Throughout the readings in our writing course, we have been exploring different methods of writing qualitative research. The authors heavily covered in our course readings were Laura Richardson, Margot Ely, John Creswell, Harry Wolcott and John Swales. Each writer shared their truths of writing, but the concepts from Creswell and Richardson made the greatest impact on me.

Creswell opened my eyes to writing for my audience. His explanation was very similar to the human-centered approach used in design. Human-centered design is a new way of interacting and analyzing with design clients, so the products and messages are more in tune with the client’s actual needs instead of the designers wants. Creswell suggested being cognitive to the vocabulary and the delivery method in which a writer presents material. He made me realize my role in writing is more than putting words onto paper. As the writer, I am supposed to be describing the material, asking questions, proposing other viewpoints and offering solutions.

Richardson immediately got my attentions when she acknowledged how boring a lot of qualitative research writing is. As I read her work, I wondered if her interest in redefining how qualitative research is written is because she’s female? Is there a connection between the new type of qualitative research writing to the increase of women in the field of education, research and writing? It is well known about the lack of gender diversity in the education and research fields in the early 1980’s. Male researchers seemed to have been fine with the way qualitative research writing was. It seems to me the need for concern, caring and creating connections with other people [the audience] are female characteristics.

Whether you agree with me or not on the impact of Creswell and Richardson, you have to admit that having diverse thinking in qualitative research writing makes an impact that’s better for both industry writers and readers.

-jw