Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Progress Report Author(s): Anne Lazaraton Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, Qualitative Research in ESOL (Autumn, 1995), pp. 455 -472 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588071 Accessed: 11/07/2010 19:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

1995 Vol.29, No. 3, Autumn TESOLQUARTERLY

Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Progress Report

ANNE LAZARATON StateUniversity ThePennsylvania

This article describes the status of qualitative research in applied linguistics and ESOL. It identifies trends by reporting on an informal survey of published journal articles, highlighting relevant published qualitative studies and research methods texts, and relating the views of research methodologists working within and outside the qualitative tradition. Several of the unresolved, persistent issues raised are progress toward a definition of qualitativeresearch, the role of quantification in qualitative research, and the generalizability of qualitative
research.

special-topic issue on Qualitative Research in ESOL can be seen as evidence of a second coming of age of the research in applied linguistics.' The first was noted by Henning (1986) in his survey of published articles in the TESOL Quarterlyand Language Learning; he concluded that the great majority of articles exemplified quantitative kind of coming research and that this was "a positive development-a of age of a discipline" (p. 704). This issue of the TESOL Quarterly contains two overview articles on qualitative research as well as three full-length papers and two shorter reports selected from more than 50 abstracts submitted in response to the original call for papers. In addition, Qualitative Research Guidelines are now set forth in the Information for Contributors section of this journal "to ensure that Quarterly articles model rigorous qualitative research"; the Statistical Guidelines with which they appear have been in place for about 2 years. This
'I use appliedlinguistics,rather than (T)ESOL, throughout this article as the term that encapsulates the scope of our field because it seems to be a more inclusive label, covering not just (second) language learning and/or language teaching but also cognition, comparative rhetoric, language planning and policy, language testing, and the broad area of language use. It also seems to be a better label for the discipline of which we are a part as opposed to the profession in which we are engaged. Obviously, this crucial issue cannot be taken up here; see Kaplan and Grabe (1992) and Strevens (1992) for more on the historical development and emerging definitions of applied linguistics, and Pennycook's (1990) argument for a more critical applied linguistics. 455

Another sign that qualitative research is attaining more prominence in applied linguistics is the inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative topics in the Research Issues column that appears in every other issue of the TESOL Quarterly. These facts suggest that qualitative research has made significant gains in terms of visibility and credibility in recent years, yet the purposes, assumptions, and methods of qualitative research are still debated, misunderstood, and/or ignored by some in our profession. One broad-based survey of 121 applied linguists (Lazaraton, Riggenbach, & Ediger, 1987) acknowledged that "qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis are clearly important for the types of questions asked in applied linguistics research" (p. 264); however, the survey only assessed statistical literacy. Surprisingly, only a few respondents complained that such a view of research was narrowly conceived and that it reflected neither the expertise nor the interests of the field at large. LinAn informal survey of four majorjournals in the field (Applied and in Second Studies Acquisition, Language Learning, guistics,Language over the past 10 years reveals a growing interest the TESOLQuarterly) in qualitative research issues and studies, but in terms of sheer numbers the "domination of the psychometric model" (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990) articles is still apparent. The proportion of empirical TESOLQuarterly that employ qualitative, and especially ethnographic, techniques has slowly increased over the past 10 years (e.g., Benson, 1989; Canagarajah, 1993; Clair, 1995; Cleghorn & Genesee, 1984; Crago, 1992; Harklau, 1994), but these contributions represent only a fraction of the total articles published in that time period. Empirical articles in Applied LanguageAcquisition LanguageLearning,and Studiesin Second Linguistics, cover a broad range of research topics and represent various qualitative research traditions (e.g., text analysis, discourse analysis, and case studies), although ethnographic methods are still underrepresented in terms of total numbers; only three such studies were published in these journals in the past 10 years (Holliday, 1992; Poole, 1992; Rampton, 1991).2 Of course, quality qualitative research has appeared in other professional publications (see, e.g., Gilmore & Glatthorn, 1982; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981). Encouragingly, a number of qualitative studies have appeared in the last two special-topic issues of the TESOL
2These findings are consistent with Nunan's (1991) critical analysis published in Studies in SecondLanguageAcquisitionof 50 published articles in applied linguistics. His findings showed that almost 40% of these articles used experimental techniques and that elicitation was the most common method of data collection. Although he found the classroom studies to be more interpretive (he notes, however, that all studies require some sort of interpretation), most of the research was narrow in focus and scope and was not situated within a defined social context. 456 TESOL QUARTERLY

do devoteconsiderable researchconcepts Learning, spaceto qualitative and methods. Nunan states that "twoalternativeconceptionsof the nature of researchprovide a point of tension within the book"(pp. xi-xii) and dedicatesmuch of the firstchapterto a discussionof this issue. However, two reviewersof this text were unhappy with this approach.Galguera(1993),in his reviewof Nunan'sbookin Language contendsthatNunandisplaysa biastowardhis statedpreferLearning, ence for nonexperimental researchdespite his attemptsto provide a balancedand objectiveview. Anotherreviewer(Fang, 1994)criticizes Nunan for devoting too much space to comparingqualitativeand quantitativeresearchand suggests that the section on experimental design should have been expanded.Johnson'sbook also strives for balanceand objectivity in the presentation of six researchapproaches (correlational,case study, survey, ethnography,experimental, and scale);the ordering of these chaptersis multisite/multimethod/large in this helpful achieving goal (Lazaraton, 1994).Nunan'sandJohnson's
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT 457

Two more recent texts, Nunan's (1992) Research Methods in Language and to in Research Second Johnson's (1992) Approaches Language Learning

one on adult literacies(Vol. 27, No. 3, 1993) and the other Quarterly, on K-12 (Vol. 28, No. 3, 1994). We are indeed fortunateto haveat our disposala numberof useful, user-friendlyreference texts on researchmethodsin applied linguisshorthistoryof our discipline.However,these tics,given the relatively researchmethods (I texts display a distinctbias towardquantitative methods to includethe application of descriptakethe term quantitative and a tive and/or inferentialstatistical consistent lack of procedures) withtwonotableexceptions.Although attentionto qualitative research, choicesavailable to (1989) notes that the methodological Hamp-Lyons the applied linguist have increased and that qualitativeresearch is now common, none of the three researchmethodsbooksshe reviews (Brown, 1988; Butler, 1985;Woods,Fletcher,& Hughes, 1986) deals with qualitative researchin any meaningfulway.Even though Brown researchis neither the only kind of re(1988) states that "statistical search. . . nor even necessarily the besttype"(p. 5), he dealsexclusively withit in his text. Hatchand Lazaraton (1991)also treatonly statistical research.Seliger and Shohamy(1989) attemptto "describe what can be consideredparadigmatic and of second types principles language research" (p. 1) but provideonly a brief, generaldiscussionof qualitative research design, data collection, and analysis.Larsen-Freeman contendsthatthe (sub)(1985),in a chapteron researchmethodology, field of second languageacquisition embraces severaldifferent (SLA) to the criteria for research, approaches conducting yet evaluatingresearchthat she presentsdisplaya distinctbiastowardapproachesthat requirethe analysisof quantifieddata.

coverage of case studies is particularly important because there is an established case study tradition in linguistics and child language acquisition research; discussions of other qualitative methods that have their roots in anthropological and educational research (e.g., ethnography) may overlook this qualitative approach. Notwithstanding the chapter-length coverage that qualitative research receives in these two books, the fact remains that there are to date no qualitative research methods texts written for and by applied linguists. In fact, only recently has qualitative research methodology been discussed independently of the quantitative methods with which it contrasts. Watson-Gegeo (1988) and Wolfson (1986) are two exceptions; recent Research Issues contributions in the TESOL Quarterly by Blot (1991), Davis (1992), Johnson and Saville-Troike (1992), and Ulichny (1991) have also begun to rectify this disparity in coverage and to provide a forum for voices within the community of qualitative researchers. Perhaps the conclusion to draw from these observations is that we are in the same position today, with large gaps in resources and reference coverage on qualitative research, that we were in 15 years ago with quantitative research, when the field used teaching texts and reference books from the allied disciplines of education, linguistics, psychology, and sociology until an applied linguistics model became available (e.g., Hatch & Farhady, 1982). Bogdan and Biklen (1992) make a similar point in the introduction to the second edition of their text: When their first edition appeared in 1982, few texts on qualitative research in education were available.Today, there are many choices available to the applied linguistics researcher; some of the more frequently cited references in texts on research methods in applied linguistics and in published empirical studies include Fetterman (1989), Goetz and LeCompte (1984), Lincoln and Guba (1985), Miles and -luberman (1994), Patton (1990), and Spradley (1979, 1980). Heath (1983) remains the most widely recognized (and cited) example of an applied linguistics ethnography. Note also that a growing number of specialized research methods texts are linked to specific topics such as discourse analysis (e.g., Cook, 1989; Hatch, 1992; McCarthy, 1991; see also Schiffrin, 1994, for a very thorough treatment of six prominent discourse-analytic approaches). The shortage of material on qualitative research for and by the applied linguist undoubtedly accounts at least in part for the lack of consensus on and the confusion about what qualitative research is and what it can and cannot do. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to do justice to the numerous issues surrounding qualitative research methodology in applied linguistics (a book waiting to happen, we can hope), the remainder of this article highlights a few of the

458

TESOL QUARTERLY

issues about which we urgently need further dialog and examination. I hope that by bringing up these issues again, in this forum, we will be obligated to examine our assumptions and our biases about the procedures and applications of all kinds of research, and a more informed debate about them will be possible.

TOWARD A DEFINITION OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Statisticians try to measureIT. Experimentalists try to controlIT. Evaluators value IT. ask questionsabout IT. Interviewers ObserverswatchIT. observersdo IT. (Patton,1990, p. 7) Participant In our research, it is easy to be misled into believing there is one superior method for understanding "IT."Jacob (1987) notes that the qualitative-quantitativedichotomy leads one to conclude that only two methodological alternatives are availableto the educational researcher. This conclusion is clearly false when it comes to data collection and analysis in statistical research (see, for example, Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991, pp. 544-545); it is also untrue for qualitative research, as there is no one qualitative approach but a "varietyof alternative approaches" (Jacob, 1987, p. 1). In fact, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) distinguish six interpretive paradigms and perspectives that guide the research process: positivism/postpositivism, constructivism, feminism, ethnic models, Marxist models, and cultural studies models. Anthropologists, educators, evaluators, and sociologists (e.g., Berg, 1989; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Jacob, 1987; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990) distinguish qualitative research traditions, approaches, or types that have one or more distinctive disciplinary roots, as shown in Figure 1. Each of the traditions in the figure employs one or more qualitative research strategies (e.g., nonparticipant observation, participant observation, interviews, and archival strategies); there are also qualitative themes associated with these traditions that embody the central assumptions of qualitative research (e.g., naturalistic, descriptive, emic, interpretive, inductive, holistic, contextualized, etc.; see Reichardt & Cook, 1979, for a complete discussion of the applicability of these thematic concepts and their quantitative counterparts). Of course, each of the aforementioned qualitative approaches has its own philosophy, literature, and guidelines for conducting research and

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT

459

FIGURE 1 Qualitative Research Traditions and Their Disciplinary Roots

Holistic ethnography Ethnography of communication Cognitive anthropology Discourse analysis Phenomenology Ecological psychology Symbolic interactionism Heuristics Ethnomethodology Hermeneutics

Anthropology Anthropology, sociolinguistics Anthropology, linguistics Linguistics Philosophy Psychology Social psychology Humanistic psychology Sociology Theology, philosophy, literary criticism

reporting outcomes; obviously, the researcher who adopts any such approach needs a firm grounding in the literature and procedures. The applied linguistics literature, however, tends to blur these qualitative approaches and attempts instead first to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative research traditions themselves3 and then to discuss their attributes (or themes). This is not to say that qualitative research is never considered on its own or that a blending of qualitative and quantitative approaches is not addressed, but the general trend is one of contrast between traditions. Figure 2 gives an initial frame of reference for considering the basic distinctions regarding research traditions present in a number of texts and articles on research methodology that were considered in preparation of this article. Unfortunately, because these applied linguistics sources do not all define and delineate types of qualitative research, some ambiguity and confusion remains in terms of understanding what counts as qualitative research and what does not. As mentioned, ethnographies and case studies are the two types of qualitative research discussed by Johnson (1992) and Nunan (1992); the latter also covers interaction analysis. Although properly conducted anthropological or educational ethnographies are clear examples of qualitative research, the status of other qualitative methods is less clear. For example, even though case studies are frequently employed in applied linguistics research, the approach "in and of itself does not constitute ethnographic [italics added] research" (Heath, 1982, p. 36), as ethnography requires a deeper and broader philosophical and methodological commitment than does simple participant observation; a case study may, in fact, be not an analytic
3As should be clear from the discussion so far, there is little consistency in, and perhaps unnecessary confusion caused by, the use of the terms paradigm, tradition, method,design, technique,strategies, and so on in the literature thus far cited.

460

TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGURE 2 Distinctive Research Traditions

Source Oschner, 1979a Henning, 1986 Grotjahn, 1987 Brown, 1988 Chaudron, 1988 Seliger & Shohamy, 1989 Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991 Johnson, 1992 Nunan, 1992 Cumming, 1994

DistinctiveResearchTradition Nomothetic versus Hermeneutic Nonquantitativeb versus Quantitative Exploratory-interpretive versus Analytical-Nomonological Case study versus Statistical' Ethnographic versus Interactional versus Discourse Analytic versus Experimental/Psychometric Qualitative versus Descriptive versus Experimental Longitudinal versus cross-sectional Constructivist/interpretive versus Scientific/Interventionist Ethnographic versus Psychometric Descriptive versus Interpretive versus Ideological

aOschner (1979, p. 55) presents a set of distinctions similar to the ones in the figure but derived from a much broader historical and disciplinary perspective. bHenning attempts to provide a definition of quantitative research, "as opposed to qualitative or anecdotal research" (1986, when discussing p. 701). cIn a later publication, Brown (1991) carefully shuns the term empirical statistical research, stating that "there are other, nonstatistical studies that could be called empirical (e.g., ethnographies, case studies, etc.), since, by definition, empirical studies are those based on data (but not necessarily quantitative data)" (p. 570).

approach at all but a data collection technique. And classroom interaction analysis (e.g., Spada, 1994), the interpretive orientation with which ethnography (Hornberger, 1994) is grouped in Cumming's recent (1994) article on TESOL research orientations, is considered by some to represent a significant deviation from true qualitative research in the sense that ethnography is (Hymes, 1982; Mehan, 1981; WatsonGegeo, 1988). It is also debatable whether the other orientations described in Cumming (1994) should be considered qualitative. Is the critical ethnography authored by Canagarajah (1993) to be viewed as an interpretive orientation, an ideological one, or both? As for the aforementioned Qualitative Research Guidelines now in the TESOL they are clearly designed with ethnographic research in mind Quarterly, and are difficult to apply to many discourse-analytic studies (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1990; Ernst, 1994; Lazaraton,in press; StrodtLopez, 1991; Tyler, 1992), which use data sources (especially carefully transcribed recorded interactions) that present the researcher with a different set of data analysis and presentation concerns than does ethnography. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether a more inclusive or a more exclusive view of qualitative research will be necessary to conceptualize the traditions to which applied linguistics subscribes and to understand the research undertaken.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT

461

THE ROLE OF QUANTIFICATION QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

IN

What does one make of an approach to the study of the educational world that depends upon the unique aptitudes or proclivities of the investigator, that possesses no standardized method, that focuses upon nonrandomly selected situations, and that yields questionable generalizations by conventional research criteria? Indeed, are we justified in referring to the use of such a collection of procedures as "research"?(Eisner & Peshkin, 1990, p. 10) In addition to the problem of defining what constitutes qualitative research (and not just applying it as a catchall term for studies that are not quantitative), a fair amount of controversy exists about the scientific rigor of qualitative research. This controversy is not unique to applied linguistics, and the debate about it appears in essentially all the relevant historical literature from education (see, e.g., Eisner & Peshkin, 1990, who trace the history of qualitative research in the American Educational Research Association, and Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, who trace qualitative research back to its roots). The rigor argument seems to encompass two related issues: that quantification of qualitative data is not only possible and desirable but necessary in order to make generalizable claims to and about other contexts. The strong position on quantification is unequivocally expressed by Henning (1986), who maintains that "without some recourse to quantitative methods, some marriage of words and numbers, it is inconceivable that the investigation of language acquisition will ever be said to belong to the realm of scientific [italics added] inquiry" (p. 702). For Henning, quantitative methods allow the researcher to go beyond the data themselves (the "tyranny of the single case," Erickson, 1981, p. 27) and to generalize to other instances not studied. Adopting a similar but somewhat weaker position, Chaudron (1988) points out that Process-oriented qualitative researchers explore the intersubjective and context-dependent nature of classroom events as they occur, noting the regularities and idiosyncrasies in the events. In order for researchers to derive the implicit rules governing the participants' behavior, however, regularity of particular events or sequences in the discourse must be observed. This regularity then will support reliable claims about rules of interaction. It also allows for counting and other quantitative analyses; the ultimate need for generality and for comparisons across classroom contexts inevitably requires such quantification of events. Regrettably, too few researchers with an ethnographic orientation have provided the validation necessary for generalization to other contexts. (p. 49)

462

TESOL QUARTERLY

Elsewhere in the same book, Chaudron claims that "almostevery ethnographic or discourse analytical study refers to the frequency, magnitude, or proportion of occurrences of analyticalunits observed" (p. 15) and that "most researchers adopting qualitative or ethnographic techniques have recognized the need to continue their analysis with some quantification of events" (p. 47). However, this statement is not supported by much of the published research cited in this article. Although most of the published discourse-analytic studies analyze essentially qualitative data,4 these studies were arguably designed to collect such data and then to analyze them via quantification;5in other words, the intent may not have been qualitative analysis at all. In any case, the data presented in these studies are usually in the form of descriptive statistics (frequency counts, percentages) that are not analyzed statistically at all. The fact that some qualitative researchers themselves employ or recommend quantification further complicates the situation. WatsonGegeo (1988) claims that in a hypothesis-oriented mode, qualitative research may "involve quantification in the form of frequency counts, tests of significance, or multivariate analyses of patterns and themes" (pp. 584-585). In fact, four of the seven empirical studies in Trueba et al. (1981) quantified at least some of their data. And, to my surprise, Heath's (1983) ethnography of language learning and use and Mehan's (1979) study of classroom discourse do contain several tables of descriptive statistics, although these quantified data appear to be presented for the purpose of making sense of the phenomena noted in those contexts rather than for the purpose of generalizing to or comparing with other contexts not studied. In fact, very few (too few, perhaps) researchers design studies that employ both qualitative and quantitative approaches, despite the fact that, today, "bimethodologicalism"may be "a true mark of scholarly sophistication" (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990, p. 7). Although obtaining data from multiple sources using multiple collection techniques is not uncommon in applied linguistics, triangulation of analytic approaches appears to be, perhaps because multimethod studies require the researcher(s) to be trained in each of the analytic methods; and such
4Confusion over this term may also arise when one considers that some experimentalists (e.g., Kirk, 1982) refer to nominal data as qualitative. 5Although it is safe to say these data were quantified, these researchers present no evidence that such data were, in fact, quantifiable. In other words, actual counting may be a simple, straightforward matter, but it is often much more difficult to justify the counting and coding of features that was done. This issue is explored in depth by Schegloff (1993), who maintains that quantification of data from naturally occurring conversation is premature, given our incomplete understanding of both the structures we may wish to count and the environments in which they relevantly occur. See Scholfield (1995) for another opinion.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT

463

studies tend to be both time consuming and expensive. A number of such studies probably exist, but I located only the few examples cited here. In an ethnographic study of culture, environment, and cognition among children in Puerto Rico, Jacob (1982) generated a set of variables that were later subjected to path analysis, a correlation-based statistical procedure that examines both direct and indirect effects of a set of variables on some outcome variable (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991). Johnson's (1987) evaluation of a migrant education program analyzed both coded observational data and qualitative interview data. In another study, Lazaraton and Saville (1994) used qualitative discourse analysis of the oral interview process and multifaceted Rasch analysis (Linacre, 1993) of interview outcome ratings to validate an interlocutor support rating scale in the Cambridge Assessment of Spoken English; both techniques generated the same conclusions about certain oral examiners but in different ways. Other studies have combined qualitative discourse-analytic methods with frequency counts and descriptive statistics (see, e.g., example, Rounds, 1987, on international teaching assistants'talk and Goldstein & Conrad, 1990, on writing conferences). Therefore, it seems clear that researchers do not always follow the prescriptions about what one should, or should not, do when utilizing a particular research approach and that the rigid dichotomies presented and discussed in the literature do not necessarily match the reality of the research undertaken in the field. The observations here may not represent an adequate response to the points raised by Henning and Chaudron, researchers who can be considered to represent the quantitative paradigm and who may not be the ones to whom qualitative researchers should respond. As the body of work by qualitative researchers in applied linguistics grows, we can hope to find further guidance on methodological and analytic issues such as quantification.

THE GENERAl IZABILITY OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

is a questionsometimesaskedof the detaileddescriptions "Sowhat?" proof minutiae.To what extent is materialand the vided by anthropologists senseof a particular phenomenondevelopedfor one socialgroupgeneralizable to other socialgroups?The same questioncan certainlybe asked of or situationwithina formaleducastudiesof a single schoolor classroom tional setting. (Heath, 1982, p. 41) Perhaps the most frequent criticism leveled against qualitative research is that the results obtained are not generalizable to other contexts (see, e.g., the arguments in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Long, 1983; Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). According to Davis (1992), qualitative
464 TESOL QUARTERLY

researchers strive for transferability of findings, and "the degree to which working hypotheses can transfer to other times and contexts is an empirical matter, depending on the degree of similarity between the two contexts" (p. 606); thus the need for sufficiently thick descriptions of the study context (see also Schofield, 1990, for some suggestions on increasing the generalizability of qualitative research). Although it is not possible to do justice to the issue of generalizability in this article, several points should be made. First, generalizability in research is more than a matter of counting. Quantification of any set of data does not ensure generalizability to other contexts, nor does a large sample size: Population characteristicsmust be carefully considered when selecting a sample from which to make statisticalinferences. Although the vast majority of the published studies in applied linguistics may employ quantification of data, a much smaller number can be considered to have used a large sample size, and even fewer still randomly select and assign subjects to treatment conditions, the traditional prescriptive requirement for generalizabilityto some population at large. In other words, generalizability is a serious problem in nearly all the research conducted in our field. Second, even meeting these stringent criteria does not guarantee meaningful interpretation of results: Even statistically significantfindings from studies with huge, randomly selected samples cannot be applied directlyto particularindividualsin skilledclinicians willalways be requiredto determine situations; particular whethera research whether generalization individual, appliesto a particular the generalization needs to be adjustedto accommodate individual idiosyncrasy,or whetherit needsto be abandoned entirelywithcertainindividuals in certainsituations.(Donmoyer,1990, p. 181) Finally, critical theory has made a significant contribution to our profession in that we have begun to question the meaning of concepts that we take for granted (e.g., Pennycook, 1989 on method; 1994 on alternative approaches to research). We should probably view the arguments about quantification and generalizability in the same way. According to Donmoyer (1990), matters of research methodology are not just abstract, epistemological issues about the way we view the world: They are also issues of legitimacy and power. Theorists and researchers tend to have greater access to data sets that lend themselves to quantification and generalization; practitioners, especially teachers, deal with individuals and do not normally have the resources to access or to analyze large aggregates of data. In other words, we must be reminded and we must remember that arguments about the characteristics of rigorous research cannot be divorced from the political realities, and the ideological biases, of our profession.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT 465

WHY SO LITT'l'LE PUBLISHED QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?

Whatqualitative researchdoes best and most essentially is to describekey incidentsin functionally relevantdescriptive termsand placethemin some relationsto the wider socialcontext, using the key incidentas a concrete instanceof the workingsof the abstractprinciplesof socialorganization. (Erickson,1981, p. 22) Clearly, no research approach is suitable for every situation or question. Nevertheless, we might ask why qualitative research is not more prevalent than it is in applied linguistics, given our interest in the social and/ or sociocultural context of language learning and use. Watson-Gegeo (1988) suggests that one reason ethnography is not more widely used in SLA studies is that it views language learning from a language socialization rather than language acquisition perspective, crediting context and culture for much of what happens in the learning environment. Because many of the studies that use elicited, experimental data rarely consider these factors, it is understandable why the approach has not been more widely adopted. Training is probablyanother factor.
An examination of the listings in the Directoryof Professional Preparation Programs in TESOL in the United States (Kornblum, 1992) suggests that

graduate students are normally exposed to a traditional research design and statistics course within their own departments or programs; such a course is often required. Departments of ESOL and applied linguistics less commonly teach general qualitative methods courses, so students must seek out such courses in other departments (although specialized research methods courses, such as discourse analysis, may be offered). The faculty who supervise such students may themselves be trained as quantitative researchers, and logically they would feel more comfortable advising students working within that tradition. Although there are books available to use for self-study and reference, it is not an easy task to train oneself in any research methodology. In fact, without rigorous training in qualitative methods, "blitzkrieg" qualitative research, in which the researcher conducts a few interviews and/or observations, then labels the project a qualitative study, is an unfortunately common occurrence. Finally,anyone who has completed a qualitative research project is familiar with the sheer size of the resulting document. This makes publication in most journals, which normally limit contributions to about 25 pages, difficult in terms of providing a thick description of the context and a comprehensive account of the results. Editorial board members or outside reviewers of such journals, who may or may not be conversant in qualitative research, may recommend changes to qualitative manuscripts that actually violate principles of the particular approach. Although these
466
TESOL QUARTERLY

facts cannot fully account for the status of qualitative research in the field, they surely play a part in the situation today.

CONCLUSION
The pendulum metaphor, which is frequently invoked in literature on language teaching methodology, applies to the dialectic on qualitative and quantitative research methodology as well. According to Reichardt and Cook (1979), in part because quantitative research methods were taught and employed zealously and exclusively in the past, we now see that they are fallible; they are not always best suited for a particular purpose. But it would be a mistake to assume that the past overapplication of quantitative techniques can only be rectified by an equally drastic swing toward qualitative methods. As Reichardt and Cook point out, once qualitative methods are given the acid test, they will prove no better than the ones they were meant to improve on; thus the pendulum swings back in the other direction and "the current debate keeps the pendulum swinging between extremes of methods and extremes of dissatisfaction" (p. 27). Researchers should choose an approach in light of the purpose of the study: Whatis importantfor researchers is not the choiceof a prioriparadigms, or methodologies, but ratherto be clearaboutwhatthe purposeof the study is and to matchthatpurposewiththe attributes mostlikelyto accomplish it. Put anotherway, the methodological design shouldbe determinedby the researchquestion.(Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 14) It remains to be seen whether 10 years hence qualitative research will be on equal footing with quantitative research in how frequently it is employed and how it is received by the profession. A special forum such as this one probably does a better job of serving as a podium for previously unheard voices than of persuading its readers that such new voices are worth listening to; surely the latter is the ultimate goal of this special-topic issue. If graduate students pursuing degrees in applied linguistics and related fields are primarily or exclusively exposed to quantitative techniques in research methods courses and to articles employing these methods in professional journals, how will they ever come to respect the qualitative voice as equally important as and, in some cases, more appropriate than other methodological choices? An important responsibility facing the qualitative research community is to ensure that qualitative methods and the studies that employ them are relevant, and accessible, to the practitioner-as a consumer or a producer of qualitative research. This task should not be difficult,
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT 467

given that one strength of qualitative research is the rich descriptions of context that result, contexts such as classrooms, schools, and communities that are often familiar in a general sense from personal experience. It is hoped that those engaged in pedagogy will not see qualitative research as removed, irrelevant, or too abstract, a complaint that one often hears about much of the quantitative research published in our journals. For this reason I eagerly await publications such as Bailey and Nunan (in press) that promise to bridge the theory/research-practice gap. Perhaps consensus on the definitions, principles, and value of qualitative research is not necessary, desirable, or even possible. Nevertheless, I believe it is incumbent on those of us who consider ourselves research methodologists representing any particular orientation to strive for balance, objectivism, and open-mindedness in presenting and evaluating the myriad of choices availableto the applied linguistics researcher. As Johnson and Saville-Troike (1992) point out, our commitment should always be to quality research, not just to research that represents one particular paradigm. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Sandra McKay, Nancy Hornberger, and Donna Johnson for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

THE AUTHOR
Anne Lazaraton is Assistant Professor of Speech Communication at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include conversation analysis, native speaker-nonnative speaker and nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interaction, qualitative approaches to oral proficiency interview validation, and issues of research methodology.

REFERENCES
Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (in press). Voicesfrom the language classroom: Qualitativeresearchin secondlanguage education.New York: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversation: Status balance in the academic advising session. LanguageLearning, 40, 467-501. Benson, M. J. (1989). The academic listening task: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 421-445.

468

TESOL QUARTERLY

for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative researchmethods & Bacon. Blot, R. K. (1991). The role of hypothesis testing in qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly,25, 202-205. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitativeresearch for education:An introduction to theoryand methods(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brown, J. D. (1988). Understandingresearchin secondlanguage learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. D. (1991). Statistics as a foreign language-Part 1: What to look for in reading statistical language studies. TESOL Quarterly,25, 569-586. Butler, C. (1985). Statisticsin linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 601-626. Chaudron, C. (1988). Secondlanguage classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 189-196. Cleghorn, A., & Genesee, F. (1984). Languages in contact: An ethnographic study of interaction in an immersion school. TESOL Quarterly,18, 595-625. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crago, M. (1992). Communicative interaction and second language acquisition: An Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly,26, 487-505. Cumming, A. (Ed.). (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly,28, 673-703. Davis, K. A. (1992). Validity and reliability in qualitative research on second language acquisition and teaching. TESOL Quarterly,26, 605-608. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate (pp. 175-200). New York: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. W., & Peshkin, A. (Eds.). (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press. Erickson, F. (1981). Some approaches to inquiry in school-community ethnography. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Cultureand the bilingual classroom:Studies in classroomethnography(pp. 17-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ernst, G. (1994). "Talking circle": Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,28, 293-322. in language learning]. TESOL Fang, Z. (1994). [Review of the book Researchmethods Quarterly,28, 212-213. Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnographystep by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Galguera, T. (1993). [Review of the book Researchmethodsin language learning]. Language Learning, 43, 289-294. Gilmore, P., & Glatthorn, A. A. (Eds.). (1982). Childrenin and out of school:Ethnography and education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. and qualitativedesign in educaGoetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography tional research.Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly,24, 443-460. Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In

A PROGRESS REPORT QUALITATIVE RESEARCH:

469

C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspectionin second language research(pp. 5481). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1989). Recent publications on statistics, language testing, and quantitative research methods: I. TESOL Quarterly,23, 127-132. Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainsti-eam classrooms: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly,28, 241-272. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourseand language education.New York: Cambridge University Press. Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Researchdesign and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The researchmanual: Design and statisticsfor applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House. Heath, S. B. (1982). Ethnography in education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 33-55). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communitiesand classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henning, G. (1986). Quantitative methods in language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly,20, 701-708. Holliday, A. (1992). Tissue rejection and informal orders in ELT projects: Collecting the right iniformation. AppliedLinguistics, 13, 403-424. Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Ethnography. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly,28, 688-690. Hymes, D. (1982). What is ethnography? In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Childrenin and out of school:Ethnographyand education(pp. 21-32). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Jacob, E. (1982). Combining ethnographic and quantitative approaches: Suggestions and examples from a study on Puerto Rico. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school. Ethnographyand education (pp. 124-147). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational Research,57, 1-50. Johnson, D. M. (1987). The organization of instruction in migrant education: Assistance for children and youth at risk. TESOL Quarterly,21, 437-459. to researchin secondlanguage learning. New York: Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches Longman. Johnson, D. M., & Saville-Troike, M. (1992). Validity and reliability in qualitative research on second language acquisition and teaching. TESOL Quarterly,26, 602-605. Kaplan, R. B., & Grabe, W. (1992). Introduction. In W. Grabe & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 1-9). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimentaldesign (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kornblum, H. (with Garshick, E.). (1992). Directoryof professionalpreparationprograms in TESOL in the United States, 1992-1994. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1985). Considerations in research design in second language acquisition. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Beyondbasics:Issuesand researchin TESOL (pp. 125-136). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introductionto second language acquisitionresearch.London: Longman. to researchin second language Lazaraton, A. (1994). [Review of the book Approaches learning]. TESOL Quarterly,28, 208-209. 470
TESOL QUARTERLY

Lazaraton, A. (in press). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language Testing. Lazaraton, A., Riggenbach, H., & Ediger, A. (1987). Forming a discipline: Applied linguists' literacy in research methodology and statistics. TESOL Quarterly,21, 263-277. Lazaraton, A., & Saville, N. (1994, March). Process and outcomein oral assessment. Paper presented at the 14th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Washington, DC. Linacre, J. M. (1993). Many-facetedRasch measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Long, M. H. (1983). Inside the "black box": Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. In H .W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom orientedresearchin second language acquisition(pp.3-36). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourseanalysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons:Social organizationin the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1981). Ethnography of bilingual education. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Studiesin classroom Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Cultureand the bilingualclassroom: ethnography(pp. 36-55). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitativedata analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language classroom-oriented research: A critical review. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,13, 249-274. Nunan, D. (1992). Researchmethodsin language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oschner, R. (1979). A poetics of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 29, 53-80. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitativeevaluationand researchmethods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,23, 589-628. Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1, 8-28. Pennycook, A. (1994). Critical pedagogical approaches to research. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly,28, 690-693. Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593-616. Rampton, M. B. H. (1991). Second language learners in a stratified multilingual setting. Applied Linguistics, 12, 229-248. Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methodsin evaluation research(pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rounds, P. L. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching assistant training. TESOL Quarterly,21, 643-671. Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Researchon Language and Social Interaction,26, 99-128. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approachesto discourse.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Schofield, J. W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitativeinquiryin education:The continuing debate(pp. 201-232). New York: Teachers College Press.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A PROGRESS REPORT

471

and teacher's Scholfield, P. (1995). Quantifyinglanguage: A researcher's guide to gathering language data and reducing it to figures. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language researchmethods.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spada, N. (1994). Classroom interaction analysis. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly,28, 685-688. interview.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Spradley,J. (1979). Theethnographic Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Strevens, P. (1992). Applied linguistics: An overview. In W. Grabe & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 13-31). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Strodt-Lopez, B. (1991). Tying it all in: Asides in university lectures. Applied Linguistics, 12, 117-140. Trueba, H. T., Guthrie, G. P., & Au, K. H. (Eds.). (1981). Cultureand the bilingual classroom:Studies in classroomethnography.Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international teaching assistants' spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly,26, 713-729. Ulichny, P. (1991). The role of hypothesis testing in qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly,25, 200-202. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly,22, 575-592. Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly,20, 689-699. Woods, A., Fletcher, P., & Hughes, A. (1986). Statisticsin language studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University' Press.

472

TESOLQUARTERLY