Qualitative research methods for community development robert mark silverman, kelly l patterson, routledge, 2016 scan

Qualitative Research Methods for
Community Development

Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development teaches the basic skills,
tools, and methods of qualitative research with special attention to the needs
of community practitioners. This book teaches students entering planning,
community development, nonprofit management, social work, and similar
applied fields the core skills necessary to conduct systematic research designed
to empower communities and promote social change.
Focusing on the basic elements of qualitative research, such as field observation, interviewing, focus groups, and content analysis, Qualitative Research
Methods for Community Development provides an overview of core methods and
theoretical underpinnings of successful research. The book provides examples
from past research used in transformative community projects across multiple
disciplines. From housing, community organizing, neighborhood planning,
and urban revitalization, this book gives students the skills they need to undertake their own projects, and provides professionals a valuable reference for
their future research.
The book serves as a primary text for courses in applied qualitative research,
and as a reference book for professionals and community-based researchers.
In addition to content detailing core methods used in qualitative research,
it includes a chapter that provides guidance for the dissemination of qualitative results to a spectrum of audiences applying qualitative methods to action
research and community empowerment.
Robert Mark Silverman is a Professor and the PhD Program Director in
the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo.
He is co-editor of Schools and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and
Community Development (2013); and Fair and Affordable Housing in the US:
Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions (2011).
Kelly L. Patterson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at
the University at Buffalo. She is co-editor of Schools and Urban Revitalization:
Rethinking Institutions and Community Development (2013); and Fair and Affordable
Housing in the US: Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions (2011).

“Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development is an engaging and
practical ‘how to’ guide in the design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of qualitative research. Replete with numerous case examples and sections
on topics such as underlying theoretical contexts, ethical concerns, and the use
of new technologies, the book is an invaluable resource for community-based
scholars, students, and practitioners.”
Anna Maria Santiago, Leona Bevis & Marguerite Haynam Professor of
Community Development, Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of
Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University
“At last! A qualitative methods text pitched to professional disciplines. The
text provides an engaging overview of methods, followed by practical primers
on collecting and analyzing qualitative data. A concise but clear data analysis
chapter leads off the practical approach, unfolding the relationship between a
researcher and his or her qualitative data and its sources: ethics, tools for coding
and creating meaning, the importance of iteration, and the value of collaboration. The text teaches and shows by example how to communicate in ways
‘interesting and memorable,’ as well as oriented towards progressive change. It
will be an excellent choice for students and professionals embarking on qualitative research.”
Gwendolyn H. Urey, Professor of Urban & Regional Planning,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
“This book offers solid guidance to community development and social welfare students and practitioners on how to design, collect, analyze, and publish
qualitative data for the purposes of improving services and empowering communities. Detailing rigorous standards while using approachable examples, it is
well-organized, comprehensive, insightful, and a delight to read.”
Corianne Payton Scally, CEO, HOUSERS, LLC and
former Associate Professor of Urban Planning, University at Albany, SUNY


Qualitative Research
Methods for Community
Development

Robert Mark Silverman and
Kelly L. Patterson


First published 2015
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
The right of Robert Mark Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and
78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Silverman, Robert Mark, 1967Qualitative research methods for community development / Robert Mark
Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson. -- 1 Edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Community development. 2. Qualitative research. I. Patterson, Kelly L. II.
Title.

HN49.C6.S55 2015
307.1’4--dc23
2014023396
ISBN: 978-0-415-74035-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-74036-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-79776-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by GreenGate Publishing Services, Tonbridge, Kent


We dedicate this book to
Elijah and Emalyn


This page intentionally left blank


Contents

List of Figures
About the Authors
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
1 Qualitative Research for Students and Professionals

viii
x
xi
xii
1

2 Qualitative Analysis as an Iterative Process

23

3 Field Notes and Observations

41

4 Semi-Structured Interviewing

60

5 Focus Groups

75

6 Content Analysis

95

7 Dissemination of Qualitative Findings
Index

106
124


Figures

1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2

2.3

2.4
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
5.3

Methods, Key Contributions, and Links to Professional
Practice and Community Empowerment
Example of Displaying Qualitative Data in a Table Format
Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research
The Iterative Process in Qualitative Research
Example of Coding from an Interview with the Executive

Director of a Nonprofit Social Welfare Organization in
Jackson, MS
Example of Coding from Field Notes from an Informal
Discussion with the Executive Director of a Community
Development Corporation in Detroit, MI
Example of Coding from Photographs from a Neighborhood
Revitalization Study in Buffalo, NY
Example of Memos from a Study of a Community
Development Corporation in Detroit, MI
Example of Diagraming Codes from Content Analysis of
Community Reactions to Proposed BNMC Expansion Planning
Example of Jottings from Observation of Buffalo, NY’s Light
Rail System
Sources of Visual Data
Characteristics of Casual Conversations and Informal
Interviews
The Process for Writing Full Field Notes, “Dos and Don’ts”
Types of Analytic Memoing
Elements of an Interview Guide
Wording and Style of Grand-Tour Questions and Probes
Three Foundational Sampling Techniques Used in Qualitative
Research
Examples of Nonverbal Cues used in Qualitative Interviewing
Roles Filled by Focus Group Team Members
Elements of a Questioning Route
Example of a Questioning Route Introduction and Informed
Consent Statement

5
13

19
24

31

33
35
37
38
48
49
51
54
55
62
64
67
70
79
81
82


Figures ix
5.4 Example of an Advance Letter to Recruit Focus Group
Participants
5.5 Example of a Script for a Follow-Up Telephone Call to
Recruit Focus Group Participants
6.1 Strengths and Limitations of Content Analysis
6.2 Characteristics of Manifest and Latent Content Analysis

6.3 Example of a Matrix Used for Manifest Coding
6.4 Example of Summary Table Based on Manifest Codes
6.5 Example of Data Presentation Based on Latent Content
Analysis
7.1 Example of Displaying Qualitative Data in a Table Format
7.2 Example of the Narrative Format of Data Presentation
7.3 Elements of a Descriptive Table
7.4 Example of Displaying Qualitative Results Using a Diagram
7.5 Example of Displaying Qualitative Results Using a Diagram
7.6 Modes of Dissemination

90
91
96
99
100
101
102
108
111
112
114
115
116


About the Authors

Robert Mark Silverman is a Professor and the PhD Program Director in the
Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University at Buffalo.

He holds a PhD in Urban Studies from the University of WisconsinMilwaukee. He also holds a BS in Political Science and a Masters in Public
Administration from Arizona State University. His research focuses on
community development, the nonprofit sector, community-based organizations, education reform, and inequality in inner city housing markets.
He has published in Urban Affairs Review, Urban Studies, Urban Education,
National Civic Review, Action Research, Community Development, Journal of
Black Studies, Journal of Social History, and other peer reviewed journals. He
is co-editor of Schools and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and
Community Development (2013); and Fair and Affordable Housing in the US:
Trends, Outcomes, Future Directions (2011). He is also editor of CommunityBased Organizations: The Intersection of Social Capital and Local Context in
Contemporary Urban Society (2004).
Kelly L. Patterson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work
at the University at Buffalo. She holds a PhD in Urban Studies from the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, a Masters in Public Affairs from the
University at Buffalo, and a BA in Sociology from North Carolina Central
University. Her research focuses on rent vouchers, fair housing, discrimination, social policy, and the African-American experience. She has published
in the Journal of Community Practice, Journal of Urban Affairs, Housing Policy
Debate, Housing and Society, Journal of Social Service Research, Journal of Black
Psychology, and other peer reviewed journals. She is co-editor of Schools
and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and Community Development
(2013); and Fair and Affordable Housing in the US: Trends, Outcomes, Future
Directions (2011).


Acknowledgments

We would like to thank a number of people who provided us with the impetus
to write this book. Much of the content of this book grew out of our years
spent teaching qualitative methods in the Sociology Department at Wayne
State University and the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the
University at Buffalo. We are particularly appreciative of Henry Taylor Jr. for

his sustained advocacy for the development of qualitative methods courses in
the field of community development and planning. We are indebted to the
students who enrolled in those classes for giving us insights about the methodological needs of those engaged in community-based research. Some of those
students (e.g., Maggie Cowell, Samuel Rose, Jade Lewis, Gavin Luter, and Lari
Warren-Jeanpiere) have gone on to write theses and dissertations using qualitative methods, as well as publish and co-publish their applied research using
skills obtained in our classes. We also acknowledge the input of numerous colleagues who teach similar courses and use qualitative methods in their research.
Over the years we have benefited from exchanging war stories with them
about their classroom and field research experiences. Finally, we would like
to thank Judith Newlin, Fritz Brantley, and other members of the Routledge
team for their assistance during the development of this project.


Abbreviations

AI
BNMC
CAT
CDC
DHS
HUD
IRB
LISC
MDOT
MOU
MSHDA
NFTA
NIMBY
PAR
PHA
QDAS

analysis of impediments
Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus
Coding Analysis Toolkit
community development corporation
Department of Human Services
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
institutional review board
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Michigan Department of Transportation
memorandum of understanding
Michigan State Housing Development Authority
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
not in my backyard
participatory action research
public housing authority
qualitative data analysis software


1

Qualitative Research for
Students and Professionals

Dawn of a New Era
It is an exciting time to be a qualitative researcher. The need for qualitative
and mixed-methods research in the applied professions has grown in response
to new challenges confronted by community development practitioners.
These challenges stem from: shifting population demographics, fiscal
constraints in the public sector, growing demand for social services, increased

experimentation with education reform, emerging concerns about public
health, and heightened awareness of other factors impacting the quality of life
in communities. The simultaneous ascent of these new challenges has raised
our awareness of their interconnectedness and the need for comprehensive
and inter-disciplinary analysis. In addition to the sheer volume of new
social issues and policy questions professionals confront, there is growing
demand for civic engagement and citizen empowerment in the community
development process.
In part, demand for greater citizen input grows out of increased competition
for scarce resources in society. However, it is also a reflection of the expansion
of democratic institutions and values in the modern world. This progression
is reflected by the emergence of new governance structures at the local, state,
and national levels. It is also echoed in the growing demands for citizen participation and empowerment in public policy processes. Practitioners in the
applied professions occupy a unique space in our changing world. They work
on the front lines of policy implementation and have firsthand knowledge of
the challenges institutions confront in our times. As a result, practitioners are
often asked to identify community needs and interpret community development outcomes for policy makers and their constituencies.
We have witnessed the growth in practitioner driven research across the
professions. Urban planners are increasingly asked to analyze, evaluate, and
propose new models for community development that are responsive to the
public. Social workers assess the needs of communities, design programs, and
interventions, and evaluate their outcomes. Public and nonprofit administrators develop strategies to deliver services in communities and increasingly work
with residents to ensure that these activities unfold in an equitable manner.


2

Qualitative Research

Reforms in public education have led to increased interactions between

schools and communities, and a growing interest in studying the outcomes of
new education policies. In the field of public health, professionals have increasingly focused on studying how to promote healthy communities and assessing
the effectiveness of strategies adopted to achieve this goal.
We have also witnessed the integration of community development
across the professions. The growth in inter-disciplinary work has increased
the demand for the development of new methods for policy research and
evaluation. Practitioners have increasingly turned to qualitative methods to
analyze community development policies that bridge traditional disciplinary
boundaries. Qualitative methods are particularly valuable to research focusing on social welfare and community development policies that bridge the
professions. In part, this is the case because these policies increasingly focus
on comprehensive approaches to community development that integrate:
housing, social services, education, public health, workforce development,
and other components. Qualitative methods allow researchers to examine
the intersection of these components of community development policies
and to generate a holistic understanding of them. Qualitative methods also
provide practitioners from disparate professions with a common language
to analyze and evaluate inter-disciplinary work. This is important since
disciplinary specific tools for analysis do not always facilitate the synthesis
of research results. Qualitative methods add an integrative dimension to
multi-methods strategies for policy analysis. In addition to these attributes,
qualitative methods and the results from qualitative research are accessible
to a broad audience.
One of the primary advantages of qualitative research is that it makes data
analysis and research results more accessible to a broad spectrum of individuals and groups in society. As a result, it is a truly democratic and empowering
approach to data collection and analysis. Unlike their quantitative counterparts,
qualitative methods are more accessible to constituencies affected by community development policies. Qualitative data are composed of: field notes,
interview transcripts, photographic documents, audio recordings, film, archival records, and other data that are readily available to investigators and the
general public. These characteristics make qualitative data transparent and relatively easy to replicate. The democratic and empowering nature of qualitative
research is also reinforced by the use of appropriate technologies in the collection and analysis of qualitative data. Many of the tools used in qualitative
research are found in everyday settings. They include paper and pencils, basic

word processing software, digital cameras and recording devices, web-cams and
video links, and related applications found in smartphone technologies. Even
more advanced qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) packages require few
prerequisite skills and are relatively easy to learn.
The democratic and accessible nature of qualitative methods add to their
power as an approach to research that focuses on exploring emergent themes and
advancing dialogue about pressing social problems. The qualitative approach


Qualitative Research

3

provides a broad spectrum of individuals and groups in society tools to engage
in systematic research. Qualitative analysis applies a relatively universal set of
analytic techniques to the various types of data collected during the research
process. These techniques are: accessible to individuals with different levels of
research experience, adaptable to a spectrum of research settings, and replicable across studies. Qualitative methods serve as a vehicle for the expansion of
participants in the data collection and analysis processes. Methods are flexible.
They allow research to be pursued in a variety of contexts by: sole investigators, research teams, and using participatory action research (PAR) designs.
The dissemination of qualitative research results is equally flexible. Research
findings can be targeted to multiple audiences and disseminated using multiple
mediums. Qualitative research reports can be written for academic and professional audiences. Excerpts from qualitative studies can be incorporated into
community newsletters and the popular media. The richness of qualitative data
also allows for the dissemination of research using images, audio clips, and film
on the internet and through social media.
Qualitative research is grounded in a long tradition across the social sciences
and professions. This tradition has included a number of community studies
focusing on neighborhoods and urban life, social movements, and the local
public policy process. The impetus for many past qualitative studies was the

rapid change in the social fabric of communities due to: mass immigration during the industrial revolution, economic disruption during the Great Depression,
residential displacement caused by urban renewal, efforts to desegregate neighborhoods and schools beginning in the 1960s, and other multifaceted problems
social welfare and community development professionals were called upon to
address. Today, there has been a resurgence in the application of qualitative
methods to professional practice. This resurgence is in response to similar challenges that prompted the adoption of qualitative methods in the past. In many
contemporary communities: demographics are rapidly changing, poverty and
economic dislocation are systemic problems, stresses on the built environment
have produced a variety of negative externalities for the environment and
public health, and residential segregation and educational inequality remain
intransigent barriers to social progress. Qualitative methods provide professionals with valuable tools for the development and evaluation of policies aimed at
addressing these problems.

Connecting Theory to Professional Practice
Qualitative methods are informed by theory that focuses on explaining new
challenges faced by communities and generating a holistic understanding of
them. There are numerous theoretical perspectives that inform qualitative
methods. In this discussion we focus on a discrete set that inform professional practice. Our emphasis is on general theory that applies to applied
qualitative research. The five perspectives discussed form a foundation for
qualitative research in community development and social welfare practice.


4

Qualitative Research

They include:
●

●

●

●

●

ethnographic research, which provides researchers with an orientation
for observing the world and discovering underlying patterns in social and
institutional relationships;
the grounded theory approach, which provides researchers with a systematic framework for organizing and analyzing qualitative data, and
generating new theoretical explanations for phenomenon observed in the
field;
the case study approach, which establishes a sampling framework for qualitative analysis, in terms of identifying both critical cases for analysis and
criteria for comparative case research;
mixed methods research, which argues for the incorporation of multiple
methods in a single study; and
PAR, which adds a focus on empowerment to the research process by
transforming research subjects into co-investigators.

Our emphasis on these five perspectives is bound by a radical ethos that drives
social welfare and community development. Within that ethos we view the
professional practitioner as a transformational researcher who uses research as
a tool to advocate for change, provide information and data to disenfranchised
groups, and empower communities.
From our perspective, theory provides a foundation for research in professional practice and we see the researcher as a change agent in society. In
essence, we see the role of the community development and social welfare
practitioner in a similar light to Grabow and Heskin’s (1973) description of the
role of the radical planner in the planning profession. In the following quote
from Grabow and Heskin (1973: 112) we substitute the words “community
development and social welfare” and “practitioner” for “planning” and “planner” respectively:

In this radical definition of [community development and social
welfare], who is the [practitioner]? In our definition the [practitioner]
is active: a radical agent of change. He or she is not, as are so many of
today’s professionals, a creature of divided loyalty, one who owes as
much or more to the profession as to the people. Instead, the job is to
facilitate social experimentation by the people. The radical [practitioner]
is a nonprofessional professional: no longer one with a property right
entitled [“community development and social welfare,”] but rather
an educator and at the same time a student of the ecological ethic as
revealed in the consciousness of the people. Such an individual strives
for self-actualization of oneself and of the others with whom one lives.
Finally, he or she is not apart from the people: the [“practitioner”] is one
of us, or all of us.


Qualitative Research

5

In this reformulation, we offer a radical definition of community development and social welfare that provides a normative framework for the
application of qualitative research to community development and social
welfare problems. From this perspective social action and advocacy is interwoven with the practice of qualitative research. Consequently, the five
theoretical perspectives described here are elevated from relatively neutral
instruments used in research to tools of praxis. The key contributions of each
method and their links to professional practice and community empowerment are summarized in Figure 1.1 and then elaborated upon in the section
that follows.
Method

Key Contributions

Ethnography

●

●
●

Grounded
Theory

●
●
●

Case Studies

●

●
●

Links to Professional Practice and
Community Empowerment

holistic analysis of social
settings
insider’s perspective
theory of description

●

focus on theory building
theoretical sampling
constant comparative method

●

use of thick description and
narrative approach
depth of analysis
focus on critical cases

●

●

●

●

●

●

Mixed-Methods

●

●

●

PAR

●

●

allows for the layering of
data collected with multiple
methods
flexibility in the integration of
quantitative and qualitative data
facilitates the aggregation and
summary of qualitative findings

●

introduces a co-investigator’s
role for participants in the
research process
non-hierarchical approach
and inclusive approach to
data collection, analysis, and
dissemination

●

●

●

●

●

critical framework for analysis
focus on deconstructing power
relations
reflexive stance
problem-based orientation
praxis applications

tangible and accessible to a broad
audience
pragmatic focus on a single case
or set of cases drawn from the
local context
use of appropriate technology
cost-effective and pragmatic use
of available data
meets the data expectations
of multiple audiences in
community and policy circles
provides dimensionality and
multiple measures of a common
problem under investigation
develops community-based
research capacity
transfers skills and technology

to the community to facilitate
future autonomous research
focuses on community generated
interventions

Figure 1.1 Methods, Key Contributions, and Links to Professional Practice and Community
Empowerment.


6

Qualitative Research

Ethnographic Research
Ethnographic research is a cornerstone of qualitative methods. It provides
qualitative researchers with a set of tools for the systematic and holistic analysis
of a research setting. Ethnography has been described in a number of seminal
texts on qualitative analysis (Jorgensen, 1989; Emerson et al., 1995; Lofland &
Lofland, 1995; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Brewer, 2000). Across these texts
a common definition of ethnographic research has emerged that entails the
holistic analysis of a social setting from the perspective of individuals embedded in its social and institutional context. Ethnographic research often involves
sustained periods of field research where an investigator makes focused observations and records those observations in detailed field notes. One of the goals of
ethnography it to gain an insider’s perspective on the setting and relationships
being observed. This means that the researcher’s role often extends beyond
that of a passive observer, and can include participating in the setting being
studied, as well as interacting with individuals in it. In addition to fieldwork
and participant observation research, ethnography can entail various degrees of
data collection through informal and formal interviews. Informally, researchers
will gain insights into a social problem through conversations and impromptu
queries that take place in a field setting. After reflecting on field observations,

ethnographers may also pursue more systematic interviews with individuals or
groups found in a social setting.
Blending field observations with interviews represents one approach to conducting systematic, holistic research in an ethnographic study. Ethnographers
also incorporate content analysis, archival data, meta-analysis, demographic, and
other quantitative measures into their research. The incorporation of data from
multiple perspectives is a central component of the ethnographic approach,
since the goal of such research is to develop a multilayered understanding of
a research question. While pursuing this goal, ethnographers sometimes work
in teams when collecting data and analyzing them in order to bring multiple
perspectives to the forefront. Research teams are often constructed purposively
in order to bring in the perspectives of team members from different professional backgrounds, age cohorts, race and gender groupings, and social classes.
The focus of ethnographic research is on the development of a multifaceted,
or thick, description of a research topic. This is achieved by layering multiple
methods in a systematic and iterative research design. The characteristics that
have come to define ethnography have been described as a theory of description
(Nader, 2011).
The focus of ethnography on describing a research problem is of particular
value to community development and social welfare professionals when they
are confronted with the need to address new challenges faced by a community or their clientele. However, there is another dimension of ethnographic
research that is relevant to professional practice. This dimension grows out of
the literature on critical ethnography (Thomas, 1992; Marshall & Rossman,
1999; Brewer, 2000). From this perspective, ethnography should go beyond


Qualitative Research

7

describing the facets of a social setting. It should deconstruct the power relations in society that underlie the issues that community development and
social welfare practitioners seek to understand. Critical ethnography represents

a deeper understanding of challenges that communities face in contemporary
society, and is focused on generating policy recommendations that alter the
power structure and promote social change. From a critical ethnographic perspective, the researcher seeks to understand how paradigms, ideologies, systems
of inequality, and institutional arrangements shape the research settings that he
or she studies.
Critical ethnographers are also reflexive in their analysis and make conscious
efforts to identify biases that they bring to the research process. These biases
may stem from their personal biographies, as well as race, class, gender, and
other ascribed characteristics. At a minimum, critical ethnography acknowledges the effects these biases have on research. However, the goal of critical
ethnography is to draw from a reflexive stance and incorporate social action
and change into the research process. This is achieved by informing research
with critical analysis and developing recommendations from research results
that alter existing power relations and systems of inequality in society. The
centrality of critical analysis to ethnographic theory makes it complementary
to the radical definition of the community development and social welfare
practice described earlier in this chapter.
Grounded Theory Approach
The grounded theory approach is a qualitative methodology focused on theory building. The seminal publication that defined this methodology was The
Discovery of Grounded Theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Although this book
was published decades ago, the methods outlined in it resonate through contemporary qualitative studies. Glaser and Strauss outlined a systematic approach
to qualitative data collection focused on generating new theoretical insights
that explain the underlying structures that shaped communities and social life.
This approach was based on the use of theoretical sampling techniques and
an iterative, constant comparative method to analyze data. Although much
of the early development of the grounded theory approach was based on data
collected through participant observation and semi-structured interviewing,
Glaser and Strauss advocated for broadening the scope of qualitative data
sources to include archival, print material and other documentary qualitative
data, “as far afield as deeds, jokes, photographs, and city plans” (1967: 161).
The central focus of the grounded theory approach is the development

of theoretical explanations for basic research questions. For instance, a community development practitioner may be interested in learning what factors
influence an individual’s choice to reside in a particular type of neighborhood.
Or, a social worker may be interested in the patterns of behavior that lead to
things such as substance abuse or absenteeism in public schools. Regardless
of the topic of interest, grounded theory begins with a concrete question for


8

Qualitative Research

systematic analysis. Based on that question, the researcher makes decisions
about where to collect data in an iterative manner. In essence, theoretical
sampling entails a process of: collecting data purposively to inform a research
question, conducting preliminary data analysis, and then identifying additional
sources of data in response to that analysis. The focus of theoretical sampling is
twofold. First and foremost, a researcher makes decisions about who to observe
or interview, and what types of documentary data to collect based on his or
her research question. Second, the researcher expands the scope of his or her
sample based on what is learned about the research question through preliminary data analysis. When expanding the scope of a sample, the emphasis is on
identifying new data sources that tease out nuances of the emerging theory and
provide counter examples of what has already been observed. This iterative
process oscillates between data collection, preliminary analysis, and sampling,
with the purpose of generating new theory.
Glaser and Strauss referred to this iterative process as central to the constant
comparative method of qualitative analysis. This method provides a systematic framework for collecting and analyzing qualitative data and generating
grounded theory. The first step in the constant comparative method involves
the coding of data into as many categories as possible that relate to the research
question being examined in a study. Once field notes, interview transcripts,
and documentary materials from each source of data are coded, the researcher

integrates categories across the data sources. Data integration occurs throughout the research process. As new data are collected and analyzed, they are
integrated with existing data. This process entails the recoding of data throughout the research process which leads to the refinement of emergent codes and
concepts used to build theory. Through this iterative process a set of robust
concepts emerges that answer core issues raised in a research question. The
emergence of these concepts signals that a point of theoretical saturation has
been reached and the researcher can shift his or her focus from data collection
to more fine grained analysis and theory construction.
By nature, the grounded theory approach is a form of inductive research. It
begins with a question for which existing theory and paradigms do not provide
answers. Consequently, it is not driven by existing theories or designed to test
them. Instead, it is designed to identify underlying structures that shape complex problems and develop new theoretical explanations for them. Because
the grounded theory approach is often adopted by researchers when existing
theories prove insufficient to address problems encountered in the field, it
also has the potential to usher in change. The role that the grounded theory
approach can have in the social change process is of particular relevance to
community development professionals and social workers. For practitioners, the grounded theory approach can reveal the underlying structures that
shape communities and the problems faced by the people living in them. An
understanding of these structures and the development of theories that explain
their connection to everyday life can advance the practical work of community development professionals and social workers. Moreover, new theory can


Qualitative Research

9

become the foundation for proposals to reform existing community development and social welfare policies.
The discovery of grounded theory can also empower communities and
grassroots movements. Given its focus on identifying underlying structures that
shape concrete problems in society, the grounded theory approach is a branch
of critical theory. Concepts and theories that are generated using this approach

can be disseminated in order to inform communities about root causes of their
struggles. The impact that grounded theory can have on the collective consciousness of disenfranchised groups should not be underestimated, since new
ideas can have an empowering effect, particularly when they are focused on the
analysis of structures of inequality in society. The potential for the grounded
theory approach to be applied to praxis is also relatively untapped. There is fertile ground for community development and social work practitioners to apply
the grounded theory approach to PAR in order to promote social change at
the grassroots level. The potential benefits of developing community-based
skills in the application of grounded theory are far reaching. Social movements
and the disenfranchised groups they represent will become formidable when
they are armed with theories of social change developed through the systematic analysis of the challenges facing communities.
Case Study Approach
Quantitative research focuses on: the aggregation of large data sets, distilling
data down to discrete and relatively abstracted measures, and drawing generalizable conclusions about their common features. In contrast, qualitative
analysis focuses on the unique characteristics of a phenomenon that are not
accounted for or explained by positivist approaches to research. While quantitative researchers find extreme cases and outliers problematic, qualitative
analysts embrace them. Qualitative researchers are distinguished by their penchant for ferreting out the nuances of a phenomenon observed in the real
world and developing textured narratives that make them accessible to a broad
audience. Although all qualitative research has this tendency, the case study
approach to qualitative analysis is one of the best illustrations of it.
The case study approach emphasizes depth of analysis over breadth. It focuses
on developing a multifaceted analysis of a phenomenon and uses thick description
to illuminate it. Decisions about the appropriate sample size to use in a qualitative study are driven by theoretical imperatives tied to a research question rather
than a predetermined number of observations needed to satisfy statistical criteria
based on probability sampling. Moreover, the decision on who to interview or
what documentary data to include in a qualitative sample is driven by the desire to
account for variation in the research setting. Extreme cases or examples that represent nuances in a population of interest are sought out by qualitative researchers.
Data collected from a diverse set of individuals in a population are used to inform
analysis and produce a granulated and textured narrative. The search for extreme
cases in qualitative analysis is exemplified in the case study approach.

10

Qualitative Research

The case study approach is based on the assumption that extreme or exceptional examples of a phenomenon yield the most textured data for qualitative
analysis. This is because extreme cases exaggerate core characteristics of a phenomenon and provide researchers with clear examples for the development
of concepts and the subsequent formulation of theory. In our experience, we
have found the use of case study analysis advantageous when studying neighborhood governance. Our analysis of homeowners’ associations was based on a
critical case where residents and a developer were engaged in a dispute over the
formation of a new homeowners’ association (Silverman & Patterson, 2004).
Although this was not the typical environment that homeowners’ associations
operated in, the extreme case allowed us to focus on the underlying political
and economic structures of these organizations and apply theories related to
urban growth machines to this context.
In addition to examining single cases, qualitative researchers can juxtapose
a number of extreme examples of a phenomenon in comparative case study
research. Duncan’s (2000) analysis of rural poverty in her book Worlds Apart is
one example of this approach being used effectively in community research.
Duncan applied the comparative case study approach to her analysis of rural
towns in Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and a New England town. A comparative analysis of culture, social class, race relations, and civic engagement in
these three distinct settings allowed Duncan to offer new insights about factors
that contribute to persistent poverty in society.
The case study approach has particular utility to community development
practitioners and social workers, since much of their work is embedded in a
fixed location. As a result, these professionals have intimate knowledge of the
communities they serve and understand the unique characteristics of the challenges faced by their local constituencies and clients. Case study research is also
a pragmatic option for community development and social work professionals,
since they often have limited resources to commit to research. Case studies
allow for applied research to be conducted in a context that is relevant to local

communities. Furthermore, the scope of data and methods used in case studies is relatively accessible to researchers and the communities they study. The
results from case study research also tend to be disseminated in a format that is
accessible to interested populations. These groups include other local professionals, community residents, and local policy makers.
The case study approach is also applicable to community-based research
focused on empowering residents to define the scope of challenges they face
in their communities and the policy reforms needed to address them. The
framework for case study analysis is tangible and relevant to residents engaged
in community-based research. It entails basic skills in field research and qualitative data analysis. Community-based case studies have the added advantage of
applying systematic data collection to a local set of issues while being amenable
to the use of appropriate technology. For instance, many community-based
case studies can be completed with the use of widely available research tools
such as recording devices that are incorporated into smartphone technology.


Qualitative Research

11

Data can also be analyzed using common word processing software available
on personal computers. When the analysis is completed, that same software can
be used to produce reports and policy briefs for dissemination in hard copy and
electronic document formats. In many respects, expanded access to basic technology has made it possible for disenfranchised groups to undertake research
autonomously and engage in the local policy process in ways that previously
required higher levels of technical support from institutions.
Mixed Methods Research
Mixed methods analysis is often described as an approach to research where
quantitative and qualitative data are integrated in the same study. This can
involve the analysis of both types of data side-by-side during each step of the
research process or it can involve the presentation of qualitative and quantitative data separately in a single study or across studies dealing with the same
subject matter (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010). Mixed methods are argued

to add perspectives or layers of complexity to a study that a single method
cannot provide. There are many examples of mixed methods being used in
qualitative studies. For example, Silverman (2003; 2009) used Census data
to contextualize and frame research on citizen participation in Detroit and
Buffalo. From that foundation, in-depth interviews were conducted with
executive directors of community-based organizations focusing on the scope
of public participation in their organizations. In their book Climbing Mount
Laurel, Massey et al. (2013) blended qualitative interviews, survey research,
and other quantitative data to evaluate the development of affordable housing in the suburbs of New Jersey. Their mixed methods approach provided a
multilayered view of the impact that affordable housing had on a local community and its residents.
Although descriptions of mixed methods research frequently highlight the
integration of qualitative and quantitative data, we view the mixed methods
approach to analysis as more dynamic. We argue that virtually all qualitative
research is mixed methods by nature. Although all qualitative researchers do
not include quantitative measures in their analysis, most use multiple qualitative methods side-by-side in their studies. For example, researchers often
engage in participant observation research and in-person interviewing in the
same study. Similarly, qualitative researchers mix other methods such as focus
groups, content analysis, meta-ethnography, and historical analysis in studies.
From this perspective, the mixed methods approach is a defining characteristic
of qualitative analysis.
Given that qualitative researchers routinely draw from multiple methods
in their analysis, one might ask why discussions of mixed methods research
often focus on the blending of qualitative and quantitative data. We believe
the answer to that question is threefold. First, there are valid reasons to incorporate quantitative data into a qualitative study. Quantitative measures can add
context to descriptions of a research setting and provide baseline measures to


12

Qualitative Research

support a more fine-grained analysis that qualitative analysis utilizes. Pairing
statistical analysis with qualitative methods can also highlight contrasts between
general tendencies in a population of interest and unique characteristics of outliers and extreme cases.
In addition to developing context in a study and highlighting contrasts
between a population and cases, there is a second explanation for why discussions of mixed methods research tend to emphasize the use quantitative
and qualitative data. In their efforts to describe the value of contrasts in data
analysis, some methodologists simply overlook the more nuanced variations of
mixed methods research in qualitative research. We stress that mixed methods
research goes beyond the blending of qualitative and quantitative methods in
order to highlight the depth and dimensionality that a variety of methods can
bring to a study. The fact that some methodologists overlook the obvious and
miss this elephant in the room is something that we seek to correct.
There is one other explanation for why discussions of mixed methods
research tend to emphasize the use of quantitative and qualitative data. It is
pragmatic. There are practical reasons for using mixed methods in analysis.
One involves the costs of conducting research. In many cases, qualitative analysis requires intensive investments of time and resources. Participant observation
requires extensive time in the field to collect data. Interviewing can be a timeconsuming activity in terms of scheduling meetings and conducting interviews,
as well as transcribing and coding data. In large-scale, multi-site studies these
activities may entail additional costs associated with travel and logistics. One
strategy to control such costs is to pair qualitative analysis with quantitative
analysis. Quantitative data are often available from institutional and other secondary sources at a relatively low cost compared to the collection of original
data. Even when it is necessary to collect quantitative data, it is often less time
consuming to administer a survey than undertake extensive field research.
In addition to blending qualitative and quantitative data to address time
and resource constraints, there is another pragmatic reason to pursue this type
of mixed methods analysis. Sometimes it is necessary to incorporate quantitative data into a qualitative study in order to reach a broader audience. Despite
increased exposure to qualitative analysis in academic and professional fields,
many remain skeptical of research that lacks a quantitative component. We
and other qualitative researchers share multiple experiences with resistance to

qualitative methods when submitting articles for peer review and presenting
research findings at conferences and in public forums. Objections to qualitative
methods are typically articulated in a few ways. Some simply dismiss qualitative
methods as impressionistic or antidotal. Others argue that qualitative methods
are not empirically grounded or hypothesis driven. Essentially, this critique
defines any analysis that is not derived from a deductive, positivist framework
as non-research. Still, some detractors object to the narrative style of qualitative
research and recast it as a form of journalism.
Although experience teaches us that some members of academic and professional communities will always object to qualitative analysis, we have found