An overview of the many types of studies that fall into the qualitative design genre is provided. Strategies that qualitative researchers use to establish the authors' studies as credible and trustworthy are listed and defined. So that readers will recognize the important contribution qualitative studies have made in the field of special education, a range of well-known and lesser known examples of qualitative research are reviewed. The quality indicators that are important in conducting and evaluating qualitative research are identified. Finally, as an example of the evidence that can be produced using qualitative methods, the authors provide a summary of how 3 studies have provided important information that can be used to inform policy and practice.

This article sets the context for the development of research quality indicators and guidelines for evidence of effective practices provided by different methodologies. The current conceptualization of scientific research in education and the complexity of conducting research in special education settings underlie the development of quality indicators. Programs of research in special education may be viewed as occurring in stages: moving from initial descriptive research, to experimental causal research, to finally research that examines the processes that might affect widescale adoption and use of a practice. At each stage, different research questions are relevant, and different research methodologies to address the research questions are needed.

No abstract

This critical review focuses on 13 articles and 5 book chapters by prominent special education scholars. These authors write in support of a continuum of special education services and recommend that only the results of empirical research should inform special education practice. They also express wariness about the concept of inclusion and the direction of the inclusion movement. In touting the superiority of their own scholarship, they accuse inclusion supporters of being political, subjective, and ideological. This article challenges the supposed neutrality of the special education status quo and the moral grounding of the reviewed authors' position. Drawing from the insights of theorists who study ideology, the analysis sheds light on the ideological nature of the reviewed authors' own writing. The major recommendation put forth in this article is that scholars and other professionals need to think seriously about the impact of their educational preferences on the least powerful members of society if equity in schooling is to be realized.

Adolescents from high- and low-income backgrounds were interviewed about their perceptions of their own and others' disciplinary infractions and consequences in school. High-income adolescents reported fewer misbehaviors and behaviors which were playful, whereas those of low-income youth stemmed mainly from anger. Low-income adolescents reported a greater number and variety of penalties that seemed both disproportionate to offenses and humiliating in nature. It is suggested that inequitable school conditions for low-income students influence their behaviors and disciplinary practices contribute to their anger and alienation. Moreover, low-income adolescents' acting-out or withdrawal behaviors are likely to be perceived by others as signs of emotional disturbance and not as legitimate responses to social class inequities in school and society.