Research Report by Literature review on Visual impairment,<\/p>\n
Order Description<\/p>\n
Research report on visual impairment should be done by literature review, You need to review at-least 9 articles.
\nunderstanding the research report should be in the format of journal article where by we identify problem, key points, argument, abstract and so on…..<\/p>\n
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/tandfonline.com\/action\/journalInformationjournalCode=tqse20
\nDownload by: [University of Canberra] Date: 20 October 2015, At: 18:23
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
\nISSN: 0951-8398 (Print) 1366-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/tandfonline.com\/loi\/tqse20
\nDeveloping qualitative research questions: a
\nreflective process
\nJane Agee
\nTo cite this article: Jane Agee (2009) Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective
\nprocess, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22:4, 431-447, DOI:
\n10.1080\/09518390902736512
\nTo link to this article: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/09518390902736512
\nPublished online: 09 Jul 2009.
\nSubmit your article to this journal
\nArticle views: 27991
\nView related articles
\nCiting articles: 9 View citing articles
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
\nVol. 22, No. 4, July\u2013August 2009, 431\u2013447
\nISSN 0951-8398 print\/ISSN 1366-5898 online
\n\u00a9 2009 Taylor & Francis
\nDOI: 10.1080\/09518390902736512
\nhttps:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/informaworld.com
\nDeveloping qualitative research questions: a reflective process
\nJane Agee*
\nDepartment of Educational Theory and Practice, The University at Albany, State University of
\nNew York, Albany, NY 12222, USA
\nTaQySloEr_ aAn_d3 F7r3a8n2c1is.sgm (Received 12 June 2008; final version received 9 January 2009)
\njI012TDOan09agrt.05.iyee1 g019rJle0iona-0@n8r8an0a 0t3e&2ali\/A 9ol0A b8nF09gar ar95e(tnlaipe1 cynJr8l.oicen3iudst9r)u0n\/19a3l0 62o67f -3Q568u59a18l2i t(aotnivlien Se)tudies in Education
\nThe reflective and interrogative processes required for developing effective
\nqualitative research questions can give shape and direction to a study in ways that
\nare often underestimated. Good research questions do not necessarily produce
\ngood research, but poorly conceived or constructed questions will likely create
\nproblems that affect all subsequent stages of a study. In qualitative studies, the
\nongoing process of questioning is an integral part of understanding the unfolding
\nlives and perspectives of others. This article addresses both the development of
\ninitial research questions and how the processes of generating and refining
\nquestions are critical to the shaping of a qualitative study.
\nKeywords: qualitative research questions; qualitative methods; development
\nMany qualitative researchers see a question as a beginning point for their research.
\nOnce a satisfactory question is in place, a study can begin. A research question does
\nfulfill this function, but I propose here that much more is involved in creating and
\nusing research questions in qualitative studies. The reflective and interrogative
\nprocesses required for developing research questions can give shape and direction to
\na study in ways that are often underestimated.
\nGood questions do not necessarily produce good research, but poorly conceived or
\nconstructed questions will likely create problems that affect all subsequent stages of a
\nstudy. Ultimately, the quality of the initial questions impacts whether or not a study is
\napproved by a dissertation committee, published, or funded. This article addresses
\nboth the development of initial research questions and how the processes of generating
\nand refining questions are critical to the shaping all phases of a qualitative study the
\ninquiry process.
\nThe idea of qualitative inquiry as a reflective process underscores the strengths of
\na qualitative approach. At the heart of this approach are methods for representing what
\nGeertz (1973, 10) called the \u2018microscopic\u2019 details of the social and cultural aspects of
\nindividuals\u2019 lives. He described the central task of the ethnographer in his well-known
\ndiscussion on the myriad interpretations of a human wink. He noted that it is not
\nenough to describe a wink and label it as a behavior. Rather, \u2018the thing to ask\u2019 about
\nhuman behaviors is \u2018what their import is\u2019 (Geertz 1973, 10). The researcher\u2019s credibility
\nrests, according to Geertz, on the specifics of a place and the people who inhabit
\nthat place at a given moment, an issue addressed by Maxwell (2005), Patton (2002),
\nand others. Thus, the researcher\u2019s worth is characterized by \u2018the degree to which he is
\n*Email: jagee@albany.edu
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n432 J. Agee
\nable to clarify what goes on in such places, to reduce the puzzlement \u2013 what manner
\nof men are these\u2019 (Geertz 1973, 16). Qualitative inquiries involve asking the kinds of
\nquestions that focus on the why and how of human interactions.
\nQualitative research questions, then, need to articulate what a researcher wants to
\nknow about the intentions and perspectives of those involved in social interactions.
\nStrauss (1987\/1990, 6) noted that the traditions from which qualitative inquiry sprang
\n\u2018placed social interaction and social processes at the center\u2019 of this approach. He
\nhighlighted the purpose for qualitative inquiry (as developed by the Department of
\nSociology at the University of Chicago) which \u2018from its inception emphasized the
\nnecessity for grasping the actors\u2019 viewpoints for understanding interaction, process,
\nand social change\u2019 (Strauss 1987\/1990, 6). In qualitative studies, then, the ongoing
\nprocess of questioning is an integral part of understanding the unfolding lives and
\nperspectives of others. Creswell (2007, 43) noted that \u2018Our questions change during
\nthe process of research to reflect an increased understanding of the problem,\u2019 a point
\nalso addressed by Charmaz (2006) as a central part of using grounded theory.
\nHowever, changes in questions should also emerge from researchers\u2019 capacities to
\nexamine their own roles and perspectives in the inquiry process, especially how they
\nare positioned in relation to participants.
\nMore recent qualitative inquiry has moved toward involving the researcher and
\nparticipants in the process of inquiry (e.g., Flick 2006; Lassiter 2005; Maxwell 2005).
\nParticipants are sometimes invited to collaborate on the formulation of research
\nquestions, especially in participatory action research. Stringer (2007, 11) argued that
\n\u2018All stakeholders \u2013 those whose lives are affected by the problem under study \u2013
\nshould be engaged in the processes of investigation.\u2019 Given these developments in
\nqualitative research, I focus on the development of questions as part of a larger
\ninteractive process wherein the primary premises of qualitative inquiry are more fully
\nrealized.
\nGood qualitative questions are usually developed or refined in all stages of a
\nreflexive and interactive inquiry journey. Flick (2006, 105) noted that \u2018reflecting on
\nand reformulating the research questions are central points of reference for
\nassessing the appropriateness of the decisions you take at several points.\u2019 To extend
\nthe journey metaphor, it is helpful to think of research questions as navigational tools
\nthat can help a researcher map possible directions but also to inquire about the
\nunexpected.
\nBelow, I address ways of conceptualizing, developing, and writing research
\nquestions for a qualitative study. I realize that, within the scope of a single article, it
\nis not possible to tackle all aspects of question development, but I felt it would be
\nhelpful, after working with doctoral students and reviewing journal articles, books,
\nand conference proposals over the years to address this topic. I begin with the
\nconceptualization of qualitative questions and how they evolve during different stages
\nof a study. Then I describe some of the characteristics of good questions. I end
\nwith suggestions for writing effective questions and situating them in a paper or a
\ndissertation.
\nThe process of developing questions
\nSome qualitative researchers, especially those who write about grounded theory,
\nrecommend waiting until one is in the field and collecting data to fully develop
\nresearch questions. In many situations, though, waiting is not an option. Charmaz
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 433
\n(2006, 154) pointed out the realities that confront many novice researchers: \u2018The
\nemergent character of grounded theory may conflict with class report or dissertation
\nrequirements.\u2019 A qualitative study does not begin with a hypothesis or a presumed
\noutcome as is the case in a quantitative study. However, as Richards (2005) noted,
\na qualitative study cannot begin without a plan. She argued that such an approach
\nwould be \u2018unacceptable for both ethical and practical reasons\u2019 (Richards 2005, 14).
\nBecause most researchers do need at least some initial questions for dissertations and
\nfunded project proposals, I address those who need to develop questions early on as
\npart of designing a qualitative study. However, I want to emphasize that these initial
\nquestions are only a beginning point in the inquiry process. As Creswell (2007, 107)
\nnoted, qualitative questions are \u2018evolving.\u2019 First iterations of questions are tentative
\nand exploratory but give researchers a tool for articulating the primary focus of the
\nstudy.
\nBeginning the process
\nResearchers often begin thinking about a study long before they draft their first
\nresearch questions. For Janesick (2000, 382), qualitative research begins with \u2018a
\nquestion, or at least an intellectual curiosity if not a passion for a particular topic.\u2019
\nCertainly this statement will ring true for most researchers. I often find ideas for
\nstudies bubbling up as I read and teach and now keep an \u2018Idea File\u2019 on my computer.
\nMost of the doctoral students I work with begin thinking about a study based on a deep
\ninterest in a topic they have already begun exploring.
\nGood questions can grow out of initial curiosity or ideas for a qualitative study,
\nbut at the early stages most questions are rough drafts. Janesick (2000, 382) suggests
\nbeginning with a self-question: \u2018What do I want to know in this study\u2019 Even those
\nusing grounded theory have some broad questions after entering a potential research
\nsite. Charmaz (2006, 20) suggests that broad questions such as \u2018What\u2019s going on
\nhere\u2019; \u2018What are the basic social processes\u2019; and \u2018What are the basic social psychological
\nprocesses\u2019 can serve to help a researcher find some initial focus. Maxwell
\n(2005, 65) called these early questions \u2018provisional,\u2019 but noted that even these early
\niterations are already determining decisions about theory and methods. These initial
\nquestions can be conceptualized as generative: they may invite a series of more
\nspecific questions that help to create the focus needed to move forward with data
\ncollection.
\nOne of the problems that novice researchers may find challenging is framing a
\nqualitative question that not only inquires about phenomena, understanding, or
\nperceptions, but also signals the relevance of the study to a field or discipline. Flick
\n(2006, 109) described qualitative research questions as those that are \u2018describing
\nstates and those describing processes.\u2019 However, most qualitative questions are also
\nlinked implicitly to a specific field of study. Patton (2002, 216) offered a typology of
\nthe kinds of disciplinary questions that often shape more specific questions in a discipline.
\nFor example, anthropologists may ask questions such as \u2018What is the nature of
\nculture\u2019 or \u2018What are the functions of culture\u2019 Others have offered constructs for
\nquestion types that help a researcher think about the kind of study they are doing and
\nwhat purpose the researcher has. For example, Marshall and Rossman (2006)
\ndescribed questions that perform four different functions: exploratory, explanatory,
\ndescriptive, and emancipatory. I doubt that many researchers begin with these typologies
\nin mind, but it is helpful perhaps to use these typologies to think about potential
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n434 J. Agee
\ndirections that a study might take and about the relevance of a study to a particular
\ndiscipline.
\nMost qualitative researchers need specific questions for a proposal. Creating one
\nor two broad questions can be a fertile starting point for thinking through the specifics
\nof what the study is about and what data will need to be collected. Maxwell (2005, 67)
\nobserved that \u2018precisely framed research questions \u2026 can point you to specific areas
\nof theory that you can use as modules in developing an understanding of what\u2019s going
\non, and suggest ways to do the study.\u2019 For example, a researcher in the field of social
\nwelfare might want to know if child welfare workers suffer from secondary post-traumatic
\nstress as a result of their work with neglected or abused children. An initial
\nquestion might be simply framed: Do child welfare workers suffer from secondary
\npost-traumatic stress This broad question is already giving some focus to the study
\nand is clearly relevant to the field of social welfare. However, the phrasing of this
\nquestion is problematic as it could be answered with a yes or no and does not suggest
\na qualitative approach. Good qualitative questions should invite a process of exploration
\nand discovery, as Creswell (2007) suggests. Initial provisional questions can
\nbecome more focused; however, with a question like the one above, movement
\nforward later in the inquiry process is constrained. Maxwell (2005, 67) also cautioned
\nthat starting with questions that are too focused can lead to \u2018tunnel vision\u2019 and can
\ninhibit a researcher\u2019s understanding and analysis. Creating discovery-oriented
\nquestions can help a researcher use the process of developing and refining questions
\nas a basis for a more rigorous and reflexive inquiry.
\nWith a qualitative study, a researcher is inquiring about such topics as how people
\nare experiencing an event, a series of events, and\/or a condition. The questions generally
\nseek to uncover the perspectives of an individual, a group, or different groups.
\nMost qualitative studies need to be focused on the particularities of the local and on
\nthe \u2018thick description\u2019 of human interactions in that context (Geertz 1973, 6).With
\nthose characteristics in mind, a question needs to move the researcher toward discovering
\nwhat is happening in a particular situation with a particular person or group. A
\ngood example of this kind of question is one that Janesick (2000, 383) created as her
\noverarching question for a study on deaf adults: \u2018How do deaf adults manage to
\nsucceed academically and in the workplace given the stigma of deafness in our
\nsociety\u2019 This question, as she noted, guided her methods and suggested a critical
\ntheoretical framework for her study \u2013 the cultural stigma of deafness in the USA.
\nHowever, she also focuses on two specific contexts, academia and workplaces, in
\nwhich this stigma affects human interactions.
\nSometimes, it is necessary to bring others into the development of first iterations
\nof questions. For a doctoral student, decisions about initial questions are often made
\nwith an advisor and\/or a dissertation committee. For those engaging in evaluation
\nstudies, and also perhaps in ethnographic studies, it may be important to collaborate
\nwith a funding agency or with the group under study to see what questions they feel
\nare important to answer. The direction and the scope of the questions may be critical
\nto designing an effective study and to collecting data that the stakeholders find
\nacceptable and meaningful.
\nCreating an overarching question to guide the inquiry process
\nDeveloping an overarching question, as Janesick (2000) did, has advantages for the
\nresearcher. A broadly framed question can serve as a basis for initial and emerging
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 435
\nsub-questions. A single overarching question allows a researcher to capture the basic
\ngoals of the study in one major question. A clearly stated overarching question can
\ngive direction for the study design and collection of data and offer potential for
\ndeveloping new, more specific questions during data collection and analysis.
\nSometimes, these broader research questions are not stated as questions but rather
\nas goals for the study. In a study of working class high school girls, Hartman (2006,
\n82) began her article with the following statement:
\nThis ethnographic study focuses on a group of academically successful working class
\ngirls and their uses of literacy in high school English class. Specifically, I examined these
\ngirls\u2019 classroom literacy in the context of gender and class identities, looking at how their
\ngendered and class identities influenced their uses of literacy and how these girls used
\ntexts from English class to construct their gender and class.
\nThis statement identified her overarching focus of inquiry and could be converted to
\na question format, but for the article, stating her purpose for the inquiry works just as
\nwell.
\nPrindeville (2003) used a similar approach in her article on the role of race, ethnicity,
\nand gender on women who are activists or political leaders. She began her paper
\nwith a statement that incorporates several elements that could be stated as questions,
\nbut with this opening paragraph, she was able to describe the focus and purpose of the
\nstudy as well as her theoretical frames:
\nThis article examines the role that race\/ethnicity and gender play in the politics of 50
\nAmerican Indian and Hispanic women public officials and grassroots activists in New
\nMexico. Incorporation of both formal\/electoral and informal\/grassroots leaders into one
\nstudy provides valuable opportunities for comparison and contrast among women in
\npolitics working in a variety of circumstances toward the generally similar goals of
\nempowering others to participate in public life and representing marginalized groups\u2019
\ninterests. This study of Native women and Latinas in both governmental institutions and
\ngrassroots organizations focuses on the influence of race\/ethnicity and gender identity on
\ntheir political ideologies and motives for activism. (Prindeville 2003, 591)
\nAlthough this approach offers some of the same information as a series of questions
\nmight, some people prefer questions because they can offer more clearly defined
\ngoals for the study and better guide data collection. One potential problem with the
\nstatement above is that the second sentence offers the implicit idea that all women in
\npolitics are working \u2018toward the generally similar goals of empowering others to
\nparticipate in public life and representing marginalized groups\u2019 interests\u2019 (Prindeville
\n2003, 591). If cast as a question, such a statement might more clearly be recognized
\ninterpreted as a \u2018leading\u2019 question, one where the author is presupposing a condition
\nrather than being open to what she might discover in conducting interviews with her
\nparticipants. In this instance, as is common in critical studies, the researcher is working
\nfrom a set of assumptions that are linked to a critical theoretical position on gender
\nand power. I will address these kinds of presuppositions later in the article when
\ndescribing effective questions.
\nDeveloping sub-questions and new questions during a study
\nAn initial generative question can set the stage for developing related sub-questions.
\nSub-questions can take many forms, depending on the focus of the overarching
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n436 J. Agee
\nquestion. Creswell (2007, 109\u2013110), drawing on Stake (1995), described \u2018issue\u2019 and
\n\u2018procedural\u2019 sub-questions, although some questions may cut across these categories.
\nBoth types of sub-questions emerge from an overarching question and ask about the
\nspecifics of a topic\/issue or a phenomenon. Rubenstein-Avila (2007) used her initial
\nquestion on a single case study of a young woman from the Dominican Republic who
\nmoved to the USA to set up two related sub-questions. Her first question \u2013 \u2018What
\ncounts as literacy for a young Dominican immigrant woman as she makes the transition
\ninto high school in the USA\u2019 \u2013 led to two sub-questions: \u2018In what ways do her
\nemerging transnational experiences affect her expanding repertoire of literacy
\npractices\u2019 and \u2018What role does school play in the development of the literacy practices
\nthat count across institutions of higher education in an era of globalization\u2019
\n(Rubenstein-Avila 2007, 572). These sub-questions narrow the broader focus of the
\noverarching question. While allowing for discovery, they also give direction to the
\nparticular kinds of data she would need to collect: data on this participant\u2019s transnational
\nexperiences from her perspective and data on school policies that affect literacy
\npractices in a global society.
\nThe development of new questions, especially sub-questions, often occurs
\nduring the inquiry process, sometimes during data collection and analysis. A
\nresearcher may find that the initial focus of the research question is too limited to fully
\naddress the phenomenon under study. The addition of new questions is especially
\nnecessary in ethnographic studies or longitudinal studies where the research is
\nevolving over months or even years. As I collected data in a three-year study of an
\nAfrican-American preservice teacher (Agee 2004, 749), I discovered that I needed to
\nadd questions.
\nAs I observed Tina\u2019s struggles, my research questions changed. Initially I was interested
\nin preservice teachers\u2019 perspectives on reading and teaching literature. However,
\nas I continued to work with Tina during her first two years in the classroom, I focused
\non a second question: How is Tina, as an African American teacher who ended up
\nteaching in a suburban school, able to develop her teaching identity in her first 2 years
\nof teaching Tina\u2019s experiences also prompted larger questions: How do national and
\nstate policies that shape standards and assessments influence teacher identity formation,
\nespecially for teachers who want to use more diverse texts and approaches Are teacher
\neducation programs unintentionally maintaining a White, Euro-American hegemony
\nwith discourse that makes teachers of color and their perspectives on curriculum
\ninvisible
\nThese subsequent questions ended up reshaping my data collection and my analyses.
\nSometimes researchers construct a series of questions that flow from one another,
\nwith the possibility that additional questions may be added as data is collected. In a
\nstudy of the dialogic lives of actors from two countries, Linden and Cermak (2007)
\nuse this questioning technique to examine particular intersections of culture with
\nthe personal and professional lives of professional actors in the two countries. They
\nbegin with a series of related questions that reveal the complexities of these actors\u2019
\nexperiences in personal and professional contexts:
\nWhat does contextual knowledge of working life represent under conditions in which the
\nsocial setting at the place of work is regarded as a subculture in which norms, traditions
\nand rituals are created What processes are involved in actors\u2019 creating meanings that are
\nimportant for their experiencing professional fulfillment and how is this related to their
\nlife experiences in general (Linden and Cermak 2007, 48)
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 437
\nThe focus of these questions helped the researchers develop a variety of protocols,
\nfrom personal and group diaries to interviews, to collect the kinds of data that would
\nreveal the actors\u2019 perspectives on their personal and professional lives. Their questions
\ngrew out of the hermeneutic framework that they used to highlight critical
\nmoments in the actors\u2019 lives. They offer the potential for exploration of a rich nexus
\nof social and cultural issues that deeply affect these participants.
\nTheory and questions: a dialogic process
\nTheory is inextricably linked to research questions, whether the theory is shaping
\nthem initially or suggesting new questions as the study unfolds. An overarching question
\nfor many qualitative studies will point toward one or more of the theoretical
\nconstructs that frame the study. As Maxwell (2005, 68) explained, research questions
\nneed to account for one\u2019s \u2018tentative theories about \u2026 phenomena.\u2019 Those tentative
\ntheories and the questions that result from them may very well change to accommodate
\ndata collection or preliminary findings. Often, when doctoral students write a
\nproposal, they are drawn to grand theories as a beginning point. For example, a
\nresearcher may be drawn to social justice issues and therefore choose a critical theory
\nframework, writ large, in the initial stages. As the design develops, the researcher may
\ndecide to focus on questions about a particular aspect of a social context, such as
\nsocial interactions. At this point, the theory might be narrowed to discourse analysis,
\nand research questions about discourse and the positioning of individuals in a
\ndiscourse would follow.
\nTheoretical framing evolves and changes during most studies and may also inspire
\nadditional questions as a researcher collects data. Karpiak (2006, 86), for example,
\nhad begun her study of middle-aged social workers with three questions: \u2018What
\nhappens to these professionals in their work, their personal relationships, and their
\nsense of self during the mid-life transition How do they manage the changes and
\ntransitions during this period Finally, for those for whom this period has ushered in
\nmajor changes, what events triggered them\u2019 After she was immersed in collecting her
\ndata, she found chaos theory revealed other dimensions of the participants\u2019 life
\nchanges that she had not originally considered: \u2018Through the lens of this theory, I
\ncould see the possibilities for human evolution that may follow from disorder, turbulence,
\nchaos, and crisis\u2019 (Karpiak 2006, 105). Karpiak\u2019s turn to Chaos Theory helped
\ngenerate new questions on how middle-aged people handle life situations beyond their
\ncontrol.
\nSome researchers, such as Yin (1994), propose that a theoretical framework should
\ninform the research questions for case study research as the theory will help to define
\nthe selection and parameters of cases. As researchers design a study and protocols,
\ntheory often shapes the methods in explicit ways. For many researchers, selecting a
\ntheoretical framework not only shapes the questions but also connects the research to
\na particular field. In a reflective piece on some earlier research, Merriam (2006)
\nexplained how she and her colleagues used the transformation learning theory of
\nMezirow (1990) in developing a study of HIV-positive young adults. She described
\nthe role of theory in all aspects of the study: \u2018Our interest in the framework of transformational
\nlearning drove all aspects of our study from identifying the focus of our
\ninvestigation, to sample selection, to interpretation of our data\u2019 (Merriam 2006, 26).
\nThe research question Merriam et al. developed emerged from theory and guided them
\nto select a particular group of participants: \u2018Having selected a sample of HIV-positive
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n438 J. Agee
\nyoung adults, we wanted to explore how they made sense of this catastrophic news;
\nthat is, how does a young adult make meaning of this threat to his or her existence\u2019
\n(Merriam 2006, 27). This question reflected Mezirow\u2019s ideas about a process of learning
\nthat leads, through a meaning-making process, to transformations in thought and
\naction in the lives of individuals. Merriam et al. also pointed out the relevance of
\nMezirow\u2019s theory to the field of adult learning, so they were making connections
\nbetween this study and this particular field.
\nQuestions can point to theory explicitly or implicitly. For example, Patchen (2006)
\nconducted an ethnographic study on Latina\/Latino high school students\u2019 participation
\nin classroom discussions. Her questions offer explicit links to several theories. She
\nasked:
\n(1) How do the ways in which adolescent Latinas\/Latinos conceptualize classroom
\nparticipation processes shape active oral participation
\n(2) How do girls and boys understand the relationship of gender to participation
\n(3) What, if any, are the mitigating factors influencing classroom participation
\n(Patchen 2006, 2054)
\nHer first and third questions point to discourse theory, and her second question more
\nspecifically to theories on the role of gender in discussions. Her questions also
\nconnected her theoretical frameworks to her methods and guided her analyses. Her
\nexplicit connections to these theoretical constructs helped focus her inquiry but at the
\nsame time anticipated discoveries about these students\u2019 conceptions.
\nIn some cases, research questions offer more implicit links to theory. In a study on
\nthe online journaling of two adolescent girls, Guzzetti and Gamboa (2005, 169) used
\nthe following questions:
\n(1) What is the new literacy practice of online journaling
\n(2) How do two focal students use online journaling to form and represent their
\nidentities
\n(3) For these two students, what are the engaging and appealing aspects of
\nonline journaling that might inform instructional practice in their language arts
\nclassrooms
\nThe first question seeks to define the phenomenon as a literacy practice and to establish
\na link with theories on writing. The second question points to identity theory as a
\nframework for examining the appeal of online journaling. The third question seeks to
\nidentify what aspects of this literacy practice are engaging for these students and could
\nlead to theories on motivation or engagement. However, the third question is problematic.
\nIt is presuming implications for the study \u2013 that journaling is engaging and that
\nthis practice has the potential to inform practice \u2013 and is out of place as a research
\nquestion. The main point to remember is that qualitative questions should embrace
\ntheory, either explicitly or implicitly as a way of giving direction and framing particular
\nideas. Theory also serves as a conceptual tool that can move an inquiry forward
\ntoward deeper levels of understanding.
\nIdeally, the inquiry process should not only include possibilities for discoveries
\nthat may lead to new theory and questions, as was the case for Merriam et al., and for
\ndeveloping new theories and questions that may emerge from analyses of data but also
\npossibilities for ongoing reflexivity about one\u2019s own theories or world view. Creswell
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 439
\n(2007, 42) noted that a qualitative study begins with \u2018the broad assumptions central to
\nqualitative inquiry, a worldview consistent with it, and in many cases, a theoretical
\nlens that shapes the study.\u2019 One\u2019s worldview often determines an initial choice of
\ntheory. As Flick (2006, 106) observed, research questions usually originate with \u2018the
\nresearchers\u2019 personal biographies and their social contexts.\u2019 I find many students are
\nin love with a particular theory even before shaping their questions, and it is likely that
\ntheir own life experiences have played a role in their choice. However, the process of
\nqualitative inquiry should invite the possibility for questioning personal theories
\nand for expanding or modifying the original conceptual framework and research
\nquestions.
\nReflexivity and ethical considerations in developing questions
\nPart of the process of developing questions in qualitative research is being reflective
\nabout how the questions will affect participants\u2019 lives and how the questions will
\nposition the researcher in relation to participants. This ethical aspect of question
\ndevelopment is often ignored, but is a central issue when a researcher proposes to
\nstudy the lives of others, especially marginalized populations. As Flick (2006) noted,
\nqualitative studies can reveal how people experience and think about events and social
\nrelations, so a qualitative question needs to be developed to take advantage of the
\nunique capabilities of qualitative research. At the same time, because the researcher is
\nrepresenting the lives of individuals, the kinds of questions a researcher is asking
\nbecome paramount when considering the short- and long-term effects on others.
\nEthnographers have, for the last three decades, called for more attention to issues
\nin representing the lives of others (Clifford 1988; Clifford and Marcus 1986; Marcus
\nand Fischer 1986; Rosaldo 1989). This concern with the representation of others by
\nrecent scholars in ethnography grew out of works such as Said\u2019s (1979) landmark
\nbook Orientalism. Said examined the conceptions and power structures informing
\nstereotypes of other cultures included in the term \u2018Oriental.\u2019 In his conclusions, he
\noffered these thoughts on representation:
\nModern thought and experience have taught us to be sensitive to what is involved in
\nrepresentation, in studying the Other, in racial thinking, in unthinking and uncritical
\nacceptance of authority and authoritative ideas, in the socio-political role of intellectuals,
\nin the great value of a skeptical critical consciousness. Perhaps if we remember that the
\nstudy of human experience usually has an ethical, to say nothing of a political, consequence
\nin either the best or the worst sense, we will not be indifferent to what we do as
\nscholars. (Said 1979, 327)
\nIn earlier debates on representation by ethnographers (see Roth et al. 1989), researchers
\ntook on the problem of representation as an ethical issue. More recently, ethnographers
\nhave moved toward studies that are reciprocal (Lawless 2000) or collaborative
\n(Lassiter 2005) where a researcher works with participants as co-researchers to cocreate
\nrepresentations. Such collaborative efforts often change the nature of research
\nquestions. Lassiter, for example, following the advice of Spradley and McCurdy
\n(1972), turned to those he was interested in working with in his research \u2013 the Kiowa
\ntribe \u2013 to discover what was important in their lives from their perspectives.
\nConcern with ethics has been central in narrative and life history studies. In a
\nreview of scholarship on narrative ethics, Adams (2008, 179) found that \u2018working
\nwith ethics involves realizing that we do not know how others will respond to and\/or
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n440 J. Agee
\ninterpret our work.\u2019 Importantly, he also asked, \u2018What questions can we use to probe
\nauthors and stories to uncover their \u2018ethical dimensions\u2019\u2019 Taken to an extreme,
\nAdams (2008, 184) admitted that concerns about ethics can paralyze a researcher:
\n\u2018Will I silence myself worrying about harming them\u2019 He concluded, \u2018We can never
\ndefinitively know how others interpret our work nor can we ever definitively know
\nwho we harm and help with our life stories.\u2019 Consideration of ethical issues begins in
\nthe process of reflection and is carried forward into formulating questions, designing
\na study, and writing it up for publication. The best practice is to engage in \u2018meaningful
\nconversations about life writing\u2019 (Adams 2008, 188). These conversations should
\ncertainly begin during the formulation of research questions, but they can continue to
\ntake place during and after the completion of the inquiry process.
\nIt is important to remember developing good research questions requires understanding
\nthat inquiries into other people\u2019s lives are always an exercise in ethics.
\nInstitutional review boards at universities routinely ask researchers who are proposing
\na study to state the level of risk to the participants. Assessing risk when formulating
\nquestions is often particularly difficult for new researchers. A former doctoral
\nstudent who was chairing her department in a high school wanted to study how
\nwell the teachers in her department were implementing a new initiative she had
\ndeveloped. Not only did her committee not approve the study but the institutional
\nreview board also denied the student approval on the grounds that the proposed study
\ncould jeopardize these teachers\u2019 jobs and professional lives due to issues of authority
\nand coercion.
\nIn another instance, one doctoral student wanted to study her colleagues to see how
\nthey felt about implementing new teaching strategies that her school was implementing.
\nIn my discussion with this student, it was clear that she had not thought about the
\npossible consequences to her colleagues and how her future professional relationship
\nwith them might be damaged by asking this question. She decided to change the focus
\nof her study.
\nWell-crafted qualitative research questions can address sensitive topics and pursue
\nissues that are of importance to a field of study. Wood (2006) described the ethical
\nchallenges she faced in conducting field research in El Salvador during the civil war.
\nShe was examining the perspectives of Salvadorans from a range of socioeconomic
\nsituations on the conflict. She made the point that in such sensitive and dangerous
\ncontexts, where people\u2019s lives may be threatened by participation in a study, that the
\ncontext should determine the research and \u2018some settings where research cannot be
\nethically conducted and should not be attempted or should be curtailed\u2019 (Wood 2006,
\n374). Wood also practiced the kind of interactive, reflective thinking that goes into
\ndeveloping and carrying out a qualitative study.
\nAlthough most researchers pursue less challenging studies, ethical issues can arise
\nwhen researchers presume they are asking innocuous questions and subsequently
\ndevelop protocols (to obtain data to answer the question) that participants find
\noffensive or uncomfortable. In other instances, a researcher realizes that the initial
\nquestions are complicated by his\/her own positioning in relation to participants.
\nPositioning can be especially complicated when researchers are working with special
\npopulations such as children. Huber and Clandenin (2002), in a study of a diverse
\nclassroom of elementary school children and their experiences in school, encountered
\nunanticipated issues about their positions as researchers when a new student, Melissa,
\nentered the classroom. Melissa questioned the presence of the researchers, these other
\nadults, and how they were positioned in relation to her and to the other adults in her
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 441
\nclassroom. After their encounter with Melissa, Huber and Clandenin (2002, 787)
\nfound themselves asking new questions:
\nOur reflections on Melissa\u2019s statement awakened us to deeper thinking about how we
\nstoried the children as well as how the children storied us. How were we imagining the
\nchildren\u2019s positioning in this inquiry How were they positioning us How might
\nMelissa\u2019s story of children as teachers be lived out in a relational narrative inquiry
\nHow did we imagine children were to be co-researchers in a relational narrative
\ninquiry
\nDeveloping qualitative research questions should include careful thought about how
\nthe direction of the inquiry will position the researcher in relation to participants and
\nwhat the implications are for the participants\u2019 lives.
\nWhen working with vulnerable or with marginalized populations, the effects of
\nresearch questions need to be assessed throughout the study. Subedi (2007) described
\nthe problems he encountered when setting out to study Asian-American teachers. His
\nstudy questions focused on \u2018how the teachers articulated their linguistic identities as
\nnon-native speakers of English in schools\u2019 and \u2018the challenges the teachers faced in
\nnegotiating their religious identities (Muslim and Hindu) since Christianity was often
\nnormalized as the un\/spoken official religion in the schools\u2019 (Subedi 2007, 53). As an
\nAsian-American himself, Subedi wrongly assumed when creating his research questions
\nthat he would not have to be concerned about his positionality or about parity in
\nthe research\u2013participant relationship. Subedi (2007, 65) concluded:
\nWhen researchers disregard how ethnic participants are reshaping research design, they
\nfail to see the agency exerted by the Other. And such non-recognitions simply reduce
\nparticipants to data sources and to objects that are ready to be sorted out and written up
\nthrough the researchers\u2019 ethnographic imaginations.
\nIn asking his research questions and designing his interview protocols, Subedi did not
\nanticipate the level of discomfort his participants would feel when participating in
\ntaped interviews. He advised other researchers who are researching \u2018marginalized
\npeople \u2026 to fully engage with cultural differences and be explicit about how the
\nlearning encounters have redrawn the maps of research methodologies\u2019 (Subedi 2007,
\n65). This process begins with the research questions and thinking through the ethical
\nimplications of asking particular questions.
\nAdams (2008) concluded that engaging in conversations about and reflecting on
\npotential ethical issues is the best approach. Although there are no assurances that the
\nresearcher will not encounter other ethical issues along the way in a study, the goal is
\nto develop reflexive and dialogical tools through thoughtful development of research
\nquestions.
\nWriting good qualitative questions
\nSo, what is required in actually writing research questions for a qualitative study
\nQualitative questions usually inform the direction of the study in both theoretical and
\nmethodological terms. One important characteristic in writing initial questions is
\nfocus. A question can be thought of as a tool that is much like a steady-cam lens used
\nto document an event or a journey. In the initial stages of study design, the researcher
\nuses the steady-cam to frame an ever-changing broad landscape and then narrows the
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n442 J. Agee
\nfocus to frame and follow a specific set of events or actions in the broader terrain.
\nHowever, that terrain is not just any place; it is a specific place with a dense,
\nrich history. Geertz (1973, 22) emphasized this point in the work of ethnography:
\n\u2018Anthropologists don\u2019t study villages \u2026; they study in villages.\u2019 Questions have
\nto reflect this particularity. A qualitative researcher is not asking about any context
\nbut rather asking about \u2018the delicacy of its distinctions\u2019 (Geertz 1973, 25). However,
\nnew researchers often have difficulty conceptualizing their first questions in these
\nterms.
\nMany first attempts at question development generate questions that are overly
\nbroad and that lack reference to a specific context. A doctoral student who was
\nplanning to conduct a pilot study \u2013 a single case study of a veteran high school teacher
\n\u2013 drafted a first question that asked: \u2018How do teachers perceive professional development
\non strategies for helping at-risk students\u2019 Using the metaphor of a steady-cam,
\nit was clear that one problem with the first-draft question was that the context for this
\nquestion was not in focus. Who were these teachers How did their perceptions reflect
\nthe context of their school and their school district The researcher had a particular
\ncontext in mind, but did not clarify this context in the question. Moreover, she was
\ngoing to study one teacher in a particular school. Her question also did not describe
\nthe duration of professional development. Was it taking place in one day or over a
\nlonger period of time Her revision added some important context and allowed her to
\nfocus her question: \u2018How does a high school English teacher perceive a one-week
\nprofessional development workshop that focused on instructional strategies for at-risk
\nstudents\u2019
\nAfter talking with this student, I asked why she was interested in a teacher\u2019s
\nperceptions on professional development. In our subsequent discussions, she realized
\nshe was really interested in the factors that shaped their perceptions and influenced
\ntheir propensity for adopting some of the strategies they had learned about. Her question
\nthen became \u2018What factors influence high school English teachers\u2019 perceptions of
\na one-week professional development workshop on instructional strategies for at-risk
\nstudents\u2019 A second question asked, \u2018How did these factors influence the degree to
\nwhich they used these strategies in their work with at-risk students\u2019 Although she
\ncontinued to refine her questions, this dialogic and iterative process helped her to
\nbegin designing a pilot study that would involve two interviews with the teacher, one
\nduring the professional development workshop and a second after the workshop, and
\nobservations in her classroom after the workshop.
\nThe process of focusing questions is an iterative, reflective process that leads, not
\njust to data, but to specific data that can add knowledge to a larger field of study. Flick
\n(2006, 106) summed this up quite well: \u2018The result of formulating questions is it helps
\nyou to circumscribe a specific area of a more or less complex field which you regard
\nas essential.\u2019 When beginning to write questions, a researcher might use the old, but
\nuseful question, \u2018So what\u2019 What difference will this inquiry make in the field of study
\nin which a researcher is working The importance of the questions to the field should
\nhelp to shape the writing of research questions.
\nIn sum, qualitative questions should reflect the particularities of one\u2019s study.
\nMaxwell (2005, 67) phrased it bluntly: \u2018The function of your research questions is to
\nexplain specifically what your study is about.\u2019 If a researcher is going to study a
\ngroup of students in an urban high school in the mid-west, the question should
\nspecify the participants as situated in the rich contexts in which they are living their
\nlives.
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 443
\nMaking questions work for the researcher
\nAs noted above, theory is an important aspect of qualitative research questions. When
\nwriting questions, it is important to frame the words so that the phrasing implicitly or
\nexplicitly makes a link with the theory, as described above. Maxwell (2005, 67)
\ndescribed research questions as guides that can help \u2018point you toward specific areas
\nof theory\u2019 and that may be helpful in designing the study. For example, if a researcher
\nis interested in urban middle school students and their perceptions on experiences that
\nlead them to dropping out of school, questions might be phrased to take into account
\nsome aspect of critical theory. The researcher might also be interested in the ways that
\ndiscourses in the school and community contribute to these students\u2019 at-risk status, so
\nthe researcher might word the question so that it would point specifically to critical
\ndiscourse theory.
\nAnother important issue when writing questions is to be sure that they are answerable.
\nCan they be answered by any kind of study A former student, with a background
\nin library science, was doing a small study for a class project and came up with
\nan initial question that asked: \u2018How do college students feel about their campus
\nlibrary\u2019 Of course, he had no intention of interviewing all college students in the
\nworld. In our conversation about his proposal, he said he was especially interested in
\nundergraduate students\u2019 views on specific services provided by the library. He was
\nable to narrow his question to ask about undergraduates on one campus and to focus
\nhis questions so that he addressed some of the specific services offered by the library.
\nHis rewriting provided the limitations necessary for designing and carrying out a small
\nstudy in a semester.
\nThere are many practical considerations to think about when writing questions.
\nSome questions are simply not answerable given the researcher\u2019s time frame and
\nresources. When writing questions, a novice researcher may not take into account the
\ncosts of travel, copying, transcription, and all the time and materials required. Richards
\n(2005, 15) lists three questions to ask in developing research questions: \u2018What are
\nyou asking How are you asking it What data will you need to provide a good
\nanswer\u2019 Her third question is particularly important. If a question is focused and
\nclearly establishes what data is needed to answer the question, the research process
\nwill likely be smooth and achievable within a reasonable time frame.
\nAs noted above, when writing a qualitative research question, it is usually important
\nnot to phrase it so that it \u2018leads\u2019 or contains a presupposition about participants
\nor events. In qualitative research, in particular, the researcher is trying to discover
\nmeaning throughout the inquiry process. However, there are theoretical positions as
\nwell as qualitative approaches that work from a set of assumptions or a worldview
\nsuch that research questions contain those implicit or explicit views. Critical theorists
\noften begin by assuming unequal power relationships exist, and those assumptions
\nmay shape questions. In participatory action research, initial questions may
\nalso seem to lead as they tend to focus on a local set of circumstances. Yet these
\nkinds of research can also work toward a process that opens an inquiry rather than
\nclosing it prematurely. If a researcher takes seriously the idea that questions are
\nevolving and provide tools for opening dialogue, as suggested by Van Manen
\n(1990), early assumptions may be questioned as the research evolves. Stringer
\n(2007, 11) argued that with participatory action research, the stakeholders have
\ncontinuing opportunities to question what they know and assume: \u2018As they rigorously
\nexplore and reflect on their situation together, they can repudiate social myths,
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n444 J. Agee
\nmisconceptions, and misrepresentations and formulate more constructive analyses of
\ntheir situation.\u2019
\nIn many cases, though, leading questions emerge when new researchers have not
\nthought through their study design and how the wording of questions might lead to
\nunintended problems. For example, one of my doctoral students posed the following
\nquestion: \u2018What events and interactions are occurring in middle school social studies
\nclassrooms that show self-regulated learning\u2019 Besides being overly broad and providing
\nlittle context, the question presupposes the occurrence of self-regulated learning
\nin middle school classrooms. After the student revised the question and added some
\ncontext, she came up with the following version: \u2018What kinds of learning strategies
\nare evident in three urban middle school classrooms after the teachers engaged in
\nprofessional development on self-regulated learning\u2019 The revised question brings the
\nfocus to learning strategies without presupposing an outcome for professional development.
\nIt can be difficult to avoid leading questions based on assumptions or a particular
\nworld view. Often researchers come to a study expecting to see certain events occur
\nand may write questions around those expectations. Often such questions tend to
\nassign attributes to a situation or a group of people in advance and thereby violate the
\nessence of qualitative inquiry in ways that may not be desirable. For example, questions
\nthat assume that all social workers suffer from secondary post-traumatic stress
\nor that all urban school children have low levels of literacy are based on faulty
\npremises. Writing leading questions that arrive at certain conclusions before collecting
\ndata can bias a study in a way that damages its credibility.
\nFinally, wording matters in writing questions. Substituting one word for another or
\nadding one word can clarify or obscure the meaning of a question. In writing a question
\nfor a class project, one student asked: \u2018How does the act of participating in an
\nonline class affect self-concept when the learner is new to online learning\u2019 In his
\nrevision, he added one word and deleted three to come up with the following question:
\n\u2018How does participating in an online college class affect self-concept when the learner
\nis new to online learning\u2019 Adding \u2018college\u2019 focused the question on a particular age
\ngroup. Deleting \u2018the act of\u2019 focused the question on examining a range of interactions
\nthat informed the learner\u2019s self-concept.
\nFinally, it is important not to \u2018pack\u2019 questions with multiple sub-questions. A
\nformer doctoral student started with the following research question for his qualitative
\nstudy on administrators of wellness clinics: \u2018How do wellness clinic administrators in
\na large urban clinic describe their professional collaborations with other clinic administrators
\nand staff members, their roles as collaborators, and their collaborative partners\u2019
\nThis question needs to be unpacked. There are several questions embedded in
\nthis one question that merit separate questions. This student wanted to examine parity
\nin these different collaborative interactions. So, his revised questions asked, \u2018How do
\nwellness clinic administrators in a large urban clinic perceive their collaborations with
\nother administrators\u2019 and \u2018How do wellness clinic administrators perceive their
\ncollaborations with staff members\u2019 He also wanted to understand how the administrators
\nperceived their roles in each of these collaborative contexts and if those
\ndiffered. So, he rewrote the question, \u2018Do these administrators\u2019 perceived roles in
\ncollaborations with other administrators and with staff members differ, and if so
\nhow\u2019 After thinking through what he wanted to know in each situation, he was able
\nto unpack his initial question and parse its multiple aims in order to create a clearer
\nset of research questions.
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 445
\nSituating questions in a paper or dissertation
\nAfter deciding on initial questions for a proposal or a paper, it is helpful to think about
\nwhere the questions will be placed in the manuscript and what will precede them. In
\na well-written qualitative paper, the research questions need to be stated early in the
\npaper, but they also need to have enough prefatory material so that a reader can see
\nhow the questions are growing out of interests of the researcher, theoretical premises,
\nand significant issues in the discipline. Thoughtful placement of the questions will
\nshow a reader how the questions are linked to the larger study.
\nCoiro and Dobler (2007, 221) in a study of sixth-graders\u2019 online literacies, placed
\ntheir research questions after the review of literature. Their preface for the questions
\nsummed up what they had reviewed and pointed toward the methods they would use
\nto collect data:
\nConsequently, the purpose of this study is to explore the reading comprehension strategies
\nof skilled sixth-grade readers prompted by Internet search engines and informational
\nwebsites, and further, to begin to describe how readers employed these strategies in each
\ncontext. The tasks we designed focused on three aspects of comprehension deemed
\nimportant from a new literacies perspective (e.g., locating, evaluating, and synthesizing)
\n(Leu et al. 2004) in two online reading contexts commonly used for Internet research
\ntasks in school classrooms (Lenhart, Simon, et al. 2001). To explore these issues, we
\nconducted a qualitative study of reading strategies used across these contexts guided by
\ntwo related questions:
\n(1) What characterizes the reading process as skilled readers search for and locate
\ninformation on the internet
\n(2) What informs the choices that skilled readers make while reading for information on
\nthe Internet
\nIn these questions, I might have requested the addition of \u2018sixth-grade\u2019 before
\n\u2018skilled readers.\u2019 However, the authors had stated their goals for the study earlier, and
\nthey had clearly established the context and the grade and skill level of the participants,
\nso the reader could use the questions as a guide through the rest of the study.
\nThe preface above set up the questions, identified a theoretical framework (New
\nLiteracy theory), described the context, and described the general approach used for
\nthe study.
\nBecause qualitative papers tend to be lengthy, the writer may want to place the
\nresearch questions in both the introductory material and in the methods section. This
\nplacement is especially helpful in a dissertation. For a dissertation study in this
\ninstance, it is sometimes useful to restate the questions yet again in the concluding
\nchapter to show how the analysis and conclusions have addressed the questions.
\nSummary
\nConceptualizing, developing, writing, and re-writing research questions are all part of
\na dynamic, reflective qualitative inquiry process. Using qualitative research questions
\nreflexively can help researchers to clarify purpose, make connections with a field
\nof study, and reflect on and interrogate the impact of the research trajectory on participants.
\nA large part of constructing clear research questions is writing drafts of them over
\nand over and sharing them with others. In his well-known book Writing to learn,
\nZinsser (1989, 49) described writing as a tool for thinking and learning:
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\n446 J. Agee
\nWriting is a tool that enables people in every discipline to wrestle with facts and ideas
\n\u2026. It compels us by the repeated effort of language to go after those thoughts and to
\norganize them and present them clearly. It forces us to keep asking, \u2018Am I saying what
\nI want to say\u2019 Very often, the answer is \u2018No.\u2019
\nZinsser\u2019s point works well with the idea that writing and re-writing research questions
\nencourages researchers to ask important questions about purpose and clarity and to
\nlearn from this process. Wrestling with our questions, through reflecting and writing,
\nultimately helps us to become better researchers.
\nConclusion
\nIn conclusion, good qualitative questions can be significant tools that shape a study
\ndesign and analysis. Although initial questions often emerge from a researcher\u2019s
\npassions and interests in particular topics, ultimately, the goal is to refine and possibly
\nexpand the inquiry through reflexive, iterative, and dialogic processes that are central
\nto the theoretical and ethical positions taken up by the researcher. During the inquiry
\nprocess, a researcher needs to see questions as tools for discovery as well as tools for
\nclarity and focus. In the end, good qualitative questions are dynamic and multi-directional,
\ndrawing the reader into the research with a focus on a topic of significance and
\nat the same time functioning as lenses that are directed outward by the researcher to
\ncapture the nuances of the lives, experiences, and perspectives of others.
\nNotes on contributor
\nJane Agee, PhD, teaches qualitative research courses and is interested in theoretical and methodological
\nissues in qualitative research and in literacy. She has published in Research in the
\nTeaching of English, English Education, Journal of Literacy Research, and the International
\nJournal of Qualitative Studies in Education among others.
\nReferences
\nAdams, T.E. 2008. A review of narrative ethics. Qualitative Inquiry 14, no. 2: 175\u201394.
\nAgee, J. 2004. \u2018Winks upon winks\u2019: Multiple lenses on settings in qualitative educational
\nresearch. Qualitative Studies in Education 15, no. 5: 569\u201385.
\nCharmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
\nanalysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\nClifford, J. 1988. The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and
\nart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
\nClifford, J., and G. Marcus. 1986. Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography.
\nBerkeley, CA: University of California Press.
\nCoiro, J., and E. Dobler. 2007. Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
\nsixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading
\nResearch Quarterly 4, no. 2: 214\u201357.
\nCreswell, J. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
\nSage.
\nFlick, U. 2006. An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\nGeertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
\nGuzzetti, B., and M. Gamboa. 2005. Online journaling: The informal writings of two
\nadolescent girls. Research in the Teaching of English 40, no. 2: 168\u2013206.
\nHartman, P. 2006. \u2018Loud on the inside\u2019: Working-class girls, gender, and literacy. Research in
\nthe Teaching of English 41, no. 1: 82\u2013117.
\nHuber, J., and J. Clandenin. 2002. Ethical dilemmas in relational narrative inquiry with
\nchildren. Qualitative Inquiry 8, no. 6: 785\u2013803.
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015
\nInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 447
\nJanesick, V. 2000. The choreography of qualitative design: Minuets, improvisations, and
\ncrystallization. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln,
\n379\u201399. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\nKarpiak, I. 2006. Chaos and complexity: A framework for understanding social workers at
\nmidlife. In Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research, ed. V. Anfara and N. Mertz,
\n85\u2013108. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\nLassiter, L. 2005. The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago: University of
\nChicago Press.
\nLawless, E. 2000. \u2018Reciprocal\u2019 ethnography: No one said it was easy. Journal of Folklore
\nResearch 3, no. 2\/3: 197\u2013205.
\nLinden, J., and I. Cermak. 2007. Studying dialogical selves dialogically: Multiple-horizons
\nanalysis of critical moments of the working life of theatre actors in two cultures. Qualitative
\nInquiry 7, no. 1: 45\u201362.
\nMarcus, G., and M. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental
\nmoment in the human sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
\nMarshall, C., and G. Rossman. 2006. Designing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
\nCA: Sage.
\nMaxwell, J. 2005. Qualitative research: An interactive design. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
\nSage.
\nMerriam, S.B. 2006. Transformational learning and HIV-positive young adults. In Theoretical
\nframeworks in qualitative research, ed. V. Anfara and N. Mertz, 23\u201338. Thousand Oaks,
\nCA: Sage.
\nMezirow, J. 1990. How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In Fostering
\ncritical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning, ed.
\nJack Mezirow & Associates, 1\u201320. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
\nPatchen, T. 2006. Engendering participation, deliberating dependence: Inner city adolescents\u2019
\nperspectives of classroom practice. Teachers College Record 108, no. 10: 2053\u201379.
\nPatton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
\nCA: Sage.
\nPrindeville, D.-M. 2003. Identity and the politics of American Indian and Hispanic women
\nleaders. Gender & Society 17, no. 4: 591\u2013608.
\nRichards, L. 2005. Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage.
\nRosaldo, R. 1989. Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon
\nPress.
\nRoth, P., M. Buchowski, J. Clifford, M. Herzfeld, S. Sangren, D. Sapire, M. Strathern, and S.
\nTyler. 1989. Ethnography without tears [with comments and reply]. Current Anthropology
\n30, no. 5: 555\u201369.
\nRubenstein-Avila, E. 2007. From the Dominican Republic to Drew High: What counts as
\nliteracy for Yanira Lara Reading Research Quarterly 42, no. 4: 568\u201389.
\nSaid, E. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
\nSpradley, J., and D. McCurdy. 1972. The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex
\nsociety. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
\nStake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\nStrauss, A. 1987\/1990. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\nStringer, E. 2007. Action research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
\nSubedi, B. 2007. Recognizing respondents\u2019 ways of being and knowing: Lessons un\/learned
\nin researching Asian immigrant and Asian-American teachers. International Journal of
\nQualitative Studies in Education 20, no. 1: 51\u201371.
\nVan Manen, M. 1990. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
\npedagogy. New York: The State University of New York Press.
\nWood, E. 2006. The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology
\n29: 373\u201386.
\nYin, R. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\nZinsser, W. 1989. Writing to learn. New York: Harper & Row.
\nDownloaded by [University of Canberra] at 18:23 20 October 2015