Qualitative Research Approaches for Public Administration

Larry S. Luton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780765616869
• eBook ISBN: 9781317461562
• Topic: Volkswirtschaftslehre
• Subtopic: Wirtschaftstheorie

Thoroughly updated, more concise than the previous edition, and available for the first time in paperback,

—1—

Qualitative Research Approaches and Public Administration Research

It is time for the field of public administration to take qualitative research approaches more seriously. This book is an attempt to help facilitate that transition.

For too long the field of public administration has been content to refer to any nonquantitative research as qualitative. Labels related to qualitative research have been applied to specific articles in public administration journals with little justification. For example, the “semi-structured interview” label has often been used to describe research based simply on extended conversations, but with no conscientious research approach in organizing or conducting those conversations. Similarly, the “case study” label has been applied to articles focusing on a short period in the history of an agency but without any systematic research approach.

Qualitative research approaches involve careful planning, respectful engagement, conscientious analysis, and deliberate presentation. For work to be based on a qualitative research approach, it is not enough for researchers to witness an interesting phenomenon, talk to some people, and then write their explanation of what happened and what they thought it meant. I do not mean to suggest that articles that are not based on a carefully planned and executed research approach cannot contribute to the field’s understanding of the practice of public administration; however, just as an article that cites some statistics is not necessarily based on a quantitative research approach, an article that quotes from some conversations is not necessarily based on a qualitative research approach. Looking, listening, reading, and thinking may yield important insights, but without deliberate planning and execution, looking, listening, reading, and thinking do not constitute a qualitative research approach.

This chapter will begin with a section on defining what we mean by the term qualitative research approaches. It will then provide a brief review of the perspectives on qualitative research found in the field of public administration. Next, it will address why qualitative research in general is a valuable aspect of public administration research—what it contributes to the field. Finally, it will explain the plan of this book—how the book is organized to facilitate improved use of qualitative research approaches in the field of public administration.

What Is Qualitative Research?

I am not very often impressed with attempts to establish specific denotative definitions for concepts that are utilized in varying but similar ways. Our common understandings of them are, in my opinion, constructed socially and are found in the areas of intersubjective agreement, not in strict adherence to a dictionary style denotative definition. Fundamental to my distrust of denotative definitions is the role that connotation plays in our understanding of concepts.

Nonetheless, a couple of the better attempts at defining qualitative research are found in the works of John Creswell (1998). He attributed the first to Charles Ragin, who distinguished quantitative from qualitative research this way: “quantitative researchers work with few variables and many cases, whereas qualitative researchers rely on a few cases and many variables” (1998, pp. 15–16). The second definition Creswell himself offered: “Qualitative research is complex, involving fieldwork for prolonged periods of time, collecting words and pictures, analyzing this information inductively while focusing on participant views, and writing about the process using expressive and persuasive language” (1998, p. 24). While this one adds significant aspects of qualitative research, it remains a rather idealized definition, not one that many instances of qualitative research would fully realize.

H.E. Brady and D. Collier have offered a third way of defining qualitative research. They identified four dimensions that can be used to distinguish qualitative from quantitative research: level of measurement, size of the N, the use of statistical tests, and thick versus thin analysis. Qualitative research is small-N research that relies on detailed knowledge of a small N rather than more limited knowledge of a large N. It uses nominal-level data, and verbal analysis rather than statistical analysis (2004, pp. 301–2).

Too often the term qualitative research has been utilized in ways that made it tantamount to “not quantitative.” For example, D. Lowery and K.G. Evans operationalized qualitative research as “articles employing nonquantitative methods published in PAR from 1996 through 2000” (2004, p. 311). In my opinion their definition is too inclusive and may lead to misunderstanding. As the authors admit, their definition does not help to distinguish qualitative research approaches from other normative and expressive approaches (2004, p. 311). It is quite likely that some researchers whose articles they classified as qualitative do not understand themselves as doing research within a qualitative approaches tradition.

Defining qualitative as “not quantitative” also may feed the common complaint that qualitative research is so loose a conception that it is not possible to evaluate its soundness. Certainly, it is not fair to evaluate qualitative research by criteria established for quantitative research, but as E.G. Guba (1981) has explained, quantitative and qualitative research can be seen as having different ways of addressing similar criteria. Although qualitative approaches are not appropriately evaluated by their mechanical application of specific techniques, neither are those who use them completely free of expectations regarding accuracy, transparency, and integrity.

Qualitative Research in Public Administration

Almost every review of public administration research has found that nonquantitative research dominates the work in the field. H.E. McCurdy and R.E. Cleary found that only 15 percent of the dissertations categorized under the field of public administration in 1981 met standard quantitative social science criteria (1984). R.A. Stallings and J.A. Ferris examined the articles in PAR from 1940–1984 and found most of them to be “conceptual”; they discovered few causal analyses or tests of theory (1988, p. 583). In a review of the research found in a more recent decade of PAR, J.L. Perry and K.L. Kraemer found that the field’s preference for nonquantitative research remained strong (1986, p. 224). In 2000 Z. Lan and K.K. Anders reported on their review of the articles published in eight public administration journals in the period 1993–1995. They found that 40.8 percent used quantitative approaches and 58.7 percent used qualitative¹ research approaches. Most recently, in a review of public administration symposia, Miller and Jaja (2005) found a variety of qualitative and “other” approaches vastly outnumbered the quantitative approaches.

Many reasons have been given for public administration’s resistance to being dominated by quantitative research approaches. Waldo identified the fact/value dichotomy upon which quantitative approaches rest as a basic problem (1948/1984). Some researchers have pointed to the applied nature of the public administration field and suggested that the field’s major questions may not be well suited for quantitative approaches. For example, McCurdy and Cleary suggested “Trying to calculate with any degree of validity what constitutes ‘good’ administration may be an exercise in futility” (1984, p. 53).²

The positive reasons for utilizing qualitative research approaches in public administration have not been so well addressed.³ Lowery and Evans (2004, pp. 318–19) present something of an exception to this generalization, but their case for qualitative methods was embedded within an article that focused more on a critique of qualitative research in public administration. In sum, their brief treatment of why public administration benefits from qualitative research approaches suggested that 1) those approaches are appropriate for addressing normative and ontological questions, 2) they foster good listening skills and reflexivity, and 3) they fit well with a view of the public administrator’s role as a facilitator (rather than an expert).

Sometimes arguments for qualitative approaches have been embedded within a more general argument for diversity. Stallings, though he denigrated firsthand or “acquaintance with” knowledge, spoke in favor of including a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods in public administration research (1986, p. 239). Jay White argued that “case studies, histories, descriptions of administrative experiences, reports of action research projects, political theories, philosophical analyses, and social critiques” (1986b, p. 15) could all contribute in important ways to the field’s search for knowledge. Richard Box encouraged the field to be open to a variety of methodologies (1992). Guy Adams reminded us that public administration has a history of including a variety of research approaches and urged the field to welcome the contributions of historical, interpretive, critical, and qualitative research (1992). M.R. Schmidt (1993) chimed in with a clever metaphorical essay reminding the field of the value of alternative kinds of knowledge and the value of qualitative approaches. C.L. Felbinger, M. Holzer, and J. White recommended that doctoral students in public administration be “exposed to a broad and deep array of research designs and methods” (1999, p. 461).

Although public administration researchers have at times been generally encouraged to utilize qualitative approaches (e.g., J. Orosz, 1997), more frequently arguments in favor of qualitative approaches have been limited to specific qualitative approaches. R.P. Hummel made a case for narrative approaches (1990, 1991). Bailey defended the ability of case studies to contribute to our professional knowledge (1992). S. Maynard-Moody and M. Kelly argued for the use of interpretive approaches in policy analysis (1993). The 2005 series of articles by S.M. Ospina, J. Dodge, and E.G. Foldy (Dodge, Ospina, and Foldy 2005; Ospina and Dodge 2005a, 2005b) focused specifically on narrative inquiry.

Since 2000 the literature has also begun to address how well qualitative approaches are being used. R.E. Cleary (2000) reported on a replication of the survey he and McCurdy had done in the 1980s. While it was evident that he favored quantitative social science research approaches, Cleary conceded the value of interpretive and critical approaches. His main concern was that public administration researchers improve their methodological skills (2000, pp. 453–54). Similarly, R.S. Brower, M.Y. Abolafia, and J.B. Carr (2000) supported the utilization of qualitative research in public administration. Still, when they reviewed five years of qualitative research in leading public administration journals, they found the quality of that research lacking. To address that problem they made specific recommendations regarding how the field could improve its use and reporting of qualitative research. Lowery and Evans (2004) reached a similar conclusion and offered recommendations that were more focused on improving research methods courses in MPA and PhD programs.

In addition, a few public administration scholars have published qualitative research texts. H.J. Rubin and I.S. Rubin contributed one of the first texts in the field of public administration on how to do qualitative research (1995). That was followed by D. Yanow’s short treatise on interpretive approaches (2000). In 2002 D.E. McNabb included four specific qualitative approaches in his text on research methods in public administration. Most recently, Yanow and Schwartz-Shea addressed basic epistemological issues, as well as particular ways of engaging in specific qualitative research approaches (2006).

The field is also producing research based on self-conscious utilization of qualitative approaches. Some work seems to come out of the interdisciplinary tradition of qualitative research (e.g., Z. Nedovic-Budic and D.R. Godschalk 1996; C.J.Cimitile et al. 1997; J.R. Thompson 1999; J.R. Sandfort 2003; P.M. Mareschal 2003; J. Kelly and J. Wanna 2004; D. Thatcher 2004). Others place their work in the interpretive, critical, discourse, and postmodern approaches frameworks (D. Silverman 1997; L.A. Zanetti 1997; M.A. Diamond and S. Allcorn 1997; A.J. Sementelli and R.J. Herzog 2000; A.D. Beresford 2000; F. Battistelli and G. Ricotta 2005). There is also work that is...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Qualitative Research Approaches and Public Administration Research
• 2. Qualitative Interviewing Approaches
• 3. Narrative Inquiry Approaches
• 4. Ethnographic Approaches
• 5. Qualitative Case Study Approaches
• Conclusion
• Name Index
• Subject Index
• About the Author