paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Spiritual
1 Comment
No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences

  1. 1. PARADIGMATIC CONTROVERSIES/ CONTRADICTIONS/ AND EMERGING CONFLUENCES • Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba n our chapter for the first edition of the sharply from those undergirding conventional Handbook of Qualitative Research, we fo- social science. Second, even those est::~blished cused on the contention among various re- professionals trained in quantitative social sci-search paradigms for legitimacy and intellectual ence (including the two of us) want to learnand p;uadigmatic hegemony (Guba & Lincoln, more about qualitative approaches, because new1994). The postmodern paradigms that we dis- young professionals being mentored in graduatecussed (postmodernist critical theory and con- schools are asking serious questions about andstructivism) 1 were in contention with the re- looking for guidance in qualitatively orientedceived positivist and postpositivist paradigms studies and dissertations. Third, the number offor legitimacy, and with one another for intellec- qualitative texts, research papers, workshops,tual legitimacy. In the half dozen years that have and training materials has exploded. Indeed, itelapsed since that chapter was published, sub- would be difficult to miss the distinct turn of thestantial change has occurred in the landscape of social sciences tow::~rd more interpretive,social scientific inquiry. postmodern, and criticalist practices and theo- On the matter of legitimacy, we observe that rizing (Bloland, 1989, 1995). This nonpositivistreaders familiar with the literature on methods orientation has created a context (surround) inand paradigms reflect a high interest in which virtually no study can go unchallenged byontologies and epistemologies that differ proponents of contending paradigms. Further, it • 63
  2. 2. 164 + PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN TRANSITIONis obvious that the number of practitioners of l <J94, p. l 09. T1ble 6. l ); and second. on the i~­new-paradigm inquiry is growing d:1ily. There sues we believed were most fundamental rocan be no question that the legitimacy of differentiating the four paradigms (p. Ill, T~1blt:posrmodern paradigms is well established and at 6.2). These rabies ~Ire reproduced here :.~sa wayleast equal to the legitimacy of received and con- of re mtnding our reJ.ders of our previous srare-ventional paradigms (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). mem. The axioms defined the, On the matter of hegemony, or supremacy, eptsremologi<.al, ~md methodological bases fora,mong postmodern paradigms, it is clear that both e:.tablished .md emergent paradigms; theseGeerrzs (1988, 1993) prophecy about the :.~reshown in T.1ble 6.1. The issues most often itl"blurring of genres" is rapidly being fulfilled. In- contention that VC examined vere inquirvquiry methodo logy can no longer be treated :1s a aim, nature o f knowledge, the way knowledge isset of universally applic:1ble rul es or abstrac- accumuLtted. goodness (rigor :md v:~lid i ty) ortions. Methodology is inevitably interwoven quality l:riteria, values, ethics, voice, tr:1ining.with and emerges from the nature of particular accommodation, and hegemony; these are showndisciplines (such as sociology and psychology) in Table 6.2. An examination of these two ta-and particular perspectives (such as Marxism, bles will reacquaint the reader with our origi-feminist theory, and queer theory) . So, for in- nal Handbook treatment; more derailed infor-st:.mce, we can read feminist critical theorists mation is, of course, available in our originalsuch as Olesen (Chapter 8, this volume) or queer chapter.theorists such as Gamson (Chapter 12, this vol- Since publication of that chapter, at least oneume), or we can follow arguments about teach- set of autho rs, j ohn Herem and Peter Reason,ers as researchers (Kincheloe, 1991) while we have elaborated upor1 our tables to include theunderstand the secondary text to be teacher em- participatory/cooperative par::tdigJn (Heron,powerment and democratization of schooling 1996; Heron & Reason, 1997, pp . 2.89-290}.practices. Indeed, the various paradigms are be- Thus, in addition to the paradigms of positivism,ginning to "interbreed" such that two theorists posrposirivism, critical theory, and constructi-previously thought to be in irreconcilable con- vism, we add the participatory p::tradigm in theflict may now appear, under a different theoreti- present chapter (this is an excellent ex::tmple, wecal rubric, to be informing one anothers argu- might add, of the hermeneutic elaboration soments. A personal example is our own work, embedded in our own view, construnivism).which has been heavily influenced by action re- Our aim here is to extend the an::tlysis furthersearch practitioners and postmodern critical by building on Heron and Re:.~sons additionstheorists. Consequently, to argue thar it is para- and by rearr:1nging the issues to reflect cu rrentdigms that are in contention is probably less use- th ought. The issues we have chosen include ourful than to probe where and how paradigms ex- on ginal fo rmulations and rhe additions, revi-hibit confluence and where and how they exhibit sions, and :.~mplifications made by Heron anddifferences, controversies, and contradictions. Reason (1997), :.~nd we h:.~ve also chosen what we beln:ve robe the issues most important today. We should note rhat important means sevc::ral+ Major Issues Confronting things ru us. An important topic may be one that is widely debated (or even hotly conrested)- All Paradigms validiry is one such issue. An import::tnt issue may be o ne that bespeaks a new awareness (::m is- sue such as recognition of the role of values). AnIn our chapter in the first edition of this Hand- unportant 1ssue may be one that illustrates thebook, we presented two tables that summarized influence of one paradigm upon another (such asour positions, first, on the axiomatic nature of the influence of feminist, action rese:.~rch, criti-paradigms (the paradigms we considered at that cal theory, and participatory models on re-time were positivism, postposirivism, critical searcher .::onceptions of action within ::m d fortheory, and constructivism; Guba & Lincoln, the community in which research is carried our).
  3. 3. TABLE 6.1 Basic Belief (Metaphysics) of Alternative Inquiry Paradigms Item Positivism Postpostivism Critical Jheory eta/. Cons/ me I i vism ~-- --- ----- Ontology Naive realism- "rcal" C ritical realism-"real" reality Hisrorical real ism-virtual reality Relar i v ism-local reality but apprehendable but only imperfecrly and shaped by social, political, cultural, :llJJ spe.:ific con- probabilistically apprehendable economic, ethnic, and gender value~; structed realities crystallized over rime -------- Epistemology Dualist/obje cr iv isr; Modified dualist/objectivist; Transacrional/subjecti vist; value- Tramacrional/ findings true critical traditio n/community; mediated find ings subjectivist/ findings probably true crc:ared findings Methodology Expt:rimenral/ Modified ex perimental/ Dialogic/dialecrio.:al Hermeneurical/ manipulative; verification manipulative; critical mulriplism; di~1lecrical of hypotheses; chietly falsification of hypothesc:s; may quantitative methods include qualitative methods•()Vl
  4. 4. 0o, TABLE 6.2 Paradigm Positions on Selected Practical Issues• . Item Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theory et ul. Cu11struct ivi sm Inquiry aim explanation: prediction and control critique :md transfo rmati on; understanding; reconstructio n restitmion and em:tnc1pation Nature of knowledge verified hypotheses establi shed nonb.lsified hypotheses that StnJCtural/ historical insights individual reconstructions :ISfacts o r laws are probable facts o r bws coalesci ng cuound cumemu> Knowledge accumubtion accrction- "building blocks " adding to "edifice of knowledge"; hisroric:~l revisionism; gc·neral· 111urc iniurmcd a nd sophist!· gcncraliz.uions :111d c:lllsc-dfcct linkages izat io n by si nlibri ty l..a tc.:d; Vh.:arilHI!I experience Goodness or q11ality criteria conventional bmchm:trks oi "rigor": internal :tnd historic:tl situatcdncss; crosiun trustworrhiness and external validity, reliability, and objectivity of ignorance a nd misapprchcn· authenticity sion; action stimul11s V:tlues excluded-influence denied indudcd- iorm:Jtive Ethics cxtrimic: tilt row:trd deception intrinsic: moral tilt toward intrmsic: process tilt wward revdation revelation; special prublerm Voice "disinterested scicmist" JS informer of d~cision makers, transformative intellectual" "passionate participant" a~ fa- policy makers, and change agents as :tdvocatc and activist cilitator oi multivoicc reco n- struction Ji-aining technical and quantitative; technical; qua mitativc and resoci aliz:~ ti un; qtJJlnative and qu:m titative; hiswry; substantive theories qualitative; substantive values oi altnmm and empowcrmelll theories Accommodation commensurable i 11COillll1ellSUr:~bJe Hegemony in comrul ui publication, funding, promotion, and tenure seeking rL·cugniti on a11d input l ~-- - --- - - -
  5. 5. fJaradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences + 16 7Or issues· rn:1y be import:Jnt because new or ex- research will find echoes of many stre:.tms ofte nded theoretic::ll tnd/or field-oriented treat- thought come together in the extended table.ments for them are newly nailable-voice and What this means is that the categories, as Laurelretlexiviry are rwo such issues. Richardson (personal co mmunication, Septem- Taole 6.3 reprises the original Table 6.1 bur ber 12, 1998) has pointed out, "are fl uid, indeedad ds the axioms of the participatory paradigm what should be a category keeps altering, enlarg-proposed by Heron and Reason (1997). Table ing." She notes that "even JS [we] write, the6.4 deals wit~ seven issues and represents an boundaries between rhe paradigms are shifting."update of sele.:red issues first presented in the This is the paradigmatic equ ivalent of theold Table 6.2. "Voice" in the 1994 version of Ta- Geerrzian "blurring of genres" to which we re-ble 6.2 h::ts been renamed "inquirer posture," ferred earlier.and a redefined "voice" has been inserted in the Our own position is that o f the constructio n isrcurrent Table 6.5. In all cJses except "inquirer camp, loosely defined. We do nor believe that cri-posture," the entries for the Ptrticiparory para- teria for judging either "reality" or validity aredigm are those proposed by Heron and Reason; absolutist (Bradley & Schaefer, 1998), but ratherin rhe one case not covered by them, we have are derived from community consensus regard-Jdded a notation that we believe c::tptures their ing what is "real," what is useful, and what hasintention. meaning (especially meaning for action and fur- Xe make no ::tttempr here to reprise the ma- ther steps). We believe that a goodly portion ofterial well discussed in our earlier Handbook social phenomena consists of the meaning-chapter. Instead, we focus solely on the issues in making activities of groups and individuals around those phenomena. The meaning-makinghble 6.5: axiology; ::tccommodarion and com- activities themselves are of central interest to so-mensurability; action; control; foundations of cial constructionists/constructivists, simply be-truth and knowledge; validity; and voice, re- cause it is the meaning-making/sense-making/Hexivity, and postmodern textual representa- attributional activities that shape action (or inac-tion. We believe these seven issues to be the tion). The meaning-making activities themselvesmost important at this time. can be changed when they are found to be incom- While we believe these issues to be the most plete, faulty (e.g., discriminatory, oppressive, orcontentious, we ::tlso believe they create the in- nonliberatory), or malformed (created from datatellectual, theoretical, and practical space for that can be shown to be false).dialogue, consensus, and confluence to occur. We have tried, however, to incorporate per-There is great potential for interweaving of spectives from other major nonpositivist para-viewpoints, for the incorporation of multiple digms. This is nor a complete summation; spaceperspe.:rives, and for borrowing or bricolage, constraints prevent that. What we hope to do inwh~:re borrowing seems useful, richness en- this chapter is to acquaint readers with the largerhancing, or theoretically heuristic. For in- currents, arguments, dialogues, and provocativesr::~nce, even though we ::tre ourselves social writings and theorizing, the better to see perhaps onstructivists/contructionists, our call to ac- what we ourselves do not even yet see: where ::tnd tion embedded in rhe authenticity criteria we when confluence is possible, where constructive elaborated in Fourth Generation Evaluation rapprochement might be negotiated, where (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) reflects strongly the voices are beginning to ::tchieve some harmony. bent to action embodied in critical theorists perspectives. And although Heron and Reason have elaborated a model they call rhe coopera-tive paradigm, careful reading of their proposal + kdology reveals a form of inquiry that is post- posrposirive, postmodern, and criricalisr in ori- ent::ttion. As a result, the reader familiar with Earlier, we pbced values on the tab le as an "is-several theoretical and paradigmatic strands of sue" on which positivists o r pheno menologists
  6. 6. ()co TABLE 6.3 Basic Beliefs of Altern:nive Inquiry Paradigms-Updated• Issue Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theory et a/. Constructilism Participatory a Ontology na·ive rcalism-·real" critical realism-"real" historical realism- relativism-local and participative realiry- reality bnr reality bnt only imper- virrual reality shaped specific constructed subjective-objecti ve appn.:hendable fectly and by social, political, cul- realities reality, cocreated by probabilisrically tural, economic, ethnic, mind and given cosmos apprehendable and gender values crys- tallized over time Epistemology dualist/objectivist; modified Transactional/ Transactional/ critical subjectivity in findings true dualist/objectivist; subjectivist; value- subjectivist; created participatory transaction critical tradition/ mediated findings findings with cosmos; extended community; findings epistemology of experi- probably true ential, propositional , and practical knowing; cocreated findings Methodology experimental/manipula- modified experimen- dialogic/dialectic hermeneutic/dialectic political participation in tive; verification of tal/manipulative; critical collaborative action in- hypotheses; chiefly multiplism; falsification quiry; primacy of the quantitative methods of hypotheses; may practical; use of lan- include qualitative guage grounded in methods shan~d experiential con- text a. Entries in rhis column are ha>eJ on Heron and Kc as on ( 19 97 ).
  7. 7. Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences + 169mighr h.1ve cl "posture (Cuba & Lincoln, "sacrrJ science" and human functioning find 198 . 199-f; Linco ln &·Cuba, 19H5). Fortu- leginmacy; it is ;1 place where Laurel Richard-n c~rel·, we rese rved for ourselves the right to ei- sons sacred spaces" become authori tative siresther get snurter or just clunge our minds. Y/e for human inquiry; it is a place-or the place-did both. tow, we suspect (although Table 6.3 where the spiritual meers social inquiry, as Rea-~ioes not yet reflect it) rhar "axiology" should be son ( 1993 ), and later Lincoln and Denzin ( 1994 )," t o uped with "bJsic beliefs." In Naturalistic In- proposed some years earlier.cJttiry (Lincoln, & Cuba, 1985), we coveredsome o r the ways in which values feed into theinquiry process: choice of rh..: problem, choice + Accommodation andoi p;1radigm to guide the problem, choice ofrheo rerical framework, choice of major Commensurabilitydau-garhering and clara-analytic methods,:.:hoice o f context, treatment of values alreadyresident within the con•exr, and choice of for- Positivists and postpositivists alike still occasi on-m::~t(s) for pr..:seming findings. We believed ;Illy argue that paradigms are, in some ways, com-those were strong enough reasons to argue for mensurable; that is, they can be retrofitted tothe inclusion of values as a major point of de- each other in ways that make the simultaneouspJrture between positivist, conventional modes practice of both possible. We have argued that atof inquiry and interpretive forms of inquiry. the paradigmatic, or philosophical, level, com- A second "reading" of the burgeoning litera- mensurability between positivist and postposi-ture and subsequent rethinking of our own ra- tivist worldviews is not possible, but that withintio!)ale have led us to conclude that the issue is each paradigm, mixed methodologies (strategies)much larger than we first conceived. If we had it may make perfectly good sense (Cuba & Lincoln,to do all over again, we would make values or, 1981, 1982, 1989, 1994; Lincoln & Cuba,more correctly, axiology (the branch of philoso- 1985). So, for instance, in Effective Evaluationphy dealing with ethics, aesthetics, and reli- we argued:gion) a part of the basic foundational philo-sophical dimensions of paradigm proposal. The guiding inqu iry paradigm most appropri:~t~Doing so would, in our opinion, begin to help to responsive evaluation is .. . the naturalistic,us see the embeddedness of ethics within, not phenomenological, or ethnographic paradigm. Itexternal to, paradigms (see, for instance, Chris- will be seen that qualitative techniques are typi-tians, Chapter 5, this volume) and would con- cally most appropri:ne to support this approach.tribute to the consideration of and dialogue Th~re are times. however, when the issues and concerns voiced by audiences require inforrrla-about the role of spirituality in human inquiry. tion that is best generated by more co nventionalArguably, a.xiology has been " defined out of" methods, especially quantitative methods .... Inscientific inquiry for no larger a reason than such cases, the responsive conventional evaluatorthat it also concerns "religion." But defining ) will not shrink from the appropri:ttc application. religion" broadly ro encompass spirituality (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p. 36)wo uld move constructivists closer to partici-pative inquirers and would move critical theo- As we tried to make clear, the "argument"rists closer to both (owing to their concern with arising in the social sciences was not aboutliber::~tion from oppression and freeing of the method, although many critics of the new natu-human spirit, both profoundly spiritual con- ralistic, ethnographic, phenomenological, and/orcerns). The expansion of basic issues to include case study approaches assumed it was. 2 As late asa.xiology, then, is one way ro achieving greater 1998, Weiss could be found to claim that "Someconfluence among the various interpretivist in- evaluation theorists, notably Cuba and Lincolnquiry models. This is the place, for example, (1989), hold that it is impossible to combine qual-where Peter Reasons profound concerns with itative and quantitative approaches responsibly (Continued on p. 174)
  8. 8. 23 IJ TABLE 6.4 Paradigm Positions on Selc:cted Issues-Updated• ! •• Issue Positivism Postpositivism Critical 111eory et al. Cunst mctivism l<micipatur/ Nature of verified hyporlu:ses nonfalsified hypotheses strucrural!historical indi vidual reconstruc- extended epistemology: knowledge established as facts that are probable facts insights tions coalescing around primacy of practical or laws or laws consensus knowing; critical sub- jectivity; li ving knowl - edge Knowledge accretion-building blocks" adding to "edifice historical revisionism; more informed and in comm unities of in- accumulation of knowledge"; generalizations and cause-effect generalization by sophisticated recon - quiry embedded in linkages similarity structions; vicarious communities of prac- expenen..:e tice Goodness or conventional benchmarks of "rigor": internal and historical situatedness; trustworthiness and congruence of experi- quality criteria external validity, reliability, and objectivity erosion of ignorance authenticity ential, presentational, and misapprehensions; propositional, and action stimulus practical knowing; leads to action to trans- form the world in the service of human flour- ishing Values excluded-influence dtnied inc! uded-formati ve Ethics Extrinsic-tilt intrinsic-moral tilt intrinsic-process tilt roward revelati o n toward deception toward revelation
  9. 9. inquirer posture disinrerested scientist" rransformative "passionate partici - prinury vo ice manifest as informer of decision intellectual" as pant" as facili tator of through aware ~eli-r e ­ makers, policy makers, advocate and activist mulrivoice reconstruc- flective acti on; second- and change agents non ary voi..:es in illuminat- ing theory, narrative, movement, song, dance, and other pres- entational fonm Training technical and technical, quantitative, resocial ization; qualitative and quantitative; coresearchers are initi- quantitative; and qualitative; history; values of altruism and empowerment ated into the inquiry substantive theories substantive theories process by facilita- tor/ researcher and learn thro ugh active engagement in the pro- cess; facili tator/re- searcher requires emo- tional competence, democratic personality and skills a. Entri.:s in rhis column arc based on Heron and Reason (1997), exc.:pt for "ethics" and values."•---.1
  10. 10. .,::::::::!::!~Slll-=:l::ll:.::::==:.:llli::.:":;.:; · . ,._ ...... .. "E z= -2-...::J..--JtO TABLE 6.5 Critical Issues of the Time• Issue Positivism Postpositivism Critical Th~ory et a/. Const met ivis111 Hnticif·ltory Axiology Propositional knowing about the world is an Propositional, transactional knowing is instrn- Practical knowing end in itself, is intrinsically valuable. mentally valuable as a means to social emanci- about how to flourish pation, which as an end in itself, is intrinsically with a balance of au- valuable. ronomy, cooperation, and hierarchy in a cul- ture is an end in itself, is intrinsically valuable. Accommodation and commensurable for all positivist forms incommensurable with positivist forms; some commensurability with commensurability constructivist, criticalist, and participatory approaches, especially as they merge in liberationist approaches outside the West Action no t the responsibility of the researcher; found especially in the intertwined with validity; inquir y often viewed as "advocacy " or subjectivity, and form of empowerment; incomplete without action on the parr of therefore a threat ro validity and objectivity emancipation antici- participants; constructivist formulation pated and hoped for; mandates training in political action if social transformation, participants do not understand political particularly toward systems more equity and justice, is end goal Control resides solely in n:searcher often resides in shared between shared to varri ng "transfo rmati ve inrel- inquirer and degrees lecrual "; in new con- parricip:lllts structions, control re- turns ro community
  11. 11. Rebrionship w foun- tuundational foundational foundational within :illtittJl!lld.ltitJJl:l l lltJII [, HII hi.ll lt ll!.d clarions of truth and social critiqu~ knowl~dge Exr~nded consider- traditional positivist constructi ons of validity; action stimulus extended comtrucrir)Jis see ··a.:rtoll" above ations o f validiry rigor, internal validity, external validity, (see above); social of validity: (a) crystal- (goodness criteria) reliability, objectivity transformation, line val idity (Richard- equity, social justice son); (b) aurhemicity criteria (Guba & Lin- coln); (c) catalytic, rhizomatic, voluptuous validiri~s (Lather); (d) relational and eth- ics-centered criteria (Lincoln); (e) commu- nity-center~d determi- nations of validity Voice, reflexivity, voice of the researcher, principally; reflexivity voices mixed between voice> mixed, with vo ices mixed; textual posrmodern textual may be considered a problem in objectivity; researcher and parricipants voices representation Llrel ) representations textual represt:nrarion unproblematic and participants sometimes dom inant; discussed, bm prob- somewhat formulaic reflexivity serious and lematic; refl exivity re- problematic; textual lies on critical subjec- represelltation an tivity and extended issue self-awareness Textual representation practices may be problematic-i.e., " fiction formulas," or unexamined "regi mes of truth"•--..1 ~--------- -----~w
  12. 12. : 7 4 + PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN TRA1"lSITIONwithin an evaluation" (p. 268), even though we els, because the axioms are co ntrad icto ry ,tnJstJted e:.~rly on in Fourth Gt!neration Evaluation mutually exclusive.(1989) that those claims, concerns and issues that have not been resolved become rhe advance organizers for • The Call to Action information collectio n by rhe evaluator. ... The information may be quantitMive or qualitative. Responsive evaluation does not rule out quanti- tative modes, as is mist:1kenly believed by many, but deals with whatever information is respon- One of the clearest ways in which the paradig- sive ro the unresolved claim, concern, or issue. matic controversies can be demo nstrated is to (p. 43) compare the positivist and postp ositivist ~ldher ­ ents, who view action as a form of contamtna-We h:.~J also strongly Jsscrted earlier, in Natural- tion of research results and processes, and th eistic Inquiry (1985), that interpretivists, who see action on research re- sults as a meaningful and important outcome o f ! qualitative methods are stressed within the natu- inquiry processes. Positivist adherents believe ralistic paradigm nor because the paradigm is action to be either a form of advocacy or a fo rm antiquantitative bur because qualitative methods come more easily to the human-as-instrument. of subjectivity, either or both of which under- The reader should particularly note the absence mine the aim of objectivity. Critical theorists, of an antiquantitative stance, precisely because on the other hand, have always advocated vary- the naturalistic and conventional paradigms are ing degrees of social action, from the overturning so often-mistakenly--equated with the qualita- of specific unjust practices to radical transfo rma- ttve and quantitative paradigms, respectively. In- deed, there are many opportunities for the natu- tion of entire societies. The call fo r action- ralistic investigator to utilize quantitative whether in terms of internal transfo rmatio n, data-probably more than are appreciated. such as ridding oneself of false consciousness, o r (pp. 198-199; emphasis added) of external social transformation-differenti- ates between positivist and postmodern criti- Having demonstrated that we were not then calist theorists (including fem inist and queer(and are not now) talking about an antiquan- theorists).titJtive posture or the exclusivity of methods, The sharpest shift, however, has been in thebut rather the philosophies of which paradigms constructivist and participatory pheno meno lo -are constructed, we can ask the question again gical models, where a step beyond interp retatio nregarding commensurability: Are paradigms and Verstehen, or understanding, toward socia lcommensurable? Is it possible ro blend elements action is probably one of the most co nceptuallvof one paradigm intO another, so that one is en- interesting of the shifrs (Lincoln, 1997, 19:!8a.gaging in research that represents the best of 1998b). For some theorists, the shift toward ~~c­both worldviews? The answer, from our per- tion came in response to widespread nonut i-spective, has to be a cautious yes. This is espe- lization o f evaluation findings and the desire tocially so if the models (paradigms) share axiom- create forms o f evaluation that wou ld attractatic elements that are similar, or that resonate champions who might follow through on rec-strongly between them. So, for instance, positiv- ommendations with meaningfu l action plamism and postpositivism are clearly commensura- (Guba & Lincoln, 1981, 1989). For others, em-ble. In the same vein, elements of inter- bracing actio n came as both a political and anpretivist/postmodern critical theory, constructi- ethical commitment (see, for instance, in thisvist and participative inquiry fit comfortably to- volume, Greenwood & Levin, Chapter 3; Chris-gether. Commensurability is an issue only when tians, Chapter 5; Tierney, Chapter 20; see alsoresearchers want to "pick and choose" among Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Schratz & Walker,the axioms of positivist and interpretivist mod- 1995).
  13. 13. r,zradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences • I :) Vh ~uever the source of the problem to from voice, reflexivity, and issues of textual rep-which inquirers wae responding, the shift to- resentation, because each of those issues in someward connecting resear,ch, policy analysis, eval- way threatens claims to rigor (particularly objec-u;uion, and/or soci:tl deconstruction (e.g., de- tivity and validity). For new-paradigm inquirersconstruction of the patri~m:hal forms of who have seen the preeminent paradigm issues ofo pp ression in social structures, which is the ontology <1nd epistemology effectively foldedproject informing much feminist theorizing, or into one another, and who luve watched as meth-deconstruction of the homophobia embedded odology and axiology logically folded into onein public policies) with <1ction has come ro char- another (Lincoln, 1995, 1997), control of an in-<.!Cterize much new-paradigm inquiry work, quiry seems far less problematic, except insobrboth at the theoretic<.!! and <1t the practice and as inquirers seek to obt:tin participants genuinepraxis-oriented levels. Action has become a ma- particip<ltion (see, for instance, Guba & Lincoln,jor controversy that limns the ongoing debates 1981, on contracting and attempts to get someamong practitioners of the various paradigms. stakeholding groups to do more than stand byThe mandate for social action, especially action while an ev:duation is in progress) .designed and created by and for research partic- Critical theorists, especially those who worktpants with the aid and cooperation of research- in community organizing programs, are painfullyers, can be most sharply delineated between aware of the necessity for members of the com-positivist/postpositivist and new-paradigm in- munity, or research participants, to take controlquirers. Many positivist and postpositivist in- of their futures. Constructivists desire partici-quirers still consider "action" the domain of pants to take an increasingly active role in nomi-communities other than researchers and re- nating questions of interest for any inquiry and insearch participants: those of policy personnel, designing outlets for findings to be shared morelegislators, and civic and political officials. widely within and outside the community. Partic-Hard-line foundationalists presume that the ipatory inquirers understand action controlledtaint of action will interfere with, or even ne- by the local context members to be the aim of in-gate, the objectivity that is a (presumed) charac- quiry within a community. For none of theseteristic of rigorous scientific method inquiry. paradigmatic adherents is control an issue of ad- vocacy, a somewhat deceptive term usually used as a code within a larger metanarrarive to attack an inquirys rigor, objectivity, or fairness. Rather,+ Control for new-paradigm researchers control is a means of fostering emancipation, democracy, and com- munit} empowerment, and of redressing powerAnother controversy that has tended to become imbalances such that those who were pn:viouslyproblematic centers on control of the study: marginalized now achieve voice (Mertens, 1998)Who initiates? Who determines salient ques- or "human flourishing" (Hero n & Reason,tions? Who determines what constitutes find- 1997).ings? Who determines how data will be col- Control as a controversy is an e.(cellent place lected? Who determines in what forms the to observe the phenomenon that we have alwaysfindings will be made public, if at all? Who de- termed "Catholic questions directed to a Meth-termines what representations will be made of odist audience." We use this descriptio n-givenparticipants in the research? Let us be very to us by a workshop participant in the earlyclear: The issue of control is deeply embedded 1980s- to refer to the ongoing problem of ille-in the questions of voice, reflexivity, and issues gitimate questions: questions that have no mean-of postmodern textual representation, which ing because the frames of reft:rence are those forwe shall take up later, but only for new-para- which they were never intended. (We could asdigm inquirers. For more conventional inquir- well call these "Hindu questions to a Muslim," toe rs, the issue of control is effectively walled off give another sense of how paradigms, or over-
  14. 14. 17 6 + PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN TRANSITION .arching philosophies-or theologies-are in- kn own "objectivel y" is o nl y the objective realm. True knowledge is limi ted to the ob jec ts and thecommensurable, and how questions in one rdati onships between them rh :lt exist in theframework make little, if any, sense in another.) realm of time and sp:~ce. Human co nscio usness,Paradigmatic formulations interact such that which is subjective, is not accessible to science.control becomes inextricably intertwined with and thus not truly knowable. (p. 23)mandates for objectivity. Objectivity derivesfrom the Enlightenment prescription for knowl- Now, tempbtes of truth and knowledge canedge of the physical world, which is postulatedto be separate and distinct from those who be defined in a variety of ways-as the end prod-would know (Polkinghorne, 1989). But if uct of ration:1l processes, as the result o f experi-knowledge of the social (as opposed to the phys- enti:Il sensing, as the result of empirical observa-ical) world resides in meaning-making mecha- tion, and others. In all cas es, however, thenisms of the social, mental, and linguistic worlds referent is the physical or empiric:.d world: ratio-that individuals inhabit, then knowledge cannot nal engagement with it, experience of it, empiri- cal observation of it. Realists, who work on thebe separate from the knower, but rather isrooted in his or her mental or linguistic designa- assumption that there is a "real" world "out there," may in individual cases also be founda-tions of that world (Polkinghorne, 1989; Salner, tionalists, taking the view that all of these ways1989). of defining are rooted in phenomena existing outside the human mind. Although we can think about them, experience them, or observe them,+ Foundations ofTruth and they are nevertheless transcendent, referred to Knowledge in Paradigms but beyond direct apprehension. Realism is an ontological question, whereas foundationalism is a criteria! question. Some foundationalists ar-Whether or not the world has a "real" existence gue that real phenomena necessarily imply cer-outside of human experience of that world is an tain final, ultimate criteria for testing them asopen question . For modernist (i.e., Enlighten- truthful (although we may have great difficultyment, scientific method, conventional, positiv- in determining what those criteria are); non-ist) researchers, most assuredly there is a "real" foundationalists tend to argue that there are noreality "out there," apart from the flawed human such ultimate criteria, only those that we canapprehension of it. Further, that reality can be agree upon at a certain time and under certainapproached (approximated) only through the conditions. Foundational criteria are discov-utilization of methods that prevent human con- ered; nonfoundational criteria are negotiated. Ittamination of its apprehension or comprehen- is the case, however, that most realists are alsosion. For foundationalists in the empiricist tradi- foundationalists, and many nonfoundationaliststio n, the foundations of scientific truth and or antifoundational!sts are relativists.knowledge about reality reside in rigorous appli- An ontological formulation rhat connects re-cation of testing phenomena against a template alism and foundational ism within rhe same " col-as much devoid of human bias, misperception, lapse" of categories that characterizes the onto-and other " idols" (Francis Bacon, cited in logical-epistemological collapse is one thatPolkinghorne, 1989) as instrumentally possible . exhibits good fit with the other assumptions ofAs Polkinghorne ( 1989) makes clear: constructivism. That state of affairs suits new- paradigm inquirers well. Critical theorists, The idea that the objectiv~ realm is independ~nt constructivists, and participatory/cooperative oi the knowers subjective ~xperienccs of it can inquirers take their primary field of interest to be found in Descartess dual substance theory, with its distinction between the objective and be precisely that subjective and inrersubjective subjective realms . . .. In the splitting oi reality social knowledge and the active construction into subject and object realms, what can b~ and cocreation of such knowledge by human
  15. 15. PllrJdigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences + .~ ~ I , : (5 uur i$ produced bv hunun conscious- /ogical-"expos[ing] the origi ns of the view that Further. nc:w-p.:tr.:tdigrn inquirc:rs take to have become sedimented and accepted as ·i.J knLm!edge fie ld with zest. informt:d truths" (Polkinghorne, l98Y, p. 42; emphasis .l un tv at tntdlenu:tl. and theore ti- added)-or archaeological (Foucault, [ 97[ ; .::al e"~;plor Jrt ons. These theo retical excursions Scheurich, 1997) . -ludc SJussuri:m linguistic theo rv, wh tch New-paradigm inqutrcrs engage tht:: founda- ~ J.ll rdJ.,ionships benveen words and what tional controversy in quitt:: d ifferent ways. Criti- hOSl" words signifv as the function o f an inter- cal theorists, particularly ..:ritical theo rists more relationship with in some linguistic svstcm; positivist in orientation, who lean toward ercr.~rv rhc:o rv · de..:o nstructi ve contributions, .Vbrxian interpretations, te nd toward founda- h1.:h. ·c:t"k .ro disconnect texts from :my tional perspectives, with an important diffe"- r c:ssc"tiJiisc 0t rr:mscendental meaning and ence. Rather than locating foundational truth rn• uart" rhem within borh author and reader and knowledge in some external re::t lity "out hL t rio l .mJ social contexts (Hutcheon, 1989; there, " such critical theorists tend to locate the Le 11ch . !9 96) ; feminist (Addelson, 1993; fo undations of truth in specific historical, eco- .-lpern ..nrlc:r, Perry, & Scobie, 1992; Babbitt, nomic, racial, and social infrastructures of op- ! 993 ; HJrding, 1993), race and ethnic (Kondo, pression, injustice, and marginalization. Knowers 1q~o. 1997; Trinh, 1991), and queertheorizing are not portr::~yed as separate from some objective (GJ.mson, Chapter 12, this volume), which seek re::~lity, but may be cast as unaware actors in such ro uncova :111d explort: varieties of oppression historical realities ("blse consciousness") or md hisrori<.:al colonizing between dominant aware of historical forms of oppression, but un-· and sub:dtern genders, identities, races, and so- able or unwilling, because of conflicts, to act on cial worlds; the postmodern historical moment those historical forms to alter specific conditions (Michael, 1996), which problematizes truth as in this historical moment ("divided conscious- partial, identity as fluid, language as an unclear ness"). Thus the "foundation" for critical theo- referent system, and method and criteria as po- rists is a duality: social critique tied in turn to tentially coercive (Ellis & Bochner, 1996); and raised consciousness of the possibility of positive cnticalist theories of social change (Car- ::~nd liberating social change. Socia! critique may specke n, 1996; Schratz & Walker, 1995). The exist apart from soci::~l change, but both are nec- realization of the richness o f the mental, social, essary for criticalist perspectives. psycho logical, :111d linguistic worlds that indi- Constructivists, on the other h:md, tend to- viduJls and social groups create and constantly ward the antifoundational (Lincoln, 1995, re-neate and cocreate gives rise, in the minds of 1998b; Schwandt, 1996). Anti(ozmdational is the r.ew-paradigm postmodern and poststructural term used to denote a refusal ro adopt any perma- mquirers, ro endlessly fertile fields of inquiry nent, unvarying (o r "foundational") standards by rigidly walled off from conventional inquirers. which truth can be universally known. As one of L:nfertered from the pursuit of transcendental us has argued, truth-and any agreement regard- ··ctemiric truth. inquirers c tre now free to ing what is valid know ledge-arises from the re- rcsi rua re the mselves within texts, to reconstruct lationship berween members of some stake- their relationships with resectrch pJrticipants in holdingcommunity (Lincoln, 1995) . Agreements les constricted fashions, and to create re-pre- about truth may be the subject of community ne- sentations (Tierney & Lincoln, 1997) that grap- gotiations regarding what will be accepted :IS ple openly with problems of inscription, truth (although there are di ffi culties with that ret nscription, metanarratives, and other rhetor- formulation as well; Cuba & Lincoln, 1989). Or ical devices that obscure the extem w which hu- agreements may eventuate as the result of a dia - man action is locally and temporally shaped. logtte that moves arguments about truth claims or The processes o f uncovering forms of inscrip- validity past the warring camps of objectivity and :lo n J.nd the rheto ric o f metan::trratives isgenea- relativity toward "a communal test o f validity
  16. 16. 178 + PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN TRAJ.ISITIONrhr~ugh the :1rgumentation of the participants in taring construct. one neither e~tsi!y d is misseda discourse (Bernstein, 1983; Polkinghorne, nor re::tdilv configured by new-p::tr::td igm practi- 1989; Schwandt, 1996). This "communicative tioners (Enerstvedt, 1989; Tschudi, 19 . Va-and pragmatic concept" of validity (Rorty, 1979) lidity cannot be dismissed simply because itis never fixed or unvarying. Rather, it is created points to a question that has to be anowered inby means of a community narrative, itself subject one way or another: Are these findings suffi-to the temporal and historical conditions that ciently authentic (isomorphic to 5ome realitv,gave rise to the community. Schwandt (1989) trustworthy, related to the way others constructhas also argued thar these discourses, or commu- their social worlds) that [may trust mvseif in act-nity narratives, can and should be bounded by ing on their implications) .v!ore to the poim.moral considerations, a premise grounded in the would I feel sufficiently secure about these finci-emancipatory narratives of the critical theorists, ings ro construct social policy or legislatio nrhe philosophical pragmatism of Rorty, the dem- based on them? At the s:~me time. r::tdical<Jcratic focus of constructivist inquiry, and the reconfigurations of validity leave researchers"human flourishing" goals of participatory and with multiple, sometimes conflicting, mandatescooperative inquiry. for what constitutes rigorous research. The controversies around foundationalism One of the issues around validity is the co n-(and, to a lesser extent, essentialism) are not t1ation between method and interpretation. Thelikely to be resolved through dialogue between postmodern turn suggests that no method c1nparadigm adherents. The likelier event is that the deliver on ultimate truth, and in fact "suspects"postmodern turn" (Best & Kellner, 1997), with all methods," the more so the larger their claimsits emphasis on the social construction of social to delivering on truth (Richardson, 1994). Thus,reality, fluid as opposed to fixed identities of the although one might argue that some methodsself, and the partiality of all truths, will simply are more suited than others for conducting re-overtake modernist assumptions of an objective search on human construction of social realitiesreality, as indeed, to some extent, it has already (Lincoln & Cuba, 1985), no one would arguedone in the physical sciences. We might predict that a single method-or collection of meth-that, if not in our lifetimes, at some later time the ods-is the royal road to ultimate knowledge. lndualist idea of an objective reality suborned by new-paradigm inquiry, however, it is not merelylimited human subjective realities will seem as method that promises to deliver on some set ofquaint as flat-earth theories do to us today. local or context-grounded truths, it is also the processes of interpretation. Thus we have two arguments proceeding simultaneously. The fir st. borrowed from positivism, argues for a kind of+ Validity: An rigor in the application of method, whereas the Extended Agenda second argues for both a community consenr and a form of rigor-defensible reasoning. plau- sible alongside some other reality that is knownNowhere can the conversation about paradigm ro author and reader-in ascribing S< llience rodifferences be more fertile than in the extended one interpretation over an other and fo r framingcontroversy about validity (Howe & Eisenhart, and bounding :m interpretive study itself. Prior1990; Kvale, 1989, 1994; Ryan, Greene, Lin- to our understanding that there were. indeed.coln, Mathiso n, & Mertens, 1998; Scheurich, two forms of rigor, we assembled a set of meth-1994, 1996). Validity is nor like objectivity. odological criteria, largely borrowed from anThere are fairly strong theoretical, philosophi- earlier generation of thoughtful anthropologicalcal, and pragmatic rationales for examining the and sociological methodological theorists.concept of objectivity and finding it wanting. Those methodological criteria are srilluseful fo rEven within positivist frameworks it is viewed as a variety of reasons, nor the least of whi ch is rharconceptually flawed. But validity is a more irri- they ensure that such issues as prolonged en-
  17. 17. PJr,zdigmJtic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences + 17C aZOC~Ilr J nd persistent obserntion are at- radical-is a conversation opened by Schwandt ro ith some seriousness. (1996), who suggests that we say "farewell to rhe se.:onJ kind or rigor, however, that criteriology," o r the "regubtive no rms for re- rn,""rl eJ the most ,1 rcenrion in re.:e nt writ- moving doubt and settling disputes about what is : Are we inurpreth·lfl) rigorous? Can o ur correct or incorrect, true or false" (p. 59) , which ::rc.ln-J consrm.:rions be trusted ro provide have created a virtual cult around criteria. me purch.lSe on some imporranr human phe- Schwandt does nor, however, himselr say fare- well ro criteria forever; rather, he resituates social cnon: 1 Hum.m phenomena are themselves the sub- inquiry, with other contemporary philosophic:ll ~ 0 ( <:Llntroversy. Cbssical social ~.cientists pragmatists, within a framework that trJnsforms JJ !Ike ro see "human phenomena hmtted professional social inquiry into a form of practi- bo~ - .::t.ll experiences from which (scien- cal philosophy, characterized by "aesthetic, p~u­ .:) cneraliz.1tions nuv be drawn. New-para- dential and moral considerations :~s well as more 1nqll!rers. ho wever, are mcreasingly con- conventionally scientific ones" (p. 6B). When so- .. rrned with the single experience, the cial inquiry becomes the practice of a form o f mdl td uJl crisis, th<:: epiphany or moment of practical philosophy-a deep questioning about - 0 , ery, with that most powerful of all threats how we shall get on in the world, and what we r con,·enrionJl objectivity, feeling and emo- conceive to be the potentials and limits of human non. Scxial scientists concerned with the ex- knowledge and functioning-then we have some p,m.slon of what count as sociJl data rely in- preliminary understanding of what entirely dif- crn.singly on the experiential, the embodied, ferent criteria might be for judging social inquiry. he emotive qmlities of human experience that Schwandt ( 1996) proposes three such criteria .• conuibute the narrative quality to a life. Sociol- First, he argues, we should search for a social in- og»ts such as Ellis and Bochner (see Chapter quiry that "generate[s] knowledge that comple- 28, this volume) and Richardson (see Chapter ments or supplements rather than displac[ing]lay 36, this volume) and psychologists such as probing of social problems," a form of knowl- Michelle Fine (see Fine, Weis, Weseen, & edge for which we do not yet have the content, Wong, Chapter 4, this volume) concern them- but from which we might seek to understand the seh·es with various forms of autoethnography aims of practice from a variety of perspectives, or .tnd personal experience methods, both to over- with different lenses. Second, he proposes a "so·- come rhe abstractions of a social science far cial inquiry as practical philosophy" that has as one with quantitative descriptions of human its aim "enhancing or cultivating critical intelli- life and to capture those elements that make life gence in parties to the research encounter," criti- ontli tual, moving, problematic. cal intelligence being defined as "the capacity to For purposes of this discussion, we be- engage in moral critique." And finally, he pro- lieve the adoption of the most radical defini- poses a third way in which we might judge social nons of social science are appropriate, be- inquiry as practical philosophy: We might make use the paradigmatic controversies are often judgments about the social inquirer-as-practi- nmg place at the edges of those conversations. cal-philosopher. He or she might be "evaluated Those edges are where the border work is oc- on the success to which his or her reports of the currir:g, and, accordingly, they are the places inquiry enable the training or calibration of hu- tut show the most promise for projecting man judgment" (p. 69) or "the capacitv for prac- where qualitative methods will be in the near tical wisdom" (p. 70). ~d f:1r future. Schwandt is not alone, however, in wishing to say "farewell to criteriology," at least as it has Whither and Whether Criteria been previously conceived. Scheurich (1997) makes a similar plea, and in the same vein, Smith At those edges, several conversations are oc- (1993) also argues that validity, if it is to survive urring around v:~lidity. The first-and most at all, must be radically reformulated if it is ever
  18. 18. 80 + PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN TR.tNSITIONto serve phcnomenologic:!l research well (see cesses :.111d outcomes o f naturalistic o r C•mstruc. tlo Smith & Deemer, Chapter 34, this volume). tivist inquiries (rather th ~m the .lpplicJ ri o n of At issue here is nor whether we sh:!ll have cri- methods; see Guh:1 & Lincoln. 1 9 ~9) . "e de-teri.l,nr whose criteria we :~s :.1 scientific commu- scribed five potential o utcomes of .1 soct:d con-nity mighr adopt. bur rather what rhe narurc of srrucrio ntst inqui ry (evaluatio n is 0ne fo rm ofsocial inquiry ought to be, whether it ought to discip lined inquiry; see G uba & Lincoln. 198!),undergo ~~ rcmsformarion, and what might be each grounded in concerns specific ro the para-rhe basis for criteria with in a projected rransfor- digm we had tried to describe and construct, andm:.~rion. Schwandt ( !989; also personal commu- apart from Jn y concerns carried over irom rhenication, August 21, 1998) is quite clear that positivist legJcy. The crireri:.1 were insteadboth the rransform:.~rion and the criteria are rooted in the axioms and :ISSumptions Ot therooted in dialogic efforts. These dialogic efforts consrmctivist paradi gm, insoh r ..s we ..:ou !d ex-are quire cle:.~rly rhemsdvt:s forms of "moral dis- trapolate and tnfcr them.course ." Through the specific connections of the Those authenticity criteria-so called be-ddogic, rhe idea of practical wisdom, and moral cause we believed them to be lullm:1rks of au-disco urses, much of Schwandts work can be thentic, trustworthy, rigorous, or " val id " con-seen to be related ro, and reflective of, critical structivist or pheno menological inquiry-wererht:orisr and participato ry paradigms, as well as fairness, ontological authenticir:·. educari,·e au-co nstructivism, although he specifically denies thenticity, catalytic authenticity. and tactical au-the relativity of truth. (For a more sophisti- thenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989 , pp . 245 -Clted ex plication a nd critique of forms of 251 ). Fairness was th ought to be a qualir:v of bal-constructivism, hermeneutics, and interpre- ance; th:H is, a ll stakeholder views, pers pecti,·es,rivism, see Schwandt, Chapter 7, this volume. In claims, concerns, and vo ices should be apparenrthat chapter, Schwandt spells our distinctions in the text. Omissio n of stakeholder or partici-between rt::-~lisrs and nonrealisrs, and between pant voices reflects, we believe, a form of bias.foundationalisrs and nonfoundationalisrs, far This bias, howeve r, was a nd is nor related di-more clearly than iris possible for us ro do in this rectly to the concerns of objectivity that tl owch:-~prer. ) fro m positivist inquiry and that are reflective of To return to rhe central question embedded inquirer blindness o r sub jectivity. Rather, thisin vJiidity: How do we know when we have spe- fairness was defined by deliberate attempts rocific sociJl inquiries that are faithful enough to prevent marginalization, to act affirmativelyso me human construction that we may feel safe with respect to inclusion, and to act with energyin acting on them, or, more important, that to ensure that all voices in the inqui ry effort hadmembers of the co mmunity in which the re- a chance to be rep resented in any texts and rost:arch is co nducted may act on them? To that have their stories treated b irly and with balance.question, there is no final answer. There are,however, several discussions of what we might O ntological and educative authenticity were designated as criteri:J for determining a raiseduse to makt: both professional and lay judgmentsre g~1 rdin g :my piece of work. It is to those ver- level of awareness, in the first instance, by inJi -sions o f validity that we now turn. vidual research participanrs ~llld, in the second. by individuals ab o ut those who su rround t hem or with whom they come into conract for so meValidity as Authenticity social o r organizational purpose. Altho ugh we fa iled to see it at that particular historical mo· Perhaps the first nonfoundational criteria ment (1989), there is no reaso n these criteriawere those we developed in response to a chal- cannot be- at this point in rime, with manylenge by J ohn K. Smith (see Smith & Deemer, miles under our theoretic and practice feet-C hapter 34, this volume). In those criteria, w e re flective also o f Schwandts ( 1996) "critical in·attempted to locate criteria for judging rhe p ro- tel lige nce," or c:~pac ity to engage in mo ral cri-
  19. 19. t.n.td1 gmatic ControceTS/eS, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences + 18 1 , : 1 ~ i.K t. the: Jurhc::micltV critc::riJ. we origi- ability, validity and truth" (p. 165), in an effort to ·._-· :f,>posed had str o ng moral J.nd ethical cre~te new relationships: ro her research partici- ,.- : .c:·;. J ooinr ro which we Llter returned pants, ro her work, to other women, to herself. ·.: . ·~ .n~r,;r;cc::. Linco ln. [ 9 95, !9 98J, 1998b). She says that transgressive form s permit a social . 1 • 1 .,,,,n ro w h ich o ur .::ritics strongly ob- scientist w ·conjure a different kind of social sci- ••.: c : l [C: C:: w ere su rfici en rl y self-aware to ence . .. [which] means changing ones rebtio n- · : - ,c: 1mp lic:Hio ns of what we:: had pro- ship to ones w ork, how one knows and tells -~..; - .: ~ . ro r ins ance. Sechrest, 1993). about the sociological" (p. ! 66). In o rder to see ·_;:.;. :-·!fc .md t.rctic..zl clllthenticities n: fer ro "how transgression looks and ho w it feels," it is : ,,,h o f .1 g iven inquiry ro prompt, first, ac- necessary to "find a nd deploy methods th~t allow : , , :he: pJ.n of rese:1rch participants, and us t o uncover the h idden assumptions and • •cc:. :he involvement o f rhe researcher/evJI- life-de n ying re pressions of socio logy; resee/refeel .· - o rr.11n ing pa r ti..:ipanrs in specific forms !t sociology. Reseeing a nd retelling are inseparable .. .::.!1 wJ po liticJ.l action if participants de- (p. 167). . : , ·..::1 :rJin ing. lt is here dut constructivist The way to achieve such validity is by examin- .. twr,· p r.Knce begins to ro:sc::mblc: forms of ing the properties of a crystal in a metaphoric• - :1..:J! theo ri st action, action research, or sense. Here we present ~n extended quotation to· ~~·1 .:: ;- .tn,· e o r coope rative inquiry, each of give so me flavor of ho w such validity might be , 11..: 11 is predicJted on creating the capacity in described and deployed::::·~.trc h participJnts for positive social change1::J iorms o f em:mcipato ry community action. iI propose that the central imaginary for "validity".: ,, .tis Jt this specific point thar practitioners for postmodernist texts is nut the triangle-a : ;-osi ti,·ist and posrpos irivist social inquiry are rigid, fixed, two-dimensional object. Rather the•;:c: most cri tical, bec~use any actio n on the part central imaginary is the crystal, which co mbines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety i the inquirer is thought to destabilize objectiv- of shapes, substances, transmutations, multidi-·Y .md introduce subjectivity, resulting in bias. mensionalities, and angles o f approach. Crystals Th e problem of subjectivity ~nd bias has a , grow, change, alter, but are not amo rphous. Crys-lo ng thc:oretical history, and this chapter is sim- tals are prisms that retlect externalities and rdract [y roo brief for us to enter into the v~rious for- within themselves, creating different colors, pat- terns, arrays, casting off in different!Jtions that either take acco unt of subjectiv- What we see depends upon our angle of repose.~~ o r posit it .ts a positive learning experi ence, Not triangulation, crystallization. In postmod-pracrical. c:mbodied, gendered, and emotive. c:rnist mixed-genre texts, we have moved fromFo r purposes of this discuss io n, it is enough to plane geometry to light theory, where light can beuy that we :1re persuaded that objectivity is a both waves and particles. Crystallization, with- ! our losing stru.;:ture, deconstructs the tradi-.:himer:t: ~mythological creature that neve r ex- tional idea of ~validity" (we feel how there is not red, sa·e in the imaginati o ns of those who be- , single rruth, we see how texts validate them-IJeve thJt knowing can be separated from the selves) ; and crystallization provides us with aknower. deepened, complex, thoroughly partial under- standing of the to pic. Paradoxically, we know more and do ubt what we know. (Richardson, alidity as Resistance, Validity as 1997, p. 92)Poststructuml Transgression The metaphoric "solid object" (cryst~l!text), l.1urel Richardson (1994, 1997) has pro- which can be turned many ways, which reflectsposed another form of validity, a deliberately and refracts light (light/ multiple layers of mean-• transgressive" form, the crystalline. In writing ing), through which we can see both "wave"expe rimental (i.e., nonauthoritativc , nonposi- (light wave/human currents) and " particle" (lightllYlSt) tex ts , particularly poems and plays, Rich- as "chunks" of energy/elements of truth, feeling,ardso n (199 7 ) has sought to "problematize reli- connection, processes of the research that "flow"
  20. 20. 182 + PARADIGMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN TRAt"ISITIONrogether) is an attractive metaphor for validity. both what we know :1nd our relationshipsThe properties of the crystal-as-metaphor help our research participants. Accordingly, onewriters and readers alike see the interweaving of (Lincoln, 1995) worked on trying to undeprocesses in rhe research: discovery, seeing, tell- the ways in which the ethical intersecteding, srorying, re-presentation. the interpersonal and the epistemological (as form of authentic or valid bowing). TheOther "Transgressive" Validities was the first set of understandings about emerg- ing criteria for quality that were also rooted in the epistemology/ethics nexus. Seven nar L:turel Richardson is nor alone in calling for standards were derived fro m rh:1r se3rch: PQS·forms of V3lidity that are "transgressive" and tio nality, or standpoint, judgments; specific dis-disruptive of the status quo. Patti Lather (1993) course communities and research sires as arbj..seeks "an incitement to discourse," the purpose ters of quality; voice, or the exte nt ro which aof which is "to rupture validity as a regime of text has rhe quality of polyvocality; critical sub-truth, to dispbce its historical inscription .. . via jectivity (or what might be termed intense3 dispersion, circulation and proliferation of self-reflexivity); reciprocity, or the exrenr tocounter-practices of authority that take the crisis which the research relationship becomes recip-of representation into account" (p. 674). In ad- rocal rather than hierarchical; sacredness, or thedition to catalytic validity (lather, 1986), Lather profound regard for how science c::m (and does)(1993) poses validity as simulacra/ironic valid- contribute to human flourishing; and sharingity; Lyotardian paralogy/neopragmatic validity, the perquisites of privilege that accrue to our po-3 form of validity that "foster[s] heterogeneity, sitions as academics with university positions.refusing disclosure" (p. 679); Derridean Each of these standards .,;.,as extracted from arigor/rhizomatic validity, a form of behaving body of research, often from disciplines as dispa-"via relay, circuit, multiple openings" (p. 680); rate as management, philosophy, 3nd womensand voluptuous/situated validity, which "em- studies (Lincoln, 1995).bodies a situated, partial tentativeness" and"brings ethics and epistemology together ... viapractices of engagement and self-reflexivity"(p. 686). Together, these form a way of inter- + Voice, Reflexivity, andrupting, disrupting, and transforming "pure"presence into a disturbing, fluid, partial, and Postmodern Textualproblematic presence-a poststructural and de- Representationcidedly postmodern form of discourse theory,hence textual revelation.Validity as an Texts have to do a lot more work these days rhanEthical Relationship they used to. Even as they :Ire charged by poststructuralists and postmodemisrs ro rer1ect As Lather (1993) points out, poststructural upon their representational practices, represen-forms for validities "bring ethics and epistemol- tational practices themselves become moreogy together" (p. 686); indeed, as Parker Palmer problematic. Three of the most engaging, but(1987) also notes, "every way of knowing con- painful, issues are the problem of voice, the sr:l-tains its own moral trajectory" (p. 24). Peshkin tus of reflexivity, and the problemarics ofreflects on Noddingss (1984) observation that postmodern/ poststructural textual represenra·"the search for justification often carries us far- tion, especially as those problemarics are dis·ther and farther from the heart of morality" (p. played in the shift toward narrative :1nd literary105; quoted in Peshkin, 1993, p. 24). The way in forms that directly and openly deal wirh humanwhich we know is most assuredly tied up with emotion.
  21. 21. P.uadigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences + ;83 Witho ut doubt, the authonal vo ice is r:1rely genu- inel y absent, o r even hidden ).3 Specific textual experiment:1tion can he lp; that is, co mposing l.<~ 1s .1 mul t ilaye red problem, s1mplv be- ethnographic work into various liter:1ry forms-- n!>C: tt h.1s co me ro me:1n many things ro differ- the poetry or plays of Laurel Richardson are.. i . rese.1 rchers. In former er:1s. the only appro- good examples--can help a researcher to o ver-~,:.Jte - ·o ice w:1s rhe "voice from nowhere"- co me the tendency to write in the distanced and=~" ? u re presence" of represemation, as abstracted voice of the disembodied "I." But such, .1 rhc:r e rms ir. As researchers bec:~me more writing exercises are hard work. This is also work_ ,ns..:tous of rhe abstracted realities their texts that is embedded in the pr:1ctices of reflexivity- ~~Jrc:J . rhev became simultaneously more con-... ,,u, ,[ uv ing readers "he:u" their infor- and narrativity, without which achieving a voice of (partial} truth is impossible. Jn :~- permirring readers to he:1r the exact· rds (Jnd. occasionally, the paralinguistic~uc:s. rhe !Jpses. pauses, stops, st:~rts, reformu- Reflexivity Jtwns) ot rhe informams. Today voice can-non . esreciJlly in more participatory forms of Reflexivity is the process of retlecting criti- ese.1 rch. nor only having a real researcher- cally on the self as researcher, the "human as in-Jnd .1 researchers voice-in the text, but also strument" (Cuba & Lincoln, 1981}. It is, welc:mng rese:~rch participams speak for them- would assert, the critical subjectivity discussed~lves, either in text form or through plays, fo- early on in Reason and Rowans edited volumerums... town meetings," or other oral and per- Human Inquiry (1981}. It is a conscious experi-iorm.ince-oriented media or communication encing of the self as both inquirer and respon-iorms designed by research participants them- dent, as reacher and learner, as the one coming toselves. Performance texts, in particular, give an know the self within the processes of research it-cmorional immediacy to the voices of research- self.ers and research participants far beyond their Reflexivity forces us to come to terms not onlyown sires and locales (see McCall, Chapter 15, with our choice of research problem and withrhis volume}. those with whom we engage in the research pro- Rosanna Hertz (1997} describes voice as cess, but with our selves and with the multiple identities that represent the fluid self in the re- .1struggle to figure our how to present the au- search setting (Aicoff & Porter, 1993}. Shulamit rhor s self while simultaneously writing the re- Rein harz ( 1997}, for example, argues that we not spondents accounts and representing their o nly "bring the self to the field ... [we also] create >elves. Voice has multiple dim~nsions: First, the self in the field" (p. 3}. She suggests that al- there IS the voice ohhc ;wthor. Second, there is though we :.11 have many selves we bring with us, the presentatio n of rhe vo ices of one s respon- de nts within the text. A third dimension appears those selves fall into three categories: research- when the self is the subject of the inquirv.... based selves, brought selves (the selves that his - o1 e IS how authors express thcmsdves .;_,ithin torically, socially, and personally create our an ethnography. (pp. xi-xii) standpoints} , and situarionally created selves (p. 5}. Each of those selves comes into play inBur knowing how to express ourselves goes far the research setting and consequently has a dis-~·ond the commonsense understanding of tinctive voice. Reflexivity-as well as the post-·expressing ourselves." Generations of ethnog- structural and postmodern sensibilities concern-r:aphcrs rained in the "cooled-out, stripped- ing quality in qualitative research-demandsJoy,~ rhetoric" of positivist inquiry (Firestone, that we interrogate each of our selves regarding198 , ) ftn d tt d.1tttcuIt, 1f nor ne:~rly impossible, · ··· · the ways in which research efforts :~reshaped andro ~lo- Late " t hemsel ves deliberately and staged around the binaries, contr:1dictions, andsqua re· It h.111 t h e1r texts (even though, as · - · paradoxes that form our own lives. We mustc~ern [[ 98 8] has demonstrated finally and question our selves, too, regJrding h o w those