Conjectures and Refutations
Identifieur interne : 001A66 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001A65; suivant : 001A67Conjectures and Refutations
Auteurs : Jane F. GilgunSource :
- Qualitative Social Work [ 1473-3250 ] ; 2002-09.
Abstract
In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/147332500200100309
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Conjectures and Refutations</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Gilgun, Jane F" sort="Gilgun, Jane F" uniqKey="Gilgun J" first="Jane F." last="Gilgun">Jane F. Gilgun</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Minnesota, USA,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: jgilgun@umn.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/147332500200100309</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001A66</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001A66</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Conjectures and Refutations</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Gilgun, Jane F" sort="Gilgun, Jane F" uniqKey="Gilgun J" first="Jane F." last="Gilgun">Jane F. Gilgun</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Minnesota, USA,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: jgilgun@umn.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Qualitative Social Work</title><idno type="ISSN">1473-3250</idno><idno type="eISSN">1741-3117</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-09">2002-09</date><biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="359">359</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="375">375</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1473-3250</idno></series><idno type="istex">3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/147332500200100309</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_147332500200100309</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1473-3250</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Jane F. Gilgun</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Minnesota, USA,</json:string><json:string>E-mail: jgilgun@umn.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>analytic induction</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>discourse and power</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>governmental funding</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>proposal writing</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>qualitative research</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_147332500200100309</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>other</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.448</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>441.228 x 662.283 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1362</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6624</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>39865</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>17</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>204</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Conjectures and Refutations</title><genre><json:string>other</json:string></genre><host><volume>1</volume><publisherId><json:string>QSW</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>375</last><first>359</first></pages><issn><json:string>1473-3250</json:string></issn><issue>3</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1741-3117</json:string></eissn><title>Qualitative Social Work</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>social work</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/147332500200100309</json:string></doi><id>3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Conjectures and Refutations</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Governmental Funding and Qualitative Research</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>2002</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Conjectures and Refutations</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Governmental Funding and Qualitative Research</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Jane F.</forename><surname>Gilgun</surname></persName><email>jgilgun@umn.edu</email><affiliation>University of Minnesota, USA,</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Qualitative Social Work</title><idno type="pISSN">1473-3250</idno><idno type="eISSN">1741-3117</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-09"></date><biblScope unit="volume">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="359">359</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="375">375</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/147332500200100309</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_147332500200100309</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2002</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>analytic induction</term></item><item><term>discourse and power</term></item><item><term>governmental funding</term></item><item><term>proposal writing</term></item><item><term>qualitative research</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2002-09">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="other" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spqsw</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">QSW</journal-id><journal-title>Qualitative Social Work</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">1473-3250</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/147332500200100309</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_147332500200100309</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Conjectures and Refutations</article-title><subtitle>Governmental Funding and Qualitative Research</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun</surname><given-names>Jane F.</given-names></name><aff>University of Minnesota, USA, <email xlink:type="simple">jgilgun@umn.edu</email></aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>09</month><year>2002</year></pub-date><volume>1</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>359</fpage><lpage>375</lpage><abstract><p>In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>analytic induction</kwd><kwd>discourse and power</kwd><kwd>governmental funding</kwd><kwd>proposal writing</kwd><kwd>qualitative research</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Other</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value> Qualitative Social Work Vol. 1(3): 359-375 Copyright 2002 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi 1473-3250[200209]1:3;359-375;026646 Conjectures and Refutations Governmental Funding and Qualitative Research Jane F. Gilgun University of Minnesota, USA ABSTRACT In this article, I review 'Qualitative Methods in Health Research', a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit pro- posals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund quali- tative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and con- structive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally. KEY WORDS: analytic induction discourse and power governmental funding proposal writing qualitative research COMMENTARY 359 The document,'Qualitative Methods in Health Research',1 gives good advice on how to craft proposals that fit the requirements of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Written by 12 qualitative researchers who have obtained NIH funding and/or served as NIH proposal reviewers, the NIH document elaborates upon instructions in the Public Health Service grant application (PHS 398)2 that is used for proposals submitted to NIH for funding. NIH rarely funds qualitative research. The authors and sponsors of 'Qualitative Methods in Health Research' want to foster the writing of fundable proposals based on qualitative approaches. In this article, I briefly present what the NIH document on qualitative research says about proposal writing and then offer additional ways that quali- tative researchers might shape their proposals to fit federal requirements. I suggest the use of sensitizing concepts (Blumer, 1986) and the procedures of analytic induction (Gilgun, 2001a, 2001b; Znaniecki, 1934). I follow Strauss (1987) who said qualitative researchers should not submit proposals unless they have done preliminary research. When I tried to find ways around issues embedded in the NIH discourse, however, I was stymied. By discourse I mean language and the implications of language, such the power to define and enforce particular constructions of reality. I realized that NIH has both the power to define what counts as good science and the power to control highly sought resources. I consequently began reflecting upon the implications of language. The language and thinking in the NIH document that the qualitative researchers wrote is similar to the language and thinking of PHS 398 and thus did not challenge fundamental NIH assump- tions about how to write research proposals. By implication, they also did not challenge the definition of science embedded in the distanced, 'objective' language of PHS 398. Where, I wondered, is recognition of the subjectivist, feminist, emancipatory, interpretivist, phenomenological, and constructivist perspectives characteristic of many types of qualitative research? In short,I found the language of both documents to be characteristic of research that many call positivistic. I refer persons who want more detail about this type of language to the documents themselves. Wanting to provide additional perspectives on the NIH document, I also include responses to the NIH document from participants in a qualitative methods interest group that I attend. This group is composed primarily of younger scholars who for the most part do not have experiences as I do with the challenges of finding funding for projects based on qualitative proposals. They too noted the similarity of the language of PHS 398 and the NIH document authored by qualitative researchers and in fact alerted me to this. In addition, they saw the NIH document as a bridge, a sign that things are opening up, although one young researcher wondered what qualitative researchers have to give up in order to obtain federal funding and another noted that bridges go both ways. 360 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) I do not know whether qualitative researchers in other countries have difficulties obtaining governmental funding, but I am assuming that many do. The present article raises questions about definitions of science that have con- sequences for the funding of proposals based on qualitative approaches. A dialogue on these matters that is international in scope may lead to increased funding opportunities in countries where funding for qualitative research is difficult to obtain. I note that PHS 398 and the NIH document do not state explicitly that there is only one path to obtaining NIH funding. However, the tenets of dis- course analysis suggest that those who have power to allocate resources often are not explicit in what they expect; their expectations are embedded in their discourse, that is, in their language and in how they say things. The language of both documents is a clear yet implicit directive for qualitative researchers to write their proposals in the language in which the two documents are written. Ironically, NIH appears to be unaware of a defining characteristic of science, namely, that science proceeds by conjectures and refutations; that is, when scientists think they have some understanding of phenomena, they or others sooner or later find evidence that undermines their assumptions and thus force modifications. This is Popper's (1969) conclusion about the nature of science, a perspective based upon his interpretations of centuries of practice and thought, including Einstein's. An example of conjectures and refutations is the centuries-held idea that the sun revolves around the earth (conjecture).We have known for a few centuries that the converse appears to be the case (refutation). Another is a now hopefully discarded practice of US social workers looking under beds of public assistance clients to see if men were hiding there (con- jecture). Civil rights lawyers challenged this practice and its underlying assump- tions (refutation). Qualitative researchers potentially can offer alternative perspectives on science; that is, we can offer refutations to NIH assumptions (e.g. conjectures) about what constitutes science. In this way, NIH will develop broader, more inclusive understandings of qualities associated with scientific research, and a variety of qualitative approaches will be welcomed into the fold of what governmental agencies consider fundable. Though the NIH document authored by qualitative researchers could be a bridge, I join my younger colleague and point out that bridges go both ways. In short, I want the NIH funders to open the doors for many types of qualitative research and to make that invitation explicit. I assume that the authors of the NIH document would have preferred this, too, but thought that what they wrote was a good start, which I think it is. I wish more were possible now. Finally, I conclude this article with a commentary on what I wanted the NIH document to say that is, I wanted the document to state explicitly that NIH welcomes proposals that are based upon a wide ranges of ontological, Gilgun Governmental Funding s 361 epistemological, and methodological principles. My wish was based on my observation that methodological pluralism is the hallmark of qualitative approaches, but such pluralism is not in evidence in what NIH is looking for. Such pluralism could or could not be present in the policies and practices of governmental agencies internationally. The present article raises these issues. If my conjectures do not conform to experience, then I will be thrilled to be refuted. In fact, legions of qualitative researchers will be. A refutation of my position would mean that proposals based on many different types of qualitative approaches would be funded. SOME BACKGROUND NIH itself is composed of many sections,such as the National Institute of Mental Health, the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. These three agencies supported a 1999 workshop in which the 12 authors of 'Qualitative Methods in Health Research' participated. The document is based on both discussions and written comments of these participants. In this article, I refer to 'Qualitative Methods in Health Research' as the NIH document, while recognizing that the NIH office that took the lead is the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. When US social worker researchers receive federal funding, it is usually from one of the offices of NIH. The feds rarely fund qualitatively-based pro- posals (Gilgun and Abrams, 2002). Thus, researchers whose perspectives lead them to qualitative approaches would welcome advice on how to persuade the feds to fund their projects. ('Feds' is affectionate shorthand term for various federal government officials in the USA.) PHS 398 PHS 398 provides detailed, careful instructions on every aspect of writing pro- posals, including how to fill in the face sheet and what must be in biographi- cal statements. In addition, PHS 398 requires that applicants address a list of topics in a specified order, including Research Plan, Human Subjects, and Budget. The NIH document that the 12 qualitative researchers wrote concen- trates on four subsections of the Research Plan: (a) Specific Aims, (b) Back- ground and Significance, (c) Preliminary Studies/Progress Report, and (d) Research Design and Methods. This is the heart of the proposal itself. The rest of the instructions in PHS 398 are relevant to the mechanics of applications and not on what to put into the research plan itself. NIH Grants as Long in Coming, Generous, and Prestigious As is well known, NIH rarely if ever funds proposals the first time researchers submit to them (Gordon, 1995). New researchers take considerable time to understand how to respond to the detailed PHS 398 instructions and often 362 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) apprentice themselves to experienced federal grantees in order to learn how to write fundable proposals. Both new and experienced researchers may work with federal program officers those who jobs it is to solicit and facilitate submis- sions of proposals for years and have their proposals rejected several times before they are accepted. The prestige attached to NIH funding is a huge boost to academic careers, and the generous funding permits researchers to do long- term work. With so much at stake, researchers follow requirements assiduously, and NIH personnel feel a grave responsibility to be as clear as possible about what they expect. Hence, PHS 398 is long and detailed 118 pages. PHS 398 states that researchers should set aside a minimum of 40 hours to complete the application for funding. I do not know what the requirements are for governmental funding in other countries, but I assume that governmental funding is important for career advancement as well as for the opportunities that funding provides. THE NIH DOCUMENT The NIH document is 15 pages long, and like PHS 398, its language is clear and subdued. I imagine the authors had a lot more to say and would have preferred livelier language. They may have wanted to keep the document brief and decided that for now their language has to reflect what is usual in PHS 398 applications for funding.They organized their report using the required categories for proposal writing from PHS 398: that is, Specific Aims, Background and Significance, Preliminary Studies/Progress Reports, and Research Design and Methods. The following is a description of the advice that the qualitative researchers gave in the NIH document and my commentaries on the advice. Specific Aims PHS 398 specifies that researchers introduce their research questions, hypoth- eses, and theoretical frameworks in the 'Specific Aims' section of their appli- cations. The authors of the NIH document show ways that qualitative researchers can respond. They note that qualitative researchers must strike a balance between what NIH requires and the goals and expectations of most qualitative research that new and unanticipated findings will emerge during the course of research. According to the NIH document, a few focused, feasible aims will satisfy PHS 398 requirements. In addition, strong applications have a concise,clear narrative timetable of how and when the goals can be met through qualitative approaches. Commentary PHS 398 requirements and the advice of qualitative researchers contained in the NIH document provoke questions as to whether many forms of qualitative Gilgun Governmental Funding s 363 research will ever have access to generous and prestigious NIH funding. For example, the first time I saw the term 'specific aims', I did not know what it meant. I had never seen the term before. When I tried to formulate my inter- ests gender role socialization and the perpetration of child sexual abuse into specific goals, I was stuck for a long time. I was using phenomenological approaches and could not craft the perspectives and the language I used into the more positivistic language that was required. I had broad aims, such as 'to understand child sexual abuse from the points of view of perpetrators,' while proposals that NIH funds have aims that are testable (by statistical methods) hypotheses. To begin a study with clearly specified, testable hypotheses and theories is an approach some qualitative researchers find alien. Many may think, if we do that, we will abandon our constructivist, interpretivist, and postmodern per- spectives. We do not want to impose frameworks on research participants. We want our informants to tell us what is important to them. In addition, much of social work research is emancipatory; that is, it seeks to identify power struc- tures, undermine abuses of power, and bring about social justice. These per- spectives appear to be a difficult fit with federal requirements. Since I first confronted the writing of my own 'Specific Aims', I have done a great deal of reading, writing, and researching using analytic induction. I am now thinking that analytic induction offers a way to respond to federal expectations regarding clearly focused aims, while maintaining the spirit of qualitative approaches. Analytic induction is a set of research procedures that begin with hypotheses, often derived from hunches, personal and professional experience, and research and theory, or a combination (Cressey, 1953; Gilgun, 1995, 2001a,b; Lindesmith, 1947; Znaniecki, 1934). For the purposes of writing a proposal for federal consideration, researchers could construct hypotheses crafted so that they comprise a conceptual model and are clearly connected to the literature. Many researchers are working with conceptual models and the procedures of analytic induction can be used to test them and elaborate on them. Such an approach does what the authors of the NIH document suggest; that is, state that the methods they use will add to knowledge of under- researched and poorly understood areas. In addition, it is noteworthy that Gordon (1995) stated that NIMH, a branch of NIH that funds most social work research, views model elaboration as the most desirable of proposals. Analytic induction can be used to construct such models. Analytic induction helps to test and develop new hypotheses and con- ceptual models through negative case analysis and falsification, procedures that direct researchers to seek cases that are different enough from the cases they have already studied to have the potential to bring in new possibilities and thus to falsify, or refute, emerging constructions of findings. This, in turn, leads to the reformulation and modifications of findings. These procedures are similar 364 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) to Popper's (1969) ideas of conjectures and refutations, as discussed earlier. Con- sistent with Popper's critique of induction, analytic induction does not begin as 'pure' induction, but as deduction because it begins with hypotheses. Analytic induction has as its main purpose the refutation (e.g. modification) of the original hypotheses and to foster the construction of hypotheses that are respon- sive to new possibilities. Analytic induction is malleable in that its procedures can be adapted to a range of research designs and perspectives, such as ethnographies, narrative analysis, life histories, interpretive phenomenology, and post-structural and post- modern thinking. Finally, not all studies based upon analytic induction have to begin with clear,delimited hypotheses linked to a well-crafted conceptual frame- work, but without such hypotheses, these proposals are unlikely to receive NIH funding. Analytic induction is not well known among qualitative researchers. When I presented a conference paper showing its potential for theory and model development (Gilgun, 2001a), several qualitative researchers from three different countries (Australia, Canada, and the USA) expressed grave doubts about its relevance they saw the procedures as positivistic. My response was that analytic induction was developed when positivism was the dominant dis- course in social research, and thus analytic induction is associated with posi- tivism. I noted that some research questions do call for qualitative approaches that are positivistic, although the procedures themselves can be used with a range of perspectives. Though associated with positivism, the procedures of analytic induction are adaptable. Most other researchers qualitative and other- wise at the aforementioned conference did see possibilities for analytic induc- tion as a set of model- and theory-building and theory testing procedures. Background and Significance Within the section called Background and Significance, PHS 398 requires a critical evaluation of existing relevant literature and the identification of know- ledge gaps that the proposed research is intended to fill. The authors of the NIH document suggest that researchers highlight what qualitative methods have contributed to the proposed area of study. They also advise researchers to pay particular attention to documenting how qualitative approaches are well suited for knowledge development in previously unexamined or under-researched areas. Such advice pushes researchers to articulate what qualitative methods can contribute to human knowledge. Clear definitions of terms and focused, well put-together, literature reviews characterize fundable NIH proposals. Commentary Though this advice may be helpful to some qualitative researchers,it may trouble others, such as those who believe that an a priori literature review makes no Gilgun Governmental Funding s 365 sense because only when they begin to see how things work in their research contexts will they be positioned to make wise choices about what to read. The resulting literature review then will be connected to findings, will help expand findings, and may even give new directions to the inquiry (Gilgun, 2001a,b). A literature review before data collection and analysis, however preliminary, may have little connection to what researchers find in the field. While holding off on reviews of the literature may be usual in the practice of qualitative research, prior literature reviews are required for federal funding. Thus, there are instrumental reasons for doing reviews. A more scholarly reason is to identify sensitizing concepts (Blumer,1986) that help give focus to research. (We cannot stay open-ended and unfocused for the entire study. Sooner or later, we do research on delimited areas, while remaining open to new understand- ings within these areas.) Sensitizing concepts often become core concepts that serve the important purpose of organizing findings (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The concept of resilience is an example in my research (cf. Gilgun, 1992, 1996a,b, 1999a,b,c; Gilgun et al., 1999; Gilgun et al., 2000). Unskilled researchers may unwittingly impose prior frameworks and concepts on data while overlooking data that may suggest alternative interpre- tations (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Skilled researchers, on the other hand, follow the ideas of conjectures and refutations, first constructing some viable descrip- tions of what they are finding and then purposefully seeking cases that show promise of giving rise to new possibilities that lead to the modification of these constructions. Preliminary Studies/Progress Report The authors of the NIH document point out that the preliminary studies section is where researchers have opportunities to show how their previous qualitative work has resulted in useful information and to demonstrate their mastery of concept development, data analysis, and data interpretation. Previous work in the area also demonstrates both the feasibility of the study and the promise of what can be accomplished though a more elaborate project. Besides demon- strating their abilities through the application itself, publications are another aspect of demonstrating ability. Commentary To my knowledge, no federal agency will fund proposals that do not have evidence of preliminary work, including publications in the proposed area of research. Preliminary work to me is a no-brainer (e.g. of obvious importance) for qualitative researchers who routinely do such studies to identify their focus, including sensitizing concepts. Preliminary studies often begin with no hypoth- eses to test, but simply a general area of interest, along the lines of how Strauss and colleagues (Glaser and Strauss,1967;Strauss,1987;Strauss and Corbin,1998) 366 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) suggest researchers begin their studies. Gatekeepers simply will not fund pro- posals that are 'pigs in pokes'; that is, vague in purposes, scope, methods, and perspectives. A focus is required. Preliminary work provides a focus not only for what researchers want to understand but also provides a focus for literature reviews that are relevant to the topic. Strauss (1987) was explicit about the necessity of doing preliminary work when writing proposals for funding. He wrote,'No proposal should be written without preliminary data collection and analysis' (Strauss, 1987: 286). He also recommended that researchers give examples of the codes they have constructed from such work. Codes usually are sensitizing concepts that over the course of the analysis may become core concepts. Other advice, such as clear definitions of terms and the avoidance of jargon, are consistent with the NIH document. Strauss said funders want to have as much clarity as possible about the pro- cedures to be followed and the competence of the researchers. Researchers who are early in their careers may not have publications relevant to the research area. They, therefore, will benefit by joining with researchers with a strong scholarly record. We oldies many of whom have heard these words from federal program officers: 'Don't submit a qualitative proposal' will benefit from the energy and enthusiasm of our younger col- leagues. Young scholars pairing with veterans is a time-honored practice. Research Design and Methods The authors of the NIH document begin their discussion of research design and methods with the general observation that applications that are funded show consistency and integration in how concepts are used throughout the research plan (design). Furthermore, fundable proposals connect elements of the plan to specific aims; e.g. the proposal has unity. Many concepts such as sampling, reliability, and validity can have different meanings in qualitative and quantita- tive contexts, or do not translate at all. When researchers use terms that are specific to qualitative research, clear definitions are essential, just as they are in every part of the proposal. The NIH document gives detailed advice on components of the methods and design section: introduction (overview), sampling plan, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation. They devote almost three pages to explaining how to write about approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Though they do not say so, at present and probably well into the future, qualitative approaches are much more likely to be funded if they are combined with surveys or some other quantifiable method. Commentary The care that the authors took writing this section attests to its importance. It is very well done as a guide to topics, tone, and language needed in order to Gilgun Governmental Funding s 367 write a methods section of a proposal that that has a chance of being funded. I am encouraged that the feds are interested in funding proposals that use combined approaches, but I believe that many projects based on qualitative methods can stand alone as is clear when researchers become familiar with what qualitative approaches produce, which is discussed later in this article. Once or twice the authors of the NIH document on writing qualitative proposals used a term that is familiar to qualitative researchers, such as satura- tion. In general, however, the NIH document does not use language that is in everyday use in many qualitative approaches. The apparent avoidance of words in common use in qualitative research suggests that qualitative researchers who write proposals for NIH funding might be wise to use the language and the assumptions embedded in language that is present in both the NIH document and PHS 398. I am reminded of linguistics, where there is standard English and then dialects. Whoever has the power to allocate resources also has the power to define what is standard. We qualitative researchers apparently speak a dialect that is unfamiliar to those who solicit and review proposals to be considered for NIH funding. If I am guessing right about the nature of the language many qualitative researchers use, then I am momentarily stymied as to how to respond. I can see my way around other requirements, such as clear conceptual frameworks, clear definitions of terms, and the testing of hypotheses. We can do that and still do the kinds of research that we know can make significant contributions. Let me see if I can work around the language dilemma. Certainly we qualitative researchers have to speak in plain language if we are to communi- cate with a wide audience, which most of us want. We therefore do want to avoid the cacophony of terms associated with contemporary qualitative research terms whose meanings may be contested, poorly defined, and overlapping while at the same time we want to communicate and work with the import- ant ideas that these terms convey. For example, sometimes we must use terms such as hermeneutics, phenomenology, verstehen, erlebnis, and sensitizing concepts, all unfamiliar to persons untrained in qualitative methods and even to some who are proficient in one or more kinds of qualitative work but not all. When we use unfamiliar terms, we have to state what we intend them to mean if we want to communicate our intentions, as the authors of the NIH document recommend for any term that might be unfamiliar to our audiences. On the other hand,I am not sure that we can adopt the tone and language that is in both PHS 398 and the NIH document. This could become a point of dialogue, both among qualitative researchers and between qualitative researchers and gatekeepers, such as funders, dissertation committee members, and human subjects committee. The discourse of NIH prides itself on adhering to the tenets of science. We qualitative researchers can argue Popper's (1969) point that science is characterized by conjectures and refutations. Qualitative 368 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) researchers can challenge strongly held assumptions about the nature of science and press for modifications of NIH assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. We can be the 'barbarians at the gates,' not to pillage and plunder, but to enrich the federal research agenda. Other Perspectives: The Document as a Beginning Members of a qualitative methods interest group that I attend at the depart- ment of family social science, University of Minnesota, USA, had some insights about the NIH document. The meeting took place in late January 2002. The members are graduate students, researchers, and faculty who do qualitative research. Most are just beginning their research careers. I organized their responses to the NIH document into four categories: (1) the language of the document as code, (2) the document as a bridge between quantitative and quali- tative research communities, (3) the thrust of the document as endangering essential qualities of qualitative research, and (4) sadness over the lack of recog- nition of the heritage of qualitative research. There was an overall sense that there is much more to qualitative research than is contained in the NIH document, but the document is a good beginning. I have their emailed and verbal permission to use their names and wanted to do so for a few reasons. One, I wanted to give them recognitions for their insights and, two, I wanted this article to be multivocal, that is, to have multiple points of view, an ideal in many forms of qualitative research. They shared their thoughts before I had written most of this article and in fact they helped me to see what I might not otherwise have seen. They stimulated my thinking about language and discourse, for example. The Language as Code and the Document as a Bridge Heather Haberman, a PhD student, thought the document was written in a code that quantitative researchers would understand. The authors did not seem to be speaking their natural language. Maybe they were doing this deliberately to form a bridge between qualitative and quantitative researchers, she thought. The document is the tip of the iceberg. How they wrote it may be a way of shifting people to be open to qualitative approaches. Their primary audience may well be quantitative researchers. She thought that proposals based on quali- tative methods will eventually be funded through the combined studies that the authors discuss in some detail. Susan Wolfgram, who is working on her PhD, said they were speaking in the other language,but we do need a starting point.This document is planting seeds for the future. The authors make strong points about the importance of understanding under-researched and hidden populations, which qualitative research can do well. Susan is concerned that quantitative people think the way qualitative researchers write is 'fluffy'. She wishes that more funding agencies Gilgun Governmental Funding s 369 could understand that we are in a multicultural society characterized by multiple perspectives. Surely our approaches to research can embrace this diversity in methods and language. She hopes that this document sparks the interest of quan- titative researchers. She also thought that the document was trying to blend two cultures, to bridge them. The document may open up dialogue. Dianne Bartels, a family researcher whose focus is bioethics and who has contributed to the writing of federally funded research proposals, pointed out that the language of the NIH document is the same as the language of PHS 398. To make a proposal work, researchers have to put whatever they want to say in just the right slots. If not, chances of being funded are small. We have to say things in ways that non-qualitative people can hear them. Christi McGeorge, a PhD candidate, also saw the document as a bridge. It could serve to welcome people in. The document then could be transitional, a step in the process of opening the circle. Endangering the Spirit of Qualitative Approaches Christi also thought that qualitative researchers might have to speak both lan- guages, which leads to a dilemma. How far do we have to go to justify why qualitative approaches are valuable? She likened the apparent requirement to write in a particular language and style to efforts at being politically correct, while at the same time qualitative research is about diversity, not only in per- spectives but also in the language we use. Carey Sherman, a PhD candidate, pointed out that we have to be careful to hold onto the core experience of doing qualitative research,the dynamic,creative piece,when we respond to NIH requirements. Some Sadness Christi said the document provoked sadness in her. After all these years of history, she asked, This is where we are? How is it that people are uaware of the rich heritage of qualitative research? Others too, such as Kristen Holm, a PhD student, and Cristiana Berthoud, a visiting scholar from Brazil, expressed concern about how little today's researchers know about the history of quali- tative research. Kristen pointed out that there is a depth to qualitative research that she wants to hold on to. Cristiana said she was surprised that funding of qualitative research is an issue in the USA, as it is in Brazil. She had thought we in the USA were further along than they are. Overall, this group of researchers was pleased with the document, saw it as a possible bridge,but were worried that we might have to give up something essential and were sad that we are not further along. A few days later, Carey Sherman and I exchanged emails in which she said,'The NIH document and the larger issue of trying to be"bilingual"in the languages of qualitative and quan- titative (positivistic) researchers are very tricky and really is like trying to be truly 370 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) fluent and truly oneself in different languages . . .What can be irksome is that we (qual) are expected to be fully bilingual' (February 2002). Later she said that she thinks a metaphor of the NIH document as bridge is probably adaptive but 'bridges are built to go both directions.' MY UNFETTERED THOUGHTS So far, I have responded to the NIH document in its own terms; that is, I rep- resented what the document contained and then commented on its content. I also shared thoughts that other scholars had on the document. Now I want to speak my mind on my own terms in my own words. When I heard about the document and downloaded it from the Internet, I thought the feds finally were showing some interest in receiving proposals based on qualitative approaches. I put copies in the mailboxes of qualitatively- oriented University colleagues, sent out a notice on a US qualitative social work research listserver, informed the editors of Qualitative Social Work about the document, passed out copies to students, and made the document required reading for a doctoral-level qualitative research seminar that I teach. Finally, I arranged a discussion in a qualitative methods interest group, a discussion on which I just reported. No document can live up to the expectations roused in me. Had the document said, go right ahead, propose research that is applied, emancipatory, ecological in scope,and phenomenological,I would have been satisfied. Encour- agement to be creative and imaginative and to use personal and professional experiences and values would have met my expectations. In addition, my expec- tations would have been met had the document said researchers have choices about, how we conceptualize the human condition and what human beings need to thrive (ontology, theory, theoretical frameworks, ideology); how we think about knowledge and its development (epistemology, questions of validity and trustworthiness, the place of meaning and perception in the develop- ment of knowledge); the principles we follow in the development of knowledge (methodology); and the activities we undertake as we do our research (methods). I would have been satisfied had the document encouraged researchers to think deeply about the ethical issues that are pervasive in all research and especially in qualitative research which emphasizes close contact between researchers and informants (Gilgun & Abrams, 2002). Such welcoming statements would represent a sea change, a second-order Gilgun Governmental Funding s 371 change, a jump from where almost all US federal funding agencies are today. My expectations were unrealistic. My intuition tells me that the researchers who participated in the workshop that produced the NIH document would have included such ideas had they thought such inclusion were feasible and productive. Instead, they appear to have followed the 'one step at a time' principle; that is, let us build on what presently is required and hope that over time incremental change will lead to major change. In the meantime, qualitative researchers might produce enough theories, models, and in-depth descriptions that the feds would see how generative qualitative approaches are. PROMISES OF THINGS TO COME: THE PAST IS PROLOGUE Now that I have taken time to reflect on my expectations and on what is possible, I am tentatively concluding that the NIH document and contemporary social work qualitative research represent promise of what is ahead. The promise is based primarily upon what qualitative researchers have accomplished in the past. Social work and allied disciplines have a heritage of generative qualitative research. Social workers and social reformists did some of the first and greatest pieces of qualitative research ever,combining participant observation,interviews, document analysis, and quantitative analysis to produce studies of European workers (LePlay, 1855), the London poor (Booth, 1891, 1903), the working classes in Pittsburgh (Kellogg, 1914a,b), and US unemployment in the first few decades of the 20th century (National Federation of Settlements, 1931), among many others. See Gilgun, 1999c for a detailed history. Concepts and theories that are foundational for such fields of interest as social support (Bott,1957),family therapy (Angell,1936;Kantor and Lehr,1957), psychosocial development (Erikson, 1950), and moral development (Gilligan, 1982) grew out of qualitative inquiry. Every-growing contemporary interest in qualitative approaches is another reason for optimism. Approaches to theory and model building, such as analytic induction, and procedures for developing typologies and descriptions, such as interpretive phenomenology (Benner, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1983; Van Manen, 1990), suggest a productive future. FINAL THOUGHTS At present, qualitative approaches are outliers that NIH ignores for the most part and enjoins to conform to a dominant perspective on what constitutes science, a perspective that appears resistant to refutations and modifications. Qualitative researchers are the best hope that those who define and control NIH resources will modify their definitions of science. In this way, NIH will enlarge the scope of what they consider fundable as scientific inquiry. Creative 372 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) and constructive dialogue may open what now appears to be a relatively closed NIH system. That a major federal funding agency sponsored the document raises hopes that things could be opening a bit for qualitative researchers. I hope that qualitative researchers continue to press the case that qualitative methods are incalculably valuable for the development of knowledge that can have major positive impacts on quality of life. I am confident that we qualitative researchers will keep at it and am hopeful that funders and others who control the dominant discourse will open themselves up to the ideas that science is both conjecture and refutation and that the 'science' that underlies NIH assumptions are modifiable. Funding is essential to the conduct of research. I have written this article to provoke dialogue, based on what I know as a researcher living in the USA. There are enormous benefits to a dialogue that is international in scope. What is going on in other countries? How do governmental funding agencies in other countries define science? Do these definitions have implications for funding? Much of this present article is a form of conjecture. On many of my points, especially about the practice of science at NIH and possibly other governmental funding agencies in other countries, I will be thrilled to have my conjectures refuted. That will mean that governmental agencies will be funding well-crafted proposals based upon a variety of qualitative approaches. Notes 1 This document is available on-line at http://obssr.od.nih.gov/publications/quali- tative.pdf 2 This document is available on-line at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm References Angell, Robert C. (1936) The Family Encounters the Depression. New York: Scribner. Benner, Patricia (ed.) (1994) Interpretive Phenomenology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Booth, Charles (1891) Labour and life of the People: London, 2 Vols. London: Williams & Norgate. Booth, Charles (1903) Life and Labour of the People in London, final volume. London and New York: Macmillan. Blumer, Herbert (1986) 'What is Wrong with Social Theory?', in Herbert Blumer (ed.), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, pp. 14052. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bott, Elizabeth (1957) Family and Social Network. New York: Free Press. Cressey, Donald (1953) Other People's Money. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Erikson, Erik H. (1950) Childhood and Society. New York: Norton. Gilligan, Carol (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilgun, Jane F. (1992) 'Hypothesis Generation in Social Work Research', Journal of Social Service Research 15: 11335. Gilgun Governmental Funding s 373 Gilgun, Jane F. (1995) 'We Shared Something Special: The Moral Discourse of Incest Perpetrators', Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(2): 26581. Gilgun, Jane F. (1996a) 'Human Development and Adversity in Ecological Perspective Part 2: Three Patterns', Families in Society 77(7): 459576. Gilgun, Jane F. (1996b) 'Human Development and Adversity in Ecological Perspective Part 1: A Conceptual Framework'. Families in Society, 77(8), 395402. Gilgun, Jane F. (1999a)'CASPARS: New Tools for Assessing Client Risks and Strengths', Families in Society 80(5): 4509, tools available at http://ssw.che.umn.edu/faculty/ jgilgun.htm (last consulted 6/20/02). Gilgun, Jane F. (1999b) 'Mapping Resilience as Process among Adults Maltreated in Childhood', in Hamilton I. McCubbin, Elizabeth A. Thompson, Anne I. Thompson and Jo A. Futrell (eds) The Dynamics of Resilient Families, pp. 4170. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilgun, Jane F. (1999c) 'Methodological Pluralism and Qualitative Family Research', in Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Marvin B. Sussman and Gary W. Peterson (eds) Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd edn, pp. 21961. New York: Plenum. Gilgun, Jane F. (2001a) 'Case-based Research, Analytic Induction, and Theory Develop- ment: The Future and the Past', paper presented to the 31st Annual Theory Con- struction and Research Methodology Workshop of the National Council on Family Relations, Rochester, NY, 6 November. Gilgun, Jane F. (2001b) 'Grounded Theory, Other Inductive Methods, and Social Work Methods', in Bruce Thyer (ed.) Handbook of Social Work Research, pp. 34564. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilgun, Jane F. and Abrams, Laura S. (2002) 'The Nature and Usefulness of Qualitative Social Work Research', Qualitative Social Work 1(1): 3955. Gilgun, Jane F., Keskinen, Susan, Marti, Danette Jones and Rice, Kay (1999) 'Clinical Applications of the CASPARS Instruments: Boys who Act Out Sexually', Families in Society 80(6): 62941. Gilgun, Jane F., Klein, Christian and Pranis, Kay (2000) 'The Significance of Resources in Models of Risk', Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14(6): 62746. Glaser, Barney and Anslem Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine. Gordon, Malcolm (1995) 'Writing a Grant Proposal', unpublished manuscript, National Institute of Mental Health, Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch, Rockville, MD.. Kantor,David and Lehr,William (1975) Inside the Family:Toward aTheory of Family Process. New York: Harper & Row. Kellogg, Paul U. (ed.) (1914a) Pittsburgh District: Civic Frontage. New York: Russsell Sage Foundation. Kellogg,Paul U. (1914b). The Pittsburgh SurveyVol.I:The Pittsburgh District Civic Frontage. New York: Survey Associates. LePlay, Frdric. (1855) Les Ouvriers Europens. Tours, France: Alfred Mame. Lindesmith, Alfred R. (l947) Opiate Addiction. Bloomington, IN: Principia. National Federation of Settlements (1931) Case Studies Of Unemployment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 374 s Qualitative Social Work 1(3) Polkinghorne, Donald (1983) Methodology for the Human Sciences: Systems of Inquiry. Albany: State University of New York at Albany. Popper, Karl R. (1969) Conjectures and Refutations:The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Strauss, Anselm (l987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, Anselm and Corbin, Juliet (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Manen, Max (1990) Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensi- tive Pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York. Znaniecki, Florian (l934) The Method of Sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. Jane F. Gilgun, PhD, LICSW, is a professor at the School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. She has published on qualitative research methodologies and methods and has a long-term research project on the meanings of violence to perpetrators and on how people overcome adversity. Address: School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2404 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN, USA SS108. [email: jgilgun@umn.edu] Gilgun Governmental Funding s 375 </meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes><p><list list-type="order"><list-item><p>1 This document is available on-line at http://obssr.od.nih.gov/publications/qualitative.pdf</p></list-item><list-item><p>2 This document is available on-line at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm</p></list-item></list></p></notes><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Angell, Robert C.</surname></name> (<year>1936</year>) <source>The Family Encounters the Depression</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Scribner</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Benner, Patricia</surname></name> (ed.) (<year>1994</year>) <source>Interpretive Phenomenology</source>. <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Booth, Charles</surname></name> (<year>1891</year>) <source>Labour and life of the People: London</source>, 2 Vols. <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Williams & Norgate</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Booth, Charles</surname></name> (<year>1903</year>) <source>Life and Labour of the People in London, final volume</source>. <publisher-loc>London and New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Macmillan</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Blumer, Herbert</surname></name> (<year>1986</year>) <article-title>‘What is Wrong with Social Theory?’</article-title>, in <name name-style="western"><surname>Herbert Blumer</surname></name> (ed.), <source>Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method</source>, pp. <fpage>140</fpage>-<lpage>152</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Berkeley</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>University of California Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bott, Elizabeth</surname></name> (<year>1957</year>) <source>Family and Social Network</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Free Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cressey, Donald</surname></name> (<year>1953</year>) <source>Other People’s Money</source>. <publisher-loc>Glencoe, IL</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Free Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Erikson, Erik H.</surname></name> (<year>1950</year>) <source>Childhood and Society</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Norton</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilligan, Carol</surname></name> (<year>1982</year>) <source>In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1992</year>) <article-title>‘Hypothesis Generation in Social Work Research’</article-title>, <source>Journal of Social Service Research</source><volume>15</volume>: <fpage>113</fpage>-<lpage>135</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>) <article-title>‘We Shared Something Special: The Moral Discourse of Incest Perpetrators’</article-title>, <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source><volume>57</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>265</fpage>-<lpage>281</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1996a</year>) <article-title>‘Human Development and Adversity in Ecological Perspective - Part 2: Three Patterns’</article-title>, <source>Families in Society</source><volume>77</volume>(<issue>7</issue>): <fpage>459</fpage>-<lpage>576</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1996b</year>) <article-title>‘Human Development and Adversity in Ecological Perspective - Part 1: A Conceptual Framework’</article-title>. <source>Families in Society</source>, <volume>77</volume>(<issue>8</issue>), <fpage>395</fpage>-<lpage>402</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1999a</year>) <article-title>‘CASPARS: New Tools for Assessing Client Risks and Strengths’</article-title>, <source>Families in Society</source><volume>80</volume>(<issue>5</issue>): <fpage>450</fpage>-<lpage>459</lpage>, tools available at <uri xlink:type="simple">http://ssw.che.umn.edu/faculty/jgilgun.htm</uri> (last consulted 6/20/02).</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1999b</year>) <article-title>‘Mapping Resilience as Process among Adults Maltreated in Childhood’</article-title>, in <name name-style="western"><surname>Hamilton I. McCubbin</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Elizabeth A. Thompson</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Anne I. Thompson</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Jo A. Futrell</surname></name> (eds) <source>The Dynamics of Resilient Families</source>, pp. <fpage>41</fpage>-<lpage>70</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>1999c</year>) <article-title>‘Methodological Pluralism and Qualitative Family Research’</article-title>, in <name name-style="western"><surname>Suzanne K. Steinmetz</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Marvin B. Sussman</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Gary W. Peterson</surname></name> (eds) <source>Handbook of Marriage and the Family</source>, <edition>2nd edn</edition>, pp. <fpage>219</fpage>-<lpage>261</lpage>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Plenum</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="confproc" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (2001a) <article-title>‘Case-based Research, Analytic Induction, and Theory Development: The Future and the Past’</article-title>, paper presented to the <conf-name>31st Annual Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop of the National Council on Family Relations</conf-name>, <conf-loc>Rochester, NY</conf-loc>, <conf-date>6 November</conf-date>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> (<year>2001b</year>) <article-title>‘Grounded Theory, Other Inductive Methods, and Social Work Methods’</article-title>, in <name name-style="western"><surname>Bruce Thyer</surname></name> (ed.) <source>Handbook of Social Work Research</source>, pp. <fpage>345</fpage>-<lpage>364</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Abrams, Laura S.</surname></name> (<year>2002</year>) <article-title>‘The Nature and Usefulness of Qualitative Social Work Research’</article-title>, <source>Qualitative Social Work</source><volume>1</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>39</fpage>-<lpage>55</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Keskinen, Susan, Marti</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Danette Jones</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Rice, Kay</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>) <article-title>‘Clinical Applications of the CASPARS Instruments: Boys who Act Out Sexually’</article-title>, <source>Families in Society</source><volume>80</volume>(<issue>6</issue>): <fpage>629</fpage>-<lpage>641</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gilgun, Jane F.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Klein, Christian</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Pranis, Kay</surname></name> (<year>2000</year>) <article-title>‘The Significance of Resources in Models of Risk’</article-title>, <source>Journal of Interpersonal Violence</source><volume>14</volume>(<issue>6</issue>): <fpage>627</fpage>-<lpage>646</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Glaser, Barney</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Anslem Strauss</surname></name> (<year>1967</year>) <source>The Discovery of Grounded Theory</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Aldine</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gordon, Malcolm</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>) <source>‘Writing a Grant Proposal’</source>, unpublished manuscript, <publisher-name>National Institute of Mental Health, Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Rockville, MD</publisher-loc>..</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kantor, David</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Lehr, William</surname></name> (<year>1975</year>) <source>Inside the Family: Toward a Theory of Family Process</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Harper & Row</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kellogg, Paul U.</surname></name> (ed.) (<year>1914a</year>) <source>Pittsburgh District: Civic Frontage</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Russsell Sage Foundation</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kellogg, Paul U.</surname></name> (<year>1914b</year>). <source>The Pittsburgh Survey Vol. I: The Pittsburgh District - Civic Frontage</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Survey Associates</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="other" xlink:type="simple">LePlay, Frédéric. (1855) <italic>Les Ouvriers Européens</italic>. Tours, France: Alfred Mame.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lindesmith, Alfred R.</surname></name> (<year>l947</year>) <source>Opiate Addiction</source>. <publisher-loc>Bloomington, IN</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Principia</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>National Federation of Settlements</surname></name> (<year>1931</year>) <source>Case Studies Of Unemployment</source>. <publisher-loc>Philadelphia</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>University of Pennsylvania</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Polkinghorne, Donald</surname></name> (<year>1983</year>) <source>Methodology for the Human Sciences: Systems of Inquiry</source>. <publisher-loc>Albany</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>State University of New York at Albany</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Popper, Karl R.</surname></name> (<year>1969</year>) <source>Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge</source>. <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Routledge and Kegan Paul</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Strauss, Anselm</surname></name> (<year>l987</year>) <source>Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Strauss, Anselm</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Corbin, Juliet</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>) <source>Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory</source>, <edition>2nd edn.</edition><publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Van Manen, Max</surname></name> (<year>1990</year>) <source>Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy</source>. <publisher-loc>Albany</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>State University of New York</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Znaniecki, Florian</surname></name> (<year>l934</year>) <source>The Method of Sociology</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Farrar & Rinehart</publisher-name>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Conjectures and Refutations</title><subTitle>Governmental Funding and Qualitative Research</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Conjectures and Refutations</title><subTitle>Governmental Funding and Qualitative Research</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jane F.</namePart><namePart type="family">Gilgun</namePart><affiliation>University of Minnesota, USA,</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: jgilgun@umn.edu</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="other" displayLabel="other"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-09</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">In this article, I review ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Research’, a document sponsored by three offices of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The document has the purpose of educating qualitative researchers on how to fit proposals based on qualitative approaches to NIH requirements for funding. I show that the NIH document provides helpful guidelines, and I make suggestions of my own, such as using sensitizing concepts and the procedures of analytic induction, to meet federal requirements. I was stymied, however, on how to deal with the distanced language that appears mandatory in proposals that NIH funds. This led me to reflect on whether NIH has a definition of science that excludes the perspectives and assumptions of many forms of qualitative research. I also wondered whether qualitative researchers in other countries are finding that governmental agencies do not fund qualitative research because of doubts about its scientific basis. I concluded that qualitative researchers can challenge NIH and other funding agencies internationally about the nature of science and press for modifications of assumptions about what constitutes fundable research proposals. Creative and constructive dialogue may open funding streams to researchers whose questions lead to the use of qualitative approaches, both within the USA and internationally.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>analytic induction</topic><topic>discourse and power</topic><topic>governmental funding</topic><topic>proposal writing</topic><topic>qualitative research</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Qualitative Social Work</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1473-3250</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1741-3117</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">QSW</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spqsw</identifier><part><date>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>1</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>359</start><end>375</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/147332500200100309</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_147332500200100309</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/TherFamFrancoV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001A66 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001A66 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Psychologie
|area= TherFamFrancoV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:3949A5DE979555B0A230BEAD810FE898E55C71C0
|texte= Conjectures and Refutations
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.29. |  |