This article explores epistemological awareness and instantiation of methods, as well as uninformed ambiguity, in qualitative methodological decision making and research reporting. The authors argue that efforts should be made to make the research process, epistemologies, values, methodological decision points, and argumentative logic open, accessible, and visible for audiences. To these ends, they discuss two ways of conceptualizing the role of epistemological awareness and instantiation of methods, including (a) a series of decision junctures and (b) a spatial conceptualization of epistemological decision making. Through an analysis of researchers’ decision junctures drawn from studies published in high-impact education journals in 2006, the authors illustrate current methodological awareness and instantiation of methods in the field of education research.
AlcoffL.PotterE. (1993). Feminist epistemologies: Thinking gender. New York: Routledge.
2.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40.
3.
AngenM. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378–395.
4.
AudiR. (Ed.). (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BergerP.LuckmannT. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
6.
BlaauwM.PritchardD. (2005). Epistemology A–Z. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
8.
CarterS.LittleM. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316–1328.
9.
CoeC. (2001). Learning how to find out: Theories of knowledge and learning in field research. Field Methods, 13, 392–411.
10.
CreswellJ. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage.
12.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2000). The future of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1018–1023). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DerridaJ. (1997). Of grammatology (SpivakG., Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1967)
15.
FreemanM.deMarraisK.PreissleJ.RoulstonK.ElizabethS. P. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25–32.
16.
GeeJ. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
17.
GreckhamerT.Koro-LjungbergM. (2005). The erosion of a method: Examples from grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 729–750.
18.
GubaE. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In GubaE. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
GubaE.LincolnY. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
20.
HabermasJ. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (2nd ed.; ShapiroJ. J., Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
21.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (LenhardtC.Weber NicholsonS., Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
22.
HardingS. G.HintikkaM. B. (2003). Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
23.
HatchA. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
HeideggerM. (1996). Being and time (StambaughJ., Trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
25.
HillsL. (2006). Playing the field(s): An exploration of change, conformity and conflict in girls’ understandings of gendered physicality in physical education. Gender and Education, 18, 539–556.
26.
KamberelisG.DimitriadisG. (2005). Qualitative inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
KuhnT. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LantolfJ.AppelG. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Westport, CT: Ablex.
29.
LatherP. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
LatherP. (2001). Validity as an incitement to discourse: Qualitative research and the crisis of legitimation. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 241–250). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
32.
LatherP. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
33.
LatherP. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
LyotardJ.-F. (1999). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (BenningtonG.MassumiB., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979).
35.
McCormickJ.RodneyP.VarcoeC. (2003). Reinterpretations across studies: An approach to meta-analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 933–944.
36.
McIntyreL. (2004). Intentionality, pluralism, and redescription. Philosophy of Social Sciences, 34(4), 493–505.
37.
MorganD. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
MorseJ.RichardsL. (2002). README FIRST for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
PallasA. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for (e)pistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6–11.
40.
PolkinghorneD. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In ValleR.HallingS. (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspective in psychology (pp. 41–60). New York: Plenum.
41.
QuantzR. (1992). On critical ethnography (with some postmodern considerations). In LeCompteM.MillroyW.PreissleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 447–505). San Diego: Academic Press.
42.
RichardsonL.St. PierreE. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
RortyR. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
ScheurichJ. J. (1996). The masks of validity: A deconstructive investigation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(1), 49–60.
45.
SchwandtT. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
SpivakG. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. New York: Routledge.
47.
St. PierreE. (2002). “Science” rejects post-modernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 25–27.
48.
St. PierreE. (2006). Scientifically based research in education: (E)pistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 239–266.
49.
Thayer-BaconB. (2003). Relational “(e)pistemologies.”New York: Peter Lang.
50.
TurnerJ. (1992). The promise of positivism. In SeidmanS.WagnerD. (Eds.), Postmodernism and social theory: The debate over general theory (pp. 156–178). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
51.
VillaverdeL. (2008). Feminist theories and education. New York: Peter Lang.
52.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
WilkinsonS. (2004). Focus groups: A feminist method. In Hesse-BiberS.YaiserM. (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 271–295). New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
YancharS. C.WilliamsD. D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3–12.
