, 29:75 | Cite as

Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries

  • Egon G. Guba
Articles ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper:


This is the ninth ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper, preparation of which was supported by the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) Clearinghouse on Information Resources, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The material in this article was prepared pursuant to a contract with the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education. Contractors undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgment in professional and technical matters. Points of view or opinions do not necessarily represent the official view or opinion of NIE. The author is grateful to David Clark, Larry Havlicek, Robert Heinich, John McLaughlin, Cecil Miskel, and Robert Wolf for their careful critique of an earlier version of 1his paper, and to his wife, Yvonna Lincoln, from whose joint work with the author in other contexts many of the ideas expressed in this paper emanated.


Tacit Knowledge Multiple Reality Member Check Propositional Knowledge Audit Trail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Brunswik, E. Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology.Psychological Review, 1955,62, 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, Ill.: Rand Mc-Nally, 1963.Google Scholar
  3. Cronbach, L. J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist, 1975,30, 116–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denzin, N. K. The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In Norman K. Denzin (Ed.),Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. Douglas, J. D.Investigative social research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Eisner, E. W.The educational imagination. New York: Basic Books, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Geertz, C.The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L.The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine Publishing, 1967.Google Scholar
  9. Guba, E.G. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation.CSE monograph series in evaluation, No. 8. Los Angeles, Calif.: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. Guba, E. G. Naturalistic inquiry.Improving Human Performance Quarterly, 1979,8, 268–76.Google Scholar
  11. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S.Effective evaluation. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, in press.Google Scholar
  12. Gulliksen, H.Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley, 1950.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, A.The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler Publishing, 1964.Google Scholar
  14. Patton, M. Q.Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. Polanyi, M.Personal knowledge. New York: Harper & Row, 1958.Google Scholar
  16. Reinharz, S.On becoming a social scientist. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. Ruby, J. Exposing yourself: Reflexivity, anthropology, and film.Semiotica, 1980,30, 153–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwen, T. M. Professional scholarship in educational technology: Criteria for judging inquiry.AV Communication Review, 1977,25, 5–24.Google Scholar
  19. Scriven, M. Objectivity and subjectivity in educational research. In Lawrence G. Thomas (Ed.),Philosophical redirection of educational research, 71st Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  20. Scriven, M. Maximizing the power of causal investigations: The modus operandi method. In G. V. Glass (Ed.),Evaluation studies review annual, vol. 1. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Spradley, J. P.The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1979.Google Scholar
  22. Stake, R. E.Evaluating the arts in education. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L.Unobtrusive measures. Chicago, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  24. Wolf, R. L.An overview of conceptual and methodological issues in naturalistic evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif.: April 1979.Google Scholar
  25. Wolf, R. L., & Tymitz, B. Toward more natural inquiry in education.CEDR Quarterly, 1977,10, 7–9.Google Scholar
  26. Zukav, G.The dancing Wu Li masters: An overview of the new physics. New York: Bantam, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egon G. Guba
    • 1
  1. 1.Smith Research CenterIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations