Conceptual framework: What do you think is going on?

03-Maxwell.qxd 10/1/2004 3:13 PM Page 62
62 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGN
number of things, without seriously attempting to come up with alternative
models that would make the same (or better) predictions. For example,
Lave and March make an assumption, a widespread one in modern
Western societies, that friendship <strong>is</strong> necessarily based on common character<strong>is</strong>tics—shared
interests and values. An alternative model would be
one that aban<strong>do</strong>ns th<strong>is</strong> assumption, and postulates that friendship can be
created by interaction itself, and not necessarily by common character<strong>is</strong>tics
(see Example 3.1).
STOP AND THINK. <strong>What</strong> tests could
d<strong>is</strong>tingu<strong>is</strong>h between these two models?
One possible test would be to investigate the beliefs, interests, and values
of freshman <strong>do</strong>rmitory students at both the beginning and the end of
the year, to see if pairs of friends cons<strong>is</strong>tently had more in common at the
beginning of the year than did pairs of students in the same <strong>do</strong>rm who did
not become friends. (Determining th<strong>is</strong> similarity at the beginning of the
year addresses a possible alternative explanation for greater similarity of
beliefs and interests within friendship pairs—that th<strong>is</strong> similarity <strong>is</strong> a
result of their friendship, rather than a cause.) If <strong>you</strong> find that pairs of
friends did not cons<strong>is</strong>tently have more in common than pairs of nonfriends,
then Lave and March’s model seems less plausible (at least without
modification), because it predicts that friends will have more in
common than nonfriends. My alternative model <strong>do</strong>es predict the observed
result, and therefore would deserve further consideration and testing.
Eventually, <strong>you</strong> might develop a more complex model that incorporates
both processes.
All of the tests described previously (and the standard approach to
model testing in general) are based on variance theory—measuring
selected variables to see if they fit the model’s predictions. However,
there <strong>is</strong> a much more direct way to test the model—investigate the actual
process, rather than just its predicted consequences (Menzel, 1978,
pp. 163–168). For example, <strong>you</strong> might <strong>do</strong> participant observation of
student interactions at the beginning of the year, looking at how friendships
originate, or interview students about how they became friends with
other students. Th<strong>is</strong> real<strong>is</strong>t, process-oriented approach to model testing <strong>is</strong>
much better suited to qualitative research than <strong>is</strong> predicting outcomes
(Maxwell, 2004a, 2004c).