Introduction- Human Movement Studies- Human Movement Studies

Interpreting and reporting in qualitative inquiry: profiling the researcher or the research?

Ross Brooker & Ian Macpherson

Is it always necessary to go "beyond" one’s data in a descriptive

study? May a researcher present data solely in a descriptive mode,

leaving to the reader- or to a future time - the task of

analysis/interpretation?

(Wolcott, 1994. p. 1)

I have found... cases where people write narratives, write their

research out and I have learned more about them than I learn about

their interaction with those they’re in the field with or with whom

they have interacted.

(Smith, 1997)

Introduction

The origins of this paper are grounded in our reflections on our

involvement in a recent event, promoted as an international conference

on teacher research. It was of some surprise to us that most of the

presentations (keynote addresses and papers) at the conference were

very personalised and often times decontextualised accounts by teachers

and administrators of practice from a school or a classroom. From our

observations, the stories were clearly appreciated by other teachers

and the story tellers were held in high esteem. There was certainly a

sense of empathy amongst participants (most of whom were school-based

people) with the content of the stories. This experience left us

wondering about the contribution of such stories to the advancement of

understandings about teaching practice. "How did these very

contextualised stories (which were often related without an elaboration

of the context in which they occurred) take the hearers (including

ourselves) forward? How did the stories relate to a priori theory and

practice?" "How did the stories advance our understanding of the social

practice that they represented and how did they add to the theory about

that practice?" It appeared that the ‘researchers’ stories profiled the

story teller more than the ‘research’ itself. Copious quantities of

what amounted to (elegantly descriptive if not picturesque) research

data were reported at the conference, but there was little reporting of

any interpretation of that data.

We left the conference pondering the questions: "In the context of

qualitative inquiry, is it purposeful for a researcher to simply report

the data and leave an audience to make their own interpretations, or is

the making of meaning from the data an essential activity? What is the

nature of an interpretation? How can qualitative inquiry be reported?"

Our experience at the "teacher research" conference prompted us to

reflect on our research practices. The purpose of this paper is to

raise a number of issues as a starting point for an ongoing dialogue

focused on these and other questions related to the interpretation and

reporting of qualitative data.

As a way of opening up a dialogue on interpretation and reporting of

qualitative inquiry we present a short unedited extract from the report

(which we wrote) of a recent research project in which we participated.

We then move to interrogate this text and what it represents, raising

issues for consideration.

BACKGROUND

During 1996, some teachers at a school ("Northside") were involved in

three projects with some researchers from a Queensland university.

These projects focussed very much on the phenomenon of curriculum

leadership for effective learning and teaching. Late in 1996, it was

clear that the school was well-placed to continue a focus on curriculum

leadership in 1997, and it was learned that an emphasis was going to be

placed on professional development for Heads of Department (HOD's) and

Advanced Skills Teachers (AST's). This emphasis was seen to be an

appropriate case of curriculum leadership for effective learning and

teaching in action. As such, it would provide a means of

authenticating the emerging model of curriculum leadership that was

developing in the research project and of enriching our understandings

of what some of us have been calling the mystery of curriculum

leadership.

As the observations of the Northside case were continuing, we

(university researchers) were documenting the processes and our

reflections of these from stories and conversations, which those

involved are invited to be a part of.

THE SECOND MEETING (23 APRIL)

There was a brief overview of the first meeting, for the benefit of

those not present the week before. In fact, the group at this meeting

seemed to be quite a different composition from those attending the

first meeting. The whiteboard summary from the first meeting was used

and dates were confirmed for a meeting on 21 May, with a smaller

planning group meeting on 18 June. Robyn reiterated that the agenda

was to come from the HOD's and the AST's, and that those in attendance

had the power. The meeting then divided onto two groups. Rick observed

the HOD's meeting while Iggy observed the AST's meeting.

The AST's meeting

There appeared to be quite a lack of background knowledge about the

proposed professional development project and questions like what is

the Annual Operational Plan (AOP), what is the Effective Learning and

Teaching (ELT) Review, and is this for AST's only came up. Rose (the

Deputy Principal) acted in an information-giving capacity and provided

copies of the AOP as well as outlining a possible structure for the

AST's to consider what they might like to focus on specifically. There

was concern in the group in terms of what was in it for them as a

group, and for themselves individually. A strange twist related to what

might be expected from AST's in return. The ELT principles were used a

framework for discussion and various AST's expressed their perspectives

and priorities. The focus seemed to settle on the first and third

principles and on matters relating to communication (both within

classrooms and across the school). There was some interest in the use

of technology.

There was some discussion on who could be used as resource people as

well as on who might be included in the conference (e.g. those aspiring

to be AST's)

Some Reflections on the AST’s Meeting

1. Were the AST's ready for the freedom and power which Rose assumed they already had?

2. Were the AST's really in touch with Rose’s vision?

3. Were the AST's able to cohere as a group in discussing the topic?

4. What factors appeared to be operating?

(In terms of organisational structure, communication was perceived very

much as a top-down model; in terms of social dynamics, there appeared

to be some members of the group who considered themselves as

knowledgeable leaders while others came across quite tentatively as

newer members of staff; in terms of views of curriculum, teachers came

across as committed to their classroom work; while as far as the

psycho-social factors are concerned, there seemed to be more factors

getting in the way of desire to engage in curriculum leadership action

than factors to promote engagement. In fact, there appeared to quite a

degree of cynicism, which perhaps the use of individual narratives and

follow-up conversations could seek to address)

5. What might be appropriate ways forward in terms of our being a

critical friend to Rose; our continuing our observations and

collections of useful data; and our continuing role in the lead-up to

the conference?

The purpose(s) for qualitative inquiry

The need for researchers to think about meaning making is inherent in

any research activity and is intimately linked to the purpose of an

inquiry. Whose meanings are to be valued in an inquiry and what is the

consequent nature of the relationship between the researcher and the

inquiry context? Researchers are (or should be?) confronted by

decisions about whose perspectives and meanings the inquiry is trying

to uncover and understand. Will the research be a genuine attempt to

understand actions from the actor’s point of view or will it be

"...just a matter of grasping objects from an external standpoint"?

(Kerdeman, 1997). The responses to these questions then lead to further

questions and decisions about the technical procedures that can be

undertaken by researchers to ascertain and clarify meanings.

The purpose of the inquiry referred to above was to ascertain the

efficacy of a set of propositions about curriculum leadership action

in school contexts. These propositions were previously formulated

through a combination of quantitative and qualitative studies involving

teachers and administrators in schools. In pursuing what might be

regarded as a "truth" seeking purpose (Donmoyer, 1997, p. 18), we had

in mind that we wanted to access the perceptions of the actors in a

context in order to validate a priori concepts that were developed from

inquiry involving broadly similar contexts. In advance of the research,

we were cognisant that the perceptions of reality obtained through the

inquiry would be context specific.

Despite having a clear purpose, the perceptions that we gathered (and

reported) in the inquiry were mostly our own, as the excerpt from our

report above indicates. In the course of our inquiry, we found that the

school personnel were not willing to become involved in the research

beyond accepting our attendance at their meetings. They would not

provide written reflections on their involvement or agree to be

interviewed. What went wrong and was this to do with purpose?

While we were clear on our purpose, we were faced with a dilemma. On

the one hand we did not want our purpose to impinge upon the school’s

agenda but on the other hand we wanted our purpose to be sufficiently

clear in order to access the perceptions of the actors. As it unfolded,

there was a brief reference made, almost in passing, by the deputy

principal to the effect that we would be sitting in on their meetings

and so from the beginning participants had little if any commitment to

the inquiry. Consequently, our purpose was marginalised by the school

personnel to the point where they showed virtually no interest in

interacting with us. Whether a fuller explanation of purpose would have

made any difference at that site remains unknown but had this occurred

we would have been in a much better position to determine whether it

was possible for us to pursue our purpose at that site or if another

site would be a better option. Clearly, our position as "neutral

observer(s)" standing outside the social reality being studied was

untenable as a way of exploration and discovery of that reality (Acker,

Barry & Essveld, 1983).

What can be learned from this experience that would promote a greater

fidelity of purpose for an inquiry? Researchers should devote a

considerable amount of their initial research energy to thinking about

the likelihood and nature of competing purposes for the conduct of an

inquiry with a view to articulating a priority purpose to be pursued.

An appropriate research process can then be developed to inform the

primary purpose. A second consideration for researchers should be the

careful attention given to the choice of site(s) for the inquiry. In

the case referred to above, we chose to work in what amounted to a site

of convenience. Our involvement with the site in an earlier phase of

the project ensured ready access and we were familiar with the

surroundings. Choosing sites on a criterion of convenience should be

avoided. The choice of site(s) is best made on the basis of their

capacity to provide researchers with the opportunity to develop

appropriate and fruitful research relationships which realise data that

illuminate the purpose of the inquiry. Who we can "locate to talk and

with what depth of rapport" influence the "shape and substance of

interpretation" (Peshkin, 1997)

What counts as data?

To answer the question, what counts as data in an inquiry is simple at

one level - whatever informs the purpose of the inquiry. In our

experience, data from a range of sources are useful because they can

paint a picture of what is occurring at an inquiry site and provide a

context whereby the readers who engage with the account of an inquiry

develop an idea of the broader context for what is occurring as the

more detailed and particular aspects of the inquiry. It does, however,

seem that data which informs an inquiry can be positioned in a variety

of ways and can, or indeed should be, weighted differentially. As the

extract cited above indicates, the almost exclusive source of data was

the documentation of the researchers’ observations. Therefore, the

picture that was painted was our picture. The viewpoints of the actors,

which were essential to this inquiry, are missing (for reasons already

explained above). The "distance" between

the researchers and researched limited access to data that was

essential to the inquiry.

Conclusions drawn from such a weighted data source as the documentation

of researchers observations must be regarded as tentative if, for the

purpose of the inquiry, other sources of data are critical . It must

also be remembered that such observations are contextualised within,

and shaped by, the belief system of the researcher. The overarching

belief system establishes an a priori interpretive framework which acts

as a filter through which observations are distilled in a number of

ways. In this "reflexive loop" (Ross, 1994, p. 244), the researcher’s

beliefs influence the decisions about what observations are selected

and how those observations will be transformed and presented. Peshkin

(1997) has pointed out that "... it is inconceivable that (we) can

conduct any phase of ... research except from some point of view, which

is to say, that other interpretations, other meanings and

understandings are imaginable."

Interpreting qualitative data

Inevitably, researchers are faced with the task of making sense of the

research in which they have been/are engaged. "Ultimately the

researcher must objectify the experience of the researched, must

translate that experience into more abstract and general terms if an

analysis that links the individual to processes outside her immediate

social world is to be achieved" (Acker, Barry, & Essveld, 1983, p.

425). Researchers are required to "render an account" of their

qualitative data, "to reach for understanding or explanation beyond the

limits of what can be explained with the degree of certainty usually

associated with analysis" (Wolcott, 1994, p. 11).

In the example cited above, it is clear that, beyond posing a set of

questions based on our perceptions of what was happening at the inquiry

site, we undertook no further interpretation. Because of the nature of

the data, we believed that to do anything more with the data would have

taken us "beyond the limits of what can be explained with...

certainty". In this case we have been content to err on the side of

description unless of course we were to engage further with the

participants at the site. Had we had access to the participants at the

school, it is most likely that we would have arrived at another

interpretation.

To the extent that inferences about interpretation can be made from

reports of qualitative inquiry, caution in the realm of transforming

data through interpretation is not always observed by qualitative

researchers. A "pervasive problem" with interpretation is that

pronouncements and speculations about meanings or implications made by

researchers often extend too far beyond what can be discerned from "a

thin basis in observed fact" (Wolcott, 1994, p. 37). Given that the

data from our inquiry was limited, it would have been tempting for us

to compensate for this lack by attempting an interpretation which

stretched well beyond the boundaries of the available data. It is

important that claims by researchers that an interpretation is derived

from qualitative inquiry are always substantiated. The significance of

"good" data in this process cannot be underestimated. As Acker, Barry,

& Essveld (1983) point out, "The adequacy of the interpretation

fundamentally depends upon the accuracy of our descriptions of the

experiences we wish to locate within the social relations of the

society" (p. 425).

The influence of the audience on interpretation is also worth

examining. In this particular inquiry we were cognisant of audience

interest at a number of levels: participants at the inquiry site;

colleagues; education department personnel on the research reference

group; and the agency which sponsored the inquiry. While we do not

believe that our work was compromised by such "... a self consciousness

about audience" (Wolcott, 1994, p. 258), we were conscious that our

work would come under the scrutiny and how our work would be perceived.

For example, how would the questions we raised be received by the

participants at the site. Had we anticipated a negative reaction, our

questions may have been different or we may have been content to offer

descriptive data only to the detriment of moving the inquiry forward.

It is imperative that interpretive activity in qualitative inquiry is

more strongly connected to the research rather than the researcher (see

Francis, 1996). The reader of qualitative inquiry must know that the

claims made are from the research rather than from the creative licence

of the researcher. The following are proposed as guidelines for

qualitative researchers to "ensure that interpretations are not

extended beyond the limitations of one’s primary data" (Wolcott, 1994, p. 38):

Acquire "accurate descriptions" as a basis for an interpretation

It is better for researchers to err on the side of description (which

is an interpretation at one level anyhow)

Stay within the bounds of the case.

Resist the temptation to express unsubstantiated points of view through

an interpretation.

Make the relationships between the conclusions and data specific.

Document the trail from data through interpretation to conclusion.

Make the insights that are attributable to the research clear.

Reporting qualitative inquiry

At the... extreme, a researcher-as-writer may seem merely to swoop down

into the field for a descriptive morsel or two and then retreat once

again to the lofty heights of theory or speculation, something like the

touch-and-go manoeuvres of novice pilots practicing landing and takeoff

techniques (Wolcott, 1994, p. 11)

It is in the domain of documenting qualitative inquiry that researchers

are faced with a decision about what constitutes an intelligible (and

as some would question, intelligent) account of our research. Who or

what is to be profiled in such an account? Whose voices are to be

represented? (Carter, 1993; Hargreaves, 1996) Is it sufficient to

provide a lightly edited narrative of the inquiry in which the data are

left to "speak for themselves" or do we present a highly sophisticated

piece, the product of data (largely non-recognisable in the account)

being subjected to complex analysis and interpretation which stands as

a testimony to the technical skills and academic ego of the researcher

and in the end it tells more about them than the inquiry? Do our

accounts represent genuine attempts to present the research and the

understandings gleaned from that research or do they amount to what

Smith (1997) has referred to as "the hermeneutics of self-indulgence"?

The written accounts of research in whatever form (research reports;

journal articles) are less than objective. They are constructions in

which the research text becomes more than "... a faithful

representation of a reality outside the text" (Usher and Edwards, 1995,

p. 150). Researchers, however, seem to have a responsibility to

produce a text which is "... ‘true’ to the intentions and motives of

those portrayed" (Davis, 1996, p. 104). What is at risk here is that

our writing "becomes nothing but a fiction" (Simmt, 1997, p. 5).

At the beginning of our research report cited above, we have provided

the reader with a brief account of the inquiry context. What follows is

a descriptive account of our record of events at the site and we

conclude with an interpretation in the form of a set of reflective

questions. What should we have disclosed in the report? Given that in

the course of the research we could not engage the participants, who

could reasonably be expected to have different perceptions from us at

to what was happening at the site, should we have made it quite clear

that the report reflected our views only? Could we have provided more

in the text so that the reader was exposed to a more authentic, and

therefore more instructive, account of the inquiry? Could we have

provided a richer account of the basis for our perceptions or a trail

of our thinking in this regard?

In answering this question in relation to our own research activity, it

seems that an intelligible account of qualitative inquiry which seeks

to engage the reader with the research in preference to the

researcher(s), should document the following:

The context for the research which identifies: the origins of the

inquiry; a conceptual framework; a clear statement of the purpose of

the inquiry including the interests of the participants (researchers

and actors); and evidence of thought about the ethical implications and

likely (moral) consequences for the participants of the inquiry. Such

an account is important, as interpretation by the researcher(s) and

what readers make of that interpretation is enhanced by contextual

information.

The research process which identifies what was actually done..

The process which transformed the data as originally recorded through

description, analysis and interpretation, into a credible account which

accurately profiles the research.

Some well justified suggestions about the useability/applicability of

the research and its future directions that are consistent with, and

link to, the purpose of the inquiry.

A final word

The issues raised in this paper are grounded in a concern about the

rise of certain practices in qualitative inquiry that tell us more

about the researcher than the research. It is our observation that

there has been a proliferation of personal experiences and

recollections of past occurrences which are being promoted under the

banner of research. While these descriptive stories are undoubtedly of

significance to the "actors" involved and may even be of interest to

others, they do little to advance understanding for the broader

community. These accounts are mostly idiosyncratic and heavily

contextualised to a particular site or situation and are characterised

by a "strong individualistic sense of ‘me’" rather than a "communal

sense of ‘we’" (Smith, 1997, p. 3).

Readers of the reports of such "inquiry" gain no sense of the factors

and relationships that form the context for the story nor is there any

attempt to locate these accounts with other "knowers" or knowledge in

the field. This movement "... toward an engagement with self-indulgence"

which Smith (1997) suggests can be identified with postmodernists,

represents a "... move away from a healthy sense of multiplicity and

plurality toward a deep, unproductively so, sense of heterogeneity"

(Smith, 1997, p. 3, 15). The reporting of qualitative inquiry should

provide a sufficient level of detail to allow a reader to engage or

"wrestle" with the text (Lather, 1997). It would seem to be more

productive to position the research text as an invitation to further

conversation about the research rather than an objective statement of

"truth".

Equally we are concerned about interpretation in qualitative inquiry

that reaches "too far beyond the case itself in speculating about its

meanings and implications" (Wolcott, 1994, p. 37). Claims made for new

knowledge arising out of qualitative inquiry need to be substantiated

to the extent that a reader can engage with the "story" and become an

active participant in the interpretation.

We recognise that coming to grips with these issues in qualitative

inquiry is a struggle. While researchers must always be open to new

ways of doing things, we must remain committed to practices, whatever

they be, that promote authentic ways of knowing. In pursuing this goal,

"We want to know that our research results fairly and accurately

reflect the aspects of social life that they claim to represent"

(Acker, Barry & Essveld, 1983, p. 431).

References

Acker, J., Barry, K., & Essveld, J. (1983) Objectivity and truth:

Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International

Forum, 6(4), pp. 423-435.

Carter, K. (1993) The place of story in the study of teaching and

teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), pp. 5-12.

Davis, B. (1996) Mathematics Teaching: Toward a Sound Alternative. New

York: Garland Press.

Donmoyer, R. (1997) The qualitative/quantitative distinction: Is it

still a matter of different epistemologies? A paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago,

Illinois, March 1997.

Francis, D. (1996) Moving from non-interventionist research to

participatory action: challenges for academe. Journal of Qualitative

Studies in Education, 9(1), pp. 75-86.

Hargreaves, A. (1996) Revisiting voice. Educational researcher, 25(1),

pp. 12-19.

Kerdeman, D. (1997) The prosaic and the professional: Interpretation in

Gadamer’s Hermeneutics. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Education Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 1997.

Lather, P. (1997) Personal communication.

Peshkin, A. (1997) The nature of interpretation in qualitative

research. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Education Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 1997.

Ross, R. (1994) The ladder of inference. In P. M Senge, C. Roberts, R.

b. Ross, B. J. Smith & A Kleiner (eds.), The Fifth Discipline

Fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Chapter 35.

Simmt, E. (1997) Fictionalizing research data. A paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago,

Illinois, March 1997.

Smith, J. K. (1997) Learning to live with relativism. Unpublished

paper.

Smith, J. K. (1997) Response to "The qualitative/quantitative

distinction: Is it still a matter of different epistemologies?" - a

paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education

Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 1997.

Usher, R. & Edwards, R. (1994) Postmodernism and Education. London:

Routledge Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description,

Analysis and Interpretation. California: Sage Publications.