Exceptional ChildreiiVol 71. NoJ2,p/>.

&2005 Council for Eiatptiotud Childrtn.

Qualitative Studiesin Special Education

ELUEN BRANTLINOERIndunui i'mivriiiy

ROBERT JIMENEZPeabody College, Vanderbilt University

JANETTE KLINGNERLhiivrnicy of Colorado at Boulder

MARLEEN PUGACHUuitigrsiry of Wi.Komin—Milvutukef

VIRGINIA RICHARDSONUniversity of Michigan

ABSTRACT:r; An overview of the many types of studies that fall into the qualitative design genre is

provided. Strategies that qualitative researchers use to establish the authors' studies as credible and

trustworthy are listed and defined. So that readers will recognize the important contribution qual-

itative studies have made in the field of special education, a range of well-known and lesser known

examples of qualitative research are reviewed. The quality indicators that are important in con-

ducting and evaluating qualitative research are identified. Finally, as an example of the evidence

that can be produced using qualitative methods, the authors provide a summary of how 3 studies

have provided important information that can be used to inform policy and practice.

ualkative research In the socialsciences has risen to promi-nence in recent years. Al-though there may be animpression that quaUcative re-

search is new to special education, its history canbe traced back almost two centuries. Certainly, atpresent, the qualitative studies genre is broad,complex, and growing; hence, settling on onedefinition is difficult. A definition that we believeis flexible enough to be inclusive is that qualita-tive research is a systematic approach to under-

standing qualities, or the essential nature, of a phe-

nomenon within a particular context. We begin

with the assertion chat qualitative designs do pro-

duce science-based evidence that can inform pol-

icy and practice in special education, and we

further claim that, similar to the other research

genres covered in this special issue of Exceptional

Children, qualitative research involves

• Empiricism—knowledge derived from sense

experience and/or caretiil observation.

Exceptional ChiUrm 195

A definition that we believe is flexibleenough to be inclusive is that qualitativeresearch is a systematic approach to un-derstanding qualities, or the essentialnature, of a phenomenon within a par-ticular context.

• Knowledge production—about perspecrives,settings, and techniques.

• Particular research skills and tools—systematicuse of certain qualitative methods.

• Production of scientific evidence—valid infor-mation about the physical, material, and socialworlds.

• Coherent articulation of results—papers pre-senting qualitative studies establish the pur-pose and usefulness oF findings as well as theirimplications for the field.

In this article, after clarifying the goals andnature of qualitative research, we support the pre-vious claims by providing an overview of someprominent studies that have contributed to un-derstanding people with disabilities and character-istics of services developed to meet their needs.Next, we delineate techniques that can be used toensure that qualitative research is credible. Wethen present quality indicators that qualitative re-searchers need to address to make sure our workmeets high scholarly standards. Finally, we in-clude an overview of the ways three recent quali-tative studies do provide evidence that can beused to inform policy and practice.

G O A L S O F Q U A L I T A T I V E

S C H O L A R S H I P

Qualitative research can be done for a multitudeof purposes, however, these might be condensedto fit under the National Research Council's cate-gories of producing descriptive or proceduralknowledge; that is, answering questions about"what is happening?" and "why or how it is hap-pening?" (Shavelson & Towne, 2002, p. 99). De-scriptive information from qualitative studies

leads to an understanding of individuals with dis-abilities, their families, and those who work withthem. Qualitative studies explore attitudes, opin-ions, and beliefs of a number of parties involvedin special education as well as the general public,and examine personal reactions to special educa-tion contexts and teaching strategies. Descriptionsabout settings conducive to productive learningoutcomes or life circumstances also are of value.Qualitative designs can trace and document cer-tain teaching and learning effects. They can ex-plore the nature and extent to which a practicehas a constructive impact on individuals with dis-abilities, their families, or on settings where theytend to work, reside, or be educated.

T H E N A T U R E O F Q U A L I T A T I V E

R E S E A R C H

Qualitative research is an umbrella category tbatencompasses various kinds of studies. The termsused by qualitative researchers often depend onour fields or which "how to" books guide ourstudies. Confusion about qualitative work ispartly due to the fact that qualitative approachesdeveloped somewhat simultaneously in separatefields (e.g., symbolic interaction in psychology,phenomenology in philosophy, discourse analysisand interpretive work in cultural studies, conver-sation analysis in sociology and sociolinguistics,ethnography in anthropology, naturalistic inquiryin education, life story and oral history in historyand folklore). As tbe boundaries between disci-plines blur, we have come to realize that distinc-tive terms have similar meanings. Qualitative,naturalistic, interpretive, field or case study, in-ductive research, and ethnography often are tisedinterchangeably or to refer to the same method.s(Merriam, 1998). Inquiry, research, method, de-sign, and study also are basically synonymous. Welist a number of types of qualitative studies In Fig-ure I.

A common claim is that qualitative researchis inductive {process of reasoning from specific togeneral) In that certain contexts or small numbersof individuals are studied before theories (expla-nations, hypotheses) are developed. However,qualitative research also can be deductive (processof reasoning from general to specific). For exam-

Winter2005

FIGURE 1

Types and Descriptions of Qualitative Research

Case study—cxploracion of a bounded system (group,individual, setting, event, phenomenon, process);can include autobiography and biography.

('ollective case study—a study that takes place in mul-tiple sites or includes personalized stories of sev-eral similar (or tlistinctive) individuals.

Hthnography—-description/interpretation of a culturalor social group or system; typically includes obser-vations, interviews, and document analysis.

Action research—^rcsearcher brings ideas for practiceto fieldwork to have an impact on the setting/par-ticipants while collfctitig data.

ColLiborative action research—researcher and practi-tioner share ideas about how to change practiceand work together to modify a situation as well ascollect information for a study.

Grounded theory—research done to generate or dis-cover a general theory or abstract analytical hunchbased on study of phenomena in a particular situ-ation (s).

Phenomenology—studies the meanings people makeof their lived experiences.

Symbolic interactionism—studies interpretive pro-cesses used by persons dealing with material andsocial situatiotis.

Narrative research—collection of personal narratives;based on recognition that people are storytellerswho lead storied lives.

Life (oral) history—extensive inieivitws with indi-viduals to collect first person narratives abouitheir lives or events In which they participated.

Quasi-life-history research-—encouraging participantsto recall and reflect on earlier as well as currentmeaningful occurrences in their lives.

Interpretive research—used synonymously with "qual-itative work" and/or to refer to research framedwithin certain {critical, feminist, disability study,critical race) theories.

Content analysis-—close inspection of text(s) to un-derstand themes or perspectives (also refers to theanalysis stage of qualitative studies).

Conversational analysis—studying interactional situa-tions, structure of talk, and communicative ex-changes; includes recording facial expressions,gestures, speed or hesitancy of speech, and tone ofvoice.

Discourse analysis-—deconstructs common sense tex-tual meanings; identifies meaning.v that underglrdnormative ways of conceptualizing and discussingphenomena.

Ideological critique—discour.se analysis that assumespolitical meanings (power disparities) or ideolo-gies are embedded in, and infused through, al]discourses, inscitutions, and social practices.

pie, we might have a hunch about a phenomenonbased on personal experience and examine repre-.sentative cases to document what was conjecturedto illustrate the nature of what is happening forreaders. Indeed, it seems the more experiencedthe researchers, the more their studies would an-ticipate findings and be designed to documentrather than discover phenomena.

Qualitative researchers often bill ourselvesas "the instrument" in our research enterprise. Wecome up with ideas to study and develop researchquestions. We clarify our theoretical or concep-tual fratnework. We decide on the designs andtechniques to address our research questions andproblem conceptualization. We typically collectour own data by observing in the field and/or in-terviewing participants. We find relevant docu-ments to examine. We sort through data, readingttanscripts and field notes, to make sense of infor-

mation collected. Finally, we "tell the story" ofour research enterprise; we write the report fordissemination. We must frame reports so journaleditors will accept our work or press publisherssee the value of turning our manuscripts intobooks. We must develop the writing skills andimagination to tell our stories in an engaging waytbat interests and informs readers. In doing thesethings, we truly are the instruments. To do quali-tative work well (be valid instruments), we mu-sthave experience related to our research foctis, bewell read, knowledgeable, analytical, rcflectivf,and introspective.

Because as qualitative researchers we areconstantly evolving instruments and because set-tings and people also are dynamic and diverse,data collection is most productively done in cre-ative ways. This might involve using a tentativeinterview protocol in a flexible way (rather than

Exceptional Children

using a rigidly structured protocol in the sameway with all "subjects") so thar questions mightbe modified or added to as preliminary evidenceemerges. The course—even purpose—of studiesmay change midstream if we come across interest-ing circumstances or it theories that arise in theinitial round of the investigation merit taking asidetrack from the original plans. There is consid-erable leeway in how we gather and report infor-mation. In proposing research, we may not beable to be specific about how many participantsultimacely will be involved in a study. We use theterm saturation to indicate that if recent inter-views discern the same information given by ear-lier respondents, there is no need to interviewmore people. We use the same logic for discontin-uing observations and/or document analysis.There is not a one-size-fits-all way to proceed incollecting information i'or a study. For example,some qualitative researchers use a retrospective re-call of past experience as the basis for their studiesrather than deliberately collecting new data (e.g.,Angrosino, 1998). Others use inventive reportstyles {Glesne, 1997; MacNeil, 2000; P. Smith,2001).

Perhaps the most controversy among quali-tative researchers relates to opinions about objec-tivity and subjectivity. Many hold the belief thatsubjectivity cannot be completely controlled.Some oi us celebrate the fact that we are studyingphenomena through a particular positional lens(e.g., postmodern, feminist, critical race theory,queer theory, disability studies) or that our schol-arly gaze is enhanced by our moral grounding(Brantlinger, 1997, 1999). In contrast, qualitativeresearchers on the more positivist end of a quali-tative to quantitative continuum see subjectivityas a problem that interferes with research validity.They may attempt to bracket their subjectivity bytaking inventory of, and attempting to control,assumptions and biases when collecting and ana-Iy7ing data. However, rather than believing it pos-sible to be neutral, distant, and objective, mostqualitative researchers recommend being explicitabout personal positions, perspectives, and valueorientations (see Harry, 1996; Peshkin. 1988}.

C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F E X I S T I N G

Q U A L I T A T I V E S T U D I E S

In this section we review important contributionsmade by early and current qualitative researchers.We illustrate the range of studies by highlightingexamples of qualitative methods used in them. Aswe noted in our introduction, qualitative researchalready has had ;m important impact on specialeducation and disability studies. Perhaps the earli-est contribution was the careful observations de-scribed by French physician hard in his classiccase study. The Wild Boy ofAveyron (1806/1962).Victor, the "wild boy," was found in the woodsand presumed to be either severely environmen-tally deprived or abandoned by his family perhapsbecause of his developmental delays. Itard's exper-iments with interventions he hoped would be ef-fective in educating and "civilizing" Victor mightbe seen as action research, a form of qualitative re-search. Another early example of a qualitative casestudy with action research elements is Anne Sulli-van Macy's groundbreaking work with HelenKeller (Keller, 1955). The overlap of both studieswith single-subject design might be noted in thatthe researcher/practitioner systematically experi-ments with various types of interventions whilecarefully recording the response ot the students toeach approach.

Descriptive information from qualitativestudies leads to an understanding of indi-viduals with disabilities, their families,and those who work with them.

Another seminal qualitative study was con-ducted by anthropologist Robert Kdgerton(1967). In order to understand insiders' feelingsabout segregation and sterilization, Edgerton /'«-terviewed 48 adults classified as "retarded" whohad spent much of their lives in institutions. Theinjustice and pain revealed in his Cloak of Compe-tence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mentally Retardedinspired advocates to exert pressure on legislatorsand court officials to overturn the involuntarysterilization laws enacted in many states earlier inthe century. The visual rhetoric of pictures taken

Winter 2005

at institutions in Christmas in Purgatory: A Photo-graphic Essay in Mental Retardatio}! (Blart & Ka-plan, 1966) provided poignant evidence ofinhumane conditions experienced by people withdisabilities who lived in large state hospitals. Col-lecting and interpreting pictorial data is consid-ered an observational technique in qualitativework (Harper, 2000). These publications arousedwidespread indignation and, thus, provided theimpetus to arrange community alternatives forpeople with disabilities chat was part of the dein-stitutionalization movement. In England, Martin-son's (1971) interviews with, and observations of,people released from institutions revealed thatcouples who lived together and shared theirstrengths were able to survive independently.These findings showed that laws prohibiting mar-riage for people with cognitive disabilities werenot logical, cost effective, or ethical.

The idea that power imbalances that existberween professionals and poor fiimilies result inminority and low-income children being classifiedas disabled and/or placed in separated schools orclassrooms at a greater rate than White, middleclass children was brought to attention by Mercer(1973) in Labeling the Mentally Retarded. Mercerfound that African American children, who per-formed competently in their homes and neigh-borhoods, still had lQ scores low enough to belabeled and treated as mentally retarded. Herideas about the "6-hour a day retarded child" (i.e.,idenrified as disabled only through school tasksand psychological and academic achievementtests) challenged the general faith in the validityand fairness of IQ tests. Mercer's work providedthe rationale for requiring an adaptive behaviormeasure for classification as mentally retarded.This was among the studies that caused advocatesto think about damaging aspects of the medicalmodel, which posits disability as a permanent, in-nate flaw in certain identified children rather thana social construaion that depends on context andthe nature of school and societal pracrices.

An ethnography, The Forgotten Ones: A Soci-ological Study of Anglo and Chicano Retardates(Henshel, 1972). demonstrated that school per-sonnels assumptions about ethnicity influencedtheir referral, testing, and placement procedures.Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968), Pygmalion inThe Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils' In-

tellectual Dei'elopment comhmed qualitative (inter-views, observations, document analysis) and quanti-tative methods (random sample, experimentaldesign) to discern rhat expectancies of teachersand students influenced Latino children's schoolachievement and educational outcomes. Thesequalitative studies focused on the phenometion ofoverreprcsentation, which continues to be ad-dressed by scholars concerned aboiLt equity and a"do no harm" philosophy related to professionalpractice (Connor & Boskin, 2001; Harry,Klingner, Sturges, & Moore, 2002).

Personal narratives and life histories areprominenr forms of qualitative work that explorethe lived experiences ot people with disabilities(Bogdan & Taylor. 1976, 1994; Heshusius, 1981;Kliewer, 1998; Kliewer & Biklen, 2001). An as-sumption of narrarive research is that people arestorytellers, who lead storied lives. Representingvariou.s disciplines, people with disabilities havewritten memoirs, autobiographies, and autoethno-graphies (Asch & Fine, 1988; Charlton, 1998;Clare, 1999; Duplass & Smith, 1995; Gabel,2001; Gerschick, 1998; Grandin & Scariano,1986; Hahn, 1983, 1997; Linton, 1998; Oliver,1996; Peters, 2000; Ronai, 1997; Rous.so, 1986;Thomson, 1997). Family members (e.g., Davis,1995; Dorris, 1989; Featherstone, 1980; Fergu-son & Ferguson, 1986; Kittay, 1999; Turnbull &Turnbtill, 1979) have written biographically-.ihouiloved ones or autobiographically, telling their ver-sions of special education and/or living withsomeone with disabilities. These personalized ac-counts provide insight into how classification andtreatment are perceived by people with disabiliriesand their families. Qualitative studies typically in-clude an emic (insider to phenomenon) in con-trast to quantitative studies' etic (outsider)perspective. By focusing on participants' personalmeanings, qualitative research "gives voice" topeople who have been historically silenced ormarginalized,

I

By focusing on participants'persona/meanings, qualitative research "givesvoice" to people who have been histori-cally silenced or marginalized.

Exceptional Children

Interpretation is a necessary stage of all qual-itative work. It typically follows, is infused wirh,or occurs simultaneously vi'ith the description offindings and analyses of results. As a subset ot thequalitative genre, some refer to studies as interpre-tive when they contain a critical element char en-tails intense interrogation of the meanings thatutidergird daily life occurrences, common senseassumptions, trends in the field, power imbal-ances in institutioniil structures, and values in so-cial life. A flourishing scholarship done primarilyby sociologists and anthropologists relies on thequalitative tools of deconstruction (scrutinizingtext closely for tacit meanings), and reflexive{thinking deeply about personal and professionalassumptions) and critieal analyses (looking forpower disparities among actors) of discourses tomake sense of disability's place in social life.Among early studies are Goffman's yljy/HW (1961)and Stigma (1963) and Foucault's Madness andCivilization (1965) and The Birth of the Clinic-(1975). These reports and other analyses of nor-mative practice reveal how disability and profes-sional practice are culturally constructed (Bogdan,1988; McDermott & Varenne, 1995; Mehan,1979, 1991; Mehan, Hertwerk, & Meihls, 1986;Richardson, 1999; Sacks, 1989, 1995; Varenne &McDermott, 1998). Seminal work by special edu-cators Skrtic (1991) and Tomlinson (1982) pro-vide insight into the tensions related to labelingand placement practices (see also Coles, 1987;Danforth & Navarro, 1998; Ervelles, 2000; Grant& Sleeter, 1986; Linneman, 2001; Richardson,Casanova, Placier, & Guilfoyle, 1989; Rogers &Swadener. 2001; Sleeter, 1986; P. Smith, 1999a,1999b; T.J. Smith, 1997; Taylor, 1988). Qualita-tive studies by special education scholars oftendraw from the voices of recipients of special edu-cation services (e.g., Allan, 1999; BrantUnger,1986, 1994; Groce, 1985; Harry, Day & Quist,1998; Rao, 2000; Zetlin & Hosseini, 1989). Oth-ers document school and classroom practice (Bos& Richardson, 1993; Cambone, 1993; Fierros &Conroy, 2002; Jimenez, & Gersten, 1999;Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Lee, 1999; Meyer,Park, Grcnot-Scheyer, Schwartz, & Harry, 1998).These studies remind us to question what wethink we know and who we think we are as pro-fessionals and open space for discussion with re-cipients of special education services about the

characteristics of the good life in a pluralistic,democratic society (Harry et al., 2002; Pugach,2001)

Discourse analysis (see Figure 1) is an inno-vative qualitative research approach that does notnecessarily rely on the traditional collection ofdata but rather analyzes existing texts and dis-courses evident in everyday life. Studies mightfocus on news or entertainment media portrayalsof individuals with disabilities or on assumptionsembedded in policies, laws, and regulations.Based on discourse analysis ot the assumptions andvalues embedded in certain disability-related prac-tices and policies (and content analysis of laws andwritten policies), Wolfensberger (1972) developeda well-known set of normalization principles. Heconvinced professionals and politicians that bas-ing specialized laws and treatment solely on dis-ability classification violated individuals' civil andhuman rights. These principles laid the ground-work for least restrictive and equal access clausesin local, state, and federal laws. Although oftencriticized as too theoretical and, hence, impracti-cal, such interpretive studies are essential to un-derstanding potentially damaging practices forpeople with disabilities. Although some mightquestion whether they generate scientific evidencethat informs practice and policy, we think that ifthe nature and impact of Wolfensberger s normal-ization principles and Goffmaiis evidence aboutstigma are examined, these qualitative techniqueswill be judged useful and necessary.

E S T A B L I S H I N G T H E C R E D I B I L -

I T Y O R T R U S T W O R T H I N E S S

O F E M P I R I C A L Q U A L I T A T I V E

R E S E A R C H

Quantitative research reports must include infor-mation about validity and reliability. Althoughless applicable to interpretive types of research,qualitative researchers also have the task of ensur-ing that their empirical quAitstzive studies (involv-ing actual collection of data in the field) arecredible and trustworthy. Strategies employed toensure that qualitative studies are sound are listedin Figure 2. These practices are commonly used toindicate that audiences can trust the research;however, we caution against asing credibility me-

2OO Winter 2005

FlOURC 2

Credibilijy Measures for Qualitative Research

Triangulation—search for convergence of, or consiscency among, evidence from multiple and varied daiy

sources {observations/interviews; one participant & another; interviews/documents).

• Data triangulation—use of varied data sources in a study.

• Investigator triangulatiint—use of several researchers, evaluators, peer debriefcrs.

• Theory iriangulation—use of multiple perspectives to interpret a single set of data.

• Meihodalogical triangulation—use of multiple methods to study a single problem.

Disconfirming evidence—after establishing preliminary themes/categorie.s, the researcher looks for evidence in-

consistent with these themes (outliers); also known as negative or discrepant case analysis.

Researcher reflexivity—researchers attempt to understand and self-disclose their assumptions, beliefs, values,

and biases (i.e., being forthright about position/perspective).

Member checks—having participants review and confirm the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of interview transcrip-

tions or observational field notes.

• First level—taking transcriptions to participants prior to analyses and interpretations of results.

• Second level—taking analyses and interpretations of data to participants (prior to publication) for valida-

tion of (or support tor) tesearchers' conclusions.

Collaborative work—-involving mtiltipie researchers in designing a study or concurring about conclusions to en-

sure that analyses and interpretations are not idiosyncratic and/or biased; could involve interrater reliability

checks on the observations made ot the coding of data. (The notion that persons working together will get re-

hable restilts is dependent on the "truth claim" assumption that one can get accurate descriptions of situationul

realities,)

External auditors—usin^ outsiders (to the research) to examine if, and confirni that, a researcher's inferences

are logical and grounded in findings.

Peer debriefing—having a colleague or someone familiar with phenomena being studied review and provide

critical feedback on descriptions, analyses, and intctpretntions or a studys tesults.

Audit trail—keeping track of interviews conducted and/or specific times and dates spent observing as well as

who was observed on each occasion; tised to document and substantiate that sufficient time was spent in the

field to claim dependable and confirmable results.

Prolonged field engagement—repeated, substantive observations; multiple, in-depth interviews; inspection of a

range of relevant documents; thick description validates tbc study's soundness.

Thick, detailed description—reporting sufficient quotes and field note descriptions to provide evidence for re-

searchers' interpretations and conclusions.

Particularizahilitv—documenting cases with thick description so that readers can determine the degree of

transferabilitv to rheir own situations.

assures as a checklist In a rigid or imreflective way. and worthy of attention without alluding to the

Some studies are done in unique ways that make credibility measures,

the use of such measures difficult or irrelevant.

Others explore people's biased views and/or dis-

criminatory institutional practices. In such cases, Q U A L I T Y I N D I C A T O R S F O R

member checks, for example, would not be feasi- Q U A L I T A T I V E S T U O I E S

ble because participants would nor tolerate read- ^ ,. . ,. ,- - r , ,, , . . .. , , . Quality indicators are distinct trotn, and perhaps

me about their pre udices and unseemly acuons. . , , , ... .... , , , , ,. more important than, standard credibility mea-Althoueh we encourage researchers to use credi- -, , • • • , .. i, ... '^i . , , 1 • 1. sures. In this section we sucecst etiidelines thatbility techniques to demonstrate that their studies , , , , - , ,

• ' , ' , , , . , , , can be used to plan qualitative research that meetsare sound, we also believe that authors who sue- . . . , i w, - • . . . . . r

, , r , 1 I 1 1 1 - 1 "iRh standards. We provide quality indicators rorcinctly clariry the methods u.sed and the rationale , , ^, ?, • • i •r , ' II. I- I I the three common data collection methods inmr them can convey that their reports are reliable . . . ,. , . , -

qualitative studies: observations or settings, mter-

Exceptional Children

FIGURE 3

Qiiiility Indicators Within Qualitative Research

Intervietv Studies (or hiten'iew Components of Comprehensive Studies)• Appropriate participants are selected (purposefully identified, effectively recruited, adequate luinihcr,

representative of population of interest).• Interview questions are reasonable (dearly worded, not leading, appropriate and sufficient for exploring

domains of interest).

• Adequate mechanism.s arc used to record and transcribe interviews.

• Participants are represented sensitively and fairly in the rcpon.• Sound measures arc used to ensure confidentiality.

Observation Studies (or Ohsrrviition Components of (Comprehensive Studies)

• Appropriate setting(s) and/or people are selected for observacion.

• Sufficient time is spent in the field (number and duration of observations, study time span)." Researcher fits into the site (accepted, respected, unobtrusive).

• Research has minimal impact on setting (except for action research, which is purposely designed to havean impact).

• Field notes systematically collected (videotaped, aiiditiiapetl, written during or soon after observations).• Sound measures are used to ensure confidentiality of participants and settings.

Document Antilysis

• Meaningful documents (texts, artifacts, objects, pictures) are found and their relevance is established.• Documents are obtained and stored in a eareful manner.• Documents arc sufficiently described and cited,

• Sound measures are used to ensure confidentiality of private documents.Data Analysis

• Results arc sorted and coded in a systematic and meaningful way.

• Sufficient rationale is provided for what was (or was not) included in the report." Documentation of methods used to establish tnisrworthiness and credibility are clear." Reflection about researchers' personal position/perspectives are provided.• Conclusions are substantiated by sufficient quotations from participants, field notes of observations,

and evidence oi documentation inspection.

• Connections are made with related research.

views with individuals or groups, and analyses of education :tnd disability studies by capturing in-documents, as well as for the analytic procedures volved people's perspectives aiid by adding to ourshared by these three strands, in Figure 3. Quality understanding of discourses that shape social lifeindicator guidelines should always relate to the re- in schools and society. Some overviews of researchsearch questions and conceptual frameworks of genres in this series may be able to designate aparticular studies. Basically, tbcy call for trans- specific level of confidence in results or a pre-parcncy. or clear descriptions, of methods used scribed number of studies to indicate that suffi-(Harry, Sturges, & Klingner, 2004). Because some cient evidence exists to recommend a practice,qualitative studies use unique designs or uncon- From the qualitative perspective such an under-ventional report formats, it is wise to he reason- taking is not logical. It is antithetical to the episte-ahle and not apply the quality indicators in an mological and oniological philosophies thatarbitrary or intolerant manner (Wolcott, 1990). ground qualitative scholarship to make authorita-

tive pronouncements about what works for everyperson with disabilities in every social context.

Q U A L I T A T I V C R E S E A R C H \ , . . . , / , ,Most qualitative researchers eschew agendas that

E V I D E N C E F O R P O l - I C Y A N D . ^ . . . - , . . , , ,arc based on acquirme roundational knowledge or

P R A C T I C E I l l i r I

unmallcaole prescriptions lor practice. Jusi as weSo for in this article we have argued that qualita- emphasized that the qualitative researcher musttive research contribtites to the fields of special be an informed and experienced research instru-

Winter 2005

ment, we also recommend that reviewers or con-sumers of research reports use logic and reason toevaluate whether sufficient evidence was accruedto understand a perspective, determine a policy,or use a practice. Nevertheless, at the beginningoi this article, we asserted that qualitative workcan be empirical and can produce knowledge ifresearch tools are used in a systematic and in-formed manner. That is, we claim that qualitativestudies can produce scientifically sound evidencethat informs policy and practice.

Qualitative research is not done for pur-poses of generalization but rather to produce evi-dence based on the exploration of specific contextsand particular individuals. It is expected thatreaders will see similarities to their situations andjudge the relevance of the information producedto their own circiunstanccs. Because we make noclaims that we can create universal and essentialknowledge for policy or offer universal prescrip-tions for practice, we instead describe researchprojects to show how their results can inform pol-icymakers and practitioners.

The first study we review is by Harry et al.(1998). Part of a multiyear study of a number ofethnically diverse families who have a child with adisability, this particular article focused on anadolescent with Down syndrome, whose familyrecently immigrated from the Dominican Repub-lic. The researchers followed the youth and threeof his brothers to a number of everyday commu-nity recreational and school settings. They inter-viewed the boys and their parents. The authorstold a simple but poignant and informative storyabout a remarkable family. They wove evidence ofcultural style into their report so that readerscould see how these might contrast rather con-structively with some of the cultural practicesfound in typical American schools. The article in-cluded multiple vignettes of field note observa-tions and quotations from the brothers'conversational exchanges as well as responses tointerview questions. These provide clear evidenceof the bonds between the boys and the construc-tive nature of their interdependent relations.Quotations from the parents illustrate the charac-teristics and importance of parental authority re-garding expectations for their sons. Tbe report ofthe brothers' supportive interaction and brave ad-vocacy offer an excellent model of acceptance of

difference, helpfiil support, and joy in tbe rela-tions of tamily members. The authors contendthat these particular family values and relationscan transfer into school settings providing a valu-able model for teachers and peers. The evidenceprovided in the article related to how peer rela-tions might be developed in inclusive settings isinformative and authors' arguments are com-pelling.

Qualitative research is not done fir pur- 1poses of generalization hut rather to pro-duce evidence based on the exploration ofspecific contexts and parti ctdar individu-als.

A second qualitative study that involvesmultiple observations and interviews to producerich evidence of constructive school practice wasconducted by Jimenez and Gerstcn (1999).Again, like the Harry et al. (1998) study, this wasa fimded project that included re.searcb assistantscollecting data ai a number of school sites thatemployed Chicano/a teachers and enrolled Chi-cano/a students. The article included detailed in-formation about the in.structional practice of twoteachers, including evidence that thetr teachingstyles were quite different from each other. Theyalso found that students responded distinctivelyto the teachers in eacb classroom. The authorsdrew from the evidence of these teachers (and nu-merous others studied) a list of nine ideas for ef-fective instruction of Chicano/a students. Again,like Harry and her colleagues, Jimenez and Get-sten detailed the cultural attributes of the Mexi-can American teachers and how they createdculturally relevant curriculum in their classrooms.The report richly illustrated the nine effectivepractices clearly enough for readers not only tounderstand but al.so to imitate in their own teach-ing practice. Perhaps most interesting to those ofus who suspect that no one method always worksin all situations, especially given the diversity ofchildren classified as disabled, is that the authorswere able to identify distinctive, and quite effec-tive, instructional styles. The authors impressivelydetailed the complexity of classroom contexts, the

Exceptiotml Children

differences in children's responses to teachers'pedagogy, and various nuances in their teacherparticipants' ways of working with children.

A third qualitative study that merits inclu-sion because it generated evidence of effective in-structional practices is the case study of a 27-yearveteran first-grade teacher conducted by Pressley(2001). Based on extensive classroom observation,Pressley's "enduring image of Barb's c.la.ssroom"was "children engaging productively in reading,writing, and problcmsolving"; they were "busydoing things that are good for the head" (p. 96).Pressley summarized a number of effective meth-ods, including the encouragement of self-regu-lated learning in students and fluid networkingamong children who were supportive of eachother's work. Barb frequently praised sttidents("the air in her classroom was filled with quiet re-inforcement"), but also pushed tbem to challengethemselves (p. 98). A "great deal of reading byboth students and the teacher" went on in Barb'sclass (p. 98). Barb introduced students to classicliterature and poetry that they would find "in-triguing." She had children read books that theyhad selected from the library in her classroom andthen take them home to read to their parents.Hvery day students wrote in their journals, andBarb integrated writing with subjects like math.Slie offered explicit teaching of writing. For exam-ple, she taught students how to construct a .sum-mary by sharing some good summaries with themwhile remarking on the ways these summarieswere good. She had students self-evaluate theirgrammar, punctuation, and spelling in their writ-ing and make tentative corrections before havingsomeone else (peer, aide, or teacher) review theirwork. She published students' stories by using aword processor. Pressley observed no "decontextu-alized teaching of skills," but there were indica-tions that "skills coverage was systematic" (p.103). Barb reminded students to sound the wordsout, look for little words in big words, use pictureand context clues, and ask someone else for assis-tance in oral reading. She provided basic scaffold-ing in an "'opportunistic" way by monitoringclosely and giving hints so students could get thesatisfaction of figuring something out on theirown (p. 105).

These three examples of qualitative studiesin and out of school provide a balance of synthe-

sized descriptions of teaching or social interactionand infotmative vignettes based on field notes orquotations gleaned from fortnal interviews orfrom conversations that were overheard. The re-ports of these three studies were highly readableand engaging. Because of the thick and detaileddescriptions of events, the information covered inthe two articles and the chapter would be likely totran.slate easily into the readers' classroom prac-tices. Policymakers who are responsible for inclu-sion of students with disabilities, bilingualeducation, and first-grade literacy instructionwould come away with a good sense of what isimportant in classrooms. In other words, the evi-dence presented in these studies transfers readilyto policy and practice.

In providing this brief overview of the com-plex genre ot qualitative research, we have tried tomake the case that qualitative research has con-tributed to the fields of special education and dis-abilities and will continue to bave an impact.Without being overly rigid and prescriptive, wehave listed a range of qualitative studies and haveoutlined ways that srudics can be conducted sothat they are credible and trustwortby. We havedetailed the quality indicators that might be tisedto develop, conduct, and evaluate qualitativework. We want to join with the authors of theother articles in this special issue to assert thatvarious research designs are needed to answer var-ious research qtiestions. As qualitative researchers,we believe our own qualitative studies as well asthose of our special education colleagues shouldbe validated as providing necessary evidence forpractice and policy development.

REFERENCES

Allan, J. (1999). Actively seeking inclusion: Pupils withspecial needs in mainstream schools. London: FiilTiier.

Angrnsiiin, M. V. (1998). Opportunity house: Ethno-graphic stories of mental retardation. Walnut Creek, GA:AUaMira Press.

Ascli, A., & Fine, M. (1988). Introduction: Beyondpedestals. In A. Asch & M. Fine (Eds.). Women withdisabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics (pp.1 -38). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Blatt, B., &C Kaplan, F. (1966). (JjrisCmas in purgatory:A photographic essay on mental retardation. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Winter 2005

Bogdan, R. (1988). Freak show: Rxhibitinghuman rtddi-ties for amtisement and profit- Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1976). TTie judged, nor thejudges: An insider's view of mental retardation. Ameri-can Psychologist, 31, 47-52.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1994). The social meaning ofmental retardation: Two life stories. New York; TeachersCollege Press.

Bos, C , & Richardson, V. (1993). Qualitative researchand learning disabilities. In S. Vaughan & C. Bos(Kds.)- Research issues in learning disahilities (pp. 178-201), New York: Springer-Verlag.

Btantlinger, E. A. (1986). Making decisions about spe-cial education: Do low-income parents have the infor-mation they need? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20,95-101.

Brantlinger, E. A. {1994), High-income and low-in-come adolescents' views of special cduca.t'ion. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 9, 384-407.

Brantiinger. E. A, (1997), U,'!ing ideology: Case,s ofnon-recognition of the politics o\ research and practicein special education. Rfttiew of Educational Research, 67,425-460.

Brantlinger. E. A, (1999). Inward gaze and activism asmoral nexr steps in inquiry. Anthropology & EducationQuarterly, 30, A\5-i2').

Cambone, j . (199.3). Teaching troubled children: A casestudy in effective classroom practice. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Char!ton,J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Dis-ability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley, CA: Uni-versity of California Press-

Clarc, E. (1999). Exile and prieU: Disability, queemess,

and liberation. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Cole,s, C. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical lookat Uarning disahilities. New York: Fawcett.

Connor. M. H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Overrcpresenta-tion oi bilingual and poor children in special educationclasses: A continuing problem. Journal of Children &Poverty. 7. 23-32.

Danforth, S., & Navarro, V. (1998). Speech acts: Sam-pling the social construction of mental retardation ineveryday life. Mental Retardation, 36, 31-43,

Davis, L. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deaf-ness, and the body. London: Verso.

Dorris, M. (1989). The broken cord. New York: Harper&Row.

Duplass, D. (Pseudonym), & Smith, T. (1995). Hear-ing Dennis through his own voice: A tedcfinition. Be-havioral Disorders, 20, 144-148.

Edgerton, R. B, (1967). Cloak of competence: Stigma in

the lives of the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Ervelles. N. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical

pedagogy, disability studies, and rhe politics of school-ing. Educational Theory, .30, 25-48

Featherstone. H. (1980). A difference in the family. NewYork: Basic Books.

Ferguson, D. L., & Eerguson, P M. (1986). The newvictors: A progressive policy analysis of work reform fotpeople with very severe handicaps. Mental Retardation,

24, .331-338.

Fietros, E. G.. & Conroy. J. W. (2002). Double jeop-ardy: An exploration of rcstricriveness and race in spe-cial education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.),Racial inequity in special education (pp. 39-70). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history ofinsanity in the age of reason. New York: Random House.

Eoucauit, M. (1975). The birth of the clinic: An archae-ology of medical perception. New York: Vintage.

Cabel, S. (2001). "I wash my face in dirty water": Nar-

ratives of disability and peAaj^o^. Journal of Teacher Ed-

ucation, 52, 31-47.

Gerschick, T J, (1998), Sisyphus in a wheelchair: Menwith physical disabilities confront gender domination.In J. O'Brien & J. A. Howard (Eds.), Everyday inequali-ties: Critical inquiries ('pp. 189-211), Maiden, MA:BlackweLl.

Glcsne, C. (1997). That rare feeling: Re-presenting re-search through poetic transcription. Qualitative Inquiry,J. 202-221.

GofFman, E. (1961). Asylum: Essays on the social situa-tion of mental patients and other inmates. New York:Penguin.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the managementof spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prendce-Hall.

Grandin, T , & Scariano, M. M. (1986). Emergence:

Labeled autistic. Novato. CA: Arena Press.

Grant. C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1986), After tht schoolbell rings. London: Falmer.

Groce. N. E. (1985). "The town fool": An oral historyof a mentally retarded individual in small town society.In P. M. Ferguson. D. L. Ferguson. & S. J. Taylor(Eds.), Interpreting disability: A qualitative reader (pp.175-196). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hahn, H. (1983). Paternalism and public policy. Socl-es 20, 36-44.

Hahn. H. (1997), Advertising the acceptably employ-able image: Disability and capitalism. In L. Davis (Ed.),

Exceptional Children 2OS

The disability studies reader (pp. 172-186), New York:

Routledge.

Harper, D. (2000). Reimaging visual methods: Galileoto neurnromancer. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. (pp.717-732). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harry, B. (1996), These families, those families: Theimpact of researcher identity on the research act. Excep-

tional Children. 64, 292-300.

Harry, B., Day. M.. & Quist, F (1998), "He can't reallyplay": An ethnographic study of sibling acceptance andinteraction. Journal of the Association fvr Persons WithSevere Handicaps. 23, 289-299,

Harry, B., Klingner, J. K., Sturges, K., & Moore, R.(2002). Of tocks and soft places: Using qualitativemethods to investigate the processes that result in di.s-proportionality. In D. J. Losen & Q. Otfieid (Eds.),Racial inequality in special education (pp. 71-92),Boston: Harvard PMucation Press.

Harry, B., Srurges, K.. & Klingner, J. (2004). Qualita-tive data analysis: Mapping the process. Manuscript sub-mitted for publication.

Henshel, A. M. (1972). The forgotten ones: A sociological

study of Anglo and Chicano retardates. Austin: University

of Texas Press.

Hrshusiu.s, L. (1981). Meaning of life as experienced bypersons labeUd retarded in a group home: A participantobservation stt4dy Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Itard, J. M. G. (1962). The wild boy of Aveyron (G.Humphrey & M. Humphrey. Trans.), New York: Ap-pleion-Century-Crol ts . (Original work published1806).

Jimenez. R. T., & Gersten. R. (1999). Lessons anddilemmas derived from literacy instruction of twolatina/o teachers. American Educational Research Jour-nal. 36, 2(i^-?>Q\.

Kalyanpur. M,, & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in specialeducation: Building reciprocal family-professional rela-tionships. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Keller, H. (1955). Teacher: Anne Sullivan Macy. New

Yorit: Andor.

KIttay, E. F. (1999). Love's labor: Essays on women.

equality, and dependency. New York and London: Rout-

ledge.

Kliewer, C. (1998). Schooling children with Down syn-drome: Toward an understanding of possibility. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Kliewer, C. &c Biklcn. O. (2001). "School's not really aplace for reading": A research .•̂ j'nthesis of the literate livesof students with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Asso-ciation for Persons With Severe Handicaps. 26. I-\2.

Lee, P. W, (1999). In their own voices: An ethno-

graphic study of low-achieving students within the con-text of school reform. Urban Education, 34, 214-244.

Linneman, R. D. (2001). Idiots: Stories about minded-

ness and mental retardation. New York: Petet Lang.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and

identity. New York: New York University Press.

MacNeil, C. (2000). The pros and cons of poetic repre-

sentation in evaluation reporting. American Journal of

Evaluation, 21. 359-367.

Mattinson, J. (1971). Marriage and mental handicap.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press,

McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culnire as dis-

ability. Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 26. 324-348.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization

in the classroom. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University

Pre.ss.

Mehan, H. (1991). The schools work of sorting stu-dents. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk andsocial structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conver-sation analysis (pp. 71-90). Cambridgf, UK: Polity.

Mehan. H,. Hcrtwerk, A., & Meihis, J. L. (1986).

Handicapping the handicapped. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Pre.ss.

Mercer, ] . R. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded.Berkeley: Universiry of California Press.

Mertiam, S, (1998). Qualitative research and case study

applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, L. H, , Park. H, S., Grenot-Scheyer . M.,Schwartz, 1. S., & Harry, B. (1998). Making friends:The influences of culture and development. Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From the-ory to practice. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Peshkin, A. (1988), In search of subicctivity-ones own.Educational Researcher. 17, 17,22.

Peters, S. (2000). Is there a disability culture? A syn-cretization of three pos,sibie world views. Disability and

Society. 15, 583-601.

Pressley, M. (2001). Barbara Wiesner. In M. Pressley,R. L. Allington. R. Wharton-Me Donald. C, C, Block,& L, M. Morrow (Eds.), Learning to read: Lessons fromexemplary first-grade classrooms (pp. 95-114). New York:Guilford Press.

Pugach, M. C. (2001). The stories we choo.fe ro tell:Fulfilling tbe promise of qualitative research for specialeducation. Exceptional Children. 67. 439-453.

Rao. S, S. (2000). Perspectives of an African Americanmother on patent-professional relationships in specialeducation. Mental Retardation. 38, 475-488.

2 O 6 Winter 2^5

Richardson, J. (1999). Common, delinquent, and special:The institutional shape of special education. New York:Falmer.

Richardson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, P., & Guilfoylc,K. (1989). School children at-risk. London: Faimer.

Rogers, L., & Swadcner, B. B. (2001) Semiotics & dis-ability. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ronai. C. R. (1997). On loving and hating my men-tally retarded mother. Mental Retardation, 35, 4)7-432.

Rosenthal, R.. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in theclassroom: Teacher expectations and pupils' intellectual de-vebpment. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

R0U.SS0. H. (1986). Positive female images at last! TheExceptional Parent, 16, 10-12. 14.

Sacks, O. (1989), Seeing voices: A journey into the worldof the deaf Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sacks, O. (1995). An anthropologist on Mars: Sevenparadoxical tales. London: Picador.

Shavelson, R. J., & Tbwne, L (Eds.). (2002). Scientificresearch in education. Washington. DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Skrtic, r. M. (1991). Behind special education. Denver,CO: Love.

Sleeter, C, (1986). Learning disabilities: The social con-struction of a special education category. ExceptionalChildren, 53, 46-64.

Smith, P (1999a), Ideology, politics, and science in un-derstanding developmental disabilities. Mental Retarda-tion, .^7.7 \-7 2.

Smith, P (1999b). Drawing new maps: A radical car-tography of developmental disabilities. Review of Edu-cational Research, 69, 117-144.

Smith, P. (2001). Inquiry cantos: Poetics of devdop-nicnul disability. Mental Retardation. 39, 379-390.

Smith, T. J. (1997, March). Storying moral dimensions ofdisordering: 'Teacher inquiry into the social construction ofsevere emotional disturbance. Paper presented at Ameri-can Educational Re.search Association annual meeting,Chicago, IL.

Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A criti-cal analysis of the principle of the least restrictive envi-ronment. Journal of the Association for Persons WithSevere Handicaps, 13. 41-53.

Thomson, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuringphysical disability in American culture and literature.New York: Columbia University Press,

Ibmlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education.London: Roudedge & Kcgan Paul.

Tumhull, A. P., & Tiirnbull, H. R. (F.ds.). (1979). Par-ents speak out: Growing up with a handicapped child.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Suecessjul fail-ure: The school America builds. Boulder, CO: WestvicwPress.

Wofcotr. H. (1990). On seeking—and rejecting—va-lidity in qualitative resenrch. In E. Eisner & A. Pcshkin(Rds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuingdebate (pp. 121-152). New York; Teachers CollegePress.

Wolfensberger. W. (1972). The principle of nomializa-tion in human services. Toronto, Canada: National In-stitute on Mental Retardation.

Zcdin, A. G., & Hosseini, A. (1989). Six postschoolcase .studies of mildly learning handicapped youngadults. Exceptional Children, 55, 405-411.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

EUL.EN BRANTLINGER (CEC #407), Profe,ssor

Etneritus of Special Education, Curriculum and

Instruction Deparimenr, Indiana University,

Bloomlngton. ROBERT JIMENEZ (CF.C #51).Professor, Department of Teaching and Learning,

Peabody College, Vanderbllt University,

Nashville, Tennessee, J A N E T T E K L I N G N E R

(CEC #382), Associate Profe.s.sor, Department of

Educational Equity and Cultural Diversity,

School of Education, University of Colorado at

Boulder. MARLEEN PUGACH (CEC #31). Pro-

fessor, Department of Curriculum and Instruc-

tion, School of Education, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee. VIRGINIA R I C H A R D -

SON (CEC #190). Professor, Department of Edu-

cational Studies, School of Education, University

of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Please address all correspondence to Ellen

Brantlinger, Ed 3232, 201 North Rose Avenue,

Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405,

812/856-8134. E-mail: brantlin@indiana.edu

Manuscript received December 2003; accepted

April 2004,

mnai Chitdrm 2 O 7