Abstract
With the rise of alternative inquiry paradigmsacross academic fields, faculty within the same academicdepartments choose to ground themselves within different intellectual traditions and distinctacademic cultures, not simply those parallel to thepositivist tradition. One illustration of the emergingparadigmatic pluralism across academe is the actual paradigm choice by individual scholars.Appreciating these paradigm choices is critical if weare to interpret the faculty work and faculty culturethat shape institutional culture and influence resource allocation at universities and colleges. Usingqualitative methods, I focus upon a single discipline inmy exploratory study, law, but extend these concepts andissues in analyzing and interpreting my findings to how they might apply to faculty working inother academic fields.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Allen, F. (1983). Legal scholarship: Present status and future prospects. Journal of Legal Education33: 403±405.
Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status and new directions. In C. Conrad, et al. (eds.), Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Experiencing Alternative Perspectives and Approaches(pp. 209±266). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Angus, L. (1986). Developments in ethnographic research in education: From interpretive to critical ethnography. Journal of Research and Development in Education20: 59±67.
Barnes, J. (1990). Models and Interpretations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, Z. (1978). Hermeneutics and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding. London: Hutchinson and Co.
Becher, A. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and Cultures of the Disciplines. Milton-Keynes, Australia: Open University.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology57: 195±203.
Brest, P. (1993). Plusce change. Michigan Law Review91: 1945±1952.
Campos, P. (1993). That obscure object of desire: Hermeneutics and the autonomous legal text. Minnesota Law Review77: 1065±1095.
Caudill, D. (1987). Disclosing tilt: A partial defense of critical legal studies and a comparative introduction to the philosophy of the law-idea. Iowa Law Review72: 287± 358.
Chow, D. (1992). A pragmatic model of law. Washington Law Review67: 755±824.
Collier, C. (1993). Interdisciplinarity legal scholarship in search of a paradigm. Duke Law Journal42: 840±853.
Conrad, C. (1982). Grounded theory: An alternative approach to research in higher education. Review of Higher Education5: 239±249.
Cook, T., and Campbell, D. (1979). Qualitative Evaluation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Crampton, R. (1986). Dymystifying legal scholarship. Georgetown Law Review75: 1± 17.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Delgado, R. (1993). The inward turn in outsider jurisprudence. William and Mary Law Review34: 741±768.
Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research(pp. 1± 17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dressel, P., and Marcus, D. (1982). Teaching and Learning in College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., and Allen, S. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eskridge, W., and Peller, G. (1991). The new public law movement: Moderation as a postmodern cultural form. Michigan Law Review89: 707±791.
Fichl, R. (1987). Some realism about critical legal studies. University of Miami Law Review41: 505±532.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Writings. New York: Basic Books.
Glazer, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.
Glazer, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Gordon, J. (1993). A response from the visitor from another planet. Michigan Law Review91: 1953±1969.
Gordon, R. (1993). Lawyers, scholars, and the “middle ground.” Michigan Law Review91: 2075±2112.
Greene, J. (1990). Three views on the nature and role of knowledge in the social sci ences. In E. Guba (ed.), The Paradigm Dialog(pp. 227±245). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. (ed.) (1990a). The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. (1990b). Subjectivity and objectivity. In E. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate(pp. 28±73). New York: Teachers College Press.
Guba, E., and Lincoln, Y. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. Fetterman (ed.), Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution(pp. 89±115). New York: Praeger.
Harrison, J., and Mashburn, A. (1989). Jean-Luc Godard and critical legal studies (Because we need the eggs). Michigan Law Review87: 1924±1944.
Hekman, S. (1986). Hermeneutics and the Sociology of Knowledge. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Hermann, D. (1982). Phenomenology, structuralism, hermeneutics, and legal study: Applications of contemporary continental thought to legal phenomena. University of Miami Law Review36: 379±410.
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton, Sussex, England: Harvester Press, Ltd.
Hutchinson, A. (ed.) (1989). Critical Legal Studies. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kennedy, D. (1985a). The turn to interpretation. Southern California Law Review57: 251±275.
Kennedy, D. (1985b). Critical theory, structuralism and contemporary legal scholarship. New England Law Review21: 209±289.
Kincheloe, J., and McLaren, P. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research(pp. 138±157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kissam, P. (1986). The decline of law school professionalism. University of Pennsylvania Law Review134: 251±324.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture or Knowledge: An essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon.
Kronman, A. (1981). Foreward: Legal scholarship and moral education. Yale Law Journal90: 955±969.
Kuh, G. (1993). Assessing campus environments. In M. Barr (ed.), Handbook of Student Affairs Administration(pp. 30±48). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kuhn, T. (1969). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review56(3): 257±277.
Lattuca, L., and Stark, J. (1995). Modifying the major: Disciplinary thought from ten disciplines. Review of Higher Education, 18(3): 315±344.
Lincoln, Y. (1992). A short but optimistic history of the great higher education wars of the late twentieth century. Postsecondary Education Network, 8±11.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. C. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research(pp. 105±117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marshall, C., and Rossman, G. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (1992). Mainstreaming feminist legal theory. Pacific Law Journal23: 1493±1542.
Merriam, S. (1998). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Minda, G. (1989). The jurisprudential movements of the 1980s. Ohio State Law Review50: 599±662.
Mootz, F. (1988). The ontological basis of legal hermeneutics: A proposed model of inquiry based on the work on Gadamer, Habermas, and Ricoeur. Boston University Law Review68: 523±617.
Nielsen, J. (1990). Introduction: Feminist research methods. In C. Conrad, et al. Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Experiencing, Alternative, Perspectives and Approaches(pp. 91±130). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1993). The use and abuse of philosophy in legal education. Stanford Law Review45: 1627±1645.
Papke, D. (1989). Problems with an uninvited guest: Richard A. Posner and the law and literature movement. Boston University Law Review69: 1067±1088.
Patterson, D. (1992). The metaphysics of legal formalism. Iowa Law Review, 77: 741± 771.
Phillips, D. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In E. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate(pp. 19± 37). New York: Teachers College Press.
Popkewitz, T. (1990). Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical theory and methodology. In E. Guba ed.), The Paradigm Dialog(pp. 46±66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 4th ed. rev. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Porter, E. (1991). The player and the dice: Physics and critical legal theory. Ohio State Law Journal, 52: 1571±1597.
Posner, R. (1987). The discipline of law as an autonomous discipline. Harvard Law Review95: 761±780.
Post, R. (1992). Legal scholarship and the practice of law. University of Colorado Law Review63: 615±625.
Roman, L., and Apple, M. (1990). Is naturalism a move away from positivism: Materialist and feminist approaches to subjectivity in ethnographic research. In E. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate(pp. 28± 73). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rubin, E. (1988). The practice and discourse of legal scholarship. Michigan Law Review86: 1835±1905.
Rubin, E. (1992). On beyond truth: A theory for evaluating legal scholarship. California Law Review80: 889±977.
Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research(pp. 118±137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steier, F. (Ed.) (1991). Research and Reflexivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Teachout, P. (1981). Boundaries of realism. Virginia Law Review67: 815±861.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Toma. J. D. (1997a). Exploring a typology for classifying inquirers and inquiry into paradigms. Review of Higher Education21(1): 19±41.
Toma, J. D. (1997b). Alternative inquiry paradigms, faculty cultures, and the definition of academic life. Journal of Higher Education68(6): 679±705.
Trubek, D., and Esser, J. (1989). “Critical empiricism” in American legal studies: Paradox, program, or Pandora' s box. Law and Social Inquiry14: 3±52.
Turley, J. (1987). The hitchhiker' s guide to CLS, Unger, and deep thought. Northwestern University Law Review81: 593±83.
Unger, R. (1986). The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachterhauser, B. (1986). Hermeneutics and Modern Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Weiland, S. (1995). “Belonging to romanticism”: Discipline, specialty, and academic identity. Review of Higher Education18(3): 265±292.
Weinrib, E. (1988). Legal formalism: On the immanent rationality of law. Yale Law Journal97: 950±1016.
White, G. (1983). Closing the cycle. Journal of Legal Education33: 449±458.
White, G. (1986). From realism to critical legal studies: A truncated intellectual history. Southwestern Law Journal40: 819±843.
White, J. B. (1993). Law teachers' writing. Michigan Law Review91: 1970±1997.
Williams, J. (1987). Critical legal studies: The death of transcendence and the rise of the new Langdells. New York University Law Review62: 429±496.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Toma, J.D. UNDERSTANDING WHY SCHOLARS CHOOSE TO WORK IN ALTERNATIVE INQUIRY PARADIGMS. Research in Higher Education 40, 539–569 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018748427823
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018748427823