Overview of Student Affairs Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

This chapter provides a review of the strengths andweaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research and argues for the value of using the paradigmscomplementarily.

Overview of Student Affairs ResearchMethods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Emily J. Perl, Denise F. Noldon

Qualitative and quantitative research have distinctive philosophical foun-dations, techniques, and characteristics. They are, in fact, two distinct par-adigms, each suited to investigate particular research questions and notothers. Although qualitative methods have arisen in opposition to the lim-itations of the quantitative paradigm, it is now widely accepted that the twoparadigms are quite compatible (Borg and Gall, 1989). After reviewing thestrengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative methods, we willtake the stance that the two should be used in combination to explore largerresearch questions.

As we proceed, it is important to point out the difference between par-adigms and research methods—two terms that are often used interchange-ably. Quantitative and qualitative research are referred to as two differentparadigms because the most basic assumptions underlying the practice ofeach type of research differ. These two paradigms are often referred to asempirical and naturalistic, respectively. It is also important to note thatwithin the qualitative research paradigm there are several different theoret-ical orientations, which will be discussed later in this chapter. Although notevery theoretical orientation that guides researchers necessarily falls neatlywithin the two categories of quantitative and qualitative, these two para-digms are the principal theoretical categories in social science research.Within each form of research, several different methods are also practiced;however, a methodological practice does not, in and of itself, constitute aresearch orientation.

A quick comparison of these two paradigms reveals the following dif-ferences. Quantitative (or empirical) studies, by definition, look at aggregate

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 108, Winter 2000 © Jossey-Bass Publishers 37

3

38 COLLABORATION BETWEEN STUDENT AFFAIRS AND INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCHERS

data and eliminate outliers. Qualitative research, in contrast, values individ-ual voices and is often used to illuminate voices that have previously beenmarginalized. Qualitative research aims to understand individual cases,whereas the purpose of quantitative studies is to generalize or come to somecommon understanding of a given population. Quantitative studies assumea value-free, or objective, method for arriving at these generalizations. Qual-itative researchers, on the other hand, assert that no research is value free:qualitative researchers acknowledge their biases as part of their research,claiming that the very process of choosing who is to be researched and whatdata are to be collected is laden with the researcher’s values. By makingexplicit those values inherent in the research process, qualitative researchersrelativize the results of the study for the reader. The traditional empirical par-adigm, on the other hand, assumes that there is a truth external to theresearcher that quantitative data can help us to understand. The startingpoint for a research project also differs by paradigm: most quantitative stud-ies begin with a hypothesis and then look to see if a particular set of data sup-ports that hypothesis (deductive approach), whereas qualitative researchersstart with information and try to make sense of it (inductive approach).

Research in Student Affairs

In the field of student affairs, research occurs in several distinct locations.The bulk of published research is conducted by faculty and graduate stu-dents at colleges and universities with graduate programs in higher educa-tion or student affairs. Some published and nonpublished research isconducted by institutional research offices. A few large universities havestaff assigned to conduct research specifically within the student affairs divi-sion. Individual student affairs units are likely to conduct practical research(also known as assessment) that is never published but is used internally toevaluate programs and improve services.

Traditional approaches to institutional research seek to articulate aresearch agenda that focuses on the prediction of behavior and the identifi-cation of ways to intervene so as to improve student outcomes. Most oftenthe goal of this type of research agenda is to better manage the institutionalenvironment. Many researchers, especially those working in a student affairscontext, are now embracing qualitative methodologies. Many have foundthat relying on data from surveys and database queries alone is too narrow.Others are drawn to qualitative methods such as interviews and focusgroups out of an interest in hearing student voices more directly. Anyonewho has ever distributed a survey has probably had the experience of find-ing notes scribbled in the margins by respondents. Qualitative researchallows these side notes to be examined more fully. For students experienc-ing some version of disenfranchisement or invisibility, participation in aqualitative study becomes, in effect, an intervention. Students typicallyenjoy being listened to, and most student affairs professionals know this. In

39OVERVIEW OF STUDENT AFFAIRS RESEARCH METHODS

fact, it is one’s listening skills and desire to work directly with students thatdraws persons into the student affairs profession. It only makes sense, there-fore, that student affairs professionals are increasingly drawn to qualitativemethods to augment that which can be learned from traditional quantita-tive methods.

Quantitative Methods

The prevalence of the use of quantitatively derived data and conclusions bystudent affairs practitioners and those who do research has largely shapedhow we understand how students learn and develop. The tenets of a quan-titative research paradigm, focusing on the objectivity of the researcher andthe ability to generalize results of smaller representative sets of data to thelarger population, has not received a great deal of challenge until recently.Although these practices continue to be the primary tools for much insti-tutional research, there is a growing wave of dissatisfaction with its beingthe paradigm of choice. A fuller critique of empirical methods and assump-tions is offered later in this chapter, after the methodologies and strengthsof both quantitative and qualitative paradigms are reviewed.

The Value of a Quantitative Research Paradigm. Those who doresearch within a quantitative framework recognize its many benefits as theyseek to provide educators with answers to important questions about stu-dents. Using quantitative research designs allows for simple descriptiveanalyses or more sophisticated prediction, significance testing, strength-of-relationship, and other complex types of analyses. In academic settings, theuse of quantitative research methods allow for comparison and replicationof studies with large groups of students. This is a cost-effective method forunderstanding and explaining behavior and student outcomes.

A number of designs may be employed by institutional researchers toinform practitioners about the students on their campuses. Most surveysare designed to describe or explore characteristics of a sample population.In student affairs contexts, survey research designs are often used to answerquestions that pertain to student characteristics, such as demographic data,and are useful when studying large populations. The information obtainedis self-reported by the respondents and is collected once or over time. Aswith any type of research focusing on human subjects, the data gathereddepends on the respondents’ willingness to provide accurate information.

Longitudinal studies, in which the researcher collects data over timefrom the same population, is another design often employed in institutionalresearch. This design may be employed to study a group of students, begin-ning their first year in college and then in subsequent years, to ascertain thelevel of aggregate change within a group as opposed to how different groupsmay vary at the same point. This is one type of design that can be used todraw conclusions, to find relationships between variables, and to measurechange over time.


Strengths of Quantitative Research. The strength of quantitativemethods is their capacity to assess the statistical significance of relationshipsbetween variables, their high degree of statistical validity and reliability, andtheir suitability for examining or assessing individuals in the context of the-ory based on large numbers of observations. The use of quantitative meth-ods is appropriate when testing hypotheses that seek to explain or predictevents and when seeking to answer questions about how much or how oftena phenomenon occurs. Results garnered from studies in education usingquantitative methods have given us the ability to design environments thatwe predict will deliver the type of results that we, as educators, seek for ourstudents and institutions.

Much of what guides our ability to design and support learning is itselfguided by our ability to assess students’ interests and abilities. What we cur-rently know about students is gathered through studies undertaken with thepurpose of informing educators about student expectations, attitudes, andaptitude for pursuing studies in college. These large-scale studies inform usin ways that would be difficult to replicate on an individual basis. Consid-erable trust is placed in numbers, although what is often lost is that thesenumbers reflect concepts, categories, or characteristics that are assigned.Although it may appear reductionistic, when used as tools to guide educa-tors to shape programs and curriculum, the results from these studies offerfaculty, administrators, and staff a snapshot of the larger landscape of stu-dents. However, one must be cautioned against using these data as the solebasis for planning programs without considering whether they carry withthem a similar degree of statistical validity and reliability so that segmentsof the population that may not reflect the larger population are not dis-parately impacted. Using instruments with strong reliability and validity butthat were validated on populations other than those being examined in agiven study may not yield accurate results on which to base programs ormanagement decisions. Many instruments that have been used for years donot reflect the ethnic, gender, and age diversity that exists on campusestoday. The tenets of this paradigm require that the information can be gen-eralized to the population for which it is being considered.

The use of traditional quantitative research methods has assisted edu-cators in establishing standards that are useful for placing students incourses that require foundation skills, such as English composition andmathematics. Research that provides threshold scores for placement pur-poses helps place students into courses for which they are prepared. Whenused with other criteria, such as grades and other measures, these standardsprovide faculty with useful information about how to structure curriculumand meet individual student needs. These criteria should be adjusted whengroups of students appear to be disproportionately affected by the outcomes.Using quantitative methods to identify groups of students who appear to falloutside the “normal” bounds of performance or behavior can minimize thedamage done when standards and norms are assumed to be universal. Have


the norm groups for writing composition and math placement testsincluded women and nonwhite populations? Are these groups dispropor-tionately placed into remedial or developmental courses?

Quantitative research can be a useful tool for informing institutionsabout the changing nature of students. There is an advantage to using num-bers and, as an extension, mathematics and statistics, as they hold the keysto examining very complex relationships. The use of mathematics and sta-tistics allows us to investigate the relationship between what is presumedto occur (hypothesis) to what actually occurs. Research that informs us thateducational practices yield distinctive results for subgroups of students whodiffer by certain factors can help us to shape educational environments thatwork to the benefit of these subgroups. In this way, research works in theinterest of all of the constituents and, as Darder (1994, p. 33) points out,facilitates a “production of knowledge that is committed to the creation ofinstitutional conditions where people find their voices and their rightfulplaces as full and equal participants.”

Qualitative Methods

Guba and Lincoln (1994) have identified three theoretical orientationswithin the qualitative research paradigm: postpositivism, critical theory, andconstructivism. Postpositivism is, in effect, the critique of the positivist beliefthat research can capture truth. Postpositivism utilizes qualitative researchtechniques to come as close as one can to the truth, yet the idea that onecan capture it is rejected. The researcher collects data from the respondents(a one-way relationship) in as objective a manner as possible in natural set-tings in an attempt to approach the truth. Critical theory situates researchwithin a social context, examining both the realities of the researcher andthe researched. Critical theory calls for a two-way relationship between theinvestigator and the subjects of inquiry and focuses its examination onexperiences of oppression. Constructivism is characterized by a belief in mul-tiple realities. Within the constructivist orientation, the purpose of researchis to uncover as many layers as one can about a particular phenomenonthrough an interchange between the researcher and respondents. The natureand content of this interchange becomes some portion of the substance ofone’s understanding of the phenomenon itself. The final product of such astudy is a more refined understanding (or construction) of a particulartopic, yet it claims to be only a partial truth.

Patton (1990, p. 88) breaks qualitative inquiry down further into tentheoretical traditions. Although we will not discuss these traditions here atany length, it may be helpful to know that each of these terms has someplace in the qualitative family of theories or research orientations:

1. Ethnography2. Phenomenology


3. Heuristics4. Ethnomethodology5. Symbolic interactionism6. Ecological psychology7. Systems theory8. Chaos theory: nonlinear dynamics9. Hermeneutics

10. Orientational

There are at least as many qualitative methodologies as there are theo-retical orientations. The data that are utilized, or the substance of a qualita-tive study, are usually from one of the following four broad sources: theresearcher’s participant observation in a defined population, group, or cul-ture; interviews (of individuals or groups); written documents (of any typefrom graffiti to historical records); and the actual text or written analysis ofthe researcher.

Unlike quantitative studies, which have a results section reporting out-comes, many qualitative theoretical traditions consider the written analysisof a given topic produced by the researcher to be an actual component ofthe research itself. The process of analyzing and writing about a topic is an inherent part of the methodology. The researcher’s own stance is inter-woven into how he or she reports what has been learned as a result of con-ducting the study. The degree to which the researcher reveals his or her ownstandpoint in relation to a topic depends on his or her theoretical orienta-tion. The more constructivist the approach, the more attention will be paidto the relationship between the researcher, the topic, and the participants inthe study.

Interviews are a popular methodological tool employed by researchersinterested in the phenomenon of college student life and learning. Indi-vidual interviews allow researchers to bring forward unique cases and mul-tiple perspectives, which often remain invisible to the quantitativeresearcher. One of the more efficient and practical forms of interviewing isthe focus group, which is generally considered to be a “group of 8 to 12individuals who discuss a particular topic under the direction of a moder-ator who promotes interaction and assures that the discussion remains on the topic of interest” (Shamdasani and Stewart, 1990, p. 10). A looselystructured focus group may be desirable if the purpose is to find out, ingeneral, what concerns a particular group of people. Researchers who havea more focused purpose—to evaluate a particular program or intervention,for example—carefully design questions to help them obtain the desiredinformation. Focus groups have both formative and summative uses. Theresults can be used to inform the development of a new policy or programor as a post hoc evaluation tool. “Although focus groups generally provideindirect rather than direct information about learning, they often allow real


insight into the strengths and weaknesses of educational programs” (Bantaand Palomba, 1999, p. 198).

Focus groups and individual interviews are two examples of qualitativemethodologies that can be utilized by researchers and practitioners alikewho have a problem to solve or program to evaluate. This, then, is one ofthe strengths of qualitative methodologies. Almost anyone who has an inter-est and desire to learn more about a particular phenomenon “can conductopen-ended interviews or make observations without reading treatises onphenomenology. The methods of qualitative inquiry now stand on their ownas reasonable ways to find out what is happening in programs and otherhuman settings” (Patton, 1990, p. 90). Most qualitative methodologies areaccessible and intuitively learned. Although it is important to have sometraining and guidance before embarking on a qualitative research project,one need not be an expert researcher to gather important perspectives onthe value of a variety of student affairs programs by talking with studentsin an open-minded and inquisitive manner.

Another major strength of qualitative methodologies is their capacityto assist us as we grapple with the why questions along with the what ques-tions. Although quantitative data provide a broad brushstroke of informa-tion about student trends, qualitative methodologies are helpful when onewishes to probe more deeply. It is imperative that qualitative methodologiesbe employed if we are to understand the complexities of our students’ iden-tities and the multiple views of reality that they hold. It is no longer accept-able to compile the results of a randomly distributed survey and assume thatthe aggregate data tell us all we need to know about how students experi-ence college. The majority voice is what the data will most likely convey.Unique and varied stories can best be heard through qualitative methods.

A Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Methodsand Assumptions

Most graduate students who go on to careers in education are grounded intechniques of quantitative research and, by virtue of this experience, equateresearch with quantitative methods. The ability to do quantitative researchlargely continues to define who is a legitimate researcher. The adherence ofthose in education to the quantitative research tradition is, according to Carr(1995, p. 126), grounded in a “congruence with our present understandingof ourselves and our particular historical situation and our realization that,given the educational traditions through which our dominant educationaldiscourse and practices have been constructed, the values (of traditionaleducational inquiry) remain the most reasonable and appropriate values toadopt.”

Historically, the practice of research in higher education drew from thesocial sciences. The social sciences, themselves, are often considered to be


“soft” in comparison to the “harder” sciences (physics, chemistry, and biol-ogy). One of the assumptions underlying all of the sciences (hard and soft)is that the ability to quantify data that lead to generalized propositionswithin any given field is evidence of the scientific maturity of that field. Fur-thermore, the core belief system within academe has perpetuated the ideathat quantitative data are of higher quality and that the knowledge producedfrom quantitative research is more valid (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).

The core assumption of the scientific paradigm, that there is someabsolute truth out there that can be quantified and packaged into deter-ministic theories, has largely been debunked as myth. The belief that allknowledge is context bound has gained wider acceptance by many in aca-deme. All research is acknowledged to be laden with values. The researcher’sinfluence on the topic of study and interactive effects on his or her subjectscannot be ignored. Claims of objectivity once assumed are now suspect.

The prevalence of the quantitative paradigm reflects the predominanceof Western scientific thought and the pre-eminence of the scientific methodof knowledge production. That these traditions have privileged some anddisenfranchised others is the subject of much of the critique of the quanti-tative paradigm. This approach to research has to be questioned in light ofthe diversity of college students in our midst. Quantitative research has util-ity and value because it empowers educators to plan and construct educa-tional environments. Yet the power to construct provides a sense of masteryand control, which can be (and has been) used to exclude students who arenot in the mainstream or who do not represent the status quo.

The traditions of the dominant paradigm marginalize and perpetuateinstitutional values and practices that sustain systems of racism, sexism,classism, and homophobia (Darder, 1994). That researchers come toresearch free of the influences of their backgrounds, values, and worldviewsassumes that research can be undertaken without a predominant lens withwhich to design and interpret results. Kincheloe (1995, p. 75) points outthat “what we ‘see’ as researchers is shaped by particular world views, val-ues, political perspectives, conceptions about race, class, and gender rela-tions, definitions of intelligence, and so on.”

Many colleges use quantitative methods when making diagnostic andplacement decisions as well as in admissions in the prediction of future per-formance. Although on the surface this methodology seems benign, suchtests may have a bias toward certain groups of students. We need to exam-ine, therefore, whether these instruments are biased against students whohave experienced different educational or other conditions that would affectthe outcomes. If differences exist, the test may not be appropriate for all stu-dents.

Quantitative research tends to collapse groups into socially constructedcategories that do not accurately reflect or represent the complex nature ofstudents, individually or collectively. Through the use of these social con-structions, the prevailing norm that considers European Americans as the


prototype or standard by which all others are measured is perpetuated. Thisapproach to research has been labeled as the “central tendency” approach(Jones, 1991) and stands on three premises: first, that value based on soci-etal norms can be assigned to aspects of human character and ability; sec-ond, that the standing of each person can be determined based ondimensions of character and ability; third, that the worth or merit of a per-son can be judged on the basis of the value so assigned, which becomes thebasis for the allocation of rewards. As Darder (1994, p. 24) notes, the ques-tion that must be addressed is, How can this mode of inquiry be practicedin a way that does not continue to “include a tendency towards reduction-ism, an overemphasis on the search for universals and homogeneity, andethnocentric bias”?

Although we have presented the limitations and historical misuse ofquantitative research methodologies, we do not advocate that all researchbe qualitative. Qualitative methods also have their limitations, in particu-lar, the amount of time required to gather and analyze data. A very largenumber of interviews need to be conducted before one can claim to makeany sort of generalization about a given population. If the purpose of one’sresearch is to provide practitioners with summary information about stu-dent trends, quantitative methods are generally more efficient.

Another weakness of qualitative methods is their vulnerability tosources of both external and internal validity (Borg and Gall, 1989). Mostqualitative studies are not easily replicated. Although it is possible to studylong-term trends utilizing a series of interviews over a long period of time,it is much easier to compare quantitative data obtained from a survey thatis administered annually to students. Should responsibility for a long-termresearch project change hands in midcourse, it would be much more diffi-cult to sustain the continuity and consistency of a qualitative study’s inter-view protocol and interpretive methods. The qualitative study is, therefore,more likely than a quantitative study to experience threats to its reliability.

Crossing the Great Divide: Complementary Approaches to Research

We would argue that the two research approaches can and should be usedcomplementarily, especially when addressing questions of student learningand development. Although some researchers work strictly within one par-adigm and method, we believe that the most effective use of any researchmethod is to determine first what you are seeking to know and understand.For example, a research question may be best answered through the admin-istration of a survey, by conducting a focus group, or by doing a combina-tion of each. Qualitative methods are particularly suitable for obtainingadditional information and a deeper understanding of the results of a quan-titative survey or for developing sufficient information about a topic toenable design of a good survey.


Many opportunities exist for collaborative and inclusive research mod-els. The student affairs culture typically supports working across bound-aries. Collaborative research can include adopting multimethod approacheswithin and across paradigms, using multiple techniques to gather and ana-lyze data, and involving the participants in the research in the design andinterpretation of data. Collaborating in this way acknowledges the strengthsand limitations of each paradigm as it allows for a richer understanding ofthe issues and answers sought through the research project.

Some theoretical perspectives especially value multimethod approachesto research. For example, according to Santos De Barona and Dutton (1997),the feminist standpoint allows one to look underneath the surface and iden-tify differences not as deficiencies or indications of pathology but as reflec-tions of the uniqueness of diverse groups. Further, a feminist approach toresearch seeks to “incorporate diverse methods that derive knowledge frommultiple sources through varying methods of inquiry” (p. 41).

The challenge to institutional researchers as well as practitioners is tokeep current in a field that is changing rapidly because of advances in com-puter technology and principles of measurement and analysis. As institu-tions continue to develop as complex, multidimensional, and multifacetedsystems, we will continue to look for equitable and just ways to assist ourstudents’ learning and development. From a quantitative perspective, wemust question the use of measurement and carefully consider what isdeemed meaningful in this process. Accompanying this challenge is the oneof expanding the notion of what is valued as research and dismantling thehierarchy that places one paradigm over another.

On the other hand, to argue that the tools of qualitative research (dis-course, narrative and verbal interpretation) are superior to traditional quan-titative methods has dangers inherent in it as well. The values of aqualitative researcher can include biases and can prove difficult to translateinto practice. That we all speak and interpret in ways that are grounded inour unique worldviews and experiences is important to acknowledge as weseek to understand how to effectively design educational curriculum andprograms.

Summary

In summary, when choosing an appropriate research methodology, severalfundamental sets of questions must be asked, the most important of whichis, What is the research question? What do you want to know? If you areembarking on a project to assess student learning as a result of a variety ofcurricular and cocurricular interventions, you will probably want to employa variety of methods. Student learning has both cognitive and affective com-ponents. Students themselves are multidimensional beings with varyingidentities that include their gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic back-


ground, race, ethnicity, physical abilities, religion, and so on. There is prob-ably not one methodology that can capture such complex phenomena.

Another fundamental question, then, is this: What is the population youwish to examine? Are you gathering data about students in general, or is therea specific target group upon which your research project is focused? If the lat-ter, how much do you already know about this particular population? Qual-itative methodologies may be especially useful if you are looking at a targetgroup to which past institutional research efforts have paid little attention.

Finally, who will be conducting the research, what are their beliefs andvalues, and what resources are at their disposal? Does your institutionalresearch office employ individuals with a great deal of training in both quan-titative and qualitative methods, or has it focused on more traditionalquantitative methods? If the latter, new frameworks for understanding stu-dents must be taken into consideration. Quantitative data and analyses placeconsiderable trust in numbers that are intended to represent opinions orconcepts. These numbers are only as good as our ability to define a charac-teristic or relationship accurately. Does your university have personnel withsome expertise in qualitative methods who can help guide your efforts? Astudent affairs practitioner, with some guidance from an expert in qualita-tive methods, may be perfectly suited to conduct a series of focus groups orindividual interviews.

Banta and Palomba (1999) have identified timeliness and cost as twoother factors for consideration in selecting appropriate methods andapproaches. How much time will be required of the personnel charged withconducting a particular research project? Are the expected outcomes andimprovements to programming and decision making worth the cost? Quan-titative methods certainly represent the most efficient and easiest approachto doing institutional research. Yet how will the researcher access students,and will the methods employed be considered valuable from the students’perspective, thereby “eliciting their cooperation” (Banta and Palomba, 1999,p. 92)? And finally, to whom will the results of the research be reported?

These three sets of questions (What is the research question? Whatpopulation is being studied? Who will be conducting the research?) are thebuilding blocks upon which methodological decisions should be made.Chapters Four, Five, and Six of this volume provide more detailed pointsfor consideration about the process and practice of student affairs researchin collaboration with institutional research offices. The challenge of assess-ing student learning looms large for everyone engaged in higher educationwork. Informed practice must include a basic understanding of the theo-retical traditions, strengths, and limitations of both quantitative and quali-tative methodologies as presented in this chapter. The inclusion ofqualitative methodologies is imperative as they are “based on the assump-tion that there are multiple views of reality requiring educators to examinediverse opinions and perspectives” (Banta and Palomba, 1999, p. 207).


References

Banta, T. W., and Palomba, C. A. Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, andImproving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1999.

Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D. Educational Research: An Introduction. (5th ed.) WhitePlains, N.Y.: Longman, 1989.

Carr, W. For Education: Towards Critical Educational Inquiry. Philadelphia: Open Uni-versity Press, 1995.

Darder, A. “Institutional Research as a Tool for Cultural Democracy.” In D. Smith, L. E.Wolfe, and T. Levian (eds.), Studying Diversity in Higher Education, New Directionsfor Institutional Research, no. 81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.

Jones, J. “Piercing the Veil: Bi-Cultural Strategies for Coping with Prejudice and Racism.”In H. J. Knopke, R. J. Norrell, and R. W. Rogers (eds.), Opening Doors: Perspectives onRace Relations in Contemporary America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,1991.

Kincheloe, J. “Meet Me Behind the Curtain: The Struggle for a Critical PostmodernAction Research.” In P. L. McLaren and J. Giarelli (eds.), Critical Theory and Educa-tional Research. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.

Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. (2nd ed.) Newbury Park,Calif.: Sage, 1990.

Santos De Barona, M., and Dutton, M. M. “Feminist Perspectives on Assessment.” InSantos De Barona, M., and Dutton, M. M. (eds.), Shaping the Future of Feminist Psy-chology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1997.

Shamdasani, P. N., and Stewart, D. W. “Focus Groups: Theory and Practice.” AppliedSocial Research Methods Series, vol. 20. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990.

EMILY J. PERL is director of student activities and new student programs atGoucher College.

DENISE F. NOLDON is dean of counseling services at Chabot College.

Documents

Overview of Student Affairs Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative