"The Future Is Here; It Is Just Not Widely Distributed Yet"—Adapted from William Gibson

About the Interview

About Ron CHENAIL

1.

The Early Days of Qualitative Research

2.

What is Qualitative Research for You and for Others

3.

Being and Becoming a Qualitative Researcher

4.

The Qualitative Report—and Then Some

5.

Qualitative, Quality, and Questioning

6.

Challenges: Now and for the Future

References

Appendix: The Transcript of the Interview

Author

Citation

Download:

98 kb

Discuss this Article:

Discussion Board

Gallery

About the Interview

This telephone interview was conducted on the morning of December 22, 2003. It lasted for more than an hour. I had previously contacted Ron and asked if he would agree to be interviewed. He did so willingly. We discussed FQS and its interest in interviewing prominent founders of qualitative traditions. Ron was interested and very willing to provide whatever I needed. I should mention I have known Ron since the early 1990s and we share a common interest in qualitative methods and family therapy. Ron reviewed this manuscript and approved it. [1]

About Ron CHENAIL

Ron CHENAIL received his master's degree from the University of Houston in the mid 1980s in counseling. In 1986 he went to Texas Tech to study family therapy. At that time he learned about the ethnographic interview. He conducted a visual ethnography on how kids in a child development school structured their time. He was asked to teach advanced qualitative classes. He became interested in discourse analysis and recursive frame analysis, and for his dissertation studied how families talk with cardiologists. CHENAIL followed Brad KEENEY to Ft. Lauderdale and Nova Southeastern University in 1989 where he is currently Professor of Family Therapy and Assistant to the President for Academic Affairs at Nova Southeastern University. He has just accepted a position as the editor-elect of the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. He continues to teach, direct dissertations, and contribute to the qualitative research field. CHENAIL is the founder, editor, and driving force behind The Qualitative Report, an online journal originally established in 1990. You can access The Qualitative Report at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/ and reach CHENAIL at ron@nova.edu. [2]

1.

The Early Days of Qualitative Research

CHENAIL and I were on several committees in the early 1990s connected with the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT). We begin our discussion about those early days. CHENAIL recalls a meeting that he characterized as a "qualitative research summit". CHENAIL remembers: We met with both US and European editors and talked about philosophical differences. Americans prided themselves on how many (articles) they could reject and Europeans prided themselves on how many they could accept. Presentations at this conference were given as "stealth qualitative presentations," to use CHENAIL's words. Also, AAMFT sponsored a qualitative research institute in 1992 in Florida. They decided that family therapists needed qualitative research training and decided to take a proactive stance. I presented with Linda WARK a discussion of case study methodology. I see this time as the beginnings of qualitative research in family therapy. Since my discipline crossed the lines into education, I took these ideas back to my other home institution (Virginia Tech) as well. What changes we have seen in the last dozen years. Now CHENAIL is taking over the leadership of one of the premier journals of family therapy. How ironic—the outsider becomes an insider. [3]

2.

What is Qualitative Research for You and for Others

Before our conversation progresses too far, I want to know how he defines qualitative research. I caution my students not to make assumptions about what people mean when they use the term. And although Ron and I have talked over the years about the topic, I am interested to learn what he thinks now. "I guess I would define qualitative research as a rigorous approach to the study of psychological or social phenomenon in which the researcher examines qualitative differences in phenomenon and also studies him or herself in the process. I have a tendency to approach (qualitative research) from a very generic perspective." He contrasts this view with something he calls a designer approach. What is that, I inquire? A designer approach would have a designer label such as phenomenology, he answered me (see CAELLI, RAY & MILL 2003 for additional information on generic qualitative research). [4]

He characterizes some tension as the field moves forward. He sees two groups. One favors calling "all this" qualitative research or qualitative inquiry and the other group is very specific. They get into issues about the differences between phenomenology and ethnography, for example. "If someone is going to put a flag in the ground and say they are doing phenomenology; hold them to that." He comments that in either case standards of quality are important. His view is that the method should make sense given the study at hand. And whether generic or designer, the "challenge is that you have to be a very good writer." [5]

CHENAIL speaks about personal responsibility, being efficient, and being ethical. He emphasizes that a qualitative researcher needs to describe things in plain language and not hide behind fancy terms. Consistent with his earlier comments about the self, he suggests that the researcher needs to explain to him or herself. As an aside, I was sorry we did not get to pursue this topic more fully as it is a special interest of mine. [6]

As we continue our conversation, I find CHENAIL's fertile mind roaming freely—something I recall about him at various conference presentations. His depth and breadth of knowledge is quite something. Here are some of his thoughts. He suggests that there is more cutting edge work in education and nursing than in other fields. I will let you be the judge of that, but in my experience that is not entirely true. He speaks of how medicine was hooked (on qualitative research) through COCHRANE (2000), POPAY (1998), DIXON-WOODS (2004), and other physician researchers from England. He jumps then to metaethnography on treatment and how researchers are looking for best practices of reporting. He suggests that there is a ratcheting up of reporting. I feel somewhat like being in a freefall when next he jumps to business and education. He quickly cites an article by CAELLI, RAY and MILL (2003). He speaks a little about the future. He stresses multiple languages, collaborative relationships, and free online access. Before my time is up, I decide to move the conversation in another direction. [7]

3.

Being and Becoming a Qualitative Researcher

These are some terms he uses when he talks about being a qualitative researcher: embracing, access, lower level of self actualizing, and connecting. He suggests that it is good not to lose one's identity, but that it is important to learn better ways of connecting with the overall research enterprise. He says: "Over time, being (a qualitative researcher) means that you have to become more interested and eager to connect ... and that some are always trying to maintain the little turf they have." [8]

He speaks again about the early influences on him when he was a graduate student. He recalls that qualitative research made more sense given what they were trying to do in a clinical situation. Therapeutic discourse was especially interesting to him. He liked that he was exposed at an early age and that family therapy people were doing the teaching. On a personal note: In the late 80s and early 90s I was teaching research methods at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. I also became involved in taking classes in marriage and family therapy. Many of the students in my research classes where I was the professor were also students in the family therapy classes where I was a student. I found traditional research methods and principles of family therapy to be somewhat inconsistent. Although my own research department was very traditional, I began to teach courses in qualitative research. It seems almost inconceivable to me, but then there were no texts, few journal articles, no online journals, and almost no colleagues who embraced or even understood what qualitative research methods were. I recall my first set of instructional materials was gleaned from journal articles and conference papers I could locate. When our paths crossed, I saw his views as a breath of fresh air. [9]

4.

The Qualitative Report—and Then Some

Even though I am on the editorial board of The Qualitative Report, and have been so since its inception, I did not really know its history. The Qualitative Report is one of the first online qualitative research journals. So I took advantage of this time with CHENAIL to learn about the early days. You might be surprised to learn, as I was, that it was initially created because CHENAIL had made a proposal to Sage for a qualitative journal. According to him the people at Sage were "not all that enamored" and they were just launching a qualitative health journal. They said it was too costly to market. You will recall that this was pre-Internet. He produced the first few issues on paper and received good administrative support at Nova Southeastern. This is what he remembers from the summer of 1990. He was "being very aggressive, trying to carve a world out there for people to learn about qualitative research, to submit papers, to be emancipatory, and to change the world." Now, admittedly the world began as the world of marriage and family therapy. But once it was online and more people had access to it through the Internet, open access became much more feasible. Some of you may not know that at about this same time the Qualitative Interest Group (QUIG) began at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. This became another outlet for those folks conducting qualitative research. They also developed a mailing list that can be reached at listserv@listserv.uga.edu (see also the interview with Judith PREISSLE in this issue). [10]

This online journal has become increasingly larger and now publishes 10 articles per issue. They try, CHENAIL says, to publish exemplary papers. He comments that the management side has improved as well. He sees new challenges. He suggests that when you look at what's being published in different disciplines, there is still a rather narrow range of styles being published. He is particularly challenged by critical and artistic theory and mentions DENZIN's (2003) new book on performative aspects of qualitative research. He is also trying to coax more papers and contributions from other areas and continues to look for exemplars. He resists becoming too narrow and scientific. We discussed other avenues for rapid and open communication. Ron is very much in favor of such ideas and would see FQS as an excellent opportunity for cross fertilization and for rapid exchange of novel and non-traditional ideas. [11]

He recognizes that graduate programs have just so many hours in them and what to teach becomes a problem. He sees technology as going beyond computer technology such as NUD*IST or NVivo and asks whether Photoshop or something beyond word processing ought to be required. I share with Ron my experiences with NVivo (LICHTMAN 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). While I find the computer technology challenging and intriguing, at times the learning curve is somewhat steep and may be difficult for some users. See my comments on BAZELEY and RICHARDS' book. (BAZELEY & RICHARDS 2000; LICHTMAN 2001). He suggests that students need to become familiar with data based programs to manage technology. He also says that those who are more artistic are held back because they don't know the technology to embed a sound file or a movie. As our time begins to run out, I again shift the conversation. I ask him about the most important developments in the field of qualitative research. [12]

5.

Qualitative, Quality, and Questioning

CHENAIL raises the issue of quality in qualitative research as his first thoughts on the subject. This reminds me of our early days in talking with journal editors who said they did not know how to judge quality and of traditionalists who saw quality as equated with principles associated with positivist and post-positivist research. How could one judge if the criteria for judging were inappropriate. CHENAIL suggests that we should follow MISHLER (1990) as he talks about the role of exemplars. He is also supportive of an audit trail. [13]

I think CHENAIL would agree with me and many others that we can't talk about changes without mentioning the importance of the Internet. He suggests that it is easier to move around and get access to online journals. He also likes electronic libraries, easier access to full texts, saving of time, information literacy, and in general managing and publishing. He suggests that the international is now local. [14]

6.

Challenges: Now and for the Future

He speaks of the challenge of inclusiveness. And while qualitative research has become successful, he worries that we might end up with a very narrow range. He sees a tendency to be more scientific. He speaks of those voices I have heard so often: it is interesting, but is it really research. He worries about other approaches such as feminist and critical theory and how they answer the "is it really research" question. And he argues that the more you answer the question about "is it really research" there may be a hardening of the categories. My own voice asks: are we moving backwards instead of ahead? [15]

You might find this story interesting. CHENAIL mentions some work done by ZALTMAN (2003) from business and psychology. He does something called the metaphor elicitation technique. He takes pictures and then gives them to people he meets in is travels. They talked to people about what the picture meant. This idea was then adapted to market research. He sees this as creating a collage of images. Here is another example of CHENAIL's divergent and creative mind. [16]

We ended our discussion by making some predictions for the future. He talks about fiberoptics on the Internet that permit transfer and dissemination of all kinds of information. This then results in easier collaboration, collection and storage of data. This will lead to standards for storing qualitative data that others can access and review. He suggests that this enables collaboration in multiple sites. In a related area, he sees improvement in voice recognition software that will make transcription easier. He anticipates that the next generation will be able to transcribe dialogues. Finally, he sees improvement in software that will allow the handling of images and videos. [17]

You have to think outside the box when you talk with Ron. He proposes a research park online (CHENAIL 2004) that will be a combination industrial research park and amusement park. It will look like Epcot Center where villages represent the world—academic programs will be connected. Access will come in many forms. We will need guides and rangers in the park. Right now a course is a stream or journey; people can blaze their own trail, navigate, and get help when they need it. There will be an entertainment director of events coordination. From an educational perspective, work will need to be done on how knowledge will be contributed to the park. He continues. The software is there—management software, hooked into a library, hooked into course creation and databases. Someone can go in and take an exercise from your class that can be used by others. [18]

We ended our conversation on this note. Our time had run out. I needed time to process what I learned and, more importantly, what it meant. I knew CHENAIL was a visionary when I met him in 1990 (CHENAIL in press). Almost fifteen years later he has lost none of that vision. I am not always sure I know where he is going. In fact, I am not always sure he knows where he is going. But that perhaps is the most important part of the message. It is all right not to know precisely where you are going, or even how or if you will get there. But not to try is a loss for us all. [19]

References

Bazeley, Pat & Richards, Lyn (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book. London: Sage.

Caelli, Kate; Ray, Lynne & Mill, Judy (2003). 'Clear as mud': Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2). Article 1. Available at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_2/html/caellietal.htm [Date of Access: July 27, 2004]

Chenail, Ron (2004). When Disney meets the research park: Metaphors and models for engineering an online learning community of tomorrow. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 107-121.

Chenail, Ron (in press). Future directions for qualitative methods. In Douglas H. Sprenkle & Fred Piercy (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group (2000). Available at: http://www.iphrp.salford.ac.uk/cochrane/homepage.htm [Date of Access: July 27, 2004]

Denzin, Norman K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dixon-Woods, Mary (2004). Available at http://www.prw.le.ac.uk/research/HCG/dixon-woods.html#methods/ [Date of Access: July 27, 2004]

Lichtman, Marilyn (2001, September). Review Note: Patricia Bazeley & Lyn Richards (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book [25 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 2(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-01/3-01review-lichtman-e.htm [Date of Access: June, 19, 2004]

Lichtman, Marilyn (February, 2002a). Multiple coders, multiple traditions: An exploration of the use of multiple coders and models. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference Strategies in Qualitative Research: Issues and results from analysis using NVivo and NUD*IST. Institute of Education, London, England.

Lichtman, Marilyn (February, 2002b). Using NVivo for students' projects: Case studies of selected students. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference Strategies in Qualitative Research: Issues and results from analysis using NVivo and NUD*IST. Institute of Education, London, England.

Lichtman, Marilyn (2002c, August). Review Note: Gillian Rose (2001). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/4-02/4-02review-lichtman-e.htm [Date of Access: June, 19, 2004]

Mishler, Elliot G. (1990, November). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 415-442.

Popay, Jennie, Rogers, Anne & Williams, Gareth (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341-351.

Zaltman, Gerald (2003). How customers think: Essential insights into the mind of the market. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Author

Marilyn LICHTMAN has worked as a professor of research at Virginia Tech for many years where she has taught qualitative and quantitative courses. She serves on the editorial board of The Qualitative Report and FQS. She has given several presentations about the use of NVivo at the Third International Conference in London in 2002.

She is currently under contract with Sage for the book Qualitative Research in Education, due out in late 2004.

Contact:

Marilyn Lichtman

5809 Nicholson Lane, #511
Rockville, MD
USA

E-mail: mlichtma@vt.edu

Citation

Please cite this article as follows (and include paragraph numbers if necessary):

Lichtman, Marilyn (2004, September). "The Future Is Here; It Is Just Not Widely Distributed Yet"—Adapted from William Gibson. Ron Chenail in Conversation With Marilyn Lichtman [19 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 5(3), Art. 11. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-04/04-3-11-e.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year].