Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative Research and Public Policy: The Challenges of Relevance and Trustworthiness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 26))

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between qualitative research and public policy. For decades, qualitative and quantitative methodologists have debated the merits of one perspective in relation to others. Scholars, using diverse epistemological and ontological stances, have contested different beliefs about the criteria for judgment of rigorous research. Yet, such exchanges routinely ignore the unique ways in which qualitative research can inform policy. In this paper, the authors acknowledge previous examinations, and also intend to create a new discourse. The authors present the limitations of qualitative research; these limitations have historically been the justifications used by individuals to discount the use of qualitative research for policy studies. They conclude with the need to refocus on the usefulness of qualitative research and offer an evolving set of criteria for conducting policy-related research. The purpose is neither to oppose nor to diminish select methodologies; instead, it is to suggest a complimentary suite of qualitative and quantitative approaches to better investigate social issues.

We appreciate the feedback and comments of Ronn Hallett, Karri Holley, Yvonna Lincoln, Laura Perna, Susan Twombly, and Ed St. John

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative methodology (pp. 485–499). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (2010). Reflections on dimensions of interpretive adequacy in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association (2008). Definition of scientifically based research. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas, F. (1964). The central Eskimo. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgois, P., & Schonberg, J. (2009). Righteous Dopefiend. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulterman-Bos, J. A. (2008). Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice? Educational Researcher, 37(7), 412–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlyle, T. (1897). The works of Thomas Carlyle: Critical and miscellaneous essays. New York: Peter Fenelon Collier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulley, D. N. (2008). Making qualitative research reports less boring: The techniques of writing creative nonfiction. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 424–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluation criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donmoyer, R. (2000). Generalizability and the single-case study. In R. Gomm (Ed.), Case study method. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–279 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuer, M. J. (2006). Response to Bettie St. Pierre’s “Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics”. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 267–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garratt, D., & Hodkinson, P. (1998). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 515–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study and generalization. In R. Gomm (Ed.), Case study method (pp. 98–115). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2006). Assessing validity in social research. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), Handbook of social research methods (pp. 42–53). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2009a). Challenging relativism: The problem of assessment criteria. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2009b). Closing down the conversation? A reply to Smith and Hodkinson. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, M. (1997). The other America: Poverty in the United States. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henig, J. R. (2008). The evolving relationship between researchers and public policy. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 357–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenology Psychology, 25(2), 147–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). The social construction of validity. In Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M., & White, P. (2005). Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a hard place. Interchange, 17, 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after post-structuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 35, 673–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebow, E. (1995). Tell them who I am: The lives of homeless women. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). Varieties of validity: Quality in qualitative research. In J. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 25–72). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. Oxford: Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplar in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, P. A., Phillips, D. C., Erickson, F. D., Floden, R. E., Lather, P. A., & Schneider, B. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38(7), 501–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant will not wane. Education and Urban Society, 20(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, R. C. (1980). Blitzkrieg ethnography: On the transformation of a method into a movement. Educational Researcher, 9(2), 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, G. (2004). Validity, trustworthiness, and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 304–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruddin, L. P. (2006). You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(4), 797–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 125–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, J. W. (2000). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In R. Gomm (Ed.), Case study method (pp. 69–97). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. K. (1993). After the demise of empiricism: The problem of judging social and educational inquiry. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. K., & Hodkinson, P. (2009). Challenging neorealism: A response to Hammersley. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St. Pierre, E. (2006). Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 239–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, W. G., & Hallett, R. E. (2009). Writing on the margins from the center: Homeless youth and politics at the Borders. Cultural Studies <=>Critical Methodologies, 10, 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towne, L., Shavelson, R. J., & Feuer, M. J. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles in Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Education (2010). About IES: Connecting research, policy and practice. Retrieved April 07, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/aboutus/

  • Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking—and rejecting—validity in qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 121–152). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA

    William G. Tierney & Randall F. Clemens

Authors
  1. William G. Tierney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randall F. Clemens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William G. Tierney .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CEPR, 100 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN, 38152-3570, USA

    John C. Smart

  2. Dept. Educational Policy, &, Leadership Studies, University of Iowa, Lindquist Center N491, Iowa City, 52242-1529, Iowa, USA

    Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tierney, W.G., Clemens, R.F. (2011). Qualitative Research and Public Policy: The Challenges of Relevance and Trustworthiness. In: Smart, J., Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0702-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation