Response 

4/22

Both Marshall and Rossman (2011) and Creswell (2009) offer refreshing tips on making an argument and anticipate ethical issues in the proposal. To argue for the soundness of qualitative research, Marshall and Rossman introduce the emic perspective (p. 258), which is centered on how local people think (Kottak, 2006, p. 47). Compared with the etic approach which emphasizes what a researcher thinks, the emic approach allows immersive experience in participants’ community and the validity of participants’ point of view. The emic focus lays a foundation for long-time observational, participatory, and experimental studies in the qualitative strand. This community-situated perspective also makes sense for small-scale investigations, such as case studies, focus groups, and interviews in such domains as cultural studies, linguistics, literary studies, political science, and women’s studies (Marshall & Rossman, p. 264). As the epistemological assumptions of these domains suggest, what matters in the emic approach is the constructivist conceptualization of knowledge-making, especially recognition of the participant’s ability to know. To me, this epistemological difference between the emic and the etic approach might serve as the major validity argument for qualitative research.

An equally important consideration of a qualitative research’s soundness is its pathos: the research’s appeal to the reviewer and policymaker. As Marshall and Rossman (2011) contend, an understanding of the reviewer, advisor, and policymaker is a sure way to persuade (pp. 259, 263, 274). What strikes me as relevant is the consideration of how much reviewers outside our field might have known or need to know about what we do and what our methodology is capable of doing. Discourse analysis, for example, is a method that people from other fields might question. I find it particularly important for discourse analyst to provide a valid answer to the challenge that different readers might interpret a discourse in different ways. This challenge, however, is also a place where discourse researchers might offer a counterargument: it is the multiplicity of interpretation that warrants subjective coding of discourses.

Additionally, researchers can corroborate the validity of their research in the writing. Marshall and Rossman (2011) suggest that qualitative researchers may incorporate thick description of the methodology and design to provide an “audit trail” (pp. 253, 261). This is at least one thing the researcher can do to assist reviewers to assess the validity of a research. On the one hand, including intensive notes in the writing (p. 273) and extensive references in the proposal (p. 261) will create an opportunity for the reader to make their own decisions (p. 254). On the other hand, thick description, among other ways to make the research transparent, will present the researcher as passionate about the research and conscious of the audience, which increases the ethos and persuasiveness. The 60-page proposal on page 261 wouldn’t have the persuasive power if not for the thick description.

Along with the going-thick strategy of writing, good writing practices suggested by both Marshall and Rossman (2011) and Creswell (2009) also add to the argumentative effect of a proposal. Relevant to the purpose to convince reviewers are two more important considerations: the pilot study and ethical issues. The pilot study is a chance for researchers to argue for the qualitative approach and its applicability. For one thing, a pilot study may help test out the participant-specific issues that might affect the replicability of the research. As qualitative research is often questioned regarding its generalizability to other groups, the pilot study might help identify issues that are only relevant to the particular time, space, and communities. Real world changes, Marshall and Rossman claim, make replicability irrelevant to qualitative studies (p. 254). For another, pilot studies provide a venue to build trust and respect of participants (Creswell, p. 88) and add to the practicability of the research.

Qualitative researchers might also clarify potential ethical issues as a way to validate their research. Among various valuable suggestions in both Marshall and Rossman (2011) and Creswell (2009), I find the non-intrusion principle highly valuable. It is advised that researchers should leave a research site without disrupting its natural order (Marshall & Rossman, p. 267; Creswell, p. 90). Another way researchers can exercise ethical practices is to view participants as co-researchers (Marshall & Rossman, p. 267). Researchers may promote reciprocity by avoiding coercion in recruitment, interviewing, and interpretation of data (Creswell, p. 90), refraining from deception in the purpose (p. 89), using unbiased language in the writing (p. 92), and checking accuracy of interpretation and showing the final presentation with participants (p. 91). These practices not only ensure benefits for participants but also increase the validity of the research.