Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Social Work Knowledge Development

Providing guidelines on qualitative and mixed methods in social work knowledge development is a daunting task. Quantitative methods also require careful consideration, but they rarely entail the degree of epistemological self-searching and ongoing consequential decision making that qualitative methods demand. As a reviewer of qualitative studies for academic journals and federal funders, and as the recipient of many such reviews (some quite negative), I have learned some lessons along the way. This editorial offers a few suggestions arising from these experiences that I hope will be of assistance to those interested in conducting qualitative research. Qualitative methods have been contributing to knowledge development for a very long time--ethnography and field observation were around a century before the 20th century rise of quantification, with its emphasis on measurement and statistical analysis (Padgett, 2008). Nevertheless, the codification of qualitative methods is a relatively recent development, beginning in the late 1970s and growing by leaps and bounds ever since. Their embrace in social work came somewhat later than in education and nursing, but qualitative studies have since become commonplace in social work research, as evidenced by publication of such studies in social work journals and by numerous presentations at the annual conferences of the Society for SocialWork and Research and the Council on Social Work Education. Without revisiting the paradigm wars that have consumed much time and energy, suffice it to say that disagreements about epistemology contribute to (but are not entirely responsible for) the lack of consensus regarding what is "good" versus what is "bad" qualitative research. At the more constructionist end of the epistemological continuum, standards tend to conform more to the humanities than to the sciences. At the other (postpositivist) end of the continuum, standards are not formulaic but are more concretely specifiable. This editorial hews closer to the postpositivist end but will hopefully resonate with social work researchers all along the continuum who wish to make their own contributions to knowledge. I will make seven points--both exhortations and recommendations: 1. The burden of proof is heavier but doable. 2. Choose an approach and stick with it. 3. Theories and concepts matter. 4. Social justice values do not have to be sidelined. 5. Research designs should be detailed and specific. 6. Writing the report: balancing description and interpretation. 7. Mixed methods require multiple inputs of expertise and effort. Paying attention to these will not guarantee individual success in doing, publishing, and disseminating qualitative research, but it will likely help to raise standards (and the professional profile) of social work research in a broader sense. The distinction between what one does in a study and what one reports having done needs to be taken seriously, for there is too often a disconnect between these in qualitative research. A superbly conducted study that is inadequately written up will not make its rightful contribution and will likely run into problems getting published. 1. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS HEAVIER BUT DOABLE We live in a quantitative world, and adaptation to this reality requires anticipation of skepticism (however unfair). Elsewhere, I have promoted using one or more of six strategies as a means of strengthening a qualitative study's rigor (Padgett, 2008). These strategies are triangulation of data, peer debriefing and support, negative case analysis, maintaining an audit trail, prolonged engagement, and member checking. The choice of which of these to deploy will depend on a study's goals and design, but, in general, the more used the better. Rigorous qualitative research is accountable even if it follows flexibly applied guidelines. …