In this response to the special issue, we would like to offer two additional considerations to the discourse on qualitative research and special education this issue is meant to catalyze. First, we would like to further problematize the question of why qualitative research continues to be so sparsely represented in most prominent publications of special education. Next, we look a little more deeply into the question of what constitutes methodological rigor, especially in a field that seems so resistant, at least from the perspective of its institutional structures, to embracing qualitative research as a worthy, serious enterprise.
AnnammaS. A. (2014). Disabling juvenile justice: Engaging the stories of incarcerated young women of color with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 313–324. doi:10.1177/0741932514526785
2.
BalA.KozleskiE. B.SchraderE. M.RodriguezE. M.PeltonS. (2014). Systemic transformation from the ground–up: Using Learning Lab to design culturally responsive schoolwide positive behavioral supports. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 327–339. doi:10.1177/0741932514536995
3.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 19–207.
4.
CreswellJ. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 269–283). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
5.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
6.
GlesneC. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
7.
HatchJ. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
KimW. G.GarcíaS. B. (2014). Long-term English language learners’ perceptions of their language and academic learning experiences. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 300–312. doi:10.1177/0741932514525047
9.
LekoM. M. (2014). The value of qualitative methods in social validity research. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 275–286. doi:10.1177/0741932514524002
10.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
11.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
PugachM. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research for special education. Exceptional Children, 67, 439–453.
13.
PugachM. C.BlantonL. P. (2012, April). Advancing research on the meaning of dual certification in general and special education: An autoethnographic approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
14.
SmithP. (1999). Food truck’s party hat. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 244–261. doi:10.1177/107780049900500204
15.
SmithP. (2013). Both sides of the table: Autoethnographies of educators learning and teaching with/in [dis]ability. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
16.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 285–299). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
17.
ThoriusK. A. K.MaxcyB. D.MaceyE.CoxA. (2014). A critical practice analysis of response to intervention appropriation in an urban school. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 287–299. doi:10.1177/0741932514522100
18.
TrainorA. A.GraueE. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 267–274. doi:10.1177/0741932514528100
19.
TrainorA. A.LekoM. (2014). Qualitative special education research: Purpose, rigor, and contribution. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 263–266. doi:10.1177/0741932514536996
