.--~----==-- ... ---=------------=--==~·~-~-~ .

PARADIGMATIC
CONTROVERSIE.S, •'

CONTRADICT.IQ:.NS, AND
EMERGING CO h~:rr,:. E.UENCES
1JJ ,~lln·,l'VJ<:I·
Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S.Linct)l'fi' >"f,-.,.~, . I,,
· ·r: , }.n6~~ l'•Cttl !.•rk. 1
' j!., :Olf. bii .....l~i\~1 ~l'b .),,,
1 'tt,/J IJ'~l 1~~\lli' ' lfH, •'''Jtr;l ,·"I IJI!.,.I ,. '•
1 , , •• ':.!I} ur,,.G~;I.
, ' ' . 1! ' 1'' ~d ~1 '}'/!jJbd .,
• I
!:. I I
n 'o'ur chapter for "the''mst 1editio[!ldf.i.ltli~~ o{ieQted studies and dis~ertations. Third, the

I Handbook'ofQualit~'tive R.esearEh1~afocG.s'ea'J ' number of qud!HMi~e'texts, r~search papers, work~

on the conteiitioH•)[moJii 1~ir1ousi'eseit/chv shops, and training materials has exploded.
panidigrrts-fcif-legitiffiacy
. ·
anfi;ilitelle6nlhl
"! I \, I
affd'pllr-·'
> J
Irideed, it would be difficult to miss the distinct
adig'm'atic heg~mony'(Gi.ibalf~1Tiincolh1i1~9l1). The tUrn of the socia:I sciences toward more interpre-
I

postiiloae~rt: pafalli'gm~ctll:(~sci!siru s~ed~(p·o sto tive, postmodern, and criticalist practices and the-
modernist • tritleal~Ui'eof.}rlt@HI cofistr'htfivism} 1 ' orizing (Bioland, 1989, 1995}. This nonpositivist
were rn.·cc>nte~tionr\viili the1ftc~ived positivist and orientation has created a context (surround) in
postpositivist lpiftacligfifs'tfor;1l~gitiillacy, and ,..with which virtually no study can go unchallenged by
one anotlferfor~iritellecttial •lfglfima-cy:1In the more proponents of contending paradigms. Further, it is
than 1 b'year'S''thavliavetelapkei:i·sine~ that •chapter obvious that the number of practitioners of new-
was published~istfosfantiJl'.~ljiiiiges have occurred paradigm inquiry is~growing daily. There can be no
in the land5c~p~rofls'Ocial scientific inquiry. question that the legitimacy of postmodern para-
On th'~ rtiah efrofllegitiinhcy,. we observe that
1
digms is well established and at least equal to the
readers fartiili~f.owithftlie literature on methods legitimacy of received and conventional paradigms
and paradigms reflect a high interest in ontologies (Denzin & Lincoln,•1994}.
and epistt'dncifOgies·· that l:liffer sharply fr6m those - On the matter of hegemony, or ·supremacy,
undergirding7fofiverttiorial social science. Second, among postmodern paradigms, it is clear that
even thb~e; estiiblislied professionals trained in Geertz's (1988, 1993} prophecy about the "blur-
quantitative social science (including the tWo of us) ring of genres" is rapidly being-fulfilled. Inquiry
want to learn more 'about qualitative approaches', methodology can no longer be treated as a set
because new youhg 'professionals being men'tored of universally applicable rules or abstractions.
in graduate s'chools ·are asKing serious questions Methodology is inevitably interwoven with and
about and looking for guidance in qualitatively emerges from the nature of particular disciplines
Jill 191
192 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8
(such as sociology and psychology) and particular examination of these two tables will reacquaint
perspectives (such as Marxism, feminist theory, the reader with our original Handbook treatment;
and queer theory). So, for instance, we can read more detailed information is, of course, available
feminist critical theoris~11_such as Olesen (2000) in our original chapter.
or queer theorists such as Gamson (2000), or Since publication of that chapter, at least one
we can follow arguments about teachers as set of authors, John Heron and Peter Reason, have
researchers (Kincheloe, 1991) while we under- elaborated on our tables to include the participa-
stand the secondary text to be teacher empower- tory/cooperative paradigm (Heron, 1996; Heron &
ment and democratization of schooling practices. Reason, 1997, pp. 289-290). Thus, in addition to
Indeed, the various paradigms are beginning to the paradigii\s of posit.iyism, postpositivism,
"interbreed" such that two theorists previously critic~ ~eory,•.an<j ~opst'ru~_tiv~sm, we ~dd the
thought to be in irreconcilable conflict may now participatory paradigm in the present chapter
appear, under a different theoretical rubric, to be ~ (this is ah excellent example, we might add, of
II' t J '. '
informing one another's arguments. A personal 'the hermeneutic elaboration so embedded in our
example is our own work, which has been heavily own view, constructivism).
influenced by action research practitioners and • Our aim here is to extend the analysis further
postmodern critical theorists. Consequently, to by building on Heron and Reason's additions and
argue that it is paradigms that are in conten~i~I] , by rearranging the issues to reflect current
is probably less useful than to probe where and thought. The issues we have chosen include our
how paradigms exhibit confluence and where and original formulations and the additions, revi-
how they exhibit differences, controversies, and sions, and amplifications made by Heron and
contradictions. Reason (1997), and we have also chosen what we
believe to be the issues most important today. We
should note that important means several things
mt MAJOR IssuEs CoNFRONTING to us. An important topic may be one that is
ALL PARADIGMS widely debated (Qr even hotly. contested)-valid-
.. ity is on!! such issue. An impqrtant issue may be
In our chapter in the first edition of this one that bespeaks a new awareness (an issue such
Handbook, we presented two tables that summa- as recognition of the role of values). An important
rized our positions, first; on the axiomatic nature issue may be one that illustrates the infl~.~:ence of
of paradigms (the paradigms we considered at one paradigm on another (such as ¢e influence
that time were positivi11m, postpositivism, critical of feminist, action research, critic~ ttheory, and
theory, and constructivism; Guba & Lincoln, participatory models on researcher conceptions
1994, p.109, Table 6.1); and seqmd, on the issues of action within . and with the community in
we believed were most fun,damental ~o differenti- which research is carried out). Or issues may be
ating the four paradigms (p.112, Table 6.2). These important because new or extended theoretical
t~bles are reproduced here ras ·a way of remind- and/or field-oriented treatments for them are
ing our readers of our previous ~tatements. The newly available-voice and reflexivity are two
axioms defined the ontological, epistemological, such issues.
and methodological bases for both established Table 8.3 reprises the original Table 6.1 but
an_d emergent paradigms; these are shown here adds the axioms of the participatory paradigm
in Table 8.1. The issues most often in contention proposed by Heron and Reason •(1997). Table ,8.4
thatJ we examined were inquiry aim, nature of deals with seven issues and represents an ,updat!!
knowledge, the way knowledge is accumulated, of selected issues first presen..ted in the_gld ,Table
goodp.ess. {rigor and validity) or quality criteria, 6..2. "·Voice" in the 1994 versio!l o£ Table 6.2
V~"!les, _
ethics, voice, training, accommodation, has been renamed "inquirer posture;' \lnd we
and hegemony; these are shown in Table 8.2. An have inserted a redefined "voice" in the current
(text continues, p. 197)
 ·• .:.: ;J;;~Y.-~'" -,~:.~.1~.~------
-
t ·i· ....

., :,j~~Jtj<:-: r t'H~

Table8.1. Basic Beliefs (Metaphysics) of Alternative Inquiry Paradigms

•• 0

Item Positivism Postpositivism - --- -.Critical Theory et al. Constructivism

Ontology Naive realism-"real" Critical realism-"real" reality but Historical realism-virtual reality Relativism-local and specific
reality but apprehendible only imperfectly and shaped by social, political, cultural, constructed and
probabilistically apprehendible - economic, ethnic, and gender values;
~ -~·•F ... ,
co-constructed realities
ci'ysthllized over time
- - -]1 •. ,...
' .
....,.,; ••
Epistemology Dualist/objectivist; findings Modified dualist/objectivist; critical Transactional/subjectivist;
1J-
),.. .;1 - ..J """ ' :.:
value- Transactional/subjectivist;
true tradition/commupity; findings mediated findings created findings
i! ' ~I
--~
0 I

probably true · • _
-
'
-~---·
• •
- f

Methodology Experimental/ Modified experimental/ Dialogi~/dialectical Hermeneutical/dialectical

manipulative; verification manipulative; critical multiplism;
of hypotheses; chiefly falsifi~ation of hypotheses; may " -
quantitative methods include qualitative methods

•-
~
~ Table8.2. Paradigm Positions on Selected Practical Issues
II

Item Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theory et al. Constructivism

Inquiry aim Explanation: prediction and control Critique and transformation; Understanding;
restitution and emancipation reconstruction
Nature of Verified hypotheses Nonfalsified hypotheses that Structural/historical insights Individual or collective
knowledge established as facts ~re probable facts or laws reconstructions coalescing
'
or laws around consensus I

I
Knowledge ~ccretion-"building blocks" adding to "edifice of knowledge"; Historical revisionism; generalization More informed and
accumulation generalizations and cause-effect linkages by similarity sophisticated reconstructions;
vicarious experience
Goodness or Conventional benchmarks of"rigor": internal and external Historical situatedness; erosion of Trustworthiness and
quality criteria validity, reliability, and objectivity ignorance and misapprehension; authenticity, including catalyst
action stimulus for action
Values Excluded-influence denied Included -formative Included-formative
I
Ethics Extrinsic: tilt toward deception Intrinsic: moral tilt toward revelation Intrinsic: process tilt toward i

revelation; special problems

I

Voice "Disinterested scientist" as informer of decision makers, policy "Transformative intellectual" as "Passionate participant" as
makers, and change agents advocate and activist facilitator of multivoice
reconstruction
Training Technical and Technical; quantitative and Resocialization; qualitative and quantitative; history; values of altruism,
quantitative; qualitative; substantive theories empowerment, and liberation
substantive theories
Accommodation Commensurable Incommensurable with previous two
Hegemony In control of publication, funding, promotion, and tenure Seeking recognition and input; offering challenges to predecessor
paradigms, aligned with postcolonial aspirations
 .... •''4)11!~1"'1' ...~~-;.~~~1

Table 8..3.-

~Issue Critical Theory et al. Constructivism Participatory"

Ontology Historical realism- Relativism- Participative reality-
virtual reality local and subjective-objective
shaped by social, specific reality, cocreated by
political, cultural, co-constructed mind and given cosmos
~ .... , economic, ethnic, realities
and gender values;
crystallized over
time
!Epistemology Transactional/ Transactional/ Critical subjectivity in
findings true subjectivist; value- subjectivist; participatory transaction
mediated findings co-created with cosmos; extended
findings epistemology of
experiential,
propositional, and
practical knowing;
- ..
L'\..nt :-
cocreated findings

Methodology Experimental/ Modified expeiimental/ Dialogic/dialectical Hermeneutical! Political participation in

manipulative; manipulative; driffca} dialectical collaborative action
verification of ! '·tnulti'p'iism; falJifiratiifili '~' I ;; • inquiry; primacy of the
hypotheses; chiefly hypotheses; mdyli'&ii~ti~ ·'• practical; use of
- -1:~--·.
quantitative qualitative methods language grounded in
I
methods shared experiential
'·~ . context

a a. Entries in this column are based on Heron and Reason (1997) .

.....
\0
U1
...... Table8.4. Paradigm Positions on Selected Issues-Updated
\0
0'\

II
Issue Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theories Constructivism Participatory'
Nature of Verified hypotheses Nonfalsified Structural/ historical Individual and collective Extended epistemology: primacy of practical
knowledge established hypotheses that are insights reconstructions sometimes knowing; critical subjectivity; living
as facts or laws probable facts or laws coalescing around consensus knowledge
Knowledge Accretion-''building blocks" adding to Historical revisionism; More informed and In communities of inquiry embedded in
accumulation "edifice of knowledge"; generalizations generalization by sophisticated communities of practice
and cause-effect linkages similarity reconstructions; vicarious
experience
Goodness or Conventional benchmarks of"rigor": Historical situatedness; Trustworthiness and Congruence of experiential, presentational,
quality criteria internal and external validity, reliability, erosion of ignorance authenticity including propositional, and practical knowing; leads
and objectivity and misapprehensions; catalyst for action to action to transform the world in the
action stimulus service of human flourishing
Values Excluded-influence denied Included-formative
Ethics Extrinsic-tilt toward deception Intrinsic-moral tilt Intrinsic-process tilt toward revelation
toward revelation
Inquirer posture "Disinterested scientist" as informer of "Transformative "Passionate participant" as Primary voice manifest through aware
decision makers, policy makers, and intellectual" as facilitator of multivoice self-reflective action; secondary voices in
change agents advocate and reconstruction illuminating theory, narrative, movement,
activist song, dance, and other presentational forms
Training Technical and Technical; quantitative Resocialization; qualitative and quantitative; history; Coresearchers are initiated into the
quantitative; and quali~~tive; va:Iues of altruism, empowirm~nt and liberation inquiry process by facilitator/researcher
substantive substantive theories ' " and learn through active engagement in
-
theories the process; facilitator/researcher requires
- emotional competence, democratic
personality and skills
-
a. Entries in this column are based on Heron and Reason (1997), except for"ethics" and "values."

...
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences a 197

Table 8.5.1n all cases except "inquirer posture:' the absolutist (Bradley & Schaefer, 1998); rather, they
entries for the participatory paradigm are those are derived from community consensus regarding
proposed by Heron and Reason; in the one case what is "real:' what is useful, and what has mean-
not covered by them, we have added a notation ing (especially meaning for action and further
that we believe captures their intention. steps). We believe that a goodly portion of social
We make no attempt here to reprise the mater- phenomena consists of the meaning-making
ial well discussed in our earlier Handbook chapter. activities of groups and individuals around those
Instead, we focus solely on the issues in Table 8.5: phenomena. The meaning-making activities
axiology; accommodation and commensurability; themselves are of central interest to social con-
action; control; foundations of truth and knowl- structionists/constructivists, simply because it is
edge; validity; and voice, reflexivity, and postmod- the meaning-makinglsense-makinglattributional
ern textual representation. We believe these seven activities that shape action (or inaction). The
issues to be the most important at this time. meaning-making activities themselves can be
While we believe these issues to be the most changed when they are found to be incomplete,
contentious, we also believe they create the intel- faulty (e.g., discriminatory, oppressive, or non-
lectual, theoretical, and practical space for dia- liberatory), or malformed (created from data that
Iogue, consensus, and confluence to occur. There can be shown to be false).
is great potential for interweaving of viewpoints, We have tried, however, to incorporate per-
for the incorporation of multiple perspectives, spectives from other major nonpositivist para-
and for borrowing, or bricolage, where borrowing digms. This is not a complete summation; space
seems useful, richness enhancing, or theoretically constraints prevent that. What we hope to do in
heuristic. For instance, even though we are our- this chapter is to acquaint readers with the larger
selves social constructivists/constructionists, our currents, arguments, dialogues, and provocative
call to action t:mbedded in the authenticity crite- writings and theorizing, the better to see perhaps
ria we elaborated in:Pourth Generation Evaluation what we ourselves do not even yet see: where and
(dub~ &L~coln~~1j~~ r~~e:cts'-stro?_gl~th~-b~nt : wp en con~uence ~s possible, .~here ~nstruc~ive
to ,action embodted ·m cntlcru theon~!s ~perspec-~ ~ rcwprpchewent !flight be negqttated,,~here ;vmces
. ' And cu f _ li,.. l:f l ~ b
. : 1ilioug1h 'H· er.on• an d Reason ·- 1!uegmmng . i . to"'1~ aC!llet
;t.. . • c::h -
ttVes. ave e a -,~ ::-are ye sqme- armony.
I '. . • .,., t> l I - - - • ·t- I -
orated a model th~y call the cooperatlve patad1gm, --· --- - --- -y- - -- ·
ca~eful reading of their proposal reveals a form . • . . t I ·, · ~
1

ofjinqu~r! ~at i~ pos~-pos.~ ositive, postmodern, 1\X:IOLOGY 1 _ ~~ 1

ana cntlcaltst ·m onentatwn. As}. a result, the . r ..:
re~der familiar with several theoretical and para- Earlie~, !Ye placed values on tli~ table as an "issue"
digmatic stranas of research will £ifd that echoes oU., \'{~i{h positivists or phenomenologists might
of any streams of tho.ugbt come together in the hctve :'a : posture" (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 1994;
1
extended table. What this meim; is that thecate- LincQln & Guba, 1985). Fortunately, we reserved
go~ies, as Laurel Richardson (p"e?sohal communi- for ourselves the right to either get smarter or just
cation, September 12, 1998) na51>dinted ....
out, "are change our minds. We did both. Now, we suspect
fluid, indeed what should~be a: category keeps (although Table 8.5 does not yet reflect it) that
altering, enlarging?' She notes'th:..at "even as [we] "axiology" should be grouped with "basic beliefs:'
write the boundaries be~!;l!' the paradigms are In Naturalistic In,quiry (Lincoln &Guba, 1985), we
shifting:' This is th: paradigmatic equivalent of covered some of the ways in which values feed
th~ Geertzilln "plurring of genres" to which we into the inquiry process: choice of the problem,
refer ed~!l/Jief'• I choice of paradigm to guide the problem, choice
j· ow o~1Po~ition is that of the constr.uctionist of theoretical framework, choice of major data-
Caplp_; l~os~ly ~iefined. We do not beheve that gathering and data-analytic methods, choice of
criteria for judging either "reality" or validity are context, treatment of values already resident
.....
\J:)
00

• Table8.5. Critical Issues of the Time

-
-
Issue - Positivism Postpositivism C~tical Theory et al~ - Constructivism Participatory ~
-Axiology Propositional knowing about the world is P~opcisiti6nal, transfcti~al·kn~idg is-; instrumentally Practical knowing about how to flourish I

an end in itself, is intriEsi£alli valuable. v~iiable i s a-means to social eman~ipation, wnich is ·· with-a balance of autonomy, cooperation,
an end in_::itself, is mrrinsiailly valuable. .and hierarchy fu a culture is an end in
-
:.. itself, is infrinsically valuable.
Accommodation Commensurable - Incommensurable with positivist forms; some commensurability with constructivist, criticalist, and
and Yor all positivist participatory approaches, especially as they merge in liberationist approaches outside the West
commensurability forms
Action Not the responsibility of the researcher; Found especially in the Intertwined with validity; inquiry often incomplete without action on
viewed as "advocacy" or subjectivity, a·nd form of empowerment; the part of participants; constructivist formulation mandates training in
therefore a threat to validity and objectivity emancipation- political action if participants do not understand political systems
anticipated and hoped
for; social
·- transformation,
particularly toward
- . more·equity and
-· justice, is end goal
-

Control Resides solely in researcher Often resides in Shared between inquirer and Shared to varying degrees
- - "transformative participants
. intellectual"; in new .
constructions, control -
- returns to:comm~nity -
Relationship to Foundational Foundational ..Foundational within
- Antifoundational .Nonfoundational
-
. foundations of
"truth and
social critique -
-- ..
knowledge
-- -
- -------
 a .... ~ ~:.£~ ~·
i~· ~F~: ·-·- , ~·
t.JI' ...
~-~~
=:: ,., c,
·- · ....,
" .-
.)._
:
,-. ~- ~.
~ t;
..
- -
::;
...:
.-
.
-Issue Positivism j Postpositivisrri . C~ftic~·rfJ:or~ ·et:jzl. -" -~~Constructivism Participatory
._ - ..: ,. . ':;'- ~ ' ~ ~· a.. -
Extended Traditional positivist constructions of 1 .•.~ctio~~sti!!llllgs (§ee; ::_Extenaed.constructions of See "action" above
considerations validitY,; rigor, internal validity, external • -aboYe)i- s-O'CiaJ~ " ';. · validity: (a) crystalline
"=of validity validity, reliability, objectivity }trans~m~tio~ , ~ui'&, ;-validity (Richardson);
(goodness - ·-~ ~s~galtj?sfice€1 ~ _:.,: ' ~ (b) authenticity criteria (Guba
criteria) -::. ::-.. _ ·,-..~ -i...- t:· ;:; ~ : ~ & Liii~oln); (c) catalytic,
- - -·~'N'., ... .t
- • ..:l. ~ : ~ --:; :!:- .::-. ,;:;" .:- • .:'' rhizomatlc,.,. voIuptuous
~ "''J -~ ~ ~ .b'J - • ":; • •
.... ::·-1;· -"2-=e.':E: .-£ .:1~ 'T ,.. · validities (Lather); (d)
- t- 0

- "" . - - ~
::. ~ ;:. :::::::: ~ -{; :·- :~ ,.: · relational and ethics-centered
- - '- -
::. ~. .::, c 0 ~ ;: -~· ~ ~ .
J .t-> ~c :.;. · ~ :::- 7 -~ · cr1tena (Lmcoln); (e)
0 •

community-centered
· _ r <£ !! ? -~ s,. . .J;Q lc_ ~ 1 ::- -=.. determinations of validity
• ~ -- 1o, ~ ;:t - ~ i1 ;w--;;: ~ ~ · ~ . ·~=- r; ~
.'\J
_Voice, reflexivity, Vmce of ~e researc.Der!1pnnc1phlly;_ : t .a-V~e~JXedroeeyeen Voices mixed, with Voices mixed; textual representation rarely
postmodern reflexivity may'be consideredt.pPob!em ~ ~resear'Clier_arid - participants' voices discussed but problematic; reflexivity relies
textual
.. • •'
g:
in objectivity; textu'al r.;_epri seritatiBn ~ \::-k.particip_··a~s _·
.;:I .' 3. $! - ;:; .
sometimes dominant; on critical subjectivity and self-awareness
representations unproblematic and sol!).ewhatJor'!lulaic t· ...; ~ ' : : ; · reflexivity_ serious and
::-
,- . . . ?:=-=
~
• -

~
.. _

·- · ~ - c 4.':.
0

- problematic; textual
~,~::::~ -:~=
... ...,. -
_: representation an extended
~ .-:. '-
- ~

~ ~
issue
? ? I~Te~tu~'Prepresentation practices may be problematic-i.e., "fiction formul_!!s" or unexamined
- ";; ;."regimes of truth"
-; -~ ~ - ·-

- -
II
~
1.0
200 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

within the context, and choice of format(s) for each other in ways that make the simultaneous
presenting findings. We believed those were practice of both possible. We have argued that
strong enough reasons to argue for the inclusion at the paradigmatic, or philosophical, level, com-
of values as a major point of departure between mensurability between positivist and postposi-
positivist, conventional modes of inquiry and tivist worldviews is not possible, but that within
interpretive forms of inquiry. each paradigm, mixed methodologies (strategies)
A second "reading'' of the burgeoning literature may make perfectly good sense (Guba &Lincoln,
and subsequent ret:hipking of our own rationale 1981,1982,1989, 1994; Lincoln &Guba, 198S).So,
have led us to conclude that the issue is much for instance, in Effective Evaluation we argued:
larger than we first conceived. If we had it to do all
over again, we would make values or, more cor- The guiding inquiry paradigm most appropriate
rectly, axiology (the branch of philosophy dealing to responsive evaluation is ... the naturalistic, phe-
with ethics, aesthetics, and religion) a part of the nomenological, or ethnographic paradigm. It will be
basic foundational philosophical dimensions of seen that qualitative techniques are typically most
appropriate to support this approach. There are
paradigm proposal. D..Qing so would, in our opin-
times, however, when the issues and concerns voiced
ion, begin to help us see the embeddedness of by audiences require information that is best gener-
ethics within, ngt ext~rnal to, paradigms (see, for ated by more conventional methods, especially quan-
instance, Christians, 2000) and would contribute to titative methods.... In such cases, the responsive
the consideratio~ of and dialogue about the role of conventional evaluator will not shrink from the
spirituality in hlunan-inquiry. Arguably, axiology appropriate application. (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p. 36)
has been "defined out of" scientific inquiry for no
larger a reason ~an that it also concerns "religion:' As we tried to make clear, the "argument" aris-
But defining "religion'' broadly to encompass spiri- ing in the social sciences was not about method,
tuality would move constructivists closer to partic- although many critics of the new naturalistic,
ipative inquirers.ar!,d would move critical theorists ethnographic, phenomenological, and/or case
closer to both (owing to their concern with libera- study approaches assumed it was. 2 As late as 1998,
tion from oppresston and freeing of the human Weiss could be found to claim that "some evalua-
spirit, both profo~ndly spiritual concerns). The tion theorists, notably Guba and Lincoln (1989),
expansion of basic 1ssiies to include axiology, then, hold that it is impossible to combine qualitative
is one way of achieving greater confluence among and quantitative approaches responsibly within an
the various inte~retivist inquiry models. This is evaluation" (p. 268), even though we stated early
the place, for example, where Peter Reason's pro- on in Fourth Generation Evaluation (1989) that
found concerns with "sacred science" and human
functioning find legitimacy; it is a place where those claims, concerns, and issues that have not
Laurel Richardson's "sacred spaces" become been resolved become the advance organizers for
authoritative sites for human inquiry; it is a information collection by the evaluator.... The
place-or the place-where the spiritual meets information may be quantitative or qualitative.
Responsive evaluation does not rule out quantita-
social inquiry, as Reason (1993), and later Lincoln
tive modes, as is mistakenly believed by many, but
and Denzin (1994), proposed some years earlier.
deals with whatever infOrmation is responsive to
the unresolved claim, concern, or issue. (p. 43)
1!1 AccoMMODATION AND We had also strongly asserted earlier, in Natur-
CoMMENSURABILITY alistic Inquiry (1985), that
Positivists and postpositivists alike still occasion- qualitative methods are stressed within the
ally argue that paradigms are, in some ways, naturalistic paradigm not because the paradigm is
commensurable; that is, they can be retrofitted to antiquantitative but because qualitative methods
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences 111 201

come more easily to the human-as-instrument. The action, from the overturning of specific unjust
reader should particularly note the absence of an practices to radical transformation of entire
antiquantitative stance, precisely because the natu- societies. The call for action-whether in terms of
ralistic and conventional paradigms are so often- internal transformation, such as ridding oneself
mistakenly-equated with the qualitative and of false consciousness, or of external social trans-
quantitative paradigms, respectively. Indeed, there
formation-differentiates between positivist
are many opportunities for the naturalistic investiga-
and postmodern criticalist theorists (including
tor to utilize quantitative data-probably more than
are appreciated. (pp.198-199; emphasis added) feminist and queer theorists). The sharpest shift,
however, has been in the constructivist and par-
Having demonstrated that we were not then ticipatory phenomenological models, where a
(and are not now) talking about an antiquantita- step beyond interpretation and Verstehen, or
tive posture or the exclusivity of methods, but understanding, toward social action is probably
rather about the philosophies of which paradigms one of the most conceptually interesting of the
are constructed, we can ask the question again shifts (Lincoln, 1997, 1998a, 1998b). For some
regarding commensurability: Are paradigms com- theorists, the shift toward action came in
mensurable? Is it possible to blend elements of one response to widespread nonutilization of evalua-
paradigm into another, so that one is engaging in tion findings and the desire to create forms of
research that represents the best of both world- evaluation that would attract champions who
views? The answer, from our perspective, has to be might follow through on recommendations with
a cautious yes. This is especially so if the models meaningful action plans (Guba & Lincoln, 1981,
(paradigms) share axiomatic elements that are 1989). For·others, embracing action came as both
similar, or that resonate strongly between them. a political and an ethical commitment (see, for
So, for instance, positivism and postpositivism instance, Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Christians, 2000;
are clearly commensurable. In the same vein, ele- Greenwood & Levin, 2000; Schratz & Walker,
rnents'•6f 'interpretivist/postmodern critical theory, 1995; Tierney, 2000).
So#Stru'ctivist and .Participative inquiry, fit com- Whatever the source of the problem to which
!&tab!Y tog~th1r..Co,n1men'stirability iS an issue
I
inquirers were responding, the shift .toward
.!}Hl.y\~B.eiPfese'aich'e'ts!'-*arl.t 'to·''pick and ch'oose" connecting research;•policy analysis_,r evaluation,
aindllg tire axioms of positiVIst arid int~rp'fe'ttvist and!dr,social d~construction .(~}g!; deconstruction
.,. .., :..ll A to:, ·I 1-.
of .th~w~trjarchalJpJms1 of '9ppre~§iorl .in social
fnodels (oecause e axioms arelcontraaictoryla,ntl
tmltuilly: ex~l\.1sive. strudur:es,~wh'ich .is' thetprpject inf.Qrmmg lffiuch
1
r '
J feminilt theop~in:g, ;QrYdesonstruction 'of the
homophobia e_m!J.f4~J!<;l ·4J,)pu0lic pQlicies) .with
ac:tioii !la.§ ~- m~ tq ,c_h_ata~ferize much new-para-
digmft.'nqujr~·~Q'rbb_oth ·at the theoretical and at
the•p.rJcti<;e and praxis,oriented levels. Action has
b~ec;oJTie ·a Illajor controversy that limns the ongo-
irig1-debates ·amohg practitioners of the various
paradigms. The mandate for social action, espe-
cially action designed and created by and for
research participants .with the aid and coop-
eration of researchers, can be most sharply
delineated between positivist/postpositivist and
new-paradigm inquirers. Many positivist and
postpositivist inquirers still consider "action''
the domain of communities other than resear-
chers and research participants: those of policy
202 a HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

personnel, legislators, and civic and political context members to be the aim of inquiry within a
officials:·Hard-line foundationalists presume that community. For none of these paradigmatic adher-
the taint of action will interfere with, or even ents is control an issue of advocacy, a somewhat
negate, the objectivity that is a (presumed) char- deceptive term usually used as a code within a
acteristic of rigorous scientific method inquiry. larger metanarrative to attack an inquiry's rigor,
objectivity, or fairness. Rather, for new-paradigm
researchers control is a means of fostering emanci-
Iii CoNTROL pation, dembcracy, and commt,mity empower-
ment, and of redressing power imbalances such
Another controversy that has tended to become that those who were previously marginalized now
problematic centers on control of the study: Who achieve voice (Mertens, 1998) or"human flourish-
'· '
initiates? Who determines salient questions? Who ing" (Heron & Re~~QP.:'Il~97). Control as a con-
determines what cop.stitutes findings? Who deter- trove~sy is an excel~~pt , pl_ ace tq observe the
mines how data will be collected? Who determines Phenomenon that we havel 1always termed "Catholic
'14' j>-,,.(

in what forms the findings will, be made public, if questions directed ..to 'NIMeVt~dist audience:' We
at all? Who determines what representations will u~e this descriptign-.&iVf~ . to us by a worJsshop
be made of participants in the research? Let us be par~sipant in the ~arly,_ 1.~-~,Qs""i'\.to refe~ to the
very clear: The .issue of control is deeply embedded ongoing problem of ~eg~tifA~~ ,.guestions: ques-
in the questions·of voice, reflexivity, and issues of tions that have no meaping qe.cause the frames of
postmodern textual representation, which we shall reference are those for whichG\ rtheyI J
were never
take up later,,but only for new-paradigm inquirers. intended. (We could as w:eij.~'/P W~.~ e"Hindu ques-
For more :conventional inquirers, the issue of con- tions to a Muslim;' to giv:e ~9ther s,ense of how
trol is .effectively walled off from voice, reflexivity, paradigms, or overarcping,1 phi19:~ ophies-or
and issues of textual representation, because each theologies-;-are incomm,ep~p,r~b~e,, and how ques-
of those issues in some way threatens claims to tions in one framework m~~ 1linJ.~·: !f any, sense in
rigor (particularly objectivity and validity). For another.) Paradigmatic forr~w~atiql}s Pit~ract s~ch
new-paradigm inquirers who have seen the preem- that control becomes inexp;ic~bly.ffi~e~~ined with
inent paradigm issues of ontology and episternal~ mandates for objectivity. Obj~.~ t~vjty derives from
ogy effectively folded into one another, and who the Enlightenment prescription IIJ
for · knowledge of
n-\ 1 1A r

have watched as methodology and axiology logi- the physical world, which i~ pp~.~at~d to be sepa-
cally folded into one another (Lincoln, 1995, 1997), rate and distinct from those who ,would know I ' I)

control of .an 1inquiry seems far less problematic, (Polkinghorne, 1989). But if knowledge of the
except insofar as inquirers seek to obtain partici- social (as opposed to the physical) world resides in
pants' genuine participation (see, for instance, meaning-making mechanisms ,of the social, men-
Guba & Lincolntl981, on contracting and attempts tal, and linguistic worlds that individuals inhabit,
to get some ~stakeholding groups to do more thah then knowledge cannot. be separate from the
stand by while an evaluation is in progress). knower, but rather is rooted in his or her mental or
Critical theorists,.especially those who work in linguistic designations of that world (Polkinghorne,
community organizing programs, are painfully 1989; Salner, 1989).
aware of the necessity'for members of the commu-
nity, or research participants, to take control of
their futures. Constructivists desire participants to • FoUNDATIONS OF .TRUTH AND
take an increasingly active role in nominating KNOWLEDGE IN PARADIGMS
questions of interest for any inquiry and in design-
ing outlets ·for findings to be shared more widely Whether or not the world has a "real'! existence
within and outside the community. Participatory outside of human experience of that world is an
inquirers understand action controlled by the local open question. For modernist (i.e., Enlightenment,
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences 11 203

scientific method, conventional, positivist) research- for testing them as truthful (although we may
ers,· most assuredly there is a "real" reality "out have great difficulty in determining what those
there;' apart from the flawed human apprehen- criteria are); nonfoundationalists tend to argue
sion of it. Further, that reality can be approached that there are no such ultimate criteria, only those
(approximated) oilly through the utilization of that we can agree upon at a certain time and
methods that prevent human contamination of its under certain conditions. Foundational criteria
apprehension or comprehension. For foundation- are discovered; nonfoundational criteria are
alists in the empiricist tradition, the foundations negotiated. It is the case, however, that most real-
of scientific truth and knowledge about reality ists are also foundationalists, and many nonfoun-
reside in rigorous application of testing phenom- dationalists or antifoundationalists are relativists.
ena against a template as much devoid of human An ontological formulation that connects
bias, misperception, and other "idols" (Francis realism and foundationalism within the same
Bacon, cited in ·Polkinghorne, 1989) as instru- "collapse" of categories that characterizes the
mentally possible. As Polkinghorne (1989) makes ontological-epistemological collapse is one that
clear: exhibits good fit with the other assumptions of
constructivism. That state of affairs suits new-
, : 1 The idea that the objective realm is independent of paradigm inquirers well. Critical theorists,
.• ~ 1 the 'knower's subjectiy~ ~xperiences of it can be constructivists, and participatory/ cooperative
:;mfQund;in:Pescartes's dual substance theory, with its inquirers take their primary field of interest to be
:li qis1inction between the objective and ~ubj~~tiy~ precisely that subjective and intersubjective social
.... , reall7ls
t _.J1 ~ 1
)
.. .. In the splitting pfI •reality. into sub). ect knowledge and the active construction and cocre-
and object realms, what can be known "objectively"
W ?J IJ ~ ' H ' ·I . ation of such knowledge by human agents that is
is orlly: the objective1 realm. True knowledge is lim-
f . ..,,. t1 I t ' ll!l \
~ I ,
ited to the objects and the relationships between
,...
produced by human consciousness. Further, new-
,- "lvta,
-them • '· . .
th'at eXIst m the realm " '·
of time and space. paradigm inquirers take to the social knowledge
?' lf«"(J • 1' I
field with zest, informed by a variety of social,
' 'Humarr"con'sciousness, which is subjective, is not
~ii'acc?s"sible to 1 sCiehce,'and thus not truly knowable. intellectual, and theoretical explorations. These
Of• T(i;!i23)' ih:m . t ll!lfl ,- •• · 'u 1,; 1 • , theoretical excursions include Saussurian linguis-
~ilf:rftilftWllflttt~ Jr::> J(Oa.' tr.• !/; ll!t 1J.J. tic theory; which 'Views all ·relationships between
Now,.t~1nplat~s:of..truth <Plddmowledg'e cah be words .ana •:what ltho'se twords signify ,as•the .func-
4e'fiheclitii a vatietyrohvays~as th"e eno prodyct tiort. of::aniiihternal r.elationship..wjthintsom~ l linJ
ot atiojJ.hl processes, as the result of experiential gui~tic systiim; l 'terar.y •ttleory'.s deconstructive
sensing, as t:lle !result of empirical observation, contributions, Wh'ieli s~tiK to discori'nect texts from
and others. In all cases, however, tlie referent is the arty essentialist ot ttazisc.¢.ndenfal' meaning and
physical of empij kal world: rational engagement resituate- thertfWithin oothrauthdr and reader his-
with i~, experience of it, empiriGai observation of torieal and. s6cial contexts (Hutcheon, 1989;
it. Realists, who work on Jfhe assumption lthat Leitch, ·1996); lfe!ninist'.(Addelson, 1993; Alpern,
there is a "real" world "out theref' :may in rindivid- AJ\tler, P.ef"r.y; & Scobie, 1992; Babbitt, 1993;
'l:l.a'l cases also be ;foundationalists, taking the iView Haraingre1993 ), race ..and ethnic (Kondo, ,1990,
tjlat a1l of !these ways of defining•are rooted in l997~il'ririh, 1991 );land queer theorizing (Gamson,
phenomena existing outside the human mirid. iooo):which seeks to uncover and explore varieties
~though we can think about them, e.xperieqce of oppression and historical colonizing between
th~m, or ooserve. \them, the}l are nev~r.thHe~s Clominant and subaltern genders, identities, races,
transcendent~ referred to.but beyondrdirect appre:, and social worlds; the postmodern ithistorical
I

llension. 'Realism is ah ont'g(o~gioaq f'q'uestion, moment (Michael, 1996), which problematizes

'YQereas foundationali~ is::a icrit~ricll question. truth as partial, identity as fluid, language as an
So'me foundatioiial.iS"ts:argue•that·rehl phenomena unclear referent system, and method and criteria
l{etes~arily, unplyJ'certaih final,. ultimate. criteria as potentially coercive (Ellis & Bochner, 1996); and
204 11 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

oriticalist theories of social change (Carspecken, change. Social critique may exist apart from
1996; Schratz & Walker, 1995). The realization of social change, but both are necessary for critical-
the richness of the mental, social, psychological, ist perspectives.
and linguistic worlds that individuals and social Constructivists, on the other hand, tend
groups create and constantly re-create and cocre- toward the antifoundational (Lincoln, 1995,
ate gives rise, in the minds of new-paradigm 1998b; Schwandt, 1996). Antifoundational is the
postmodern and poststructural inquirers, to end- term used to denote a refusal to adopt any per-
lessly fertile fields of inquiry rigidly walled off manent, unvarying (or "foundational") standards
from conventional inquirers. Unfettered from the by which truth can be universally known. As one
pursuit of transcendental scientific truth, inquir- of us has argued, truth-and any agreement
ers are now free to resituate themselves within regarding what is valid knowledge-arises from
texts, to reconstruct their relationships with the relationship between members of some stake-
research participants in less constricted fashions, holding community (Lincoln, 1995). Agreements
and to create re-presentations (Tierney &Lincoln, about truth may be the subject of community
1997) that grapple openly with problems of negotiations regarding what will be accepted as
inscription, reinscription, metanarratives, and truth (although there are difficulties with that
other rhetorical devices that obscure the extent formulation as well; Guba &·Lincoln, 1989). Or
to which human action is locally and temporally agreements may eventuate as the result of a dia-
shaped. The processes of uncovering forms of logue that moves arguments about truth claims
inscription and the rhetoric of metanarratives or validity past the warring camps of objectivity
are genealogical-"expos[ing] the origins of the and relativity toward "a communal test of validity
view that have become sedimented and accepted through the argumentation of the participants in
as truths" {Polkinghorne, 1989, p. 42; emphasis a discourse" {Bernstein, i 98.3; Polkinghorne,
added)-or archaeological (Foucault, 1971; 1989; Schwandt~ i996). Tltis "communicative and
Scheurich, 1997). pragmatic concept" of validity, (Rorty, 1979) is
New-paradigm inquirers engage the founda- never fixed or unvarying. Rather, it is created by
tional controversy in quite different ways. Critical means of a community narrative, itself subject to
theorists, particularly critical theorists more the temporal and historical conditions that gave
positivist in orientation, who lean toward Marxian rise to the community. Schwandt {1989) has also
interpretations, tend toward foundational per- argued that these discourses, or community
spectives, with an important difference. Rather narratives, can and should be bounded by moral
than locating foundational truth and knowledge considerations, a premise grounded in the eman-
in some external reality "out there;' such. critical cipatory narratives of the critical theorists, the
theorists tend to locate the foundations of truth in philosophical pragmatism of Rorty, the demo-
specific historical, economic, racial, and social cratic focus of constructivist inquiry, and the
infrastructures of oppression, injustice, and mar- "human flourishing" goals of participatory and
ginalization. Knowers are not portrayed as sepa- cooperative inquiry. •
rate from some objective reality, but may be cast The controversies around foundationalism
as unaware actors in such historical realities (and, to a lesser extent, essentialism) are not likely
("false consciousness") or as aware of historical to be resolved through dialogue between para-
forms of oppression, but unable or unwilling, digm adherents. The likelier event is that the
because of conflicts, to act on those historical "postmodern turn'' (Best &Kellner, 1997), with its
forms to alter specific conditions in this historical emphasis · on the social construction of social
moment ('~d~vided consciousness"). Thus the reality, fluid as opposed to fixed identities .of the
~~found~tion'' •for critical theorists is a duality: self, and the partiality of all truths, will simply
social critique tied in turn to raised consciousness overtake modernist assumptions of an objective
of the possibility of positive and liberating social reality, as indeed, to some extent, it has already
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences 111 205

done in the physical sciences. We might predict inquiry, however, it is not merely method that
that, if not in our lifetimes, at some later time the promises to deliver on some set oflocal or context-
dualist idea of an objective .reality suborned by grounded truths, it is also the processes of
limited human subjective realities will seem as interpretation. Thus we have two arguments pro-
quaint as flat-earth theories do to us today. ceeding simultaneously. The first, borrowed from
positivism, argues for a kind of rigor in the appli-
cation of method, whereas the second argues for
mi. VALIDITY: AN EXTENDED AGENDA both a community consent and a form of rigor-
defensible reasoning, plausible alongside some
Nowhere can the conversation about paradigm other reality that is known to author and reader-
differences be more fertile than in the extended in ascribing salience to one interpretation over
controversy about validity (Howe & Eisenhart, another and for framing and bounding an inter-
1990; Kvale, 1989, 1994; Ryan, Greene, Lincoln, pretive study itself. Prior to our understanding
Mathison, & Mertens, 1998; Scheurich, 1994, that there were, indeed, two forms of rigor, we
1996). ,Validity is not like objectivity. There are assembled a set of methodological criteria, largely
fairly strong theoretical, philosophical, and prag- borrowed from an earlier generation of thoughtful
matic rationales for examining the concept of anthropological and sociological methodological
objectivity and finding it wanting. Even within theorists. Those .methodological criteria are still
positivist frameworks it is viewed as conceptually useful for a variety of reasons, not the least of
flawed. But validity is a more irritating construct, which is that they ensure that such issues as pro-
one neither easily dismissed nor readily config- longed engagement and persistent observation are
ured by new-paradigm practitioners (Enerstvedt, attended to with some seri~usness.
1989; Tschudi, 1989). Validity cannot be dis- It is the second kind of rigor, however, that has
missed simply because it points to a question that received the most attention in recent writings: Are
has to be .answered in one way or another: Are we interpretively rigorous? Can our co created con-
these findings sufficiently authentic (isomorphic structions be trusted to provide some purchase
to , som.e .:~r.e;Uity; ·t~~stworthy, •related 1to the .way on spme .important human phenomenon?
others •.constrU.ct ~th~iri sqciahworlds) ,!hat) may ,tlfuman phenQmena (!re.thems.~lves fu~ stJ.pject
trust.inyself in a~ting' cifi·theif ir!ipliyatiQ..n&.~~Mpr_e Qfli~PJltroyef'sy.• ill~s~i~-al ~so cia) ' s,d~(l!i~tS; woultl
to•the{p.omt, woW.d I feel suffici~htly.secuni ·aP.:9!it Jig \IY"se~.'.'h\lfnap ~phe_u.o¢sni'_li.mite4, tp .th_ose
these ·findings to construct social policy or legis;; soc;ial eiperie~nc~§irorn.tvbiclr(scientifj~) gener-
lation base(i on ,thein? !At the same time, radLcal alizat.ions,niay bl! c!r<\wri, (N.ew-p~fadigfr). inquir-
reconfigurations of v,alidity leav,~ •resear~ers with ~r~. bowever, ar~ ·ncrea§ihgly cogcerned with the
multiple, sometimes conflicting, rp.artd~tes for -\yhat sjpgl~- ~xp.e):ien_c~, .th.!! ,jndivjdual crisis, the
COnstitutes•rigor6.us re~e;u-ch. j. J": l ·,: :1;, I ·•I epiphany "or1Il].oqJ.ent of dis~oy~ry,•with that most
'Orie of the;is.sues,atolfnd validity is the c.onfla- poweJ;fu.l of all thr~ats to conventional objectivity,
tion between qJ.,ethQp 1and ,.interpretation. The fe'eling and ~motion. Social scientists concerned
postmodern turn suggests that no method can with the expansion of what count as social data
deliver on ultimate tr:uth, ap.d ~it fact "suspects all rely increasingly on the experiential, the embod-
methods;' the more so ,the l~rg~r their claims to ied, -the emotive qualities of human experience
delivering on truth (Richard~on, ,,1994). Thus, that contribute the narrative quality to a life.
altfiough one,might argue ¢at spme methods are Sociologists such as Ellis and Bochner (2000) and
more suited than others for cqnducting research Richardson (2000) and psychologist& such as
on human constrJ!Gti<m oflsQC:ialxealities (Lincoln Michelle Fine (see Fine, Weis, Weseen, &Wong, 2000)
& Guba, 19S5), no one would argue that a ,single concern themselves with various forms of auto-
·mifuog..,.._Q.r Cplle~tiqh'pfi]Iletho9S"'-,iS the royal ethnography and personal experience ·methods,
n.>i4~ to ~ultiinate t'kfiowledge . .In new-paradigm both to overcome the abstractions of a social
206 1111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

science far gone with quantitative descriptions of as practical philosophy" that has as its aim
human life and to capture those elements that "enhancing or cultivating critical •intelligence in
make life conflictual, moving, problematic. parties to the research encounter:' critical intel-
For purposes of this discussion, we believe the ligence being defined as ~'the capacity to engage
adoption of the most radical definitions of social in moral critique:' And finally, he proposes a third
science is appropriate, because the p·aradigmatic way in which we might judge social inquiry
controversies' are often taking place at the edges as practical philosophy: We might make judgments
of those conversations. Those edges are where the about the social inquirer-as-practical-philosopher.
border work is occurring, and, accordingly, they He or she might be "evaluated on the success to
are the places that show the most promise for pro- which his or her reports of the inquiry enable the
jecting where qualitative methods will be in the training or calibration of human judgment" (p. 69)
near and far future. " or "the capacity for practical wisdom'' (p. 70).
•' •• : j
Schwandt is not alone, however, in wishing to
,.
say"farewell to criteriology;l'at least as it has been
Whither and Whether Criteria
j ll ··~
I I 1 previously conceived. Scheurich (1997) makes a
At those edges, ' several conversations are similar plea, and in the same vein,' Smith (1993)
occurring,ra'rmin'd validity. The first-and most also argues that validity, if it is to survive at all,
radical-'-is a' conversation opened by Schwandt must be radically reformulated if it is ever to serve
(1996),•wlio suggests that we say "farewell to cri- phenomenological research well (see also Smith
teriologf,~· or tile "regulative norms for removing & Deemer, 2000).
doubt'land settling·disputes about what is correct At issue here is not whether we shall have cri-
or incorrect, true or false" (p. 59), which have cre- teria, or whose criteria we as a scientific commu-
atetl'a'Vittual cult around criteria. Schwandt does nity might adopt, but rather what the nature of
not, however; •himself say farewell to criteria social inquiry ought tQ be, whether it ought to
forever;!rather, he resituates social inquiry, with undergo a transformation, and what might be the
other 'contemporary philosophical pragmatists, basis for criteria within ·a projected transforma-
within cflframework that transforms professional tion. Schwandt (1989; also personal communi-
social inquir-y into ·a form of practical philosophy, cation, August 21, 1998) is quite clear that both
characterized by "aesthetic, prudential and moral the transformation and the criteria are rooted in
considenhions as well as more conventionally sci- dialogic efforts. These dialogic lefforts are quite
entific ones" (p. 68). When social inquiry becomes clearly themselves forms of "moral discourse:'
1
the'practice of a form of practical philosophy-a Through the specifin onnections of the dialogic,
deep questioning about how we shall get on ih the the 'idea of ·practical wisdom, and moral dis-
world artd what' we conceive to be the potentials courses, ·much of .Schwandt's work can be •seen
and 'limits bf' hliman knowledge and function- to be related to, and reflective of, critical theorist
ing-then we ·have some preliminary under- and participatory paradigms, as well as construc-
standing of what entirely different criteria might tivism, although ' 1Schwandt specifically denies
be for judging social inquiry. the relativity of truth. (For a more sophisticated
Schwandt (1996) proposes three such criteria. explication and critique of' forms of construc-
First, he argues, we .should search for a social tivism, hermeneutics, and interpretivism, see
inquiry that "generate[s] •knowledge that comple- Schwandt, 2000. In that chapter, Schwandt spells
ments or supplements rather than displac[ing] lay out distinctions between realists and nonrealists,
probing of social problems:' a form of knowledge and between foundationalists and nonfounda-
for which we do not yet have the content, but from tionalists, far more clearly than it is possible for us
which we might seek to understand the aims of to do in this chapter.) ' ·' t.

practice from a variety of perspectives, or with dif- To return to'the central question embedded in
ferent lenses. Second, he proposes a "social inquiry validity: How do we know when we have specific
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences Ill 207

social inquiries that are faithful enough to some affirmatively with respect to inclusion, and to act
human construction that we may feel safe in with energy to ensure that all voices in the inquiry
acting on them, or, more important, that members effort had a chance to be represented in any texts
of the community in which the research is con- and to have their stories treated fairly and with
ducted may act on them? To that question, there balance.
is no final answer. There are, however, several Ontological and educative authenticity were
discussions of what we might use to make both designated as criteria for determining a raised
professional and lay judgments regarding any level of awareness, in the first instance, by indi-
piece of work. It is to those versions of validity vidual research participants and, in the second, by
that we now turn. individuals about those who surround them or
with whom they come into contact for some social
or organizational purpose. Although we failed to
Validity as Authenticity
I
see it at that particular historical moment {1989),
Perhaps the first nonfoundational criteria were there is no reason these criteria cannot be-at
those we developed in response to a ,challenge by this point in time, with many miles under our
John K. Smith (see Smith & Deemer, 2000). In theoretic and practice feet-reflective also of
those criteria, we attempted to locate criteria for Schwandt's (1996) "critical intelligence;' or capac-
juqging the processes and outcomes of naturalistic ity to engage in moral critique. In fact, the authen-
or cons,tructivist inquiries (rather than the appli- ticity criteria we originally proposed had strong
cation
, ' of methods; see Guba & Lincoln, 1989). moral and ethical overtones, a point to which we
We d~;;criped fiv~ po~eptial outcomes of a social later returned (see, for instance, Lincoln, 1995,
constructionist inquiry (evaluation is one form of 1998a, 1998b). It was a point to which our critics
disciplined inquiry; see Guba & Lincoln, 1981), strongly objected before we were sufficiently self-
each''grounded in concerns specific to the para- aware to realize the implications of what we had
digrh we'had tri~at ~· aesctlbe arid coMHuct, and proposed (see, for instance, Sechrest,•1993).
ap1itt froiD .imy .c(lpc~ril~ carrie~L<>Y.ei' from Jthe , Oataljtic and tactical authenticities refer to the
..
pos'iti~ist legacy.. The criteria were .instead roo.t.!!cl
~

\ri ~the)a,xioms and ·assumptions of the .constt:uc-

abiljty of a' given inquiry to·proinpt, first, action
OJ!. the·part o£ research .participants rand, •second,
tivW pij:aCligm, insofar as we could extrapolat~ the involv~hient.,of,sthe -res~archer/evaluator in
afid infer them. in
tnlinmg pafficipants• sp'ecincJ'forms.of social
~:1~~s~ ~utlientiGity criteria-so dilled becaus~ and political' action •if .participants .,de~ire such
I

w~ .Pelieveo them to be hallmarks o£ authentic, training. It is here' that \constructivist• inquiry

i r,us.t\v..qfjthy,,rigorous, or "valici" fOhs.t ustivist.o~ p~di¢e begins to1 reserrible~forrifs ofl'critical the-
pheJ.19menological inquir,y~:w:~rs:. faitn_c;~~•.QI].tQ- orist action, action researchr br •.participative or
1
logis;aJ authenticity, educatiy~f ai!th~!tJ~cJtyJ coop eriitive inquiry, each of which is predicated
gatalytil; authenticity, anq t11~tkah ~ilthen_ticit:y oh ;creating thi!\capacity in research participants
(Guha & Lincoln, i989, pp. i4_?~2~.H. {alr:nes.s wa~ for-positive social change and forms of emancipa-
thoyght to be a quality oflbal.@~e; that is, all stake- tory community action. It is also at this specific
holder ;views, perspectives, cJ~s', concerns,' and point that practitioners of positivist and postpos-
v.ofces shoula 'o~ !Jpparent.ID.,the text. Omission itivi'~t social inquiry are the rrtost critical, because
of stakeholder Oli 1partiqp.a!lJ ~Qices reflects, we any action on th'e part of the inquirer is thought to
believe, a form of bias. Thl&:bia_s, however, was and destabilize objectivity and introduce subjectivity,
is not •re1ated dire~tly tQJhe c.o,nterns of objectivity resulti~g in bias. The problem of subjectivity and
that .flow ftorn p~~jtivist ,inquiry and that are bias has a lpng theoretic~ history, and this chapter
refle§:i~e •.Q£" i.u.qiJ.ir~r,rblindness or subjectivity. is simply too brief for1;us to enter into the various
Itathfi'; this fair:n.~ss·· ,was de~ed by deliberate formulations that eith~r take ~ccount of subjec-
~tt~rri'ptsJ. t<;> preven.t marginalization, to act tivity or posit it as a positive learning experience,
208 1111. HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

practical, embodied, gendered, and emotive. For mixed-genre texts, we have moved from plane
purposes of this discussion, it is enough to say geometry to light theory, where light can be both
thatt we are persuaded that objectivity is a waves and particles. Crystallization, without losing
chimera: a mythological creature that never structure, deconstructs the traditional idea of
existed, save in the imaginations of those who "validity" (we feel how there is no single truth, we
see how texts validate themselves); and crystal-
believe that knowing can be separated from the
lization provides us with a deepened, complex,
knower. thoroughly partial understan'ding of the topic.
Paradoxically, we know more and doubt what we
Validity as Resistance, Validity as know. (Richardson, 1997, p. 92)
Postst.ructural Transgression
The metaphoric "solid object" (crystal/text),
Laurel Richardson (1994, 1997) has proposed which can be turned mapy way,s, which reflects
another form of validity, a deliberately "transgres- and refracts light (light/multiple layers of mean-
sive" form, the crystalline. In writing experimental ing), thr9ugh which we can see both 1'wave" (light
(i.e., nonauthoritative, nonpositivist) texts, particu- wave/human currents) and "particle'! (light as
larly poems and plays, Richardson (1997) has "chunks" of energy/elements of truth, feeling,
sought to "problematize reliability, validity and connection, processes of the research that "flow"
truth" (p. 165) in an effort to create new. relation- together) is an attractive metaphor for validity.
ships: to her research participants, to her work, to The properties of the crystal-as-metaphor help
other women, to herself. She says that transgressive writers and readers alike see the interweaving
forms permit a social scientist to "conjure a different of processes in the research: discovery, seeing,
kind of social science ... [which] .means'changing telling, storying, re-presentation.
one's relationship to one's work, how one knows and
tells about the sociological" (p. 166). In order to see
"how transgression looks and how•it feels:• it is nec- Other "Transgressive" Validities ,
essary to "find and deploy methods that allow us to · Laurel Richardson is not alone in calling for
uncover the hidden assumptions ·and life-denying forms of validity that are "transgressive" and
repressions of sociology; resee/refeel sociology. disruptive of the status quo. Patti Lather (1993)
Reseeing and retelling are inseparable'' (p.167~. seeks "an incitement to discourse:' the purpose of
The way to achieve such validity is by examin- which is "to rupture validity as a regime of truth,
ing the properties of a crystal in a metaphoric to displace its historical inscription ... via.a dis-
sense: Here we present an extended quotation to persion, circulation and proliferation of counter-
give some flavor of how such validity might be practices of authority that •·take. the ·crisis of
described and deployed: representation into account"•(p. 674). In addition
If
to catalytic.validity (Lather, 1986), Lather (1993)
. ;. ·J ·propose that the central imaginary for "validity'' poses validity as simul~cra/ironic validity;
·: rJor,:postmodernist texts is not the triangle-a Lyotardiafl paralogy/neopragmatic validity, a form
,.i!jf~~~g, · fi;~d, two-dimensional objec~. Rather. the of valitlity tha't "foster[s] heterogeneity, refusing
.,:11Ce£!f.a).;jmaginary is the crystal, which combmes
disclosure" (p. 679); Derridean rigor!rhizomatic
<Ql ~yffiiri~try .i1J1d svb~tance witiJ, an infini~e variety
l~i\':J~'t:t ( •.... .- .,. ' validity, 'a' form of behaving ·~via relay, circuit, mul-
~i~Pl,~b~~~~·.~~~b,s!a.~ces, transmutations, multidi- tiple openings'! (p. 680); and voluptuous/situated
" ·.mensiOnhlities, 1and angles of approach. Crystals
.,:{.iH)Iil~Ql'iVI!'''•''' • ·· h. validity, which "embodies a situated, partial tenta-
., ···gro~.:~c:~ange, al!er, _.but are not amorp ous.
J1W61-fsf~JS';a'fe' Msms iliat ·reflect externalities and
"'')j'flgfu ,;otili hr.1.F ·~·lk •. '
tiveness" and "brings ethics and epistemology
m, ~efnictwiffii~' themselves, creating different colors, together ... via practices of engagement and self-
'H'\ll1t~"t ..,,tl~•tn> "'.!:,..., •,; ' 'f f ·•' d'ffi d' . reflexivity" (p. 686). Together, these.form a way of
:.~,patte~s, 'a.r.rays, castmg·o ·. m 1 erent 1rectwns.
l!~'t~at~wd!See}'depenas upon our angle of repose. interrupting, disrupting, and transfQrming "pure"
·, i')!tf~ftij~figlil~Jioii;~rys't~~~tioh. In postmodernist presence into a disturbing! jfluid, partial, and
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences 111 209

problematic presence-a poststructural and poststructuralists and postmodernists to reflect

decidedly postmodern form of discourse theory, upon their representational practices, representa-
hence textual revelation. tional practices themselves become more prob-
lematic. Three of the most engaging, but painful,
Validity as an Ethical Relationship issues are the problem of voice, the status of
reflexivity, and the problematics of postmod-
As Lather (1993) points out, poststructural ern/poststructural textual representation, espe-
forms for validities "bring ethics and epistemology cially as those problematics are displayed in the
together" (p. 686); indeed, as Parker Palmer (1987) shift toward narrative and literary forms that
also notes, "every way of knowing contains its directly and openly deal with human emotion.
own moral trajectory" (p. 24). Peshkin reflects on
Noddings's (1984) observation that "the search for
Voice
justification often carries us farther and farther
from the heart of morality" (p. 105; quoted in Voice is a multilayered problem, simply
Peshkin, 1993, p. 24). The way in which we know is because it has come to mean many things to dif-
most assuredly tied up with both what we know and ferent researchers. In former eras, the only appro-
our relationships with our research participants. priate "voice" was the "voice from nowhere"-the
Accordingly, one of us worked on trying to under- "pure presence" of representation, as Lather terms
stand the ways in which the ethical intersects both it. As researchers became more conscious of
the interpersonal and the epistemological (as a form the abstracted realities their texts created, they
of authentic or valid knowing; Lincoln, 1995). The became simultaneously more conscious of having
result was the first set of understandings about readers "hear" their informants-permitting
emerging criteria for quality that were also rooted readers to hear the exact words (and, occasionally,
in the epistemology/ethics nexus. Seven new stan- the paralinguistic cues, the lapses, pauses, stops,
dards were derived from that search: positionality, or starts, reformulations) of the informants. Today
standpoint, judgments; specific discourse commu- voice can mean, especially in more participa-
nities and research sites as arbiters of quality; voice, tory forms of research, not only having a real
or the extent to which a text has the quality of researcher-and a researcher's voice-in the
polyvocality; critical subjectivity (or what might be text, but also letting research participants speak
termed intense self-reflexivity); reciprocity, or the for themselves, either in text form or through
extent to which the research relationship becomes plays, forums, "town meetings:' or other oral and
reciprocal rather than hierarchical; sacredness, or performance-oriented media or communication
the profound regard for how science can (and does) forms designed by research participants them-
contribute to human flourishing; and sharing the selves. Performance texts, in particular, give an
perquisites of privilege that accrue to our positions emotional immediacy to the voices of researchers
as academics with university positions. Each of and research participants far beyond their own
these standards was extracted from a body of sites and locales (see McCall, 2000). Rosanna
research, often from disciplines as disparate as Hertz (1997) describes voice as
management, philosophy, and women's studies
(Lincoln, 1995). a struggle to figure out how to present the author's
self while simultaneously writing the respondents'
accounts and representing their selves. Voice has
multiple dimensions: First, there is the voice of the
ml VOICE, REFLEXIVITY, AND POSTMODERN
author. Second, there is the presentation of the
TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION voices of one's respondents within the text. A third
dimension appears when the self is the subject of
Texts have to do a lot more work these days the inquiry.... Voice is how authors express them-
than they used to. Even as they are charged by selves within an ethnography. (pp. xi-xii)
210 Jil HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

But'knowing1how to express ourselves goes far (p. 5). Each of those selves comes into play in the
beyond '•the commonsense understanding of research setting and consequently has a distinc-
"expressing ourselves:' Generations of ethnogra- tive voice. Reflexivity-as well as the poststruc-
phers •trained in the :"cooled-out, stripped-down tural and postmodern sensibilities concerning
rhetoric" of positivist •inquiry (Firestone, 1987) quality in qualitative research-demands that we
find it difficult, if not nearly impossible, to interrogate each of our selves regarding the ways
"locate". themselves deliberately and squarely in which research efforts are' shaped and staged
within their texts (even though, as Geertz [1988] around the binaries, contradi~tions, and para-
has demonstrated finally arta without doubt, the doxes that form our own lives. We must question
authorial voice ·is rarely genuinely absent, or even our selves, too, regarding·how those binaries and
hidden). 3 Specific textual experimentation can paradoxes shape not only the identities called
help; that is, composing ethnographic work into forth in the field and later in the discovery
various literary forms-the poetry and plays of processes of writing, but cilso our interactions
Laurel Richardson a~e good examples-can help with respondents, in who we become to thet:n in
a researcher to'o'v~rcoine the tendency to write in the process of becoming to ourselves. Someone
the distanced and 'abstracted voice of the dis em- once characterized qualitative research as the
bodied 'T' ~'Bue such writing exercises ' are hard twin processes of "writing up" (field notes) and
work. This'is ·also ·work that is embedded in the "writing down'' (the narrative). But Clandinin and
practices of reflexivity and narrativity, without Connelly (1994) have made clear that this bitex-
which achieving a voice of (partial) truth is tual reading of the processes of qualitative
impossiBle. ' '' J · research is far too simplistic. In fact, many texts
I • I
are created in the process of engaging in field-
•t ·' ·'
work. As Richardson (1994, 1997, 2000; see also
Refl~XlYity
Richardson & St.·Pierre,'Chapter 38, this volume)
RefleXivity is'the p~ocess of reflecting critically makes clear; writing is not merely the transcrib-
on th'e self as' researcher, the "human as instru- ing of some reality. Rather, writing-of all the
ment" (GtiBi&'Lincoln, '1981). It is, we would texts, notes;·presentatioris, and possibilities-is
assert, tlfehitical subjectivity discussed early on also a process of discovery: discovery of the
in R'e'asb"n'"and Rowan's edited volume Human subject (and ·sometimes of the problem itself)
Inquir}~( I9'8i;}.'1t is a conscious experiencing of and discovery of the self.
the self! aiHoth inquirer and respondent, as There is good news and bad news with the
teacherilricl' le~i:ner, as the one coming to know most contemporary of fomiu1ations. The good
the self within the processes of research itself. news is that the multiple selves-ourselves and
· ReflexivJt)rif6rces us to come to terms not only our respondents.....:.~£ postmodern inq~iries
with our choice of research problem 'and with may give rise' to ·more dynamic, problematic,
those ·with whom we engage in the research open-ended, and complex forms of writing and
process: but with our selves and with the multiple representation. The bad news is that the multiple
identities that represent the fluid self in the selves we create and encounter give rise to more
research setting,. (Alcoff•n
& Potter,, 1993). Shulamit dynamic, problematic, open-ended, and complex
Reinharz (199~), f~~ .ex~mple, argues that we not forms of writing and representation. ·
only"bringth!! self t9 thr.field ... [we also] create
the self in the field" (p. 3). She suggests that
Postm\)dern Textpal Representations
although we all have many s~lve~ we br!ng with •'-

us, those selves fall into three categories: research- There are two dangers inherent in the conven-
based selves, brought selves (the selves that tional texts of scientific method: that they may
historically, socially, and personally create our lead us to believe the world is rather•simpler than
standpoints), and situationally created selves it is, and that they may reinscribe enduring forms
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences a 211

of historical oppression. Put another way, we are personal narratives, first-person accounts, reflexive
confronted with a crisis of authority (which tells interrogations, and deconstruction of the forms of
us the world is "this way" when perhaps it is some tyranny embedded in representational practices
other way, or many other ways) and a crisis of rep- (see Richardson, 2000; Tierney & Lincoln, 1997).
resentation (which serves to silence those whose Representation may be arguably the most
lives we appropriate for our social sciences, and open-ended of the controversies surrounding
which may also serve subtly to re-create this phenomenological research today, for no other
world, rather than some other, perhaps more reasons than that the ideas of what constitutes
complex, but just one). Catherine Stimpson legitimate inquiry are expanding and, at the same
(1988) has observed: time, the forms of narrative, dramatic, and rhetor-
ical structure are far from being either explored
Like every great word, "representation/s" is a stew. or exploited fully. Because, too, each inquiry, each
A scrambled menu, it serves up several meanings
inquirer, brings a unique perspective to our
at once. For a representation can be an image-
understanding, the possibilities for variation and
visual, verbal, or aural. ... A representation can
also be a narrative, a sequence of images and exploration are limited only by the number of
ideas .... Or, a representation can be the product of those engaged in inquiry and the realms of social
ideology, that vast scheme for showing forth the and intrapersonal life that become interesting
world and justifying its dealings. (p. 223) to researchers. The only thing that can be said for
certain about postmodern representational prac-
One way to confront the dangerous illusions tices is that they will proliferate as forms and they
(and their underlying ideologies) that texts may will seek, and demand much of, audiences, many
foster is through the creation of new texts that of whom may be outside the scholarly and aca-
break boundaries; that move from the center to demic world. In fact, some forms of inquiry may
the margins to comment on and decenter the cen- never show up in the academic world, because
ter; that forgo closed, bounded worlds for those their purpose will be use in the immediate con-
more open-ended and less conveniently encom- text, for the consumption, reflection, and use of
passed; that transgress the boundaries of conven- indigenous audiences. Those that are produced
tional social science; and that seek to create a for scholarly audiences will, however, continue to
social science about human life rather than on be untidy, experimental, and driven by the need to
subjects. communicate social worlds that have remained
Experiments with how to do this have pro- private and "nonscientific" until now.
duced "messy texts" (Marcus & Fischer, 1986).
Messy texts are not typographic nightmares
(although they may be typographically nonlin- mt A GLIMPSE OF THE FUTURE
ear); rather, they are texts that seek to break the
binary between science and literature, to portray The issues raised in this chapter are by no means
the contradiction and truth of human experience, the only ones under discussion for the near and
to break the rules in the service of showing, even far future. But they are some of the critical ones,
partially, how real human beings cope with both and discussion, dialogue, and even controversies
the eternal verities of human existence and the are bound to continue as practitioners of the
daily irritations and tragedies of living that exis- various new and emergent paradigms continue
tence. Post modern representations search out and either to look for common ground or to find ways
experiment with narratives that expand the range in which to distinguish their forms of inquiry
of understanding, voice, and storied variations from others.
in human experience. As much as they are social Some time ago, we expressed our hope that
scientists, inquirers also become storytellers, practitioners of both positivist and new-paradigm
poets, and playwrights, experimenting with forms of inquiry might find some way of resolving
212 111 HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH-CHAPTER 8

their differences, such that all social scientists inquiries are both tied and untied, as a means of
could work within a common discourse-and finding where our interests cross and where we
perhaps even several traditions-once again. can both be and promote others' being, as whole
In retrospect, such a resolution appears highly human beings.
unlikely and would probably even be less than
useful. This is not, however, because neither posi-
tivists nor phenomenqlogists will budge an inch mt NoTEs
(although that,• too, cis ;unlikely). Rather, it is
because, in the :postfnodern moment, and in the 1. Jhere are several versions of critical theory,
wake of poststtuctu~alisrh, the assumption that including classical critical theory, which is most closely
there is no single;~'tr.uth''"--that all truths are but related to neo-Marxist theory; postpositivist formula-
partial truths; that the slippage between signifier tions, which divorce themselves from Marxist theory
but are positivist in their insistence on conventional
and signified· !h linguistic and textual terms
rigor criteria; and postmodernist, poststructuralist, or
creates re--presentations that are only and always
constructivist-oriented varieties. See, for instance, Fay
shadows 'of theiactual people, events, and places; (1987), Carr and Kemmis (1986), and Lather (1991).
that•identities are fluid rather than fixed-leads See also Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) and Kincheloe
us ineluct~bly toward the insight that there will and McLaren (2000).
be no single "conventional" paradigm to which all 2. For a clearer understanding of how methods
social ~dentists might ascribe in some common came to stand in for paradigms, or how our initial (and,
terms iand twi~ mutual understanding. Rather, we thought, quite clear) positions came to be miscon-
we 'stand at the threshold of a history marked by strued, see Laney (1993) or, even more currently, Weiss
multivocality, contested meanings, paradigmatic (1998, esp. p. 268).
controversies,'and new textual forms. At some dis- 3. For example, compare this chapt~r with, say, the
taneidown this conjectural path, when its history work of :Richardson (2900) and EPis and Bochner
(2000), where the authorial voices are clear, personal,
is writtert: we•will find that this has been the era of ~~·
vocal, and interior, interacting subjectivities. Although
emaneipation: emancipation from what Hannah
some colleagues. have surprised us by correctly identi-
Arendt«:alls "the coerciveness of Truth;' emanci- fying which chapters each of us has written in given
pation ;from hearing only the voices of Western books, nevertheless, the style ..bf this chapter more
Europet emancipation from generations of silence, closely approximates the more distanced forms of"real-
and 'emancipation from seeing the world in one ist" writing than it does the intimate, personal "feeling
color~ · tone" (to borrow a phrase from Stuas Terkel) of other
We may also be entering an age of greater spir- chapters. Voices also arise as a function of the.material
ituality within research efforts. The emphasis on being covered. The material we chose as most impor-
inquiry that reflects ecological values, on inquiry tant for this chapter seemed to dema)ld a less personal
that respects communal forms of living that are tone, probably because there appears to be much more
not Western·,lon inquiry involving intense reflex- "contention" than ~alm dialogue concerning these
issues. The "cool" tpne likely stems from our psycholog-
ivity .regarding how our inquiries are shaped
ical response to trying to create a quieter space for dis-
by our.' own historical and gendered locations, and
cussion aroun~ controversial issues. What can we say?
on inquirr into "human flourishing;' as Heron
and Reason (·1997) call it, may yet reintegrate the
sacred with the s·ecular in ways that promote free-
Bl REFERENCES
dom and self-determination. Egon Brunswik,
the organizational theorist, wrote of "tied" and Addelson, K. P. (1993). Knowers/doers and their moral
"untied" variables-variables that are linked, or problems. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist
clearly not linked, · with ,other variables-when epistemologies (pp. 265-294). New York: Routledge.
studying human forms of organization. We may Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993)! Feminist episte-
be in a period of exploring the ways in which our mologies. New York: Routledge.
 Guba &Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences 1111 213

Alpern, S., Antler, J., Perry, E. 1., & Scobie, I. W. (Eds.). Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For
(1992). The challenge of feminist biography: whom? Qualitative research, representations,
Writing the lives of modern American women. and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin &
Urbana: University of illinois Press. Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
Babbitt, S. (1993). Feminism and objective interests: research (2nd ed., pp. 107-131). Thousand Oaks,
The role of transformation experiences in ratio- CA:Sage.
nal deliberation. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Firestone, W (1987). Meaning in ,method: The rhetoric
Feminist epistemologies (pp. 245..,264). New York: of quantitative and qualitative research. Educa-
Routledge. tional Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.
Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and rela- Foucault, M. (1971 ). The order of things: An archaeol-
tivism: Science, hermeneutics, an.d praxis. Oxford: ogy of the human sciences. New York: Pantheon.
Blackwell. Gamson, J. (2000). Sexualities, queer theory, and qual-
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1997). The postmodern turn. itative research. 1In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
New York: Guilford .. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
Bloland, H. ( l98,9j. Higher education and high anxiety: pp. 347-365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Objectivisfn, ,relativism, and irony. journal of Geertz, C. (198&). Works and lives: The anthropologist as
Higher Education, 60, 519-543. author. Cambridge: Polity.
Bloland, H. ( 19.95)!Wostmodernism and higher educa- Geertz, C. (1993). Local knowledge: Further essays in
tion. journal ofHighir-paucq~i(m, 66,521-559. interpretive anthropology. London: Fontana.
Bradley, J.; & Schaeferi'K. '(!1998). The uses and misuses Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing
of data and moiiels. Thousand Oaks, CA:..Sage. the relationships between universities and society
Carr, W L., & Kemniis, • S~ (\9.8M!.B.ecomihg critical: through action research. In N. K. Denzin &
Education, knowledge.tmdJi'cfion risearch..Lpndon: Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
Palmer. ···t , 1 i{ mlo11t• 'iti~1 • 1\.J , ,, rese~rch (2nd ed., pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks,
Carspecken, P. F. ( 199:6). C~itical 'ethnogmphy ,in ~_iitica­ ~" CA:Sage.
tional research: A the~retifal .dtid pra}iical guide. Guba, E. G., &Lincoln, Y. S..(1981 ). Effective evaluation:
New York: Routledge. ~~··!'I ,imlili.l:.') ;v Improving the usefulness of evaluation results
Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and_pqlitics iii qqaJit~-£.1 lfll' ~tbrp_ugh, ,re,spp_nsive and naturalistic approaches.
tive research. In N. K. Deilzih &til. iS_,_ Lit}coln ;ll ~,';Sanfriucis.~;p·tJossey-JJass_. . •.
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative researtb (2nd ed., Guba{E: G); &i.inc'oln, Y. S. (1982 ). Epistemological and
pp. 133-155). Thousand Qaks, CA: Sage. ,·-~;,,· ' -!~ :rh~!ltqfu!l9gigill~.b~ses for;.l).aturalisticl inquiry.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). ·P~t.sonal .-, lEdu(af{oiW C!fmrn.ynications (lnd ,T~chnology
· exp.erience methods. In N. K. 1 QeMi.!l,!&. ~.. ]ourruil,•31,233-:,2's.2.Li:11 ~' ; , , •
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of ,qualitative Guba; ~ 1..G,:&.liJico].f},~Y. s·"(l28~). Fourth generation
11research (pp. 413-427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ~;!; _·~vq[![t~:tion:!:.:tfe.w'QIJ.(>; E,a,tk, ,CA: :Sage. J,
Deniin, !N. ~.,1& Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994).Jiqndbook Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing
.wiofqualitatiye,rrsearch. Thousand Oaks, C'.f\;,Sage:<t 1i:t p~raPigml>,iiJ. q~Jalitative research. InN. K. >Denzin
Ellis; •_G ;~ &.IB_o;cbnet, A. P. (Eds.). (1996). Composing ,·.@t)Bc: ~ SJLil).c.oln (EdsJ, Handbook of qualitative
1. t!.'thp,ogfGpby~ l Alternative forms of qualitative rirgsear~~ . (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA:
writing. Walnut Creek, GA: Alta¥i.t:a. r •· 1 tt!.-'lS.age.,f . . ,
Ellis, ·C., f&r cBQc~er, •(>..sP: (2000). Autoethl).ography,I H~rding, S. (1993).·Rethinking standpoint epistemol-
personal VJar:rapve.._1reflexivity: Research.er as .. ,, ogy: Wha_t is "strong objectivity"? In L. Alcoff &
subject.·4t l'i·'.KHDenzirt"&, Y. S. -Lincoln ,(Ed,s_.), . E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49-
Handbook of qualitatil(e1 research 1 (2nQ.' ed., 82). New York: Routledge.
pp. 733-768H fhousand Oaks, !=A:-Sage. ~•d1: '' Heron~ J. (1996). Cooperative inquiry: Research into the
Enerstvedt, R.1(191!.9). ~hepJ{Jblem of iValidityjn social human condition. London: Sage.
science. In S: KY!ile. (EdJ),Ilss.ues ofvaliility•in.·qual- Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry
itative ·researc;h • (PPir.135'-! 1?.3)il!Lun~. Sw!!den:l paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274-294.
Studentlitteratur. .;·.r 1 , r' t ,,,. ,, _,(j J Hertz, R. (1997). Introduction: Reflexivity and voice. In
Fay, B. (1987). Critical5ocial•science. Itha_ca,NY: Cornell R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice. Thousand
University Press. ,• Oaks, CA: Sage.
214 J1i HANDBOOK OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH----'CHAPTER 8
Howe, VK., '& Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for interpretive researchers. Theory and Research in
qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolego- Social Education, 26(1), 12-29.
ll! ·ifienon, Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9. Lincoln, Y. S., &Denzin, N. K. ( 1994). The fifth moment.
Hutcheon,' L. (1989): The politics of postmodernism. In N. K. Denzin &Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
·· New York: Routledge. of qualitative research (pp. 575-586). Thousand
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (20QO). Participatory Oaks, CA: Sage.
action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: as cultural critique: An experimental moment
Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. in the hum9n sciences. Chicago: University of
London: Palmer, Chicago Press.
Kincheloe, J. L., 1&'McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical McCall, M. M. (2000). Performance ethnography:
theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & A brief history and some advice. In N. K. Denzin
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds. ), Handbook ofqualitative research & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
(2nd ed., pp. 279-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. research (2nd ed., pp. 421-433). Thousand Oaks,
Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, CA:Sage.
and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and
Chicago: UniversitY of Chicago Press. psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative
Kondo, D. K. (1997). About face:' Performing race in and qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
fashion and theater. NewYork:~outledge. Sage.
Kvale, S. (Ed.). (i'989). Issues of validity in qualitative Michael, M. C. (1996). Feminism and the postmodern
' research. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. impulse: Post- World War II fiction. Albany: State
Kvale, S. "(1994, 'April). Validation as communication University of New York Press.
and action. Paper presented at the annual meet- Noddings, N. (1984): Caring: A feminine approach to
'ing of the American Educational Research 1
ethics and moral educat~on. Berkeley: University
· 'Association, New Orleans. of California Press. ··~
Laney, D. R(1993). Qualitative research in education: An Olesen, V. L. (2000). Feminisms and quali~ative research
introduction to the major traditions. New York: at and into the millennium. In N. K. Denzin &
Longman. Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideologi- research (2nd ed., pp. 215-255). Thousand Oaks,
cal research: Between a rock and a soft place. CA: Sage. '
Interchange, 17( 4), 63-84. Palmer, P. ]. (1987, September-October). Community,
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and conflict, and ways of knowing. Change, 19,20-25.
pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative
Routledge. research. Educational Researcher, 22~2), 24-30.
Lather, 'P. ( 1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after post- Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Changing conversations
structuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673-693. about human science. InS. Kvale (Ed.), Issues of
Leitch,·V. B. (1996). Postmodern: Local effects, global validity in qualitative research (pp. 13-46). Lund,
flows. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Lincol.Ji.,·Y. •S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in Reason, P. (1993). Sacred experience and sacred
!·qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative science,Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 2, 10-27.
' Inquiry, 1, 275-289. Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (Eds.). (1981). Human inquiry.
Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1997). What constitutes quality in interpre- London: John Wiley.
tive research? In C. K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, &D.]. Reinharz, S. (1997). Who am I? The need for a variety
Leu (Eds. ), Inquiries in literacy: Theory and practice of selves in the field. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity
. (pp. 54-!68). Chicago: National Reading Conference. and voice (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA:·Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1998a). The ethics of teaching qualitative Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method ·of inquiry. In
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 305-3'!7. N. K. Denzin &Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Han'clbook of
Lincoln, Y. S. (1998b). From understanding to action: qualitative research (pp. 516-5i9). Thousand
New imperatives, new criteria, new methods for Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Guba & Lincoln: Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences 111 215

Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing and social constructionism. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S.
an academic life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
University Press. (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. Sechrest, L. (1993). Program evaluation: A pluralistic
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook enterprise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Smith, J. K. ( 1993 ). After the demise of empiricism: The
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. problem ofjudging social and educational inquiry.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, J. K., & Deemer, D. K. (2000). The problem of
Ryan, K. E., Greene, J. C., Lincoln, Y. S., Mathison, S., & criteria in the age of relativism. In N. K. Denzin
Mertens, D. (1998). Advantages and challenges of & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
using inclusive evaluation approaches in evalua- research (2nd ed., pp. 877-896). Thousand Oaks,
tion practice. American journal of Evaluation, 19, CA: Sage.
101-122. Stimpson, C. R. (1988). Nancy Reagan wears a hat:
Salner, M. (1989). Validity in human science Feminism and its cultural consensus. Critical
research. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Issues of validity in Inquiry, 14,223-243.
qualitative research (pp. 47-72). Lund, Sweden: Tierney, W. G. (2000). Undaunted courage: Life history
Studentlitteratur. and the postmodern challenge. In N. K. Denzin &
Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archaeology. journal of Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
Educational Policy, 9, 297-316. research (2nd ed., pp. 537-553). Thousand Oaks,
Scheurich, J. J. (1996). Validity. International journal of CA: Sage.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 49-60. Tierney, W. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1997). Represen-
Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Research method in the postmod- tation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice.
ern. London: Falmer. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schratz, M., & Walker, R. (1995). Research as social Trinh, T. M. (1991). When the moon waxes red:
change: New opportunities for qualitative research. .Representation, gender and cultural politics.
New York: Routledge. • N~w ¥,ork: Routl~dge.
Schwandt, T. A. (1989). Recapturing moral discourse Tschudi, F. (1989).,ip o .qualitative and quantitative
in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 1
different
methods require .').lih t
approaches
I •
to valid-
11-16,34. ity? In S. Kvale (Ed.), Issues of validity in qualita-
Schwandt, T. A. ( 1996). Farewell to criteriology.
Q.~a~itativ~ Inquiry, 2, 58-72.
. • I

.
•

tive research (PI'· 109-134).

Studentlitteratur.
1 (_ 1\ 1 1 '

. Lund, Sweden:
1

Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for Weiss, c. H. (1998). Evaluation ·(2Iia ed.). Upped ;addle
c! ·_ ~ualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics,
I
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1
~ ' ll t ) ~.
, .. \ l£; .\ \ '\,. t. • I\.

t(,\:tCl ·.. ,. ' I I.

~- I' ..,
• l[l