Qualitative Research Traditions - A Review - Jacob 1987

Review of Educational Research
Spring 1987, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. .150
Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review

Evelyn Jacob
George Mason University
This article illustrates how various sualitative traditions could be used in

educational research hbyescribing and comparing the traditions of ecolog
ical psychology, holistic cthnography, cognitive anthropology, ethnography
of communication, and symbolic interactionism. The analysis shows that
qualitative tradittons presenn diverse approaches to research and thathate
tradition forms a coherent whole, comprising internally consistent assump
tions about human nature and society, foci of study, and methodology.
Implications of the analysis suggest that qualitative eraditions may offer a
richer andfuller understanding ofeducatton. Educational researchers could
conduct either basic or applied research within these traditionss or rhey
could adapt the traditions to address new problems. Moreover, it is
suggested that educators who wish ho perform qualitative research chould
seek to employ the totality of a tradition, not just generic assumptions or
methods.
Many students and colleagues in education have asked how to conduct

research in natural settings, and various discussions in the education
literature have called for naturalistic alternatives to traditional positivistic
educational research. However, some educators are not sure how these
alternative approaches can be used in educational research, and many who
have tried to apply naturalistic approaches to education have not been sure
what questions to ask or how to answer them. The education literature has
provided no clear-cut answers to these concerns.
In another article (Jacob, in press) I argued that confusion has arisen
because the education literature has usually treated the alternatives to
traditional positivistic research as a single approach—often called the
"qualitative" approach—when, in fact, there are a variety of alternative
approaches. I further asserted that the confusion could be clarified by using
the concept of tradition, by which I mean a group of scholars who agree
among themselves on the nature of the universe they are examining, on
Work on this paper was partially supported by a summer stipend from George
Mason University. I would like to thank Bruce Davis, Margaret Eisenhart, Mitchell
Ratner, Gretchen Schafft, and anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier
versions of this paper.
1
Evelyn Jacob
legitimate questions and problems to study, and on legitimate techniques
to seek solutions (Kuhn, 1970).1
In this article I shall illustrate how various alternative traditions could
be used in educational research by describing and comparing five contem
porary American qualitative research traditions in the disciplines of an
thropology, sociology, and psychology. These traditions are ecological
psychology, holistic ethnography, cognitive anthropology, ethnography of
communication, and symbolic interactionism. I selected these traditions
for review because they are representative of the range of qualitative
traditions that have studied educational topics and because I think these
traditions offer ways to expand the scope and focus of educational research.
Kuhn (1970) identified several dimensions as central features of tradi
tions: assumptions about human nature and society, foci of the study, and
methodology. I have described and compared the five traditions in terms
of these dimensions. I have also attempted to show the possible uses of the
various traditions by providing examples of how each of the qualitative
traditions would differ from a traditional educational approach in exam
ining educational phenomena. Since educational research has frequently
focused on formal, school-based education, that is the focus of the exam
ples.
My goal here is neither to cover all alternatives to traditional education
research, nor to provide a definitive treatise on each tradition. Instead, I
wish to provide an overview of five representative traditions, coupled with
suggestions of how each tradition might be used in educational research. I
also suggest further reading for scholars interested in delving deeper into a
tradition or applying it to educational research. I then compare the tradi
tions and discuss the implications of this analysis.
This review is different from previous reviews because it discusses a
diversity of traditions within qualitative research. Most previous reviews,
in contrast, have presented qualitative research as a unified approach that
spans several traditions. Some reviews (Magoon, 1977; Smith, 1983) em
phasized the philosophical assumptions of qualitative research. Others
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Rist, 1977; Wilson, 1977) discussed underlying
assumptions of the qualitative approach and the methodological proce
dures associated with these assumptions. Guba and Lincoln (1981) and
Patton (1980) described the assumptions and methods of the qualitative
approach, and applied them to evaluation, whereas Evertson and Green
(1986) emphasized the methodological aspects of observation methods
without regard to the tradition in which they would be used. Other scholars
Kuhn (1970) further pointed out that a tradition can occur either as an entire
discipline or as a school within a discipline. For this article it is most useful to look
at subdisciplinary schools. This is the level at which most scholars in the social
sciences operate, and it provides a good vehicle to address the problems discussed
here.
2
Qualitative eesearch Traditions
have taken a narrower scope, focusing on particular traditions. Lutz and
Ramsey (1974) described holistic ethnography, and Erickson (1986) dis
cussed ethnography of communication. However, no previous review has
focused on the diversity of the qualitative traditions or has explored the
possible benefits to be derived from operating within the different tradi
tions.
Ecological Psychology
Ecological psychology was developed by Roger G. Barker, Herbert F.
Wright, and their colleagues at the University of Kansas, where they
operated the Midwest Psychological Field Station between 1947 and 1972.
Ecological psychology developed out of an interest in having the descrip
tive, natural history phase of psychology play a more major role in the
discipline (Barker, 1968, p. 1). Its conceptions and methods draw on
natural history field studies and on the work of Kurt Lewin (Barker &
Wright, 1955, p. 1).
Ecological psychologists study naturally occurring human behavior and
the relationships between human behavior and its environment (Schoggen,
1978, p. 33). Their goal is to produce detailed, objective descriptions of
naturally occurring behavior that are amenable to quantitative analysis.
Assumptions about Human Nature and Society

Ecological psychologists see the behavior of individuals as having both
objective and subjective aspects. The objective aspects (termed molecular
behavior) occur in the context of subordinate parts of the person (Barker
& Wright, 1955, pp. 178-186). For example, a description of a child's
actions at the molecular level might document the movements of the lips,
tongue, vocal cords, arms, legs, trunk, and diaphragm. The subjective
aspects (termed molar behavior) occur in the context of the person as a
whole. Moreover, molar behavior is goal-directed, and it generally occurs
within the cognitive awareness of the person (Barker & Wright, 1955, p.
179). A description at the molar level of the same actions discussed above
might discuss the behavior as "reciting at school" (Barker & Wright, 1955,
p. 178).
In a similar way, ecological psychologists recognize both objective and
subjective aspects of the environment. The objective aspects of the
environment they refer to as the "ecological environment" or "milieu"
(Barker, 1968, p. 1). The subjective environment, that is, the environment
as perceived by the individual, they call the "psychological habitat" (Barker
& Wright, 1955, pp. 10-12). Ecological psychologists describe the
psychological habitat primarily in terms of an individual's emotional
reactions to the environment. For example, ecological psychologists might
be concerned with whether a boy does an activity unwillingly or unhappily,
3
Evelyn Jacob
or whether a child perceives a dog as frightening (Barker & Wright, 1955,
p. 202).
Ecological psychologists have also spent considerable effort trying to
conceptualize the nature of the objective environment. They have
identified the "behavior setting" as an environmental behavior unit that is
central to their work. A behavior setting is a "standing behavior pattern
together with the context of this behavior, including the part of the milieu
to which the behavior is attached and with which it has a synomorphic
relationship" (Barker & Wright, 1955, p. 9). Examples are Miss Henning's
fifth grade spelling class, high school senior class night, high school foot
ball practice and the Methodist elementary Sunday school class. Settings
are seen as having several components: physical properties, human
components, and programs.
Ecological psychologists see behavior settings as nested hierarchically
within one another and influenced by one another (Barker 1978a, pp. 293-
296). For example, in examining an algebra class, Barker (1978a, pp. 293-
294 asserted that "its physical properties (location, duration, equipment),
its human components (members, teacher), and its program (teaching
methods, topics to be covered) are imposed to a greater or lesser degree by
the institution, the high school, of which Algebra I is a part." However,
ecological psychologists do not see the influence as occurring only one
way. The Algebra I class is not helpless; it can also influence the institution
that encompasses it.
Ecological psychologists see individuals and environments as inter
dependent. They see the psychological habitat, that is, what the individual
perceives and takes in from the surrounding ecological environment, as
the immediate cause of a given human behavior. Butthey also see behavior
settings as "coercing" behavior (Wright, 1967, p. 8). Human behavior
within behavior settings is influenced by the physical properties of the
settings (e.g., the amount and arrangement of space, furniture, and
temperature), the human components (eg., the number and characteristics
of the roles in the setting), and by the programs (e.g., a teacher's lesson
plan, the agenda of a business meeting).2
2
Barker's views of the relationships between individuals and environments
changed over the course of his program of ecological research. He described his
change as follows:
In 19401 saw the town as collections of people, each person a dynamic entity freely
carrying out his plans within the environment the town provided, an environment
that was benefìcient with respect to some of his plans, deficient with respect to
others, and resistant to still others, but an environment that, although frustrating
and constraining to some extent, was a relatively stable, reliable ground for action.
In 1977,1 see the town as assemblies of dynamic, homeostatic entities (drugstores,
city council meetings, third-grade music classes, and so forth) where people are
essential components (among other classes of components such as drugs, a gavel,
4
Qualitative Research Traditions
Focus
Ecological psychologists have developed two major foci in their studies.
The first is the psychological habitat and goal-directed behavior of
individuals, that is, subjective aspects of behavior and environment. The
second is behavior settings, that is, objective transindividual patterns of
behavior and the particular places, things, and times to which the patterns
are attached.
In their studies of individuals, the researchers are interested in answering
descriptive questions about how children behave, what objects they use,
the emotional qualities attached to their behavior, and actions of others
toward the children (Barker, 1963; Barker & Wright, 1955).
In studies of behavior settings, ecological psychologists are interested in
answering descriptive questions about the behavior settings in a particular
town or institution, the transindividual patterns of behavior in these
settings, how environments differ in their standing patterns of behavior,
how environments select and shape individuals in them, and the properties
of environments to which people must adapt (Barker, 1968, pp. 3-4).
As a result of behavior setting studies over a period of years, Barker
(1968) developed a theory of behavior settings that focuses on the
consequences of "undermanning" on the behavior of the participants.
Undermanning occurs when there are relatively few persons to fill open
"slots" or roles in a behavior setting. Moreover, it seems to exert a pressure
on potential participants to fill the unfilled slots. For example, "if the
Junior class play has parts for 12 actors and there are only 15 members of
the Junior class, no member of the class is likely to be exempt from
pressure to take a part or at least to help backstage but if there are 50
Juniors, only the more talented or highly motivated are likely to become
involved" (Schoggen, 1978, p. 53).
Barker and Associates (1978) and Schoggen (1978) discussed both foci
of ecological psychology. The specimen record approach is also discussed
by Barker and Wright (1955) and Wright (1967); the behavior setting
approach is discussed by Barker (1968) and Barker and Wright (1955).
Methodology
The methodological goals of ecological psychology include describing
behavior and discovering the laws of behavior (Wright, 1967, p. 4). Two
and music books). These are behavior settings, and within them people do not act
in relation to a relatively fixed, dependable environment of benefits, deficiencies,
and constraints, because stores, meetings, classes, and all other behavior settings
have plans for their human components and armories of alternative ways of
enforcing their plans. (1978a, p. 286)
3
Barker (1978b) suggested that the study of transindividual aspects cannot be
adequately studied by psychology and should be addressed by what he called eco-
behavioral science.
5
Evelyn Jacob
distinct methodologies have developed: the study of individuals' behavior
through specimen records, and the study of behavior settings through
behavior setting surveys.
Specimen records. Ecological psychologists have several methodological
goals for collecting data on individuals. They strive to make the data
theoretically "neutral" so it can be used for a variety of purposes, and they
strive to make it quantifiable so comparisons can be made (Barker &
Wright, 1955, pp. 13-14). The specimen record approach is designed to
meet these goals.
A specimen record is "a narrative description of the behavior of one
person, usually a child, in a natural, noncontrived situation as seen by
skilled observers over a substantial time period" (Schoggen, 1978, p. 43).
There are three stages in conducting a specimen record study: recording
the stream of behavior, dividing the stream of behavior into units, and
analyzing the units (Wright, 1967, p. 10).
To record the stream of behavior of an individual, the observer writes in
"plain language" a description of the purposive, goal-directed behavior of
the child and those aspects of the concrete situation that are relevant to
the child's goal-directed behavior.
The description includes the manner in which the actions are carried out;
the 'how' of everything done and said is of great importance because it is
essential for diagnosing goals, purposes and feelings The inferences
included are at a low level, the level of inference about feelings and
motivations of others that is regularly employed by persons of normal
social sensitivity in ordinary social intercourse in a culture with which
they are familiar. (Schoggen, 1978, p. 43)
Thus the record is both objective (descriptions of individuals' behavior and
the conditions of their lives) and subjective (observers' inferences about
the meaning to the individuals of their behavior and features of their
environment) (Barker, Wright, Schoggen, & Barker, 1978, pp. 51-52).
Notes are handwritten, expanded, and typed, or oral notes are dictated
during observation into a shielded microphone (Schoggen, 1964).
In collecting these data, ecological psychologists try to be inconspicuous
(Barker, Wright, Schoggen, & Barker, 1978, p. 53). They try to develop
the role of a "friendly, nonevaluating, nondirective, and nonparticipating
person who is interested in what people do" (Barker & Wright, 1955, p.
211).
The goal of sampling is to get a representative view of individuals'
behavior and habitat. Some specimen records involve documenting the
activities of individual children for whole days (e.g., Barker & Wright,
1951). Other studies have sampled children's behavior in specific behavior
settings (Wright, 1967, pp. 53-55) or during selected times (Schoggen,
1978, pp. 125-145).
After the observations have been refined, expanded, and typed, the next
6
Qualitative Research Trrditions
step is to divide these records into units. The most frequently used method
for analyzing specimen records is based on the identification in the records
of goal-directed actions of either the subject being observed ("episodes")
or of other persons who are acting toward the subject ("environmental
force units" or "EFUs"). Drawing upon their ordinary knowledge and
perception, the coders infer the goal or end point the actor intends to
achieve and marks off such segments in the narrative descriptions (Wright,
1967, pp. 25-27).4 Wright (pp. 56-98) presents criteria for identifying
episodes and Schoggen (1963) discusses criteria for environmental force
units.
Researchers have coded the specimen records for units other than goal-
directed behavior for analysis. For example, they have studied social
contacts (Dyck, 1963), disturbances in children's lives (Fawl, 1963), and
social actions (Barker & Barker, 1963).
Because the data have been collected with the goal of being theoretically
neutral, the same specimen records have been analyzed using different
units of analysis. Barker and Associates (1978, Part 2) presented four
studies that used different units of analysis on the same specimen records.
See Barker (1963, pp. 290-306) for a sample specimen record of the
behavior of a child during fourth-grade spelling class, with goal-directed
behavior units and other behavior units indicated.
The final step is describing the units' properties quantitatively. Properties
examined vary widely and have included duration, source of initiation and
termination, sociality, mood or affect of child and others, and outcome
(Schoggen, 1978, p. 45; see also Barker, 1963; Barker & Wright, 1955;
Wright, 1967). Results are presented most frequently through descriptive
statistics. Some inferential statistics have been used to compare group
differences and to examine the statistical significance of correlation
coefficients (see Barker, 1963).
Behavior setting survey. Behavior setting surveys shift the focus of
attention from the goal-directed behavior of individuals to the study of
particular, delimited environmental settings for behavior. The focus is
stable, objective, transindividual patterns of behavior associated with
specific place-time-thing constellations (Barker, 1968, p. 11; Schoggen,
1978, pp. 48-49).
A behavior setting survey is "a comprehensive inventory and description
of all the behavior settings occurring within a particular community or
institution during a stated period of time, usually a calendar year"
(Schoggen, 1978, p. 50). Ecological psychologists see behavior settings as
4
Note that the individuals' goals and motives are not explicitly studied by
ecological psychologists. They draw on the coders' ordinary knowledge to identify
these in the narrative descriptions as the basis for one kind of coding category.
7
Evelyn Jacob
natural units of the environment, and thus the settings are "discovered,"
not imposed by the researcher.
Traditionally there have been three stages in conducting a behavior
setting survey: identifying all potential behavior settings, narrowing this
list to those settings that meet the criteria of behavior settings, and
describing the behavior settings quantitatively.
Potential behavior settings are identified through a variety of methods,
including participant observation by field observers, examination of public
records, and consultation with informants (Barker & Schoggen, 1973, pp.
49-50; Schoggen, 1978, p. 50). Barker and Wright (1955, p. 7) provided
the following excerpt from a weekly newspaper as an example of the kind
of data used to identify potential behavior settings: "Amateur contests
again played an important part of the entertainment at the Old Settlers'
Reunion at Midwest." According to their analyses, the potential behavior
settings indicated in the text are amateur contests, entertainment, and the
Old Settlers' Reunion.
In the second step, all potential behavior settings are carefully studied to
eliminate those that do not meet the criteria for behavior settings. Each
potential behavior setting must pass a structure test. To do this it must be
a bounded pattern of behavior that occurs independently of the particular
persons involved and anchored to a particular milieu at a particular time
and place. Moreover, the behavior must be similar in structure to the
milieu, and the milieu must surround or enclose the behavior. This
structure test eliminates customs, social classes, organizations, ethnic
groups, roles, and educational systems as behavior settings. Having passed
the structure test, potential behavior settings then must also pass tests for
internal and external dynamics (see Barker, 1968, pp. 18-46).
Description of behavior settings is quantitative, with the settings being
coded for features such as occurrence, duration, sex and social class of
participants, and amount of time participants spend in the setting
(Schoggen, 1978, p. 51). Barker (1968, pp. 46-91, 99) defined some codes
used in his studies and presented a sample code sheet.
These procedures have been adapted explicitly for use in the study of
classrooms. Gump (1967) developed an intra-setting unit of analysis, which
is called a segment or activity segment. Stodolsky (1983, p. 6) defined
activity segments as "parts of the classroom activity structure which have
a particular instructional format, participants, materials, behavioral
expectations and goals, and space-time boundaries."
Researchers who have studied classrooms have tended to make
continuous records of behavior in these segments rather than merely
collecting coded data. For example, Gump (1967) had observers narrate
descriptions into a recorder, and Kounin (1970) collected videotapes.
Stodolsky (1983) had two observers simultaneously describe lessons for 10
consecutive days over a 2-week period. One observer wrote a general
8
description of the activity structure of the class using narrative descriptions
and diagrams; the other collected data on individual children on a time
sampling rotation process. The two sets of data were later cross-referenced.
The approach and methodology for specimen records is discussed in
more detail by Wright (1967). The approach and methods of behavior
setting surveys are discussed further by Barker (1968, chapters 3 & 4),
Barker and Wright (1955, chapter 3) and Wicker (1979, pp. 204-216).
Application of the behavior setting approach to the study of schools is
presented by Gump (1967) and Stodolsky (1983).
Applications to the Study of Education
Studies using specimen records provide models for studying the goal-
directed behavior of individuals or groups of individuals, and the behavior
of others toward individuals, †he methods for studying individuals are
designed for recording goal-directed behavior and environment in a
"theoretically neutral" way and thus may offer data for examination of
children's behavior from a variety of perspectives. Implications of the
ecological perspective and of the specimen record methodology for the
study of mental retardation are discussed by Schoggen (1978).
Several specimen record studies focus on issues relevant to education.
Ecological psychologists have examined children's social interactions with
parents and teachers (Dyck, 1963), have compared the behavior of
"disturbed" boys during tutoring sessions (N. Jordan, 1963), and have
studied differences in how children with and without physical handicaps
are treated by others (Schoggen, 1978). Some studies have described
educational activities or the behavior of educational personnel as part of
larger analyses of individual children (e.g., Barker & Barker, 1963; Barker
& Wright, 1955).
Studies using behavior setting surveys provide models for studying the
features of behavior settings that influence the behavior of individuals. The
methods for studying behavior settings are designed to identify and describe
objective, stable patterns of behavior in a given setting.
Discussions of whole classrooms are included in the major studies of
small towns in the U.S. and England by Barker (1968), Barker and Wright
(1955), and Barker and Schoggen (1973). Gump (1978) presented a review
of literature on school environments that included discussion of work
within the ecological psychology tradition.
A number of studies have looked at the causes and consequences of
classroom organization and management. Stodolsky (1984) presented a
model of the causes and consequences of instructional forms, viewing
instructional forms both as producers of outcomes and as outcomes
themselves. She also documented relationships between subject matter and
forms of classroom organization and relationships between forms of
classroom organization and student involvement (Stodolsky, 1983). Gump
9
Evelyn Jacob
(1974) examined the relationships between school design (open vs.
traditional) and features of classroom organization. Kounin (1970)
pioneered in exploring the relationships between ways teachers manage
groups of students and student work involvement and misbehavior.
Kounin and Sherman (1979) reviewed studies that relate different behavior
settings in preschool environments to the behavior of children. In a recent
chapter, Gump (1982) reviewed the effects of various classroom
organizational structures on teacher and student behavior.
Barker's theory of manning, which explores the relationship between
behavior patterns and the number of persons available to fill roles in a
behavior setting, has been applied to the study of education. Wicker (1968)
studied undermanning in high schools. He also reviewed school-related
research in the context of the theory of manning (1979, chapter 6). Barker
and Gump (1964) compiled studies that compared high schools of varying
size within the framework of the theory of manning.
A complete list of articles and theses produced through the Midwest
Psychological Field Station are presented by Barker and Associates (1978,
pp. 297-308). A more extensive bibliography is presented under the
heading "behavioral ecology" by Wohlwill and Weisman (1981).
Holistic Ethnography
Holistic ethnography developed primarily from the work of Franz Boas
in the U.S. and Bronislaw Malinowski in England. Contemporary holistic
ethnographers do not explicitly focus on the theoretical formulations of
these early anthropologists, but in varying ways draw on the work of Boas
and Malinowski as a legacy for their own assumptions and methods.
Several traditions discussed later in this review developed from the base of
holistic ethnography.
Holistic ethnographers seek to describe and analyze all or part of a
culture or community by describing the beliefs and practices of the group
studied and showing how the various parts contribute to the culture as a
unified, consistent whole. The holistic ethnographic approach may be
followed throughout an entire study or it may be part of a larger study.
Holistic ethnographers today do not share one set of assumptions, foci,
questions, and methods. Whereas researchers in other traditions may be
viewed as closely knit families who have lived in the same community for
generations and consequently share very similar assumptions, foci, and
methods, holistic ethnographers are more like a cosmopolitan extended
family that descended from the same roots, but intermarried with other
groups, moved away, abandoned some of the founders' original ideas, and
incorporated new ideas (see Stocking, 1976, p. 8 for this image).
Consequently, the discussion of the assumptions, foci, and methodology
that follows masks considerable diversity.
10
For holistic ethnographers the concept of culture is central and complex.
In fact, the term culture is defined in several different ways. Most broadly,
it refers to all that humans learn, in contrast to that which is genetically
endowed (Keesing & Keesing, 1971, p. 20). What is learned is divided into
patterns of behavior and patterns for behavior. Patterns of behavior are
observable and frequently are referred to as social structure or social
organization (see Keesing & Keesing, pp. 24-25). Patterns for behavior are
seen as mentalistic phenomena, systems of "standards for deciding what
is, standards for deciding what can be, standards for deciding how one
feels about it, standards for deciding what to do about it, and standards for
deciding how to go about doing it" (Goodenough, 1971, pp. 21, 22).
Culture is also used to refer to both patterns of behavior and patterns for
behavior.
Although most holistic ethnographers would agree on the distinction
between patterns of behavior and mentalistic culture, all do not agree on
the relative importance of the two components. Some ethnographers define
culture solely as a mentalistic phenomenon, and they see it as the master
concept that broadly explains human behavior (see Pelto, 1970, p. 18).
These ethnographers want to know the participants' points of view (culture)
in order to interpret behavior appropriately. Other ethnographers argue
that it is only possible to study patterns of observable behavior and that
focus on mentalistic phenomena is "unscientific" (e.g., Harris, 1968).
Besides the two broad definitions of culture presented above, holistic
ethnographers also use the term in a more restricted sense to refer to
culture shared by particular, bounded groups of individuals, for example,
Japanese culture, Eskimo culture, and so forth. Both of the broad
definitions are used when speaking of culture in the narrower sense. Thus,
the term culture is used to refer to "the sum total of the knowledge,
attitudes and habitual behavior patterns shared and transmitted by the
members of a particular society" (Linton, 1940, quoted in Keesing &
Keesing, 1971, p. 20) or to the system of standards for behavior of a
particular group (Goodenough, 1971, pp. 41-42).
When applying the broadest definition of culture to the focus on a
particular group, holistic ethnographers assume that certain aspects of
human culture are central for understanding human life in all societies.
These include areas such as social organization, economics, family
structure, religious practices and beliefs, political relationships, symbolic
rituals, enculturation patterns, and ceremonial behavior (Pelto, 1970, p.
18). Moreover, holistic ethnographers assume that the various parts of a
culture form a unified whole and that the various parts of cultures are
interdependent such that change in one area will result in changes in
others.
11
Evelyn Jacob
Although holistic ethnographers assume that certain aspects of culture
are important, they also assume that each such culture is unique. Thus,
researchers do not know in advance what cultural meanings particular
behaviors have to the members of the society, nor do they know the specific
relationships among the parts of the culture (Mead, 1970/1973, p. 246).
Holistic ethnographers generally assume that it is important to study
behavior in its context because the meanings and functions of behavior
vary across cultures.
When viewing culture as a mentalistic phenomenon in a particular
group, holistic ethnographers assume that cultural meanings are a shared,
group phenomenon with significant regularity across individuals
(Goodenough, 1971, pp. 36-42; Pelto, 1970, p. 18). Individuals learn from
childhood onward a series of socially shared idealized rules and norms that
serve as guidelines for actions, interpretations, and feelings (Barrett, 1984,
p. 73). This shared knowledge allows for a general predictability among
group members (Barrett, p. 62). However, diversity also exists within the
cultural system because individuals must decide how to apply cultural
guidelines for behavior in specific circumstances. Moreover, individuals
are socialized into their society in different ways, and are influenced by
different subgroups within their society (Barrett, pp. 72-73).
Although holistic ethnographers see culture as exerting a powerful
influence on behavior, they do not see it as determining behavior:
Individuals are subject to various extracultural pressures as well, such as
their unique biology or the sway of individual biography and tempera
ment, and even the physical circumstances that members of the same
society confront will differ and influence choices they make. (Barrett,
1984, p. 72)
Focus
Holistic ethnographers focus on the study of the culture of bounded
groups such as tribes, towns, institutions, and ethnic groups. They also
focus on parts of societies such as religion, economics, and education.
Their primary interest is in analyzing and describing a culture or part of
a culture as a whole, usually with the goal of describing a unique way of
life and showing how the parts fit together into an integrated whole. The
goal is to try to understand the unique configuration of the culture of the
bounded group with a minimum of preconceived ideas or theories beyond
the general assumptions outlined above. Thus, holistic ethnographers
frequently have an attitude of exploration and learning rather than one of
testing.
The approach of holistic ethnographers may guide a complete study or
a component of a larger study (Agar, 1980, pp. 69-70). When an entire
study is guided by an holistic ethnographic approach, the general goals are
the exploration and description of a culture or of selected aspects of a
12
culture in order to understand the unique situation in that culture. The
description is meant to be both comprehensive and comparable, implying
that the holistic ethnographer describes topics deemed by consensus to be
important as well as the distinctive features of the culture (LeVine, 1970/
1973, p. 189). Reports from these efforts frequently have a chapter or
section for each of the major topics holistic ethnographers recognize as
important to understand about a culture.
If holistic ethnography is a component of a larger study, it can be the
first phase of a study in which subsequent phases are focused on a specific
problem or topic, it can occur parallel to another goal, or it can follow
more focused work. When holistic ethnography is an exploratory phase of
a larger project, additional goals may be hypothesis formulation, sample
selection, operationalization of concepts in terms meaningful to that
culture, or development of appropriate research instruments (LeVine,
1970/1973, p. 188). In these cases the researchers are interested in a more
focused theoretical framework or problem but want to make certain that
their study is grounded in the particular setting being studied.
In contemporary anthropology, holistic ethnography most frequently
occurs as part of a study with a theoretical or topical focus (LeVine, 1970/
1973). But holistic ethnography is part of the legacy of most
anthropologists, and it usually precedes or parallels more focused work.
Discussions of holistic ethnography are embedded in many discussions
of anthropology as a whole. It is explicitly discussed by LeVine (1970/
1973) and Sanday (1979).
Methodology
The most widely shared methodological goals of holistic ethnography
are description and analysis of the cultural patterns of a bounded group,
often with the further goal of presenting the culture as seen by the
participants in the culture. This may be the only goal in a study or it may
be one goal among others. This descriptive goal may be carried out with
only very general theoretical propositions like those outlined above. Some
holistic ethnographers present their descriptions and analyses without
making any other theoretical formulations more explicit. Some start with
specific theories. Others use an eclectic approach, drawing on whatever
theories seem to help explain what they observe.
Until the 1960s there was little explicit discussion in the literature of
methodology associated with holistic ethnography. Methodology was part
of the oral tradition of the discipline, allowing for variations and
modifications to be developed by individual scholars. This situation has
led to variation, and sometimes contradictory statements, in discussions
of the methodology of holistic ethnography.
Research design in holistic ethnography is seen as "an exploration into
the unknown, in which the investigator must acquire firsthand ac-
13
Evelyn Jacob
quaintance with the background facts of ecology, language, social
organization and culture of a people before formulating more specific
research goals" (LeVine, 1970/1973, p. 183). Consequently, holistic
ethnographers do not have a standard research design they follow.
However, most agree that the design evolves as the work progresses with a
cross-fertilization of analysis and observation (Malinowski, 1922/1961, p.
13). Because the unique features of a culture cannot be predicted in
advance, holistic ethnographers must work out for themselves the best way
to achieve the general goals in the cultural setting in which they are working
(LeVine, 1970/1973).
Although there is not a standard research design, there are several
methodological tenets most holistic ethnographers hold in common as part
of their legacy, deriving to a large degree from the classic methodological
statement of Malinowski (1922/1961). These tenets are a set of values and
principles that have been adapted and modified according to the specific
personal styles and theoretical approaches of the ethnographer (Pelto, 1970,
pp. 17-19). The basic tenets on which most holistic ethnographers agree
are (a) it is crucial for researchers to gather empirical evidence directly
themselves through "fieldwork" in the culture they are studying
(Malinowski, pp. 7-8; Stocking, 1983b, p. 70); (b) ethnographers should
document the native's point of view—"his vision of his world"
(Malinowski, p. 25); (c) it is important to have verbatim statements from
natives in order to get their views of their world (Malinowski, p. 23); and
(d) the ethnographer should collect a wide range of data using a wide range
of methods (Malinowski).
Fieldwork is defined as the ethnographer going in person to the location
of study and collecting data himself or herself over a long period of time
(Clammer, 1984, p. 65). It is a broad combination of specific methods and
techniques (Clammer; Holy, 1984, p. 19). Whereas participant observation
and informal interviewing are methods used to some degree by almost all
holistic ethnographers, they may differ in the emphasis they place on the
two methods.
As the name implies, participant observation combines both partici
pation in the culture being studied and observation of the patterns.
Malinowski presented his own work as the model, stating that he "began
to take part, in a way, in the village life, to look forward to the important
or festive events, to take personal interest in the gossip and developments
of the small village occurrences; to wake up every morning to a day,
presenting itself to me more or less as it does to the native" (1922-1961,
p. 7). He felt that this day-by-day involvement should lead to the
ethnographer's presence being less obstrusive and to the ethnographer
beginning to understand the participants' views of their own world (pp.
7-8).
The actual degree of participation and observation vary at times within
14
a given study and across studies. Sometimes an ethnographer might be
primarily a participant, and at other times primarily an observer. In either
case, ethnographers are expected to record observations in as detailed and
concrete a manner as possible, trying to keep inferences to a low level
(Pelto, 1970, pp. 93-4).
Informal interviewing is the other principal method used in fieldwork.
The goal in informal interviews is to have the participants talk about things
of interest to them and to cover matters of importance to the researcher in
a way that allows the participants to use their own concepts and terms
(Whyte, 1960/1982, p. 112). To do this ethnographers listen more than
they talk and listen with a "sympathetic and lively interest" (Whyte, p.
111).
Informal interviewing can vary from casual discussions while partici
pating in an activity, to open-ended interviews, to in-depth discussions
with selected individuals called "key informants." In some casual
interviews ethnographers do not have a written list of questions but a
repertoire of question-asking strategies used to follow up on and probe
participants' statements (Agar, 1980, p. 90). These include responses such
as "uh-huh" or a nod of the head to encourage the person to continue
talking, reflecting back what the participant just said to encourage talking,
or asking for more information on a particular topic (Whyte, 1960/1982,
p. 112). In other instances, the ethnographer may have some general, open-
ended questions or a list of topics to be covered in addition to the general
question-asking strategies.
In the use of participant observation and informal interviewing the
ethnographer's role and network in entering the field are extremely impor
tant. How the researcher is defined by others and the degree of rapport the
researcher establishes with participants is critical for participant observa
tion and informal interviewing. Considerable attention has been given to
this in the anthropological literature (see Agar, 1980, pp. 21-39, 41-62;
Mead, 1970/1973; Naroll & Cohen, 1970/1973, pp. 220-245; Williams,
1967).
Holistic ethnographers are concerned with sampling events and time as
well as people (Agar, 1980, pp. 125-126; Whiting & Whiting, 1970/1973).
In participant observation and informal interviewing, holistic ethnogra
phers use non-probability sampling methods (judgment or opportunistic
samples) for sampling people (Honigmann, 1970/1973). Holistic ethnog
raphers see these methods as adequate for collecting qualitative data on
cultural and social patterns because they assume that "a common culture
is reflected in practically every person, event, and artifact belonging to a
common system" (Honigmann, p. 271). Using non-probability methods
of sampling, holistic ethnographers continue collecting data on a topic
until they "are not learning anything new" (Agar, 1980, p. 113). It is
15
Evelyn Jacob
important to note at this point that these non-probability methods are
frequently supplemented by probability samples for other kinds of data.
There has not been extensive discussion among holistic ethnographers
concerning analysis procedures; more focus has been on the goals and
categories of analysis. A widespread goal for holistic ethnography is that
persons reading it "could subsequently behave appropriately as a member
of the society or social group... or, more modestly, they . . . can anticipate
and interpret what occurs in the group as appropriately as its own members
can" (Wolcott, 1975, p. 112). Although part of the goal involves under
standing the participants' views in the culture, many ethnographers also
want to "perceive and, hopefully, describe those relationships, systems,
and patterns of which an . . . insider is not likely to be consciously aware"
(Wax, 1971, p. 3).
In order to analyze their data, holistic ethnographers index it, using as
many categories as possible, with information about how, from whom,
when, and where the data were obtained. Murdock et al. (1961) presented
a long list of categories holistic ethnographers generally assume are relevant
in understanding and explaining a culture. Other categories are derived
from those participants use in their own talk (Agar, 1980, p. 103).
Holistic ethnographers then identify and describe the patterns and
themes in the culture and social organization from the group, interpreting
behaviors in light of participants' own categories and culture as well as
aspects of which they may not be aware (Agar, 1980, pp. 115-116). In the
next step the ethnographers then attempt to understand and explain these
patterns and themes (Agar, 1980, pp. 115-116).
There are a number of personal accounts of fieldwork (Golde, 1970;
Powdermaker, 1966; Spindler, 1970; Wax, 1971) that are instructive. These
are reviewed by Pelto and Pelto (1973) and Sarsby (1984). Discussions of
holistic ethnographic methods are incorporated with discussions of other
anthropological methods (e.g., Edgerton & Langness, 1974; Jongmans &
Gutkind, 1967; Pelto, 1970) and in the context of discussions of methods
for focused anthropological studies (Agar, 1980; Pelto). An annotated
bibliography of a wide range of anthropological field methods is presented
by Gutkind etal. (1967).

Holistic ethnography provides approaches and methods for understand
ing a culture, group, or institution from the insider's view and for describing
and explaining culture as an integrated whole (Dobbert, 1982, p. 11). It is
useful for understanding a group's "way of life," its culture in general, or
a particular aspect of the culture (e.g., the educational system) in relation
to the larger society of which it is a part. Some programmatic statements
concerning anthropology and education include the perspective of holistic
16
ethnography (e.g., Dobbert, pp. 1-11; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, pp. 1-
23; Heath, 1982; Hymes, 1980; Spindler, 1982, pp. 6-7; Wolcott, 1975).
Some holistic ethnographers have studied education as one component
of their larger studies of societies as wholes (e.g., Spindler, 1973; Wylie,
1964). Others have focused primarily on education. A study of Amish
education by Hoestetler and Huntington (1971) focused
on the indigenous processes of nurture and socialization, as well as on
formal schooling in the context of Amish culture. It ... attempted to
illustrate the cultural context of learning—the cultural goals, the institu
tions, the practices, individual participation in the culture, and pupil
achievement—in relation to the whole of Amish society, (p. 11)
Wolcott (1973/1984) used holistic ethnography in studying the principal
in an elementary school. His work paralleled some holistic accounts of
communities by discussing daily and annual cycles in the life of the
principal, the school and community setting, the principal's formal and
informal encounters, and the principal as socializer and as being socialized.
Peshkin (1978) included a holistic emphasis in his study of a U.S. high
school. In presenting his holistic emphasis he stated, "The heart of this
book is a case study which responds essentially to the question, what is an
American high school like?" (p. 8). To reach this goal he discussed the
students, classroom practices, extracurricular activities, teachers, school
board, and the local community in which the school was embedded.
Some holistic ethnographies of education examine the structural rela
tionships among the educational system and other institutions within a
given society. Ogbu (1981, p. 6) has argued strongly for this perspective:
"School ethnography should be holistic, it should show how education is
linked with the economy, the political system, local social structure, and
the belief system of the people served by the schools." In an ethnography
of education in a California community, Ogbu (1974) argued that the
particular pattern of education for minority students in the community he
studied was the result of larger economic structures in the society. Warren
(1967) examined the role of school as a social institution in a German
village undergoing rapid change, and the role of the school in transmitting
traditional culture and mediating the change. Singleton (1967) studied one
Japanese school and its relationships with other organizations and groups
in the society. He described his work as "a study of one public school in a
Japanese community and the interaction of that school and its personnel
with significant groups and forces operating in the broader framework of
Japanese national life" (p. 1).
There are also methodological discussions that present an holistic eth
nographic approach as applied to the study of education. Two recent texts
are especially relevant. Dobbert (1982) combined the holistic ethnographic
approach with her emphases on systems theory and Kimballs natural
17
Evelyn Jacob
history approach. Goetz and LeCompte (1984) included a discussion of
holistic ethnography with their treatment of the methods of other tradi
tions.
Ethnography of Communication
Ethnography of communication developed from work in sociolinguistics,
nonverbal communication, anthropology, and sociology (Erickson & Mo-
hatt, 1982, p. 136; Erickson & Wilson, 1982, p. 42). Although others have
referred to this tradition as microethnography (Erickson, 1977) and con
stitutive ethnography (Erickson & Wilson; Mehan, 1978), I have chosen
"ethnography of communication" because it is the broadest. It developed
out of an interest in face-to-face interaction and from attempts to make
earlier forms of ethnography more sensitive and systematic (Erickson &
Wilson, p. 42).
Ethnographers of communication focus on the patterns of social inter
action among members of a cultural group or among members of different
cultural groups. They are interested in specifying the processes of face-to-
face interaction and in understanding how these "micro" processes are
related to larger "macro" issues of culture and social organization (Erickson
& Mohatt, 1982, pp. 137-138; Erickson & Wilson, 1982, p. 43).
Like holistic ethnographers, ethnographers of communication see culture
as central to understanding human behavior (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982,
p. 137). They see culture as involving both patterns for behavior and
patterns of behavior. They assume that both verbal and nonverbal inter
personal communication is culturally patterned (Philips, 1983, p. 4), and
that persons communicating in these culturally patterned ways usually are
not aware of this patterning (Erickson & Mohatt, p. 136).
In the view of ethnographers of communication, context influences the
patterns and rules of interpersonal interaction (Mehan, 1984, p. 175).
Context includes physical aspects of the environment, culturally defined
events, and other participants. Contexts are defined "by what people are
doing and where and when they are doing it" (Erickson & Shultz, 1981b,
p. 148). Thus, social contexts can change from moment to moment. "The
production of appropriate social behavior from moment to moment re
quires knowing what context one is in and when contexts change as well
as knowing what behavior is considered appropriate in each of those
contexts" (Erickson & Shultz, 1981b, p. 147).
A central assumption of ethnographers of communication is that the
social structure and "outcomes" of institutional processes are produced at
least in part by the processes of face-to-face interaction (Erickson & Mohatt,
1982, p. 137; Mehan, 1984, p. 18).
18
The central recommendation of constitutive studies of the school is that
Objective social facts' like students' intelligence, academic achievement,
or career paths and 'routine patterns of behavior' like classroom organi
zational arrangements are accomplished in the interaction between teach
ers and students, testers and students, principals and teachers, and so on.
(Mehan, 1979, p. 18)
Ethnographers of communication believe that detailed study of interac
tion patterns reveals much about the culture of the group(s) being studied.
"Detailed study of people's actions and of the concrete circumstances of
those actions sheds light on the underlying principles according to which
the actions are organized socially and culturally" (Erickson & Mohatt,
1982, p. 137).
Focus
Ethnographers of communication do not attempt to describe the whole
way of life of a group of people. Instead, they focus "on particular cultural
scenes within key institutional settings" (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982, p. 137).
Examples of the foci studied include classes in school, parent-child inter
actions, political meetings, and greetings.
Within this scope of inquiry, ethnographers of communication are
concerned with two different issues. First, they are interested in understand
ing the rules of social interaction within important scenes for various
cultural groups. Thus one goal is to identify "the fundamental principles
of social organization, and to identify the cultural patterning of that
organization, according to which people make sense of the actions they
and others take in the conduct of everyday life" (Erickson & Wilson, 1982,
p. 43).
Second, some ethnographers of communication also are interested in
determining how what are commonly viewed as "outcomes" are at least
partially produced through social interaction. For example, in discussing
the application of the approach to the study of education, Erickson and
Wilson (1982, p. 43) stated that microethnography
is concerned with detailed analysis of how people do what they do
interactionally in schools—how what other educational researchers have
considered as outputs or products of schooling (engagement wiih academic
tasks in lessons and other classroom scenes, counselors' academic place
ment decisions about students and testers' assessments of fhildren's sailityy
are, at least in part, interactionally produced.
Hymes (1972, 1974) and Gumperz (1968) presented conceptual discus
sions of ethnography of communication. Erickson (1977) also discussed
the tradition.
Methodology
The methodological goal of ethnographers of communication is to
19
Evelyn Jacob
describe patterns of face-to-face interaction within and between cultural
groups and to relate these patterns to larger social and cultural processes.
Research design for ethnographers of communication may be either an
"exploration of the unknown" (LeVine, 1970/1973, p. 183) or a more
systematic examination of a specific hypothesis (see Erickson & Mohatt,
1982). In either case, the design is usually like a funnel with the researcher
proceeding from a more general participant observation phase to a more
focused phase in which detailed data on social interaction patterns are
collected. "Microethnographic work depends upon a combination of par
ticipant observation (direct, continuous observation and reflection, re
corded in running fieldnotes) and microanalysis of films and videotapes of
everyday happenings in schools" (Erickson & Wilson, 1982, p. 43).
In the more general, participant observation phase researchers seek to
understand the general setting and participants' culture(s), and to gather
information needed to decide on sampling procedures for later collection
of detailed, social interaction data. After preliminary analysis of the partic
ipant observation data, researchers proceed to collect social interaction
data.
In the focused phase researchers usually collect the data through some
form of audio-visual taping. Mehan (1979, pp. 18-20) argued that it is
important for data to be retrievable. Tapes are used because they preserve
data in close to their original form. Such records are "maximally continu
ous and comprehensive," so the naturally occurring sequence and duration
of actions is recorded (Erickson & Wilson, 1982, p. 43). In practice,
observation segments are frequently about an hour long, the typical length
for video tapes (see Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Mehan, 1979).
Different sampling approaches are used for the different kinds of data
collected by ethnographers of communication. In doing participant obser
vation they frequently use non-probability samples. Sampling for taping is
usually much more systematic (Erickson, 1977, p. 66). For example,
Mehan (1979, p. 25) reported that he taped the "first hour of school
activities every day of the first week of school, and one hour a day
approximately every third week until April."
Because analysis of participant observation data has been discussed in
the section on holistic ethnography, I will focus here on analysis of social
interaction data obtained primarily from video or audio tapes. Erickson
and Shultz (1981b) discussed their general approach. Principles for data
analysis also were gleaned from articles reporting specific studies (i.e.,
Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Mehan, 1979).
Afirststep in analysis is data reduction. Tapes to be analyzed are selected
based on the substantive area of focus and technical quality of the tapes.
This corpus of data may then be indexed to indicate the occurrence and
duration of major social occasions and activities. Data to be analyzed may
be further reduced based on selection of segments related to the particular
20
focus for analysis. For example, Erickson and Mohatt (1982) videotaped
for 24 hours. Data reduction based on technical quality and focus of
analysis led to the use of 18 hours of tape. These tapes were then indexed
for the occurrence and duration of major classroom social situations such
as entering and settling, prayer, teacher at blackboard with class reading
aloud, small-group work, and free time. The researchers then looked across
these major social situations for recurring occasions in the classrooms when
teachers' ways of leading were displayed. They found these in the transitions
between interactional activities, and these transitions then became the
focus for further analyses.
A subset of tapes is then viewed repeatedly and usually transcribed.
From this repeated viewing the researchers develop preliminary coding
categories. These categories may be either categories that the participants
use and recognize or they may be categories that the researcher develops.
Some researchers review the tapes with participants to get the participants'
perspectives on what was happening (see Erickson & Mohatt, 1982, p.
142). These preliminary categories are then tested and revised by applying
them to a larger segment of the corpus. These revised coding categories are
then applied to the entire corpus. The cycle of developing provisional
codes, testing them against a larger corpus, and developing final codes may
be repeated many times at different levels of analysis.
Erickson and Wilson (1982) present a discussion of methodological issues
in doing ethnography of communication, as well as a list of research
projects using these methods and an annotated bibliography. Erickson
(1986) discussed methods salient to his work; Erickson and Shultz (1981b)
discussed their general approach to data analysis. Erickson and Mohatt
(1982) and Mehan (1979) presented extensive methodological information
in their empirical reports.

Ethnography of communication provides an approach and methods for
understanding the patterns of social interaction characteristic of a group
or groups and for analyzing the consequences of these patterns in observ
able "outcomes." Several ethnographers of communication have focused
their analyses primarily on education. Erickson (1973, 1977, 1986), Hymes
(1980) and Mehan (1978, 1984) have presented programmatic statements
about the application of this approach to the study of education.
Several studies have examined social interaction in classroom settings.
Mehan (1979) documented that teacher-student interactions occurring
during lessons usually take the form of initiation-reply-evaluation. Shultz
and Florio (1979) documented the ways kindergarten teachers signal to
students that something new is about to happen. Other studies have
examined teacher-student interaction when the teachers and students come
from different cultural backgrounds (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Heath,
21
Evelyn Jacob
1982, 1983; McDermott, 1974, 1977; McDermott & Gospodinoff, 1979/
1981; Philips, 1983). Au (1980) and C. Jordan (1985) documented changes
in students' educational performance that accompanied changes in class
room social interaction patterns so they more closely paralleled those the
children had learned at home.
Some researchers studied school settings other than classrooms. Cicourel
et al. (1974) examined educational testing situations. Erickson and Shultz
(1981a) studied counseling sessions.
Erickson (1986) reviewed ethnography of communication as applied to
education. However, several broader reviews have included discussion of
such articles. Green (1983) reviewed studies that examined teaching as a
linguistic process. Erickson and Wilson (1982) presented an annotated
bibliography of theoretical, methodological, and research literature relevant
to the use of audiovisual records in the study of education. They also
presented a list of research projects that follow this approach. Cazden,
John, and Hymes (1972) and Green and Wallat (1981) edited collections
of papers dealing broadly with the analysis of social interaction in educa
tional settings.
Cognitive Anthropology
Cognitive anthropology, also called ethnoscience and new ethnography,
was developed with pioneer work by Ward Goodenough and Charles
Frake, who drew heavily on the methods of linguistics.
Like holistic ethnographers, cognitive anthropologists study culture;
however, they define culture purely in mentalistic terms. The approach
seeks to understand participants' cultural categories and to identify the
organizing principles that underlie these categories. Cognitive anthropolo
gists seek to present participants' cultures more precisely and with minimal
influence of the ethnographer's own categories on the final description.
Cognitive anthropologists have traditionally focused on understanding
the cognitive organization of cultural knowledge through the study of
semantic systems, with a consequent emphasis on the relationships among
words. More recently their interest has expanded to include the study of
elaborate stretches of discourse and implicit cognitive understandings
(Agar, 1982, p. 85; Clement, 1976, p. 55; Holland, 1985, p. 390). In this
review I focus on the classic approach, which studies semantic relationships.
Readers interested in the more recent extensions of this approach should
consult Agar (1982), Clement (1976), Dougherty (1985), and Holland
(1985).
Assumptions About Human Nature and Society
Like holistic ethnographers, cognitive anthropologists assume that cul
ture is central to understanding human beings. However, cognitive anthro
pologists reject the broad definition of culture that includes all that humans
22
learn. They assume a mentalistic definition of culture, defining it as the
"cognitive organizations of material phenomena" (Tyler, 1969a, p. 3).
Cognitive anthropologists also assume that each bounded group of individ
uals has a unique system for perceiving and organizing the world about
them (Goodenough, 1957, cited in Tyler, 1969a, p. 3).
Cognitive anthropologists assume that most of the cultural knowledge of
a group is reflected in its language—specifically, in semantics (Tyler, 1969a,
p. 6). This cultural knowledge is organized into categories that are system
atically related to one another (Spradley, 1979, p. 93), and with categories
of phenomena being organized into larger groupings (Tyler, 1969a, p. 7).
Cognitive anthropologists see the study of the semantic systems of a group
as the easiest way to study the organization of cultural knowledge of a
people.
In contrast to researchers in many other traditions, cognitive anthropol
ogists do not study observable behavior. They are concerned with expected
and appropriate behavior, not actual, observable behavior (Tyler, 1969a,
p. 13).
There is no necessity to assume that the cognitive order is either system
atically a derivative or a predictor of substantive actions. Just as the
grammar of a language provides no information on what an individual
speaker will say on any given occasion, so too a cognitive description of a
culture does not pretend to predict the actual behavior of any individual.
(Tyler, 1969a, p. 13)
Focus
Cognitive anthropologists have as their goal the complete and accurate
description of the organization of particular cognitive systems (Tyler,
1969a, p. 14). This involves identifying the parts of a culture and the
relationships among the parts of a culture as conceptualized by participants
(Spradley, 1979, p. 93). Thus, cognitive anthropologists seek to answer two
questions: "What material phenomena are significant for the people of
some culture; and, how do they organize these phenomena?" (Tyler, 1969a,
P. 3).
Cognitive anthropologists believe that comparison across cultures should
come after there are complete descriptions of individual cultures. More
over, when cognitive anthropologists make such comparisons, they focus
on the organizing principles used by the various cultures, not the substan
tive aspects of the cultures (Tyler, 1969a, p. 15). This focus on the
organizing principles in cross-cultural comparisons contrasts to holistic
ethnography's focus on the substantive aspects of cultures in cross-cultural
comparisons.
To date, most of the cultural descriptions done by cognitive anthropol
ogists have focused on relatively few semantic domains: classifications of
colors, plants, insects, and disease (Langness, 1974, p. 116). Spradley (1970;
23
Evelyn Jacob
Spradley & Mann, 1975; Spradley & McCurdy, 1972) has been a pioneer
in extending this approach to a wider range of topics, such as the cultures
of an urban skid row, of bars, and of schools.
Tyler (1969b) presented a now classic introduction to the field and
collection of studies. Spradley (1972, 1979, 1980) presented discussions of
both the tradition and associated methods.
Methodology
The methodological goal of the cognitive anthropologists is to describe
the organization of cultures using participants' categories. Theory testing
is not a goal (Tyler, 1969a). This section focuses on how cognitive anthro
pologists accomplish their descriptive goals.
The research design of cognitive anthropology is cyclical. The researcher
starts with a very general problem or focus, begins initial collection of data
and analysis to identify cultural symbols and relationships among them,
formulates hypotheses about relationships among symbols, and checks
these hypotheses by collecting and analyzing more data, with a narrowing
focus, as the cycle continues (Spradley, 1979, p. 193). The problem or
focus that begins the process can be very large and complex, such as
American culture, or it can be a single social situation, such as greeting
behavior among an isolated tribe (Spradley, 1980, p. 39fï).
The data collection techniques focus on recording verbatim what partic
ipants say in natural settings and on eliciting verbal responses from
participants. In beginning phases of a study researchers frequently ask
open-ended descriptive questions to "encourage informants to speak in the
same way they would talk to others in their cultural scene" (Spradley, ,979,
p. 59). The purpose of these initial observations and interviews is to collect
a sample of linguistic symbols and their relationships in use (Spradley,
1979, p. 173).
After initial observations and descriptive interviews, cognitive anthro
pologists often introduce other kinds of questions through what is called
controlled eliciting (Spradley, 1199, p. 60))
Controlled eliciting utilizes sentence frames derived from the language of
the people being studied. The aim of such eliciting is to enable the
ethnographer to behave linguistically in a way appropriate to the culture
he is studying. This involves the use of linguistically correct questions
which relate concepts meaningful in that culture" (Tyler, 1969a, p. 12).
The goal is both to find answers to the questions and to help discover new
questions.
There are two central kinds of techniques for controlled eliciting. Struc
tural questions are designed to discover how informants organize their
knowledge within cultural domains. An example is, "What are all the
different kinds of students you have?" Contrast questions are designed to
24
find out what an informant means by the terms he uses. Their purpose is
"to discover the dimensions of meaning which informants employ to
distinguish the objects and events in their world" (Spradley, 1979, p. 60).
An example is, "What is the difference between troublemakers and cool
kids?"
Cognitive anthropologists conduct formal analyses of the data they
collect. Formal analysis
differs from other methods in its emphasis on internal consistency, com
pleteness, and form. A particular set of data relating to some semantic
domain must be explained by the relationships between units comprising
that domain—not by determinants outside it A formal analysis is
complete when the relations among all the units comprising a semantic
domain are described. (Tyler, 1969a, p. 13)
Spradley (1979, 1980) discussed four types of formal analysis: domain
analysis, taxonomic analysis, componential analysis, theme analysis. Do
main analysis involves the identification of cultural domains and the terms
in them. Taxonomic analysis involves a search for the way cultural domains
are organized. Componential analysis involves a search for the attributes
of terms in each domain. Finally, theme analysis involves a search for the
relationships among domains and for how they are linked to the cultural
scene as a whole (Spradley, 1980, pp. 87-88).
Domain analysis. Domain analysis gives "an overview of the cultural
scene and some idea as to how the surface structure of that scene was
organized" (Spradley, 1979, p. 174). The first step is the identification of
cultural domains and the terms in them, using the semantic relationships
which organize domains (Spradley, 1979, p. lO8ff.). To do this the re
searcher uses a small sample of speech from a descriptive interview to
develop possible categories of symbols that include other symbols, that is,
cultural domains (Spradley, 1979, p. 100). These preliminary analyses lead
the researcher to develop hypotheses about possible domains and relation
ships among symbols.
Taxonomic analysis. Taxonomic analysis focuses on the similarities
among symbols and is based on semantic relationships (Spradley, 1979,
pp. 144-145). The first step is to find the internal structure of a domain
by creating a taxonomy that shows the relationships among all terms in
the domain, that is, identifying subsets within a domain and the relation
ships among the subsets. To do this researchers use substitution frames
based on the semantic relationship that governs a domain, and test out
relationships using previously collected records of conversations or by
asking new questions containing substitution frames (Spradley, 1979, pp.
144-145). The final analysis can be presented as a tree diagram, outline,
or box diagram.
Componential analysis. In the next step, researchers move from looking
at similarities based on the semantic relationship governing a domain to
25
Evelyn Jacob
differences among symbols within a domain that are based on relationships
other than semantic relationships. Each subset within a domain or taxon
omy consists of a contrast set, that is, terms that are both alike and different
(Spradley, 1979, p. 160). "Componential analysis is the systematic search
for the attributes (components of meaning) associated with cultural sym
bols" (Spradley, 1979, p. 174). An attribute is any element of information
regularly associated with a symbol. Componential analysis includes search
ing for contrasts, sorting them out, grouping some together as dimensions
of contrast, entering this information onto a paradigm, and verifying the
information (Spradley, 1979, pp. 178-179).
To conduct a componential analysis the researcher selects a contrast set
for analysis, inventories all known contrasts, prepares a paradigm work
sheet with terms in contrast set on a vertical axis and dimensions of
contrast on the horizontal, fills in attributes known, prepares contrast
questions to elicit missing attributes and new dimensions of contrast,
conducts interviews to elicit new data, and prepares a complete paradigm
(Spradley, 1979, pp. 180-182).
Thematic analysis. The last step is to identify themes, that is, patterns
across domains (Spradley, 1979, p. 186). Spradley (1979, pp. 185-202)
discussed several techniques for identifying themes. They include exam
ining dimensions of contrast for several domains to find similar dimen
sions, surveying folk sayings for clues to themes, doing a componential
analysis using cover terms of all the domains uncovered, and making a
schematic diagram of relationships among domains.
Spradley (1979, 1980) presented the most extensive discussion of the
methods of cognitive anthropology. Discussions of methodological issues
are present in a number of chapters in Tyler's edited volume (1969b). Agar
(1980, chapter 7) incorporated some of the techniques of cognitive anthro
pology into a broader discussion of anthropological methods.

Cognitive anthropology is useful for studying mentalistic culture. It
provides an approach and methods for describing the participants' cultural
categories in their own terms and for identifying the organizing principles
underlying these categories. Goetz and Hansen (1974) discussed the appli
cation of cognitive anthropology to the study of schools, and Goetz (1978)
discussed the application of the approach to the study of sex role culture
in schools.
However, relatively few studies have been conducted using this approach
to examine education. Young (1981) reported on secondary teachers'
images of knowledge, that is, their epistemologies. A collection of student
papers edited by Spradley and McCurdy (1972) contains the widest appli
cation. Davis (1972) presented junior high school students' cultural cate
gories for people in their high school and for behavior between teachers
26
and students. Doyle (1972) described the meaning of activities, identities,
and space for a girl in a third-grade classroom. Parrott (1972) investigated
categories of play used by a group of second-grade boys during recess.
A few other researchers have applied the approach to the study of
education problems. Borko and Eisenhart (1986) studied second-grade
students' ideas of the reading process. Eisenhart (1985) studied college
women's career choices. Clement, Eisenhart, and Harding (1978) studied
the terms students used to refer to school participants, school events, and
beliefs as part of a larger study of social-race relations in a Southern
desegregated school.
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism was developed by Herbert Blumer and his
colleagues. Frequently it is called the Chicago school of symbolic interac
tionism.5 The symbolic interactionists draw primarily from the work of G.
H. Mead, Charles H. Cooley, John Dewey, and W. I. Thomas (Manis &
Meltzer, 1978, p. xi; Meltzer, Petras, & Reynolds, 1975, p. 1).
Symbolic interactionists assume that individuals' experiences are medi
ated by their own interpretations of experience. These interpretations are
created by individuals through interaction with others and used by individ
uals to achieve specific goals. Symbolic interactionists are interested in
understanding how these interpretations are developed and used by indi
viduals in specific situations of interaction.
Symbolic interactionists see humans as qualitatively different from other
animals. Whereas animals act in response to other objects and events based
on factors such as instinct or previous conditioning, humans act toward
things on the basis of the meanings those objects have for them (Blumer,
1969, p. 2). Because these meanings are symbolic phenomena, humans are
seen as living in a symbolic environment as well as in a physical environ
ment, and they act in response to symbols as well as to physical stimuli
(Rose, 1962).
Symbolic interactionists assume that meanings arise through social in
teraction with others (Blumer, 1969, p. 4). "The meaning of a thing for a
person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the person
with regard to the thing" (Blumer, 1969, p. 4). Thus, meanings are seen as
social products.
Although the meanings of things are formed through social interaction,
individuals' use of meaning is not an automatic application of these socially
5
Some (Meltzer et al., 1975) have included ethnomethodology and Goffman's
dramaturgical analysis as part of symbolic interactionism. They are treated here as
separate traditions.
27
Evelyn Jacob
derived meanings (Blumer, 1969, p. 5). The socially derived meanings are
modified through an interpretative process occurring within an individual.
The actor selects, checks, ,uspends, ,reroupss ,nd transforms the meanings
in the light of the situation in which he is placed and the direction of his
action. Accordingly, interpretation should not be regarded as a mere
automatic application of established meanings but as a formative process
in which meanings are used and revised as instruments for the guidance
and formation of action. (Blumer, 1969, p. 5)
In the view of symbolic interactionists, human behavior is not "caused"
in a deterministic way by forces within humans (instincts, drives, etc.) or
by external forces (cultural norms, social forces, etc.). "Behavior is caused
by a reflective and socially derived interpretation of the internal and
external stimuli that are present" (Meltzer et al., 1975, p. 2).
Symbolic interactionists also make some assumptions about the human
"self." Blumer, following G. H. Mead, sees the self as involving two phases:
the I and the Me (Meltzer et al., 1975, p. 61). The I is the impulsive
tendency in individuals. An example is a person's impulse to anger upon
being struck by another. The Me represents the incorporated "other" within
the individual, that is, the organized set of attitudes and definition prevail
ing within the group. "In any given situation, the Me constitutes the
generalized other and, often, some particular other. Every act begins in the
form of an I and, generally, ends in the form of a Me. For the I constitutes
the initiation of the act prior to its coming under the control of the
definitions or expectations of others (the Me)" (Meltzer et al., p. 61). The
self is seen as a flowing process of interaction between the I and the Me
(Meltzer et al., p. 63).
Symbolic interactionists view the individual and society as inseparable
units. To understand one completely you need to understand the other.
Both influence the other; neither one is completely determined or deter
miner (Meltzer et al., 1975, p. 2).
To symbolic interactionists society is not made up of macro structures
that have a life of their own. "Human society is to be seen as consisting of
acting people, and the life of the society is to be seen as consisting of their
actions" (Blumer, 1969, p. 85). Large scale structures do set the conditions
and limitations of human action, but do not determine it. "It is the social
process in group life that creates and upholds the rules, not the rules that
create and uphold group life" (Blumer, p. 19). Cultural norms, status
positions, and role relationships are seen as the frameworks within which
social action takes place and not the crucial and coercive determinants of
the action (Meltzer et al., 1975, p. 64).
Symbolic interaction involves the various processes outlined above.
"'Symbolic interaction' is the interaction that takes place among the
various minds and meanings that characterize human societies" (Meltzer
et al., 1975, p. 1). "Symbolic interaction sees group life as a process in
28
which people, as they meet in their different situations, indicate lines of
action to each other and interpret the indications made by others" (Blumer,
1969, p. 52).
Focus
Symbolic interactionists are concerned with covert behavior, that is, the
participants' points of view (Ritzer, 1980, pp. 98, 309). However, they are
not satisfied with merely knowing the participants' points of view. They
want to understand the processes by which points of view develop. Because
symbolic interactionists view
the given sphere of life under study as a moving process in which the
participants are defining and interpreting each other's acts ... it is impor
tant to see how this process of dessgnatton and interpretatton ii sustaining,
undercutting, redirecting, and transforming the ways in which the partic
ipants arefittingtogether their lines of action. (Blumer, 1969, p. 53)
Because interaction is the crucial link between the individual and the
social group, it becomes a major object of concern (Meltzer et al., 1975, p.
51). Symbolic interactionists are interested in understanding how individ
uals are able to take one another's perspective and learn meanings and
symbols in concrete instances of interaction (Denzin, 1978, p. 7; Ritzer,
1983, p. 308).
Blumer (1969), Manis and Meltzer (1978), and Rose (1962) have dis
cussed the basic assumptions and principles of symbolic interactionism.
Methodology
Symbolic interactionists are interested in describing the processes of
symbolic interaction in order to understand behavior (Blumer, 1969;
Bogdan & Taylor, 1975, pp. 13-14). Thus, Blumer saw the goal of symbolic
interactionism as making society intelligible, rather than testing relation
ships between variables (Ritzer, 1980, pp. 107-108).
Theory is important to symbolic interactionists, but they differ in their
ideas about the role of theory in their work. Blumer (1969, pp. 47-48)
placed symbolic interactionism within the realm of "empirical science"
with the goal of yielding verifiable knowledge. This involved formulating
propositions about relationships among categories of data, weaving these
propositions into a theoretical scheme, and then testing these by renewed
examination of the empirical world (p. 48). He felt that the researcher's
concepts and theoretical schemes should develop from direct examination
of the social world (pp. 48-49). Thus, although placing himself within the
more positivistic framework of gathering verifiable data and testing theory,
he argued that the theory must be developed from empirical reality and
not a priori.
Becker (1958/1970a, pp. 26-33) argued that researchers should attempt
to make their work theoretically meaningful and should fit the findings
29
Evelyn Jacob
into a "generalized model." He felt that the researcher could draw on
existing theory to do this but that the researcher could also develop new
theoretical ideas.
In their methodological text, Bogdan and Taylor (1975) drew on the
work of Glazer and Strauss (1967) in "grounded theory" to take a more
"generative" view of the role of theory. They do not see the goal of
symbolic interactionism as testing or proving theory. The goal, in their
view, is to "formally identify themes and to construct hypotheses (ideas)
as they are suggested by the data a n d . . . to attempt to demonstrate support
for those themes and hypotheses" (Bogdan & Taylor, pp. 79-80).
For symbolic interactionists research design is emergent (Blumer 1969,
p. 48; Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). Data analysis and data collection are
done sequentially with preliminary data analysis informing future data
collection (Becker, 1958/1970a, p. 27).
To collect appropriate data the researchers use life histories, autobiogra
phies, case studies, letters, open interviews, and most importantly, partic
ipant observation (Meltzer et al., 1975, p. 58). The techniques of participant
observation and informal interviews have been discussed above in connec
tion with holistic ethnography.
Symbolic interactionists believe that to truly document the processes of
symbolic interaction researchers need to get "inside the experience of the
actor" (Blumer, quoted by Meltzer et al., 1975, pp. 57-58). This has been
called sympathetic introspection (Meltzer et al., p. 51) and verstehen
(Bogdan & Taylor, 1975, pp. 13-14).
Symbolic interactionists usually begin early in their data collection to
write theoretical notes that are "self-conscious, controlled attempts to
derive meaning from any one or several observation notes" (Schatzman &
Strauss, 1973, p. 101). In these early efforts the researcher "plays" with
data, relating observations to one another, developing new concepts, and
linking these to ones in the literature. These short notes are then linked
together and expanded into longer "analytic memos" for increasing con
ceptual development (Schatzman & Strauss, pp. 99-105). These processes
continue during and after data collection until the researcher has a guiding
metaphor, general scheme, or overall pattern for data analysis (Schatzman
& Strauss, p. 111). In following these steps researchers seek to identify and
discover "significant classes of things, persons and events and the properties
which characterize them" (Schatzman & Strauss, p. 110).
Blumer (1954, cited in Meltzer et al., 1975, p. 60) urged the use of
"sensitizing" concepts in place of operational definitions of concepts.
Operational definitions are prescriptions of what to see; his sensitizing
concepts merely suggest directions along which to look. Sensitizing con
cepts impose only enough structure to suggest where the researchers should
look (Ritzer, 1980, p. 108). In following this approach, symbolic interac
tionists do not operationalize a concept until after they have been in the
30
field and learned the meanings attached to it by actors and the processes
representing it (Denzin, 1978, p. 16).
Becker (1958/1970a) discussed issues of evidence if the researcher is
interested in testing hypotheses. He discussed the importance of under
standing the credibility of informants and the role of the observer in the
group. He pointed out that researchers need to examine the kind of data
they have used to support their conclusions. For example, he said that
researchers should examine the degree to which their conclusions are based
on statements volunteered by informants or have been directed by ques
tions from the researcher. He stated that statements volunteered are less
likely to be influenced by the researcher's preconceived ideas. Similarly,
researchers need to be aware of whether observations were made with the
observer alone or with members of the group and to evaluate the impact
of the two settings on participants' statements and behavior.
Becker (1970b) and Blumer (1969) presented position papers on meth
odology in symbolic interactionism. Bogdan and Taylor (1975) and Schatz-
man and Strauss (1973) presented more concrete, "how-to" discussions.
Glaser and Strauss (1967; Glaser, 1978) developed a methodological
approach from the symbolic interactionism tradition (Charmaz, 1983),
although they do not see it as wedded to any specific tradition (Glaser, p.
164). The goal of their approach is to develop theory that accounts for
behavior rather than to develop descriptions of behavior with the goal of
verifying theory (Glaser, p. 93; Glaser & Strauss, p. 30). They provide
methods to compare data from several sites in order to develop conceptual
categories, their properties, and hypotheses about categories and their
properties (Glaser & Strauss, p. 35). Their work has influenced many
methodological discussions in symbolic interactionism and in other qual
itative traditions.

Symbolic interaction provides models for studying how individuals
interpret objects, events, and people in their lives, and for studying how
this process of interpretation leads to behavior in specific situations.
Bogdan and Biklen (1982, pp. 3-26) briefly discussed application of
symbolic interaction to education.
Howard Becker has been the leading practitioner of symbolic interac
tionism to focus on the study of education. His widely recognized classic
is Boys in White (Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961), which deals
with how students at various points in their school career "see and solve
the immediate problems of dealing with their teachers and the tasks they
assign" (p. 5). In another major study Becker and his colleagues studied
the perspectives of undergraduate students toward academic work (Becker,
Geer, & Hughes, 1968).
Many of Becker's articles dealing with education were collected in one
31
Evelyn Jacob
volume (Becker, 1970b). A number of these studies examined public school
teachers. One of the studies examined the ways Chicago teachers classify
and react to the class-based differences in their students' behavior. Another
described the teachers' interactions with parents, principals, and other
teachers to analyze the "working authority system" of the school. A third
study examined career movement among teachers.
In other studies reprinted in the same volume, Becker (1970b) reported
on open-ended interviews conducted with graduate students at varying
levels of preparation in three disciplines. In one study he identified com
ponents of identification with an occupation. In another he specified the
processes by which such identifications are internalized by individuals
through their training. In the third he examined problems of adjustment
of conflicting expectations among society, the occupation, and the students'
families.
Comparison of Traditions
In another article (Jacob, in press) I compared representative qualitative
traditions in terms of themes commonly cited in the education literature
as characteristics of qualitative research. Here, I compare a group of
qualitative traditions with regard to assumptions about human nature and
society, foci of study, and methodologies—Kuhn's (1970) central features
of traditions. Table 1 summarizes the main points of the comparisons.
The discussion below elaborates.
Traditional educational research has operated almost totally within
psychological traditions, with positivistic assumptions, psychological foci,
and corresponding methodologies. Educational researchers have conducted
naturalistic observations within such positivistic traditions—for example,
"process-product" research.6 A typical study might describe discrete verbal
utterances of teachers and students in classrooms, or it might examine the
relationships between kinds of teacher utterances and students' achieve
ment. The traditions examined here provide new assumptions, new foci of
study, and new methodologies, and offer a richer and fuller view of human
life.
Assumptions About Human Nature and Society
Educational researchers conducting naturalistic observations in a tradi
tional approach such as process-product research would assume that it is
unimportant to know participants' subjective perceptions of behavior and
the context in which behavior occurs. Thus, they would study teacher and
6
The process-product literature is reviewed by Brophy and Good (1986), Dunkin
and Biddle (1974), Medley (1979), and Rosenshine and Furst (1971,1973). Another
approach that collects naturalistic data within a positivistic tradition is the time-
on-task studies, which are reviewed by Rosenshine (1979).
32
student behavior as objectively defined by the researcher across a random
sample of classrooms. Other than some basic demographic data, little
contextual data would be gathered.
Although ecological psychologists, like traditional educational research
ers, would assume that objective patterns in behavior settings exist inde
pendent of any of the perceptions of the participants, they would acknowl
edge, unlike traditional educational researchers, that individuals have goals
for behavior and subjective perceptions of behavior and the environment.7
For ecological psychologists the context of behavior in the classroom would
include both objective features of the immediate environment and the
individual's subjective perceptions of the environment. Thus, ecological
psychologists would assume that the context of teachers' and students'
behavior includes not only the objective features of the environment, such
as the physical structures (e.g., kind of physical plant), human components
(e.g., number of students available to fill organizational roles), and instruc
tional programs (e.g., subject matter being taught), but also individuals'
subjective goals and emotions.
The anthropological traditions (holistic ethnography, ethnography of
communication, and cognitive anthropology) define the subjective in terms
of the culture of a group. They see cultural standards as influencing
behavior, but not determining it. In this view, features of context, such as
physical environment and the behavior of others, would affect behavior
depending on how features of context are interpreted through cultural
standards. In addition, anthropologists would attempt to relate cultural
patterns in the classroom to cultural patterns in other areas of life. Ethnog
raphers of communication would emphasize that cultural standards also
influence face-to-face communication and that in such interactions teach
ers and students are negotiating the context of behavior moment by
moment.
Symbolic interactionists acknowledge cultural standards, but assume
that they are interpreted by individuals on the basis of their goals and their
perceptions of the consequences of various actions. According to symbolic
interactionists, members of any group that occupies a particular position
in the social structure (e.g., minority students or a group of teachers)
develop common mental frameworks and patterns of behavior for dealing
with the situations they encounter. Symbolic interactionists assume that
in order to understand behavior in situations such as classrooms one must
know the cultural standards that form the context of behavior, the individ
uals' goals within that context, and the individuals' perceptions of the
consequences of various kinds of behavior.
7
Although the behavior setting approach assumes that participants' perceptions
are not important to identify or study behavior settings, Stodolsky (1983) has
pointed out that the intrasetting unit termed activity setting is consistent with
teachers' perceptions.
33
* TABLE 1
Characteristics of qualitative rerearch traditions
n t . ¯ Ecological psychology H , , eth 2 h Ethnography of Cognitive
Charactenst.es - ¿ - r ^ ¿ Sp-ņ7enre^rds" » ° " ^ " ° ^ commumcat,on anthropoļogy ιnteractlonιsm
Assumptions about
human nature and
society
Subjective aspects Behavior is influenced by individuals' goals and Groups share a unique culture, patterns/or behavior (mental standards for Humans behave based
emotional perceptions of.the environment. perceiving, behaving, evaluating, and acting). These patterns/^ behavior on the meanings
Subjective perceptions of participants are not influence behavior, but do not determine it. Various parts of a culture things have to them.
important to identify and describe transindivi- are interdependent. τĸ , , xu , . „ Meanings are
dual behavior patterns in behavior settings. ^A^ÏÏÏ<SMΓ* aĩreflected S.ten™ 'earned through so-
cial
ĩêracΓn. * * " '"" guag“e, Specially^- ™te™ń™>
groups develop
mantics. , , .
shared meanings.
Influence of con- Individuals' subjective perceptions of the envi- A group's cultural standards for behavior exert a powerful, but not totally Human behaviors are
text on behavior ronment influence behavior. Objective features determining, influence on behavior. The various parts of a culture are not caused by inter-
of a behavior setting (physical properties, hu- interdependent and form a unified whole. Thus, it is important to under- nal forces (instincts,
man components, and programs) "coerce" be- stand the cultural meaning of a behavior and how it is related to other drives) nor by exter-
havior. Behavior settings are nested within one aspects of the culture. nal forces (cultural
another and influence one another. At the level of social (Observable behavior is norms, social struc-
interaction, context not a focus.) ture). Behavior is the
can change moment result of individuals'
by moment.
reflective interpreta
tions of socially de-
Focus rived meanings.
Content Observable behavior, Goals, emotions and Interdependent parts of Patterns of face-to-face Mentalistic cultural Processes by which
"objectively" de- behavior of subject a culture social interaction in patterns and their "meanings" develop
fined, in a behavior and others who Accommodations specific "scenes" in organization and are used to
setting come in contact with made after contact significant settings guide actions
subject between cultural
groups
Level of social or- Individuals as a group An individual or group Cultural group or Cultural group or Cultural group or A group that holds a
ganization who share a behav- of individuals de- groups groups groups similar position in
ior setting fined by researcher an institution and
faces similar circum-
Methodology stances
Research design Predetermined designs; Predetermined designs Research design emerges through a recurring cycle of data collection and Research design
may include a pre- analysis. More focused designs may follow after preliminary exploratory emerges, with pre
liminary phase in work has been done. liminary analysis in-
which behavior set- forming future data
tings are "discov- collection.
ered"
Data collected Continuous records of "Theoretically neutral" Multiple sources of Fieldwork in prelimi- Fieldwork in prelimi- Fieldwork or qualita-
behavior collected by narratives of behav- data gathered nary phase, followed nary phase, followed tive data from
nonparticipant ob- ior collected by non- through fieldwork; by detailed data col- by focused data col- sources such as in-
servers or video- participant observers focused data collec- lection using maxi- lection using cultur- terviews, autobiogra-
tapes, or data imme- Subjective perceptions tion may follow mally continuous ally appropriate phies or letters
diately coded on ob- are not elicited; ana- fieldwork. audio tapes, video questions Researchers' subjective
servation schedules lysts rely on com- Researchers' subjective tapes or films experiences are seen
monsense knowledge experiences may be as important sources
to infer participants' viewed as an impor- of data.
goals and emotions. tant means to learn
cultural standards.
Data analysis Quantitative Quantitative Primarily qualitative; Qualitative and quanti- Qualitative Qualitative
quantitative possible tative
with focused data
Evelyn Jacob
Focus of Study
Traditional educational research would focus on individual behavior or
dyadic interactions and on psychological variables. For example, a typical
study might focus on verbal utterances of teachers and students in class
rooms, with the verbal utterances coded on level of cognitive complexity.
All the traditions discussed here would expand this focus.
The specimen record approach used in ecological psychology would
expand the focus of the study by looking at all the influences on an
individual or group of individuals within a given period of time. Such a
study might compare the experiences of boys and girls during the entire
school day. The behavior setting approach used in ecological psychology
would expand the focus of research by looking at a wider range of the
behavior that occurred in a specific setting, such as a classroom, or within
a setting, such as lessons.
Anthropological traditions would move from studying classrooms as an
aggregate to looking at specific classrooms in detail, focusing on cultural
groups. Ethnographers of communication would examine how interac
tional behavior patterns become accomplished, and they would examine
how larger processes and patterns in society are reflected in and perpetuated
through face-to-face social interaction. For example, they might study in
detail the linguistic and nonverbal features of teacher and student behavior
in a classroom. They might also relate the interactional patterns found in
the classroom to patterns outside the classroom.
Holistic ethnographers would carry the focus of study beyond the class
room. They might look at how various parts of the educational system
form a systematic whole—for example, how student culture relates to
teacher culture, or how extracurricular activities relate to curricular activ
ities. They also might examine how the school, community, city, or district
influence what happens in the classroom or how forces from the larger
society, such as job opportunities or parental values, contribute to class
room events.
Cognitive anthropologists would focus on the mentalistic culture of
cultural groups, such as principals, teachers, and students. For example,
they might examine how principals and teachers classify students, how
different groups of students define school or peer relationships, or how
different cultural groups define success in school. They would then explore
how these specific mentalistic patterns relate to other cultural patterns.
Symbolic interactionists would focus on a group of individuals who share
the same position in the social organization, and look at the subjective
perceptions and behavior patterns that the group's members develop to
adapt to their position. Symbolic interactionists might identify the cultural
patterns upheld by adults at a school and then examine how students deal
with these "rules" in order to reach their own goals.
36
In contrast to the traditional educational approach, which emphasizes
teacher-to-student initiatives, the traditions discussed here frequently view
interaction as a two-way process, with students' culture, goals, and behavior
playing an active role in creating classroom events.
Methodology
In a traditional educational research study the research design is usually
formulated tightly in advance of data collection. Data might be collected
through some form of systematic sampling, using predetermined coding
categories, and then analyzed quantitatively. Researchers' personal knowl
edge of subjective aspects of human life would be regarded as irrelevant.
The ecological psychology tradition is similar to the traditional educa
tional approach in that it uses predetermined designs and quantitative
analysis. However, rather than collecting data that is already coded into
predetermined categories, ecological psychologists collect continuous rec
ords of behavior. In the specimen record approach the data include the
subjective perceptions of individuals; however, rather than eliciting these
perceptions from the participants, the coders rely on their common-sense
knowledge of what is happening to infer participants' goals and emotions.
In the other traditions research design is emergent, especially in prelim
inary phases, although more systematic designs can be developed after
preliminary studies have been completed. The kinds of data collected vary.
In holistic ethnography and symbolic interactionism fieldwork is a primary
method of data collection, and multiple sources of data are common.
Researchers in ethnography of communication and cognitive anthropology
usually begin with a fieldwork phase, but collect the primary body of data
by more systematic means. Ethnographers of communication, for example,
collect machine-recorded data on interactions, whereas cognitive anthro
pologists collect detailed data on participants' cultural knowledge. In all
these traditions qualitative analysis is important, but quantitative analysis
is not eliminated.
The three anthropological traditions seek objectively to report partici
pants' cultures. To do this the researchers record participants' verbatim
statements in order to get participants' views of the world. Many holistic
ethnographers also emphasize that the researcher's subjective experiences
through participant observation are an important way to learn about
cultural standards. Symbolic interactionists have made the strongest state
ments about the role of researchers' own subjective knowledge of subjective
aspects of life, arguing that researchers need to try to experience what the
participants experience.
Discussion
This analysis of qualitative research traditions indicates that the tradi
tions offer varied ways to study naturally occurring human behavior and
37
Evelyn Jacob
perceptions. In comparison to traditional educational studies, these tradi
tions make varied assumptions about human nature and society, add new
foci of study, and use different methodologies. These traditions would view
classroom behavior in the larger context of cultural standards and patterns
of behavior, goals of participants, behavior settings, and social influences
beyond the classroom. The implications are significant for our understand
ing of education.
How Can Educational Researchers Use These Traditions?

Qualitative traditions offer researchers a richer and fuller understanding
of education. Much of the work previously done within the traditions falls
into the category of basic research. Just as basic psychological research has
contributed to education, so basic research in the traditions examined here
can contribute to our understanding of education broadly defined.
The traditions also offer richer and fuller frameworks for applied re
search, such as research concerning what educational practices are effective
and what influences effectiveness. For example, researchers using the
behavior setting approach and ethnographers of communication reported
findings that are significant for classroom organization and management.
Ethnographers of communication have specifically related patterns of
social interaction to students' learning. Researchers have used the tradition
of cognitive anthropology to examine students' understandings of learning
to read; they then explored the relationships between these understandings,
the students' reading experiences, and their success in reading in school.
Holistic ethnographers have shown how the factors in the society as a
whole influence the effectiveness of schools, whereas symbolic interaction-
ists have shown how teachers can develop behaviors that continue ine
quality, and how students develop perspectives that counter the educational
goals of schools.
Educators can make further use of qualitative traditions by adapting
them to address new issues. For example, a number of scholars (Cole &
Scribner, 1975; Rogoff & Lave, 1984; Scribner & Cole, 1981) from a
number of traditions are trying to develop an approach that combines our
knowledge of social and cultural life with an examination of psychological
behavior in natural settings, including classrooms.
At present, no formal "tradition" exists that takes this approach. How
ever, the traditions examined here suggest that cultural standards, patterns
of social interaction, and environmental context influence cognitive activ
ity. Rogoff (1984, p. 4) provided a summary of current understandings of
these influences:
Central to the everyday contexts in which cognitive activity occurs is
interaction with other people and use of socially provided tools and
schemas for solving problems. Cognitive activity is socially defined, inter
preted, and supported. People, usually in conjunction with each other and
38
always guided by social norms, set goals, negotiate appropriate means to
reach the goals, and assist each other in implementing the means and
resetting the goals as activities evolve (Rogofî, 1982; Cole, Hood &
McDermott, 1978b) The social context affects cognitive activity at
two levels, according to Vygotsky (1978). First, sociocultural history
provides tools for cognitive activity (e.g., writing and calculators) and
practices that facilitate reaching appropriate solutions to problems (e.g.,
norms for the arrangement of grocery shelves to aid shoppers in locating
what they need, common mnemonic devices, scripts and frames for
interpreting events). Second, the immediate social interactional context
structures individual cognitive activity.
This new topic of inquiry calls for the adaptation of existing traditions in
order to develop a new tradition.
In sum, qualitative traditions not only can be used in basic and applied
research, but also can be adapted to address new questions and concerns.
Must Educational Researchers Use These Tradiitons to Conduct
Qualitative Research?
There are two parts to this question: Must educators use these traditions,
and must educators use traditions?
The answer to the first question is relatively simple. No, these are not
the only alternative traditions available for the study of education. Other
qualitative traditions, not discussed here, include psychological anthropol
ogy (e.g., Harrington, 1978), organizational sociology (e.g., Metz, 1978,
1986), and symbolic anthropology (e.g., Varenne, 1982). Other traditions
exist that study subjective perceptions of individuals, but use a more
positivistic approach to their study. For example, Rosenholtz (1985; Ro-
senholtz & Rosenholtz, 1981; Rosenholtz & Wilson, 1980) studied how
the social structure of the classroom influences the perceptions of ability
and performance of students. The Iowa school of symbolic interactionism
shares many of the same theoretical assumptions of the Chicago school
reviewed above, but differs primarily in its commitment to a more positiv
istic approach. M. Kuhn (Hickman & Kuhn, 1956; Kuhn, 1964) is a
leading proponent of this tradition.
The answer to the second question is more complex. Although contri
butions can be made outside a tradition, major accomplishments occur
when scholars operate within traditions (Kuhn, 1970). Much of our knowl
edge about education has been provided by researchers operating within
psychological traditions. I think that major contributions will also be made
through conducting research in qualitative traditions.
A number of scholars in the education literature have discussed quali
tative research at the level of generic assumptions and methods, blurring
the distinctions among traditions and ignoring foci of study. However,
generic assumptions or methods, used outside a tradition, are generally
insufficient for a productive line of research—whether it is positivistic or
39
Evelyn Jacob
qualitative. Simon (1986) made a similar point about generic anthropol
ogical research. Studies outside traditions are likely to be poorly focused,
conceptually unclear, and weakly implemented.
Some researchers may think that an "open" stance to research implies
freedom from traditions, but this is a dubious proposition. Whereas qual
itative traditions often take an "open" stance toward data and research
design, researchers in the traditions have certain basic assumptions that
frame their work. In the anthropological traditions, for example, research
ers assume that certain aspects of culture are important in all societies, but
they nevertheless maintain an open stance concerning the specifics of how
behaviors are defined in a particular culture and how the components of
a culture are linked. Traditions are important, even when one takes an
"open" stance, because they provide a set of orienting assumptions about
what to study.
My point is not to argue that researchers should be limited to existing
traditions, but that researchers need to pay attention to assumptions, foci
of study, and methodologies. This is particularly important as educational
researchers explore and use new traditions. Shulman (1981) stated that
questions (i.e., foci of study) should lead one to select methods for study.
Other scholars (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Magoon, 1977; Smith, 1983)
have emphasized the importance of epistemological assumptions. This
analysis suggests that both are important. Methodologies developed in
qualitative traditions are the product of assumptions and particular foci of
study.
What Are the Implications for Training?

By definition, traditions form a unified whole, with assumptions about
human nature and society, foci of study, and methodologies interlinked.
Educational researchers have operated mostly in psychological traditions
with positivistic assumptions. Thus, novice educational researchers had a
base in psychological approaches and positivistic assumptions, and in the
past educational research courses could focus just on "methods," knowing
that the students had the appropriate assumptions and foci to use the
methods.
The situation is different for the traditions examined here. Novice
educational researchers generally have not been exposed to these traditions
in any depth. They are familiar neither with the alternative assumptions
nor with the alternative foci of study. Both are important.
This implies that an educational researcher's training in qualitative
approaches must not be limited to generic assumptions or methods.
Researchers need to understand the various traditions, with their varying
assumptions, foci of study, and methodologies.
40
What Is Needed in Future Research?
This article does not provide a comprehensive treatment of all the
alternative qualitative traditions that have been used to study education.
Future reviews could examine other qualitative traditions.
More work also needs to be done exploring the substantive applications
of these traditions to education. Doyle (1986), for example, has examined
the contributions of the behavior setting approach and of ethnography of
communication to classroom management. Similar reviews could be done
concerning substantive contributions of qualitative traditions to other areas
of educational practice.
Finally, armed with a thorough understanding of existing traditions,
researchers will be able to develop new traditions to address new problems.
One of the most exciting areas for future research is adapting qualitative
traditions to the study of naturally occurring cognitive behavior in class
rooms.
In summation, better understanding of the various qualitative traditions
offers the hope of a richer and fuller understanding of education and of
more effective delivery of educational services.
References
Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: AAnnformal introduction to ethnogra
phy. New York: Academic Press.
Agar, M. (1982). Whatever happened to cognitive anthropology? A partial review.
Human Organization, 41, 82-85.
Au, K. H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian
children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 111,1--15.
Barker, R. G. (Ed.). (1963). The stream of behavior: Explorattons of its structure
and content. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychologyy Concepts and methods fof studying
the environment of human behavior. .tanford, CA: :tanford University yress.
Barker, R. G. (1978a). Return trip, 1977. In R. G. Barker & Associates, Habitats,
environments, and human behavior r(pp .85-299). .an Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barker, R. G. (1978b). Need for an eco-behavioral science. In R. G. Barker &
Associates, Habitats, environments, and human behavior (pp. 36-44). San Fran
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barker, R. G., & Associates. (1978). Habitats, environments, and human behavior.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barker, R. G., & Barker, L. S. (1963). Social actions in the behavior streams of
American and English children. In R. G. Barker (Ed.), The stream of behavior:
Explorations of its structure and content (pp. 127-159). New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Barker, R. G., & Schoggen, P. (1973). Qualities of community life: Methods of
41
Evelyn Jacob
measuring environment and behavior applied to an American and an English
town. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1951). One boy's day. New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its children. New York: Harper
&Row.
Barker, R. G., Wright, H. F., Schoggen, M. F., & Barker, L. S. (1978). Day in the
life of Mary Ennis. In R. G. Barker and Associates, Habitats, environments, and
human behavior (pp. 51-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barrett, R. A. (1984). Culture and conductt An excursion in nnthropopogy. Belmont,
CA:Wadsworth.
Becker, H. (1970a). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. In
H. Becker, Sociological work: Method dnd dubstance (pp. 25-38). New wruns
wick, NJ: Transaction Books. (Article originally published 1958)
Becker, H. (1970b). Sociological work: Methods snd dubstance. New wrunswickc
NJ: Transaction Books.
Becker, H., Geer, B., & Hughes, E. C. (1968). Making the grade: The academic
side of college llfe. New York: John Wiiey and Sons.
Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C, & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in white: Student
culture in medical schooll Chicago: University yo Chicago Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interacüonism. Englewood Cllffs, NJ: Prentice-Halll
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: AAnntro
duction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R„ & Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative eesearch methods. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Borko, H., & Eisenhart, M. (1986). Students' conceptions about readers and their
reading experiences in school. Elementary School Journal, 86, ,58-611.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In
M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd de.) )(pp .28-375).
New York: Macmillan.
Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in
the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpre
tation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection no
readings (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little, Brown.
Cicourel, A. V., Jennings, K. H., Jennings, S. H. M., Leiter, K. C. W., MacKay,
R., Mehan, H„ & Roth, D. (1974). Language use and school performance. New
York: Academic Press.
Clammer, J. (1984). Approaches to ethnographic research. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.),
Ethnographic research: A guide to general conducctpp. 63-85)) London: Aca
demic Press.
Clement, D. (1976). Cognitive anthropology and applied problems in education.
In M. V. Angrosino (Ed.), Do applied anthropologists apply anthropology?
Southern Anthropological Society Proccedings, No. 10. Athens: University yo
Georgia Press.
Clement, D. C, Eisenhart, M., & Harding, J. R. (1978). Moving closer: An
ethnography of a southern desegregated dchool. Final report. Washington, DC:
42
National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 161 969)
Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1975). Theorizing about socialization of cognition. Ethos,
3, 249-268.
Davis, J. (1972). Teachers, kids, and conflict: Ethnography of a junior high school.
In J. P. Spradley & D. W. McCurdy (Eds.), The cultural experience: Ethnography
in complex society (pp.103-120). Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research actt A theoretical introduction to tociological
methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dobbert, M. L. (1982). Ethnographic research: Theory and dpplication for modern
schools and societies. New York: :raeger.
Dougherty, J. W. D. (Ed.). (1985). Directions in cognitive anthropology. Urbanan
University of Illinois Press.
Doyle, J. (1972). Helpers, officers, and lunchers: Ethnography of a third-grade class.
In J. P. Spradley & D. W. McCurdy (Eds.), The cultural experience: Ethnography
in complex society (pp. 147-156). Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbookofresearch on teaching ((rd ee.) (pp. 392-433). New York: Macmillan.
Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Dyck, A. J. (1963). The social contacts of some Midwest children with their parents
and teachers. In R. G. Barker (Ed.), The stream of behavior: Explorattons of its
structure and content tpp. 78-98)) New York: Appleton-Century-Croftts
Edgerton, R. B., & Langness, L. L. (1974). Methods and styles in the study of
culture. San Francisco:chandler and Sharp.
Eisenhart, M. (1985). Women choose their careers: A study of natural decision-
making. The Review of Higher Education, 8, 247-270.
Erickson F. (1973). What makes school ethnography 'ethnographic'? Anthropology
and Education Newsletter, ,(2), ,0--19
Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school-community ethnogra
phy. Anthropology ά Education Quarterly ,, 58-69.
Erickson, F. (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.. (pp. 1119161)) New York:
Macmillan.
Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures
in two classrooms of Indian students. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography
ofschooling:Educattonalanthropologyinaction(pP.p.2-m).Nwwoτk:Holi
Rinehart and Winston.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1981a). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction
in interviews. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1981b). When is a context? Some issues and methods in
the analysis of social competence. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography
and language in educattonal lettings (ppp .47-160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Erickson, F., & Wilson, J. (1982). Sights and sounds of life in schools: A resource
guide to film and videotapefor researcchnd dducation (Research Series No. 125)5
East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education.
Evertson, C. M., & Green, J. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaccing (3rd dd.) )(pp .62-213). New
York: Macmillan.
43
Evelyn Jacob
Fawl, C. L. (1963). Disturbances experienced by children in their natural habitats.
In R. G. Barker (Ed.), The stream of behavior: Explorattons of its structure end
content (pp. 99-126). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of
grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Goetz, J. P. (1978). Theoretical approaches to the study of sex-role culture in
schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, ,, 3-221
Goetz, J. P., & Hansen, J. F. (1974). The cultural analysis of schooling. Council on
Anthropology & Educatton Quarterly, 5(4), 1-8.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Golde, P. (Ed.). (1970). Women in the field. Chicago: Aldine.
Goodenough, W. (1971). Culture, language, ,nd society (Addison-Wesley Module).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Green, J. L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art.
In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education nVol. .0, ppp .51-222).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Green, J. L., & Wallatt, C. (Eds.). (1981). Ethnography and language in nducational
settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluatton. San Francisco: :ossey-Basss
Gump, P. (1967). The classroom behavior retting: Its nature and relation to student
behavior. .Final leport, Project no. 2453)) Washington, DC: Offfce of Educatton.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 015 515)
Gump, P. V. (1974). Operating environments in schools of open and traditional
design. School Review, 2, 575-593.
Gump, P. V. (1978). School environments. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.),
Human behavior and environment: Vol. 3. Children and the environment (pp.
131-174). New York: Plenum.
Gump, P. V. (1982). School settings and their keeping. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Helping
teachers manage classrooms (pp. 98-114). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gumperz, J. (1968). The speech community. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of the social sciences (Volo 9, pp. 381-386). New work: Macmillan
& The Free Press.
Gutkind, P. C. W., Jongmans, D. G., Jonker, C, Kobben, A. J. F., Sankoff, G., &
Serpenti, L. M. (1967). Annotated bibliography: Contents. In D. G. Jongmans
& P. C. W. Gutkind (Eds.), Anthropologists in the field (pp. 217-271)) Assen,
The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Harrington, C. (1978). Psychological anthropology and education: A delineation
of a field of inquiry. In L. Comitas (Chair), Anthropology and educatton (pp. .74
356). Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
Harris, M. (1968). The rise ofanthropological lheory: A Aistory oftheories ofculture.
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Heath, S. B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In
G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology
in action (pp. 102-131). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
44
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Languagee,ife, and dork in communities
and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickman, C. A., & Kuhn, M. H. (1956). Individuals, groups, and economic
behavior. New York: Dryden.
Hoestetler, J. A., & Huntington, G. E. (1971). Children in Amish society: Sociali
zation and community education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Holland, D. C. (1985). From situation to impression: How Americans get to know
themselves and one another. In J. W. D. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive
anthropology (pp. 389-411). Urbana: University of IIllnois Press.
Holy, L. (1984). Theory, methodology and the research process. In R. F. Ellen
(Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp( 13-34). Londond
Academic Press.
Honigmann, J. J. (1973). Sampling in ethnographic fieldwork. In R. Naroll & R.
Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in ĩuliural lnthropopogy (pp. 266-281).
New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1970)
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J.
Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directtons sn sociolmguistics: ThT ethnography of
communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hymes, D. (19741 Foundations in sociolinguistics: An nthnographic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, D. (1980). Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Jacob, E. (in press). Clarifying qualitative research: A focus on traditions. Educa
tional Researcher.
Jongmans, D. G., & Gutkind, P. C. W. (1967). Anthropologists in the field. Assen,
The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educa
tions program. Anthropology ά Education Quarterly, 16, 105-123.
Jordan, N. (1963). Some formal characteristics of the behavior of two disturbed
boys. In R. G. Barker (Ed.), The stream of behavior: Explorations of its structure
and content (pp. 203-218). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Keesing, R., & Keesing, F. (1971). New perspectives sinultural anthropology. NeN
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. NeN York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kounin, J. S., & Sherman, L. W. (1979). School environments as behavior settings.
Theory into Practice, 18, 145-151.
Kuhn, M. H. (1964). Major trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past
twenty-five years. Sociological Quarterly, 5, 61-84.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Univer
sity of Chicago Press.
Langness, L. L. (1974). The study of culture. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp.
LeVine, R. A. (1973). Research design in anthropological fieldwork. In R. Naroll
& R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropopogy (p(pp.3-
195). New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1970)
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lutz, F., & Ramsey, M. (1974). The use of anthropological field methods in
education. Educational Researcher, i((O), )-9.
45
Evelyn Jacob
Magoon, A. J. (1977). Constructivist approaches in educational research. Review
of Educational Research, 47, 651-693.
Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton.
(Original work published 1922)
Manis, J., & Meltzer, B. (Eds.). (1978). Symbolic interaction: A readeern social
psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McDermott, R. P. (1974). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach
to illiteracy and social stratification. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural
process: Toward an anthropology of education n(pp .2--11). New Yorkk Holt,
McDermott, R. P. (1977). Social relations as contexts for learning in school.
Harvard Educational Review, 47, 198-213.
McDermott, R. P., & Gospodinoff, K. (1981). Social contexts for ethnic borders
and school failure. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and
the bilingual classroom (pp. 2112230)) Rowley, MA: Newbury House. .Original
work published 1979)
Mead, M. (1973). The art and technology of fieldwork. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen
(Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 246-265). New York:
Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1970)
Medley, D. (1979). The effectiveness of teachers. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg
(Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. .1-27).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48,
32-64.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization ninhe elassroom. Cam
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mehan, H. (1984). Language and schooling. Sociology of Education, 57, 174-183.
Meltzer, B. N., Petras, J. W., & Reynolds, L. T. (1975). Symbolic interactionism:
Genesis, varieties snd drititism. London: Routledge and degan naulu
Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corrrdors: :he crisis of authority in desegre
gated secondary schools. Berkeleyy University yo California Press.
Metz, M. H. (1986). Different by design: The eontext and dharacter of three magnet
schools. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paull
Murdock, G. P., Ford, C. S., Hudson, A. E., Kennedy, R., Simmons, L. W., &
Whiting, J. W. M. (1961). Outline ofcultural materials (4th rev. ed..) New Haven,
CT: Human Relations Area Files.
Naroll, R., & Cohen, R. (Eds.). (1973). A handbook of method in cultural anthro
pology. New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1970)
Ogbu, J. (1974). The next generation: An ethnography of educatton in an urban
neighborhood. New Yorkk Academic Presss
Ogbu, J. (1981). School ethnography: A multilevel approach. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 12, 3-29.
Parrott, S. (1972). Games children play: Ethnography of a second-grade recess. In
J. P. Spradley & D. W. McCurdy (Eds.), The cultural experience: Ethhography
in complex society (pp. 207-220). Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluatton methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sagee
Pelto, P. (1970). Anthropological research: :he etructure of inquiry. New work:
Harper and Row.
46
Pelto, P., & Pelto, G. (1973). Ethnography: The fìeldwork enterprise. In J. J.
Honigmann (Ed.), Handbook of social and cultural anthropology (pp. 241-288).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Peshkin, A. (1978). Growing up American: Schooling and the survival ofcommunity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and
community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman.
Powdermaker, H. (1966). Stranger and friend. New York: Norton.
Rist, R. (1977). On the relations among educational research paradigms: From
disdain to detente. Anthropology & Educatton Quarterly, 8, 42-49.
Ritzer, G. (1980). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science (rev. ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Ritzer, G. (1983). Sociological theory. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Rogoff, B. (1984). Introduction: Thinking and learning in social context. In B.
Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its developmenntn social lontext
(pp. 1 -8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: :ts sevelopment in social contexte
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rose, A. (1962). A systematic summary of symbolic interaction theory. In A. Rose
(Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 3-19). Boston: Houghton
Mifïlin.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Modifying status expectations in the traditional classroom.
In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr., (Eds.), Status, rewards and influencce(pp . 4 5 -
470). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Rosenholtz, S. H. (1981). Classroom organization and the
perception of ability. Sociology of Education, 54, 132-140.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Wilson, B. (1980). The effect of classroom structure on shared
perceptions of ability. American Educational Research Journal, ,7, 75-82.
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson &
H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications
(pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In
B. O. Smith (Ed.), Research in teacher education: A symposium (pp. 37-72).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching.
In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaccing g(pp .122
183). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sanday, P. R. (1979). The ethnographic paradigm(s). Administrative Science Quar
terly, 24, 527-538.
Sarsby, J. (1984). The fìeldwork experience. In R. F. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic
research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 87-132). London: Academic Presss
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for r natural
sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenttce-Halll
Schoggen, P. (1963). Environmental forces in the everyday lives of children. In R.
G. Barker (Ed.), The stream of behavior: Explorattons of its structure and content
(pp. 42-69). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schoggen, P. (1964). Mechanical aids for making specimen records of behavior.
Child Development, 35, 985-988.
47
Evelyn Jacob
Schoggen, P. (1975). An ecological study of children with physical disabilities in
school and at home. In R. Weinberg & F. Wood (Eds.), Observation of pupils
and teachers in mainstream and special lducation settings: Alternative strstegies.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Leadership Training Institute in Special
Education.
Schoggen, P. (1978). Ecological psychology and mental retardation. In G. Sackett
(Ed.), Observing behavior. .ol. I. Theory ana applications in mental retardation
(pp. 33-62). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Scríbner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational
Researcher, 10, ,-12, 23.
Shultz, J., & FΊorio, S. (1979). Stop and freeze: The negotiation of social and
physical space in a kindergarten-first grade classroom. Anthropology and Edu
cation Quarterly, 10, 166-181.
Simon, E. (1986). Theory in educational evaluation or, what's wrong with generic
brand anthropology? In D. Fetterman & M. A. Pittman (Eds.), Ethnographic
evaluation: Theory, practice, and politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Singleton, J. (1967). Nichu: A Japanese school. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify
the issue. Educational Researcher, ,2(3), 6-13.
Smith, L. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnog
raphy, and other case studies. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 6, pp. 316-377). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock for the American
Educational Research Association.
Spmdlcv,G.D.(Ed.).(1970).Beingananthropologist:Fieldworkinelelencultures.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Spindler, G. (1973). Burgbach: Urbanization nnd identity in n German village. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Spindler, G. (Ed.). (m2). Doing the ethnography ofschooling: Educational anthro
pology in action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Spradley, J. P. (1970). You owe yourself a drunk: An ethnography of urban nomads.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Spradley, J. (1972). Foundations of cultural knowledge. In J. P. Spradley (Ed.),
Culture and cognition: Rules, mapss and plans spp. .-38). San Francisco: Chan
dler.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New work: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart tnd Win
ston.
Spradley, J. P., & Mann, B. (1975). The cocktail waitress: Women S work in n male
world. New York: Wiley.
Spradley, J. P., & McCurdy, D. W. (1972). The cultural experience: Ethnography
in complex society. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Stocking, G. (1976). Ideas and institutions in American anthropology: Toward a
history of the interwar period. In G. Stocking (Ed.), Selected papers from the
48
American Anthropologist: 192111945 (pp. 1153)) Washington, DC: Amerrcan
Anthropological Association.
Stocking, G. (1983a). History of anthropology: Whence/whither. In G. Stocking,
Jr. (Ed.), History of anthropology: Vol. .1 Observers observed: Essays on ethno
graphicfìeldwork(pp. 3-12). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Stocking, G. (1983b). The ethnographer's magic: Fìeldwork in British anthropology
from Tylor to Malinowski. In G. Stocking, Jr. (Ed.), Observers observed: Essays
on ethnographicfìeldwork.(pp. 70-120)) History of Anthropology Voll 11 Mad
ison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Stodolsky, S. (1983). Classroom activity structures in the fifth hrade (NIE Eontract
No. 400-77-0094). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 412)
Stodolsky, S. (1984). Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work
groups. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social
context of instruction: Group organization and group processes s(pp .07-124).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Tyler, S. (1969a). Introduction. In S. Tyler (Ed.), Cognitive anthropology y(pp .1
23). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Tyler, S. (Ed.). (1969b). Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rineharr tnd
Winston.
Varenne, H. (1982). Jocks and freaks: The symbolic structure of the expression of
social interaction among American senior high school students. In G. Spindler
(Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schoollng: Educational anthropopogy in action
(pp. 210-235). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Warren, R. L. (1967). Education in Rebhausen: A German village. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wax, R. (1971). Doing fìeldwork: Warnings and advice. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Whiting, B., & Whiting, J. (1973). Methods for observing and recording behavior.
In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology
(pp. 282-315). New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published
1970)
Whyte, W. F. (1982). Interviewing in field research. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Field
research: A sourcebooo and field manual (pp. 1111-22). London: Allen and
Unwin. (Original work published 1960)
Wicker, A. W. (1968). Undermanning, performances, and students' subjective
experiences in behavior settings of large and small high schools. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychologyy\0, 255-261.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Williams, T. R. (1967). Field methods in the study of culture. New York: Holt,
Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research.
Review of Educational Research, 47, 245-265.
Wohlwill, J. F., & Weisman, G. (1981). The physical environment and behavior:
An annotated bibliography and guide to the literature. New York: Plenum.
Wolcott, H. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools.
Human Organization, 34, 111-127.
49
Evelyn Jacob
Wolcott, H. (1984). The man in the principal's office: An ethnography. .rospect
Heights, IL: Waveland. (Original work published 1973)
Wright, H. F. (1967). Recording and analyzing child behavior New Yorkk Harper
and Row.
Wylie, L. (1964). Village in the Vaucluse (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Young, R. E. (1981). The epistemic discourse of teachers: An ethnographic study.
Anthropology & Educatton Quarterly, 12, 122-144.
Author
EVELYN JACOB, Assistant Professor, Department of Education, George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA. Specializations: Anthropology and education, research
methods, informal education.
50

Qualitative Research Traditions - A Review - Jacob 1987

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Research Traditions - A Review - Jacob 1987

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Research Traditions - A Review - Jacob 1987

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Educational Research

Spring 1987, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. .150

Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review

This article illustrates how various sualitative traditions could be used in

Many students and colleagues in education have asked how to conduct

Assumptions about Human Nature and Society

Applications to the Study of Education

Applications to the Study of Education

Applications to the Study of Education

Applications to the Study of Education

How Can Educational Researchers Use These Traditions?

What Are the Implications for Training?

You might also like