Book Reviews
106
Qualitative
Thousand
Data Analysis:
oaks,
Reviewer: Thomas
Calif.:
an Expanded Sourcebook,
Sage,
edited
A. Schwandt3
A perdurable
problem for all social science investigations,
irrespective of methodology,
is the integrity, credibility, and
accuracy of the means of analysis that underlie the construction
of conclusions
and their verification.
Two contemporary
cases are the controversy
that has unfolded in
exchanges
of letters in The New York Review of Books (Lewontin, 1995, “Sex, Lies, and Sociology”:
Letters, 1995, “Sex,
Lies, and Sociology”: Another Exchange, 1995) surrounding
the publication
of The Social Organization of Sexuality by
the National Opinion Research Center as well as the critical
reaction to the analyses of data presented in Herrenstein and
Murray’s The Bell Curve (e.g., House & Haug, 1995). Both of
these studies employed widely accepted means of survey and
statistical analyses. The former study was criticized for drawing conclusions
insupportable
by the data; the latter for
improper (at best, and, at worst devious) use of statistics. My
point is simply that even with something like generally shared
rules for analyzing data, the problem of the integrity of analysis and the credibility of conclusions
does not evaporate.
Methodology
is more than strategy and tactics.
This observation
is critical because Miles and Huberman
think that qualitative inquiry continues to be particularly vulnerable to this problem of integrity of analysis because it
lacks explicit, shared rules for analysis. This, despite the near
exponential
growth of methodological
writings which they
acknowledge,
has taken place in the decade since the publication of the first edition of the Sourcebook. Hence, echoing
their claim of 10 years earlier, they state that qualitative
inquiry lacks explicit, systematic, well-formulated
methods of
analysis, and that the “creation,
testing, and revision of
simple, practical,
and effective analysis methods”
(p. 3)
remains the highest priority for qualitative researchers. They
argue that such work is needed both to enhance the confidence
researchers have in their findings and to demonstrate the cre&
bility of findings to relevant audiences. To address the shortcoming and with an eye on achieving these goals, Miles and
Huberman offer a cornucopia of methods for qualitative data
reduction and analysis. This is not a book about how to collect
qualitative data but rather what to do with qualitative data
that have been collected.
Central to Miles and Huberman’s
preoccupation
with
analysis is their belief that the “usually complex, ambiguous,
and sometimes downright contradictory”
(p. 309) nature of
qualitative data require particularly careful, thoughtful,
and
formalizable procedures for analysis. They are not convinced
that “long narrative accounts”
are the most useful means
of presenting qualitative data, and hence they propose that
analysis centers on “focused, organised displays that permit
systematic analyses and enhance confidence in findings” (p.
311). At the heart of their vision making sense of qualitative
data lies a three-fold scheme that evolves during data collection in the field and continues
through post-fieldwork
activities of making sense of the data and writing up, The
scheme consists of data reduction,
data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. Reduction encompasses procedures for sorting through, ordering, simplifying,
and so
forth the extensive data corpus one typically acquires in field
studies through
observations,
interviews,
and document
3 Requests for reprints should be sent to Thomas A. Schwandt,
Education
Bldg, Indiana
University,
by Matthew
B. Miles
and
A. Michael
Huberman.
1994.
Bloomington,
Wright
IN 47405, U.S.A.
reviews. Displays are the “organized compressed assembly of
information
that permits conclusion drawing” (p. 11). Also,
conclusion drawing emphasizes the interplay between constructing warrants for findings and checking the quality of
those warrants.
Three introductory chapters present Miles and Huberman’s
views about important
considerations
in the methodology
of qualitative studies. They note the considerable
variety in
approaches to framing qualitative studies but argue that there
is a shared interest in the issues of analysis. They provide a
useful discussion of the role of prior conceptual structure in
focusing and bounding a study and explore critical issues in
sampling within and across cases. They stress the importance
of considering ways in which qualitative and quantitative data
can be combined in the same study. They provide a succinct
summary of logistical and management issues in field studies.
Throughout
this introduction,
Miles and Huberman express
a preference for more rather than less planning of all aspects
of qualitative studies from conceptualization,
through design,
choice of instrumentation,
and data analysis.
At the core of the book are seven chapters-one
devoted
to issues and techniques of data reduction; five to various
means of constructing
displays; and one to conclusion drawing and verification.
The data reduction chapter illustrates
various approaches
to coding, memoing, and keeping track
of the evolving data corpus. The five subsequent
chapters
present a variety of techniques for developing data matrices
and networks, the principal kinds of displays. Numerous illustrations accompany advice on how to design and use (including time required to construct) matrices and networks for the
purpose of exploring, describing, and explaining qualitative
data both within and across cases. Readers with a penchant
for naming and formalizing techniques and procedures will
find approx. 85 tables, figures, and boxes in this section of
the text showing displays with impressive, scientific-sounding
names like “Case-ordered
Descriptive Meta-Matrix”,
“Pre“Explanatory
Effects Matrix”,
diction Feedback
Form”,
“Conceptually
Clustered Matrix”, “Segmented
Causal Network Chart”, and its companion, “Smoothed Causal Network
Chart”. These chapters on constructing displays are followed
by a short chapter on providing rules of thumb on building
displays. The authors then offer a chapter on drawing and
verifying conclusions in which they discuss at length a variety
of tactics for making sense of data as well as criteria and
procedures for testing conclusions drawn.
Three short chapters conclude the book: one highlights the
implications of various ethical concerns in field studies for the
task of data analysis; a second discusses issues in reporting
including report style, format, author voice, and report audiences. The third summarizes the authors’ concerns that data
analysis procedures be explicit, formalizable,
and replicable.
An appendix contains practical information on choosing computer software for qualitative data analysis.
For evaluators who work with qualitative data, this book
provides a wealth of ideas on organizing, analyzing, and presenting such data. It is, as the authors claim, a set of resources
for practising researchers. It is well-organized,
clearly written,
and practical. I have recommended
the book to graduate
students seeking advice on ways to treat the data from their
field studies, and they too have found it helpful.
No sensible social inquirer would quarrel with Miles and
Huberman’s
admirable goals of enhancing researcher confidence in findings and improving understandability
and credi-
Book Reviews
107
bility of conclusions through more careful attention to issues
phenomena.
Method, as has been argued elsewhere (Schand procedures of data analysis. But it is misleading to convey
wandt, 1994; forthcoming),
takes on an entirely different
implicity the message that thoroughness,
explicitness, and formeaning in this strand. Further, in a hermeneutic approach
malization of methods for analysis holds the key to the integto interpretation
issues of methodology
cannot be sharply
rity of qualitative inquiry. To use the book properly, in my
distinguished from issues of morality (e.g. Taylor, 1985, 1987).
judgement, it must be placed in the context of ways of thinking
However, neither of these conditions mean that qualitative
about the nature and purpose of qualitative inquiry. Miles
inquirers persuaded of this approach view making sense of
and Huberman imply as much in contrasting their preferences
qualitative data as an intuitive nearly incommunicable
act.
for analysis to those who favor more intuitive approaches and
The Sourcebook
should be used to expose students to an
“long narrative accounts”.
But the issues should be made
excellent explication of the importance of the scientific strand
more sharply, not because it is important to draw clear boundin qualitative work, but it should not stand alone as the only
aries around different approaches
to qualitative studies, but
approach to thinking about either the purpose or the integrity
because the alternative to Miles and Huberman’s concern for
of qualitative studies. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUT
rigorous
analysis is not unchecked
intuition
and muddleheadedness.
Given their objectives in the book, it is perhaps
unreasonable
to ask Miles and Huberman
to develop this
REFERENCES
idea. But individuals planning to use the book in teaching
qualitative methodology
should attend to the issues of differHOUSE, E.R. & HAUG, C. (1995). Riding The Bell Curve: A review.
ent, quite legitimate ways of conceiving of qualitative studies.
Educational Evaluarion and Policy Analy sis, 17(2), 263- 272.
Qualitative
inquiry has both scientific and hermeneutic
strands, so to speak. The former defines qualitative inquiry as
LEWONTIN,
R.C. (1995) Sex, lies and social science. The New York
one among many systematic, methodical processes for acquirReview of Books, XLII(7), 24- 29.
ing genuine, positive, scientific knowledge of social phenomena. The development
and refinement of zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
method is a central
SCHWANDT,
T.A. (1994) Constructivist,
interpretivist
approaches
preoccupation
of this strand, for it is believed that method
to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
offers a kind of clarity on the path to understanding
that can
of Qualitative Research (pp. 118-137). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
be had no other way. Miles and Huberman cite approvingly
here George Homan’s remark that methodology
is a matter
SCHWANDT,
T.A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology.
Qualitative
of strategy not morals; Wolcott’s (1994) recent discussion of
Inquiry, 2(l), 58- 72.
approaches
to making sense of qualitative data underscores
this observation. He distinguishes between description, analy“Sex, Lies and Sociology”
Another Exchange (1995). The New York
sis, and interpretation
as ways to transform data. He points
Review of Books, XLII(13) 55- 56.
out that the commitment
to analysis “suggests something of
the scientific mind at work: inherently conservative,
careful,
“Sex, Lies and Sociology”:
Letters (1995). The New York Review of
systematic” (p. 25); “it is more orderly, less speculative side
Books, XLII(I0)
68- 69.
of data transformation”
(p. 26). Miles and Huberman
are
clearly working in this scientific strand where cautious, conTAYLOR, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical
trolled, methodical,
formal, and objective procedures
are
papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
thought to hold the key to the integrity of claims made from
qualitative
data. Also, the authors do an excellent job of
TAYLOR,
C. (1987). Overcoming
epistemology.
In K. Baynes, J.
articulating that viewpoint.
Bohman & T. McCarthy
(Eds.), After philosophy : End or transBut practising qualitative inquirers, and those seeking to
formafion? (pp. 459488).
Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press,
become the same, ought to be exposed to an alternative tradition for approaching
qualitative studies. The (ontological)
hermeneutic
strand of qualitative
work does not venerate
WOLCOTT,
H.F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description,
scientific method as the key to genuine understanding
of social
analy sis, and interpretation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.