This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
Ecology and Qualitative Inquiry
The basic theme within an ecology model is the study of environments in
terms of "reciprocally causal systems of interactions" (Stachowiak & Briggs,
1984). This fits well with the basic themes of qualitative methodology. These
themes are outlined by Sherman and Webb (1988): (1) Context: events must be understood in context and not in isolation; (2) Natural: events should be studied in natural settings, not in contrived or constructed settings; (3) Holistic: all features of experience must be attended to, not isolated variables; (4) Noninterventionist: events should not be influenced by the methods by which they are studied; (5) Appraising: qualitative methods should add to understanding. Both ecology and qualitative inquiry imply a direct concern for phenomenological aspects of experience. Traditional quantitative methods imply separating experience into units that can be added, multiplied and manipulated in a variety of ways (Ross, 1988). It is quite evident from these themes that ecology and qualitative inquiry stand on similar epistemological ground.
Methods of Qualitative Inquiry
The discussion is still open as to what methods fall within the general
notion of "qualitative inquiry." Bogdan and Taylor (1975) state that qualitative
methodologies refer to research procedures which produce descriptive data:
"people's own written or spoken word and observable behavior" (p. 13). Within
this broad definition, several important theoretical traditions and orientations
emerge. Patton (1990) notes that on the basis of what kinds of questions are asked
that several different orientations can be found to exist within qualitative inquiry.
He lists the following: ethnography, phenomenology, heuristics,
ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, ecological psychology, systems
theory, chaos theory, hermeneutics, and orientational qualitative inquiry (Patton,
1990). Within these orientations a number of data collection strategies are
available. Again, these strategies do not fall into a generally accepted taxonomy,
but the major ones are: observations, participant observations, interviews
(structured and unstructured), the focus interview, biography, document study,
and other methods that meet the basic criteria of adding understanding without
violation to the basic themes of context, natural, holistic, and noninterventionist .
Ethnography and Campus Ecology
Ethnography as an orientation within the general qualitative inquiry
approach holds promise for the campus ecologists who want to increase their
understanding of the "campus culture." The ethnographic researcher is interested
in the question: "What is the culture ? " From a campus perspective, the question
becomes: "What is the nature of the campus culture?" Translating from Patton
(1990) and his notes on Goodenough (1971), the more elaborated form of the
question becomes: "What are the campus's beliefs and behavior patterns for
deciding what is, what can be, how one feels, what to do about it, and how to go
about doing it?" Other definitions of ethnography include the following:
description of the ways in which a group of people view themselves, the
relationship to others and the rest of the environment around them; an attempt to understand the common sense or taken-for-granted aspects of everyday life; science of cultural description; and the basic question of: "What is going on here?" For the campus ecologist, ethnography may be the methodology "of choice" to study the campus environment.
Implementation of the Ethnographic Approach on Campus
Historically, the specific methods associated with ethnographic studies
have been participant observation and interviewing. In these efforts, "particular
attention is paid to activities, actors, spaces, physical objects and the sequence of
activities and events" (Sherman and Webb, 1988 p. 84). According to these
authors, the implementation of an ethnographic study requires perceptive
observers, sensitive inquirers, and skillful participants.
From the experience of the author, the implementation of an ethnographic approach can be understood by addressing several issues:
1. Entry: Questions that arise from the issue of entry are quite similar to those that come up in any consultation activity. Who initiated the study? For what purposes? Who invited the ethnographer? What systemic issues are involved in the invitation? What role is to be played? What are the expected outcomes and future responsibilities?
2. Native Involvement: Questions that emerge from the issue of native involvement focus on the events relating to the organization of the study. Who makes up the interview list? Who organizes the on-campus logistics? (What symbolic meaning might the answer to this question have?) How representative of the campus are the native participants? Who was left out? The author has found that a practical way to help address the myriad of issues surrounding local involvement can often be the formation of a local team. The team can serve both as a special source of information about the campus as well as a guide to the many logistical and political issues faced by an ethnographer or campus ecologist visiting from outside the campus.
3. Framework for the Inquiry: Questions that stem from the issue of framework usually point to a major challenge in doing ethnographic or campus culture work, that is, to what degree does the ethnographer bring concepts to the study of the native culture or to what degree does the ethnographer allow these to emerge from the native culture. There is no easy answer to these questions, but the author's experience indicates that both sources of conceptual understanding is necessary. The author has found that by organizing both questions for interviews and opportunities for participation around the following general categories provides for a "road map", but does not prejudge the local culture. These categories are: What aspects of geography influence the campus culture; What are meteorological considerations, if any; What does the physical environment say about local campus culture; What are the important behavioral settings; What are the organizational structures; What are the personal and behavioral characteristics of the campus inhabitants; and What kinds of behavior does the local culture reinforce? These questions give a framework for guidance, but do not predetermine answers to the questions.
4. Reporting: Questions often come up in terms of how best to report the findings of the ethnographic study. Typically, from the author's experience, the ethnographer should seek a variety of community forums for on-campus feedback as well as preparing a final written document to leave for additional campus study.
Conclusion
The assessment of campus culture is both complex and desirable.
Traditional campus surveys continue to help understand the complexity of
campus culture and the concept of ethnography holds promise for increasing our
understanding. The epistemology, the goals, the methods, and procedures of
ethnographic inquiry are in concert with the values of campus ecology and the
rich tradition of ethnographic research in anthropology and sociology should
enhance current campus ecology work.
References
Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Goodenough, W. (1971). Culture. Language and Society Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley .
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Ross, D. (1988). An introduction to curriculum criticism. In R Sherman & R.
Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education. Focus and methods (pp. 162-174)
London: The Falmer Press.
Sherman, R. & Webb, R. (Eds.) (1988) Qualitative research in education. Focus
and methods. London The Falmer Press.
Stachowiak, J. & Briggs, S. (1984). Ecosystemic therapy: "A treatment
perspective." In W. O'Conner and B. Lubins (Eds.), Ecological approaches to
clinical and community psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI)
Author: Richard E. Peterson
Publisher:
Institutional Research Program for Higher Education for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Date: Copyright 1972
Purpose: To assist colleges and universities to define their educational goals, establish priorities among these goals, and give direction to their present and future planning
Format: Subjects respond to goal statements that represent the following subscales:
Output Goal Areas: Academic Development, Intellectual Orientation, Individual/Personal Development, Humanism/Altruism, Cultural/Esthetic, Awareness, Traditional Religiousness, Vocational Preparation, Advanced Training, Research, Meeting Local Needs, Public Service, Social Egalitarianism, and Social Criticism/Activism.
Process Goal Areas: Freedom, Democratic Goverance, Community, Intellectual/Esthetic Environment, Innovation, Off-Campus Learning, and
Accountability/Efficiency.
Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire.
College Student Experiences (CSE)
Author: C. Robert Pace
Publisher:
Higher Education Research Institute
Center for the Study of Evaluation
UCLA
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90024
N.B. Current address is IU, Bloomington, IN.
Date: Copyright 1979, Revised Edition 1983, Format Revision, 1986
Purpose: Measures the quality of effort students put into the facilities and opportunities provided for their learning and development in college.
Format: Quality of effort is measured by how often, during a current school year, students engage in various activities related to the following facilities and opportunities: Classroom, Library, Art facilities, Science/technology facilities, Student Union, Athletic and recreation facilities, Dormitory or
Fraternity/Sorority, Experiences with faculty, and Clubs and organizations.
Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire.
Student Development Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI)
Author(s): Roger B. Winston, Jr., Theodore K. Miller and Judith S. Prince
Publishers:
Student Development Associates
110 Crestwood Drive
Athens, Georgia 30605
Date: Copyright 1987 Revision of the SDTI-2.
Purpose: Designed to assist in understanding their own development and establishing goals and plans to shape their own future.
Format: Development is measured in the following areas (with associated subtasks): Establishing and Clarifying Purpose Task, Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationship Task, Academic Autonomy Task, Saubrious Lifestyle
Scale, Intimacy Scale, and a Response Bias Scale.
Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire.
Berg, B. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Burgess, R. (Ed.). (1984). Qualitative methodology and the study of education.
Lewes: Falmer Press.
Cook, T. & Reichardt, C. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Eisner, E. & Peshkin, A. (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education. The continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fielding, N. & Lee, R. (Eds.) (1991). Using computers an qualitative research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Goetz, J. & LeCompte, D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles into prattle.
London: Tavistock.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Neimeyer, G. & Resnikoff, A. (1982). Qualitative strategies in counseling
research. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(4), 75-85.
Pesch, R . (1990). Qualitative research. Analyses types and software tools. New
York: The Falmer Press.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). Creative evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
Sedman, I.E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers
in education and the social sciences. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Sherman, R. & Webb, R. (Eds.). (1988). Qualitative research in education. Focus and methods. London: The Falmer Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, S. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. The search for meaning. New York: John Wiley & Sons .
Van Maane, J. (Ed.). (1983) Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Van Maanen, J., Dabbs, J.M. & Faulkner, R.R. (l982). Varieties of qualitative
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Walker, R. (Ed.). (1985). Applied qualitative research. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Werner, O. & Schoepfle, G. (1987). Foundations of ethnograph and interviewing.
(VI). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wolcott, H. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, No. 22. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications .
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.