum requirements for nonprofit structure and accountability.
cations of that for training, planning, and decision making. Other sessions that are planned include a presession on data analysis with qualitative methods, a workshop on evaluation of internship experiences, a symposium on personnel evaluation, a report on field testing the Effectiveness Indicatorsfor Special Education, and a business meeting for the TIG. OUf members are a diverse group of people, representing special education, vocational education, regular education, nontraditional education, preschool through postdoctoral training, and the extension service. Several individuals have spoken to me about having subgroups within the TIG. For example, Ken Olsen (University of Kentucky) would like to start a Special Education subgroup. I encourage anyone who is interested in forming such a subgroup to contact me so that we can form a network of subgroups in order to better serve the interests of our membership. Donna M. Mertens, President, TIG: Educational Evaluation DEFR-FH Room 406; Gallaudet University; 800 Florida Ave., NE: Washington, DC 20002. (202) 651-5202.
Qualitative Methods As of October, 1986, approximately 30 percent of AEA members had chosen the Qualitative Methods Topical Interest Group (QM-TIG) as one of their three TIG affiliations. AT the QM-TIG meeting at last year's AEA annual conference in Kansas City, a survey of the membership was suggested as one means of discovering the needs and interests of this group. In January of this year, a briefquestionnaire was mailed to about 550 QM-TIG members and approximately 26 percent of the membership responded. This report summarizes the results of that survey. Responses were received from all fifty states, Canada, and Australia. Most of those responding were affiliated with a college or university
75
(53%). Other affiliations included local/state/federal social service agencies (10%); non-profit organizations (10%); local/state/federal education agencies (8%); consulting firms (6%); business and industry (5%), and a variety of other agencies including state energy offices, state employment and training offices, etc. (9%). A wide variety of content/ specialty areas were represented including higher, adult, and special education evaluation; health education evaluation; organizational training; business and industry evaluation; public policy/ administration; social servicesevaluation; and evaluation methodology. The majority of respondents (54%) had not attended an AEA conference, and a majority either were not planning to attend (38%) or were undecided about attending (19%) the 1987conference in Boston. Respondents listed benefits that they expected to receive from their participation in the QM-TIG, as networking, the exchange of ideas/ information, enhancing/improving knowledge, and learning more about qualitative methods. The questionnaire asked members about the services that they would be willing to offer the TIG. About 85 percent of those responding offered services such as sharing experiences/ information/ results of studies; serving as a presenter/discussant, and reviewing papers and proposals. The remaining 15percent indicated either that they were not sure what services they could offer or were unable to offer any service. Several respondents stated that they might be better able to answer this question if they knew specifically what kind of services were needed. Finally, an informal needs analysis was performed by asking members to rate eight topical areas on two dimensions-importance and need for knowledge. The eight topical areas (ranked in order of importance based on the needs analysis) included: foundations of qualitative methods; planning a qualitative inquiry; techniques of interviewing; combining qualitative and quantitative data; methods for analyzing qualitative data; procedures for writing case studies; procedures for checking the quality/integrity of qualitative inquiry; techniques for document and record analysis. The chair of the QM-TIG and others are currently reviewing the results of the survey and soliciting additional ideas from QM-TIG members. A principal concern is how to meet some of the needs of the apparently sizable portion of the active and interested QM-TIG membership that does not attend the annual conference, given the limited budget of the TIG. The results of the needs analysis suggests
76
some areas in which to sponsor or invite sessions, symposia, or processions for the benefit of those attending the annual conference. David Fetterman, chairperson of the TIG, and Wei Li Fang, coordinator, welcome members' suggestions. David can be reached at the School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, (415) 725-0081. Wei Li can be reached at the School of Medicine, Box 382, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, (804) 924-8367. Thanks to Tom Schwandt at the University ofIllinois at Chicago for designing the questionnaire and analyzing the results.
Evaluation with a Social Purpose: Incorporating as a Nonprofit Organization Steven E. Mayer Rainbow Research, Inc. Minneapolis, MN
ADVANTAGES OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION I will use the context of Rainbow Research's own history to present what we see as the pros and cons of nonprofit incorporation. Governance First, nonprofit status is conferred on a corporation, "not an individual. While individuals can incorporate as a for-profit organization, I know of no states that allow individuals to incorporate as nonprofit. Because of their special purposes and eligibility for taxexemption, nonprofit organizations are subjected to greater scrutiny and greater public accountability than for profits. State law (not Federal) specifies the minimum requirements for nonprofit structure and accountability.